Monthly Archives: October 2013

Judges Attack (Women’s Voice, 1977)

Standard

IMG_1511

Since fewer people are marrying and more living together permanently the 1966 Domestic Violence Act extended protection to the unmarried woman living with a man as husband and wife in the same household.

LAST month three Lord Justices decided in their anti-feminist bigotry o drive a coach and horses through the recent legal gains won for battered women.

The case concerned an unmarried woman who was battered by the man she has lived with for ten years, the father of her two children. They are joint tenants of their council house. A County Court ordered him to vacate their council house and stop molesting her, in line with the new Domestic Violence Act.

But the man appealed against the court decision, won the appeal, so that now the woman and kids have nowhere to live, except with him!

How the hell is it possible that women’s legal rights are so blatantly ripped up before the ink has barely dried on the statute book?

In Women’s Voice (August issue) we warned that precisely because this legislation was an important gain for women, the Judges would try and over-rule some sections of the Act.

The explanation of the judges is a technical one. This new legislation which recognises the rights of the unmarried ‘wife’ clashes with existing matrimonial law (relating to properly married people) and their Lordships decided that elaborate legislative code couldn’t be undermined.

The battle for battered women’s rights on paper was won… but the war goes on.

Nina Gosling

Women’s Voice 11, November 1977

Advertisements

Frighten them, drug them or shock them… (Women’s Voice, 1977)

Standard

IMG_1512

MY PROBLEMS had their origin in my upbringing – of course.

The initial damage was done at home, and then it was reinforced by years of being a ‘charity’ pupil in a convent. There every flickering of individuality and independent thought was crushed as a matter of policy.

My doctor sent me to an ‘expert’ because I was having crying fits after having two operations in a year, and because I suffered from lapses of awareness. I would ‘come to’ in the middle of the road, feeling lost and disoriented.

I wonder how many years of training it took to create this expert on mental health? I wonder how big a salary he gets for saying, as he said to me, ‘You’re a student, eh? Fancy teachings about sociology and psychology, eh? I suppose they’ve been teaching you that freedom stuff. I don’t hold with that. What you are is genetically determined. There’s nothing I can do for you.’

The sum time of that bit of ‘treatment’ was two minutes, including the time it took me to go in and out of the room.

When I left that ‘psychiatric unit’ I walked straight in front of a car. I can remember the screeching brakes. I remember feeling grazed and hearing shouting, but to this day I don’t know where I was for the next 89 hours.

I had to leave the degree course I was on – and I’d grafted years at night-school to get on that course.

I struggled through a few years of mundane office and factory work with the help of fags and booze and occasional drugs. Then I just caved in.

I found I would just work and then go home to bed. I spent my weekends in bed. I was unwilling to go near the medical profession because from experience I knew they had three basic solutions to people’s problems: frighten them, drug them, shock them.

Eventually I became unable to get out of bed at all, and my husband called in the doctor. He gave me drugs which left me in constant sleep.

When I took overdoses, the hospital doctor asked me if I didn’t feel silly putting them to all that trouble. I told him that I used to be an auxiliary nurse and that I knew he might be overworked, but it was no good trying to make me feel guilty about that! I guessed from his reaction that he wasn’t used to such an attitude in his patients.

I turned to private ‘therapists’, who didn’t know an arse from an elbow, but who certainly knew a ten pound note from a fiver.

Then three things happened.

I read the books of Arthur Janov, where he describes that human beings are not naturally destructive, aggressive, grasping and frantic. It’s the way we are screwed up that causes us to suppress our true nature and needs – leading to tension and neurosis. Uninterfered with, we would be peaceful and co-operative. We survive at the price of conformity to false, imposed values, the values of those who have power over us.

The second thing that happened to me was that I met a woman psychologist who wasn’t interested in lining her pockets. She related to people as feeling individuals with unmet needs, not as morally inferior deviants who threaten society’s order.

The third thing was the construction of a ‘shelter’ of mattresses and bedding where, in cushioned, sound-proofed surroundings, I can experience all those suppressed pains of stifled individuality and needs.

The more I experienced the suppressed ME, the more I got rid of the imposed muck.

A warning though, this shouldn’t be undertaken without some supervision. It’s a long and painful process. But where are people to have such treatment and be psychologically liberated?

Where are the ‘feeling-centres’ where in-touch therapists can assist us? Where we do most of the treatment ourselves, helping each other to feel and express our most deep-felt needs, so they are no longer blocked and filling us with tension?

Such an approach calls for taking away much of the almighty power and control of the doctors and ‘experts’. That needs to be done. It is our lives, our sanity that are threatened. It is our needs to be whole and happy human beings. Treatment should be in our interests, with our full and willing participation.

I’ve spent two years slowly and painfully dismantling the phoney me that was conditioned into being for the sake of survival and acceptance. I’ve come a long way. During that time I’ve read Socialist Worker and other socialist publications, keeping in touch with the struggles against repression and for freedom, more and more convinced of the necessity for people to control their own lives.

The freedom of the capitalists stinks. It’s the selling out of true individuality to the man-made symbols of profit and prestige – the ‘freedom’ to crush one’s fellow beings.

The we’ll-provide-it-for-you reformers have missed the point.

Freedom isn’t given. Freedom is what we naturally and automatically have, individually and socially, until someone starts defining our freedom for us and imposing their own limitations on its expression.

By Marie, from Manchester

Women’s Voice 12, December 1977

This Crumby Twilight Shift takes the Biscuit (Women’s Voice, 1978)

Standard

IMG_1513

I work the twilight shift, 5.15 to 9.45 at night in Gray Dunn’s biscuit factory. Twilight shifts are supposed to be of great benefit to women with children who want to go out to work, but who would think that 24 hours could revolve around 4 ½ hours on the conveyer belt?

My family life is practically nil. All my time is taken up with organising my life to suit my job. The only time I see my husband is for one hour at night when we are both tired. He often has to work overtime at the weekends to.

I get up at 7.45 and get Sean, my oldest boy, ready for school. Monday, Wednesday and Friday are more hectic than usual as these are playgroup days for Julie, my other child. You would have thought this would give me a bit of a break, but it only lasts from 9.30 to 11.30 and there is hardly time to get back home in between. So I just stay there.

I get home with Julie after 12, make the lunch, rush through the day’s housework in time for Sean to come home from school at 3pm. I give him a quick snack and then get both of them ready to take to my mother-in-laws’s for 3.50, in time for me to start my shift.

There are about 400 women working on the twilight shift. It’s the time when they can get out and leave their husbands to look after the kids. But there’s no peace either in the conveyor belt. This factory works 24 hours, non-stop production. You need to be able to lip read to survive, the machinery is so noisy. The building is antiquated, safety standards are at a minimum, and there’s little protective clothing.

Because the union is very weak in the factory there is little consultation between the shop stewards and the workers, no union meetings and there are no shop stewards at all for some sections. There is no provision for union meetings during working hours so for us it is impossible to ever got to a meeting anyway. No wonder women workers are uninterested in the union. All of this makes it very difficult for those of us who would like to see a change.

One way I see of solving this is by informing women of what is really going on in the factory, and what their rights are. This can be done by producing Womens Voice leaflets encouraging women to take part in union activities and so feel less isolated.

We have already done this in some women’s factories in Glasgow and we’re going to do in mine after this article has started the ball rolling!

A biscuit worker

Glasgow Womens Voice

Women’s Voice 13, January 1978

Taking the Children to Work (Women’s Voice, 1980)

Standard

wvissue40

Harriet Sherwood talks to Lorraine Huddle

STATE NURSERIES are rapidly becoming a thing of the past. The inadequate provision which existed this time a year ago has been decimated as part of the Government’s cuts in public spending.

Most unions have negotiated maternity rights in the last five years. These vary considerably, but allow mothers the right to return to their jobs having had a child-although the Tory Employment Bill plans to change that in some workplaces. This right is useless unless some kind of childcare for the under fives is provided.

Inadequate state provision has led some unions to negotiate for workplace nurseries. Criticism of this kind of childcare is strong-from both trade unionists and employers. Trade unionists have argued that it is the state’s responsibility to provide nurseries, and that workplace nurseries tie parents to jobs. Employers have also said that it is the state’s job to provide childcare, but for a different reason: they don’t want the respon- sibility, financial or otherwise. But for many working mothers, or would-be mothers, the chance of a workplace nursery is the only chance they have.

In 1975 (the latest available figures) there were 90 workplace nurseries, “providing places for 2,571 children-less than one in a hundred of under-fives.

Kingsway Children’s Centre has been open for two and a half years, although negotiations lasted for’ two years before that. The idea was to set up a workplace nursery for the children of trade union workers in the area. although now NALGO is the only trade union employer involved.

Lorraine Huddle, whose two year old daughter is at the nursery, was involved in the negotiations. ‘l can’t say we needed to fight very hard for the nursery’, she says. ‘The employers were very shrewd-they didn’t want to lose their professional women workers who had decided to have children.

‘Lots of women wanted to have children but even though the Employment Protection Act was in force they couldn’t return to work because there were no child care facilities.’

Estimating demand was a problem. lt’s easy enough to find how many mothers would prefer a workplace nursery to their present arrangements, and how many women are planning to have children in the foreseeable future; but it is impossible to estimate how many mothers do not work because of the lack of facilities.

Kingsway Children’s Centre provides 30 places, and about a third of those are reserved for ‘babies’ (children under two years old). It is run by a committee of staff and parent representatives and is financed partly by the employers, who pay two thirds of the total running costs, and the parents. The fees work :nut to £65 a month for employees, which, as Lorraine points out, is fairly prohibitive for low paid workers.

The nursery is called a children’s centre because it combines day care with education. ‘Most parents agree that their children have learnt skills such as talking and co-ordination at a very early age,’ says Lorraine. ‘The nursery stresses ‘non-sexist education and provides a stimulating environment.’

But the Kingsway nursery is not without problems. A recent blow was the closing of Covent Garden Community Gardens, which was the only decent piece of greenery in that part of London. An office block is being built in its place.

One of the disadvantages of a workplace nursery is the travelling involved. Bringing a two year old into central London in the rush hour can’t be much fun, and Lorraine thinks this is one reason why the demand for places at the Kingsway nursery isn’t as high as expected.

‘Quite honestly l’d rather have my child in a state nursery’, says Lorraine.

‘But l can’t see much possibility of that now. The Tories are bent on chopping nurseries along with hospitals, jobs, housing – the list is endless. You can’t isolate nurseries; fighting for them goes hand in hand with fighting for all the other things we need, and fighting against the whole crazy system by which our society is run.’

The first hurdle, in some workplaces, will be persuading the union to campaign for a nursery at all. The notion that it is ‘outside the union’s scope of work’ is fairly common in some of the traditionally male dominated trade unions. The issue of childcare may need a lot of lobbying from women within the union before negotiations even begin with the employers.

Trying to assess demand can be a problem. lf you use a questionnaire you have to remember that the need for a nursery may also extend to men. It’s impossible to discover what the future demand will be, in terms of mothers who cannot work now because there is no-one to look after the children. But in 1972 37.2 per cent of women who couldn’t work said they would return to work if child care facilities were available.

Most successfully negotiated workplace nurseries are in buildings or rooms which have at one time been nurseries-so it is worth looking out for an empty one.

Many employers are reluctant to take on sole responsibility for providing a nursery, and often the demand is not high enough in one workplace to justify it.

The answer to this is to find out if other unions/workplaces in your area are interested in participating in a scheme.

If the employers agree to setting up a nursery it is important that the union is involved in the organisation and, later. the general administration of the nursery. For example the union should help decide the initial pay of the nursery workers.

If a workplace nursery is not possible because of a scattered workforce, or a suitable location can’t be found, then consider pressing for a nursery/childminder subsidy from the employer.

Most important. a nursery campaign shouldn’t be isolated from a general campaign for better opportunities for women.

Women’s Voice 41, May 1980

 

Slender sexpots or bulging beauties? (Women’s Voice, 1974)

Standard

wv

SLIMMING FIRMS love fat people. It sounds stupid till you think about it. They also love thin people who think they are fat. The reason is that fat people can be made to worry. And worried people can be persuaded to buy. Every year the slimming industry turns over £50 million in Britain alone. If you’ve read the adverts, you’ll know the extravagant claims they make, but you may not know that many have long ago been exposed as a complete fraud. You many have read the Food Standards’ report that proved ‘slimming’ bread is no less fattening than ordinary bread, it only costs more.

Most notorious are the ‘sweat-it-off’ brand products, including Stephanie Bowman garments and those ridiculous ‘Trimjeans’ – inflatable plastic Bermuda shorts, in which you have to perform some strenuous exercises. (But you can also wear them about your garden and home, and kill off your family).

It has been proved that doing the same exercises has the same effect, with or without ‘Trimjeans’. If you really work at it, you temporarily lose a very little weight. What Trimjeans claim is to lose you lots of inches. It’s a clever con-trick. You may lose them from one part of your body, but if you look a little further you’ll find they’ve just moved on to cling somewhere else. What you lose on the swings you gain on the roundabouts, so to speak.

The only way to slim is to eat less over a long period of time. It is dangerous to cut out one particular kind of food, even carbohydrates. Crash diets are useless. If you become able to lose weight very quickly, then you also become able to put on weight very quickly. Your weight becomes volatile. And that’s what keeps the slimming firms ticking over. But there’s something worse than fraudulent adverts and over-priced sweat garments. Some slimming products can do serious damage to your health, and slimming can kill you.

Many slimming aids come in the form of pills. These are made of all kinds of glucose, drugs and laxatives. Taking any of them for a period longer than three months can be dangerous, yet there are no warnings, and the pills are sold freely over the counter, often to very young girls. Some of the pills are amphetimines, which act on your central nervous system. Some are barbiturates. You should avoid both at all costs, because they are addictive.

Some of the pills are anorectic, which means they act to depress your appetite, and this can affect your blood pressure. Many appetite depressants and meal substitute biscuits are made up of methyl cellutose, which swells up inside you to make you feel full, and also possibly sick and dizzy. The swelling methyl cellulose can irritate the walls of your stomach. There is some debate as to whether it can cause cancer. Other pills activate your thyroid gland, to speed up your body functions in the hope that you will burn up fat. You are more likely to burn up your system and your nerves.

Laxatives

As for laxative, you can see the crude logic involved. Presumably the food is meant to shoot through you before it can turn to fat. Prolonged use of laxative is very harmful, and there is no proof to show that they have any long-term slimming effect.

All these products come under fancy trade names. The women who take them may also be under medication from their doctors for some illness, and the different pills could act on one another. Or they may be taking pills over a long period without ever knowing what is in them, or what harm they can do.

One of the spin-offs of the slimming business is a disease called ‘anorexia-nervosa’. This particularly effects young girls, who become obsessed with losing weight to such an extent that they enter a nervous sate where they just cannot eat. A typical victim of this disease was a school girl who lost a pound a day till she was under five stones, and then she died. The disease was not unknown before the cult of slimming, but it has increased rapidly in the last few years. At the very least, it causes extreme disorientation of your mind and body, and you are liable to end up in hospital.

The slimming bosses don’t concern themselves with such problems so long as the money keeps rolling in. No one asks you when you buy these pills whether you are epileptic, whether you are already taking tranquilisers or other pills, or if you really know  what you are buying.

Weight watchers

One branch of the industry might be called its psychological war-far wing. Slimming clubs. Weight Watches, a secretive organisation more like a Masonic league, founded by Professor W. H. Sebrall Junior, and introduced to Britain in 1967. You pay about £1 a session and 30,000 people have coughed up so far. Then Silhouette Club, with 34,000 members; and Weight Checkers International, launched in ‘Woman’ magazine, with 35,000 members. The Slimming magazine club, linked with the Daily Mirror Sliming club claims 12,600 members.

At the end of the list come all the small operations through the country with their own diet sheets and individual methods of public shame. One club in Great Yarmouth, for instance, publishes a list of all the members who have put on weight each week in the local newsagents window. Often the big firms run on a franchise system. The person who pays to use the name and run the club also pockets the fines imposed on over-fat members.

But then, if you’re very rich, you certainly won’t want to take such a tedious road to the body beautiful. Women’s Voice readers may not believe this, but you can now buy private cosmetic surgery where you have parts of your superfluous body fact actually carved off. The operation takes four hours or more, and it leaves major scars, but they try to make it so the scars come under your bikini. If you’ve still got a few hundred pounds to spare after that, you can have a tube put inside you which by-passes the small intestine. It’s called a jejuno-colic shunt, and it shunts the food you can’t stop eating right out of you again. And did you know, in America some rich women are even having tape worms inserted into them, to keep them thin. Enough said!!

Obscene

The biggest obscenity imaginable is that all this takes place in a world where masses of people are starving – some of them in the so-called affluent societies of the West. In Britain we are now down to our 1953 eating standards because of the fantastic rise in food prices. On a world scale, hunger and malnutrition are a gigantic problem. It could be solved. All the wasted technology that goes into making multi-flavoured slimming products could be set to work to solve it. If the people of Bangladesh had had enough money to shore up their river banks there wouldn’t be flood and famine and cholera there now.

If you had control of the food industry, would you persuade everyone  in Britain to eat 120lb of harmful white sugar a yar, and then con them into buying slimming products too? Or would you try to make sure that everyone had a decent nutritious diet? We’ll never have the chance to make that decision till we squeeze Mr Cube and his mates out of existence. Till we stop worrying about our own fat, and start planning to take back the fat profit that swells and bulges in the coffers of our rulers.

Women’s Voice, paper series, 12 (1974?)

Sixteen rape myths

Standard

slutwalk

By Bolshie Elane

It is an uncomfortable fact that sexual harassment and violence take place within trade unions, the Labour Party and within left parties. In a depressing catalogue in recent years Labour counsellors have been jailed for rape; an employment tribunal for sexual harassment was taken against the general secretary of NAPO and accusations made against the deputy general secretary of the RMT and the Socialist Party and the Socialist Workers Party has been accused of covering up sexual harassment, assault and rape by leading members.

The rape & sexual harassment allegations in the SWP centred on how allegations against a member of the Central Committee were dealt with. The arguments have been bitter because everyone who joins the SWP is determined to make a world without exploitation and oppression and all sides in the dispute want to see women’s liberation. I left the SWP because of this in the autumn of 2010. I could not reconcile the socialist politics I learned in the SWP, with what was happening around me in response to the CC being made aware that a young woman was distraught that sexual harassment she had first asked for help to stop in 2009 had begun again.

Since that day I have been trying to understand what has gone wrong and why such good socialists should turn out to be such difficult human beings devoid of solidarity or understanding, who could slander the complaints (yes there are more than one) with such callous disregard or who could simply say, “I am not interested in that stuff—the important thing is to fight this government who are wrecking women’s lives”[1].

I don’t think that this began as a conspiracy of cover-up in the SWP –although I feel that there is one now that the issue is doing ongoing damage and other stories are beginning to emerge. I certainly do not think that ”Leninism-leads-to-rape” as many to the right of the SWP  like to portray-although the apologists have done their best to prove me wrong on that by arguing this is about Leninism and not rape and sexual harassment.

The issue is truly that my comrades are not able to recognise sexual harassment hiding in plain sight because they accept some rape myths. They therefore handle the cases badly and in answer to criticism claim that trying to stop problems of oppressive behaviour between comrades is an attack on Leninism or a political deviation. In doing so, they unwittingly peddle rape myths.

A rape myth is an inaccurate belief about rape. Widespread acceptance of rape myths is connected to the very low level of convictions for rape by influencing the low level of reporting by women, the way police &  courts respond and how cases are judged by jurors[2]. There are several types of rape myths that feed into the big myth that women often make false reports. Categories of myths include those relating to why rapists rape; relating to what a someone who is raped wears/acts like; relating to when a rape is reported; related to how someone who has been raped acts/appears in the aftermath and more.

It seems from the literature that people often subscribe to different kinds of myth. We should keep that in mind for trying to understand why sections of the working class movement as a whole, or individuals within it, can rightly and angrily rail against some rape myths and then fall for others—even to the extent of giving a man accused by a young woman a foot stomping standing ovation when he trots out cliché after cliché about the accusations that angry women make after consensual relations go wrong.

Unsurprisingly, research shows that those who hold prejudicial views towards women, other races, gay people etc are especially prone to believing rape myths[3].  That rape mythology should be prevalent amongst bigots fits with our understanding of the world. But being on the left does not make us immune to rape myths and interestingly, the research also finds that older people are more likely to accept myths about rape than younger people[4]

It is my firm conviction, knowing so many of the SWP members who so brutally messed up the W case and it seems at least one more complaint since, would never consciously trample the rights or well-being of women into the dust in the way that they have done. But the ignorance on the issue of rape is harmful. Nothing at all that is helpful to the cause of women’s liberation or socialism has resulted from the three years of horrible rows within the SWP, the trade union cases or that in the Socialist Party. Who has learned anything about how to challenge within ourselves the bits of dominant sexist ideas about sex and sexuality that we have internalised?

In trying to debunk the rape myths, I am concentrating on what I know. My writing this in no way suggests that I think the SWP is worse than other organisations, it is just that I don’t have knowledge of what went on in response to the charges against people in other parties or at the top of unions.

The SWP was my organisation for 30 years and I am proud of the politics of solidarity and resistance I learned in it.  My belief is that a small band of friends of the accused have systematically spread rape myths—each one that I address is one I have heard personally since 2010.

MYTH ONE: Sexual history with the accused or others is in some way relevant

The myth that these things have anything at all to do with a rape is widespread and pernicious—having a vile history of being raised to abuse women in the courts and create the idea that a woman’s relationship history is in some way connected to the defence case. Believing this myth has an effect on coming to a verdict of who is believed among the general public[5].

The truth: sexual history is no indicator of anything. Having had sex a hundred times before with someone is not permission for sex at any time you don’t want to. Starting foreplay is not an excuse for rape. Since most accusations of rape come down to the question of whose word is believed as there is most often no physical proof or confession.  Research shows that in making that decision, jurors, rely on their general assumptions about situations.  That the panel asked any questions at all of W shows a lack of understanding of what issues are relevant to investigating the actual incident of rape.

The danger: bias is an unconscious process. Revolutionary socialists committed to women’s liberation don’t live in the future but in this world of alienation and oppression and are weighed down by the “muck of ages”. The panel investigating the W case were sure that they were not biased. However, that the panel were thinking about previous behaviours and relationships in relation to assessing the reliability of W as a witness indicates some bias towards rape myths.

MYTH TWO: She didn’t complain at the time…

One of the commonest rape myths is that a failure to complain at the time means there is something dodgy about the complaint. “She changed her mind afterwards” is a widespread myth related to the sometimes years long gap before a complaint is made of rape, sexual assault or sexual harassment.

I have lost count of the times that “But why now? Why didn’t she say anything at the time?” was thrown at me when I spoke privately to longstanding members about the W case in 2010. The question was often anguished but always rhetorical and answered immediately by the questioner themselves. Occasionally, very angry people would answer by saying “she was angry with him for ending the relationship” but most often the question was followed by speculation that demoralisation about politics was in some way related and had caused a political confusion about sexism and sexual harassment.

Very senior SWP women on a number of occasions told me that the reason why I was speaking of my own very disturbing experience of sexual harassment at the  time in 2010 that I found out about W was that I was feeling demoralised because I was being victimised at work for my militant trade union activities.  In the case of X (the young woman who gave evidence of being sexually harassed herself to support the claims of W) the argument went that late reporting was a clear sign of making a malicious allegation and this was evidenced in the minds of those repeating the myth because she was seen as being in no way vulnerable and therefore would have spoken up at the time.

The Truth:  Most sexual harassment and rape are never reported.  In rapes that are reported many are reported long after the event-and for a variety of reasons. Women often believe rape myths and are influenced by them and confused about what they feel; they may be in shock for some time or they may decide to come forward when others do.

The length of a gap before reporting rape or SH is not related to whether or not it is true. This is why section 120(7)(d) Criminal Justice Act which had required reporting sexual violence, “as soon as could reasonably be expected after the alleged conduct” was abolished in 2003 after a struggle by anti-rape campaigners to debunk the myth oft cited by defendants. I reported being sexually harassed at the time it happened. Nothing was done and I , having internalised myths myself, was made to feel stupid, I never spoke about it again until in 2010 when I realised what happened to me was not an isolated incident. But I did spend nearly 30 years being on edge whenever I saw the harasser.

The damage: every person who felt that delay in bringing the complaint was an issue in the W and X cases was prejudiced towards dismissing the claims of the young women and unable to properly consider the issues involved.

MYTH THREE: “but they were having an affair”

The phrase, “it was an affair gone wrong,” has echoed in my ears for three long years in regard to the W case.  The myth that prior consent in some way negates the assault or lessens the damage is of course what Socialist Worker along with the rest of the left, rightly took George Galloway to task for. However, people I have always respected have repeated this to me earnestly as an explanation for why there was no assault, sometimes adding the opinion that this was an unhappy vengeful young woman.

One person even explained to me carefully that, “it often happens that one of the people in a relationship don’t feel like having sex but decides they will because their partner really really wants to… I understand that is what happened in this case and then she later felt bad that she had given in and said yes.”   This is a version of the rape is just sex in the wrong time/wrong place myth.

The truth:  Having an affair is irrelevant. Prior consent is not consent at the time.  Most rapes take place within a relationship of some kind. Studies vary but date rape is sometimes put as high as 57%. Many rapes take place in marriage and we, the women’s movement and left, fought long and hard make that a crime.

Making someone have sex that didn’t want to have sex is rape-whether violence or not force is used, which it often is in subtle ways as it happens[6].  Research shows that verbal and physical clues are often expected by men especially where sex has previously taken place between them while the young women themselves think a verbal no is sufficient to be understood[7].

The damage of this myth: every person who accepted that the prior relationship had some relevance to the complaint of rape was prejudiced against the complainant and unable to judge properly if it had been properly handled

MYTH FOUR: “but she is in the opposition and is just making mischief

This has been said about X on many occasions to me directly and to others who have reported it to me.  Recent research argues that prejudice about women based on their behaviour, attitudes, dress etc is extremely harmful and biases juries[8].  It appears that for some in the SWP the same is true of political positions.

The truth: it wouldn’t make any difference if X were a Tory. Sexual harassment is wrong.

The damage: treating women members as sex objects hampers the development of the party, puts women off being members, brings the party into disrepute and amounts to wallowing around in the muck of ages crying moralist at anyone who complains.

MYTH FIVE: “Some women make it up”

That large numbers of women make up allegations is a common myth. A recent study found that 40.2% of the 3,210 participants thought accusations of rape were often false.  That W and X both made up complaints and put false accusations is something I have heard over and again. I have had people openly tell me, “I know nothing serious happened”; “some women do make it up you know” and “she had reasons to want to attack him”.

The truth: the highest estimates of false reports are 8%, but the generally accepted figure is that false reports are around the same as for other offences i.e. 4%. A recent report by the Crown Prosecution Service says that it could be as low as 1%[9]-significantly lower than other offences.  There is no reason to believe that the young women reporting sexual harassment (X) or rape (W) are lying. In the case of W she made no allegations to take revenge—she initially in 2010 simply disappeared from spaces where the man she later accused might be and became very upset, leading other women to approach the CC in concern when they found out why. The man accused admitted continuing to send texts when it was made clear she didn’t want contact. There can be no justification for claiming W was acting in revenge, or lying.

The damage:  Responding to a complaint of rape by saying, “some women make it up” makes clear that there bias against the complainant—and therefore bias towards the word of the man. This bias is illogical since in at least 92% of cases, and maybe in 99%, the report is not false.  The belief that false reporting of rape takes place is dangerous. Estimates are that about 85% of rapes go unreported Fear of being disbelieved is the reason most commonly given for the vast underreporting.

MYTH SIX: One woman’s rape is another’s  bad night/it’s a matter of interpretation

Myths about rape are held by women as much as men. A recent survey showed that 1 in 3 women believed that there are varying degrees of rape[10]  and that if a woman hadn’t clearly said no, then it was not rape.

The finding of the SWP disputes committee that the complainant was sincere, i.e. it is not doubted that she was genuinely unhappy with the sexual acts that took place but the accused had not done anything wrong appears to be based on the rape myths about reinterpretation/misinterpretation of experience. That the complaint was an issue of reinterpretation or of over sensitivity is absolutely widespread among those in the SWP “loyalist” camp. The idea of exaggeration and reinterpretation of events was also a theme in the Socialist Party case and in the NAPO case. I was shocked recently to be told, “You know that saying, ‘one woman’s rape is another’s bad night?’ well that is true. It is about how you deal with events”.

Again there is a special version of the myth in which reinterpretation is located in political deviation and weakness. Several women have told me that it is a political choice how to interpret these “messy” situations and arguing that women don’t always make it clear or “give in” and then wish they had not. I have even been told, “She (W) was taught to view it through feminist eyes and now feels used” or some such on several occasions.  I have even heard it said that I was the person who taught her to misinterpret her experience and change her mind about it[11].

The truth:  that saying about a bad night is from Katie Rophie who argued in the mid 1990s that women were making too much fuss about date rape on US campuses especially. She pointed to the way in which different tags were given to the same sorts of experience of having sex when they didn’t want to. Some women understood what happened to them to be rape and others just put it down to (bad) experience. Rophie could find no significant difference in the experiences and argued that women needed to be stronger. At the time the SWP said this was an oppressive idea.

It is important that when it comes to one person’s word against another’s, especially when dealing with teenage women, there is evidence that particularly in the case of young women that a no is not taken seriously unless both verbal and physical signals are strongly given while the men don’t hear/see/understand the no clearly given[12]

Sex with someone who doesn’t want to—where you are aware they don’t want to, or don’t care if they want to or not, or don’t bother to listen to them/take note of the obvious physical pulling away etc–is rape.

How a woman responds to that is about her personal experiences of life, her unconscious defence mechanisms and many other individual factors. It can be affected by her understanding of various rape myths and self blame etc[13].  The myriad of different responses to rape and coping with it do not change the fact sex without consent is rape.

The damage: peddling such myths does real damage to the personal wellbeing of victims and makes it more likely that perpetrators will feel safe to abuse while women will feel unsafe to report. It makes many angry as what appears to be being said is that W is not able to know her own mind and is unable to judge if she gave consent or not.

MYTH SEVEN: “There are two sides to the story”,  

I have often been told, “There are two sides to this. I can’t chose one” and “You weren’t in the bedroom so why are you taking her side” by people arguing that the man accused did nothing wrong.

Indeed there are two sides. The accused in the W and X cases was given a super long contribution in the discussion about his remaining on the CC in January 2011 following the initial allegation of sexual harassment.  Speakers were called to talk about what a good comrade he was[14].  Leading women such as Julie Waterson[15] and Shelia McGreggor spoke of how everyone was alienated and had skeletons in their cupboards. A standing ovation followed.  After her complaint of rape was finally made and she felt able to do it, W asked to speak to the conference where the handling of the complaint was discussed last year. She was refused that right.

The truth: statistically there is at least a 92% chance that the woman complaining is telling the truth. To argue there are two sides to the story and that therefore the man must remain a member of a socialist organisation in good standing, is to pick a side as no sane person would argue that someone in a position of power they thought had engaged in an oppressive & violent behaviour towards a rank and file member should remain in good standing.  After the evidence in the second case was given in, the man left the SWP without responding to the charges. There was at least a 92% chance of him being guilty on that occasion too.

MYTH EIGHT: Drink and drugs were/might have been involved

The women making complaints were asked about drink and drugs in ways they felt prejudicial[16].  The rape myth goes, “she was drunk/had taken drugs. She didn’t mind at the time-but changed her mind when she sobered up”.  It is a commonly held myth used to attack women and in particular to give credibility to the accused claiming that they assumed consent[17].  Socialist worker supporters rightly reacted with fury in 1982 when a judge told a young woman who had been raped that she was guilty of “contributory negligence”-now young women feel they are accused of the same.

The truth:  having sex with someone who is so incapacitated they cannot consent is a crime.  Having sex with someone unable to articulate resistance who does not want to have sex—is a crime. These are not crimes because the bourgeois state wanted them to be. The women’s movement, backed by the left, fought to smash that myth.  It is shocking to most people on the left that these questions are even asked in any context other than to enquire if the accused had deliberately tried to get the complainant too incapacitated to resist.

The damage: if the disputes committee did not make themselves aware of all the possible issues of unconscious bias prior to hearing the cases involving their friend and/or close working companion, they cannot rule out that the powerful effects of the myths around alcohol consumption were not at play. That they asked the questions indicates that in fact it was to some extent.

Some special myths circulating in the SWP:

MYTH NINE: “I don’t listen to gossip”

This appears to be ‘the line’. I have heard it repeatedly for several years.  The idea that accusations of rape and sexual harassment are gossip is a myth.  The truth is that they are accusations that socialists should listen to and respond to, with solidarity and care.  To proclaim complaints of rape and sexual harassment as gossip shows a frightening ignorance of rape and the damage it does and a callous disregard for the rights of young women to equality and respect.

MYTH TEN: “I don’t listen to gossip because I trust the disputes committee who investigated”

There is no other political debate question arising in the SWP in which members are encouraged to think something because someone told them to. The DC is of course made up of ethical and trustworthy people. This does not mean they have no unconscious bias or have a fully rounded well thought out understanding of all the issues around sexual harassment and rape.  It is not good enough, when women are crying out for justice and unhappy with the way they have been treated, for people not to think for themselves about DC decision, and whether they might be influenced by rape myths. 

MYTH ELEVEN: “It doesn’t matter that the disputes committee all knew the accused. The question was decided according to our politics”

It is unfortunate that instead of deciding if the man accused of rape by W and sexual harassment by X was fit to be a member of the party—the only thing that they should have considered, they made a decision as to whether or not he had raped W.  This could only be done by deciding whose account of events was believed. Research has demonstrated that that this judgement of credibility[18] is more likely to be based on personal biases and attitudes than what a witness says.  In this context the panel being friends of the accused is a serious problem.

MYTH TWELVE: “But they all care about women’s liberation and one of them is a rape counsellor”

I do not dispute for one second the personal integrity of the people on the committee.  However, sadly it seems from the questions about drink and partying and other comments, they are not immune to rape myths and acceptance of rape myths have been shown to have a detrimental effect on the ability to make judgements on the issue of rape and sexual harassment.[19]

That one of the panel says she is a rape counsellor is misleading as it might imply that the woman is in some way fully trained and accredited as a rape counsellor.  She is not accredited with any counselling organisation at the time of writing and does not list being a trained counsellor anywhere in her profiles on Rapar or LinkedIn. It is therefore misleading to imply that her training ensures that questions asked were appropriate and especially not ethical. Counsellors anyway have nothing to do with investigations and no training in how to investigate.

MYTH THIRTEEN: This isn’t about rape it is an attack on our politics

There is no doubt that huge numbers of people from across the political spectrum have criticised the SWP and many have connected the way the cases have been handled to the general organisation of the party. But the idea that the complaints and anyone angry about what has happened made it up to attack the SWP is a myth. This is not as one particularly crazed friend of the accused argued, the Scottsboro boys.

The truth young women feel violated and harassed and complained to the party about the behaviour of fellow members. Complaining about rape is always about rape

MYTH FOURTEEN: The party dealt well with other cases and has expelled men accused of rape before

That there were previous processes where the women felt supported is somehow proof that nothing is wrong in the recent cases is a myth. That there was good behaviour in the past has no more relevance to this bad process than previous sexual history has to the incident of a rape. Possibly the DC has never had to confront its own unconscious bias before—no previous case resulting in expulsion has involved someone who was known to, friends with, had worked closely with, been arrested with etc. 

MYTH FIFTEEN: Our organiser is a young woman-the party is the only party that develops women to lead

The existence of women playing all sorts of roles in the party has absolutely no relevance to the problems surrounding the cases and the way they were handled.  The research has shown that women are also prone to believing rape myths even if to a lesser extent than men—that is what it means to grow up in a society in which the dominant ideas are those of the ruling class. Also Thatcher was a woman which obviously was not relevant to defending the lives of other, working class, women.

MYTH SIXTEEN: I am not interested in this stuff, the key thing is to fight the Coalition/ for the NHS/for socialism.

Which goes alongside of no one in my anti-bedroom tax/union branch cares about this gossip.

The Truth: an organisation, whether political party or trade union, that allows the abuse of women to go unchallenged is an organisation that will miss out on having in its ranks many of those it needs to make a better future for us all.  In the past many tenants associations did not have BME representation or deal with racists in the meetings—the struggle for tenant’s rights was weakened as a result.

References

Anderson et al, 1997; Individual differences and attitudes toward rape: A meta analytic review, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 23(3),

Barter, C et al, 2009, Partner Exploitation and Violence in Teenage Intimate Relationships, NSPCC, London

BPP Working Paper, November 2012, Do Rape Myths Affect Juror Decision Making? BPP, London

Hird, M. J. (2000) An empirical study of adolescent dating aggression, Journal of Adolescence, 23,  pp69–78

Levitt, A & CPS (2013) Charging Perverting the Course of Justice and Wasting Police Time in Cases Involving Allegedly False Rape and Domestic Violence Allegations

McGee et al, 2011, Rape and child sexual abuse:  What beliefs persist about motives, perpetrators, and survivors.  Journal of Interpersonal Violence 26(17),

Rape Crisis, 2013; accessed at http://www.womensviewsonnews.org/2013/09/rape-crisis-and-reveal-campaign-together/

Schuller R. A., & Wall, A. (1998). The effects of defendant and complainant intoxication on mock jurors’ judgments of sexual assault.; Psychology Of Women Quarterly  22(4)

Schuller , R A & Klippenstein M, 2004, The Impact Of Complainant Sexual History Evidence on Jurors’ Decisions: Considerations From A Psychological Perspective,  Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 2004, Vol. 10, No. 3, 321–342

Suarez, E., & Gadalla, T. M. (2010). Stop blaming the victim: A meta analysis on rape myths, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(11), 2035

Taylor and Joudo, 2005, The Impact of Pre-recorded Video and Closed Circuit Television Testimony by Adult Sexual

Assault Complainants on Jury Decision-making: An Experimental Study Australian Institute of Criminology

Research and Public Policy Series 68.


[1] Said to me on the NHS demo on 29th Sept by a lovely woman that I remain friendly with, who hadn’t realised I had left the SWP and was shocked to find out why I had.

[2] BPP Working Paper , November 2012

[3] Anderson et al  1997; Suarez & Gadalla, 2010

[4] McGee et al, 2011; Anderson et al 1997

[5] Schuller 1998, also Clark 2011 are useful on this, although I am not suggesting for a moment that the SWP panel or any of the party’s members accept all of the myths examined, merely that there remains some taints of acceptance of some of those ideas as evidenced in the questioning of W about other relationships and X in relation to alcohol

[6] Actually as far as I am concerned, not caring if your partner actually wants to have sex is not okay even if there is no resistance.  Consent should involve the active choice of everyone involved in a sexual act. At the very minimum it should involve a yes and stop at any indication of unwillingness.

[7] Hird 2000

[8] BPP Working Paper November 2012

[9] Levitt et al 2013

[11] Let me clear that I have never had any discussions with W since 2010

[12] Barter et al, 2009

[13] BPP Working Paper, November 2012

[14] indeed he had been my organiser in the early 1990s and the best we ever had in my opinion-which is entirely irrelevant to whether or not he raped a young women and sexually harassed others

[15] Julie later apologised. I am unaware that Shelia McGreggor has ever done so

[16] Writing recently another woman has complained of questions about alcohol consumption being used against her when she complained of rape

[17] Eg Schuller , R A & Klippenstein M, 2004 which shows that there is strong bias towards thinking that consuming alcohol prior to the rape is a defence for the man to have assumed consent

[18] Taylor and Joudo, 2005

[19] BCC Working Paper, November 2012.

‘No Sense of Freedom’ (Women’s Voice, 1982)

Standard

wv

‘No Sense of Freedom’, review of Sweet Freedom by Anna Coote and Beatrix Campbell

In 1971, women’s liberation was a whisper and it was a joke.  That year International Socialists (the organisation which is now the Socialist Workers Party) debated on the position of women for the first time – the women who presented the motion were jeered and many of the women who supported it were later isolated.  Responses of other socialist and labour movement organisations were no better.

Unsure, feminists scoured the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky to dredge up proof that the great masters really believed that women were oppressed.  And between the quotes and undeniable fact that a large percentage of workers were women, the jokes began to fall flat and some of the issues were taken seriously.  Typing and tea-making were done less willingly, and women began to speak at meetings.

Our misery turned to anger and our isolation to solidarity.  We grasped at the threads of confidence and we began to find a voice.  The Women’s Liberation Movement, directly and indirectly, went on to change the lives of most women and to put new and often revolutionary questions on the political agenda.

Eleven years after those tumbling beginnings, in Sweet Freedom, Anna Coote and Beatrix Campbell attempt ‘an account of feminist politics to show how far the objectives of the Women’s Liberation Movement have been resolved and met resistance.’

For all of us who owe the quality of our lives to the new awareness of the issues raised by the women’s movement, it is a sad, superficial and confusing book.  There is no sense of the spirit of the movement, the rumblings of new life, the sanity of discovered self respect. There is no understanding of why and how women are oppressed.  There is no feel for the lives of most women, their day to day struggles, the battles they still face – often as mothers, as girlfriends, as wives.

There is little mention of the new culture of women’s writings, films, new lifestyles, commitment to their own growth and development, concern with their own health and physical needs.  The chapter on culture deals almost exclusively with the involvement and presentation of women in the mass media.  Pregnancy, child-birth, relationships, the structure of emotions, guilt and the devaluing of all that is ‘female’ are ignored.
The early movement is often presented as a clique of friends, not as the breath-taking gust of fresh air that it was.  Then after a series of disconnected chapters – the bulk of them on work, legislation and the trade unions, we pick up the Women’s Liberation 1982-style presented by Coote and Campbell as warring factions of separatist lesbians.

Is it really news that part time work is stigmatised because mainly women do it or that men are seen as breadwinners?  That the Equal Pay Act and the Sex Discrimination Act achieved very little? That Tory strategy is to dismantle the welfare state making women the major casualties and the nurses of the casualties? It has all been said many times before.

All through the book you want to ask why?  Why does this happen to women, why is it possible?  And the authors present a series of confusing non-answers: men, the cuts, the shortage of women in powerful positions, the lack of positive discrimination.  While they sometimes condemn men, they simultaneously accept ‘male’ definitions of what is political.

Women’s Liberation made the personal political.  It showed that politics was not simply about men in the ‘outside world’; it showed that politics was right there in the kitchen, the bedroom and the labour ward.  It showed that women could be active, showing people that what they did was already important and what they might go on to was their right.  It began to demonstrate that the germs of hope for a very different society lay within the warmth and feelings that women had nurtured, once they were able to harness that warmth and not let it be used against most people in the maintenance of a ruthless, oppressive and miserable system.

Women’s Liberation is not and never has been about bringing women up to the level of men, but that essentially is what Coote and Campbell believe it to be.  Men will have to hand over their power, they say.  Get into the male pond and swim.  We don’t want ‘male’ power and we challenge the ‘male’ pond.  It is the ‘male’ view of the world that has held all women and most men in chains ten feet under.

Feminist politics is about changing the world and, maybe, eleven years after the jokes and the jeers, socialist organisations are beginning to see it that way.  It’s a pity that Coote and Campbell have failed to make it any easier for them.

Sheila Duncan

Women’s Voice 63, 1982