Author Archive:WRDA Communications

ByWRDA Communications

An Open Letter from a ‘Bossy’ Woman

Today, a friend sent me a screenshot of an Instagram story from a mutual acquaintance. It was a rambling tirade which detailed views on what it means to be ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’. It is a baffling, waffly account which seems to imply that women are ‘naturally designed’ to not take risks, instead we are undisciplined, weak, and lazy. It rails against the phrase ‘toxic masculinity’ as another attack on men designed to undermine them, to give them an excuse for laziness and to ‘attach [themselves] to feminine traits’.

So here is my open letter as a response, because I want to set a few things straight.

Dear Acquaintance,

Understandably, several of my female friends had a lot to say on the subject of your Instagram story, and the views which you obviously agree with. They

are an inspiring group of women, and each of them, in their own ways, is strong, successful, and extremely capable. All of us are breaking into industries that have historically been dominated by men. When I tried to come up with ways in which to describe these amazing women the words ‘inspiring’, ‘dedicated’, ‘intelligent’, ‘bold’, and ‘unwavering’ came to mind. These are not ‘gendered’ traits.

What even is a gendered trait? ‘Sassy’ and ‘bossy’ are words usually employed describe women. What is a bossy woman? Someone who takes charge? Someone who knows her own mind? Someone who is capable and strong? Why, in 2018, are we still using gendered terms to describe personality traits found in all genders? Why does ‘bossy’ seem to have a negative connotation?

Why are men supposed to be strong? Dedicated? Driven? Why are these supposedly ‘masculine traits’? Is a single mother, a female judge, a female academic, a female doctor, producer, costumer, activist, MP, businesswoman, retail employee, nurse, carer, or human rights lawyer not strong? Are they not dedicated, hard-working, or driven?

Toxic masculinity does exist and it is harmful for everyone. It is one of the reasons why, in the UK, suicide is the biggest killer of men under the age of 35. The phrase ‘toxic masculinity’ is not an attack on men. It is an attack on the stereotypes that society forces on to men. Why is it seen as feminine to cry? Why is the implication of this that showing your emotions is a sign of weakness? It is not a sign of weakness. It’s just being human.

I am continually baffled that some people, of any gender, seem to think that feminism is an inherent attack on men. Feminism, at least of the type to which I subscribe, is about gender equality. It’s about standing up for everyone. It’s about bodily autonomy, it’s about equal opportunities, and it’s about not being told you should be one way or another just because of your gender.

And the sad and frustrating fact is that people who identify as female do not have some basic human rights. In this country, if I become pregnant as a result of rape, and I terminate that pregnancy, I could face more time in jail than my rapist. This is, of course, if my case against him even goes to trial. I cannot make basic decisions about my own body. And I am called ‘bossy’, ‘hysterical’, or ‘feisty’ when I try to raise my voice and speak out against the injustices I face.

When I walk alone at night, I clutch my keys in my fist. I check over my shoulder every few meters. I pick up my pace when I hear people behind me, or see them on the other side of the street. I walk in well-lit areas, I park in well-lit areas and I lock my car doors as soon as I get in. I have even second-guessed the really cute skirt I’ve just put on.

I don’t make eye-contact with men on the street, because if I do I’ll sometimes be told to ‘smile’. Why do you think I’m so angry? Why do think that I don’t want to give him a smile? Why am I a street decoration? An ornamental flower pot. When men so regularly touch women without our permission is it any wonder we might not want to smile at them? Because if we do, they might see that as an invitation.

I am sick of pandering. I am sick of adding the caveat ‘not all men’. Of course it’s not all men. I am sick of having to say ‘no, I’m not a man-hater’.  I am sick of saying ‘I know people have it much worse than I do’. Of course they do. But why does that make my struggle, my walk home, my lack of bodily anatomy a ‘non-issue’. It’s a big issue because it’s a very common issue. I am sick of saying sorry.

I’m not sorry for raising my voice.  I am not sorry for taking to the streets to demand my rights. I am not sorry for not smiling, for feeling uncomfortable in situations where I do not feel safe, for not making eye-contact, for not striking up conversation on the street, for voicing my own bloody opinions.

I don’t understand why you would describe men as ‘naturally designed to be disciplined…and work hard’. What does that say about how you view women? You might see me a weak, lazy, undisciplined baby-factory. Who is supposed to give up a career, who should not being pursuing a PhD because one day I’ll be a mother. Why is that my life? Just because of some accident of birth that gave me a vagina rather than a penis? Why would you be naturally more dedicated, capable, and driven than my friends and I? You are not.

We are not weak. We are not lazy. We are not undisciplined.

Can we just stop with the whole ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ traits? Can we all just be people? Regardless of gender, or anything else? How can a set of traits define half the population of the world? It just does not make sense. If men strive to be more masculine because they see traditionally ‘feminine’ traits as inherently bad then this is toxic masculinity and it is as harmful to you as it is to me.

I ask you to open your eyes. Look around you. Really look. By perpetuating these ideas of what it means to be a man, you are also saying what you think it means to be a woman. Look at the women in your life and see if your argument stands up. I bet it won’t.

Yours,

A ‘bossy’, ‘feisty’ woman.

Blog by Lauren Rose Browne

ByWRDA Communications

#Ibelieveher and the Máiría Cahill case – A Response from the Women’s Movement

With the current international media focus on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, and the accusations of sexual abuse made against him by 3 women, it is time to remind ourselves again of our obligation as feminists to step outside of party political agendas, wherever abuse occurs, and to offer our support to women survivors of all political stripes.

Máiría Cahill is a survivor, and we believe her.

In recent years our understanding of violence against women, such as sexual abuse and intimate partner violence (IPV), has expanded to include the concept of coercive control. Legislation that reflects this key dynamic in these abusive circumstances has been in force in Great Britain since 2015 but has been stalled in Northern Ireland due to the collapse of the Executive. Even in cases of sexual assault and rape where there is no intimate relationship between the victim and the perpetrator, it has long been understood that these crimes are primarily about control and an abuse of power.

When you consider then the community dynamics present here throughout the conflict and beyond into the ‘post-agreement’ era, issues of power and control take on a huge significance through the presence of political, state, paramilitary and social movement organisations that bore high levels of influence within communities and families. Ground-breaking research in 1992 undertaken by Monica McWilliams and colleagues at the University of Ulster looked in depth at the ways that violence against women has been shaped due to ‘the Troubles’. A recently updated version of the research was published just last week making comparisons between the data gathered in 1992 and data collected in 2016.

The 1992 study detailed how ‘membership of paramilitary/armed groups increased the level of power, control and impunity available to perpetrators of IPV; how the increased availability of legal and illegal firearms increased the risk to and threat felt by victims of IPV; and how the conflict affected police responsiveness to IPV.’ Despite it having been 2 decades since the official cessation of violence in Northern Ireland, 17% of participants in the 2016 study said that their partners had ‘used paramilitary connections or alleged paramilitary connections to threaten, control and/or abuse them.’

The study also highlights the use of paramilitary control to informally ‘police’ domestic violence by making threats to perpetrators. However, the 1992 data revealed how this often made things worse for women as they were concerned that ‘perpetrators were being recruited as police informers to avoid prosecution or enforcement orders for IPV’ thus ensuring women were even more alienated from being able to get protection from or justice for the crimes committed against them.

Anecdotal evidence from women involved in rape and sexual violence services throughout the troubles suggests that Máiría Cahill’s description of the ‘kangaroo court’ she was subjected to following her disclosure to leaders within her community, was something many women would have been familiar with.

It shouldn’t have to be said but the kind of process that Máiría was put through by members of the republican movement is a completely unacceptable course of action for any organisation or community to undertake when someone comes to them with a disclosure of sexual abuse. The fact that Máiría was a child at the time the abuse took place makes it even more abhorrent. Making someone face their abuser in this way, demanding she recount her experience in front of him and trying to judge the authenticity of her account is not only re-traumatising; it serves to add unnecessary new trauma and fear. This kind of practice leads to injustice and the silencing of women whose testimony deserves and needs to be heard. Every person who was involved in that process in the Máiría Cahill case should be ashamed of their actions.

The current dynamics of power and control in communities might not look like they did in the 1990s. The presence of firearms has greatly reduced on all sides and organisations might be more concerned with controlling their media messaging than anything more sinister. However, it is still extremely difficult for any woman to speak out about powerful or influential individuals who harmed them.

Máiría Cahill must be commended for the way she has fought for the truth. She has been vindicated by both the Starmer report into the failings of the Public Prosecution Service and more recently the Police Ombudsman’s report into the actions of the PSNI. The apologies she has received from the heads of both public organisations have satisfied her that they accept all the accusations levelled at them and understand that they let her down.

This response stands in stark contrast to that of the leadership of Sinn Fein, whose response has been widely criticised in the media and on social media, by journalists, commentators, activists and political representatives. Mary Lou MacDonald and Michelle O’Neill have stuck to a conservatively pitched apology stating that Sinn Fein now has robust mandatory reporting procedures and they are sorry the party ‘didn’t have those procedures in place’ at the time of Máiría Cahill’s disclosure. This seems woefully inadequate when you consider the level of harm that an interrogation by powerful leaders within your community is likely to cause any individual. We know too much about the mishandling of abuse from numerous institutions in the last decade to accept such a blasé dismissal of responsibility. What would be more appropriate would be a proactive commitment to examining everything that led people to believe such behaviour was an acceptable way to deal with a young woman in 2000 and ensuring that any trace of such attitudes has been completely eradicated.

When Michelle O’Neill made the statement ‘It’s not for me to say that I believe her’ in response to a question by a BBC journalist earlier in the week, the feminist movement here let out a collective gasp of disapproval. In the face of such conclusive evidence from both the Starmer report and the Ombudsman’s report that Máiría Cahill has been nothing but honest about what happened to her, it seems nonsensical for the leadership of Sinn Fein not to accept her accusations. It also seems extremely out of step with the post ‘me too’ era, at a time when the public is waking up to the fact that this kind of sexual abuse and harassment of women is extremely widespread, pervasive and for too long has not been believed. ‘I believe her’ has become a rallying call for women who won’t be silent anymore when we see this level of injustice and we watch with disappointment those who are reluctant to make this call on behalf of Máiría Cahill.

There are brilliant, committed feminists in all political parties in Northern Ireland and many passionate elected representatives of all political backgrounds that we in the women’s movement continuously work with on issues that affect women’s lives. We hope that those same people will have the freedom to speak up on behalf of themselves and women they know when power and inequality tells them they should stay quiet. We hope the women’s movement will be somewhere they will always know they can get support as they seek to do that. But most importantly, we will stand with victims and survivors of violence against women and strive to support, show solidarity and amplify their voices.

Kellie Turtle and Elaine Crory, Women’s Resource and Development Agency. Kellie and Elaine are also activists with grassroots feminist organisations Belfast Feminist Network, Alliance for Choice, Reclaim the Night, Rally for Choice and Reclaim the Agenda.

Bold Women Blogging is a public submission blog. Posts do not necessarily represent the views of WRDA but rather operates as a platform for open discussion to encourage women’s participation in social and political issues.

ByWRDA Communications

Claire’s Story: This is why we need affordable childcare

Once upon a time there was a girl called Claire.

Claire had not yet had children. Claire harboured dreams of being a rich and successful Solicitor. Claire and her future husband figured that Claire would be the main breadwinner. They figured they’d have children but never thought much more about it than that. Everyone knows childcare is super expensive, but sure you just get on with it, right?

Hmmmm.

Mummy McMumface, aka Claire Hackett

I can remember after I had my eldest son in 2011, we decided to put him into daycare as it wouldn’t be fair to ask the grandparents to look after him. We had heard this wonderful information that if you earn under £40k you got 70% of your childcare covered by the mysterious entity that is Tax Credits. Of course, you can’t actually find out what you get until you embark on a course of action and submit your application. 

Imagine our horror when we got our letter informing us we were getting the grand total of basically nada. 

Cue some very frantic conversations with grandparents- ‘eh, remember that kind offer to help look after our cherubic offspring? That still open? For tomorrow…?’

The Claire who had sort of planned on children was now a full on Mother. I was still breastfeeding when I returned to work, and I hated the thought of being away from him for five days- his grandparents would see him more than me, his mother. So I returned part time, 3 days a week.

I was working as a Solicitor at this stage but it was not quite the fabulously remunerated career of my dreams. I qualified into the recession and my employer took full advantage. 

Baby no2 arrived in September 2013. Again, we thought ‘we can’t land TWO children on grandparents!’ and so we thought we’d try to put them in to the daycare attached to the eldest’s playgroup a couple of days a week.

Again, untenable. 

‘Eh, grandparents? Any plans tomorrow?’

At this stage I changed jobs, returning to work in pharmacy- the same money as I was getting as a Solicitor! But less pressure (plus I knew my future lay in a different career, Midwifery).

We have since had baby no3 (and our last). Now I work alternative Sundays. Weekdays are just not feasible as, aside from Childcare, school runs are my nemesis.

We live in a rural area. My two eldest are now in P3 and Nursery School, in two separate rural schools with different finishing times. There is not a school bus that serves where we live either.

Before baby no3 arrived, work was great at allowing me to start later to allow me to get eldest to school and mid

dle child to granny. I saved my breaks to collect eldest and get him deposited with granny & granda (who also look after other grandchildren) & back into work. I scoffed a sandwich as I drove. It was exhausting, particularly when pregnant. However, to now get two school drop offs, a baby dropped off with the grandparents, into work and then two separate school collections? I’d be out more than in! 

Yes, I could work weekends but, for me (and I accept this is entirely my own choice) it is important to have some time as a family. The children are only young for a short time, I don’t want all our time together to be in the car and the crazy evening session of homework- dinner- argue over iPads- bed.

Me basically not working is really tough financially. We have gone from getting married and supporting two of us on two full time incomes to now having five of us to support on one income.

It is also tough on me personally- I have worked since I was 16, I enjoy working, so it is strange to be at home. I miss using my brain, having adult conversation and a pee alone. We keep saying I need to work more but then it just boils down to those school runs! Is it fair to ask our parents who are in their 60s & 70s to help?

I am not the only mum in this situation. I know a lot of women who are either in my boat of taking a temporary step back from work, or those who return to work for pretty much no pay once they pay the childcare, just so they don’t slide back down the employment ladder. 

I honestly don’t know what the solution is. Yes, it is my choice to have children and no, I do not expect ‘free money’ for being at home with them. There are schemes such as childcare vouchers and tax credits, but the lack of information available to help us make a fully informed decision is really frustrating. 

Claire’s family

I do think we have work to do to address the value that society attaches- or really, doesn’t attach- to mothers. At the end of the day, we have the wombs, Birth canals, vaginas and breasts- if the human race is to not die off, women are going to continue to be the ones having the babies. 

The relationship and attachment between mothers and babies is crucial to the baby’s development. It affects how a baby’s brain is wired. We have seen studies on the effects of neglect on the brain and behaviour. True, it’s not as bad here as America, for example, where mums are back to work at 6 weeks, and no statutory maternity pay! Of course, I am not saying all mums should be staying at home- but it’s not a great situation where we are choosing between staying home, struggling to make ends meet and, at best stalling but possibly setting back, our careers or returning to work for basically no money once we pay childcare but then still being away from our children at an important stage in their lives. 

Really, I think traditional notions need challenged- such as a more flexible approach to working hours and conditions. Perhaps taking children to work (where appropriate) and not tying work to standard office hours. Mairi Black, the wonderful Scottish politician (could we trade a few of ours for her?!) recently gave a speech where she outlined the structural problems in our society which explains it well- our economy, our employment, everything was established during a time when men were the only ones working, etc. Now we try to slot women in to these structures and it just doesn’t work.

This post was written by Claire Hackett who blogs as Mummy McMumface over on www.facebook.com/mummymcmumface

ByWRDA Communications

Poldark, Toxic Masculinity and Disordered Eating

A couple of weeks ago the Sunday Times printed an interview with Poldark actor Aidan Turner that attracted a considerable amount of coverage over the following days, most of it centred on the discussion of his diet and exercise regime. While filming the most recent series of Poldark he would routinely fast throughout the day, not eating until 7pm, and work out every day, and sometimes twice a day, during this fasting period. Clearly this is a pretty extreme approach, so it’s hardly surprising it was picked up a lot in the press and on daytime TV, what was surprising to me was the tone of these conversations. Any commentary I’ve seen has more or less begun and ended with the affirmation that “he does look great!” and something reflecting the notion that this behaviour is demonstrative of a kind of macho determination, an admirable commitment to his work and his body. Nowhere have I come across anyone expressing any concern about the idea that this sort of behaviour might be a sign of a relationship with eating, exercising, and your own body that is not entirely healthy or desirable, or that it might not be a good pattern of behaviour to promote.

 “I guess people think that I care about my body a lot. I try to keep healthy, but it’s not an obsession”.

We are living in a boom-time for strange and restrictive eating patterns, the much-maligned clean-eating movement and various free-from alternatives are widely marketed as healthy choices to people who needn’t be restricting their diets and this is representative of a problematically skewed approach to health and wellbeing more generally. #fitspo and #cleaneating posts tell us we’re not chasing thinness or anything so superficial as “the perfect body”, we know better than that in 2018 – we’re better – this is about our health and so to be so preoccupied with diet and exercise is responsible and right, these behaviours are elevated to the moral high ground and are therefore beyond reproach. This is such a dangerous aspect of our current culture, when wellness is aspirational any number of unhealthy behaviours might be committed in its name. Furthermore, the picture of healthy living and wellness that is most often promoted to us, both in mainstream media and social media, is not an inclusive one and the more we look it’s hard not to see this as just another arena where we promote a narrow set of ideal characteristics and behaviours, that are much more concerned with a very restricted and prescriptive notion of physical beauty than they are with positive physical and mental health, at the expense of all others. Turner’s comments are born out of this cultural atmosphere, the fact that he describes this behaviour as “keep[ing] healthy” and that assertion is not questioned is reflective of some very harmful messages that many of us have unwittingly internalised about what a healthy body must look like and the behaviour that constitutes a healthy lifestyle.

At this point it’s important for me to make it clear that I’m not here to criticise Aidan Turner, nor to try and claim that I have any more insight into his relationship with food and body image than any TV or newspaper reporter. I don’t believe that it’s his responsibility to be a good role model for a healthy lifestyle, and I’m fully sympathetic to the fact that he’s been exposed to the same cultural influences as the rest of us that skew our perceptions of what a healthy body looks like and what it is reasonable to do in its pursuit. He is under more pressure than most to achieve this ideal, but I do think it’s concerning that he’s able to pass this behaviour off as a normal part of “keep[ing] healthy” with no further questions asked. I think it’s important that we have a conversation about the way we think about and talk about this behaviour, and how that differs when we are talking about men and women.

The general media response to Turner’s comments in the Sunday Times interview reflects a couple of very unpleasant aspects of gender politics in 2018. I think it’s unlikely that a woman in the public eye making the same comments would have been met with the same response, rather, she would be criticised for her irresponsibility, and for promoting unhealthy diet and exercise habits to vulnerable young girls. This reflects the double-edged nature of the way that women’s bodies are policed in the public sphere, wherein they are expected to adhere to specific and demanding beauty standards while making it appear effortless, never referencing any of the unpleasant or unreasonable behaviours they are required to engage with in order to attain these standards, and it confirms that a serious mental health issue is still being patronisingly reduced to a silly female problem, a diet gone too far. Aidan Turner can talk about these extreme behaviours and be congratulated for his display of strength and endurance without anybody asking whether it makes him a good or bad role model, while a woman in the same position might have faced reproach for irresponsibility, mental fragility and unhealthy obsession, because ultimately women and girls are considered to be at risk of eating disorders while men and boys are still not. In this case, this meant that boys and men who may be dealing with eating disorders or body image and disordered eating issues saw these unhealthy eating behaviours positively affirmed by every media outlet reporting on the story, and those who may be concerned about their own similar behaviours had those concerns trivialised. It is unacceptable that our society’s perception of masculinity did not permit any of those media outlets to consider the effect of their reporting on vulnerable men and boys.

Eating disorders are not a women’s issue, they’re not a diet, they are a group of serious mental health issues that often require treatment and the persistent stereotypes that surround them make it harder to reach the many sufferers who don’t fit the mould, and get them the help they need. Anorexia has the highest mortality rate of any psychiatric disorder and the number of male sufferers is likely much higher than we realise or expect, insensitive reporting won’t do, we ought to be doing everything we can to dismantle harmful stereotypes, rather than reinforcing them.

By Lauren Donnelly