by Laura Bates
A case in point: many commenters have focused on the fact that they felt Smart was wasting police time. Philip Davies, a Conservative MP currently seeking re-election in the West Yorkshire constituency of Shipley said: ‘I would have thought the police have better things to do.’ And on her BBC London radio show, Vanessa Feltz said: ‘We take seriously people feeling harassed or threatened or intimidated – of course I do, I’ve got two daughters . . . but I just don’t know how seriously this ought to be taken.’ Feltz continued: ‘Some people would say, if you don’t like it, then cross the street or get a bit more robust . . . You don’t think that your discomfort is worth using up valuable police time.’
In reality, though, we are hardly facing an epidemic of self-righteous women wasting police time with unimportant issues. In fact, the opposite is true. Many young women I have spoken to have endured groping and unwanted touching that falls squarely under the UK law on sexual assault, but would never dream of reporting it to the police because we live in a world in which it is considered a normal part of being a woman, or ‘just a bit of banter’.
In fact, Smart was fully within her rights to involve the police. Assistant chief constable Garry Shewan is national police lead for stalking and harassment. He points to the contents of the Protection Against Harassment Act, as well as the Public Order Act, as evidence that ‘It is not only unacceptable for someone to disparage, insult and offend someone in this way, but it can be against the law.’ He continues: ‘Just because someone somewhere has a personal opinion that wolf-whistling and boorish behaviour is “fun” and not criminal does not make it right – try living with the day-to-day drip, drip feeling that someone is acting in a way that causes you fear and knowing that they just don’t care about the impact on you.’
Clearly, there is a debate to be had about what constitutes behaviour likely to cause someone distress, but it strikes me that the most useful voices to listen to if we want to find out are those of the people experiencing harassment on a regular basis. From the response to Smart’s brave stand, it seems even that simple step is a milestone we have yet to reach.
Originally published 29 April 2015
CALLING A WOMAN SEXY: ACCEPTABLE OR NOT? HOW NOT TO DISCUSS THE TRUMP TAPES
When is a news story just a news story? And when does it become a ‘debate’? It’s a difficult question to answer, particularly for harried researchers and editors on tight budgets, and tighter deadlines. But the answer matters, because it dictates how any given topic is framed for an audience and, consequently, the way in which the public engages with it.
When I first heard Donald Trump’s taped comments that surfaced last week, I was most struck by the complacency with which he boasted about being able to commit sexual assault because of his status as a powerful, famous man. (Trump said: ‘I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it; you can do anything . . . grab them by the pussy.’) It was a hierarchy with which many women are familiar. So, too, are we horribly accustomed to the ‘harmless talk’ excuse he tried to use in the aftermath of the tapes’ release. But, this time, the excuses didn’t seem to be working. Even men famous for their own misogyny, men who had turned a blind eye while Trump made sexist, racist and Islamophobic comments in the past, seemed to have decided that his words were indefensible.
So it was something of a surprise to be asked to take part in a conversation on Radio 4’s Today programme that ended up responding to the tapes by asking whether men need space to discuss women in sexual terms, and whether certain types of ‘compliments’ are acceptable. Those are valid questions in their own right. But to frame a discussion of Trump’s remarks in those terms risks downplaying and mitigating the very serious nature of what he said, playing right into the hands of his own ‘locker room’ banter excuse. Indeed, it even required the presenter to ask at one point that we set aside the most serious element of Trump’s words in order to focus on the rest: ‘If you put that on one side though, the specific part of what he was taped saying that was obviously to you about assault, and you take the rest of it, is the rest of it acceptable?’ I asked the presenter which bits he meant by ‘the rest of it’ – perhaps Trump’s description of a woman as a bitch, or his graphic and misogynistic description of her breasts? He responded: ‘So it’s all the same, any description that objectifies a woman is an assault?’
Later he said: ‘The serious issue . . . is whether or not in 2016 it’s acceptable for men together to talk about women in a sexual manner without feeling guilty about it.’ It boiled down to the question: calling a woman sexy – acceptable or not? I would argue that perhaps that wasn’t, in fact, the serious issue at hand.
Comments as shocking as Trump’s require a less sympathetic media response, especially in light of the reality of sexual violence – 400,000 women are sexually assaulted in the UK annually, with one in five women experiencing some form of sexual offence in their lifetime. And, in a country where sexual violence is enormously under-reported and victim-blaming is rife, the framing of debates such as these not only sends a strong message to survivors about how their experiences are viewed, but also risks inadvertently validating those who hold views like Trump’s. Broadcasters have a power over public opinion, and presenting something as ‘up for debate’ leads listeners to believe there are two equally valid sides to the story. Sometimes there aren’t.
This is not to suggest that debate isn’t healthy, or that difficult topics shouldn’t be openly tackled. Of course they should. But this can be done in a way that doesn’t imply equal validation of those inciting and opposing something like sexual assault. There are certain serious events and issues simply reported as news stories, or condemned in the media without the need for a ‘devil’s advocate’ argument. The question is, who decides what is ‘beyond debate’? It often feels as if issues around sexism and sexual violence are presented as even, two-sided questions even when what is discussed is extreme. And sometimes ‘debate’ is artificially manufactured for the sake of creating a more controversial news item.
Such misinformation is similarly perpetuated by news outlets that frame issues such as ‘Is it OK to grab a woman on the street?’ as questions, when the law already tells us the answer. This isn’t a problem restricted to any one programme or media outlet – and it is complicated by the real need for balanced reporting. But there are many ways to achieve balance, such as debating the different ways to tackle a problem, which don’t have to involve undermining the problem itself. And there are times when, at victims’ expense, it feels as if ‘balance’ is a thinly veiled euphemism for controversy, clickbait or catfight.
Originally published 11 October 2016
NO, WIVES ‘WITHHOLDING SEX’ ARE NOT TO BLAME FOR MALE VIOLENCE
Wives who don’t have enough sex with their husbands are partly to blame for men committing sexual assault, according to an article published by the Daily Mail. The writer, Dr Catherine Hakim, claims that ‘decent’ husbands whose wives ‘starve’ them of sex are driven to affairs and ‘forced to seek relief elsewhere’, resulting in ‘a profoundly negative effect on our society – fracturing families and potentially leading to violence and crime’.
‘Sexually starved men,’ says Hakim, offering no evidence to back up this claim, ‘are more likely to visit prostitutes, view pornography and, in the worst cases, even molest other women.’ She later reiterates the supposed connection between sex-deprived husbands and sexual violence, writing: ‘Men, as we know in our heart of hearts, will have affairs, or perhaps even worse, when faced with sexual starvation and the inevitable resentment that causes.’
Throughout the piece, the blame for men’s behaviour is clearly and repeatedly placed with negligent wives, who are ‘calling catastrophe into their lives’ if they fail to have enough marital sex. But the author goes further, suggesting that such wives are also to blame for sexual violence befalling other women. She writes: ‘More worryingly, there is little doubt, in my view, that sexual frustration can lead to ass
aults on women, though I am in no way excusing this behaviour.’
Yet excusing such behaviour is precisely the end result of a mainstream news website choosing to publish completely unsubstantiated claims repeatedly suggesting that men are pushed to commit sexual violence because their mean, frigid wives fail to sexually satisfy them. At no point is any comment made or judgement passed on the active choices of men who commit rape. The writer’s stated credentials as a ‘social scientist’ and the use of unrelated statistics about sex in marriage create a deliberate veneer of scientific fact, though absolutely no proof is offered to substantiate the link between marital sex and male violence.
The conclusion readers are encouraged to draw is clear: poor, sex-obsessed men have no control over their own actions and no choice but to turn to affairs or sexual assault when marital sex is not available. No matter that such a ridiculous argument utterly relieves perpetrators of responsibility and is insulting to other men. Never mind that it ignores everything we know about rape, which is an act of power and control rather than sexual attraction. Or that it erases male victims and the existence of unmarried rapists. Or that it collapses in the face of the reality that 90 per cent of offenders are already known to their victims, suggesting that many women are still raped by their own husbands.
Indeed, the article also risks normalizing sexual pressure or even assault within relationships by reaffirming Victorian ideas about spousal responsibility for male sexual satisfaction. On the subject of affairs, Hakim says: ‘What else are men who need sex regularly to do when married to an unsympathetic wife?’ She appears to lament modern women’s financial independence, writing wistfully: ‘Though the days of women exchanging sex for financial security provided by their husbands are gone, we need to find new ways to trade our wants and needs for theirs . . . If he wants more sexual treats, tell him that the deal is you get more help with the washing up, a meal in a lovely restaurant or a new dress.’ The notion that women might actually enjoy sex themselves, or even have the capacity to buy their own clothes and food, does not seem to occur to Hakim. And clearly it would be absurd to expect a husband to contribute to household chores without sexual bribery.
We live in a society where tens of thousands of women are raped annually and hundreds of thousands sexually assaulted, and where reporting rates remain dismally low – in part because of widespread victim-blaming and misconceptions about sexual violence. In that context, publishing such misogynistic, unsubstantiated nonsense to a wide audience could have a very real impact.
The people who read Hakim’s article will include survivors of sexual violence and those who might come into contact with them, from friends and family to police officers and potential jurors. They will include women whose partners might be pressuring them into sex, or who might have experienced marital rape, or survivors who have been silenced and those who are weighing up whether or not to speak out.
But perhaps most worrying of all, the article will also be read by men, to whom it sends a clear message. You are not in control of your actions. You are not to blame. Your wife owes you sex, whether she feels like it or not, because you are a man and it is what you need and deserve. And if she doesn’t oblige, it is reasonable or even inevitable for you to have an affair, or to sexually assault another woman (a natural progression). It’s not your fault, she pushed you into it.
If anything risks having ‘a profoundly negative effect on our society . . . potentially leading to violence and crime’, it is not women who choose when they do and don’t want to have sex. It is messages like these and the media outlets that choose to spread them.
Originally published 21 February 2017
HANDY GUIDES FOR CONFUSED DUDES
For some men, who’ve lived their whole lives in a world that demands no inspection of their own privilege and who have little awareness of the harassment and discrimination experienced by women, all this is a lot to grasp. Many become very angry as a result, when equality measures are suggested. When I wrote an article for the New York Times about the potentially damaging impact of sex robots with a ‘frigid’ setting that would enable men to enact rape fantasies, one angry reader emailed me to protest. Surely I must concede, he railed, that it was better for him to ‘force himself’ on a robot than to rape his wife, who (I was shocked to hear) didn’t often want to have sex with him. It struck me powerfully that he thought these were the only two options.
It’s amazing how many men seem to confuse the idea of a woman’s right to live an autonomous, harassment-free existence with a vicious attack on their own rights and freedoms. But those who claim that equality will somehow ruin their romantic advances must have a pretty strange idea of what flirting looks like.
In fact, men’s misconceptions about feminism could fill an entire book on their own. On my way to a recent speech at a city firm, I accepted a seemingly kind stranger’s offer to direct me. It turned out we were walking in the same direction, so he struck up a light, friendly conversation. When I explained that I was a guest speaker, he enquired as to the subject of my talk. When I replied ‘equality and diversity’, he was so horrorstruck that he literally crossed the street to get away from me.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, this minority of men seems uniquely focused on their own personal interactions with women, whether in the workplace, online or in public. And their poor cries for help can be really quite pitiful: ‘I’m a white man and I’m terrified I’m basically not allowed to say anything to a woman ever again,’ bleated one poor soul on social media. Because this sounds like such a difficult plight (particularly in comparison with the sexual assault statistics he was commenting on), it seemed like some helpful how-to guides were called for.
EVERYDAY SEXISM: FIVE REASONS WHY MEN SHOULDN’T SHOUT AT WOMEN IN THE STREET
Over the past week, the Everyday Sexism Project has received an unprecedented number of stories from women experiencing harassment in the street. The 300 or so incidents this week are varied, and many go far beyond the common misconception of street harassment as just ‘the odd catcall or wolf whistle here or there’ . . .
Here are just a few examples.
@Izzy_Dickenson: Guy mutters ‘slut’ whilst passing me on stairs at Clapham Junction. I am quite blatantly dressed for a funeral.
@richandgay: On the bus having things thrown and obscenities shouted at me by two young men asking for sexual favours. Delightful.
@thejessicaraven: I’m so tired of people on the street calling me sexy. I’m six months pregnant, bro. You literally just need to leave me alone.
@CathBailey: 200 f’ball fans outside pub in L’pool st chant ‘get yer tits out 4 the lads’ at 2 young women, then chase them. Police ignore.
@unicornhentai: Saw a drunk man catcall a school girl and call her ‘darling’ while chasing after her. It’s unnerving.
@OtherPens: Crossing street in crowd, older man grabs my hips in both hands while telling me to walk faster. Shoves but doesn’t let go.
@AndreaAuburn: just got followed home by two neanderthals in a car shouting slut, slag, ugly etc. etc. because I told them to leave me alone.
All this has prompted a burst of frustration over here at Everyday Sexism HQ and since open letters seem to be all the rage at the moment, we’ve penned one of our own . . .
Dear men who shout at women in the street,
Thanks for your latest. No, as it happens, I didn’t have an ‘ITCHY BEAVER!!!’ but your acute observational skills are bang on – I did let my hand brush momentarily across my crotch as I went to get something out of my bag, so good shout. The nice people who were in the florists next to my house probably didn’t need to hear it as you screamed out of the window of your car though – I probably won’t feel comfortable going in there for a while.
While we’re corresponding, I thought I’d try to explain why it’s not okay to shout at women in the street, since our repeated, clear assertion that we do not enjoy it and don’t consider it a compliment doesn’t seem to have cleared thin
gs up. Here are five simple reasons why.
1. It ruins nice things
Contrary to popular slander, we feminists aren’t, in fact, saying that there’s anything wrong with giving someone a polite compliment on the dress they’re wearing, or nicely introducing yourself at a bar. We’re asking you, please, to stop screaming about our tits at the top of your voices or declaring what you’d do to our vaginas when we’ve really given you no indication at all of our interest or availability. But, yes, the overwhelming volume of unsolicited attention that carries all the subtlety of an enquiry about the colour of our underwear is likely to make us more than a little wary of any advances. So, men who moan about feminists killing romance and forbidding flirtation, get angry at all the Neanderthal screamers out there instead – they’re the ones really ruining it for the rest of you.
2. It won’t work
Strange to have to spell this out, but the sheer volume of cases still occurring suggests that some catcallers still haven’t grasped this simple pearl of wisdom. No woman, ever, has run sobbing after the car of the man who shouted about her fanny as he whizzed past, desperately begging him to take her to his lustful bed.
3. Your logic is flawed
You know when a woman declines or ignores your unsolicited, shouty advances, and you respond by screaming that she is a slut, a slag or a whore? In your outrage at the denial of your fundamental male right to harass, your logic has gone sadly askew. This doesn’t add up. Think it through.
4. It’s so passé
Shouting unsolicited sexual comments at passing women may once have been the route to prove your macho credentials to your peer group, but it’s so 1990. The modern man has the right to be multifaceted, three dimensional and, would you believe it, even to respect women. Have a spark of imagination, won’t you?