report from the struggle continues… women’s liberation 40 years on
Sharon Borthwick reports on the recent Feminist Fightback event in London
In 1970, 560 women came together at Ruskin College, Oxford for the first UK women’s liberation conference. The activist network Feminist Fightback met in London on 2nd May to look at how far we have come 40 years on, inviting all genders to “consider what feminism looks like today, how the struggle continues, and put the battles women fight today in the context of the history of the women’s movement.”
To aid comparisons of the women’s movement then and now the programme included two films: A Woman’s Place (Journeyman Pictures, 1970) and an episode of the BBC4 series on women, Activists (broadcast, March, 2010). Post introductions, the Feminist Fightback meeting continued with screening the 1970 film, which included footage of the Ruskin conference and The International Women’s Day March held in London in 1971.
A great sense of urgency surrounded the Ruskin conference. Many more women than the organisers expected showed up for the event. Whilst women across the class spectrum were enlivened by each other’s speeches and debate men were presiding over a crèche in the wings. Even long dead men honourably remembered by other men with head and shoulder busts in their image were not privy, women having covered them with shawls and scarves.
All aspects of women’s lives were considered in the context of British society in 1970 – Women in prison, trade unions, housework, childrearing, for instances. One woman spoke of the need for “our children to be liberated from us”, implying a suffocating atmosphere presided over family living, women isolated and confined by the mother role. Women questioned whether the so-called “maternal instinct” was a real or imposed thing. They talked of possible alternative family structures where other adults and not the mother alone have childcare responsibilities such as communes. One middle-aged working class woman, wholly unused to speaking before a large audience, grew in confidence as she spoke of her life as a housewife and mother of four children as a life of missed opportunities. Another woman said she would like not to be thought a freak because she had no interest in children whatsoever. Women discussed the thorough injustice of their economic dependence on men, their work as mothers going unacknowledged and unpaid and the political implications of that – reproducing a workforce for capitalism whilst simultaneously being disenfranchised by that system.
The conference ended with the women agreeing on four basic demands:
1. Equal Pay
2. Equal Educational and Job Opportunities
3. Free Contraception and Abortion on Demand
4. Free 24 hour Nurseries
Some months later 4,000 women took to the streets of London for the International Women’s Day March with placards and banners demanding these basic rights. They presented their petition in writing to 10 Downing Street. The seriousness of their demands to tackle the inequalities imposed on them by virtue of their biology did not stop these women’s enjoyment of the march. There was a carnival atmosphere. A needlework dummy bound to a crucifix was held aloft by some women while others dance-exercised ironically to Eddie Cantor’s ‘Keep young and beautiful, its your duty to be beautiful’. One woman mocked beauty pageants, her sash reading, ‘Ms Stress’. Clearly the Ruskin conference had been a resounding success, women politicised and adamantly seeking immediate changes to an unjust system.
So how are things looking in 2010? The sad answer is, not very good at all. In spite of the Equal Pay Act implemented in 1970 and the various adjustments made to it since women are still lagging behind men in financial status. They are far more likely than men to work in part-time employment as they are more usually the primary carers of either children and/or disabled or elderly relatives. Part-time work such as care-work or cleaning is given low status and is extremely poorly paid. The model of ‘superwoman’ is held as the ideal. Women are urged ‘to have it all’ – both the children and the career. This can effectively mean that you either pay – usually another woman – a low wage for childcare, or if lowly paid yourself, childcare will take up a disproportionate amount of your income.
Feminist Fightback are currently involved in a campaign to save Hackney nurseries, “cuts … being handed out in a piecemeal fashion, with no warning to nurseries all over Hackney.” Thus nursery fees go up and living standards go down making rubbish of Labour’s insistence that they were fighting to reduce child poverty. And Britain with a Tory prime minister is sure to make matters far worse, a part of the Tory/Liberal pact being to immediately put into operation Tory’s plans to severely cut funds to all public services so to appease the IMF (America’s chief say-so).
And so to the BBC4 documentary, where the feminist activists concentrated on made all these social conditions notable by not mentioning any of them. Finn Mackay is the founder of the London Feminist Network and Co-founder of the Feminist Coalition Against Prostitution and it was these movements that the documentary wholly centred around. Mackay is described on her blog, “She is a well-practiced public speaker with particular emphasis on violence against women, prostitution and feminism in the UK.” Indeed, she appeared a charismatic leader in the film as with a raised fist she delivered her speech at The London Feminist Network’s Conference to an all women audience, many of whom were in floods of tears.
The interviewer asked woman after woman what her chief concerns were regarding feminism. Cited were just these: male violence against women, prostitution, pornography and sexual objectification. There was much belittling of these women by the programme makers. They were mostly young, middle-class women living at home with their parents. Parents were also interviewed and rather geed along when showing prejudice against their daughter’s activism, one mother saying she could not understand her daughter’s penchant for dressing up while protesting against objectification.
Feminist Fightback rightly cut a huge swathe from this film that concentrated on food preparation for the LFN conference – veganism read as joyless Puritanism by the film-maker, and the viewer impelled to think likewise. Campaigns by LFN include Reclaim The Night, ‘Bin the Bunny’ (referring to the cynical use of the Playboy bunny emblazoned across children’s clothes etc.) One woman spoke of the horrific event that had made her become an activist in the movement: recounting that after her daughter’s friend had been gang raped, the police later made charges against her saying that she had perverted the course of justice, citing mobile phone footage her attackers had filmed. They eventually succeeded in getting the charges dropped but were further shocked to learn that there were no rape crisis centres in the whole of London.
There was some extremely disturbing footage of women from the LFN shouting “shame, shame” at people entering a lap-dancing club. They were shouting this as much at the female employees as at the male audience, creating divisions between those women and themselves.
After the film showings the mostly women crowd present at the Feminist Fightback event came together to discuss the films, make comparisons and consider the feminist movement today. In the lively discussion, personal experiences were used as much as the historical perspectives raised by the films.
Much noted was the absolute absence of considerations surrounding class or indeed any other political analysis in the BBC4 film. Women spoke of their concerns about others considering feminism an outmoded if not dirty word. There was consensus that we should openly and unashamedly say that we are feminists to other women and men. How this consciousness raising is exercised was another problem discussed – not wanting to come across preachy, for instance.
We discussed the issue of objectification so concentrated upon by the women from LFN. Participants articulated the belief that the media perpetuated women’s concern with their bodies by constantly documenting this apparent all consuming concern, anorexia, for instance, being a favourite topic of documentary makers. We discussed society placing such high value on being in a couple. One woman quoted a bride’s speech, “I was nothing till I met you”, “now I am complete”. People expressed concern over feeling that you had to do your best to feign interest in wedding preparations – cooing over the dress for instance, women feeling that they would otherwise endanger friendships, though they are not allowed the space to say, “this is shit”.
Many considered that LFN’s demand to have porn banned by the state was not a progressive argument, and indeed a simplification of matters, particularly demeaning porn being a symptom that needs to be attacked via its root causes and likewise the LFN’s attitude to prostitution; Feminist Fightback are demanding that sex-workers be decriminalised.
There was consensus that the BBC4 programme was horribly malicious and a farcical comparison with the 1970 Journeyman film. And what of women’s own sexuality and their enjoyment of sex, should this not be talked about?
Many other subjects were touched upon at this meeting. In fact all of the grass-root feminist concerns the women from the 1970 Ruskin conference were talking about then are still very much the concern of Feminist Fightback now. It is a terrible shame that the media present body image and objectification issues above all else as grass-roots feminism, when you only need to watch A Woman’s Place to know that that is absolutely not the case. Feminism must be bound with political activism.
Why we oppose the No Recourse to Public Funds rule
The recent Feminist Fightback film night raised £71, all of which will go towards a fund for women with no recourse to public funds. Read more about the issues around the no recourse requirement below.
The woman who has recently arrived in the UK from Pakistan to join her husband after marriage…the domestic worker on an Overseas Domestic Visa…the tourist who came for a month but began a relationship and stayed longer……the young woman who has come to study at college in the UK…the Bulgarian woman who worked in the UK during her first six months in the UK but has now fallen ill…the niece who has come to visit family in the UK…
All these women are affected by the no recourse to public funds requirement. What this means is that they are prevented, because of their insecure immigration status, from accessing welfare benefits in the UK. These benefits include housing benefit, child benefit and income support: in a nutshell the benefits that allow someone with no income a degree of financial independence.
Without these benefits, women who have come to join a partner are in a position of economic dependency upon them: particularly acute if they are unable to access the job market due to family commitments, their level of English or a lack of available opportunities. For domestic workers, this (coupled with the condition of their visa whereby they must stay with a named employer) means a high level of economic dependence on their employer. This is an unacceptable position for any woman to be in, denying independence and the freedom to leave a situation they are unhappy in.
For women facing violence in a domestic setting, whether the perpetrator is a partner or employer, the no recourse to public funds requirement forces women to make an incredibly stark choice: continue to stay in the violent situation or face homelessness, destitution and/or exploitation by ‘friends’ and religious organisation offering ‘support’.
Refuges, established to provide a place of safety for survivors of domestic violence, rely on a woman being able to claim housing benefit to cover the cost of their stay. The very principles underpinning the refuge movement are subverted by the immigration restrictions.
Incredibly, women’s organisations have reported cases whereby the police suggested a place in detention for women without recourse to public funds who were facing violence and unable to access a refuge place.
Cuts to public services and to the women’s sector make the situation even more acute. Widespread cuts to ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) courses take away the opportunity for many migrant women to learn English and to meet and share their experiences with others who they trust. In addition, cutting interpretation services in doctor’s surgeries - many surgeries ask migrants who are not confident speaking English to bring a family member with them to interpret- means that women may not be able to disclose their abuse, even when given the opportunity to do so by their doctor or midwife. Cuts to legal aid make it impossible for many women to access the legal support that is necessary to challenge local authority decisions (which are often unlawful). Alongside this, many women’s organisations have had budgets cut to the extent that they are facing closure, including organisations providing specialist services for BME and migrant women.
Under the Domestic Violence rule, women who are on spousal/ civil partner visas, and who can prove their relationship has broken down because of domestic violence, can be granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK. This rule is incredibly restrictive. Firstly, it only applies to one of the groups subject to the no recourse requirement. Secondly, whilst a woman has the legal right to apply for indefinite leave independent of the partner, the application process takes months if not years and she is not eligible for benefits in this period. Thirdly, the evidence required to ‘prove’ that the violence took place is largely dependent on the woman having reported it to the police.
The UK government is highly selective about when it concerns itself with violence against women. Its ‘concern’ about the issue of forced marriage was recently used to justify further restriction on the migration of spouses to join their partners in the UK: predominantly women, and predominantly those from South Asia. In 2008, the government announced its plans to increase the age at which a person could come to join their spouse/ civil partner from 18 to 21. The then Home Secretary Jacqui Smith claimed that this move would help ‘stamp out’ forced marriage, and the physical and sexual violence faced by women in such a marriage.
This ‘concern’ does not however extend to migrant women in the UK who do not have access to public funds. For women in this situation who are facing domestic violence, the ‘choice’ could not be more desperate: continue to face the violence, or risk destitution by leaving, and deportation (for those not on spousal visas). The government chooses not to provide the housing benefit and income support necessary for women in this situation to escape their violent relationships in order to ‘maintain the integrity of the immigration system.’
Where is the integrity here? Our immigration system, and the successive governments who uphold and extend its severity, have neither integrity nor humanity.
Immigration restrictions are not in the interests of any woman. They divide us into citizens/ non-citizens, legal/illegal, wanted/unwanted, relatively safe/ precarious. As feminists, we must fight against these dividing lines, against racism and against borders, for the independence and safety of all women.
Reclaim the Night: a space for all feminists?
The follow text has been sent to the London Feminist Network, lead organisers of the 2009 London Reclaim the Night March:
On 21st Nov 09 Feminist Fightback went as part of a Red Umbrella contingent on the Reclaim the Night March in London. We joined RtN because we are committed to fighting violence against women, and we marched alongside X:talk and the International Union of Sex Workers in solidarity with sex workers organising to fight exploitation in their industry. Nothing in the publicity for the march bans those with our views, nor do we feel our politics to in any way contradict the spirit of an anti-violence march.
Unfortunately, we faced physical harassment and verbal abuse from some people on the march, and were told on a number of occasions that we were not welcome on it. Worse than this, however, was the fact that we were immediately approached and interrogated by the police on arrival – reportedly at the request of one of the stewards. We understand our support for the rights of sex workers to self-organise is at odds with the views of some other groupings in the women’s movement. Yet we were extremely surprised to find that one of the basic principles of feminism (and all social justice movements) was forgotten in this instance – namely, that we never resort to using police aggression to silence and intimidate members of our own movement, no matter how much we may disagree with them.
We strongly hope that this does not set a precedent for the further disintegration of feminism in London. And we are therefore asking London Feminist Network to guarantee that in future the police will not be used against other feminists to close down political debate, and that Reclaim the Night will be a space in which diverse opinions can be expressed. At a time when we face the prospect of a Tory government, threatening to roll out all sorts of further attacks that will have disproportionate effects on women, through public spending cuts and the repressive rhetoric of ‘family values’, it is even more important that we build a movement that can work together on all the issues upon which we agree, and allow room for difference and debate upon those we don’t. We should not be afraid that differences of opinion will block unity in action. In fact it is only by allowing space for diversity of opinion and embracing discussion that our movement will grow.
In Struggle,
Feminist Fightback
Why we joined the Reclaim the Night March:
As the newsletter we distributed at the march clearly stated, Feminist Fightback was on RtN to show our solidarity with ALL women resisting violence in their daily lives. We see the fight against gender-based violence as a central part of any feminist movement. We also wanted to stress that violence against women is not simply an individual problem, but systemic. Our struggle against it cannot be separated from our critique of the nuclear family; immigration controls; religious fundamentalism; the denial of reproductive freedom; the exploitation of our labour; police brutality and military imperialism. In other words, violence against women is not only perpetrated not only by individuals but also by the state.
This was also why we oppose the Metropolitan Police sponsoring the march. Feminists should not place any trust in an institution that clamps down on our right to protest, assaults activists, carries out racist stop-and-search policies, and continues to record domestic violence incidents as ‘no crime’, to name but a few examples. For legal reasons we may have to tolerate their presence on our demonstrations, but we see a march against gender-based violence which actively seeks the support and legitimation of the police to be somewhat farcical.
This, then, is the broader political context in which we, as anti-capitalist feminists, situated our decision to march in a contingent with sex worker organisations. The police harassment and immigration raids faced by the sex workers in Soho, whose workplaces the march passed by, is also a form of violence against women that should not be ignored. The Red Umbrella Contigent was formed after Feminist Fightback’s experiences of joining RtN in 2006 and 2007, when we overheard a number of misogynistic comments against sex workers, who were referred as ‘air heads’ and jeered at as we passed their workplaces, including Spear Mint Rhino. We do not think that it is the explicit intention of the RtN organisers to confront sex workers in this way, but we do think that a feminist march through London’s main red light district can easily fall into the trap of pitching one group of women – ‘feminists’ – against another – ‘sex workers’. We therefore thought it was essential that an anti-violence march in this context had to make feminist solidarity with sex workers heard loud and clear, and a central slogan of the march.
For flyer/newsletter we distributed at RTN (Newsletter November 2009) click here: Or if this link does not work: https://lists.riseup.net/www/d_read/feminist-fightback/
Sex workers stopped the traffick!
On Tuesday 31 April, sex workers and our allies held a successful SPEAK OUT at the Eros Fountain, Piccadilly Circus against criminalisation and for labour rights for everyone who works in the sex industry. At 2.30pm, we took over one of the streets, bringing traffic to a standstill at Piccadilly Circus and unveiled a banner which read ‘SEX WORKERS ARE STOPPING THE TRAFFICK’.
Sex workers took direct action to highlight our opposition to the Policing and Crime Bill.
Speakers at the SPEAK OUT included representatives from the x:talk project, English Collective of Prostitutes, Sex Worker Open University, academics and sex worker rights activists from across Europe.
The issue of human trafficking in the sex industry has been used by the Government and those intent on abolishing the sex industry to justify the further criminalisation of the sex industry. The existing criminalisation of sex work effectively excludes workers in the sex industry from the full protection of the law. Increased criminalisation will further exacerbate this exclusion. All trafficked workers, regardless of the industry in which they work, face gross violations of their rights. Women in the sex industry should not be defined by the area in which they work.
“The Policing and Crime Bill will make it less, not more, safe for us to work, whether as strippers, escorts, working girls, maids or models. It is crucial that sex workers speak out about the current climate in the sex industry of fear, raids, deportation and arrests“ said Ava Caradonna from x:talk.
Ava Caradonna continued, “We also want to highlight the hypocrisy of the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith. Purchases from our industry can find their way into her expense claims, while at the same time she has been leading the Government’s attack on the sex industry.”
The Policing and Crime Bill has passed through the committee stage following two readings in the House of Commons. If passed, this Bill will further criminalise people in the sex industry in the UK, whether they work by CHOICE, CIRCUMSTANCE or COERCION. It criminalises clients, increases penalties for soliciting and imposes measures for forced rehabilitation. It is based on a lack of evidence about the sex industry and has been drafted without taking the views of sex workers and their organisations into account.
This event was been called by x:talk in partnership with the Sex Worker Open University and supported by Feminist Fightback.
photo’s from the action are available on flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/xtalk_project.
More info: xtalk.classes@gmail.com