Category Archives: Feminism

Feminism Politics

Named for eugenicist – why is did the UKCMRI become the Francis Crick institute?

The UKCMRI research lab, the monstrous carbuncle  being built behind the British Library, has been highly controversial, and extremely unpopular in the local area.

So when it came to its final naming, you might have thought that the developing consortium might have given some thought to choosing an inoffensive name for it – perhaps even a name that acknowledged some of the past faults of science, such as its failure to recognise women’s contribution, the Rosalind Franklin Institute, for example.

Well that’s if you hadn’t already encountered their patronising attitude to the local area and the arrogant, all-male leadership.

So what did they chose – the name of a eugenicist  who’s described even by the Wellcome Trust, consortium member, as “controversial”.

Eugenics: This was Crick in 1962…

I want to concentrate on one particular issue: do people have the right to have children at all? It would not be very difficult, as we gathered from Dr. Pincus, for a government to put something into our food so that nobody could have children. Then possibly – and this is hypothetical – they could provide another chemical that would reverse the effect of the first, and only people licensed to bear children would be given this second chemical. This isn’t so wild that we need not discuss it. Is it the general feeling that people do have the right to have children? This is taken for granted because it is part of Christian ethics, but in terms of humanist ethics I do not see why people should have the right to have children. I think that if we can get across to people the idea that their children are not entirely their own business and that it is not a private matter, it would be an enormous step forward.

(quoted in Science in the Third Reich, German Historical Perspectives/XII, ed Margit Szollosi-Janze, p. 234)

This is also the man who accepted the joint Nobel Prize with James Watson for the discovery of DNA when many today would claim that should have been, at the very least, shared with Rosalind Franklin.

Feminism

After the Dorries amendment – where next for the pro-choice movement?

Spent this evening at a powerful and thought-provoking Pro-Choice Public Meeting organised by Voice for Choice. Here are some of my notes..

Dr Patricia Lohr, BPAS medical director, who first trained and worked in America, said of that experience with regard to the sometimes deadly attacks on doctors who perform abortions:  “I realised you had to accept the risk and then ignore it. … I even had patients who could not understand how I could do this work.”

Of working in the UK in comparison, she said:  “We are extremely fortunate to work in a space where is debate but not violence, and instead of focusing on making abortion available can focus on providing best posssible abortion servcies.”

She said abortions should be provided: “as early as possible and as late as necessary”.

Dr Evan Harris, BMA Ethics Committee, former Liberal Democrat MP

He said we were seeing US tactics coming over here and even more so US money.

He said of the recent Nadine Dorries amendment (on which I spoke at an Abortion Rights press conference) that it wasn’t a total victory for the pro-choice side, but as a total defeat for the anti-abortion movement. It was disappointing that the medical profession, particularly the Royal College, had not been louder in its defence of the professional standards they established and supported.

Being, he said, “deliberately a little provocative”, he added: “From 1997 to 2010 we wasted the first properly prochoice majority we ever had.  We still have a 1967 Act, which good as it was at the time, still means (paternalistically) women still have to get the permission of two doctors to have a treatment which is in patent’s own interests; that a  procedure that could be safely and appropriately done by nurses stil has to be done by doctors. Abortions are not allowed to be done in the primary care setting, even thought  politicians have been trying to make more local provisions and move out of hospital many other procedures. Early medical abortion has to be done in a clinic and hospital. when it would be a better service if women were able to take at least second dose at home. The government says we need a British trial when many other countries have found this approach safe and effective – as if there is something in the British air that makes abortions different here, but they stopped only British trial half way through saying that it was illegal.”
read more »

Books Feminism

The must-read feminist book of the summer – it lives up to the hype

A shorter version was published on Blogcritics

If you move in feminist circles, there’s really no choice this summer – you have to read Caitlin Moran’s How To Be A Woman: otherwise, you won’t be able to keep up with the conversations. And it’s not hard to see why it has made a splash – it covers all of the usual issues: body image, harassment, and the general difficulties of being a female teenager in an in-your-face, often laugh-out-loud funny, manner – how an all-women friendship group is likely to talk down the pub just before closing time.

And broadly I’d agree with the hype – if you’ve got a 15-year-old daughter, or know one, I’d want to make sure she read it. Given the nature of 15-year-olds, you probably can’t just give it to her – hide it on the back row of the top shelf of books beside The Joy of Sex; she’s sure to find it. Although if she’s already read Puberty Blues she’s going to recognise the genre.

There were bits of the book that really left me thinking yes, you’ve nailed it – really exposed something not much recognised. Particularly on eating disorders. “Overeating, or comfort eating, is the cheap, meek option for self-satisfaction, and self-obliteration. You get all the temporary release of drinking, fucking or taking drugs, but without – and I think this is the important bit – ever being left in a state where you can’t remain responsible and cogent. In a nutshell, then, by choosing food as your drug – sugar highs, or the deep, soporific calm of carbs, the Valium of the working classes – you can still make the packed lunches, do the school run, look after the baby, pop in on your mum and then stay up all night with an ill five-year-old – something that isn’t an option if you’re caning off a gigantic bag of skunk , or regularly climbing into the cupboard under the stairs and knocking back quarts of Scotch. Over-eating is the addiction of choice of carers, and that’s why it’s come to be regarded as the lowest-ranking of all the addictions.” (p. 117)

She’s also very solid and sensible on plastic surgery – even “good” plastic surgery, that makes the operee look just amazingly well-preserved for their age (“women living in fear of aging, and pulling painful and expensive tricks to hide it from the wold”) is still not defensible (p. 294); and abortion and the need for honestness and openness (she’s had an abortion, and a miscarriage, and says there’s a similarity in both – her body or her mind “had decided this baby was not to be” – p. 277) and the fact that women still find it hard to say they don’t want to have children (because of social reactions), even though many don’t want to, and those who have had will, when honest, admit that they regret it. And on the ludicrousness of the continuing existence of high heels.
read more »

Books Feminism Women's history

Millicent Fawcett’s campaigning – not much has changed in far too many ways!

Reading The Women’s Victory – and After: Personal Reminiscences, 1911-1918 by Millicent Garrett Fawcett (1920), it’s hard not to think that little has changed in the campaigning world. Fawcett was president of the National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies, and this little memoir is a pretty well blow-by-blow account of the final push from the non-militant wing of the suffragist movement. (They were, you might say, today’s Friends of the Earth and the suffragettes, with their militant tactics, the Sea Shepherd of the time.)

The parliamentary tactics, the lobbying, the enlisting of parliamentary supporters to convert waverers, the plotting to find ways to disarm the enemies of your cause, and the betrayals coming from those who’d promised support but found excuses to back down might come straight from an account of any similar efforts today.

As today, that often involved meetings with people with whom you had little sympathy – and they the same for you. Fawcett is delightful on the subject of her first meeting with the Chancellor Asquith. “We had with us Miss Emily Davies, the founder of Girton college; Lady Strachey, wife of the well-known Indian administrator; Miss Frances Sterling; Miss I.O. Ford, and other well-known suffrage leaders from our various societies. While we were still in the waiting-room, I was sent for by myself for a preliminary interview with Mr Asquith’s private secretary. If found him a rather agitated-looking young man, who said: ‘I want you, Mrs Fawcett, to give me your personal word of honour that no member of your deputation will employ physical violence.’ ‘Indeed,’ I replied, ‘you astonish me. I had no idea you were so frightened.’ He instantly repudiated being frightened… As we entered the room, where Mr Asquith was sitting with his back to the light on our right, I observed in the opposite corner on our extreme left a lady I did not know. So I said to the secretary in a clear voice, ‘I give no guarantee for that lady’ I do now know her.’ ‘Oh that,’ he rejoined, and again showed some agitation – that lady is Miss Asquith.’” (p. 17)

There’s also some of the same dilemmas as for today about how far a “non-party” campaigning group should do in backing parties that support it and working against those with which it disagrees. There’s some clear defensiveness in Fawcett’s tone as she describes the decision from 1912, after the Liberals had gone back on plans to include women’s votes in the Government Reform Bill in 1911. “It is interesting now to look back at the NUWSS report in the year 1912, and see the care with which we defined our position. No Government candidate was to be supported, because the Government, under Mr Asquith, had shown the most determined opposition to our enfranchisement. When a Conservative candidate was supported, it was because we deemed this the best way of securing the defeat of a Government candidate; when the Labour candidate was supported, it was made clear that this was done because the Labour Party was the only party which had made women’s suffrage part of its programme, and had, moreover, rendered us the signal service of calling upon its parliamentary representatives to oppose any Franchise Bill which did not include women.” (p. 34)
read more »

Feminism Women's history

Millicent Fawcett remembered by Fawcett Society

To a brief but moving ceremony last night in Christchurch Gardens, Westminster, where the Fawcett Society, in a ceremony organised by the South London Fawcett group, held its annual commemoration of the work of Millicent Fawcett, laying a wreath at the foot of the suffrage ceremony.

(The event has traditionally been held in Westminster Abbey, but the Chapel of St George is currently closed for repairs – we’ll be back there next year.)

Angela Mason, chair of the Fawcett Society (which is the direct and continuous descendent of Millicent’s National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies), spoke of how Millicent would have been astonished at the fight women were still having to wage for economic and political equality. She said that after such a long struggle, it is clear that it is no longer enough to keep asking for equality, in parliament and in boardrooms – quotas have to be applied.

Books Feminism

Using historical examples to consider how to end ‘honour’ killings of women

A shorter version was published on Blogcritics.

The Honor Code: How Moral Revolutions Happen by Kwame Anthony Appiah asks some very interesting questions, and confronts a truly pressing problem. He asks, using the examples of dueling in Britain, footbinding of women in China, and the suppression of Atlantic slavery, how actions and activities that had been seen as acceptable, even honourable, can suddenly come to be seen as the opposite. He’s using these historic examples to try to see how so-called “honour” killings of women, particularly in Pakistan, which a UN report estimated in 2000 globally claimed 5,000 lives a year, might be made clearly and unambiguously dishonourable. His claim is that honour as a concept can be put to good causes, such as saving lives.

I’m not entirely convinced, but there certainly is some useful things to be learned from this book, particularly the fact that in all of the historic examples, it wasn’t some new fact, new knowledge or expanded understanding that led to the abolition of the practice. Argument on its own, no matter how obviously “right”, wasn’t going to win out.

In short Appiah suggests that in the case of dueling it was its slide down the social scale that helped to kill it, together, perversely, with the declining importance of the aristocratic class with which it was associated. Once linen merchants and bank managers starting dueling, it ceased to be honourable. Appiah quotes Guy Crouchback in Evelyn Waugh’s WWII novel Officers and Gentlemen. When asked what he’d do if challenged, the character replies “Laugh”.

On footbinding, Appiah says that the successful movement against it had its roots not only in Christian missionaries and the Western business elite, but also among the Chinese literati*, who saw it was necessary for China to modernise to compete in the world. On slavery, he says there was an important link with the struggle for respect by the working people (particularly then the working men) of Britain, who, while seeking political power had ” a new symbolic investment in their own dignity”, and since they did physical labour, its link with slavery diminished them: “For many of them, slavery rankled. Not simply because, as Britons, they cared about the nation’s honour, not just as a matter of Christian conscience, and not just because they were in competition with slaves (they were not). It rankled because they, like the slaves, labored and produced by the sweat of their brow.”

Appiah says that in fact there are two kinds of honour – esteem honour – which might be held by a top sportswoman or a government leader (well we can but hope). That reflects admiration for their achievements and abilities, and is competitive – you can raise your honour by doing better than honours. But a broader honour is recognition respect, which comes from simply accepting a person or group as a peer, deserving of rights and respect that you’d expect to be given yourself.

So this is his solution for Pakistan is first to enlist outsiders, primarily international feminist groups (which he says to a large extent already understand this), and more broadly women around the world, to see that the practice “treats women as less worthy of respect – less honourable – than men. They care about the issue as an issue of justice, no doubt. But they are also motivated to a significant degree by the symbolic meaning of honour killing as an expression of women’s subordination. It reflects a conviction that they are not entitled to a very basic kind of respect.” (p. 167) And then international disrespect, and opprobrium, needs to be applied to pressure Pakistan to change its view on what is honourable.

I’ve got doubts about the idea of “using” honour – it is something that seems so often to have been used against women, but I can see the argument about the importance of, and difficulty of getting recognition from men that women are their peers. We’re certainly finding that hard enough in Westminster.

*He provides an account of a fasinating woman “Mrs Little” – she’d earlier had a career as a novelist under her maiden name of Alicia Bewicke satirising “the empty social lives of the rich and the follies of the marriage market (p. 86), who was married to a businessman and who saw the danger of associating the movement with Christians, so touried the country seeking literati to support it – she succeeded in converting Li Hongzhang, governor-general of Guangzhou, to the cause.