Its your show…
7:54 pm - July 1st 2008
| Tweet | Share on Tumblr |
I’ve been pondering rather an interesting question all day, one that cropped up in a ‘behind the scenes’ e-mail conflab on the subject of where we go from here with LibCon’s contribution to the ongoing abortion rights campaign, and in the interests of transparency this is the question:
Any suggestions from our resident bloke [that's me, I think] about the best ways to get boy bloggers to link to our posts at LC, F-word, hangbitch, etc, and to write up on the pro-choice amendments themselves?
That’s a good one to think about, especially in the wake of the recent Blog Nation event and the session on feminism and the liberal-left blogosphere – and if you need to play catch-up, start with these contributions from PennyRed, The f-Word, Cruella blog and Feminist Philosophers and follow the various links from there.
There is something definitely ‘off’ with the current mainstream narrative around women and gender issues – even more so than usual – and there’s rather more to this than the question of whether male bloggers are paying enough attention to some of the high quality blogging emerging from the feminist sector, although I will get to that in due course.
To give but one illustrative example, on Monday, the Department for Communities and Local Government, which is headed at ministerial level by Hazel Blears, published the latest lists of local government floor targets agreed between councils and the government, and walked into a fair amount flak in the process when it emerged that more councils have chosen to make smoking cessation a priority than have chosen to prioritise anti-crime measures that tackle acquisitive crime, violent crime and anti-social behaviour.
In reality, I’ve no doubt than many councils are justified in their decision and can point to declining crime rates in their area as an argument for tackling other priorities, but within the list of criminal justice related measures that local authorities has to choose from, there are couple where the response, or lack thereof, that rather pulled me up short by way of wondering just exactly who determines these priorities and on what basis.
Which ones?
Well, if you successfully navigate your way through all the bureaucratese you eventually find that target NI 032 covers tackling repeat incidents of domestic violence and notes, quite correctly, that victims of domestic violence experience by far the highest levels of repeat victimisation – and by now I’m sure any feminists looking in will be wondering if I’m about to try and teach them to suck eggs… bear with me, this bit’s more for some of the men folk 
We don’t have enough specialist DV coverage as it is – we already know that, so you might think that this is just the kind of thing that councils should be putting high on their list of priorities… and in the case of 75 councils in England, you’d be right. However, you might also note that that’s 24 fewer councils than are planning to prioritise ‘obesity in primary school age children in Year 6′ and 14 fewer than the number targeting smokers.
In terms of the numbers of councils choosing it as a priority, domestic violence services are somewhere on a par with tackling litter, graffiti and fly tipping, all of which are a nuisance but rarely the kind of thing that result in women getting their own dedicated parking bay down the local A&E.
There’s also another floor target, NI 026, which covers the provision of specialist support to victims of a serious sexual offence, which I specifically went looking for in the definitions handbook after noticing that rape doesn’t appear to be included in targets for tackling serious violent crime (go figure???), and while I found the target I’m still looking for a council, any council, that’s put rape support services up as priority any time in the next three years. If you find one, let us know…
Mind you, you’d be hard pressed to realise any of this without going looking for it specifically. I only picked this up as something to look at thanks to a throw-away reference to the relatively lowly position of domestic violence as a priority target in a 2-3 paragraph report in today’s Metro, which I was only reading because the bus came before I could get into a shop and get a proper newspaper.
These should be bread and butter issues for the liberal-left, the kind of thing we should be challenging and questioning, male and female alike, but as much of what drives political blogging is responding to the news agenda we see in the press and on the BBC, these issues tend not to crop up on the radar because they’re not widely reported. In covering this story, the right-wing press went either for the smoking angle or, in the case of the Daily Mail, they chose to complain about the level of priority given to tackling teenage pregnancy over that of collecting the bins every week, and the even the Guardian has yet to pick up on the relatively low priority afforded to these key services.
One way, certainly, to get more interaction between the feminist sector and the rest of us political bloggers is to get more of an unfiltered exchange of news going, simply so more people are aware of developing issues and in a position to comment on them. Okay, so this is, and should be, a two-way street in which male bloggers should have no qualms about flagging up news items that are, perhaps likely to be more of interest to female bloggers but, to some extent, I think there’s some justification for the rest of us to look to the feminist sector and say ‘well, how about it?’ simply in recognition of the fact that people are naturally inclined, in following their interests, to pick up on stories that the rest of us might well miss, and when it comes to news stories with a female/feminist angle then it’s, more often than not, going to be the case that its the feminist blogs that will be quickest off the mark.
If nothing else, I’d like to see LibCon’s female contingent making that bit more use of things like the site’s facility and, of course, the daily round-up and generally indulging in a little shameless, and shame-free, self promotion, simply because good writing and strong issue will always find an audience and there’s certainly much good writing to be found in the feminist sector.
That kind of feeds into my other main observation, which is much more specific to the abortion debate, and that’s that, more than at any time over the last few months, its time for women to be taking the lead and setting the tone and direction of the campaign.
To date, we – meaning the liberal-left – have been largely corralled in to fighting a rearguard action on the stream of Vera Drake amendments advanced by, in the main, Tory MPs plus the old Catholic in Labour’ ranks, and all in an effort to restrict abortion rights. That battle has been fought, if you’ll forgive the observation, on ground not of women’s choosing and on what, for some, has perhaps been slightly uncomfortable territory of a kind that limits their opportunity to play to their strengths.
Parliament, in its infinite wisdom, chose to take this issue down the clinical/scientific route, a route that many MPs are happier with as it seems to cast the debate in terms of rational, evidence-based choices when, in reality, it has largely played into the hands of the anti-abortion lobby by narrowing the focus of the debate on questions of the foetal development. Inadvertently, but with good intentions for the most part, by focusing on the science, parliament put the anti-abortion lobby in the driving seat by making the foetus central to the debate and, effective, pushing women to periphery.
That needs to change and with amendments on the table in which the focus in unmistakably on women and issue of access to services, now is the time to fight back and put in a concerted effort to redress the balance of the debate, placing women back at its centre.
Now, having pointed that out, I could easily go on to advance and explore the issues and detailed arguments…
…but I’m not going to because the lead on this has to come from women and from the feminist sector – this is the point in this debate where women need to take centre stage, not just because its the right thing to do but because we’re at the point at which the key reference points for the debate lies on ground that women, and feminists in particular, are likely to most comfortable and most effective. As someone with a keen eye for political strategy, I’m not about to pass up such a strong opportunity to move the debate in the right direction (for the liberal-left) for the sake of a bit of masculine ego – this is your show not mine.
What’s the best way for the feminist sector to get us ‘boy bloggers’ to link to the feminist sector on this particular issue?
Give the rest of us the material to link to and debate.
This is your debate – it always has been to a considerable extent – but on the issue of supporting the liberalising amendments that are shortly to put to parliament, this is unequivocally your show.
You cover it, I’ll certainly cover it and anyone else who considers themselves pro-choice, male or female, should be covering these amendments and spreading the word as widely as possible, helping to carry the debate forward.
To that I’d make only one suggestion – keep it real.
If I could flag up one site that has the right approach to setting the tone for the nest stage in this debate then that site is the Pro Choice Majority site and, especially its abortion stories section.
Much as I love debating political theory, and the feminist blogs can certainly debate theory with the best, what’s needed is here is, I think, the personal touch – to shape public opinion we need to get people to see women and living, breathing, human beings and not as mobile foetus carriers, as is so often the tone pushed by the so-called ‘pro-life’ lobby.
(I could actually, and with tongue firmly in cheek, make a related observation when it comes to the issue of feminists tackling trolls – never write an essay on feminist political though when a simple ‘fuck off’ will do… and never underestimate the power of a good ‘tiny knob’ gag either)
But I digress – keeping it real means hearing the voices of real women and listening to them telling the real story. That doesn’t need a strategy or tactics, it just needs or resident female bloggers, and the feminist sector generally, to be themselves and write passionately about what they believe and how they see the world. On an issue like this one, everything else should follow on naturally.
The bottom line here is that if we, meaning those of us who consider ourselves to be liberal-left and pro-choice, need to be given any more reason than that to be backing this campaign and supporting the lead given by the feminist blogs (and please, get writing) then we’re not the people we’d like to think we are.
Last thing to add – by email I’ve just been informed that our own Cath Elliot has written a new article on the subject of the next stage of the abortion rights campaign, which is due up shortly on Comment is Free – as soon as it appears, can someone, anyone, get it linked on here and let’s get things moving.
| Tweet | Share on Tumblr |  |
'Unity' is a regular contributor to Liberal Conspiracy. He also blogs at Ministry of Truth.
· Other posts by Unity
Story Filed Under: Blog
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Reader comments
Unity,
By happy coincidence, I just left an arsey comment on your Dorries post that might get the ball rolling.
I observed that I was tired of seeing Dorries at the top of the agenda – I dislike her greatly myself, and have certainly written a great deal to that effect – but I resent the fact that attacks on her continue at the top of the agenda when it comes to the abortion debate.
As you say, there are other equally important amendments being tabled for the report stage of the HFEB and they are the ones that Abortion Rights and female writers want to focus on. Nonetheless, scoring points against Dorries remains a blogging obsession. I’m trying to understand why that is – is it simply because this is a left political blog, and readers/writers on it welcome the chance to put the boot into a Conservative politician, or is it because that sort of sustained attack is a male inclination? I’m not sure about that – I’m pretty inclined to sustained attacking myself.
Still, I know that on these threads and in some of our emails, other women have expressed concern about attacks on Dorries and what they see as women-bashing.
Dunno what’s more important to readers and writers here – putting the boot into Dorries ad infinitum, or campaigning hard to improve access to abortion, or a happy combination of both? Don’t know what the blokes around the place think of it all.
Haven’t thought this through properly, so will come back.
Whoa, slow down there Unity. The new CiF piece is actually about the need for feminists to remain vigilant if we want to preserve the rights (not just abortion) we’ve already won……. the abortion stuff is just part of it.
But no worries, I think any publicity for the liberalising amendments has got to be a good thing. We should try and sneak in a mention any time an opportunity presents itself 
The new CiF piece is actually about the need for feminists to remain vigilant if we want to preserve the rights (not just abortion) we’ve already won……. the abortion stuff is just part of it.
Even better in that case, Cath.
The next natural ‘stage’ in this process – if you want to call it that – is to bridge outwards from abortion rights to a wider narrative in terms of the visibility of the feminist sector and there’s no time like the present to start to plant the seeds of that narrative.
‘I think any publicity for the liberalising amendments has got to be a good thing. We should try and sneak in a mention any time an opportunity presents itself’
I agree, Cath. We should have the best access to abortion that we can get and argue for and that should be the top of the agenda.
I think I’ve said that already tonight. I’ll probably say it again so that there is NO CONFUSION.
You know, I can see the response to this from certain quarters right now…
“So now you’ve taken the subject as far as you want and hogged it for months, we women should do what you say and blog about what you tell us to blog about now, should we, Mr Patriarchy?”
Oooh, I’ve got my cynical head on tonight. Best not say any more…
As I’ve noted on the other post, much of the ire directed at Dorries is a blogger/netiquette thing that stretches back to her making false allegations about Ben Goldacre in her laughable ‘minority report’ and then turning off her comments when she was called on it.
Gender is immaterial in this case – any blogger who pulled the same kind of stunt would get dogpiled, and, in the context of that last post, so is the main run of the abortion debate, which sits in the background, as some of the material that the PSC has inquired about is related to this debate, although other material included as evidence is of more generic nature.
In anthropological terms, the internet evolved as a medium pretty much without external regulation with the result that it took up what looks to be, from studies of evolutionary psychology, more or less the human default position for regulating ethical behaviour, a combination of reputation and punishment. As physical interaction is not a feature of the medium, punishment is effected by way of loss of reputation, ostracism and, in a medium that allows considerable scope for anonymity, the outing of someone’s real world identity in the case of the worst transgressions, which would be anything from serious and persistent trolling to the worst transgression of all, taking a dispute offline and into the real world.
You could say its a bit of primitive culture out here in that sense.
So far as the abortion debate goes, Dorries has re-injected herself into it by trying to reintroduce the 20 weeks amendment and despite the ‘Mad Nad ‘ jokes it would an error to write that off too glibly as an act of dumb insolence or denial.
Dorries can have no real expectation of carrying that amendment, having lost at the committee stage. It’s back as a spoiler, in part to try and misdirect support away from the liberalising amendments and back into a re-run of the 20 weeks debate.
It is also, I think, a clear pointer towards the element of the debate that the anti-abortion lobby fears the most. As the Marie Stopes poll, which came out on the day of the abortion votes shows, public attitudes to late term abortions are rather different from the views elicited by the push-polling of the anti-abortion lobby and people are generally much more sympathetic in their view of late term abortion when given the chance to consider why women might be seeking a late abortion.
The key issue here is/seems to be empathy – the anti-abortion campaign is predicated on selling the image of a foetus as human being deserving, if not demanding of our empathy while reducing women to, at best, an anonymous cipher.
Putting a human face on the women that would be affected, either adversely or positively depending on the amendments, changes the parameters of the debate because people then have the opportunity and ability to empathise with real women and the real choices they make.
In that sense, debates about rights are a little unattractive to most people because ideas don’t attract the same kind of emotional pull as human stories – the right argument can seen a little clinical when viewed from the outside because many, women and men, don’t internalise the rights argument in as strong a manner as, say, most feminists do.
That’s not a criticism per say, merely an element of context that’s sometimes too easily forgotten nor is it necessarily a feminist thing, its a function of most strong ideological beliefs, as much as it for strong religious beliefs.
So now you’ve taken the subject as far as you want and hogged it for months, we women should do what you say and blog about what you tell us to blog about now, should we, Mr Patriarchy?
Not at all, Jennie…
I’m making two points here.
One, which is tactical, is that finally the parameters of the debate, which were pretty much dictated by parliament when it choose to stick to the science to address the abortion debate, are shifting in a direction that no longer excludes women from the main thread of the debate by its narrow focus.
40 years ago, when abortion was legalised, women were central to the clinical/scientific debate because the key medical issue at the time was backstreet abortions. Today, backstreet abortions are almost unheard of, certainly in the UK, such that the clinical debate becomes one in which the foetus takes the central role and in which women, due to the general exclusion of rights and ethics, other than medical ethics, from consideration in the main strand of the parliamentary debate, are implicitly pushed to periphery in terms of public perception.
The access debate, which is where this goes next, is intrinsically women-centred and should, if we’re not distracted by Dorries’ spoling tactics, place women back at the centre of the debate, and its that we need to capitalise on to shift the balance of the debate back onto women and abortion rights.
The second point is not that you should blog about what I tell you to blog about, it simply acknowledges that empathy place a major part in shaping public perceptions in this debate, which is why an abstract rights-based line of argument is likely to prove somewhat unattractive outside those who’re politically engaged in the debate.
What works is putting a human face on the arguments and putting over rights as part of a package with a real live human being at the hub of the issue and, as I see, there’s no great secret to doing that or, indeed attracting the attention of male bloggers, here.
What’s needed is:
a) for feminist bloggers to do what they’ve been doing all along, which is write with intelligence and passion about the things they care about, and
b) use the facilities of LibCon to exchange information and get their POV into plain sight.
In other words, don’t worry about what male bloggers might make of a sudden outbreak of feminism on LibCon, just do it and be yourselves and you’ll find an audience.
So now you’ve taken the subject as far as you want and hogged it for months, we women should do what you say and blog about what you tell us to blog about now, should we, Mr Patriarchy?
No, I’m suggesting you just hang it all out there and go for it, and if that pisses a few people off then it’s more often than not going to be with good reason and that’s always been good enough for me, so there’s no reason to expect otherwise from anyone else.
I don’t know where other got their feminism 101 but I got mine over copious amounts of alcohol with the girls from the LGBT soc at the university I went to, and they were about fiercest and least politically correct bunch of feminists you could possibly encounter, not to mention by far the best conversationalists you could ever debate with over several pints.
And their command of the withering knob-gag put down was surpassed only by their storehouse of thoroughly unrepeatable dyke jokes, most of which would frighten a marine.
If I seem a touch combative its only because I’m well used to operating in a combative environment and no holds barred debates, and I much prefer the honesty of such situations.
more councils have chosen to make smoking cessation a priority than have chosen to prioritise anti-crime measures that tackle acquisitive crime, violent crime and anti-social behaviour
Isn’t this business about “priorities” rather artifical? It’s not as if a council is only able to do one thing at a time.
What’s needed is:
a) for feminist bloggers to do what they’ve been doing all along, which is write with intelligence and passion about the things they care about, and
b) use the facilities of LibCon to exchange information and get their POV into plain sight.
In other words, don’t worry about what male bloggers might make of a sudden outbreak of feminism on LibCon, just do it and be yourselves and you’ll find an audience.
This /\/\/\
Relax, Unity. I appreciate the open approach myself. As it were.
This is a lot of fun, you gotta admit.
Unity – “I don’t know where other got their feminism 101 but I got mine over copious amounts of alcohol with the girls…”
With the what?
I think you need some refresher lessons
“So now you’ve taken the subject as far as you want and hogged it for months, we women should do what you say and blog about what you tell us to blog about now, should we, Mr Patriarchy?”
ha ha! and the thing is, I can actually see this materialising.
Look, I think we’re being rather excessive over this navel-gazing to be honest. I made several points during the panel debate that bring the other side of the argument:
1) I have actually tried to encourage feminism and feminists to write here but its been very difficult.
2) There is a fair amount of walking on egg-shells too, which make male lefties less willing to write about feminist issues… especially because they could be attacked both for sticking their oar where it doesn’t concern them or ignoring it.
3) People blog about what they feel comfortable with. I can’t force them to blog about feminism.
4) This is not the F-Word… so the range of issues being covered here will be different and sometimes there will be a dearth of feminist blogging and sometimes a lot (especially around the HFE bill).
I think the main thing to take back from the debate was that there lots of feminist blogs out there that people should be reading. Now can we please stop this navel gazing.
I think you need some refresher lessons
Actually, it was always ‘girls’ at their insistence – and the youngest was in her mid 20s running through to a couple in their late 40s.
As for why, IIRC, it was a favourite in-joke because it seriously pissed off most of the middle class tourist left-wingers who used to come over with all the over-earnest liberal guilt trip stuff.
Basically the gag was that these poor sods would get all the standard respect stuff drilled into them by the younger feminists and then get up the courage to run a scouting mission to try and befriend the LGBT crew only because ‘it ‘was the right thing to do’, only to get ripped to shreds because everything they said would turn out to be the wrong thing.
Like I said, a fierce crowd but frighteningly intelligent and funny, a complete bunch of iconoclasts.
I thought women and feminists are already blogging about this stuff – what I thought was needed was for male people and non-feminists to realise that feminism is in everyone’s interests and start paying attention to it. The feminist-nonfeminist distinction is really rather a counter-productive red-herring if you ask me, especially in the context of a “liberal” blog.
Isn’t this business about “priorities” rather artifical? It’s not as if a council is only able to do one thing at a time.
Artificial, yes, but it matters because because floor targets influence resource allocations – one thing that someone should get onto an monitor, given that 75 councils have put up DV as a target, is what those councils do and how far they allocated resources to their chosen priority.
Perhaps there’s an element of ‘I shouldn’t really write about this because I’m not in a position to understand it’ with some male bloggers?
I know I’m put off writing about rape and domestic violence, and to a lesser extent abortion, on my blog partly for that reason.
QT, I often skirt around racism for similar reasons, I must admit. But it doesn’t stop me linking approvingly to those vastly more qualified than I. I think if feminist bloggers just knew that male bloggers were reading and understanding, that would be a help.
Unity – this kind of approach is exactly what I was talking about. Looking at a story which on the surface (i.e. as constructed by the mainstream media) has little to do with gender, but when analysed reveals the low priority given to issues such as domestic violence.
To me, the issue is one of basic solidarity.
Jess – I’ve just lined up a fresh post on the rape support/floor targets issue, adding a bit of fresh research, some data for context and generally pulling it out of this discussion for a bit of higher visibility, because it does need flagging up and pitching more visibly.
It needs to be talked about, as I’m just a tad concerned that it’ll get lost in the more general discussion about interaction when, as you say, basic solidarity should carry this one forward.
Once you look at it, its a bit of no-brainer from a ‘should we be pushing this’ POV
Give it half an hour and it should appear…
“I know I’m put off writing about rape and domestic violence, and to a lesser extent abortion, on my blog partly for that reason.”
I’ll certainly try to, even if my views are found to be lax in reason and substantiation. Only then will I learn.
Ben
Reactions: Twitter, blogs
-
Pickled Politics » Female voices online
[...] Unity thinks the answer is the keep it real, couldn’t agree more. | Trackback link | Add to del.icio.us [...]
-
Abortion: whose debate? « Feminist Philosophers
[...] on from the discussion about women bloggers (see here here and here), liberal conspiracy brings us this post, which is full of interesting points. In particular, the author makes some observations about the [...]
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
