Men, is your behaviour driving women out of politics?

Imagine you are in a meeting trying to make your case. How would you feel if, every time you opened your mouth to speak, somebody interrupted you before you had got to the end of your first sentence? Not just once. Every. Single.Time.

Imagine you are in a meeting, trying to make your case, but the decision has clearly been made by a small cabal of powerful men who have reached their own understanding over dinner and some booze the night before, at an event that you were not invited to.

Imagine you are in a meeting trying to do your job responsibly, but because your recollections or views don't fit in with what others want, they become aggressive, shouting you down, demeaning your abilities, decrying your right to suggest something different. You feel completely under attack, humiliated, your heart is racing, you can feel the tears stinging and try to suppress them because you sure as hell aren't going to give them the satisfaction of showing weakness.

These are just three examples of behaviour I've repeatedly experienced and witnessed while going about my Lib Demmery over the years, and it still goes on to this day. And virtually always, the aggressors are men, who would never behave towards other men in such a manner.

You will always to a certain extent get people who will take advantage of their position and power, but this is not what I'm talking about. That's kind of part of politics. I'm talking about those men who, whether consciously or not, treat women with less respect than they do men. It's almost as if they think we're interlopers. I would not for one moment think that this sort of behaviour is confined to the Liberal Democrats, or even active politics, but it's my own party I want to change.

Academic Mary Beard, who has been the victim of Twitter trolls, has given a lecture, reported in the Guardian, about the way women are treated when they dare to put their heads above the parapet and speak out. She says that from Homer to Twitter, prejudice hardwired into our culture leads to vocal women being treated as "freakish androgenes." Dealing with that can't be remedied by measures like all women shortlists alone:

But if we want to understand – and do something about – the fact that women, even when they are not silenced, still tend to pay a very high price for being heard, we have to recognise that it's more complicated and that there's a long backstory."

Women's interventions were often described as "strident" or "whining". "Do those words matter? Of course they do – because they underpin an idiom that acts to remove the authority, the force, even the humour from what women have to say. It's an idiom that effectively repositions women back into the domestic sphere (people "whinge" over things like the washing up); it trivialises their words," she said.

"Contrast that with the 'deep-voiced' man, and its connotations of profundity. It is still the case, I'd argue, that when as listeners we hear a female voice, we don't hear a voice that connotes authority; or rather we haven't learned how to hear authority in it."

What is her solution?

"We just have got to have a bit more onsciousness-raising, old-fashioned feminist consciousness-raising. How do we use language? Why does it matter? And how does it put women down?"

This isn't about robust exchange of views. Anyone in politics should expect that. And anyone in the Liberal Democrats should always relish reasoned debate and discussion as a way to learn as much as a form of combat. Nobody in any position of power within the party should expect their decisions to go unchallenged. No, my concerns relate to a specific issue with how some men behave towards women.

Sometimes they aren't even aware. In my first example, of the man who interrupted me every time I opened my mouth, I eventually took him to one side and, very gently, asked him why he did that. He didn't even realise he was doing it but when I gave him a whole list of specific examples, he started to get it and to his credit worked at changing his behaviour. Our working relationship improved vastly as a result.

So, what's the solution? Well, it's certainly not easy. It is a problem, though that we ignore at our peril. I've seen good women driven away from active politics out of sheer exasperation at the way powerful men exclude and demean them. Participation in politics should not require putting up with such behaviour and politics itself is better when it more accurately reflects the society we live in.

A start would be for us all to be much more aware of our behaviour and that of others. Men in powerful positions, have a look at your own behaviour. Do you exclude women, do you behave aggressively towards them in a way that you would never do to a man? If so, change your behaviour. Decide that you won't do that in future. It's not difficult.

The rest of us need to look out for women who are being treated like this and challenge disrespectful behaviour. Even if we don't agree with what they say, we should always support their right to be heard and treated with dignity. Let's tackle our everyday sexism.

Scotland Tonight team member calls me a troll after I complain about all male programme

Update: Shortly after I posted this, I went out for the day and have just returned. I am pleased to say that Peter has contacted me and made a genuine and sincere apology which is to his credit. He says that he intended his reply to be tongue in cheek and not to cause offence. I'm not very good at holding grudges, so that, as far as I'm concerned, is an end to it. 

For what it's worth, as I say below, it probably was one of these thoughtless late night tweets, made without any bad intent. I don't believe that he went out of his way to try to upset me, but this is a lesson to all of us, myself included, that we have to be careful in not just what we say, but how we say it. And putting a smiley on something doesn't make it funny. 

When Scotland Tonight first came on the air, it was a bit of a revolution in late night current affairs telly. It seemed refreshing compared to the rather tired and stale Newsnight Scotland format. They had the social media side cracked too. I mean, they actually interacted with their followers and listened to what they had to say. In fact, once I tweeted their account mid afternoon to see if they'd cover the No More Page 3 petition which had just been set up. They were great. They asked me who to contact and that very night, Lucy Anne Holmes was featured.

Sadly, standards have slipped a bit. Too often they resort to discussion between the usual male suspects and too often it's not just an all male panel, but an all male programme.

Last night's was one such sorry example. It featured:

• John Mackay (presenter)
• Item about independence referendum polls: Discussion with Professor John Curtice and Colin Mackay
• Item about Bill Walker: Discussion with Colin Mackay and Willie Rennie
• Item about Australian elections: John McTernan. 

They didn't even think it was worth getting a woman in from Zero Tolerance or NUS Scotland to talk about their Bill Walker protest outside Holyrood at 1pm today. Willie Rennie, to his credit, mentioned it and said he was going (as am I).

So, I complained about the all male programme as I and other women often do, on Twitter. It attracted a few retweets.

What I found particularly exasperating, though, was the fact that all the tweets that they read out from viewers on the programme were from men, too. At that point I got Twitter accounts and hashtags mixed up and tweeted this.

Well, even the tweets are all from men. Please sort your life out @scotnight
— Caron Lindsay (@caronmlindsay) September 2, 2013

Anyway, after some discussion, I went to bed and thought no more of it. When I woke up this morning, I found this in my timeline:

@caronmlindsay that's the wrong twitter handle, Caron. Please troll the right account :)
— Peter A Smith (@PeterAdamSmith) September 2, 2013

Peter seemed to be part of the production team because he'd also joined in a discussion with myself, Christine Jardine and Susan Stewart. A bit of googling found him presenting a You Tube preview of a programme last November, ironically introducing another all male programme:



I am sure that this was an off-the-cuff late night comment after a hard day at work, but, even so, it's out of order. Kate Higgins is pretty fair about most things, and she said:

@caronmlindsay @ScotlandTonight He was trying to make a joke. Not funny either way.
— Kate Higgins (@burdzeyeview) September 3, 2013

When people hear the word troll these days, because of the abuse and threats dished out to people like Caroline Criado-Perez and Mary Beard, they associate it with someone who threatens violence, or tells people there's a bomb outside their house, or makes vile and abusive comments. To use it to describe someone who is making measured and reasonable critique of the programme where you work is quite bizarre.

There was an occasion before, when there were a spate of similar complaints about gender balance, they had an all female panel - to discuss gender balance. I would respectfully suggest to the production team that they think about the title of their programme. It's not "Holyrood Tonight", or "Scottish Men Tonight" so they really need to think about reflecting all of Scotland. A studio containing only men discussing the issues of the day is not a good look and it's actually reducing their audience.

All the contributors to the programme last night were perfectly interesting and I'm not saying that they shouldn't ever be on. The producers need to look at the whole programme, though. Does it appeal to the whole of the audience, or just half?

Earlier this year, Mark Pack said that he wouldn't take part in panels that were all male. I wonder if this is something that more politicians and commentators should think about. Here's what Mark had to say:

The idea is to change the balance on what is easy for a panel organiser to do. Often the easy option is to go for the ‘obvious’ names, which helps perpetuate the male dominance (out of kilter with a majority female electorate and a close to 50/50 party membership balance). However, once organisers know that people will say no if they’re lining up a list of just men, then the easy option is to go for a balanced option.

This is no miracle cure. There are many other issues that need addressing too, and many issues of equality that are not about gender.

But it is a simple step that can help – help set a different tone at conference, help set a different example to people in the party as to who is welcome to participate and help highlight to those looking for Lib Dem names to participate on occasions outside party conference that there are plenty of women they could ask too. Indeed the organisers are very likely not choosing the best people if they just choose men!

 Mark's approach isn't going to solve the problem at a stroke, but it's a useful contribution.

So, Scotland Tonight, it's time to widen your list of contacts. Let's see more of the Dani Garavellis, Lorraine Davidsons, Christine Jardines, Natalie McGarrys and Kate Higgins of this world, please. You need to reflect all of Scotland, not just the Holyrood Bubble.

Would you have helped Nigella?

Everyone's been pretty shocked by the photos of Charles Saatchi's assault on Nigella Lawson for which he has now received a Police caution.

Just out of interest, I looked up the criteria for giving a caution and the procedures for doing so on the Ministry of Justice website. It appears that domestic assault is not normally the sort of offence considered appropriate for a simple caution:

Positive action is recommended in cases of domestic violence and abuse to ensure the safety and protection of victims and children while allowing the Criminal Justice System to hold the offender to account. Domestic violence and abuse cases often involve a number of incidents prior to reporting to the police. A positive action approach considers the incident in its entirety and should focus investigative efforts on gathering sufficient evidence to be able to build a prosecution case that does not rely entirely on the victim’s statement. Police and prosecutors should refer to the ACPO/CPS Charging checklist3 to help secure evidence-based prosecutions which are not solely victim reliant.

The next paragraph may offer a clue as to why a caution was given in this circumstance:

 However, where a positive action policy has been adhered to but the victim does not support a prosecution and the available evidence (including any additional evidence adduced) would only disclose a very minor offence a simple caution can be considered in preference to a decision to take no further action.

This is obviously a very difficult time for Nigella and she should be subject to no criticism whatsoever for any decisions she makes or doesn't make in relation to this. The fault lies entirely with Charles Saatchi. It's to be hoped that having to sign a bit of paper admitting his guilt in front of a Police Officer will teach him a lesson.

I'm not his biggest fan, it's fair to say. Nigella once famously said that he preferred a bowl of cereal to her cooking. If he's said that to her, even privately, it's a bit demeaning, to be honest. If you have a spouse who's achieved a great deal in their field, you would surely be really proud of them, wouldn't you? Such an attitude seems quite belittling of someone who's made millions from her unique and slightly salacious style of cookery programme.

One thing that's been vexing many is that nobody went to help Nigella on the night. Had I been there, I'd have intervened if I'd seen anyone put their hands round someone else's throat, especially if that other person looked distressed. And if I had taken any pictures, I'd have sent them to the Police, not a downmarket Sunday scandal rag.

Yesterday I asked on Twitter if anyone had ever intervened in a case of domestic assault. I had 11 replies, not bad for a quick tweet in the middle of the afternoon, from people who had either got directly involved or who had called the Police, including one from someone who had tried to stop a hammer attack on a family. Thankfully everybody was ok in that instance.

I've never had to intervene between spouses, but I have done so when I've seen parents behave really unpleasantly towards their children, giving them verbal abuse or pushing them around. There is never, and I mean never, any circumstance when it's justified to scream at your child, calling them a "wee f***ing s***e. Once I saw a mum push a shopping trolley really viciously at a boy of about 8. In both instances I got abuse from the parents but at least their anger was focused on me, not the child.

Alecia Simmonds has put forward her ideas as to why nobody helped Nigella. She said:

The reason, I think, is not that the 70 year old Saatchi posed such a hulking physical threat. It is simply because what they saw would normally have taken place behind closed doors, in a domestic setting where law, for most of our history, has refused to enter. Thanks to years of feminist campaigning domestic violence legislation has relatively recently sought to challenge the idea that these incidences are ‘just another domestic’ and to end the violent tyranny too many men wield over their partners. Yet for all our legal reforms, the Nigella incident proves that domestic violence is still considered a private matter between husband and wife. Domestic violence is simply not taken as seriously by our society as other crimes.

 I think she might have a point. At least the legislative protections are there victims of domestic violence, but our attitude towards it needs to catch up.

Another article I read today showed, though, that there are some men who have no issue with treating women as equals. In the Brisbane Times, John Birmingham writes about the monumental misogyny of the last week and calls upon the decent men of this world to stand with women against this nonsense:

Because the truth is the world is not solely populated by misogynists and homophobes and embittered, deeply stupid and potentially violent males. It’s also full of calmer, gentler, more intelligent and wiser men who know better than these fools and who are perfectly capable of standing them down. Men who want better for women because so many of the people they care most about in the world are women.

Where are these blokes when a man puts his hands around a woman’s neck and starts to squeeze? Where are they when some idiot demeans and disrespects a prime minister, not because of what she’s done, but because of what she is? Where are you guys? Because if you just stepped up and said no at the very moment that it's happening, not later, but right then and there, some of this wretched dickishness might finally die out.

Birmingham's view echoes that of Helena Morrissey when she said that it can't just be women calling for better representation within the party - men have to take ownership of the issues we've had as well. 

I hadn't, by the way, been aware of the goings on in the Australian army where emails depicting demeaning images of female officers  have been doing the rounds. That's appalling in an environment where you have to be able to trust your colleagues 100%. The army chief Lt General David Morrison certainly let the perpetrators have it. 

The attitudes prevalent around these issues shows that there is still a long way to go before men and women achieve true equality. What would you do if you saw someone upset by the violent behaviour of a partner while you were out and about?

Is it time for retailers to lose the lads' mags?

Every time you go into a supermarket or newsagent to buy a magazine, you are likely to be confronted with the following:

• A women's section, which contains magazines on, mainly, celebrity froth, sewing, cooking and child-rearing;
• Everything remotely interesting,like current affairs, photography, fishing, sport, computers and science fiction being displayed elsewhere;
• Magazines with pictures of half naked women prominently displayed in a way that you can't miss.

What does this tell children about the world in which they are growing up? The message seems to be that women are there to keep everyone else fed (while keeping themselves unrealistically thin, of course), that they aren't or shouldn't be interested in the issues of the day, and they are there to be men's sexual playthings if they are pretty enough.  If they ever watch the news, they will see that it's mostly middle aged white men in suits who are making most of the decisions that affect our lives. Of course, they will also see good stuff from ministers like Lynne Featherstone and Jo Swinson, but there should be more women at higher levels of industry, politics, and the legal profession.

This unequal treatment of women is surely inconsistent with our vision of a liberal society in which "none shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance and conformity." The range of things which need to be done to redress that balance is wide, and no single campaign alone will achieve it. The shared parental leave arrangements championed by Nick Clegg and Jo Swinson will help alleviate discrimination against women of childbearing age in the workplace. The Body Confidence campaign is already showing results - what would have been acceptable in terms of airbrushing 2 years ago is now not so.

A new campaign launches today aimed at getting supermarkets to remove lads' mags which have on their front covers pictures of scantily clad women. Lose the Lads' Mags, run by UK Feminista and Object Update, warns retailers that by displaying these images, they could be in breach of the Equality Act by failing to protect their employees from sexual harassment. A group of lawyers have written to the Guardian arguing that:

Every mainstream retailer which stocks lads' mags is vulnerable to legal action by staff and, where those publications are visibly on display, by customers. There are, in particular, examples of staff successfully suing employers in respect of exposure to pornographic material at work. Such exposure is actionable where it violates the dignity of individual employees or customers, or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them. We therefore call on such retailers to urgently heed the call to Lose the Lads' Mags.

I wrote a post last year asking why men thought it appropriate to get their Nuts out in public, after a flight where the man next to me was reading one of these magazines saying:

When men ostentatiously read stuff like this in public, it's like they're making a huge statement that they see women as simply being there as window dressing, as decoration, as pleasure enhancers rather than their equals. They clearly feel that they have a right to own all the public space. I felt it was so rude of him and it made me feel uncomfortable. Now, I don't have the right to be protected from being offended, and nor am I asking for it, but I think I have every right to express my displeasure at such insensitive and crude behaviour.

We need to look no further than the Government's own Sexualisation of young people review to see that this stuff causes actual harm:

The evidence gathered in the review suggests a clear link between consumption of sexualised images, a tendency to view women as objects and the acceptance of aggressive attitudes and behaviour as the norm. Both the images we consume and the way we consume them are lending credence to the idea that women are there to be used and that men are there to use them.

I doubt that we are going to see a flood of female employees on the minimum wage sue supermarket giants under the Equality Act. However, if this campaign convinces those retailers that they could be vulnerable to legal action, they in turn might convince the publishers to ensure that the front covers of these magazines do not portray women in a demeaning way. At the very least, it will spark a discussion about the effect on society of the way women are so routinely portrayed and reassure women that, actually, the law is on their side.

The prevalence of these magazines is a symptom of a culture that treats women unfairly. We need to tackle the attitudes which enable such a culture to operate. But, if I have recurrent headaches, I don't wait for the outcome of tests to determine and treat the cause before I take a painkiller. In the same way, there is a place for tackling symptoms of sexism, one at a time, whether that's toy retailers selling doctors' sets for boys and nurses' outfits for girls or Disney turning Merida from Brave from active girl to glamorous, curvy, groomed model. These campaigns have been successful. We can but hope that over time we can lose the demeaning images from lads' mags too.

George Foulkes was wrong, but all political parties need to do more to tackle rape culture

Yesterday, George Foulkes caused a bit of a stooshie with this tweet:

Horsemeat in school dinners,14 year old raped in City bus & Orkney firm in administration yet all we hear from SNP Govt. is more on Indyref!
— George Foulkes (@GeorgeFoulkes) March 29, 2013

Now, one of these three events is very different from the others. Yes, we need to confidence in what our school kids eat. Yes, anyone facing the threat of losing their job is pretty awful. But the brutal assault of a child in a public place is too horrific for casual political banter. There are limits, and he crossed the line.

As mother of an almost 14 year old, I winced when I read his tweet and replied to him:

@georgefoulkes I agree that Nats ignore people's needs now to bang on about #indyref but I don't think your analogy helped make that case.
— Caron Lindsay (@caronmlindsay) March 29, 2013

What I took back from him is I think as close as an admission from him that he understands the point I was making as we're ever likely to get:

@georgefoulkes Thanks. I appreciate that. If you'd just missed out the second example, I'd have agreed with you. I've often said similar.
— Caron Lindsay (@caronmlindsay) March 29, 2013

Of course, Nationalists on Twitter were not chuffed. Foulkes, of course, loves winding them up, much more than is helpful to the debate to be honest. They didn't help themselves when they started bandying around crime stats, though. I doubt the numbers game matter one tiny bit to that poor wee girl and her family.

I would probably elbow my way past George Foulkes to accuse the Nats of failing to meet people's needs now. In fact, I wrote a bit about it on Lib Dem Voice the other day, linking to Christine Jardine's article saying the same thing. They do need to get a grip of the here and now and not just ignore it and blame all failings on the fact that they don't have the powers to do stuff. Most of the time, they do.

I got to thinking, though, that maybe we should start to talk - that's talk, not throw political brickbats about - about what we can do about the sort of culture we have, how it demeans women and how we can change things. To do so we need to listen to some of the people who are out there working with young people. Or we can have a look around social media and find some of the terrible sexism and misogyny around. Chris Glendinning has a point about what we need to do here:

If we want to actually to tackle rape, then we can’t do this just by improving the legal process for complainers. Education also has a crucial role to play. When the Scottish Youth Parliament’s Education and Equalities Committees consulted young people on PSE in schools, the results were startling. When we surveyed young people on the issue of consent to sex and relationships in February this year, 63% of respondents said that there schools didn’t do enough to teach them about the importance of consent. If we want to tackle rape as an issue, we’ve got to simply stop saying to women “don’t do these things that could get you raped” (such as dress provocatively, get drunk, show consent to any sexual conduct with a man etc.) because firstly it is simply wrong: no-one is to blame for rape but the rapist themselves; and secondly because it does nothing to tackle the rape problem structurally, and do more to say to men “don’t rape”. Campaigns, such as “This is not an invitation to rape me” by Rape Crisis Scotland and the “We can stop it” by the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland are fantastic, but they need to be rolled out on a much more widespread basis in schools, colleges and universities if we are to actually change social attitudes for the better.

There's a few things I'd like to add to Chris's suggestions. The effects of exposure to easily available internet porn which portrays women as receptacles rather than as equal participants in a relationship are being noticed by those who work with young people and in the UK Government's own review of sexualisation of young people. These articles by Ann Czernik in the Guardian also make scary reading.

We also need to look at the effects of the way women are treated in the mainstream media.Why, for example, are we still willing to put up with women's breasts being all over a national newspaper? What about the effect of pressure to conform to certain body types and an increasingly narrow definition of beauty? How does that impact on girls' and boys' expectations as they grow up?

As I say, no political party either gives tackling our victim blaming, misogynist rape cultre enough priority or tackles it properly. If we take anything from the furore over George Foulkes' tweet, it should be a determination to remedy that.

Active sexism as part of a marketing strategy, Lord Sugar?

We're used to seeing sex being used to sell products. We're used to seeing ads built on an unhealthy foundation of sexism. Remember that really irritating washing up liquid ad from the Olympics which suggested that mums were just there to wash dishes while their sons became athletes?

All this stuff is quite subtle and when confronted, the companies shrink back in horror from accusations of sexism.

However, I wonder if Lord Sugar has branched out today with a new strategy of using sexist comments to get attention for his products.

Remember that nice inventor Tom who won the Apprentice last year? Well, he's developed a  new range of nail files with Lord Sugar as his business partner.

So far so good. Now we get to the sexist bit. Part of the marketing strategy is aimed at persuading employers to buy this for their "lady staff". I kid you not.

Lord Sugar himself is enthusiastically tweeting every couple of hours or so inviting "girls" to ask their boss to get them these nail files for Christmas to show their appreciation of their hard work.

Well, frankly, I'd prefer a bonus, or even a commitment from my employer to close the gender pay gap, or to get more women on their board or whatever. That aside, though. Lord Sugar is being patronising and sexist. That's not particularly new from him, but he's also not daft. He knows full well that nobody goes and asks their boss for a specific Christmas present. I can just imagine what he would say if any of his employees did that and it probably involves a couple of expletives and the word P45.

I think he knows that by saying such a blatantly sexist thing on Twitter, he'll provoke some controversy. Serena FitzGerald replied to him, calling him out, very politely for his sexism. For her trouble she got a three word reply. Simply, "Shut up, idiot." The photographic evidence is here:

It's out of order, really. Blocking her for a polite tweet was way over the top, too. But it's a provocative act which might well get some publicity for his product. Alan Sugar is many things, but stupid is not one of them. I think this is a deliberate attempt to up sales by creating a Twitter storm and Serena has found herself in the middle of it.

I only found out about all this after I'd sent Alan Sugar a reply when I saw a similar tweet about the product from him today. He hasn't blocked me yet, but I'm sure it's only a matter of time. 

It may be a deliberate marketing strategy, but I think it's one which should be doomed to fail. What Sugar has done, of course, is insulted someone who should be part of his target market. What he really should do is apologise to her and unblock her. I won't be holding my breath for that. Misogyny shouldn't sell.

At least Lord Sugar was shown some support by a Labour Party colleague in Scotland. Ian Smart is known for his sharp and occasionally reckless wit and tweeted me that:

I'd just bought a job lot as a peace offering to @womenforindy. Do you think I should cancel?

I wish he had, and that I could be there when they opened them so I could help them thank him appropriately.

.

I shall leave the last word to @crazycolours whose crown jewel in a succession of very funny tweets to Lord Sugar was:

If you buy Margaret that, she'll slot you in the throat.

Can't you just imagine her hard stare which is enough to reduce most grown-ups to gloop?

Michelle Obama and magnetic misogyny

Michelle Obama is a formidable woman. She combines intelligence with warmth and is an inspiration to a generation of women not only in the US but worldwide. A magnetic personality, you might say.

Who can forget the affection she inspired after her visit to a London girls' school in 2009. Look at this. Three years on, it still makes me cry.



She had a message so important for girls to hear:

"We need strong, smart confident young women to stand up and take the reins. I want you to know that we have very much in common. Nothing in my life's path would have predicted that I'd be standing here as the first African American First Lady of the USA.  wasn't raised with wealth or resources....you too can control your own destiny. Please remember that."

She's had a real impact as First Lady with her campaign to get families exercising and eating healthily to combat childhood obesity and to get people giving armed services veterans the support they need.

But while she does all this good work, she's undermined by the usual sexism in the media. Try and find a profile or article about her that doesn't mention her clothes. I mean, how is it news that she wore the same outfit twice?  You might expect that from a US entertainment site, but the BBC should know better. 

It was profoundly depressing to see, on BBC Breakfast yesterday morning, the two presenters joking about a piece of Michelle merchandise:

A magnetic, 37 piece dress-up set

Heavens above. And while the BBC presenters were joking about it, there was nothing in their comments which indicated that there was anything just a bit sexist about the product. Did they just not see it?

This is just another example of the casual sexism which permeates our everyday lives. When there's a female President, as I hope there will be in 2016 (go, Hillary), I bet if she has a husband, he won't be subjected to this sort of magnetic misogyny.

Page 3 is the tip of a huge iceberg which threatens our society #nomorepage3

The No More Page 3 Campaign hurtles towards 50,000 signatures, and has attracted the backing of some more Liberal Democrat MPs, MSPs and councillors.

Julian Huppert, Tom Brake and Stephen Williams have signed up, along with Alison McInnes MSP, Sarah Ludford MEP and Ruth Dombey the Leader of Sutton Borough Council.

I asked Julian Huppert on Twitter why he supported the campaign and this was his reply:

I'm pleased to see this - but there are still a good 50 Lib Dem MPs who have yet to sign. If you know any of them, why not contact them and tell them about the campaign and invite them to sign.

Tim Farron has not signed the letter, but he did tell me on Twitter the other day that he was not a fan of Page 3:

There are a couple of things I'd like to make clear, though. I might support the campaign to end Page 3, but that it doesn't mean I have either a hang up about nudity or sex. What I do object to is the exclusivity of one particular group of people being set up to be leered at, especially when that one group of people does not have an equal share of power.

There have been a few intelligent articles against the Page 3 campaign written by people I respect. Martin Robbins suggests the page 3 campaign is sinister and  makes it more difficult for mothers to breastfeed in public. I beg to differ with that one. I think that the presence of Page 3 actually encourages the idea that breasts are only for sex. I was almost thrown out of a tea room for breastfeeding Anna when she was 4 months old. The manager failed to see the irony of providing the Sun to read for her customers.

Iain Roberts wrote on Liberal Democrat Voice recently that:

So what’s really the problem? I suspect the Page 3 debate may be asking the wrong question. It isn’t Page 3 (or indeed pornography in general) that’s intrinsically good or bad. The problems we see may be caused by a society that sends out all sorts of mixed messages about how men and women should be and behave.

It's all a bit which came first, the chicken or the egg. We have to look, I think, at who has the power in society and we find that, even in a developed industrialised, educated society, men have more than their fair share. Martin and Iain write from a position of privilege. I wonder how they would feel if the gender situation was reversed. If Page 3 showed pictures of men's backsides or worse every day, never any women at all. How would they feel if everywhere around them, there were women leering at these pictures of men saying "Ooh, I'd like a bit of that.". You'd also have to imagine that there were a majority of women in Parliament, as judges, that men were predominantly cast in caring roles and seen as responsible for domestic tasks. Add to this a situation where their female colleagues are paid around 15% more than. And then pile on top of that every magazine being filled with pictures of what men should look like, what weight they should be and how they have to stay looking nice for their wives or they'll be left for a younger, more compliant model. In short, a world made for women by women. 

That's a bit how it is for women. It's not a mindset, it's an actual cultural phenomenon that needs to change. Page 3 is a symptom of the patriarchal nonsense that rules our world, not its cause. Nobody's arguing about that. Getting rid of it would be a huge step forward. Things have changed in the last 40 years, but not enough.

The 70s were the age of Benny Hill, of scantily clad women on beer cans, of Carry On films, of Miss World, of leering men with medallions. I grew up in that environment, bombarded with all these images and it certainly left me with a sense of injustice that women were treated as playthings just because they had breasts. 

Things are a bit better now - sexual harassment, if not eliminated, is not tolerated and there are healthier expectations of appropriate behaviour at work. But there are vestiges of that very sinister culture which give out the same messages. Page 3 is one of them. Iain argues that there is no evidence linking Page 3 or porn to abuse. That's not what the Deputy Children's Commissioner told Parliament earlier this year. Young people are acting out what they see in pornography where often women are portrayed as mere receptacles, in subjugative roles. How much easier is that for young boys to think that sex is there to benefit them and them alone if they are brought up in an environment where women are depicted, in everyday publications, as sexual playthings? A whole generation of kids is growing up with some very harmful ideas about appropriate behaviour within a relationship and that way lies the potential for abuse to just get worse. Maybe the reason some sexual abuse doesn't get reported is because girls are growing up thinking that's the way things are. If that's the case, then that's a massive step backwards from the fair and liberal society we want to deliver. 

Not only do we have the Deputy Children's Commissioner's evidence to go on, but Laura Bates from the Everyday Sexism project wrote an extremely disturbing article about the way young women are treated at university freshers' events and beyond. Particularly gut wrenching is the practice of "slut dropping."

The process, they explained, involves driving around town with friends in the early hours of the morning and offering a lift home to a young woman they deem a “slut” (usually a woman in a “post-club state”). After asking her address, they drive as fast and as far as possible in the opposite direction before forcing the woman out of the car and using a camera to film her “standing by the side of the road as they drive away”.  It’s difficult to know how widely this has occurred but the concept is reminiscent of a disturbing new trend of ‘slut-shaming’. On one occasion, the first-year added, it had taken the girl eight hours to get home. When asked how he knew, he explained that they were ‘friends’ on Facebook.

So, a young woman making her way home is subjected to a terrifying ordeal and left in a vulnerable situation at the hands of someone she vaguely knows. Can you imagine how she must have felt, how she must have feared for what was going to happen to her? The idea of decrying a woman as a slut just for having been at a nightclub and deeming she must somehow be punished should be repugnant to all. I have no doubt that some people will have a go at me for not being able to take a joke but I'm sure most people will consider it distasteful at worst.

On Saturday night's X Factor, Tulisa described one of contestants as a MILF - a term commonly used in pornography. It means "Moms I Like to F***". When did that sort of language and idea become appropriate for a family show? And don't tell me that it was ok because it was after the watershed. It's a show watched by families and there were bound to be children around. The half hearted apology given by presenter Dermot O'Leary "that's why we love her" showed that ITV really didn't get it.

When you are getting the Police called to schools because of Facebook pages giving the names of the establishment's "sluts and players", you know it's high time for some serious action on the issue. Education is always the key and it appears to me that kids need to get a few strong messages about what is appropriate behaviour.

I wasn't best chuffed to see Nick Clegg's take on the Page 3 debate as reported in the Guardian. He seems to have misunderstood what the campaign is trying to do, which is to get the Sun to realise that it's inappropriate for modern society and withdraw the feature itself. Nick is right that banning Page 3 would be illiberal, but it's not what the campaign is about. He said himself that he wouldn't have it in his  house around his 3 young boys. I was going to write a piece specifically around Nick's comments, which gained him the Sun's accolade of "Hero of the Week", but my colleague Paul Walter has done so admirably so I don't need to.

It's very clear to me that there are very frightening and worrying things going on as regards the treatment and portrayal of women and girls. This is very unhealthy and needs liberal action, urgently. Page 3 is a small but significant part of what's wrong. If that tumbles, it would be a symbol of progress being made. I actually think that the pressures on young girls have got much worse since I was that age - and as I have a teenage daughter, that worries me greatly.

If you agree with me and haven't already signed the petition calling on the editor of the Sun to remove the Page 3 feature, you can do so here.

Scary Republicans Part 1 - comparing pregnancy from rape to having a child out of wedlock

As the Republicans gather in Florida for their Convention, they are all madly trying to make it sound as though they really aren't as bad as Todd Akin, the Missouri senate candidate whose assertion that you can't get pregnant from "legitimate rape" hit the headlines last week.

Scarily, they don't seem to realise that they are just as bad, if not worse.

Here we have, from the Huffington Post, a video of Tom Smith, a Republican Senate candidate from Pennsylvania, who dug a huge hole for himself when he compared pregnancy resulting from rape to having a child out of wedlock. That's right. You shouldn't actually have to say that a horrible traumatic violation is not even in the same land mass as a consensual loving relationship, but these people make it really important that we do. I wrote the other day that there is insufficient protection for US mothers in this situation from further abuse as rapists seek access to the children conceived as a result of their crime.

What worries me is that the nasty, ill-informed language of US politics will become more entrenched over here. Maybe not by many mainstream politicians yet, but unless we stand up to against these kinds of comments every time they're made, then all sorts of other kinds of hatred spring up. We need our leaders to state the bleedin' obvious in a very calm and matter of fact way. It's strange in a way that it's taken until now for a US President to unequivocally support same sex marriage - and it's to Obama's credit that he was willing to take the political risk to do so. While it's very worrying that we have the sort of politics in the US that requires the President of the US to state unequivocally that rape is rape, it's vital that he does so. Nobody else will.

If Romney and Ryan win in November, hard won rights will be under severe threat. It certainly won't be very pleasant to be LGBT and/or female. This is a crucial time to stand up for liberal values.

Update - and there's more. Check here for Scary Republicans part 2.

Treasure is for boys, fluff for girls - in the 21st century?

Just in case you thought gender stereotyping was a thing of the past, have a look at this picture which is doing the rounds on Facebook at the moment.

So, if you're a boy, you are told that you should be interested in all sorts of fun things like helicopters, treasure, conkers, bikes, climbing and swimming.

If you're a girl, you're confined to fluff, bunnies, lipstick, butterflies and ladylike activities like skipping and dancing.

I can't believe that we're doing this to our kids when we are supposed to have a modern, equal society. The only person who will take any sort of comfort from this is Mark Pack because chocolate appears on both lists.

We've been through  My Little Pony, the (blessedly brief) Barbie phase and various cute little animal-in-my-pocket stuff. You have to go with where your kids are. But we started from a level playing field where we just put lots of things in front of her and let her play with what grabbed her.

Enforced gender stereotyping harms kids by limiting their expectations. You might remember me getting just a tad furious a couple of years ago when the Early Learning Centre marketed doctors' outfits for boys, nurses' outfits for girls. It's not only bad for girls, though.  I've seen a fair number of dads not just wince but actively express disapproval when their sons play with cloppy shoes and Disney Princess dressing up clothes. Conditioning either way is wrong. Seriously, I actually saw a dad wrest a bright  pink feather boa from his three year old son for fear it would make him gay. That must have been a really fun house to grow up in.

What on earth would be wrong with one packet of magnetic words with all those fun things that just said "Kids' Talk"? Then they could choose for themselves what they were interested in!

Telegraph: Women's Judo is "disturbing"

The talk of Twitter last night was a blog post from Telegraph journalist Andrew M Brown, who wrote of his feelings when watching Gemma Gibbons win her Olympic silver in Judo yesterday. Pride? Admiration? Nope. None of that.

 I found myself wondering: is women fighting each other violently a perfectly wholesome spectator sport? This wasn't a bit of pretend wrestling. Gemma and her American opponent, Kayla Harrison, were properly grappling with each other, throwing each other with full force onto the mat. They both showed pure, naked, fierce, animalistic aggression of a sort that one doesn't naturally associate with women – or girls for that matter. Quite honestly my initial reaction was one of shock. I felt rather as I would if I'd bumped into two drunken women bashing ten bells out of each other outside a Yates Wine Lodge on a Friday night – a bit unsettled.

I'm not sure Brown really understands the nature of Judo and the skill involved. It's fast paced for sure, but has to be approached with control and finesse to make sure that you overcome your opponent but don't cause them any serious injury. Hardly the sort of savage free-for-all he was talking about.

If he had suggested that, somehow, seeing competitors of a certain race made him feel uneasy, he'd probably have been saved from himself by his editor. Making misogynistic and sexist comments is apparently ok, though. I know it's the Telegraph, but surely there are some standards. Or maybe posting this drivel arose out of losing some sort of office game and he had to pay a forfeit. It's about the only excuse.

Brown went on to say that he "couldn't help wondering about their soft skin being battered with bruises." I couldn't help thinking that every single sport involves some pain and possibly bruising at some point. Even other physical dancing. Ballroom dancing is probably ladylike enough for Mr Brown, but we're always hearing of injuries from all the contestants, male and female on Strictly Come Dancing every year.

Maybe Brown lives in a wee bubble where women do what they do in Jane Austen novels, play the piano and pick flowers. Or a Disney movie, maybe, where they get the forest animals or enchanted household items to do the housework. Even the privileged women of previous centuries had to give birth practically every year, no mean physical feat. For poorer women, life involved a lot of hard physical labour, because not only did they have to give birth every year, they also had to work the fields, feed their families and do all the domestic tasks. The Industrial Revolution swapped tough rural poverty for hellish working lives in the factories for men, women and children.

Brown would do well to remember that the Olympics are taking place in Stratford of the 21st century, not Stepford of the 1970s.

Back to the 1950s with Fairy liquid's sexist advert

I know I shouldn't give Proctor and Gamble the publicity, but I do feel that it's also important to dissect adverts which display blatant sexism or other outdated social mores. This is their latest effort, for the Olympics.



"It takes a lot of dishes and a lot of washing up, for Mum to build an athlete" reinforces the idea that women do the domestic chores in service to the males of the house. It's just wrong on so many levels. Maybe Proctor and Gamble aren't aware, but women are actually taking part in the Olympics now, you know.

I have to give a big hat tip to former LYS President Sophie Bridger who originally spotted this. She actually wrote to Proctor and Gamble to protest about it, telling them:

The implication being that washing up is purely women’s work is incredibly sexist. The unequal distribution of domestic responsibilities has held women back for generations, and continues to hinder women’s progression in the workplace. And yet you appear to think that this is perfectly acceptable – mum will cook and wash up the dishes, and her little boy will grow up to a big strong athlete. Not her daughter of course, who is now far too busy washing up her own children’s dishes. 

The company sent back to her a generic response which showcased the writer's ability to copy and paste rather than reply to specific points:

We live in a multi-cultural society and, as such, we know that consumers from all ethnic backgrounds use our products, both for themselves and for their families. Indeed, as a Global company, practicing equal opportunities, our own employees reflect the diversity within the local populations. Obviously, it is not our intention to exclude any individual from our advertising, whether this be on the basis of ethnic background, disability, sex, height, hair colour, regional accent, etc. I am truly sorry that you feel we have in any way been deliberately exclusionary.

On the other hand, it would be unrealistic to expect that all sections of our community can be represented at all times. When people are chosen to appear in our advertising campaigns (TV, posters, direct mailing materials etc) we choose those who we think represent the majority of our target market for that particular campaign. Many factors have to be considered in the selection process. Ethnic background is something we are aware of, but it is not the main reason for choosing (or not choosing) a particular person to represent us.

Sophie wrote to them again asking for an analysis on the proportion of men and women shown washing up in their ads. I vaguely remember a bloke doing some washing up once - but that was with a Power Spray for proper dirt that, presumably, weak women couldn't possibly get off themselves. I had a look around on the internet for it, but could only find one video that must have been a spoof because it's so terrible.

I know what brand of washing up liquid I'll be avoiding from now on. If you agree, why not write to Proctor and Gamble to register your displeasure with this advert? You can contact them at pg_weconsumerrelations@mailnj.custhelp.com.

Why don't we set up system to cover PPCs who need to take leave?

If you haven't read it already, I would strongly recommend reading Ruth Bright's excellent article on Lib Dem Voice, None shall be enslaved by maternity. That rattling you hear is the sound of some of this party's skeletons being thrown out the cupboard onto a hard, ceramic floor.

I am appalled that people in our party have behaved in such an appalling way towards PPCs who have just given birth. Ruth states how her local party chair insisted she deal with correspondence two days after the major trauma of an emergency caesarean and while her baby was still very sick. It's worth pointing out that had Ruth been employed by the Party she would not have been allowed by law to work within 2 weeks of giving birth.

As a result of what Ruth has written, I think the party needs to look very carefully at how it can avoid situations like this in the future.  First of all, a suggestion I made in the comments was that we should have a bank of people who can be called on to step in to deal with things like correspondence if a PPC needs to take time out for whatever reason. I'm thinking of things like illness, relationship breakdown,  the incapacity or death of a parent or other family member as well as maternity leave. Life can get in the way of politics sometimes - and you just can't avoid it. If a PPC needs to take time out, they should be able to do so without recrimination.

There are plenty experienced former candidates out there who, for whatever reason, are not interested in standing any more. Why not try to recruit some of them to form an emergency "bank" of people who could provide cover in the circumstances I've outlined above?

I think the party also needs to do a bit more for candidate welfare. We need to ensure local parties and candidates have an idea of what's expected of them - and what sort of behaviour will not be tolerated under any circumstances. Candidates need to have someone they can go to if they are subject to unreasonable demands, someone who will step in and, gently, at first, explain the facts of life to their local party.

We absolutely can't stand by and watch talented candidates take the sort of sexist bullying Ruth was subjected to.

Ruth also says she had to go and breastfeed her baby in toilets at an event. This should never, ever happen.  The party should state that all its training sessions, and conferences, wherever, are breastfeeding friendly. If people have a problem with that, then, frankly, tough.  They are not obliged to look. There were the odd few in the East Midlands who were a little resistant to the idea of me breastfeeding Anna. I took to sitting behind them so they would never know what I was doing.

I am fairly certain that sexist behaviour exists in other parties - and, in fact, in Council procedures too. I once heard a tale of a committee chair who thought (sadly rightly) was miscarrying yet the officials would not let her leave the room because chairs just didn't in that particular council. That's equally unacceptable.

Do you have any other ideas as to how we can avoid the sort of situation Ruth described?

The pressure mounts on Bill Aitken

This time last week I was a bit worried that I seemed to be the only voice in the Scottish blogosphere writing about Bill Aitken's appalling comments about a series of horrific rapes in Glasgow. Thankfully that's not the case as Jeff at Better Nation, the Burd,  Bella Caledonia and Lallands Peat Worrier have also called for him to go. There is even a Facebook group calling for his resignation.

Aitken's comments were truly repulsive and certainly not appropriate for the convener of a respected parliamentary Justice Committee. The only person responsible for rape is the rapist, and comments from a senior politician blaming the victim could act as an even greater deterrent to women to report this crime.

I am perplexed as to why the media haven't been more vocal about it, though. Aitken's comments were in my view even worse than those made by Richard Keys and Andy Gray on Sky Sports and we all remember the furore about that - although that may have been more about getting one over on Murdoch than any concern for the issue.

A stooshie on the internet is one thing, but I'm pleased to note that Green MSP Patrick Harvie has actually taken action within the Parliament by tabling a motion calling on Bill Aitken to resign. I am assuming that this is one of these EDM-like motions which won't actually be debated but which MSPs sign up to. I'm hoping that this will attract enough cross party support for him to realise that he doesn't command the support of the Parliament and to go quickly. I am shocked that Annabel Goldie is allowing him to stay in position. She presumably has given him a telling off and she certainly said all the right things, but it does her no good to keep him in office.

I said last week that I might be prepared to forgive and forget if he really made a genuine effort to understand the issues. Last week was the time for him to do that. It's too late now.

The text of Patrick Harvie's motion is as follows:

Unacceptable comments by the Convenor of Justice Committee - That the Parliament condemns the attitude shown by Bill Aitken MSP on the subject of rape during a recent interview with the Sunday Herald newspaper; considers that Mr Aitken’s comments during this interview betray a disregard for the seriousness of rape, and imply support for the view that a victim can be held responsible for this most vicious crime; believes that this view, though disturbingly widespread, is rooted in misogyny and ignorance; considers these comments to be incompatible with the role of Justice Committee Convenor; believes that the Parliament’s credibility to deal proactively with issues of sexual violence would be undermined if the proximity of dissolution resulted in failure to hold Mr Aitken to account for these odious and shocking comments; and calls for Mr Aitken’s immediate resignation.

Can I suggest that everyone brings this to their MSPs' attention and asks them to support it in whatever way they can?

Why do Sky Sports Sexists still have jobs?

If Richard Keys and Andy Gray, the Sky Sports commentators who made some appallingly sexist comments when they thought they were off air had slated a referee on the basis of their race, they would have been out of a job before the match had finished.

Why, then,are they still employed by Rupert Murdoch's empire? Referees and sports officials take all sorts of flack, much of it justified, but to suggest that someone is incapable of acting as a linesman because she is a woman is ridiculous.

Have a listen to what they actually said, which is posted on You Tube here.



Karren Brady, West Ham's Vice Chairman, said in the Sun last week that:

However, over the past few weeks for the first time in my life I am experiencing sexism at its rankest, lies about my personal life and a level of calculated mischief that is simply appalling.

Keys and Gray dismissed that with a "Do us a favour, love".

If commentators can't moderate their language and behaviour at all times when they're in the vicinity of a microphone, they should pay the consequences.

If Sky let this pair keep their jobs, they are as good as saying that their comments were acceptable. There are some times when a hastily thrown together apology just won't do. As I write this, I learn from the BBC that they're not going to be commentating tonight so let's hope that Sky are reconsidering their future.

Update: Well, at least one of them doesn't after the BBC fired Andy Gray today. My biggest shock was finding out he earned nearly £2 million! For watching football and telling us who's kicking the ball! Ridiculous!

Mum thrown off bus for breastfeeding her baby

Two things strike me from this story, describing the disgraceful incident in which a mother, Amy Wootton, was thrown off the bus, with her six week old baby, in the pouring rain for breastfeeding.

Firstly, why does the vile misogynist of a bus driver still have a job? If he had insulted someone on racial or religious grounds, I expect that would have been defined as gross misconduct and he'd have been sacked on the spot. Intimidating a customer, threatening to call the Police and then turfing her out in the rain is appalling behaviour. A bunch of flowers, a voucher and an apology is not enough unless the company can demonstrate that it will not tolerate this sort of thing.

Secondly, why do we women put up with this sort of nonsense? Now, I really, really don't want to criticise Amy as an individual. She was put in a humiliating position by the driver and I understand why she did as she was asked. Should we not be teaching our girls that they don't have to tolerate this sort of crap?

When Anna was about 4 months old, I was the sole customer in our village tea room and she needed feeding, so I fed her. All anyone could really see was the back of her head. There was much more mammary gland on view in the newspapers which were left out for the customers to read and there would be much more on view on any Mediterranean beach you may care to name. The woman in charge, yes, that's a woman, asked me to stop in case a man came in. I said no, politely, but firmly. Anna wanted to be fed and her needs came first, and in any case, there was nothing on view to take offence at.

As it hapened a group of pensioners came in at this point and I ended up chatting to them. They were perfectly friendly and it didn't seem as if they either noticed or cared what I was doing. When Anna was finished, she charmed them all with smiles and chuckles.

I was livid at the manager woman, though. I waited until the next morning before I wrote a carefully crafted letter of complaint. I think I still have somewhere the reply I received in which they said that they wanted to spare my embarrassment if someone else came in.

It was one of the great achievements of the 2003-2007 Holyrood Parliament that Elaine Smith MSP's Breastfeeding Bill, giving babies the right to be fed anywhere it was legal for them to be. That gives women protection, we need to also find ways to make sure they have the confidence to fight against such appalling treatment.