That's What She Said #7

THAT’S WHAT SHE SAID is the journal of the BRISTOL UNIVERSITY FEMINISTS SOCIETY.

1 Non-Binary Code Joy Bell on Facebook’s new gender settings 2

#Iwokeuplikethis

Sarah

Rae

Redrup

discusses

the

#Nomakeupselfie trend. 4 Queen Carter Rebecca Brown looks for Beyoncé’s place in feminism 7 PETA and the unethical treatement of women Ella Hopkins asks how one quest for equality can eclipse another. 8 What is a Woman? Cameron Kleinberger talks about non-binary gender and its implications for feminism. 10 Sex, Drugs & Pie Charts Chloë Maughan asks questions about sexual health and a possible male contraceptive injection and pill 13 A Right to Infertility Emily Stoker looks into the Male contraceptive pill and injection 15 An invitation to a What the Frock comedy night 16 Don’t fuck the patriarchy Anna Davies gives an insight into the Radical Lesbian movements of the 70s 18 Parental Leave Eleanor Cox celebrates the new split parental-leave laws in the UK 20 Love & Porn Joseph Ruddleston watches Don Jon with his feminist hat firmly on.

Cover artwork by Bash Mead. twss.magazine@gmail.com Edited by Edward Orlik and Chloë Maughan.

Non-binary code facebook’s new gender settings are a step in the right direction Earlier this year, Facebook unveiled around fifty new gender classifications to users with US English profiles. The new settings allow individuals to select from a wide variety of non-binary gender categories, including androgynous, bigender, intersex and gender fluid. Facebook users can also opt for gender neutral pronouns, and – in an important move – are able to control the audience privy to these personal informations. Several prominent LGBT+ activist groups worked closely in conjunction with the social network in order to ensure widespread, accurate representation for those who identify outside of the often-reductive ‘male’ and ‘female’ categories.

alism. But, in the wake of this highly publicised recognition of gender variation, it seems possible that increasing knowledge, empathy and acceptance – as well as much-needed removal of stigma – may soon follow.

But, as the world’s most popular social network, boasting billions of registered users, should Facebook be celebrated for merely representing human difference – and could this move have elements of counterproductivity? Although ostensibly promoting equality and recognition of wider gender forms, the update may also serve to reinforce the labelling of gender as a fundamental personality characteristic. Many individuals identifying as non-binary have expressed concerns about othering as a result of the new public changes, and take issue with some of the individual categories. For example, some have suggested that distinguishing between ‘trans woman’ and ‘cis woman’ as categories has the implication of exclusion, perpetuating the narrow-minded ‘you’re not a real woman’ insult faced all too often by many trans individuals.

Although predictably, bigots everywhere were up in arms at the new choices, which they largely didn’t understand – for example, The Daily Mail ran an enlightening guide called ‘What Facebook’s FIFTY new genders to choose from actually MEAN’ – the response was overwhelmingly positive, and many social network users jumped at the chance to represent themselves more accurately online. As one of the world’s most visited websites, the important update provided significant recognition for those who fall outside of the male/ female dichotomy, and served as a vital move towards increasing support and understanding of non-binary individuals.

But by and large, it is indisputable that Facebook’s new profile options are a positive move towards wider recognition and acceptance of gender difference. Although currently only available to users with US English profiles, there is exciting scope for these features to be implemented globally, allowing more accurate representation to everybody from trans individuals in England to those defining as a third gender in India.

Even in 2014, it is unfortunately all too often the case that those categorised under ‘non-traditional’ gender forms find themselves perceived as somehow incorrect or different, ostracised from the narrow male/female du-

1

Joy Bell

#Iwokeuplikethis The #NoMakeUpSelfie trend left our news feeds as quickly as it arrived, leaving in its path a wave of criticism and proud retweets of “I told you so, it raised millions”. The whole experience left me with an uneasy feeling. The same one that characterises 90% of my reactions to a vast amount of TV programmes, advertising campaigns and pretty much everything the Daily Mail ever publishes.

Breast Cancer Research Foundation famously returned $7,000 donated by the ‘pickup artists’ of Simple Pickup, after they raised the money motor boating women. Clearly, there are many things wrong with raising money in that way (way too many things to go into now), and BCRF recognised them.

Prior to #NoMakeUpSelfie, a similar trend was started in September 2013 by the beauty retailer Escentual.com. They launched the ‘DareToBare’ campaign which aimed to raise money and awareness for Breast Cancer Care. This campaign asked women to get sponsorship for completing their everyday routines without make-up. The company referred to this as “a really strong public statement”. There are two ways you could respond to that quote. Firstly, you could say that currently our culture demands that women wear make-up and for that reason going

I was feeling even more unsettled when the news hit that these selfies had raised millions for Cancer Research UK, funding ten new trials. This, of course, was amazing news, no one would argue otherwise. However, one caption alongside a selfie made me think: “It doesn’t matter how you fundraise, all that matters is that you are raising money!” Yes, it was absolutely wonderful that millions had been raised, but I’d have to disagree that the means aren’t important. For example the

2

pictures of their healthy and make-up free faces, they are indirectly saying that “this is me at my least attractive”. However, to a woman at the height of a chemotherapy regime who barely recognises her own reflection, those pictures are not unattractive at all; it only intensifies her awareness that there is nothing that society deems attractive about her. Another journalist, Kristina Egan, shared how she found the whole trend hurtful. She said that those pictures had zero relevance to her experience and, if anything, they trivialised it. To those participating, it was a bit of Centring the trend on the appearance of fun, while her ‘no wig selfie’ was her worst women was problematic for many reasons, fear and meant so much more to her*. for one it took a gender neutral disease and made it into a “woman’s issue”. In doing so This focus on appearance does everyone it excluded men from showing solidarity a disservice. It says to the very people the and thus only served to reduce awareness. campaign is supposed to be helping that the In the wake of #NoMakeUpSelfie some men only way we can show solidarity with them decided to take it upon themselves to join is through making ourselves ‘unattractive’ in, and ‘reverse’ the selfie by taking a picture or ‘abnormal’. The trend also restricts who with make-up on. People all over Facebook can take part and show solidarity, excluding claimed to be doing something great and ‘out women who already don’t wear make-up of the norm’ by either wearing make-up or and, in particular, men. It places restrictions taking it off. This frustrated me to no end. on women by saying that you’d have to be Whether you wear make-up or not should abnormal to not wear make-up while saying not be a matter of gender, but of personal that men can’t, turning something that should 3 preference. These selfies served only to rein- be a personal preference into a must. force suggestions that men can’t wear make*The voices of people who are or were cancer up. patients seemed to me, to be lacking in the #NoFocusing the trend on wearing or not wearing MakeUpSelfie trend. I think it’s important to read make-up seemed to have little link to ‘raising their experiences in full, I hope I have not done awareness’ for cancer – other than serving as their story an injustice by trying to paraphrase. If a reminder for people to donate. Yet if these you would like to read them: pictures were meant to be raising awareness and supporting cancer patients, then surely Kim Stephens ‘There’s no bravery in no make-up they should have aimed to make these peo- selfies’The Brisbane Times, Queensland ple feel included. However, Kim Stevens, a Kristina Egan ‘The Controversy Surrounding the journalist and former cancer patient, argued ‘No Makeup Selfie’ Gave it Depth – Without It, It that the trend only intensified the feeling that was empty’The Huffington Post Blog. many cancer patients have that they are not Sarah Rae Redrup attractive. She says that when women take about your business bare faced is a strong public statement. Or, you could say that characterising it as a strong public statement only helps to reinforce that not wearing make-up is abnormal. Even the title of the campaign presumes that wearing make-up is the norm for all women and that you’d only ‘dare’ to get your face out in public if it was for charity.

But you don’t need a charity campaign as a reason to not wear make-up; wearing makeup shouldn’t be the default and not wearing make-up shouldn’t be considered abnormal.

3

The mention of Beyoncé during a feminist discussion always has and always will raise eyebrows and voices, prompting the familiar questions of polarity of whether she can be deemed a figure of empowerment or whether her portrayals of women are demeaning. On the one hand we are considering the power of one of the most successful artists of all time and of any gender. On the other hand, there will always be the argument that time spent considering a businesswoman who capitalises on her beauty and sexuality - and who never sets out to challenge the role of women - leads to further ignorance of the thousands of feminists worldwide who fight this daily battle.

2013 raises new questions as to what her latest work says about ‘Pop Culture’ feminism and whether this is a credible or dangerous branch of ideology. Whilst previously tiptoeing around the subject, on this album she clearly samples the speech of feminist Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie on her song ‘Flawless’.

As the only other woman to feature on an album that comprises artistic collaborations with hip-hop moguls Drake, Frank Ocean and her husband Jay-Z, Chimamanda’s speech forms a stark contrast to the classically misogynistic verses of these men. If this is Beyoncé declaring herself a feminist, she retains her previous ambivalence.

Her relationship with feminism has been notoriously controversial, with issues like the contentious ‘Mrs. Carter Show’ , and her reluctance to previously identify herself as a feminist, set against her relatively vocal pro-women stance. However, the surprise leak of her fifth album, the self-titled ‘Beyoncé’ at the end of

Whilst Chimamanda’s speech is inspiring, it follows an order to ‘Bow down bitches’. As a song that was released earlier in the year it attracted the usual internet controversy that surrounds Beyoncé. One could be cynical and read the addition of Chimamanda’s speech as backtracking.The third segment of the song ‘Flawless’

4

illustration: Leyla Reynolds

is a more humorous attack on the double standards that Beyoncé herself perpetuates.

Adopting her new, more aggressive ‘Yonce’ persona she raps about the unrealistic standards of beauty placed upon women. In fact several songs on the album explore the painful insecurities even beautiful women experience.‘Pretty Hurts’ and ‘Jealous’ reveal a more vulnerable, human side to a woman globally considered to be the definition of female perfection. Paradoxically, in attempting to dispel this perfection, she further propels her image as the woman who has it all: as a wife, mother, and worldwide phenomenon.

ness, Beyoncé’s Instagram and twitter followers surpass 10 million. This interchange is not without repercussions. Her recent Grammy performance of ‘Drunk in Love’ with husband Jay-Z sparked new outrage when she sang along to his lyrics, ‘eat the cake Anna Mae’.

This reference is to the scene in ‘What’s Love Got To Do With It’, where husband Ike forces Tina Turner to eat her birthday cake during a jealous rage. The reference itself may be lost on younger fans who haven’t seen the film, but it doesn’t stop the unfortunately catchy line from trending on twitter.There are surely fewer depressing things for any campaigner against domestic violence than seeing thousands of young girls hashtag #EatTheCake, blissfully unaware of the abuse it denotes.

Whether or not Beyoncé sets out to be a female role model or not, her influence is undeniable. As feminists further utilise the internet as a platform for discussion and raising aware-

I’m not suggesting that Beyoncé or Jay-Z

5

condone this violence, but they perpetuate its acceptance in our society. Their influence is impalpable, her album has reached the no. 1 spot in over 100 countries, so why could we not have thousands of young girls hashtagging #IndependentWomen, or at least one of Beyoncé’s more empowering messages.

The dynamic between Beyoncé and Jay-Z’s relationship exudes their sizzling sexual chemistry, and I have no doubt that she considers herself his equal. However by equating herself with him she draws herself into this misogynistic discourse, where women are ‘bitches’ and simply ‘gangster wife’ accessories.

Of course it’s not as clear cut as deciding whether these videos are demeaning or empowering, this black and white binary is dangerous as it forces feminist discourse into extremes. Perhaps then one can see Beyoncé’s new album as representative of Pop Culture feminism and all of its contradictions. This isn’t a definitive manifesto of how modern women should be, its a beguiling insight into how we are; flaws and all. For the confident and sensual ‘Blow’ and ‘Rocket’ there’s the self-conscious ‘Pretty Hurts’ and ‘Jealous’. As part of a generation that’s grown up with Beyoncé, seen her in concert and bought every album, I’m not giving up my love affair with her yet. For every slut-shaming ‘Nasty Girl’, there’s also been the inspiring ‘Independent Women’. Her album therefore does nothing to further Pop Culture feminism, but provides the most realistic representation of how it currently stands.

As always, the video shows Beyoncé in a bikini draped around a fully clothed Jay-Z. At least 15 of the 17 videos on the album are so sexual they border on pornography. This album has turned Beyonce’s sexuality up to 11, which in itself is not a bad thing, but surely her talent is enough to release the songs on their own? Despite her insecurities, in ‘Rocket’ she croons ‘Godammit I’m comfortable in my skin’, and she is almost believable. You can always rely on Beyoncé for a sense of healthy sexual female empowerment, but one can’t help feeling cynical and that perhaps she is cashing in on this new wave of Pop Culture feminism to suit her. Her sex appeal undeniably helps her sell her albums, and if she can market it under this trendy new surge of feminism then of course it is advantageous to her image and her success.

Rebecca Brown

6

meat packages, and neck-braces. This theme continues in the 2011 ‘Boyfriend Went Vegan and Knocked the Bottom Out of Me’ video which involves a woman who is injured from sex with her vegan boyfriend.The beginning of the video depicts a woman who appears to have been beaten, and it therefore seems to trivialise issues of violence against women.

If we compare this to PETA’s use of men in campaigns, we can see a stark contrast.The poster of NFL star Terrell Suggs springs to mind. Here, Suggs stands assertive and strong, holding an American football.This contrast reinforces gendered messages of women’s passivity and men’s activity.

‘All animals have the same parts’ states PETA’s pro-vegetarian poster. Pamela Anderson poses in a bikini with her ‘parts’ marked out as if tagged by a butcher. PETA state that the poster encourages us to think of animals and humans as similar beings, with emotions and personalities alike. But this is not depicted in the image I see. Instead, the message is clear: women and animals are the same. It would be hard to find a poster with more blatant objectification. Anderson is completely dehumanised. She is literally depicted as chunks of meat.

At the moment PETA is imitating the very culture it should oppose, by placing sex and appearance at the forefront of their campaigns. Go vegan because you’ll have great sex! Go vegetarian because you’ll look better! But this all seems rather counter-productive, given PETA’s aim of animal emancipation. Their campaigns ignore the relationship between environmentalism and feminism, and in fact affirm the Deep Green Resistance Group’s argument that women, like the earth, are used as resources for men. They believe patriarchy and environmental degradation go hand in hand. Similarly the Green Party view an equal society as an important part of its vision of environmental sustainability. It therefore appears that through using sexist campaigns, PETA is in fact undermining any real dedication to transforming society.

The objectivation merely continue as we look to PETA’s anti-fur campaigns. Some feature sexualised images of women’s bodies with the tagline ‘I’d rather go naked than wear fur’. Other posters feature models with ‘fur’ pubic hair, emblazoned with the message ‘unattractive’. PETA taps into the same overflowing advertising market that uses women’s bodies and conventional attitudes about beauty to sell their ideas.

But PETA doesn’t just stop at objectification. Consumers are bombarded with violent images of women in chains, bloodied

Ella Hopkins

7

Facebook has recently altered the options available to users to identify their gender, now enabling users to choose from more than fifty different options.

This has been hailed as a step forward for gender equality by many feminist organizations. While this celebration is certainly warranted, it does, however, bring up some questions regarding the nature of feminist movements today. The question I keep finding myself asking, along with other feminists I’ve talked to, is whether or not feminist movements are still women’s movements.

ferent things, but when it comes to gender it means being able to ‘pass’ as a man or women. For cisgender people (identifying with the gender you were assigned at birth), it is particularly easy to ‘pass’ as the gender they identify with is readily accepted as the ‘normal’ way of gender identification. Unfortunately for trans* people, ‘passing’ as a man or woman can be difficult, and simply interactions can lead to awkward situations. For example, even though I identify as women and am performative of that (i.e. wearing dresses and make-up) I’ve been told by shop employees not to use the women’s fitting-room while trying on women’s clothing. Even supposed ‘trans-allies’ can create awkward situations by asking intrusive questions about surgery or ‘when you were a man/women.’

This has damaging implications for trans* people as it may make them feel ostracised, or that their gender identification is ‘abnormal’.

The short answer to this question is yes: feminism is still a women’s movement as most gender discrimination happens at the expense of those who identify as women.

However, the key word here is ‘identify’.

However the complexity of gender identity has made the category of ‘women’ unstable, Furthermore, trans* as identifying as a woman is not the same people face a significant as being assigned female at birth. There are amount physical and sexpeople within feminist movements, such as ual violence from permyself, that feel more comfortable identifying petrators who ‘find out’ as transgender, queer, and/or non-binary (to their ‘real gender,’ and name but a few!).To identify as just a ‘woman’ others who have misor a ‘man’ is constraining. And so to is to put conceptions about the a gender binary (such as man/woman) at the ‘sexual promiscuity’ of front of the movement. It is problematic as it trans* people. Indeed upholds gender as something that is natural, governments can make static, and a-historic. But the reason I say that life difficult for trans* feminism is still a women’s movement is for people, as institutions will sometimes treat this same reason, because patriarchy enforctrans* people by the gender assigned to them es a gender binary and most of society will at birth rather than what they identify as. This therefore treat people based on this binary, can create incredibly humiliating and dangerous regardless of what their gender identification situations, such as placing transwomen in male might be. correctional facilities - which recently happened to transgender comedian Avery Edison.

Understanding how patriarchy makes While not ‘passing’ can create tense situations us think in a gender binary is complicated, but of transphobia for trans* people, ‘passing’ can much of it can be explained through the conalso reverse the problem for trans* people cept of ‘passing.’ Passing can mean a lot of difas they can be dealt the sexist attitudes at-

8

tributed to the gender they identify with. For transmen, this may be less of a problem as they can get much privilege given to males; however, transwomen not only face transphobia, but also ‘traditional’ sexism faced by women if they do ‘pass.’

The reason I bring these examples up is that I want to point out the difficulties trans* people face is completely in line with contemporary feminist discourses of gender equality. However, while some feminist movements have made great strides to include people of all genders into feminism, others have made inclusion for trans*

their past is still present with them, and the fact that they identify as women is negated by this. While ‘male socialization’ will certainly be with transwomen for the rest of their lives, it does not change the fact they have to deal with everyday sexism since they are treated as a woman, or face the threat of violence if they are not seen as women. This policy not only upholds the gender binary sustained by patriarchy since it boils gender down to the sex one was assigned at birth, but it also makes trans* people feel unwelcome and unsafe in a movement that should be supporting them.

people difficult. Some of this discrimination comes from the well meaning but intrusive ‘trans-ally’ I mentioned earlier, but some has also come from exclusionary discourses within feminism. A specific discriminatory attitude by some feminists is the instituting of ‘womyn born womyn’ policies at safe spaces for women. The idea behind the policy is that some women would not feel safe in spaces if males were present. Unfortunately for transwomen, ‘womyn born womyn’ policies are under the presumption that the male socialization from

9

Discourses like these existing within feminist movements have a troubling message for non-cisgender feminists: that their difficulties are secondary to those of ciswomen and the primary goal of feminism is for gender equality between cismen and ciswomen.

But this does not necessarily have to be the case.

Having women-only safe spaces and calling feminism a women’s movement is still beneficiary since women, at large, are still being disproportionately discriminated against on the basis of their gender. Rather, feminists need to continually redefine what it means to be a woman and attack the societal discourses that treat and discriminate against women based on a simplistic gender binary of man/woman. By doing this feminists can retain the pragmatic goal of focusing on gender discrimination faced by women, but also explore the fluidity of gender identity.

Cameron Kleinberger

Sex & Drugs & Pie Charts In February we launched a two-part survey in relation to sexual health and contraception.

The questions featured in Section One pertained to sexual health practices, and current contraceptive methods, and were answered by over 300 respondents. Whilst Section Two specifically focused on developing male contraceptives – specifically the male pill and Reversible Inhibition of Sperm Under Guidance (RISUG) injection. We asked participants who would be eligible to use either of these developing contraceptives if they would do so.

We sought to see if the results varied depending on whether the respondent identified as feminist or not. And in relation to the Section One questions we also analysed the results to see if there were any noticeable differences between genders.

So what did our results tell us?

Of our respondents 91% had taken part in oral sex, compared to 88% who’d participated in vaginal sex, and 39% who’d had anal sex.

Meanwhile 9% had not participated in any of the aforementioned activities.

10

When we asked what contraceptives our participants usually used with their partners, we found that 43% relied on the contraceptive pill, vaginal ring, coil or implant (only), with a further 19% using one of these contraceptives in conjunction with condoms. In contrast only 16% of participants used condoms with no additional contraceptive. This demonstrates that the majority of our respondents are reliant on female contraceptives. Meanwhile we found that the use of condoms was higher among men than women, with 43% of men using condoms (either alone or in conjunction with female contraceptives). This fell to 33% among women.

In relation to sexual testing, we found that the majority of our respondents (29%) get tested before or after each new partner. In close second, 27% of respondents had never been tested. Interestingly, however, we found that when we looked at the answers of women the former was the most popular option, with 34% of women getting checked after or before each new partner (14% for men). Whilst when we

looked at the responses for men, we found that the majority of respondents (43%) had never been tested. This figure fell to 21% among women.

Among feminists we found that 32% of respondents get tested after or before each new partner, whilst 24% had never been tested. In contrast among non-feminists these figures were 19% and 37% respectively. These results are perhaps somewhat skewed however, as 84% of the women we surveyed identified as feminist, compared to 50% of men. The figure for those who have never been tested may appear high (as those who have not participated in sexual activity have been excluded from the figure), but we assume that some proportion of this can be attributed to some participants being in long-term monogamous relationships, or having only had sexual contact with partners for whom it was the first time.

The Section Two questions suggested that males identifying as feminist were more likely to use male contraceptives. With 79% of feminist males stating they would take the male pill, compared to 38% among those who did not identify as feminist. We found similar trends when we asked participants if they would have the contraceptive injection, although this option was generally less pop-

ular than the pill. Of our respondents who identified as feminist 49% said they would have the contraceptive injection if made available to males, compared to just 28% of those who did not identify as feminist.

Much of the reluctance surrounding the contraceptive injection seemed to centre around concerns about the reversibility of the procedure, and general fears of injections/needles. The possibility of side effects was raised as a concern in relation to both contraceptive forms.

Generally however the development of male contraceptives were viewed as a positive thing. Many saw this as an opportunity to ensure that men and women become more equally responsibility for contraceptives, rather than the burden being placed on women. Some welcomed the possibility of having an additional barrier against the risk of unplanned pregnancy. However the results suggested that female contraceptive would remain widely used regardless of whether male contraceptives became available. Due to the obvious physical repercussions that unplanned pregnancy has for females many respondents felt more comfortable protecting themselves against pregnancy, than relying on a partner.

Chloe Maughan (Co-Editor)

11

We asked respondents how they would feel about a partner taking the male pill or having the injection; whether they felt development of male contraceptives was positive, and; whether they thought they’d be widely used.

This is a sample of the responses we received: “Too often it is seen as a female duty to make sure she is protected, even though sex is a shared act. A shift in responsibility might result in a wider shift in attitudes towards the equality of the sexes.”

“I suspect many men would not see contraception as so much “their problem” and there is less incentive to arrange it (i.e. not have the potential of having

a person grow inside them).”

“It might be one of the worst things you could do with respect to one-night stands. It will be possible for men to say that they’ve taken the pill or injection irrespective of the facts.”

“In a steady relationship I would be very happy for my partner to take responsibility for contraception - in a situation where I can be sure it is being taken regularly. However, it’s something I have been in control of for a very long time and ultimately the effects of no birth control would change my life very dramatically so it would be difficult to relinquish that control and trust that a partner (especially a more

casual one) would be fully protected.”

“The development of an option for anyone who would like to take contraception into their own hands rather than their partner/partners is a positive one.”

“Men should have the right to control their reproduction too, but a male contraceptive pill or injection may give men more power over women. In abusive relationships men are almost always the perpetrators of abuse, physical or emotional, and I can imagine the worst using contraception as a way to manipulate or lie to their partner”

A RIGHT TO INFERTILITY With the exception of the condom, contraception between couples capable of generating a pregnancy is usually seen as the responsibility of the female partner. Thanks to new developments, however, all of this could be about to change.

While there are many studies into both hormonal and nonhormonal contraceptive methods for males, two in particular have been making news in the last few months.The first of these is known as ‘Reversible Inhibition of Sperm Under Guidance’ (or RISUG). This method is not actually all that new, and involves an injection into the duct between the testicles and urethra. This injection deposits a polymer which, in basic terms, mutates any sperm which it comes into contact with, rendering them unable to successfully fertilise an ovum. Unlike the female contraceptive injection, RISUG need not be repeated every three months, and stays in place until the individual wishes to reverse it by means of another injection. RISUG is still in development, as it is required to monitor the long-term effects of the procedure before made available to the general public.

The second method, which you may have heard a bit more about, is a male version of the hormonal pill. The prospect of an oral contraceptive

that could be taken by males has always been attractive, but controlling the production of millions of healthy sperm a day in comparison to one ovum per month has proved to be a challenge. In recent months, however, researchers at Monash University in Melbourne have managed to restrict the production of two proteins which control the distribution of sperm. While there is still further testing to be done on the drug, it is hugely appealing to a range of people. Not only would it would act as a temporary vasectomy, but there would be minimal side effects, meaning no loss in sex drive, continued production of ejaculate and no long-term damage to fertility.

In contrast, there are numerous side effects to the female pill, which may make the male pill an inviting alternative for many couples.

The female contraceptive pill comes in many forms, and is the most popular choice of contraception next to condoms due to its effectiveness and convenience. The various combinations of progesterone and oestrogen within the pills, however, cause many women to suffer from mood swings and a loss in sexual desire. Despite this, when we conducted an anonymous online survey, our results showed that the most widely used means of contraception was the use of the female pill, coil, implant or vaginal ring only. This would suggest that the onus of preventing conception still currently lies with female partners.

Of course, that is not to say that this would change were these new forms of contraception to become available to the public tomorrow.

While our survey showed that self-identifying men would be far more willing to take the contraceptive pill than the RISUG, many voiced their concerns about the potential results of the long-term research that has yet to be conducted. Interestingly, however, the

results from our survey suggested that men who identified as feminist were more likely to use one of these contraceptives than men who did not. Of the men who identified as feminists 79% said that they would take the male contraceptive pill, this number dropped to 38% when the same question was asked of men who did not identify as feminist.

Analysing these results certainly has its difficulties, but it is important to remember that these medical developments are just as important when we take feminism out of the equation - if that is at all possible. When the news broke in December of last year that an oral contraceptive for males could soon be a reality, even responses in favour of the drug were mixed. Many women were pleased that they would no longer be the only one expected to be in charge of contraception, while many men similarly saw this as a positive step toward being more in control of their choice of whether or not to start a family. Some even saw this progress as a step away from feminism, where they felt that the ideology had over the years taken a step away from equality. Instead they felt it now strove for women having ultimate control of their chances for conception, but that’s for another article.

It would be possible to spend hours contemplating the many reasons that male hormonal contraceptives are running half a century behind females’. Admittedly the production of these new methods may not offer an escape from issues of trust surrounding hormonal contraception. It does, however, offer a choice that has not been previously open to males: to take control of their own fertility. As far as I’m concerned, whether you pertain to feminism, or another set of ideals entirely, these biological advances are going to be a step forward in enhancing individual choice, regardless of gender.

Emily Stoker

W

AS SEEBNBC ON THEITV! AND

COMPERE

JAYDE ADAMS

TT HA HE

London Cabaret Awards winner 2014

C

OM

TS

FROCK! EDY E VEN

What The Frock!

Comedy at Colston Hall Friday, September 19 - 8pm The Lantern, Colston Hall

VIKKI STONE ‘This Morning’ MTV, Fubar Radio

LUISA OMIELAN ‘What Would Beyonce Do?’

TICKETS:Tickets £13 (£11 concessions) www.colstonhall.org Box office: 0844 887 1500

WHATTHEFROCKCOMEDY.CO.UK

DON’T

FUCK THE

PATRIARCHY Sexuality is and has always been continually embroiled in the political. It is only a fairly recent tolerance and a relative openness to sexual difference, however, that have inspired discussions as to how to both confront discrimination and pursue LGBT rights. For homosexuals, bisexuals and individuals who cannot simply be labelled as ‘heterosexual’, their sexuality necessitates involvement in the political sphere.

acy. They claimed that feminist objectives were unattainable within the parameters of a culture that was fundamentally male. Social constructs, such as “woman”, had been defined by, and purely in the interests of, men.

Sex was both symptomatic, as an act of male power and mastery, and instrumental, as a tool reinforcing male class power in an intrinsically patriarchal society.

Political Lesbians lamented the lack of a coherent theory of gender relations in the mainstream Women’s Liberation Movement.

It was thus not solely their aggressive radicalism that caused their marginalisation but also this stinging criticism upon liberal feminism.

According to Political Lesbians, the Women’s Liberation Movement focused exclusively upon changing visible manifestations, or ‘sexroles’, of gender inequality. Consequently, they completely neglected any attempt at understanding the construction of the power binary underpinning and reinforcing these

Radical Lesbian Feminists, a group of passionate and enraged women, should be heralded as pioneers in asserting sexuality to be inherently political. However, what was uniquely radical about Political Lesbianism (as the movement was also known) was the idea that politics preceded sexuality; the movement promoted a deliberately lesbian way of life as an overt expression of feminist politics.

Radical Lesbian Feminists, coming into prominence in the 1970s, argued that heterosexuality was the foundation of male suprem-

16

relations. Whereas more liberal feminism promoted change in conjunction within a framework of existing society, for Political Lesbians, liberation would only follow the complete emotional and political rejection of men and subsequent severance of ties to the heterosexual, male and oppressive conceptual framework.

Contemporary liberal feminism and emphasis on “gender” relations, as it was in the 1970’s, is based upon the incorporation of men. The militancy of Radical Lesbian Feminist ideology is consequently critiqued for propounding an unrealistic social model and supposedly making men the enemy. However, their ideology should be both contextualised and deconstructed in order to expose their innovative insights into societal structures.

and indebted this realisation to feminism.

She was not alone. Many others declared it to be feminism, and specifically radical or revolutionary feminism, to have awakened them to their lesbian sexuality. Divorced from the oppressive heterosexual relationship they deemed themselves to possess a vantage point to observe the construction of female subjugation. The concept of society as a series of social constructs enabled the possibility of a society that would evolve and embrace a revised idea of what it is to be a woman.

Not only did these inspiring women confront heterosexual conditioning and suggest sexuality to be an extension of their politics but in the mere expression of such radical sentiment, they encapsulated and articulated the latent anger and frustration of women. Rage, essentially a ‘masculine’ emotion, was a challenge in itself to the male construction of the passive, demure woman. They thus were embodiments of their protest.

a deliberately lesbian way The identification of uniof life as versal culture as inherently male expressed the extent an overt to which patriarchy was entrenched into the very fabric expression of society. This is not to suggest that other branches of of feminist feminism did not account for Sexuality remains a presence politics. patriarchal incentive in formal in political discourse, particular institutions and social convention. Political Lesbians went further, arguing the only solution was the conscious prioritisation and emotional devotion to women in order to counter centuries of subconsciously internalised oppression. In their freedom from the unconscious absorption of male culture owing to their rejection of the heterosexual relationship, they proclaimed themselves to be the most feminist of feminists.

Just as political orientation was a choice, they said, so was sexuality. One of the most prominent of Political Lesbians Sheila Jeffery’s, identified herself as a lesbian in 1977,

in the field of gender relations.

The emergence of pansexuality illustrates a new willingness to contemplate a sexuality unconstrained by gender. In this case, the irrelevance of gender would eradicate sexual inequality as the individual is judged according to their person and not to their gender.

Pansexuality could thus be interpreted as a political statement. Sexuality remains inextricably political and Radical Lesbian Feminists should be considered not as peripheral extremists but as pioneers in feminism and in the political discourse of sexuality.

Anna Davies

17

PARENTAL LEAVE Recent laws mean that from 2015 both mothers and fathers will be able to share parental leave in the United Kingdom.The plans that have been outlined mean that the 52 weeks of parental leave, other than the initial two week recovery period for the mother, can be split between the mother and the father. For many the changes are welcomed and also viewed as being long overdue. Allowing only the mothers to take the leave, perpetuates the myth that childcare is a solely female domain. Many have argued that the splitting of the leave will mean there is a decrease in discrimination in the workplace against women. There are also significant advantages for men as it allows them to be more focused and involved in their child’s life. However, some would argue the new laws simply do not go far enough. In fact, they believe the United Kingdom should replicate the model of parental

leave, used in countries such as Norway and Sweden, where men are basically obligated to take paternity leave.

At present, only allowing women to take significant time off for maternity leave can lead to increased discrimination in the workplace, and many women have cited problems with maternity leave related discrimination.

Recently, Caroline Criado Perez used an example where a prospective employer had asked his interviewee ‘You’ve just got married; your husband is clearly doing well for himself, why do you even want a job?’ The assumption being that a recently married woman would soon want to have children and thus would require a lengthy time period off work.This is a sadly common problem for many women. When applying for new jobs, or when being considered for promotions, many women find themselves being discriminated against. Some employers are reluctant to hire women because where they believe it could result in costing the business a significant amount of

18

money in financing maternity leave. Indeed one poll found that one in seven women are made redundant after the end of their maternity leave. This shows the need for the urgent reform of Britain’s maternity laws.

For fathers, the changes in the law can also be seen as being particularly significant. For a very long time the role of parental leave was seen as an exclusive area for women. However more recently this has been questioned.

A new father commented ‘I think, in recent years, the rights of fathers have been disregarded, especially when it comes to the crucial period when the baby is in its first year, and it is interesting to see the government admit the current rules on paternity leave marginalise men… It is about time that an official welcome of parenthood for fathers was put in place.’ Jo Swinson, the Equalities Minister has said that she wants to make it ‘normal’ for men to take time off work in order to look after their baby. And prior to the passage of the bill, writing for the Guardian, Tom Lamont bemoaned the lack of flexibility within parental leave.

He discussed how he also wished it was possible for him to stay at home for a greater amount of time, finding a fortnight is not enough for a father to sufficiently bond with his baby.

In countries such as Norway and Sweden, leave after the children’s birth is split between mother and father, similar to the new proposed laws in the United Kingdom. It is becoming more accepted that childcare is a two-way process and that men and women both require leave after children are born. In Norway the forty six week leave is divided

between the parents however men are firmly encouraged to take time off. In order to do this, ten weeks is specifically reserved just for men. If they refuse to take paternity leave, these ten weeks cannot be transferred to the mother, and, thus both parents miss out.

This policy can be seen to be particularly successful; before the law was passed in 1993 just three percent of men took paternity leave.

This perpetrated the myth that looking after the family was purely a woman’s role; however by 2011 ninety percent of all men took paternity leave. This can be seen as a success of the quota system; incentivising men to take part of the paternity leave. In Sweden there is also a quota system: sixty days of the leave is reserved for each parent, with the rest being chosen at their liberty. In fact the sight of men with babies has become so common in Sweden that they have their own nickname - the ‘latte papas.’ However, this policy has also been equally controversial because there are those who argue that paternity leave is the choice of each individual family, and that forcing men into taking it is just too interventionist and that, ultimately, it is the decision of the parents how and whether they split paternity leave.

The division of leave after the child has been born is an extremely important issue.

With the lack of women represented in all spheres of public life, maternity leave is an extremely prominent issue. Even with the forthcoming change to the law of parental leave in 2015, the subject is likely to inspire a good deal of debate for a long time.

Eleanor Cox

19

DON JON FROM A FEM So let’s talk about Don Jon. Joseph GordonLevitt’s very first directing treasure. The initial official projection of JGL’s feminist identity.We all know his intentions for the film – satirical, subversive, witty. But is it truly a feminist film, with a feminist message? No. Not really, no.

Gordon-Levitt’s character, ‘Don’ Jon, is the stereotypical macho man, with a specific set of priorities: His body, his pad, his ride, his family, his church, his boys, his girls, and his porn. These are the factors of his life that seem to support his overwhelming self-entitlement. When he meets Barbara at a club – the same place he met every other girl that week – his entitlement is left to linger on Barbara’s romantic side. When they start to date, she’s more interested in meeting his parents, and building the relationship outside of the bedroom.And while he sits through the rom-coms she adores, he’s forced to hide his porn ‘interest’ from his new girl. Eventually, she finds out and they break up, leaving Jon to seek some self-entitled comfort from Julianne Moore’s character, Esther, a widow who picks his brain about his addiction. She eventually leads him towards a more fulfilling sex life, leaving Barbara still buried in her unrealistic romantic expectations.

So Jon has a thing about porn. His problem?

He prefers porn to the real deal. His reason?

He can’t seem to lose himself during sex. Essentially, he doesn’t want to lose out by pleasing anyone else.

If you’re still wondering how this feminist satire is unsuccessful, let me elucidate. The film is about the objectification of women in media – as you can clearly tell from its opening credits – and the unfair expectations in a relationship. Don Jon claims to compare the title 20

character’s attachment to porn with Barbara’s attachment to romantic films, stating that both are as destructive as each other.

They’re really not.

Jon’s porn is his state of entitlement. He knows exactly what he wants when he turns on his computer. There’s no need to worry about real women and their poor excuse for a blowjob.

He’s able to control exactly what he sees and from what position he sees it.We see it literally creep into his reality when sexually assaulting Barbara almost as soon as he meets her. The physical control that Jon exhibits, kissing her, grabbing her, and ignoring her refusals is a result of this porn dependency. A result amounting to objectification through dehumanization.

When we see the effects of Barbara’s expectations from romantic films, we agree that they’re unrealistic, but the results… not so disturbing. She makes Jon introduce her to his family, and work harder towards his college degree. I don’t quite feel equal detriment. Sure, Barbara has her entitlement issues, but I see internalized misogyny at work over genuine aspects of her personality.

From birth, she’s told that she must stand there and be the princess so that a man can adore her someday.

She utilises her beauty and her sexuality because she and other girls are discouraged from

MINIST PERSPECTIVE let’s discuss Jon’s father, played by Tony Danza. With his tank top and his open misogynist remarks, we see early on where Jon has accumulated the majority of his character. But what we don’t see in the film is any real criticisms of Danza’s character, a classic objectifying male. No, it’s as if Jon Sr.’s objectification need not be addressed.

doing otherwise.

Which then begs the question – where is Barbara’s redemption? In her last scene with Jon, he’s a new man and she remains just as corny and blind. It appears that, to Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Jon’s issues just need a different girlfriend to widen his perspective, while Barbara’s complex is inherent to her unchangeable personality. This sole focus on a man’s development is counterproductive to the message of the film.

From the very beginning, while intended as a feminist critique on objectification and idealistic relationships, Don Jon seems to cater for the personal resolution of one man, while compromising the characters of all four women featured. I could even dare to say that this film was specifically for menç the men who genuinely compare the influence of porn with the influence of romantic filmsò the men who separate the two genres as a man’s habit and a woman’s habit. Sure, maybe some of these men will come out of the film thinking differently about the role of porn in their life, but they’d remain adamant that women’s expectations of romance are the reason their relationships failed. Women aren’t being represented strongly, despite Jon’s issues eventually being solved by these very women.

But let’s then discuss the women of the film.

Barbara – the selfish, manipulative girlfriend controlling her man; Jon’s mother – the shrill, Italian aspiring grandmother; Jon’s sister – the near-anonymous onlooker; and Esther – a fresh new cliché, whose only purpose is to provide this male character with the sexual wisdom that he can only achieve through her vagina. See anything you recognise?

The fight against objectification doesn’t work with just four women character tropes that are only present to aid a man along his journey to self-discovery.

I mean, not only is Esther a widow, she’s also a grieving mother who could have had so much depth to her. Instead, each woman is a facilitator for Jon’s self-indulgent storyline.

Seeing as we’ve discovered that this is a film more focused on men and their issues,

21

Joseph Gordon-Levitt identifies openly as a feminist, and his intentions are, I think, to bring feminism to light through his position in Hollywood. In his recent Reddit AMA, he explained, “Don Jon is largely a comedic satire of how our culture treats people (especially women) more like things than like people.”

But without focus on thought-provoking and non-stereotypical women in this film, Don Jon continues to misguide attention. So much so, that JGL is proliferating the objectification and male self-entitlement that he set out to oppose.

Joseph Ruddleston

At the current rate, it will take over 100 years to achieve a balanced Parliament of around 50:50 men and women. That’s too long to wait.

Make your voice heard.

Sign the petition. change.org/petitions/5050parliament 5050parliament.co.uk #5050parliament