Genital Pride?

Leeds Pride was a wonderful day, so many people, so so so busy, so much confetti. I only have ONE issue with one small thing which happened, and unfortunately seems to be a theme running through Prides which I have attended; Homophobia and misogyny from speakers at the event.

Yesterday during the pre-parade Sainbury’s stage (after the Britney Spears Drag Tribute but before Marc Almond of Soft Cell) were several speakers from different companies and groups. The speaker for Leeds City Council, Alison Lowe (named Stonewall Senior Champion of the year), was getting the crowd excited and passionate about fighting homophobia, and that Leeds is a city where people should not feel scared to walk in, to be living in, and where LGBT* differences are celebrated. A blissful speech which was empowering all for one sentence. She ended her speech with a bang, by announcing that any homophobes in our city better watch out, because “We’ll chop your bollocks off”.

I just want to pick apart this phrase and its context to explain why it was insensitive, offensive, and really someone who is actively fighting homophobia clearly has more work to do on her knowledge of LGBT* identities (which given her status as a champion for her positive impact on the LGBT* community makes this comment even more surprising).

Using this as a threat upholds the understanding that “bollocks” are valuable, the cis-male and his genitals being privileged above all other gendered folk and their genitals.

Using this as a threat enforces the value of bollocks, and that their removal would be so awful that the person being threatened with their removal should be in fear.

Using the removal of the valued bollocks as a threat upholds a notion that being bollockless is a status to be scared of, particularly being a bollockless male.

Using the removal of bollocks as a threat to prevent homophobia upholds the dangerous stereotype that homophobia and violence towards queer identities is an intrinsically cis-male trait. I say dangerous because it divides the homophobia along gendered lines, if it comes from a cis-man it is more of a threat than if it is coming from a cis-woman. Also, it upholds the notion that cis-men are somehow violent, and cis-women are not. Cis-women who are homophobic do not need to be seen as a threat because they are not serious? Not strong enough to do damage? Cis-men are stronger? More serious?

The assumption that cis-men are more violent that cis-women is dangerous as it propagates the stereotype of gendered behaviour norms, leading to hyper-masculinity as valuable and only realised through violence. Not taking cis-women violence seriously continues the problematic assumption that they are not a threat, they are weak or even invisible, once again cis-male privilege being restored.

Using the value of bollocks and their feared removal in a speech at Pride is announcing to the trans folk in the crowd that even in this environment genitals are being brought into the light.

Male-to-female trans’ genitals are being brought up as a threat to cis-men, the idea of removing part of the genitals as a mark of shame if reminding MTF transsexuals they are still and even in this environment seen as something to be feared, whose genitals (or removal of) are a marker of shame in this society.

The female-to-male trans folk, who may or may not have “bollocks” are reminded that they are not cis, and their “bollocks” are something which the removal of is so threatening to cis-men that not having bollocks and being male are just two things which socially cannot co-exist. The ‘bollockless’ trans-men hearing this threat… the trans-men with bollocks hearing this threat…

As a cis-woman I have no right to speak on trans folks behalf, so I will not presume to understand how this threat would have been taken, but it does stand as a reminder to those whose genitals and gender identity aren’t cis-assigned at birth that they are somehow not normal. Even at Pride.

This speech was followed by an announcement from a trans-woman stating an apology for any language in the councillor’s speech, wearing a tshirt with the slogan “my genitals are none of your business”, the sentiment of which were lost in the previous speech, where cis-male genitals and their removal are being used as a threat to ward off homophobia... (the genitals of the wearer of this tshirt are not what I am discussing here, the sentiment of the slogan is for all trans and cis folk, it is no one’s business to bring genitals into the conversation).

I have noted in the opening statement there is a theme, the two York Pride’s and one Leeds Pride I have attended have all had statements of phobias, whether that is transphobia at Leeds Pride 2016, or phobia of lesbians from gay cis-male speakers, or misogyny from gay cis-male speakers (York Pride both 2015 and 2016), these moments which in any other context but Pride would be so normal that they would not be note-worthy,

Within the environment of a Pride event, where the general focus is not on supporting and upholding patriarchal standards of male privilege but is an attempt to celebrate and explore difference of gender and sexuality, being reminded of male-privilege with a specific focus on genitals puts the audience back on edge. I was describing to a cis-hetero-male the values of being surrounded by allies and queers at Prides, if you live in fear of harassment in your general day-to-day, if you cannot hold your same-gendered partner’s hand in the street, can’t dress the way you feel most comfortable because you may be shouted at or attacked, being at Pride helps to have one day (or one location) where you can relax, and not worry. Being brought back to a shared reality of fear and socialised normalising of cis-male and hetero privilege is the last thing you need. 

Given Lowe has worked tirelessly for LGBT* rights and equality, maybe her threat was ironic, and I was not privy to the irony since I didn’t know that she is not transphobic at all. Unfortunately, if irony is the case, it was at trans* folk’s (and cis-women’s) expense. Gendered phrases such as this are so common in our colloquial language that we sometimes do not even notice them. If you are however a speaker at an event such as Pride, you just need to become aware of said phrases, and unless you know 100% you won’t be taken the wrong way, just don’t use them.

Women in Politics; the formidable double-bind

Yesterday it was announced the next Prime Minister of the UK will be Theresa May.

The only previous PM who was not male was Thatcher, 1979-1990. A long reign of horrifying and oppressive policies, legislations and cuts to the already poverty-stricken. Thatcher remains posthumously hated by the majority of working class and lefty-middle class folk across these little islands, and adored, admired and placed on a pedestal by the righty-middle and upper classes.

Within the space of a moment, I have gone from mentioning the next PM, who is a woman, to summarising the only previous female PM, some three decades earlier. Interesting how seamless that transition was, even though the only main similarity they share is their gender and Tory identity.

Throughout the week the potential new PM has been making the front page, unsurprisingly. What I have noted, however, is the headlines. “NEXT PM TO BE WOMAN”, “TWO WOMEN BATTLE FOR PM SPOT” (before today the two main contenders were two women of the Conservative Party). The names of the two women were not even within the headline, the headline merely stated the PM seat would be taken by a ‘woman’. Of course, if you are living in this country and have the internet or a television or speak with other human beings, it will be pretty clear at least who one of those two women are, however, the front page news was not shocked by the options based on their political careers behind them, but on their genders. Being a woman and being the potential next PM is the headline, not who they are as politicians!

Teresa May has been voted, out of all the potential candidates of the Conservative Party, to negotiate the ‘Brexit’ transition and take over from David Cameron after his resignation. The voters are the members of the party, not the general public, and the choice of candidates were, for this lefty-intersectional-feminist-queer-woman, frightening. The notion of ‘best of a bad bunch’ doesn’t come close to the fear building within my left-leaning circles.

Cameron referred to May as “strong and capable”… What kind words Dave, what thought provoking and influential words mate. ‘Strong’ gets used as a positive way to describe women who are not feminine (read- able to be dominated/objectified). It is used time and again to describe Women of Colour, to continue the racist assumption they are impervious to the bullets of inequality they face. May is being described as ‘strong’ here in more of a ‘she is a real ball breaker lads, watch out” sense.

Capable….. Is this word being used because until Cameron said it, we presumed she was not capable? Was this assumption based on her vagina and therefore ‘intrinsic link’ to nature and her emotions, meaning she will make irresponsible decisions when the moon wanes, and her Brexit negotiations will come to represent the glass-ceiling of her own political career?

She has been described as this island’s version of Angela Merkel… not for her politics (because they would not be comparable on their choices at allllll) but on her gender. These two politicians have more in common with other (male) politicians, but because their gender is so note worthy all else is forgotten. Please. Come on…. You couldn’t be more creative than that? Really? The only other white woman in the power position of a country’s politics? Reallllyyyy?

A “bloody difficult woman’… do I even need to unpack this bit? Please. Just. Don’t.

These reasons above are minor instances demonstrating that May is going to be judged first by her gender identity before we are reminded she is also a politician.

The ‘other woman’ who did not win the seat, Andrea Leadsom, (a little-known name to those not au fait with UK politics, or the Conservative Party) used within her argument (of why she would be a good PM) her proud title of ‘Mother’. She claimed being a mother will benefit her as a PM as she is intrinsically/instinctually wanting to nurture the next generation, and has the young people of today as her priority.

Good for you Andrea, I have heard being a parent is very rewarding and can totally alter your perspective on the way the world works and should work. I’m glad you have found parenting so fulfilling, and that you’re not afraid to be out as a mother in a field dominated by men, men who would potentially see motherhood as a burden to a career in politics, also reminding them of your gender within your politics is a sort of ‘meta-gender-politics’.

NOT good for you, however, commenting on May’s status as not-a-mother. Stating, in an open and very public way, that you think May must be sad due to her lack of parenting is abhorrent. For whatever reason, May does not have children. Your presumption that she should have children is based on an archaic view of a woman’s role as child bearer first and foremost. Have you commented on your male peer’s children or lack-there-of? Would you judge a man as less capable if he were not a father?

Has May failed as a woman to you? That she is somehow lacking in capability of being a successful politician because she has neglected her womanly duty to bear children?

That because you do have children you are better than her as a woman/politician?

I understand politics is a cut-throat game. Over the past few weeks the amount of fear and negativity between parties and politicians has been like watching ferrets fighting in a sack of potatoes; complicated, fast, painful and confusing.

May will be a prime minister, she will be a woman, she will (probably) not be a mother, and she will make horrific mistakes throughout her role (because of her politics). THESE THINGS ARE NOT INEXTRICABLY LINKED!

That there has only been one female PM in our history demonstrates a lot about women in politics, it also gives us very skewed data on what to expect from someone who isn’t male in this specific position of power.

Let’s bring it back to the next PM, not her gender, not her childlessness, not her husband, but her. May has terrorised and demonised ethnic minorities within this country. The heightened racism seen in recent weeks does not exist in a bubble, and her role as Brexit PM means she will have to mark her territory fiercely to be taken seriously by this country and the rest of Europe, a role so difficult that many other (male) politicians reluctantly moved away from the lime-light.

As a viewer of her politics, I too am caught in a double-bind. Having unlearned so much of the patriarchal messages about women and their role, I still struggle with the initial thoughts of those tropes; battle axe, harpy, ball-breaker, Thatcher doppelganger, or simply ‘Bitch’. Seeing past her gender to the politician underneath, and judging her actions on her as a politician and solely as a politician still remains difficult even for this strident feminist. If I do successfully ignore/blind myself to her gender, I still fear her politics, and therefore fear the countries reaction to a woman in politics, who through some strange loyalty to sisterhood I secretly want to her do well, representing women as capable in this field.

Whatever she does now, as a PM, will be judged twice as hard than the previous PM, and will come to represent the minority that is women in politics. Not her as a politician, or even her as a Tory, but her as a woman, a childless woman, ‘the worst kind’ of woman.

Side note to this overall message; World-wide there have been (and are) a plethora of women in politics, and over the past hundred years, there have been hundred of women as head of state/ elected to the primary position of power. The UK (and Western world) sees itself as somehow more liberal, especially with regard to women's rights. Please, whoever thinks this is true, consider that this may be incorrect, western/euro-centric assumption and, in fact, we live in a society continuously trying to keep women from breaking down patriarchy, hence the message that the battle has been won and there is no longer any need to continue fighting. Instead, let's compare ourselves to places around the less developed countries and pity the women there. If this is you, please check your history and even just google women in power around the world, you may be surprised with what comes up.

Women in Politics; the formidable double-bind

Yesterday it was announced the next Prime Minister of the UK will be Teresa May.

The only previous PM who was not male was Thatcher, 1979-1990. A long reign of horrifying and oppressive policies, legislations and cuts to the already poverty-stricken. Thatcher remains posthumously hated by the majority of working class and lefty-middle class folk across these little islands, and adored, admired and placed on a pedestal by the righty-middle and upper classes.

Within the space of a moment, I have gone from mentioning the next PM, who is a woman, to summarising the only previous female PM, some three decades earlier. Interesting how seamless that transition was, even though the only main similarity they share is their gender and Tory identity.

Throughout the week the potential new PM has been making the front page, unsurprisingly. What I have noted, however, is the headlines. “NEXT PM TO BE WOMAN”, “TWO WOMEN BATTLE FOR PM SPOT” (before today the two main contenders were two women of the Conservative Party). The names of the two women were not even within the headline, the headline merely stated the PM seat would be taken by a ‘woman’. Of course, if you are living in this country and have the internet or a television or speak with other human beings, it will be pretty clear at least who one of those two women are, however, the front page news was not shocked by the options based on their political careers behind them, but on their genders. Being a woman and being the potential next PM is the headline, not who they are as politicians!

Teresa May has been voted, out of all the potential candidates of the Conservative Party, to negotiate the ‘Brexit’ transition and take over from David Cameron after his resignation. The voters are the members of the party, not the general public, and the choice of candidates were, for this lefty-intersectional-feminist-queer-woman, frightening. The notion of ‘best of a bad bunch’ doesn’t come close to the fear building within my left-leaning circles.

Cameron referred to May as “strong and capable”… What kind words Dave, what thought provoking and influential words mate. ‘Strong’ gets used as a positive way to describe women who are not feminine (read- able to be dominated/objectified). It is used time and again to describe Women of Colour, to continue the racist assumption they are impervious to the bullets of inequality they face. May is being described as ‘strong’ here in more of a ‘she is a real ball breaker lads, watch out” sense.

Capable….. Is this word being used because until Cameron said it, we presumed she was not capable? Was this assumption based on her vagina and therefore ‘intrinsic link’ to nature and her emotions, meaning she will make irresponsible decisions when the moon wanes, and her Brexit negotiations will come to represent the glass-ceiling of her own political career?

She has been described as this island’s version of Angela Merkel… not for her politics (because they would not be comparable on their choices at allllll) but on her gender. These two politicians have more in common with other (male) politicians, but because their gender is so note worthy all else is forgotten. Please. Come on…. You couldn’t be more creative than that? Really? The only other white woman in the power position of a country’s politics? Reallllyyyy?

A “bloody difficult woman’… do I even need to unpack this bit? Please. Just. Don’t.

These reasons above are minor instances demonstrating that May is going to be judged first by her gender identity before we are reminded she is also a politician.

The ‘other woman’ who did not win the seat, Andrea Leadsom, (a little-known name to those not au fait with UK politics, or the Conservative Party) used within her argument (of why she would be a good PM) her proud title of ‘Mother’. She claimed being a mother will benefit her as a PM as she is intrinsically/instinctually wanting to nurture the next generation, and has the young people of today as her priority.

Good for you Andrea, I have heard being a parent is very rewarding and can totally alter your perspective on the way the world works and should work. I’m glad you have found parenting so fulfilling, and that you’re not afraid to be out as a mother in a field dominated by men, men who would potentially see motherhood as a burden to a career in politics, also reminding them of your gender within your politics is a sort of ‘meta-gender-politics’.

NOT good for you, however, commenting on May’s status as not-a-mother. Stating, in an open and very public way, that you think May must be sad due to her lack of parenting is abhorrent. For whatever reason, May does not have children. Your presumption that she should have children is based on an archaic view of a woman’s role as child bearer first and foremost. Have you commented on your male peer’s children or lack-there-of? Would you judge a man as less capable if he were not a father?

Has May failed as a woman to you? That she is somehow lacking in capability of being a successful politician because she has neglected her womanly duty to bear children?

That because you do have children you are better than her as a woman/politician?

I understand politics is a cut-throat game. Over the past few weeks the amount of fear and negativity between parties and politicians has been like watching ferrets fighting in a sack of potatoes; complicated, fast, painful and confusing.

May will be a prime minister, she will be a woman, she will (probably) not be a mother, and she will make horrific mistakes throughout her role (because of her politics). THESE THINGS ARE NOT INEXTRICABLY LINKED!

That there has only been one female PM in our history demonstrates a lot about women in politics, it also gives us very skewed data on what to expect from someone who isn’t male in this specific position of power.

Let’s bring it back to the next PM, not her gender, not her childlessness, not her husband, but her. May has terrorised and demonised ethnic minorities within this country. The heightened racism seen in recent weeks does not exist in a bubble, and her role as Brexit PM means she will have to mark her territory fiercely to be taken seriously by this country and the rest of Europe, a role so difficult that many other (male) politicians reluctantly moved away from the lime-light.

As a viewer of her politics, I too am caught in a double-bind. Having unlearned so much of the patriarchal messages about women and their role, I still struggle with the initial thoughts of those tropes; battle axe, harpy, ball-breaker, Thatcher doppelganger, or simply ‘Bitch’. Seeing past her gender to the politician underneath, and judging her actions on her as a politician and solely as a politician still remains difficult even for this strident feminist. If I do successfully ignore/blind myself to her gender, I still fear her politics, and therefore fear the countries reaction to a woman in politics, who through some strange loyalty to sisterhood I secretly want to her do well, representing women as capable in this field.

Whatever she does now, as a PM, will be judged twice as hard than the previous PM, and will come to represent the minority that is women in politics. Not her as a politician, or even her as a Tory, but her as a woman, a childless woman, ‘the worst kind’ of woman.

Side note to this overall message; World-wide there have been (and are) a plethora of women in politics, and over the past hundred years, there have been hundred of women as head of state/ elected to the primary position of power. The UK (and Western world) sees itself as somehow more liberal, especially with regard to women's rights. Please, whoever thinks this is true, consider that this may be incorrect, western/euro-centric assumption and, in fact, we live in a society continuously trying to keep women from breaking down patriarchy, hence the message that the battle has been won and there is no longer any need to continue fighting. Instead, let's compare ourselves to places around the less developed countries and pity the women there. If this is you, please check your history and even just google women in power around the world, you may be surprised with what comes up.