A Fairtrade Future - Kick out the Cowboys

One of the most important and exciting announcements of the week has been that Cadbury's are going to make all of their dairymilk bars out of fairly trade cocoa, with a commitment to transferring the rest of their products when they can. In one fell swoop the amount of fairtrade chocolate sold in the UK will almost double.

This major step raises an enticing prospect. Whilst munching on a gloriously milky bar of chocolate with a newly clean conscience it becomes possible for the first time to realistically imagine a nation where all raw food and cotton products imported are fairly traded.

Time and again you can ask oppressed producers and traders the world over and they will tell you they want not charity, but justice. It is no longer acceptable for us to complicit in trading and working practices that is oppressive just because we can't see them. If cost is an issue I challenge you to reduce the amount you give to 'good causes'. Instead, prioritise buying products that aren't about benevolently distributing philantrophy whilst holding onto power, but that fundamentally shift the way our global society operates - for the better.

Why allow plcs to get away with a few kind words and a little charity around the edges? Why should we put up any longer with bullying companies that grind down peoples' humanity for the sake of a cheap chocolate bar? Such thieves and cowboys should be chased out of town and out of business.

And yet life is rarely simple...

Since this is a bit of a departure from the feminist canon, I want to make clear before I begin that I in no way believe that women are responsible for their own rapes. See my previous post for further proof. I have absolute contempt for arguments that attempt to shift blame away from rapists, or downplay the enormity of rape as a crime against another human being.

All of that said, there was one element of the study mentioned in my previous post that I can't help but consider in a more ambiguous light. Participants were asked about the varying degrees of responsibility of a woman who fails to offer her assailant a clear 'no'.

Now, obviously there are many cases where it is assumed that the victim of a rape is simply not capable of giving her consent to a sexual act, and in cases like these whether a 'no' is actually stated or not is redundant. A child has no need to reject any sexual advances, since they are not legally capable of welcoming them. Similarly someone with mental disabilities, or even just temporarily incapacitated by drink or drugs, cannot say yes and so should not need to say no.

We protect these groups with a blanket ban on ability to consent for good reason. And this protection limits their personal autonomy, but safeguards their personal security. It would be massively offensive to suggest that mentally capable, adult females were incapable of giving informed consent to sex. For this particular group freedom and self-determination comes first, and rightly so.

But, if we can say yes, should we not also be able to say no? To say no, once, clearly, should be all that is needed to stop any unwelcome advances (in an ideal world) and there is part of me that feels this is a reasonable thing to expect of women, allowing us to actively assert our desires or otherwise, rather than waiting passively for a man to attain consent.

There are of course cases where a violent or agressive attack could cause fear, and in cirumstances like these, where the lack of consent is pretty much the whole point of the rape, whether the word 'no' has been said or not is fairly irrelevant.

But, in cases where rape does begin as a misunderstanding before evolving into something more sinister isn't it reasonable, and indeed respectful of women as agents rather than victims, to expect that a woman does have some responsibility to tell a man 'no' if his advances are unknowingly unwelcome?

Men who badger or pester women into sex are unscrupulous bastards who in my opinion should still bear the label of rapist. After all, all rape is a crime and all rapists should bear responsibility for committing a crime, but not all rapists are equal. I don't believe it's a betrayal of my sex to state that a woman should clearly tell a man 'no' if this is what she means. After all, I firmly maintain that a woman should have the right to withdraw consent at any moment, at which point sexual contact should instantly stop. For this to be possible either we have to endow women with enough power to state their preferences, or expect men to ask repeatedly if consent is still given. Not exactly a recipe for uninhibited rewarding sex.

None of this however is designed to let men off the hook. If you are playing with boundaries of power and desire you should be pretty damn sure you know the woman in question well enough not to need a clear 'I want this'. After all, asking is just as easy as telling.

Rape, responsibility and the blame game.

Rape. Not a good thing I would imagine we can all agree. Even more black and white than murder, in many ways. Whilst it's possible to concieve of a situation where the taking of another human life might be the best course of action (self defence, mercy killing) it's impossible to envisage a situation where rape might be the morally correct response.

But for such a cut and dried subject rape has an amazing ability to create controversy. For some men the spectre of false accusation seems to loom large, whereas a majority of women are understandably touchy about anything that suggests that rape is somehow all their own fault.

And there are, unfortunately, plenty of people who do seem to think that rape is women's fault. At least partially. Another study out on the subject last month has revealed that quite startling numbers of students (more than a third in some cases) still believe that a woman is somehow responsible for her own assault if she commits any number of transgressions. From the minor (wearing a short skirt) to the bizarre ( a 'flirtatious' manner... however the hell you quantify or recognise such a thing).

These attitudes are damaging and nonsensical and treated with horror and derision by the feminist community for good reason. Aside from anything else the facts show that wearing short skirts, sleeping around, even (gasp) drinking alcohol don't actually raise your chances of being raped. Living with a man on the other hand most certainly does, and having male friends? - You might as well lie on your back now. Where are the jeering baying crowds declaring that wives and mothers are bringing it on themselves? And why do you never see government initiatives warning women against the perils of allowing a male friend or boyfriend to walk them home after a night out?

The fact is, there are plenty of people who still seem to see rape as a social problem rather than anything else. An inevitable consequence of men's libidos and women's inability to be other than objects of sexual desire. And if you think like this then of course you are going to lay some of the blame at women's feet. If it's a fact of life that men can't control themselves then putting yourself in temptation's way is stupid and naieve. And if the boundaries get a little blurry as a result of this, then it might be unfortunate but really, what did you expect to happen?

The idea that rapes occur when an irresponsible woman and an over-excitable man somehow cross paths decriminalises rape and reduces it to the level of a pair of naughty children both deserving of a slap on the wrist and not much more. The idea that she was silly and he was boisterous and they are both as bad as the other is offensive and ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as those arguments that compare women who go to parties or walk home alone with expensive cars... if you don't lock your car then of course you are partially to blame if it gets stolen. And if you refuse to sit at home, covered from head to toe in black and avoiding eye contact with any male whom you do accidentally come to meet, then you have to accept the possibility that you will be raped. Except, women are people, not cars. And I believe that every woman has the right to live her life as she sees fit without the fear that she will be afforded less support and protection should she fail to adequately protect the property that is her own body.

In truth, while it might take two to Tango, it actually doesn't take two to commit a rape. To be involved in a rape, yes, but to actually commit the criminal act one person and one person alone is responsible. And because I don't actually believe that men are no more than drooling, gibbering idiots unable to control their own rampant sexuality then this is where the responsibility must be placed. The blame game ends on the doorstep of the actual rapist. To suggest otherwise is to do both men and women a massive disservice. Let's be thankful that, depressing as the figures sometimes appear, a majority of people do seem to recognise this.

Put up or shut up.

I am a feminist. My family know this. All of my friends know this. In fact, very often I go to great lengths to make sure none of them forget it. And although I was shy and quiet at school, since then I have gotten pretty good at speaking my mind when necessary. Of course sometimes people still underestimate this until the critical moment...

Which is why I find myself increasingly exasperated with my reticence in challenging the casual sexism of strangers; those conversations which promote double standards, or reduce women to objects, vessels to be filled or interpreted. And just so we're clear, sexism does not mean conversations about sex. I have no problem with conversations about sex. In fact I frequently participate in them. That I feel it necessary to make such a distinction is probably telling enough but perhaps an example would be useful here. Last summer, I found myself sat in the sunshine with friends, listening to mutual aquaintances have a conversation along these lines...

Idiot 1: Yeah well if she was going out with Baz she must be well easy.

Idiot 2: Hey, it's not my fault all the sluts love me...

I could continue with this but frankly I shouldn't have let it go uninterrupted the first time around. And why didn't I interrupt? It's a question I've asked myself alot since then, but I suspect it comes down to my own conditioning. Conditioning which says to challenge such exchanges is petty, prudish and just no fun. Exactly what people would expect from 'feminists' who inevitably hate men and by implication sex too right?

But since I happen to believe that words have power, allowing myself to be silenced because of fear that I will be derided and misinterpreted is pretty much the definition of patriarchy in action. And I could keep talking about patriarchy and power structures and dominant discourses but what it comes down to is this... it's like racism or homophobia or anything else - we keep our mouths shut at our peril.

If male voices continue to be the ones that are unconsciously privileged, the ones that we feel compelled to listen to regardless of what they are actually saying, then women will continue to feel that their stories, opinions, emotions are less important. If it's ok to talk about women as objects then surely it's ok to treat them like that too.

Of course I could try to justify my behaviour as a simple matter of minding my own business. Freedom of speech and the seemingly universal ability we all have to go selectively deaf, blind and dumb when behaviour that we find bizarre, threatening or just plain wrong is taking place in front of us. But it isn't as simple as live and let live because conversations like this hurt people. By ignoring it I contributed to a world where judging women on the basis of their sexual behaviour is normal. And ok. And common. I don't want to live in that world so I have a responsibility to do something about it.

The irony is that my friends, the people with whom I do feel able to speak freely, are lovely and intelligent. They don't agree with all of my opinions but generally speaking they aren't sexist in their words or deeds... they don't care how many men I've slept with or how short a skirt I'm wearing (or at least it doesn't change their perception of me as a person!) They really don't need my feminist fire and fury.

And, hey, even if wading into the fray with strangers earns me nothing but a barrage of abuse at least I'll be able to collect a few more anti-feminist bingo cards.