Monthly Archives: October 2015

#ISeeTara: Support Tara Hudson

Content warning: this post discusses transmisogyny, sexual violence and prison

tarar2

Tara Hudson is a young woman who made a mistake. She is being punished by being sent to a men’s prison, because she is transgender.

Prisons are violent institutions at the very best of times. I would like to see them abolished completely. However, there is an urgency to Tara’s case which requires immediate action on her behalf.

Tara Hudson is a young woman in a men’s prison. Sexual violence is ingrained in the prison system, and a young woman locked up with men enhances the threat that Tara will be a victim of sexual violence enormously. Tara has already said she is being sexually harassed. Physical violence, too, is ingrained in the prison system, and as a young woman locked up with men the threat that Tara will be a victim grows. Even outside of prison, Tara Hudson is more likely to face physical or sexual violence because she is a transgender woman. The threats inflate as she is locked in a prison with cisgender men.

Urgent action is necessary on Tara’s behalf. Here are some things you can do:

Attend a support rally today. There is one in London at the Ministry of Justice, and one in Bristol to support Tara at her appeal hearing today.

Sign the petition. At time of writing, almost 127,000 people have signed to support Tara and demand she is not locked up among men.

Make a lot of fucking noise. Share news stories about Tara Hudson: there’s some but make them more visible. Tweet using the hashtag #ISeeTara. The system would rather Tara was invisible. Make it impossible to ignore her plight.

If our actions are sufficient, and we save Tara from the cruel and unusual punishment she faces, keep on fighting in her name: she will likely not be the first, nor the last trans woman to face detention in a men’s prison. Attack transmisogyny. Attack prisons. And perhaps one day no more people will have to suffer as Tara suffers now.

Update: Tara has now been moved to a women’s prison. However, it’s frighteningly likely we’ll see more cases like Tara’s so keep this fury at injustices against trans women alive. 


Things I read this week that I found interesting

It’s link round-up time again!

Feminist Consciousness (Sara Ahmed)- Amazing essay, exploring how we as feminists reassemble how we see the world.

‘When I Needed A Neighbour Were You There?’: Addressing Racism In Britain, The Elephant In The Room (Siana Bangura)- How white people completely failed to intervene to stop a hate crime.

Why I glued myself to a ticket barrier and shut down the Eurostar (Tatiana Garavito)- A report from and the story behind some important direct action.

pinkwashed: are young gays selling out to capitalism? (Sean Faye)- Excellent essay from Sean, exploring how far we have to go.

To be real: On trans aesthetics and authenticity (Sean Faye)- Sean’s been on fire this week, cracking out these must-reads.

Why I won’t date another ‘male feminist’ (Kate Iselin)- One of those pieces where I just nodded along and was like yes to this all the way through.

The Thai Women Behind the First Bar Run Entirely by a Sex Workers’ Collective (Charlotte England)- Great read on sex workers organising together and building something for themselves.

I Photograph Black Shelter Cats Because They’re The Last To Get Adopted And Are Often Euthanized (Casey)- The title covers the important stuff, but also look, it’s really cute black cats.

Racism is… (Shane Thomas)- Explaining everyday racism.

Mapping the intangible (Stars and Spirals)- Deeply personal, beautiful writing exploring mood.

Fan artist retells the whole story of ‘Mad Max’ in Egyptian hieroglyphs (Aja Romano)- Introducing Takumi Kanehara’s incredible interpretation of the story.

Ban dangerous legal high Cake.– I don’t usually share petitions but this one is important.

Meet the Rapper Keeping #BlackLivesMatter Alive By Releasing Music From Prison (Tom Barnes)- Richie Reseda is releasing music from prison with a crucial message.

The Hoverboard Scene In Back To The Future 2 Nearly Killed A Stuntwoman (Charlie Jane Anders)- This is a story of men not listening to a woman.

And finally, the Australian cast of The Lion King sing on a plane and it’s fucking lovely.


Guest post: ‘What’s he done now?’ Abuse in the IS Network!

Content warning: this post reports sexual violence, physical and emotional abuse, and rape apologism in detail, mentions CSA

This is a statement from “Harriet”, an anonymous former member of the International Socialist Network. She contacted me asking for help in getting her experience out there. Please be warned that her statement describes in detail what happened to her, so please make sure you do what you can to keep yourself safe. Harriet would like her story to be heard.

__

‘What’s he done now?’ Abuse in the IS Network!

The following piece is about the physical and emotional abuse I experienced in the IS Network, the organisation that split with the SWP because of the rape of a young woman by the secretary of the SWP. I am writing under an alias to protect my mother from the truth about the abuse I experienced as a child. I may talk to her about this in time, but that’s my decision. The man who did this to me was the secretary of the IS Network at the time he sexually assaulted me. He is currently active on the left and within the unions. His name is Tim.

I’ve just ordered another 2 cans of 13 Guns, I do this often now, numb myself. I like the feeling of my body relaxing, knowing that I don’t have to deal with reality until my subconscious procures my senses and I see what this man did to me in my dreams.

Alcohol releases the intensity of anger. I am on anti-depressants for the first time. The booze and the drugs feel good, calming and replaces the tears and pain with a lightness, allowing me to cope. I want my life back, I want to feel innocent and trusting like I used to, but I know too much to go back.

I realise now, that what we think of as choice is not always so, it’s often forced upon us. If I had a choice I wouldn’t write this piece, because I don’t like hurting anyone, but I don’t have a choice. I have to write this because it’s the right thing to do. I am afraid of writing this article, because I have tried to speak out before but I was called a liar, and messages I wrote to this man were published on my Facebook page, which were taken out of context. I was an organiser in the IS Network and he was a powerful influence within the organisation. He was taken seriously. If I wanted the IS Network to survive I had to forgive him. I had to get him to take me seriously. But he never did.

When I met him I was taken in by his stand against abuse in the SWP, because of this I thought he was different. I have lost count of how many times I have been harassed and sexually assaulted in my life, but I know it started at age 6 and from this age I was a survivor.

Tim was one of the Facebook 4, kicked out of the SWP for standing up against sexism. This is part of the reason I trusted him. But Tim has emotionally abused me for years and from the moment he met me he has targeted me as a sexual object of his desire.

I know now that he is a bully. I remember when he started shaming comrades in his publications on the IS Network website. His writing was provocative, intentionally hostile and defensive but I wanted him to like me so I didn’t say anything. Sometimes I had to compromise what I knew was the right thing to do intuitively. But If I did I would be out of the clique. A group of comrade from the IS Network would organise separately to the official IS Network Facebook group and when I realised this was a group of people bantering at best and using it to bully other comrades outside of the clique at worst I left. This was raised by other younger comrades in the IS Network as an issue after I left the group, but dealt with antagonistically by members of the clique.

At times I have felt particularly angered so I have stood up to Tim’s bullying of others, such as when he ridiculed a comrade on Facebook for posting selfies. This was obviously gendered because I only ever saw him ridicule selfies taken by men. But the fact of the matter is that Tim does not like being challenged for his behaviour so he complained to the steering committee that I was ‘abusing’ him on Facebook because I was standing up for a comrade he was clearly bullying.

I often felt that his behaviour towards others on the left was bullying, ridiculing their comments and pictures.

I knew I was healthily challenging his behaviour but I bowed to the pressure, apologised and left the group he was organising, even though I had just carried hundreds of leaflets for them for miles and hurt myself doing so, only to arrive back to the flat with the box of flyers, to more piss taking on Facebook. But we couldn’t lose another exceptional talent.

When we first met he said I was different and he wanted to go out with me. I wasn’t sure who he was comparing me to, but I was flattered. I was feeling good in myself, my hair had mostly grown back and my weight was good, I wasn’t too thin and even though I wasn’t feeling great about what had happened in the SWP, I was generally healthy. I certainly didn’t drink every day like I do now, drinking came later.

In retrospect, I remember he always had a lot to say to men, but he hardly spoke to me. He generally wanted sex and quickly. I remember on one occasion at a party with IS Network comrades he asked me to go upstairs and he would follow, mocking me to get my attention. He always wanted to get me into bed so quickly. It always came out of nothing too. He took advantage of the fact I liked him, even though we established we were only going to be friends.

He dumped me after the second time sleeping together, this was before the time above actually, and in fact literally straight after sleeping together, but even though it hurt, I took it well and told him that I would be happy to be friends with him. But he could never do friendship, this became obvious over the next couple of years. He had a hold over me, and I am sure he was well aware of this.

Then came the assault when he was the secretary of the IS Network, the splinter group of the SWP. The group that left the SWP because of the abusive secretary of the SWP.

This is the statement I wrote but is remains unpublished until now:

I have been angry with Tim for a long time – his sister was right in pointing this out, however, my anger towards him was never directed at her, I was angry with her because she never challenged his behaviour and would hate people on the basis that they upset Tim. The reason I was angry with Tim and still am is because of the way he treated me.
I never got to tell Tim why and how he hurt me, because he always refused to listen. The reason I emailed him to tell him it was over after the night of his birthday party wasn’t just because of my feelings for him or not wanting to get hurt, it was because he had already hurt me. Tim pressured me into having sexual relations with him, which he should have realised I didn’t want, because I repeatedly made that clear to him.

The incident I refer to occurred after I was persuaded to go to his birthday party in Bristol a day before the IS Network conference in Sheffield. The invite came at the last minute after it was implied only certain people from the Facebook invitation group would be welcome, and I felt a bit uncomfortable going because every time I saw Tim in person he would try it on with me, we would end up having consensual sexual relations and then he would ignore me afterwards, which made it really difficult working as an organiser in the IS Network.

The night in question was the same as usual, he came on to me and I reciprocated. As usual, we hadn’t spoken much that evening before he asked me to sit on the sofa and then kissed me hard as soon as another comrade walked out of the room – everyone else had gone home or gone to bed. I was very aware when this was going on that I was on my period, so when he said he wanted to fuck me hard I tried to pretend he didn’t say ‘hard’ and responded ‘you want to fuck me?’, he said yes but hard.

At this point I told him I was on my period so I couldn’t, but he persisted and asked me to go to the bathroom with him so we could have some privacy. As soon as we were in the bathroom and he started kissing me I pulled away and told him I didn’t want to do this and I was very cold, at which point he got the message and went downstairs and I told him I was going to the toilet, and then he walked in on me when I was on the toilet and I had to tell him to leave – he apologised and left.

I went back downstairs, but another comrade had taken the sofa and Tim the only other chair, at this point I was tired and just wanted to fall asleep in his arms. I climbed onto the sofa with him. Tim said he thought he was taking advantage of me and that he liked to have sex with beautiful and intelligent women. At this point I felt used and pressured and felt as if I should be pleasing him.

I didn’t want to do anything but we started kissing and he asked if I would get naked with him, I didn’t want to do anything while I was on my period, our comrade was on the next sofa and I was tired and cold, so I told him I was cold and he said he would warm me up. I felt the pressure so I took off my top, at which point he grabbed my hand and took me back upstairs to the bathroom. In the bathroom he immediately went down on me, I was not turned on at all, but was more concerned about being on my period and kept pulling his right hand up to check it for blood. I forgot to bring a change of sanitary products with me so was feeling particularly vulnerable.

Tim realised I wasn’t getting wet and turned on, at which point he told me he liked it when I was wet and he licked me, implying that he didn’t like that I wasn’t wet. Tim then moved on to sucking and then biting my left nipple, and carried on after I told him that it was hurting me, but he kept saying he couldn’t hear me, even though I kept on crying it out and he carried on biting my nipple until he bit it red raw and hurt me so badly that I had to physically pull him away, but he ignored me and continued to bite my nipple. I remember very little after this.

The next day after conference I felt awful. When I took my bra off that evening the skin on my left nipple came away and I started bleeding. I felt used and abused and like I didn’t want him near me again. I emailed Tim that week to say we couldn’t do that again. This was the only time sexual relations with him felt like sexual assault so I confided in a friend not very long after the incident and she advised me that consent boundaries were crossed.

We argued often after this incident and I felt he was always angry with me and tried to control me.

Then I confided in the women’s caucus about being abused when I was 6 years old. I confided to the women’s caucus in confidence, to explain why I had been so upset with dealing with the subject of the SWP being allowed on campus. I ended up getting into an argument with a woman in the caucus, which we realised afterwards was a complete misunderstanding, but in order to prove what had happened in the caucus she said that she would publish it in the main group. This was a private argument, which included confidential information about me. I was worried this information was going to be published in the main group with both genders, so I said if it was I was going to make complaint.

Tim publicly humiliated me in the IS Network Facebook group and tried to obstruct my complaint. His sister, who was a member of the complaints group, liked Tim’s comment obstructing my complaint on Facebook. This was a clear conflict of interest and should have been immediately picked up by the complaints group and she should have stepped down from her position of authority on this case. Instead she used her position to further marginalise me and undermine my legitimate concerns about confidentiality and abuse.

The abuse that took place in my neighbour’s house at the age of 6 was one of the most traumatic experiences of my life, I convinced myself at the time that I was dying, I started losing my hair and became increasingly distant from those around me.

It had taken me 20 years to admit the abuse I went through as a child to my sister and thought I could trust the women in the women’s caucus but no one apart from 2 women stood by me in the IS Network Facebook group that day. I was completely alone and ended up with severe depression and months off work. I still tried to keep the ISN going, but with very little support from anyone around me.

Then when I approached Tim to discuss these issues he decided to go and tell all of our Bristol comrades that I have a mental illness. I was stupidly still trying to see some good in him. Hoping he would apologise for how he treated me. The constant emotional abuse and the physical abuse. I never wanted to go public with this, because I never wanted to forget the goodness I saw in him, the person who I see others love. I never wanted to take that away from them.

I want an apology for what Tim did to me. I want to join a political group without being told I am problematic. I want my old self back, the person who used to trust and laugh, the woman who loved her comrades and friends and always welled up when I spent time with my comrades, because they made me so proud to know such principled people who would always stand up and fight. I want to not feel broken anymore. And I want to love again like I used to. In order to realise all these things I needed to write this piece.

Always, Harriet Casey

__

Supporting statement from Kaff

I have witnessed Tim’s behaviour towards Harriet and fully support her above statement. I was present at a gathering of ISN comrades in Bristol and I was worried about his behaviour. He was being very overt in his sexual advances and Harriet looked uncomfortable. I would have been very uncomfortable in that situation also. I also remember that Harriet seemed to want to stay with us all where we were sat, in the dining room, but Tim was very much focussed on going upstairs with her and I remember a conversation that involved his sister saying that Harriet shouldn’t be getting involved with Tim because she was still living with a previous partner under complicated circumstances. I thought that was very odd because she didn’t once appear to be advancing on Tim sexually, he was the one making sexual advances on her. I had no preconceptions about anyone at this gathering at that point because I was still very new to politics and had only met Tim briefly before. Following this night, Tim’s responses to Harriet’s comments on Facebook posts were very unpleasant and he was bullying her. She received very little support from anyone and we all let her down. The reason I am writing this is because I don’t want her to be alone in this anymore, she needs all of our full support. by Kaff


Do women oppose fracking because we aren’t educated in science? Fuck no.

Today in internalising misogyny for a nice fat paycheque, Professor Averil Macdonald has declared that women are more opposed to fracking than men because we just don’t understand the science behind it. Hoping to make the statement a little less misogynistic, and remembering she sits on a committee to encourage women into STEM, she adds that it’s probably due to women having less of an education in science.

First of all, let me say this: what Professor Macdonald is saying is thoroughly unsubstantiated. She cites research from the University of Nottingham into public support for fracking which does show a gender difference, although the ongoing programme of research also shows a steady decline in public support for the technique (presumably because it’s fucking terrible for the environment and we ought to stop relying on fossil fuels). Where Professor Macdonald has got it into her head that it’s to do with persuasion by scientific facts, I do not know: the Nottingham research was a descriptive survey rather than an experiment into methods of persuasion. There’s no evidence to show that gender differences in support for fracking are down to men being more swayed by scientific arguments. What’s being reported is simply Professor Macdonald’s personal feelings–and given she’s the chair of an oil company, a sceptical mind ought to consider why she may have that opinion.

However, I’m all for thought experiments, so let’s pretend that Professor Macdonald was citing some robust research showing that men are more receptive to scientific arguments in favour of fracking than women, and that the causative factor here is their better science education.

Here, I would suggest that men are more likely to be influenced by whatever the hell is dressed up as scientific fact purely because of higher levels of science education. You see, a science education doesn’t necessarily teach you very useful skills. In fact, it teaches you to be uncritical regarding science. It teaches you to produce whatever your funders want to hear, and not to particularly question who’s funding what. It teaches you that shaky evidence is evidence, and therefore it’s good and build on that and continue going in the direction you’re going in, no matter how actually incorrect it is. It teaches you to appeal to authority. It teaches you not to be reflexive, to be convinced that you are being objective.

I should know. I had a science education, to a pretty high level. And I was once the sort of person to swallow with a bit of “scientific evidence” as fact.

So, Professor Macdonald is wrong. And even if she’s right, she’s still wrong.


The Women’s Equality Party policy: is a disappointment a disappointment when you expected it to be disappointing?

Content warning: this post discusses domestic violence, sex work stigma, and detention centres.

I’ll admit I wasn’t sure about the Women’s Equality Party, right off the bat, because, well, I’m an anarchist and I don’t believe the party political model is any use in achieving the changes that we need. I’m also usually quite concerned about media-friendly feminist initiatives, as they often contain watered-down or outright bad politics.

Having now read WE’s policy launch document in its entirety, my fairly low expectations have been met.

Perhaps the biggest blow is their coming out in support of the Nordic model in their claim to be keen on ending violence against women. All the Nordic Model does is expose women doing sex work to men who don’t give a shit about committing a crime–which doesn’t exactly make women safer. A preferable and safer model is Amnesty International’s evidence-based favoured policy: complete decriminalisation. It’s notable that the WE policy document is completely unreferenced (not just regarding sex work, but in all places): in stark contrast to Amnesty’s own.

Before I go off on everything else I disagree with, I’m going to say some nice things: I think asking for transparency about media representation, board representation and gender pay gaps, provided by companies, is not a bad idea–actually, it’s quite a good one, though I doubt it’s one that could be implemented without losing a lot of friends (including those coveted media organisations). I’m quite pleased to see that consent education in schools is a priority, as well as the migrant women in detention centres, and valuing care work. I’m also pleased to see a focus on dual discrimination and reinstating its position in law.

However, even the bits I liked, I don’t think they go anywhere near far enough. It’s nice that WE care about better sex and relationships education, although there was not a peep about undoing the still-present legacy of section 28, and make education about being LGBT a priority too. After all, a lot children will grow up to be lesbians, bisexuals or trans women, and they matter enormously. Reviewing the conditions in detention centres is all well and good, as is ending the practice of detaining pregnant women, but that’s nowhere near enough to go up against the violences migrant women face: detention itself is a violence. Valuing care work is nice, but how about requiring wages for housework and care labour, even if it’s someone in your own family–after all, women bear the brunt of care work.

Then there’s the stuff I actively abjure, in particular, quotas. Quotas won’t do diddly squat for improving the conditions of most women. The only women that quotas for political posts, board positions and enterprise would help are the kind of women who are already doing fucking well out of life: the kind of women who end up in politics or business. That’s not most of us. Just having a woman in a position doesn’t make a difference: see, for example, the results of the latest election, where women’s representation is at an all-time high and yet women are still totally, hands-down fucked. Then there’s the equality quotas for teachers: WE admit that there’s more women than men in teaching, particularly at primary schools, then say, “WE will explore the feasibility of implementing gender quotas for primary level teacher training and women as head teachers.”. This sounds to me like they are advocating for quotas to ensure more men in a certain profession. Yes, that’s equality, but wow, that is very bad for women.

Of course, I have issues with equality itself. I prefer liberation. WE’s policy document shows neatly where equality rhetoric falls down, with the aforementioned quotas to lock women out of a profession and their working with organisations that centre the needs and feelings of men, such as the Fatherhood Institute. This pandering to men can lead to disastrous consequences: for example, in WE’s policy on relationship breakdowns and shared parenting, they “will work to build a general social and legal expectation of the full involvement of both parents in the lives of their children even if the parents are not together, unless there is a pattern of violence or clear risk to either parent or child.”. That sounds OK, until you think about it. A “pattern” of violence is a difficult thing to establish, without involving support services and the state, which many women will be unwilling to do. WE’s own policy on prosecuting domestic violence is completely flimsy and there’s fuck all on helping make it easier for women to report, so reporting probably won’t increase. Therefore, women will end up having to keep abusers in their lives, because of WE’s shift towards expecting to keep them in their lives.

Another key concern in terms of partnerships is how WE say “WE are proud of the policies in this document but we encourage other political parties to work with us to deliver them, or simply to steal them. We just want to see them delivered, however that happens.”. Would they go into coalition with, say, UKIP, if UKIP promised to deliver the Nordic Model? It sure as shit sounds that way. And that is not OK. Not OK at all. Sadly, to be effective, feminism has to be political. Truly political. Truly conscious of who our friends and enemies are. It’s not enough to work with just anyone who will implement things off a shopping list.

I kind of wanted to not have to poo-pooh yet another women’s initiative. I’m fucking tired of having to do this, over and over again, and I don’t like always having to be Ms Meanypants. But there was little in the policy document for me to like, and lots for me to worry about.

Huge thanks to @rentalcustard for sending me the policy document while WE’s website was down

Further reading:

A Women’s Party? Less WEP, more like WEEP for the Mothers and Children (The Politics of Mothering)- Examining how the policy does very little indeed for mothers and children.

Sandi Toksvig’s Women’s Equality Party is a middle-class ladies’ campaign group doomed to fail (Abi Wilkinson)- Delving into the conspicuous absence of anything that could help working class women.

The Women’s Equality Party: A Surveillance State in the name of Liberal Feminism (sarahlicity)- A critical look at WE’s alternative to the Nordic model which is fucking terrifying.


Things I read this week that I found interesting

Presenting, the weekly round-up!

I’m A Man And I Had An Abortion (Anonymous)- Stories like this show how trans liberation and reproductive justice must go hand in hand.

Purple Prose: Bisexuality in Britain– This looks bloody excellent, an accessible, 101 reader for and about bisexuality. I’ve bunged in a bit of money, because I really want a copy. You should too.

Metropolitan Police not racist (says Metropolitan Police) (London Campaign Against Police and State Violence)- Important response to data showing the pigs don’t give a shite about racism.

Quantifying stigma: pitting the mental against the physical (Stars and Spirals)- Great piece on mental and physical health stigma and how they intermingle.

“Arabian Street Artists” Bomb Homeland: Why We Hacked an Award-Winning Series (Heba Y. Amin)- This is some brilliant work.

Technigal (Robot Hugs)- Cute comic telling the story of how a trans woman’s experience of mansplaining increased exponentially as she transitioned.

This heartbreaking post explains why Facebook Memories needs to change (Rachel Jennings/Holly Brockwell)- FB memories is causing a lot of unnecessary grief to a lot of people. Why it’s fucked up, with a workaround to opt out.

Beyond the Binary: What the Media Gets Wrong About the “Trans Tipping Point” (Alok Vaid-Menon)- Who is being left behind?

on being disabled and bisexual (petitetimidgay)- Short video drawing attention to how disablism exists in queer spaces, too.

Chivalry Isn’t Dead, You Just Don’t Know What the Fuck it is. (Better Myths)- Next time some fedora wanker calls you milady, shove this up his arse.

How I Earned My Porn Star Name (Lorelei Lee)- On how all names and bodies are constructs.

The Things My Sister Doesn’t Know Yet (Tilly Jean)- Heartbreaking post from a big sister on what she knows her 18 year old sister will experience soon.

An Open Letter to George Lawlor (Elle May)- A young student takes Lawlor to task.

7 Things White People Definitely Didn’t Discover But Get Credit for Anyway (Zak Cheney-Rice)- Columbus Day was earlier this week, and this is a very fitting way to mark it.

Uncovering The Secret History Of Myers-Briggs (Merve Emre)- Longread delving into the ubiquitous “personality test”, in all its invalid, racist, sexist history.

And finally, look, it’s a gorilla getting some kittens for her birthday, and everyone looks so damn happy.


George Lawlor looks like a rapist

Content warning: this post discusses rape and rape culture

There’s not really a specific look to a rapist. They’re not born with the word RAPIST emblazoned across their foreheads, nor do they glow faintly in the dark. There’s no visual markers of a rapist. Would that there were, it would all be so much easier to just set the fuckers on fire before they have a chance to hurt someone.

Warwick student George Lawlor missed the memo that there wasn’t a specific rapist aesthetic, and was mortally offended when, like loads of other people in his year, he was invited to a workshop on consent. He reacted in the most point-missing way possible.

georgelawlor

“I love consent,” he bleats, calling the very notion of consent workshops “incredibly hurtful”. He writes screeds about how everyone totally understands consent while not demonstrating this in the slightest, boiling it all down to–and I quote–“Yes means yes, no means no. It’s really that simple.” George Lawlor reckons workshops talking about what consent really, actually means is a waste of everyone’s time, particularly those who organise such events.

In doing all of this, George Lawlor has achieved one thing, and one thing only: he’s made himself look like a rapist. His short article and selfie have worked wonders in demonstrating a lot of the little hints I look out for, after years of the unfortunate experience of having encountered rapists. Men who display these behaviours, I now avoid. Here are the ways that George Lawlor has made himself look like a rapist:

  • He prioritises his own feelings above those of anyone else. At length, George Lawlor bangs on about how hurt he is that someone invited him to a consent workshop and how selfish it is that such workshops are happening without a thought for his own wounded feelings.
  • He manifestly does not understand consent, thinking it a simple matter of a yes or a no. Sadly, it’s a fuckton more complicated than that: a yes can be coerced, a yes can be withdrawn, a yes can be drunkenly slurred by someone who is in no fit state to understand what this word means.
  • You know who is usually most insistent that they are not a rapist? Rapists. False denials of rape are so common as to be banal.
  • He displays absolutely no willingness to self-examine the gaps in his own knowledge, or to reflect upon past experiences and see that maybe he should think about doing things differently in the future. Those who think they have nothing to learn are those with the most to learn, and a safe person should always have the capacity to admit that they could be wrong.
  • While he does not squawk out the mantra itself, the notion of “not all men” hangs over his article like a fedora. Those who want to protect their own self-concept are often fucking dickheads.
  • He clearly doesn’t understand why feminists are starting to organise consent workshops to teach consent universally. Spoiler: it’s to kick back against a culture that helps rapists, by arming everyone with an understanding of how not to rape.
  • Those who get sneery about feminist initiatives and organising are almost always misogynistic dungheaps of the highest order.
  • He clearly doesn’t understand what a rapist looks like: how it’s more likely to be the guy you know than some random stranger in an alley, how it’s more likely to be a guy who thinks he did nothing wrong than a monster chuckling about how he’s totally a rapist, how rapists don’t have horns or something like that.
  • He clearly hasn’t a fucking clue as to how to end rape culture, suggesting “campaigning, volunteering and caring for other people” would be a better use of our time. Well, we’ve been doing that since fucking forever, and it has its place, but that doesn’t exactly work on its own (and volunteering and caring usually works best after the fact).

For a Tory, George Lawlor sure is waving a hell of a lot of red flags.

Are consent workshops a panacea, a means for hitting the nail on the head and ending rape completely? Of course not. But are they a useful tool for chipping away at rape culture? Absofuckinglutely. Everyone should discuss what consent is, really think about it, and get to the difficult truths about their own histories. Awareness is absolutely crucial: both self-awareness of what you’re doing, and awareness of what other people are doing and whether that’s OK or not.

In resisting this preventive measure, George Lawlor is helping rapists, and only rapists. He’d do well to begin by asking himself why he wants to do that.

Update 16/10: You should all read this excellent piece from Warwick’s Women’s Officer, explaining why consent workshops are vital. It’s especially important you read it if you’re a man who’s come here to clutch your pearls at the thought that women are creeped out by behaviour such as Lawlor’s.