Ohio: The Importance of Choice

If you want to read Neil Lyndon's article, please consider using this link. It uses a service that stops the Telegraph from profiting from disgusting journalism such as this.

It has been announced in the past few days that Ohio has tabled a bill regarding abortion and men's rights in agreeing to termination. It is a horrific piece of legislation that would be a worrying step backwards in human rights if passed.

But whilst the bill itself is shocking, just as appalling is the reaction of male journalists and campaigners who seem to have missed the point entirely.

I pride myself on being inclusive in feminism, in wanting to involve people of all ages, backgrounds and genders in our fight for equality. I am far from a separatist, despite what my history might lead people to think. I believe feminism can be women-centred and women-led without being women-only. And I truly believe that female equality benefits men long-term too.

However, when I read articles such as that by Neil Lyndon in the Telegraph, I am suddenly led to feel a great surge of empathy for my separatist sisters.

First, let's talk about pregnancy. There's the obvious, terrifying realisation that you're going to be a parent. Even if you really want it and you're excited, there's still fear and trepidation. Yes, that's something that men feel too, I will allow that. But do they put on enormous amounts of weight, some of which they might never shift? Sounds fine, but what about when society -yes, YOUR patriarchal, misogynistic crap - insists that we stay perfect, beautiful, skinny and flawless forever? 

And how about our whole relationship with the world changing? I wish that was an exaggeration. I went down to the hotel bar to see a friend and ended up choking back the vomit. "What IS that stuff you're drinking?" It was just red wine, but a pregnant woman's sense of smell changes so drastically that it alters her perception. Shopping at the supermarket became the strangest experience, smells I'd never noticed before suddenly becoming overwhelming. I was more sensitive to sound, to taste. I had extraordinary cravings taking over my body. Quite simply, my body was not my own.

And then, at the end of nine months of intermittent sickness, pain and aches, sleepless nights (because you just can't sleep comfortably), weight gain, swollen ankles and other parts, comes the grand finale - forcing a fully grown baby out of a hole so small that its skull bones have to overlap to get through. And whilst much safer today than it once was, childbirth is still risky. In fact, there were a staggering 343,000 deaths during childbirth in 2008.

Have you got the picture yet? Pregnancy... Childbirth... it's scary stuff.

And whilst men may be expected to contribute to prospective offspring, and may still feel the same levels of fear and trepidation about parental commitments or the well-being of their partners, they don't have to go through the physical changes, the hormones or face a potentially life-threatening situation at the end of it. It isn't your body to control. As I said before, it was barely my own!

 “Since fathers will have legal responsibilities for child support, they should have rights regarding the birth or destruction of the foetus."

There is so much wrong with this quote from Lyndon's article. If there is a child resulting from the pregnancy AND they are required to contribute financially, then perhaps it can be discussed further. At that point. But with regard to the pregnancy and birth, that affects the mother and decisions should be her domain.

So women, according to Lyndon's piece, would have to provide a list of possible fathers. There would be paternity tests so that the individual could give "permission" for a termination. Seriously? There's a one night stand and no interest in children, but she needs to ask for permission to get rid of an unwanted foetus that could risk HER LIFE, physical and emotional well-being and did I mention HER LIFE?!

"If the father cannot be identified, the woman would not be allowed to terminate her pregnancy."

Because, obviously, a woman cannot make autonomous decisions. If the father is so elusive that he cannot be identified, how does he have any rights at all in these circumstances?

"Where the woman says that the pregnancy is the result of rape, she would have to provide a police report as evidence before she could have the abortion."

So, let me get this straight. A woman has been sexually assaulted, had all of her rights stripped away from her in the worst possible way. She's, quite possibly, struggling to admit what happened to herself, let alone anyone else. She's just found out that not only was her body treated as a plaything by someone else on that night, but her body has just been taken over by a parasite for the next nine months (ok, eight, once she finds out) and her body's still not her own. I keep coming back to this, but the issue of propriety is actually quite significant when all ownership has been stripped away.

She's gone through all of this, and now you're not going to let her have an abortion unless she provides a police report? So she's got to report and relive that whole experience, and that's if the police decide to take it seriously in the first place. A law like this is only going to encourage police forces to dismiss rape cases on the grounds that she's "just trying to get an abortion". Why make a difficult situation harder?

I look back on my experience in Germany and wonder where I would have been. I was laughed at by the police, because I was an English girl. I've been laughed at by others because I'm ugly and should be grateful for the attention. I'm not alone; there are thousands of women experiencing the same victim shaming that I went through, and refusal to acknowledge the trauma.

Reporting to the police, just like abortion, needs to be a choice. Choice is everything in cases of violence, and all those choices need to be independent and exclusive.

" Is it in the interests of taxpayers that 150,000+ abortions should be performed every year? Is it in the interests of the wider society that those lives - more or less equal to the annual figure for net migration in the UK - should be stilled?"

These were the final questions asked in the article. The short answer is that yes, these abortions are definitely in the interest of the taxpayer. The longer answer is that we often is the surgical cost of termination without considering the wider implications.

Imagine a woman who has been forced into having her child. Think of the counselling and therapy costs that she would undoubtedly need at some point. Think of the economic cost due to someone potentially unable to work as effectively due to the emotional or physical repercussions. If you want to look at cold, hard facts, then an abortion costs around £400 as opposed to upwards of £700 for childbirth (and that's without all the scans and all the rest of it). Then there's the cost of education, healthcare and everything else. If you want cold, hard "interests of taxpayers", then that woman's doing you a hell of a favour.

In reality, nothing is ever so black and white. Every woman's story is different and the reasons for abortion are also varied. To reduce women to the cost of their healthcare, abortion or birth, or to reduce children to the cost of their education is over-simplification at best, but rather callous and insulting.

Women deserve a choice over something that will permanently change their lives. There is no shame in involving the father in the decision process, but there is also no obligation. If men are so concerned with how they are being treated in these cases, then perhaps it's time to take a look at the bigger picture and the way our patriarchal society is treating women as a whole. Perhaps then, they may start to understand.

News Headlines

This article was written as part of the Special Contributions Team for the EVB Campaign. For more information, please visit their website.

Every day, we are faced with a myriad of victim-blaming stories. A brief visit to three of the major news outlets uncovered no fewer than twelve inappropriate headlines or by-lines. From placing emphasis on a victim’s alcohol consumption to casting their abuse into doubt through misplaced quotation marks, each tells a stark tale of the media’s attitude towards those experiencing violence.

“Ethopian teenager who says she was raped by seven men…”

“155% rise in children groomed by sex gangs.”

“A beautician was left scarred for life after a fellow clubber glassed her when she refused to dance with him, it is claimed…”

“The woman was attacked while drunk…”

“Left demands answers from senior Labour trio over links to child sex group”

“Drama teacher charged with having sex with schoolboy she met while directing production of hit musical”

Though the last refers to the female abuse of a male, it is still an important example of how sub-editors choose to represent the sexual assault and violence towards children, young people and minors who are legally unable to consent to sexual activity.

In fact, victim blaming happens so often in today’s media that many people are increasingly immune to it. In creating a hierarchy of “worst examples”, are the ones at the top of the list those that shock, or the ones so subtle that they infiltrate the public consciousness at an unnoticed level? In fact, is it healthy to create a hierarchy at all, or should we challenge each and every instance?

Every single article, headline or comment that involves victim blaming is important. Each and every instance damages confidence in society, encourages self-doubt and self-blame. Each case reinforces society’s belief that male perpetrators and their reputations should be protected. There is a tendency to assume “innocent until proven guilty” which neglects to respect the needs of the victim.

In a society where over 90% of sexual assaults are thought to go unreported, it is imperative that women are believed and treated with the dignity that they deserve, so that they feel valued as members of the community and so that they have the confidence to work with authorities in the knowledge that they will be supported if or when they feel that they want to take further action.

Why does so much victim blaming exist in the media, particularly with regard to sexual assault and court cases? It is largely, as we know, both a symptom and cause of the gender inequality that exists, and created by the personal contexts of the journalists and editors. But more than that, the culture of legal action in which we live, where the press is held accountable for every comment and by-line printed about public figures, it is understandable that they would be wary about false accusations and anything that could cost the company. Unfortunately – and wrongly, of course – many editors find it far easier to side with the well-known personality, than to go with an anonymous member of the public who has little method of recourse.

However, there are ways to avoid litigation without blaming the victims of abuse and without holding them accountable for their own experience. There is language that can be used to report cries and allegations that allow women to retain confidence in the system.

Many instances of victim-blaming in recent headlines have been linked to three areas. But it is essential that sub-editors and journalists are not just challenged, but offered alternatives.

Firstly, all reports concerning children and minors who have been victims need to be referred to as instances of rape or sexual abuse. It is not sex, they are not having relationships with their abusers. If a young person is under the age of consent, then they cannot consent. Lack of consent is called rape.

If a person is in a position of responsibility, they are the ones who should ensure that any infatuation, signs of sexualised behaviour towards them (which can in itself be a warning sign of other abuse) or other unusual activity is referred up the chain, to the designated child protection officer. All persons working with young people receive extensive safeguarding training, from those involved in youth organisations such as Girlguiding or The Scout Association, to those working in schools. People in positions of care must not be mitigated by apparent flirtation – they are the abusers when acting in these cases, not the young person.

In cases purporting to allegations of sexual assault, it is imperative that the language used validates the information given by the victim whilst maintaining the legal boundaries. For example, terms such as ‘claims’, in addition to quantifiers such as ‘apparent’ and various quotation marks that lay doubt on the case should be replaced by neutral terms such as reports, allegations and – most preferably in a legal situation – charges. It is too easy for a journalist’s need for synonyms to open up connotations about the plausibility of the case.

Thirdly, a better understanding of this country’s legal system needs to be conveyed in writing. Not guilty does not mean innocent. A perpetrator can only be convicted if the crime can be proven beyond reasonable doubt which, in cases where the crimes may have been twenty or thirty years in the past, can be extremely difficult. Even more so when the people to be convinced are a jury made up of those exposed to victim-blaming on a daily basis.

Inconclusive evidence does not make someone innocent, and it certainly doesn’t make their allegations a “flight of fancy”, as they have been referred to in some parts of the media. Not guilty simply means that the jury wasn’t absolutely, 100% certain of the crime.

Subeditors need to be cautious when using the word innocent, or commenting on the victims in these cases of male violence against women. They must be accurate – speak of guilty or not guilty, or even not proven, but the word innocent is not an alternative for this, nor is the assumption that the victims in these cases have been “inventing” the trauma that they have experienced.

Headlines and by-lines needn’t be less “sensational”. They needn’t abandon the principles of snappy sound-bites and high sales. They needn’t be wordier nor must they risk legal action for reporting unsubstantiated or unproven claims. But editors, sub-editors and journalists must respect the basic human rights and dignity of victims and adopt a stance of neutrality that ensures those experiencing abuse feel supported rather than distrusted.

[This piece was written prior to the media reports about a 14yo child charged with rape of his mother and so the associated headlines are not included in this analysis.]

Stay Safe

I was quite happily drunk texting my boss and browsing Facebook, when I stumbled upon one of those posts that made me simultaneously rub my hands in glee and groan internally.

The post was a link to the Nottinghamshire Police website, about three women who had been "assaulted". My contact had written underneath it, "stay safe". A chance to open a dialogue on language, victim-blaming, responsibility and so much more... fantastic! Another article telling us women to behave nicely and be good little girls...? Not so much.

So we started talking. Talking about why it's important to remember that the male perpetrators of violence are at fault, why women shouldn't be told to stay sober, stay in herds, stay properly dressed... Talking about how society has conditioned us into these subconscious implications that women are to blame for the violence against them.

Then I read the article.

Instantly, I was horrified. Actually, I think I've been trained to be horrified by anything written by Nottinghamshire Police - they don't have the best record with male violence towards women (Christmas campaign, anyone?). And after yesterday's ridiculous Question Time with George Galloway (who seems oblivious to the technicalities of the legal system), I was already on high alert.

Walk in well-lit areas. Keep handbags buckled. Walk with other people. The article barely stopped short of warning against short skirts and red wine.

It was pointed out to me that all the advice offered was gender-neutral, important safety advice for all people. Yet it was handbags prioritised, not rucksacks. And when was the last time that men were advised not to walk alone? I don't accept this idea that it was aimed at everyone - far more likely that we've been conditioned to roll over. But that could be the drink talking.

Yes, there is some advice that is basic crime prevention - keep valuables out of sight and be aware of your surroundings. But we do need to consider the message being spread, particularly when the police are asking for women to share the message to "stay safe".

What are your views on safety messages?

Care Versus Control

It's another exciting day for Girlguiding, as the nation's largest charity for girls and young women launches another campaign to get the voice of its membership heard.

"Care Versus Control" is a new report that uses Girlguiding's "Girls' Attitudes Survey" data to show how young women view coercion, abuse and healthy relationships. It forms part of our work on the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts (WAGGGS) Stop The Violence campaign, and also highlights the importance of peer education in discussing issues of relationships and abuse with young people.

Some of the statistics are shocking:

• Only 23% of girls aged 11-17 fully understood what an abusive relationship was
• Only 18% of girls mentioned psychological or emotional pressures when asked about abuse
• 12% of girls thought that telling you who you can and can't spend time with is ok
• 21% said that telling you what you can and can't wear is acceptable
• 21% said that calling you names could be ok
• 22% thought that checking up on you and reading your phone was acceptable
• 39% said that making you tell your partner where you are all the time is fine

Presumably, by reversing the presented statistics:

• 4% think that kicking, biting or hitting a girl for talking to someone else at a party is ok
• 5% think that it is sometimes ok to threaten a girl with violence for spending time with friends
• 6% think it can be acceptable to threaten a girl into having sex in certain circumstances

The "Care Versus Control" report lays out what many of us youth professionals have known for a long time, and what Christine Barter (who conducts the NSPCC research on behalf of the University of Bristol) has also reported; young people want peer educators, not teachers or trained professionals.

In Girlguiding, we are lucky to have an established Peer Education system, with fantastic and fully trained young women aged 14-26 who offer sessions on various sensitive topics. I often find that this resource is underused, particularly in my area. It's an example I often point to when working with teachers; training older pupils to be mentors and session leaders will have multiple benefits.

Firstly, it allows the young people involved in discussion to open up in a way that they can't always do with their "regular" adult. Certain phrases, types of language and attitudes are often seen as unacceptable in a normal meeting or classroom environment. If we want our young people to be comfortable and open in discussion, they also need to be comfortable and open in the language they can use to facilitate that, and be free from judgement in that. Outside providers also free them fro lasting embarrassment with a face they have to see each week, as well as providing the trained "mentors" with valuable leadership and transferable skills.

Understandably, and quite rightly, the "Care Versus Control" report has sparked debate on Twitter, asking questions such as "how can we help girls to recognise abusive relationships?" 

One lady, who shall be called HH, replied "Ensure your own relationships are healthy and lead by example". I wasn't sure I agreed with this statement. In fact, I positively bristled at it, and it took me a little while to work out and articulate why.

As you may know, I'm a huge advocate for leading by example. I find that in my teaching and in my Guiding, I make it my personal motto never to ask my young people to do anything that I wouldn't be comfortable doing myself. I will offer them the chance, of course (I might not feel comfortable doing zip wire, but they still have the opportunity!), but a girl who is struggling with fear will never be forced into it.

So given my own love of this philosophy, and my pedagogical knowledge of the power of modelling, why is it that the "lead by example" response in this case caused so much discord?

Those without experience of abusive relationships often find it difficult to understand the pressures and the attachment that are part of them. It takes a lot of courage to recognise that your own relationship is unhealthy, because it's so easy to try and explain problems away as a rough patch, or something that will get better, or even something that he does because he loves you. And it takes even more strength to walk away from it. Sometimes, that's because you're in love and can't imagine life without them, sometimes it's fear of the consequences, sometimes it's more practical matters like wondering where you're going to live.

When I was younger, a male friend of mine decided he wanted to date me. He put a lot of pressure on me until I finally agreed (knowing I could break it off, because I was moving cities in a few weeks). He pressured me into things I didn't want to do, stopped me seeing certain friends, even sat in the back of my car as I drove an ex-girlfriend from Luton to Sheffield at 2am because he was insanely jealous and didn't trust me. He then asked my parents' permission to marry me, and they announced it locally without even asking. They offered me £50,000 to keep my mouth shut and go through with the wedding. Despite everything that man did to me, the knowledge that I would be financially secure was an incredibly tempting offer.

I knew that relationship was unhealthy, but I wasn't sure where to turn or how to get out of it. 

Women's Aid tell us that when we support other women, we should ensure we listen to their stories and we acknowledge their difficult, traumatic and frightening situation. We also ensure we tell them that no-one deserves to suffer abuse. But we must never tell them to leave the relationship, in case they aren't ready to take that step and in case it's removing another element of control in their lives.

You see, when you survive any sort of abuse, it becomes a matter of regaining control. What that control is, is specific to each individual. But by telling a woman to "ensure" her relationships are healthy, we are judging her relationships, telling her to leave those that are abusive and removing that element of control.

It is also a fine line between a statement that tells the woman to "ensure healthy relationships" and victim blaming. If it is the woman who has the responsibility to make sure her relationships are healthy, there is a subtext that women suffering abuse are to blame for not taking that responsibility. This is simply not true; it is always the fault of the abuser.

I can see where HH was coming from in her advice for other leaders. I can understand how leaders with healthy relationships can help facilitate discussion for others. But in some ways, isn't this somewhat like atheist leaders discussing faith with their girls? It may not be something that comes naturally, and may even be uncomfortable for some, but just because it is not an experience that you are living first hand, doesn't mean that you are in an unsuitable position to be facilitating exploration for others.

Of course, many leaders don't wish to share the personal details of their relationships with their units anyway. Some of my older Senior Section members were aware that I was dating a Guide leader from Leeds last year, but not all of them and certainly not my Guides. None of my girls are aware of my current dating situation and that's the way I like it. I certainly don't want to be "modelling" to my units using my personal life!

"Care Versus Control" is an incredibly important compilation of research, and shows the extent to which the current education system is failing our young people in terms of real-world education. However, the debates coming from this report and Girlguiding's tweets on Twitter also show how badly we need to educate our adults about the difference between empowering women, facilitating discussion and laying responsibility on the wrong parties.

You can read the full "Care Versus Control" report here

Memory Games

Inferno. I read it the other week, after my mother pestered me to do so. There were a lot of things that bothered me with the novel, mostly to do with the writing style itself and Brown's condescending attitude towards women through his male characters. The two main female characters are defined by appearance, sexual assault and childlessness.

I will admit that I have grieved the fact that I lost my daughter, and I will make no argument against rape or attempted rape being a terrifying and life-changing ordeal. And though it may feel like we are defined by those events as we go through the process of recovery, to reduce us to them fulfills all our fears, and to reduce characters to them reinforces the myths and sense of failure that many women feel.

Brown's writing isn't empathetic or even sympathetic. We don't feel anything for Sienna, it seems rather more than a "logical" piece of the puzzle. But human reactions are rarely "logical" or "measured", and everything about Sienna's experience feels contrived, and a male trivialisation of a very real issue.

However, I didn't intend to write a detailed analysis of gender inequality in the novels of Dan Brown. It really isn't worth my time or attention. What I wanted to write about was an idea that I found even more disturbing than what I've already described. The idea of memory manipulation.

Brown suggests in his novel that benzodiazepines are being used experimentally to induce short term memory loss as a treatment for patients of sexual assault. I sincerely hope that this is fictional. For a start, one of the most well-known benzodiazepines is rohypnol, more often used as a facilitator of sexual assault rather than treatment.

My first issue with this suggestion is the statement that sexual assault is "permanently debilitating", which yet again dis-empowers those women who have experienced rape or other serious sexual crimes. Yes, the trauma seriously affects daily life, but with the correct support, we have the power to carry on. Not even "carry on", which holds the same negative connotations as "struggle" and "survive", but to live our lives fully and with vigour. It isn't a quick-fix solution, and there will be bad days as well as the good, but although there are some things that are still a challenge for me and it's taken eight years to get to this point, there is nothing I can't do that I could do before. It has not taken any ability away from me, permanently or otherwise. And to suggest that it does yet again reinforces the message of power for the perpetrator and is extremely disrespectful and belittling to the hundreds of thousands of women who continue and the wonderful volunteers and support workers who assist them in their journey.

And breathe.

The next problem with the suggestion is the memory itself. In the first few days, in the first few years, in fact, my two biggest wishes were that I could either turn back time so that it had never happened, or that I could wipe the memories from my head forever. Because it's not just the memory that sits there in the back of your mind where you have to actively recall it, somewhat like thinking about your seventh birthday party, or what you did last weekend. No, it is on constant replay, triggered by textures, sights, sounds and smells. It's not just a memory but something you actively relive, feeling the pain like you did the first time. Even recalling it now is making the back of my head throb where it was smashed on the pavement, and my throat feel like I'm being strangled again. It's manageable, I've learnt to cope. But those mechanisms and defences take time to develop.

The truth is, though, that the things I can't recall are the most terrifying. I don't know exact times, but there must be at least half an hour that's unaccounted for. All I know is that in that time, he left me on the pavement after strangling me, presumably thinking I was dead. Did he rape me again? Did he do something else to me? I have no idea because I have no memories or recollections to go with that time period. Even silly things, like not remembering the name of the work colleague that introduced us, or not remembering where I had my dance class the day before, send shivers down my spine.

It comes back to trust. And control. Most of these things come back to trust and control at the end of the day. Because, in these situations, you realise that you can't trust anyone outside yourself... and suddenly, you can't even trust yourself or your own memories. And the one thing that you still had some control over - your own mind - is not your own either.

So, ethically speaking, how would you go about erasing someone's memories? Would you erase them straight off and not even tell them what had happened? Would you erase that from their minds completely? And what would you tell them? What sort of detrimental effect would that have on the patient and how would you deal with any resulting health issues without letting them know? And if you were to allow them to know the facts, then how would that impact them emotionally? Would they deny their feelings or dismiss them as ridiculous because their memory loss meant they felt undeserving of such reactions? Especially if the choice to have the memories removed was their own.

And time frames make this even more delicate as an issue. For the drugs to affect short term memory, they need to be administered in the first 48 hours, when the patient is likely still in shock. How do you assess whether something is "permanently debilitating" in that time scale? 

On a related (or rather, inverted) note, has anyone read this article in the Guardian? Apparently, a false memory has been implanted in a mouse's brain, and the researchers plan to use this to warn legal experts about the unreliability of human memory. The article actually cites sexual abuse claims as an example of false memories, which yet again undermines the reality of the situation and implies widespread prevalence of an issue that is comparatively rare in relation to false reports of other crime.

In both cases, understanding of how our brains work is essential for future treatment. So often, emotional and psychological wellbeing is dismissed due to lack of medical and scientific understanding, and the fact that it (and its results) can't be seen in the same way as physical health. But we need to consider carefully the impact that this research has and how it is used. In both cases, sexual assault has been cited as possible use (even if one case is in a novel!), yet the authors seem to completely misunderstand the basic truths of the experience.

Harry Potter and the Prime Minister in Kazakhstan

A student in Kazakhstan asked David Cameron what character from Harry Potter he would most like to be. His response was rather idiosyncratic and ended on the words, “that must be the correct answer”, as if everything in life must be separated into right and wrong, and everything that passes his lips must be the most crowd-pleasing option.

David Cameron would want to be Harry Potter, apparently. He accepts that many citizens would see him as the villain of the piece, Lord Voldemort, but sees Potter as the only sensible answer, as every person must want to be him.

I have news for you, Cameron - I don’t!

Although Harry Potter is far from the attention-seeking, spoilt little boy that characters like Draco and Snape make him out to be in the books, he has a tendency towards fits of rage, tantrums and laziness (how many times does he copy Hermione’s homework, or only get mediocre grades for not putting the effort in?).

I’m not saying that academic success is the key to happiness, nor am I suggesting that Harry’s anger at his situation is unjustified (for those that haven’t read the books, he loses his parents as a baby, and ends up finding that his only future lies in being killed or becoming a killer). But he is, after all, a teenage boy, with all the attitudes, emotions and problems that being a teenage boy entails.

Harry Potter was never my favourite character in the series, and I certainly wouldn’t aspire to be like him, no matter how courageous he was in the final battles.

But I have always disagreed somewhat with Rowling’s take on things. She seems to prioritise bravery and courage (Gryffindor house’s attributes) above all else, with intelligence and wit (Ravenclaw) coming a close second. Down at the bottom of the heap are ambition and talent (Slytherin), along with Hufflepuff’s house attributes.

Hufflepuff is about being loyal, hard-working, fair, a good friend and working for justice. It’s about facing the challenges, being a good citizen and trying your best, regardless of where your aptitude lies. Although all the house qualities are needed in some measure, I find that Hufflepuff attributes are the foundation for others; knowledge comes through hard work, courage through the dedication to justice. And yet, in the books, they are dismissed as a “load of old duffers”. Hufflepuff is deemed the house where the odd-balls and the rejects go, anyone who isn’t worthy of the other houses. Equality, loyalty and justice are not qualities to sneer at!

 But there is a severe lack of strong Hufflepuff characters in the series. In fact, Hufflepuff tends to be the Harry Potter equivalent of the infamous Star Trek redshirts – characters that can be killed and disposed of at will! Cedric Diggory was probably the best known, but more for his good looks (and ensuing career as a sparkly vampire) than for being a positive role model.

My favourite characters in the series were probably Molly Weasley and Peeves. Peeves is fantastic comic relief and a law unto himself, but not someone I would aspire to be. Molly is fiercely loyal, protective of her family, courageous and humorous. But I’m not sure her almost dictatorial style would be something I’d want to emulate, given my passion for youth voice.

I’ve thought about it and I’m fairly convinced I would rather aspire to be one of the adults than one of the child characters, for many reasons. But which one?

Not James or Sirius, both of whom are far too reckless and childish. Not Hagrid who, though loyal and loved, is a rather inept teacher and shuns his professional duties. Not Professor Sprout, Madame Pomfrey, Professor Flitwick, Professor Slughorn (a coward who plays favourites) or Professor Lockheart. Not Barty Crouch, Ludo Bagman or any of the ministry employees. Not Tonks, not Fleur, none of the Weasleys, neither of the Dursleys. Not a Death Eater.

Perhaps Dumbledore would be the obvious answer for me. He’s the head teacher and takes considerable personal interest in his pupils, caring for them as individuals rather than as names on a roll. He is certainly Voldemort’s greatest match in many ways, and we share a fondness for sherbet lemons. But I do sometimes agree with his governors on the way he runs his school, and sometimes feels that his care for the individual borders on overstepping professional boundaries. If he lived in the muggle world, I have a feeling Dumbledore would be the one that had pupils on Facebook and Twitter, that would see them in the local café and blur all lines. Not necessarily the best role model.

In the end, I settled for Professor McGonagall. She is hard-working, takes no nonsense, plans her lessons with her pupils in mind and to push and challenge them. She cares for her students whilst maintaining her professional standards, values courage and loyalty and stands up for her beliefs. She has a great sense of humour and aspires to do her best at all times.

To assume that everyone aspires to be the hero of the series greatly oversimplifies human nature. Not everyone wants to be the hero or the villain. And not every character in literature is split into black and white, but rather shades of grey. I think these questions can tell a lot about someone’s world view, how they see themselves and how they see others around them. And the truth isn’t always pleasant.

10 Hours 45 Minutes

Ten hours and forty five minutes.

That’s ten hours and forty five minutes without sitting down, without leaning on a desk, without going for a toilet break, without lunch, without taking questions.

These are the lengths that some women – that ONE woman – will go to in order to protect the rights and the safety of their sisters. And those are extraordinary lengths (take it from a teacher who would love to be able to achieve those things on a daily basis!).

For those that have missed the many articles surrounding this case, a senator in Texas, Wendy Davis, intended to speak for 13 hours. This was because the state authorities had a deadline of midnight to pass a bill that put extremely prohibitive laws on abortion. By speaking for 13 hours, Wendy Davis would have made them miss the deadline, ensuring that the predominantly right-wing house couldn't vote to enforce the new laws.

She fell a little short of this 13 hour goal, mainly because the republican opposition managed to file enough complaints against her, a few of which were upheld. But one woman (Senator Leticia Van de Putte) followed with the statement, “Did the President hear me or did the President hear me and refuse to recognise me? At what point must a female senator raise her hand or her voice to be recognised over her male colleagues in the room?” This, naturally, caused a reaction which ultimately led to the passing of the midnight deadline.

Whilst I’m not 100% in the “if you don’t like it, don’t get one” camp (I feel that issues such as abortion are far more complex than that), I don’t believe that blanket prohibitive laws are in the best interest of a nation or, in this case, state.

Legislation doesn’t prevent abortion. It forces women underground. If a woman is absolutely against having a baby, she will do whatever she can to get rid of the foetus, and that jeopardises her life in the process. Yes, it may “save” a few foetuses whose mothers are on the border, but at what cost to their emotional and mental wellbeing? And at what cost to the child? Are we so pro-birth that we abandon all morality when it comes to life? Can you really consider yourself pro-life if you are willing to sacrifice a child’s health and happiness? What sort of “life” is it that you are supporting?

My faith makes the topic of abortion a difficult ground to tread. I believe children are a blessing (despite my job – go figure!) and I believe that God has plans for each and every one of us. But I also think that preventative legislation and constant right-wing preaching will result in people resenting God rather than coming to Him through choice or love.

Back in 2005, I discovered that I was pregnant. I didn’t know (and I will never be 100% certain) whether that pregnancy was a result of my rape or my fiancé. The likelihood is that it was the former, considering precautions. When I discovered this, I had a huge decision to make. I was a student at the time, and in no real position to raise a child. How would I feed her (I later discovered she was a girl), how would I clothe her, and what support options did I have in terms of childcare?

That was just the practical side. How would I cope looking at that little girl every day of my life, knowing where she came from? This is regardless of who her father was – because ANY sort of physical intimacy or memory was incredibly painful. And that was if I even had a life with which to reflect on it. I was born with kidney scarring which leads to high blood pressure with potentially life-threatening consequences during pregnancy. I was advised as a teenager never to have children.

Despite my beliefs that I was pregnant for a reason, I had to think of the potential future for both myself and the girl. I went to the relevant specialist to try and make an appointment and my heart was heavy.

I didn't have an abortion in the end. I went and had to make my way through the waiting “respectful prayer group”. I felt ashamed and embarrassed. What right had this group to pass judgement on my situation and my decision? Had any of them experienced what was going through? Once I made it inside, I was told (though I think it must have been lost in translation somewhere) that there was an eleven month waiting list. After that, I didn't have the heart or the confidence to find somewhere else or through with it.

I don’t believe that abortion is as black and white as some would have us believe. Yes, some will regret the choice to abort, but what we need to ensure is the appropriate support services so that women can access the information they need. This may be available in the UK, but it was the German system that I encountered personally. It is essential that we consider both the physical and psychological well-being of all involved, at all points.

So how do I reconcile my belief in God with my belief in women’s choice? Very simply through prayer and compassion. God is love and we need to show that for our sisters. And that includes in not shaming them outside centres and surgeries. Even with the most well-intentioned prayer groups, we need to consider the emotional impact that it will have and where our actions lead. It is not a case of denying my God or of being “overly-PC” (as I have heard many faith issues described in the past weeks), but rather of understanding my calling as one of gentleness and respect, and ministry through example and kindness.

Whilst on the subject of God, faith and family planning, I just want to drop in a comment / story that both horrified and amused me this week. I heard Julie Bentley described as “not only anti-God, but an agent of Satan, as proven by her family planning work”. Far from it proving an allegiance to Satan, or even being anti-God, surely the compassion and dedication that Julie shows in her various causes and charities shows a commitment to a moral framework and the ideal of thinking outside the self, regardless of her religious beliefs!

But in the story of Wendy Davis and her colleagues, I feel it important to note that it wasn't necessarily the cause itself that grabbed my attention, nor the fact that (yet again) women had to fight against men about legislation that affects them. What really grabbed my attention was the fight, the commitment, what women can and will do for a cause they are passionate about.

I like to think that I am strong-willed and prepared to fight. But, realistically, how far am I willing to push any given issue? The reality is that I won’t push very far. My work always seems to come first, and I have to be careful not to do anything that risks me getting arrested or put in a position of shaming the school that I work for (leading to dismissal).

Would I speak for almost eleven hours to stop a bill going through? Only if I could realistically assure myself that I wouldn't be forcibly removed or arrested. Would I risk going onto a racecourse to hang a scarf like Emily Wilding Davison did? Probably not. I would be far too worried about injury to myself, to the horse and to the rider.

As time goes on, I feel that I am pushing further into territory in which I do feel uncomfortable. I’m starting to speak out using personal examples, I’m going to be speaking at an event in London this summer and I am working with the Nottingham Feminist Network on events in the city. Maybe one day, I will have the strength to show the sort of courage that these female senators in Texas showed today.

Passion transforms people. It gives them hope, strength, motivation. It fills them with emotions that can be harnessed to transform the lives of other people, to create a wave. In the face of a strong patriarchal resistance, these women didn’t let it wash over them, but inspired each other to fight and stand up for the rights of others. I only hope it inspires more women to do the same.

A Woman's Job...

We all sat in the school library. I say library, but it was an empty room in the eaves of a Victorian school building, with a couple of bookshelves, white walls and beige carpets. It wasn't used so much as a library, as a music room, performance space and general shepherding area.

I can't quite remember why we were herded in there; perhaps it was an assembly, perhaps singing practice, perhaps it was recorder group. But I remember sitting with my friend Kate, who I had known since we were babies, and telling her the worst joke ever (What did the big chimney say to the little chimney? You're too young to smoke).

And then we heard the teachers talking. Margaret Thatcher was no longer Prime Minister, she had been succeeded by John Major. We had a new PM and the dark days were over.

As a six year old girl, I had no idea what they meant by dark days. I had seen pictures of war ships on the news and documentaries, and had heard things, but you really don't understand at age six. My concern was bigger than that.

"Are you sure?" I asked Miss H. Miss H was a lovely, kind teacher who we all thought looked like a magic fairy. "It doesn't sound right."

She assured me it was the case, and I remember being thoroughly confused.

"But John is a man's name, isn't it?" I had been certain, but if he was a man then something was wrong. "And that can't be right. Because the Prime Minister is a woman's job, just like the Queen. Only women can have the most important jobs."

That was the world I grew up in. The two most important offices in the country were held by women. I never for a moment doubted that women could achieve and reach the top of their careers. In fact, I was dubious that men could hold these jobs. I grew up in a world where we wanted to be politicians, dentists, geologists, doctors, mechanics and plumbers, and I grew up in a world where we were skeptical of the Disney princesses and the need for a Prince Charming - girls could save themselves!

Love or loathe the policies, this was the true legacy that Margaret Thatcher left behind for a generation of young girls. A legacy of power. It would be naive to say she removed the ceiling for women entirely, but she changed an impenetrable concrete one into a more fragile glass ceiling, one that we have a chance at shattering.

 Many around the country speak of celebration, that they will hold parties in honour of her death. It saddens me that anyone would do so, particularly women. No joy comes from a story such as this; the joy of death is indirect, it comes from change and not the death itself. If people are freed by a leader's death, that is the origin of the celebration. But no change, no joy comes from this. Only, perhaps, a sense of peace for those that were irrevocably hurt by her policies.

For me, though, she will always be the first Prime Minister that I knew; the lady that meant - from a young age - that I was aware of my potential as a human being, not just as a woman. And though I may disagree with her politically, I respect the legacy of power she's left behind for a generation, and for generations to come.

Youth Voice

If you had asked me three years ago if I thought a teenager was capable of taking on a role like Youth PCC, I would instantly have said no. Like many adults in the UK, I thought that young people were too naive and too inward-looking to thoughtfully carry out such a role.

But then I got involved in Girlguiding and had the privilege to work with some remarkable and inspirational young women, who have changed lives, spoken out on difficult issues, educated others and made more of a mark on their society than many of their "adult" counterparts.

We are so quick as a society to judge people on their years. If people are over a certain age, they are deemed as surplus to requirements, yet under another and they suddenly get blanketed as naive, trouble making idiots. We need to start basing our assessments on individuals, not whole age groups.

As a teacher, I have worked with colleagues who have been doing lines in the toilets, who have rolled into work still drunk from the night before, who pick fights and sulk with other staff because of petty playground issues and who make catty, immature remarks about how others are dressed. 

And in these same schools, I have taught young people who have done extraordinary fundraising for charity, who have volunteered at women's centres and organisations, who have lobbied their local MPs and MEPs, who have sat on youth parliaments and local youth engagement committees. Each of whom has taken their roles and responsibilities seriously and made real impact.

I have been asked several times today if I think Paris Brown should have been given the PCC role. You know what? I have no idea. I have never taught her, never worked with her, never met her. So I really could not comment on her suitability as an individual.

But what I can say is that the system has failed her.

It's vitally important that we engage young people in the decision making process. Not just for our democratic future and encouraging them to vote, or even because they are the age group most likely to be involved in crime (both as victims and perpetrators), but because young people are just as big a part of our society as adults and we need to recognise that.

However, whenever an adult is put in a public role, they receive (or will have previously had) media training, social media policies and other mentoring. This is to protect the public image of the company and role as much as the individual in it. Sometimes young people, having grown up with social media, can be less inclined to take this sort of advice, but this is why it is even more important that good and comprehensive mentoring is provided.

A workshop on social media would have highlighted the potential issues of Paris' previous tweets, and it would have given her the opportunity to review her public profile before she undertook the role or was announced. She needed to be prepared for the unrelenting pressure and digging of the media. Even when using a generic and role-specific account, media will trawl through personal ones for the dirt.

Too often, young people are thrown into roles of responsibility without the support they need for growth and development. I am not in any way saying that they are incapable, but stressing that as adults we receive professional development courses and training and recognise the importance of that. People do not seem to be aware that the same needs to be afforded to young people in these roles.

It has been queried if any young person should be in the sort of role offered to Paris Brown, especially ones that aren't considered adults in the eyes of the law. If you want to see how mature and insightful these people can be, then please visit the PCC Youth Charter website, written by young people in 2012.

I don't condone the tweets in any way, but we all show off and behave differently on our personal social media pages. The difference between us is experience and training. I just hope that Paris Brown's experience (and subsequent apology - which was wonderfully done!) doesn't deter organisations from recognising the voice of youth in this country, but rather inspires them to offer the same support as they afford their adult counterparts. After all, we are investing in the future.

Find a Husband? No Thanks!

I will always remember my very first French class at university, though for entirely the wrong reasons. There was a mature woman in our group, who spent almost the entire hour ranting about how young people shouldn't go to university, that we didn't have the capacity to understand or appreciate it. She told the lecturer that I (yes, she singled me out for her tirade) ought to go and find myself a husband, have some children and go back to university when I had the life experience and dignity to accept the great privilege of education.The lecturer nodded, smiled and made affirmative noises, which got me even more irate.

My anger at this wasn't at any single point, rather the message as a whole. It was the assumption that age equals maturity, the idea that young people aren't capable of appreciating education, the assumption that I was heterosexual, the idea that I wanted a husband and children.

And I haven't entirely lost that sense of outrage and indignation, as the Susan Patton case (and Joanna Moorehead's article) shows.

I have absolutely no qualms in a woman telling students that academia isn't everything, that there is more to life than a career. One of the best pieces of advice in my life (so far) came from a wonderful man who told me, "You work to live, not live to work". In fact, I encourage that perspective, as over-competitiveness between women in industry is rife and I see it encouraged by some as a way of undermining any sort of solidarity.

What I cannot condone, however, is the societal attitude that we need to be married to be "complete". Whilst, as humans, we do crave interaction and relationships, that can be fulfilled by friendship as well as in physically intimate and romantic relationships. And, for some, the friendship is enough.

Our culture already places a disproportionate amount of pressure on women to settle down, find their "prince" and live "happily ever after". Just look at the social conditioning girls receive from an early age; fairytales, pantomimes, films, musicals, even pop songs. Every step of the way, they are shown that successful women get a man in the end, that only evil women end up single, that to be alone is failure. But it's not.

Yesterday, my grandparents were beside themselves because my younger sister has a boyfriend and I'm still single (I've had three fiancés, it's not really worked out). They lamented that I have no hope now, because I'm too old, because I'm too independent, because I think too much. They were so upset that a relationship and children are not a priority for me.

But I have different dreams for my life. I want to make a difference to others, whether that's practically in education, or by inspiring others to take a step in things that I say or write. I want to do well in my career and make sure that future generations get the support they deserve whilst at school. I want friendship and fun. If I find someone who can accept that, and who can accept me, and we do click, then a relationship isn't off the table. Children are not off the table. But is it really so selfish and wrong for that not to be my number one aim in life?

Fundamentally, I agree with both Moorehead and Patton in their assertion that feminism is about equality and happiness in all areas of life, not just about career and money. But there is a huge difference between promoting that balance and urging women to find husbands, perpetuating a ridiculous societal pressure.

The thing is, we as women, we as feminists, we need to be challenging these perceptions, not encouraging them. We don't need to tell students to hurry up and find their husbands, we need to tell them that their career isn't everything and they need to think about friendships, networks, their support. We don't need to tell girls that they are failures if they don't find a man, we need to tell them that they are successes if they are happy. And we need to show them that happiness can exist outside the parameters of a traditional marriage.

Great Britons

My father is a great stamp collector and has often lamented the lack of interest my sister and I have shown in the subject. In the last few years, since collecting television and film memorabilia (particularly props and autographs), some of these areas have overlapped. My father is incredibly jealous of my Alexei Leonov autograph (first man to walk in space) and my Sylvia Anderson one (never mind the fact that I actually held some of the original Thunderbirds puppets!). In turn, I've made him promise to leave me his Gerry Anderson cover once he's gone.

These days, I do flick through his leaflets and catalogues to see what the latest offerings are, and he often asks me if he's getting good value for money on autographed items (such as the 50th anniversary Dr Who covers). 

Royal Mail's 2013 "Great Britons"

So, this morning I was perusing the catalogues when I found a collection entitled "Great Britons". These sorts of sets interest me, as I always wonder who they've chosen and why. What is it that makes someone inspirational enough to make one of these lists?

But as I looked through, I noticed an inequality. On first glance, I only noticed two women (there are, in fact, three). But why three women and seven men? Are there not enough inspirational and influential women in the history of Britain? I doubt it. 

One could argue that in terms of visibility, men have historically been more visible in influential jobs in Britain and, therefore, this is reflected in the choice of personalities on their stamps. But, I think this really undermines and neglects to acknowledge the work of women in this country. We make up 50% of the population, why not 50% of the collection?

I noticed that the collection is the third in a series commemorating pivotal figures in society. Out of curiosity, I decided to find out whether this inequality reached over the other covers or not. I found that over the series, 21 stamps were dedicated to men, and only 9 to women.

The women featured on these stamps are, undoubtedly, influential in their fields; Elizabeth David, Mary Leakey, Vivien Leigh, Mary Morris, Odette Sansom Hallowe, Kathleen Ferrier, Joan Mary Fry, Mary Wollstonecraft and Judy Fryd.

But there are so many more inspiring women in our history.

Elizabeth Garrett Anderson was not only the first female doctor in Great Britain, but the first dean of a medical school. She was also the first female mayor and magistrate in England. Her work opened up the profession to women, but also changed the way in which doctors were trained, in which university hospitals worked and how patients were treated.

Lilian Bayliss was the manager of the Old Vic, producing Shakespeare plays and founding what were to become the National Ballet, National Theatre and English National Opera. If that's not influential in your field, what is?

Agatha Christie is known the world over as a novelist and has produced works that are synonymous with English crime writing. She's also been the subject of an episode of Doctor Who!

Margaret Damer Dawson was the forerunner of female police officers. She formed a group of volunteers in London during the first world war.

Rosalind Franklin, whose images of the double-helix structure of DNA were central to Watson's theories.

Joyce Grenfall, whose monologues and exceptional, unique "voice" made her a household name.

Caroline Harriet Haslett was one of the pioneers of home electricity - not what you'd expect, seeing as electrician is seen by many to be a "male" profession. She was both a campaigner for its use and an electrical engineer herself, and formed groups for female electrical professionals.

Dorothy Hodgkin has saved billions of lives around the world with her pioneering research into insulin and its molecular structure. Without that research, perhaps Franklin, Watson et al wouldn't have made their DNA discoveries.

Amy Johnson, who many know as being the first woman to fly solo to Australia. But she was also influential in the history of aviation in general, being one of two pilots to first fly to Moscow in a day, setting records flying to India and South Africa. She was more than just "that woman pilot".

Jane Lane Claypon did some of the first studies and research into breast cancer, and was one of the first epidemiologists. She introduced the idea of using control subjects in health tests.

The Pankhurst women are synonymous with feminism, suffrage and politics. Though their aggressive style of activism may not be to everyone's taste, it's undoubtedly influential in the country's history.

Mary Quant is a household name when it comes to fashion. And the mini-skirt has been one of the major changes in 20th century clothing.

Anita Roddick was the founder of The Body Shop and amongst the first to ban animal testing for products. This decision has influenced hundreds of other companies and her campaigning has changed the way we think every day.

Marie Stopes who campaigned tirelessly for women's quality within marriage, sex education and opened the first family planning clinic. I can understand why Stopes wouldn't be considered for this collection, given division on these subjects, but she was certainly a pioneer and huge influence in her field.

Vivienne Westwood is a key icon in the British fashion industry, teaming cutting edge punk designs with historical inspiration.

These are but a few women I can think of who have been key in their fields. They are women who aren't names solely for being women, but because they made key contributions regardless of their gender. Some of these achievements may have been inspired by their own experience of sexism, but they are still great achievements in their own right.

I don't want to see a cover with "Great British Women"; I sometimes feel that by segregating women in what are supposed to be "inspiring, feminist" events, we are just drawing attention to and heightening the inequality. What I want to see is women fairly and accurately represented in these features, and recognised for the work they are doing or have done, which is equal to that of their male counterparts. Even if the recognition is over a century late.