Just to clarify, there were certain other Qs I asked and had answered in these emails that aren’t relevant to the point we’re making, so I’ve cut them out.
Email 1, from me:
Hi there, I am hoping to bring a group of students from — University to the London Reclaim the Night, and wondered – are men allowed to the march also? Am I correct in believing it is only the first part of the march that is women-only?
Email 2, from the London Feminist Network (LFN):
Hello,
Brilliant that — University will be represented on the march! Do bring a banner from your group so that people can see where you have travelled from.The whole march is women-only, this is historical and also is to make the point that women usually feel unsafe if they are on their own or with another female friend, and as the old saying goes we are told to get a man to walk us home to protect us etc. So the point of the march is to highlight that women should not be seen as ‘fair game’ for harassment and abuse just because they are on their own or with female friends and that they should still have every right to feel safe. So to raise awareness and make the point the march is women only. Then there is a mixed rally and disco at the Camden Centre to which men are welcome. We were working with White Ribbon Campaign on organising a men’s vigil again like we had last year, but I don’t know if we’ll be able to organise this in time now.But if men are coming with your group they would be more than welcome to volunteer at the rally venue at the Camden Centre, where people are setting up stalls and stage gear etc! While the women go on the march.
Email 3, from me:
Hi there,
Such a shame that men aren’t allowed to march – I fully understand the reasoning, but loved the fact that the Bristol reclaim the night had a mixed section at the back of their march. It managed to include the men without denying the point of the march. I think we can all agree that it’s an issue that everyone should be involved in changing. I would normally be offended if someone spoke about street safety for women as a ‘women’s problem’, as though it’s only up to women to deal with it, so men showing support is important too! Perhaps it’s something that can change in later years, as the argument that it’s ‘historical’ seems to sound like saying ‘it’s tradition, so why change it?’. Anyway, that’s just my thoughts on the matter. We’ll hopefully encourage some of the guys to come along…what exactly takes place at the rally afterwards?
Email 4, from LFN:
Hello,
It is not simply tradition that the march is women-only. Male sexual violence against women does not affect men in the street, it affects women. Men are not raped in the same numbers as women are. All the British Crime Surveys and Fear of Crime Surveys show that men do not fear sexual violence from other men, whereas women’s greatest and most commonly reported fear is the fear of being raped. From very young girls to pensioners, women say their biggest fear is rape. Whereas fear of crime surveys commonly show that men’s most reported fear of crime occuring to them is car crime. Strange – because young men under 25 are actually more at risk of violence than any other group, they are of course at risk from other young men, not women.
But this march is not a general people’s march for peace on the streets for all. It is a distinct political march with a distinct political angle. We don’t insist that the marches around Gaza also protested about the Congo, Sudan, Tamils etc etc. Groups are allowed to have their own marches about their own political issue, and I don’t understand why this right is often so denied to women.
This is a women’s march about male sexual violence against women – sexual harassment, taunts, propositions, assaults and rapes etc as well as forced marriage, female genital mutilation, domestic abuse, child sexual abuse, prostitution, trafficking, honour killings, etc etc. These things simply do not affect men in the same way, that is a fact.
The rally after the march has speakers, stalls of a variety of organisations, not just women’s organisations. Then speakers from different groups and then a big disco with both male and female DJ’s playing retro and poppy tunes until 2am.
Email 5, from me:
Hi there,
I’m assuming this is Finn by the way – if it is, then I just wanted to express my admiration after hearing you speak yesterday. It made getting a coach at 2am worthwhile, as did the event generally. If this is not Finn, please pass on the sentiment!
The rally sounds like good fun, and I assume the stalls will be similar to those at Feminism in London event which I found really inspiring. The parties also sound brilliant!
I agree with all of your points about women and safety on the streets. I would never claim that violence against women, be it genital mutilation, rape or otherwise (of course the list is long – there’s a reason marches like this need to exist), affects men in the same way. I fear you got the wrong message from me if you think that I disagree with you, or the message that this march holds. However, I’m not sure it’s right to discuss this as a ‘women’s right to a women-only march’ – rather, it is a march to express the view that violence against women is wrong. Any men who wished to attend it would not do so in order to say ‘don’t forget about me, I was hit by a girl once, poor me etc etc’, but rather to show their support and awareness of an issue that should be acknowledged and fought by all. By denying men access to a march like this, it surely discourages the (few) men who are passionate about women’s rights for the sole reason that women should have these rights from being involved, from identifying as pro-feminist/feminist (depending on your view of men and feminism, a discussion for another time!), and from being vocal about these issues.
I do not argue that the march should be completely mixed. I appreciate that there will be women who have experienced violence, that there will be women who do not want to march alongside men. I simply suggest that there be a separate section at the end of the march (in Bristol it was separated by a marching band, which did the trick without too much policing!) which is mixed. That way the majority of the march will retain the status of women-only, but it would not prevent men from being involved in such an important political issue.
I hate to be the one who is always bewailing ‘but what about the men?’ – really, I get sick of hearing this question when discussing violence, sexism in the workplace, abortion, etcetera etcetera, but I do believe that when it comes to political campaigning, actively seeking change, especially change around the sexism that is so embedded in our society, to be sexist against men seems hypocritical. We cannot tar them all with the same brush, and there are men who want to support feminism and what it stands for. As for marches about Gaza – was it said that only those from Gaza, only those directly affected by the issue, could march? Would straight people be turned away from a gay rights march? Are/were white people turned away from marches for racial equality? What makes this an issue that we have to fight on our own? It’s a heavy enough burden to bear, and one that, I agree, men cannot fully understand. They are not affected by it on a day to day basis. But they can help tackle it, they can show their support, and to turn our backs on that is to turn our backs on a changing society, one in which men are becoming aware of their privilege, and of women’s suffering, and wishing to speak out too.
I really don’t want to come across as confrontational, as this march is something that I feel is so valuable, so important. The fact that the London Feminist Network has revived Reclaim the Night is inspirational (in fact, it’s provided me with the groundwork for potentially holding one in Exeter, for which I am very grateful) and I do not seek to undermine this achievement. All I want to do is say how I feel, and put across the feelings of the men I know who were interested in the march. I run a Gender Equality Society at my university, which attracts men and women who are keen to discuss gender and society, as well as get involved politically. In the majority of our discussions, we get a mix of opinions, but one thing that everyone unites on is the issue of violence against women. The men in our group, as with the women, were excited by the idea of a Reclaim the Night march, to bring this issue into the public arena and start a dialogue about it. They were saddened to know that they couldn’t be a part of it. I will still encourage them to come for the rally and the parties, but they have expressed concern, feeling unwelcome, feeling dismissed and judged purely on their gender. Yes, this is something women have to face on a regular basis and it’s all to easy to say ‘see how we feel, now’, but as feminists we have to be bigger than that. We are fighting for equality, we have to set the precedent. Just as we argue that it is wrong for women to be judged purely on gender, to not be seen as individuals, we must argue that men should not be judged in the same way.
Out of interest, would you be campaigning as actively if this were an issue affecting men, if they were the ones suffering from regular violence? I would hope so, as it is a human rights violation that must be stopped regardless of whether women or men are affected by it. Yet, if that were the case, how would you feel to be told that actually, you don’t get a voice in this? Even if people of your gender were the main cause of the issue and you wanted to speak out against that, even if you were not violent towards men and sought to discourage fellow women from being violent (in this alternative universe, of course), even if you committed much of your time and energy to fighting said violence – if even then, you were told that you were not welcome at marches against this issue because you didn’t experience it first-hand, how would you feel?
It just seems wrong to me, I don’t know how else to put it to explain my point of view. I agree entirely with what the march stands for. I am a feminist, I set up and run a Gender Equality Society that is currently campaigning for a Rape Crisis Centre in Devon, I am the Gender Equality representative for our Union and the student rep for our Women’s Network. I am trying, with all of my might (and much of the time I should perhaps spend on my degree) to be heard in this town, and to get people involved. I am trying to fight feminist fights in the university, on a local basis, and I try to get to as many events elsewhere as possible. But if even the feminist events are exclusive, if they do not allow me to involve the men that I have got on side, how can I explain that? How can I respond discouragingly to ‘oh feminism, that’s just man-hating’, when I know that the majority of feminist marches do not allow men? That certainly sends out the message that men are not allowed to be involved with this, that feminism is a women-only arena, even an anti-men ideology, loud and clear.
I will still be attending the march in November, hopefully with a good number of us to represent Exeter. But I know that the experience, however empowering and significant it will be, will be marred by the knowledge that the men I have brought with me have had to be left behind, setting up the rally, behind the scenes, not allowed to join us.
So thank you, thank you whole-heartedly for holding this march. Thank you for being there, for providing women with this network and for fighting for something that is so incredibly important. I just hope that, if not in this year, then in future years, I will also be able to thank you for your inclusiveness, and your understanding.
With the greatest respect,
—
What are your thoughts? This seems straight-forward for me, but is clearly not a black&white issue, as the LFN have been quick to point out…
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 7, 2009 at 9:40 am
FW
Your side, I am on it. I understand their argument, but that doesn’t make it valid.
1) Men, as far as we know, aren’t victims as often. Men certainly don’t report male on male sexual violence at the same rate women report male on female sexual violence, so right off, I bristle at the dismissal of male sexual violence against men, because the prevalence of it could be thousands of times what we think it is, but men don’t report it, so we can’t know for sure. Male children are certainly at high risk of sexually violent victimization. It’s interesting that on their website they say the march is for women and children, and I wonder what the cut-off age is for male children. Sexist AND Agist.
2) If a big part of awareness and prevention is letting perpetrators of sexual violence know that it’s unacceptable, letting only women march sends the message that it’s ONLY unacceptable to women. The effort should be to show men that other MEN think it’s unacceptable.
3) Besides making already pro-feminist men feel excluded and devalued, female only marches help to fuel the ‘gender war’ perception that MRA’s and anti-feminists latch onto and use to propagandize against the feminist movement. It’s one of the standard examples they use in order to show that feminism doesn’t promote equality, but promotes the oppression of men instead. Their anti-woman anti-feminist ideology directly results in violence and victimization, and feminism should not supply them with such destructive ammunition.
4) Not only all that, but I’m personally opposed to LFN’s anti-prostitution stance.
November 7, 2009 at 10:11 am
Caitlin
Thank-you. I agree with all of your points (though my stance on prostitution shifts frequently – any light you can shed on the matter would be much appreciated!) and wish that LFN could see them too. It would make such an impact to have women and men marching together for this, but it doesn’t look like it’s going to happen any time soon.
It’s such a shame that the LFN, which could be used for so much good, seems almost stagnant in a lot of its ideas. They aren’t as up for discussion as you’d hope open-minded feminists would be!
November 8, 2009 at 2:43 am
FW
My opinion of prostitution – I could go on and on – really – I started my own blog so I could go on and on as much as I want to about this stuff – so you might find some light-shedding over there too … First off I am a mostly retired sex-worker. I started as a “pro” when I was 29, almost 30 (I’m almost 39 now) so I was mature, had lots of experience with men and relationships and all that and had already been a feminist forever.
I believe – and I believed it before I became a professional sexer-upper – is that people need to be able to make informed decisions, with true facts so they can decide if whatever thing is safe enough or too risky for them. Laws don’t matter – the drug war has taught us that, just because something is illegal, or shameful or whatever, doesn’t stop people from doing it anyway.
The problem with prostitution is that there aren’t many facts out there getting attention. The attention is always on the worst cases and the misleading statistics (the stats almost never account for autonomous sex workers who chose the work, always on pimped or trafficked or coerced women) There are so many sex-workers blogs – and sex workers who comment over on feministing and feministe and shakesville and everywhere – but everytime we try to speak out and say “hey that’s not actually true” about whatever myth we hear – we get silenced and told that we are privileged and don’t understand what “real exploitation” or vicitimization is like. Or people assume we are just sex fiends or something.
But see – the creepiness of the whole anti-prostitution argument is the constant “women need to be protected for their own good” stuff – it’s bad for women and society so lets shame women for their own good…. or it’s bad so lets just assume the women who say they like it must be crazy and stupid or brainwashed…. or it’s bad so lets force it further underground so unwilling women – or women who still refuse to obey – will be victimized worse….
If I could ask one thing of people on the fence about prostitution’s legality and stuff, it would be that they make an effort to – whenever they read the latest anti-prostitution policy recommendations and stuff – to just ASSUME that the people who wrote it are anti-woman, and see how it sounds. Some of it still sounds great and smart, but some of it really doesn’t, and sounds dangerous for women. You don’t have to believe they are anti-woman but just read the stuff as if you didn’t know who wrote it – is it a Father’s Rights group? or a Women’s Rights group? Is it from a group that wants to restrict womens sexual freedom? or a group that is really working to help women? Do they seem to be exploiting victims “women and children especially” in order to legitimize their organization? Or are former victims or even women who chose sex-work actually part of the board and decision makers? Does the research encompass all different types of workers – or only those who landed in jail at survey time?
So much of the stuff is downright oppressive with TONS of loopholes for all sorts of crazy laws to be passed. The focus is on ‘Ending Demand’ for commercial sex – and stuff is worded in such a way that I can see the door wide open for all sorts of laws telling women what they can and cannot do. No revealing clothes ever, because you might encourage demand for sex, no flirting, no being out alone at night while female, males must accompany women in public, no birth control because why would you need it unless you are “encouraging men to want sex”, and who defines what clothes are slutty and what counts as flirting… Which I know may sound totally paranoid but when you research who these “policy recommending” NGO’s really are they are all fundamentalist christians. I mean, no offense to christians, but fundamentalists are pretty far out there – and they have NEVER been in favor of women’s rights.
When they start talking about the need to “end demand” for sex (of all things!) I already know it’s doomed to fail (human nature being what it is – and I outright reject the notion that every woman who has ever enjoyed sex is a freak of nature, men are not the only ones who get horny), and I already know who fundamentalists have always put the burden of sexual responsibility on – women – and the burden is to be modest and sweet and virtuous and to obey. They say they will only prosecute the customers, but that WILL fail because it just will, (we can’t shame the patriarchy into crumbling) and then what? What’s the next target they’ll try to “end”? Tempation, maybe? Wanton displays of flesh maybe? Goodness knows…
ok im done rambling now
November 8, 2009 at 2:49 am
FW
BTW – I didn’t mean to imply that LFN is a fundamental christian organization recommending policy, they are definitely feminists who just don’t agree with my outlook, it’s more likely that the fundamentalists co-opted feminist language to sound legitimately concerned for women (and children, especially).
April 13, 2010 at 9:30 am
Sarah
wow, thanks for this! i was a steward on the reclaim the night march, and was disappointed with some of the attitudes LFN displayed, and with the post-march fallout on LFN (Feminist Fightback’s open letter to the network, and the responses from LFN). also this:
http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/2009/12/im_going_to_use
have you seen this? i found it quite interesting.
http://pennyred.blogspot.com/2009/11/pre-protest-faff-laden-filk-off-athon.html
i get LFN’s updates every day, and always read them. i have a lot of respect for finn, and she’s a great orator. but LFN’s views on pornography and sex work are so rigid, and so different to mine (although, like you, my position changes daily), that i have no desire to get involved. although this was addressed on the network recently, and finn pointed out that it’s a grass roots network, so if you want LFN to focus on something, you should show up and talk about it. which is a good point. but finn makes her views so clear, and the other active members seem to be of the same mindset, that open debate is hardly encouraged. it’s such a sectarian-fest.
April 13, 2010 at 1:18 pm
Caitlin
Agh I just wrote you a long reply and wordpress deleted it! How annoying.
Thanks for the comment Sarah, the links are really interesting and good food for thought! I agree about the LFN. I think my problem with them lies with this idea that they represent a grassroots London feminist perspective, but don’t create an environment where people feel comfortable expressing opposing views. I certainly didn’t feel comfortable at the LFN conference when they talked about male feminists or about sex workers, but I felt too intimidated to ask too many questions.
At the march, too, the way that the women representing the Sex Workers’ Union were shouted down was disgusting. We were marching near them and it was such a horrible feeling when the majority of the march sang ‘women’s bodies not for sale’ over their chants. It certainly didn’t feel like a safe, accepting environment.
Good for you for stewarding though, I think RTN marches are so important (and, normally, such great fun!). We’re trying to organise one in Exeter at the moment, for the 8th May. It’s open to everyone, regardless of gender, sexuality, profession, race etc etc etc ad infinitum…
http://exeterrtn.wordpress.com/