There’s a lot of talk about toxic masculinity (femininity is just as toxic of course) but that’s all it’s been….talk.
I watched the Dispatches show on Russell Brand last night as many others did too and one of the many things that struck me was the name ‘hidden in plain sight’. Because it was wasn’t it. His attitude towards women and girls is almost satirically obvious in his material throughout his career.
The second thing was yet a-fucking-gain the fact that if something had been done at the beginning, to nip it in the bud line.
How many times is that going to be true? How many women and girls must die on that alter before the table is crushed under the weight?
Now while this has all the hall marks of another classic Gemma rant, I’m going to offer a solution. Instead of toxic masculinity perpetrators and their enablers…. instead of the Brands and the Tates and the Giggs role models boys have… let’s usher in an eara of better role models for boys.
Tates response to Brands allegations
I propose an eara of Sloss (Daniel) and Conroy (Micheal) and Katz (Jackson) and Flood (Micheal) instead.
Sloss was the only one to stand up and do the right thing and instead of the not all men defensive he simply condemned behaviour that had been alleged is unacceptable behaviour. He went beyond the tokenistic words and actually backed it up with action….something many institutions could learn from.
Daniel Sloss
Let these men who challenge and call out instead of enabling be the role model for our boys instead. Men who value not only women as fellow people (and not sexual objects) but humanity as part of being a man. Having good mental health and emotional regulation as well as accountability. Development instead of defensiveness.
What would a world in which these men were the role models for a generation look like? In our police forces and justice systems, on our parole boards and family courts, in the job market, in the family, in the mental health system.
If these were the role models of a generation of boys, we would hear ‘it could have been nipped in the bud’ so much less.
So in a world full of enablers, claims of bad apples, cries of not all men. A world of historical low conviction rates of rape and historical high rates of domestic homicides. In this world in which our sons and our daughters deserve better – change their role models.
I keep hearing the term ‘posative masculinity’ thrown around lately as a response to the Andrew Tate problem. This tells me the person using the term doesn’t understand gender stereotypes. They don’t understand that gender stereotypes are socially constructed, not natural traits and that all gender stereotypes (masculinity and feminity) are limiting and harmful. Too often these so called posative masculinity projects infact reinforce the problem.
It’s a tick box defensive response to what Tates popularity exposes about misogyny and men today. It’s the same as ‘not all men’ and a few ‘bad apples’. Misunderstanding critical analysis of masculinity as you’re saying men are all bad and terrible. When actually all gender stereotypes are bad for men and women, boys and girls.
Another thing I hear is that boys just need alternative role models rather than Incel culture groomers and influencers, domestic abusers and rapists, exploiters and misogynists. I agree!
We should have posative role models for our boys and us adults have to identify what that would entail and highlight it as posative.
So we need to let boys know they can talk about their mental health and that’s not weak. Men have a high suicide rate because they are shamed out of their emotional regulation skills by “don’t cry like a girl” and “women are so emotional”. They are shamed out of communication of their SEMH needs and told to ‘man up’ and ‘grow a pair’ instead. And no emotional regulation means no behavioural regulation which is why men in the majority (towards men, women and children) committed the majority of crime.
So what man out there talks about their mental health…. Prince Harry does but he’s ridiculed by the media endlessly. Meanwhile we have our famously incompetent ex health secretary Matt Hancock who was paid more than the lioness Jill on I’m a Celebrity.
Maybe a sports star? How about a rising football star like Mason Greenwood who was taped raping his girlfriend. She didn’t consent and clearly said so (more than once) and he was aggressive and raped her anyway. But Manchester United seem to think he’s still a good enough role model for boys anyway. He’s gotten said girlfriend pregnant and love bombed her into marriage to drop the charges – unfortunately for him that doesn’t mean everyone forgets what they heard.
So rapists, domestic abusers, those morally bankrupt and exploiting inequality – those who refuse responsibility for their actions and choose to deflect rather than develop as a person?
I have to be honest there are plenty of men proclaiming the title of good guy but not enough of them would be good role models. There are lots of men in the world who would be far better role models but they don’t conform to the harmful gender stereotypes of masculinity and therefore aren’t put on those oh so low pedestals.
How about Jackson Katz working with men in the US military on not letting masculinity impact their mental health? How about Lundy Bancroft whose book on domestic abuse has saved thousands of lives around the world. Keanu Reeves seems like an awesome human and Ashton Kutcher co-founded a charity protecting children from sex trafficking.
And the nameless guys who gives the rhubarb he grows to the local food bank. Or the guy who volenteers at the local youth club teaching lads on the council estate good sportsmanship as well as football. The man who doesn’t hide the tears when he remembers his mum and tells his son it’s OK to miss granny. The guy who knows she’s a single mum so offers play dates when he knows she’s working. The lad that tells his friend that cat calling isn’t funny.
For over 10 years I’ve been told as a feminist, that I hate men. But the thing is…it’s not me that’s claiming all boys should be tough, not show emotions, not be able to ask for help, should always be on the prowl and are incapable of growth or responsibility – but that’s what Tate thinks, what Manchester United thinks, what the posative masculinity pushers and pornography companies think.
I think it’s time we raise our standards for male role models. For boys, for men, for society. I think it’s our job as adults to uphold that standard and reject those not good enough.
Because I think our boys deserve so much better than what’s currently on offer. They deserve someone who can show there’s no shame in having emotions, in asking for help, in treating those around him with respect, that it’s OK to make mistakes if you learn from them and that you can change the world in a million different ways.
If they can see it – they can be it. So far, what they can see isn’t fit for children.
“Supt James Faulkner from Greater Manchester Police said sexual harassment was under-reported as most women had unfortunately “become accustomed” to this kind of behaviour.
“They are sadly used to being catcalled, treated as objects and sexualised in society and that’s something that as a society we need to try and address and change,” he said.
“I would very strongly encourage anybody that has experienced this to report it to the police.”
When we do you say well done us – reports are up so we’re doing well. When we don’t you say well done us – crime against women is down.
We don’t trust you anymore. The ship has sailed, the horse has bolted, it is a dead parrot.
Like all violence against women and girls – it is not our problem to fix! And that you continue to imply that we need to do this, or flag that bus driver down, or not wear that shows us there’s no acknowledgement of the problem so there won’t be any changed behaviour.
Much like domestic abuse perpetrators we don’t believe you when you say you’re going to change, that lessons have been learned. The priority is still men’s feelings and until that changes – stop asking us to trust you.
We are peace keepers and risk assessors everyday of our lives. We are tired and we want #DEEDSNOTWORDS
Deeds such as tackling male violence against women and girls at the first offence instead of the 50th. Deeds such as officers having the learning about violence against women and girls from experts in the field instead of other officers. Deeds such as not getting defensive when these issues come up and instead acknowledge it isn’t just about the bad apples but about those around them who condoned and enabled them to continue. Deeds such as acknowledging that this is a man problem and not a women problem.
As you know YES Matters has been causing trouble for almost 10 years now. Because of us, children have a compulsory PSHE, because of us; they learn about consent, the harm of gender stereotypes and pornography and about healthy relationships. We’ve presented our research in European Parliament, Westminster, Amnesty International and helped children and young people across the UK. But…
This all started out of love. A love between sisters and this year YES Matters UK is asking for your help back.
In 2013 Sasha Marsden was murdered by David Minto.
A man has been jailed for life for the “sexually motivated” murder of a teenage girl he stabbed 58 times and set on fire in Blackpool.
David Minto, 23, from the town, lured Sasha Marsden to her death on the false promise of a job in his girlfriend’s hotel, Preston Crown Court heard.
Judge Anthony Russell QC, sentencing her murderer, described it as a “ferocious and sustained attack”, with “overwhelming evidence” against Minto.
“You have have not only destroyed the life of one human being in a most brutal way, but your cruelty has devastated her loving parents, family and friends.“There is not a shred of common humanity in you”. But he was not really jailed for “life” as he can be released after 35 years – that’s not life.
Sasha Marden was (is) sister of our founder Gemma Aitchison and Sashas whole family, which has now increased with family members who have never been able to meet her have been effected by what happened to her, with effects that won’t disappear in 35 years.
(Gemma at her wedding with her sister Sasha)
Sashas great grandma died of shock, her mother has suffered a stroke and all of her siblings have suffered significant mental health problems and tried to do good in the world. Her nephews who she’s never met ask to see her to this day and her niece asked if she was real.
(Sasha and her nephew Len)
After 10 years of pain, of seeing her friends grow and finish college, get married, start their own families are constant reminders of moments stolen from her and us – we are asking for your help. On occasions of weddings and baby showers is that reminder of the weddings and children that will never come. What happened to Sasha haunts us every day.
The offence committed by David Minto meets the criteria for a whole life term, sasha endured significant suffering at his hands, his actions were premeditated and sexually motivated, his weapon of choice (a knife meant her suffering was prolonged further evidenced by the defence wounds on her body and his attempts to dispose of evidence and her body by means of fire was also aggravating. Minto had attempted to lure others back to the hotel and had it not been Sasha it would have been someone else, this individual has a history of offending and will offend again if he is released. He did not plead guilty and even attempted to have his sentence reduced.
Whole life tariff criteria
Mintos grounds for Appeal – it wasn’t premeditated murder because he only planned to rape her – the murder was spontaneous although evidence showed that Sasha was dead or dying when she was raped by Minto meaning the 50+stab wounds happened before he raped her. The High Court judged replied that the Minto sentence was not a day too long and had the case not already been reviewed by the attorney general they would have extended his sentence.
It is a life sentence for us and should be for him. He already gets to have birthdays, new members of the family will know him, he gets to hear ‘I love you’ from his parents on the phone, he has a future. Sasha doesn’t get any of those things.
“We never got to say goodbye”
As a family, because of the horrific state of her body her family never got to see her to say goodbye. Her body had to be identified by the DNA on her toothbrush. Her sister Katie got to see her to give her a kiss and cuddle but her body remained covered
We do not know why his sentence wasn’t extended or why when his horrific crimes meet the full life tariff criteria, he will be out in 25 years. A life for a life – we are holding protests in Blackpool, Manchester, Bolton, London – 1pm-4pm We ask you to stand with us.
If you can’t join us we ask you to share #shematters on January 31st on social media.
“It’s bang out the machete, boom in her face and grip her by the neck. Shut up bitch,” he says in one video, acting out how he’d attack a woman if she accused him of cheating. In another, he describes throwing a woman’s things out of the window. In a third, he calls an ex-girlfriend who accused him of hitting her – an allegation he denies – a “dumb hoe”.
The self described “king of toxic masculinity”, was arrested in Romania on suspicion of human trafficking, rape and forming an organised crime group. Later claimed that “the matrix will not win because God is on our side”.. (did I miss a Neo vs Jesus sequel?!)
Tate and his brother have been detained along with two Romanians, with prosecutors claiming they “appear to have created an organised crime group with the purpose of recruiting, housing and exploiting women”.
Tates beliefs can be generalised under the Incel culture label. These beliefs are very much rooted in gender (gender stereotypes). That men are alpha, entitled to ‘respect’, that men are dominant and women should be submissive. Women are sexual objects. Everything gender tells us despite the evidence showing that pushing our children and ourselves into these ridiculous roles is not only limiting but very damaging.
Why should we care about this guy? Well if he hadn’t been condoned and enabled he would be in his mother’s basement, angry that his porn fueled delusions weren’t reality. Unfortunately he has been condoned and enabled including by the male run media and has therefore been able to exploit men and groom boys to such an extent, he has quite the car collection to prove it….apparently.
For this reason teaching critical analysis of gender stereotypes is part of the compulsory PSHE curriculum – I was part of the government roundtables and put it there myself. These socially constructed stereotypes are at the root of high suicide rates in men, rape, domestic abuse and more. It is absolutely vital and at the root cause of Ofsteds findings girls feel unsafe at school and the rise in child on child abuse. Tackling gender stereotypes is something clearly not being covered effectively given Tates reach.
I give you an example of how much of an issue that gender reinforcing is. For almost 10 years I have done the same exercise with children and young people asking them what is ‘being a man’ and the same list comes up: tough, big and strong, dominant, in control, logical – not emotional, good at violence and can protect, entitled to respect, has lots of women, people listen to him.
Look at that list, that we tell our boys they should be, that we portray men as in media as. If I asked you to make a list of of qualities for a domestic abuser…sexual predictor…terrorist – would it be any different? If I asked you to list what Putin or Trump or Robinson or Tate thought being ‘a real man’ was and that they were – would it still be the same then? Our boys deserve so much better don’t you think….
Tate says women belong in the home, can’t drive, and are a man’s property and dates women aged 18–19 because he can “make an imprint” on them. All very much in accordance with the male gender stereotypes.
Because these fragile incel men are drenched in this gender stereotype identity which feels so connected to their self worth they seem completely oblivious to the harm to themselves or others.
Adhering to gender means male victims won’t report abuse because they should have been strong and tough enough to be able to prevent it… Men won’t communicate or ask for help with their mental health issues because they better not cry like a girl, they should just man up right? And if that woman has rejected him or ended things, instead of emotional regulation skills they can grow a pair instead…resulting in men being the overwhelming majority of perpetrators towards men and women and children in every country and in every year. That men are literally dying to be men or they are killing you for not making them feel like one. To continue with these damaging gender rules fails our boys and girls alike and people perpetuating them such as Tate need to challenged.
Although it has to be said that Tate and gender wouldn’t be effective without those who condoned and enabled him. Those who rushed to gaslight the reaction to his message. Who minimised it’s harm. Who used DARVO to claim that he was infact the victim and simply a speaker of ‘truth’ simply to justify the fact that they saw things his way too. And that is at the heart of his enablers and their outrage at anyone pointing out the obvious about Tate. They are defensive for a reason.
Tate and his enablers use these well known perpetrator manipulation tactics that feminists have categorised for decades. Gaslighting, minimising, DARVO, grooming those around the target before the target, attacking the reputation of anyone who knows what’s being done… Tate has said that he thinks rape victims must “bear responsibility” for their attacks-useful for the one actually responsible. These tactics are familiar in paedocriminality, domestic abuse, terrorists, lone shooters, sexual predictors – all the same while all believing they are original and brilliant.
The national picture of Tate, his enablers (including within the media) and Incel culture is a worrying one. Some frame it as the backlash of #MeToo which we saw met with crying about a witch hunt without a shred of irony. This attitude and gender stereotypes reinforcing is very present in increasingly violent pornography and the sexualisation of girls. Its present in the complete lack of trust in the male dominated justice system to tackle violence against women and their response of not all cops rather than making actual change. It’s in a historical low rape conviction rate and a historical high in domestic homicides. It’s ‘pick up artists’. It’s women being told that their trauma or fear of male violence is fear mongering. It’s ‘not all men’ as if demanding that until every single man is a perpetrator then women aren’t allowed to mention the violence against them.
Tate has been effective because of gender and class. The UK has inexcusable and consistent failings in both of these areas. Constantly reinforcing them despite the damage and outright lies of both.
It is untrue that boys and men have no emotions. Emotions are human not female. Boys and men have the right to express them, develop emotional regulation skills, to ask for help when they need it and to receive that help without judgement, to have happy and healthy relationships with themselves and others. The Big Contradiction (Aitchison, 2016) of boys will be boys and not all men contradict each other and neither are true.
It is also untrue that we live in a meritocracy – the foundation of our justification of class nonsense. That we have a deserving and undeserving poor. That our wealth is directly linked to our character and our efforts is untrue. We justify labeling and mistreating ‘dole scum’ with the meritocracy lie. We claim those on benifits are feckless, lazy, criminals and just need to work harder. However if this were true….nurses wouldn’t be at food banks and on strike for fair pay. Because who works harder than them?
Tate has both gender and class status going for him. He appeals to a generation growing up in a cost of living crisis and a youth mental health crisis in a society that tells them they are worthless if they are poor or unmanly. We have to take responsibility for the perfect storm us grown-ups have created. And it is from this that Tates targeted grooming of vulnerable boys and young men has been so effective.
We need to stop condoning and enabling perpetrators and their tactics. We need to stop reinforcing gender and we need to be making sure that critical analysis of gender stereotypes is at the heart of our PSHE curriculum (2020). We need to stop lying about living in a meritocracy and remember the lessons of the Beveridge Report (Beveridge, 1942).
To clean up this mess we need to deliver a message to this generation that rivals Tates. That they do have worth. That they can contribute to society in lots of different ways. They can ask for help when they need it. That dignity and humanity do not have price tags. That status is not about dominating others so that you can stand upon them.
The 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence has just finished on December 10th and is often referred to as White Ribbon Day.
This in itself is an example of the problem with our patriarchal society more comfortable naming something after a male organisation than the 3 women of colour whose memory it was actually started in.
The idea behind white ribbon was an admirable one. After the mass shooting of women in Canada men got together to acknowledge violence against women and girls as a men’s issue. They vowed to do something about it. I echo those original sentiments. To solve a problem you must first acknowledge it so you can prevent it.
Unfortunately what has happened with it in the UK is it is now a symbol of tokenism. Every local authority will have representatives take their white ribbon badge out of the drawer they put it in last year. Wearing it for photo opportunities like a badge that says self proclaimed good guy on it. Then they put it back in the drawer. They don’t increase funding for domestic abuse victim services, they don’t fire staff accused of sexual harassment, they ignore any suggestion of naming the problem and cry not all men instead. They condone, they enable, they use it to silence.
A prime example of this is a recent one. A firefighters in Wales who was awarded White Ribbon accreditation in 2014.
North Wales Fire and Rescue Service was awarded White Ribbon accreditation in recognition of the actions it is taking to help end male violence against women.
Simon Smith, Chief Fire Officer, North Wales Fire and Rescue Service, said:
“We are ensuring that the unacceptable issue of male violence against women is highlighted at fire stations and workplaces across North Wales, and as a Service we are taking active steps to help stop violence against women by raising awareness and empowering colleagues to speak out.
It all sounds great doesn’t it? There’s a phrase that comes to mind…. Deeds Not Words. So let’s look at the deeds of these oh so progressive good guys.
Well South Wales Fire and Rescue Service is currently facing an independent review into its culture and disciplinary processes following an ITV News investigation into abusive behaviour by two of its firemen.
ITV News found evidence that two firemen had been allowed to keep their jobs despite sexually harassing and abusing women.
ITV News found that in 2020 one of its firefighters was found to have sexually harassed a female member of staff while at work.
Watch Manager John Morgan was accused of exposing himself to a cleaner on night shifts, with the harassment lasting for years – tonight he has been taken off his shifts by South Wales Fire Service.
Waiving her anonymity, Shirley – who works at Ely station in Cardiff – says she eventually reported Mr Morgan’s behaviour because she feared she could be raped.
However, little over a year later Mr Morgan was promoted again, regaining his original position as Watch Manager.
He continues to work at a station which carries the white ribbon, supposedly offering safe refuge to women.
ITV News also spoke to a former partner of another firefighter, who we cannot identify in order to protect his victim.
She told us that she had been domestically abused by the fireman. ITV News has verified her claims via court documents, which show that the firefighter was convicted of assault.
Despite his conviction, South Wales Fire and Rescue Service allowed the firefighter to continue working for the service at a white ribbon station.
He was eventually dismissed several years later over unrelated misconduct.
His former partner told us: “It’s just changed me. I used to be so bubbly and outgoing.”I just don’t think he should be allowed to be in a place of safe haven for domestic violence victims when he’s a domestic violence aggressor.
“How dare they.”
Now comes all of the clamouring of the not all men brigade. Ready to DARVO and make all these poor firefighters who are good guys the real victims in this because of a few “bad apples”.
Not all men – because men’s feelings matter more than women’s lives.
And so it will become about that rather than naming, addressing and preventing the problem. It will become about not talking about it, or what those men did, or the men they worked with that knew, and the men who were their bosses that let them stay – those bosses knowing that they were serial and escalating offences because they’d had VAWG training….
White Ribbon has become the opposite of it’s intentions. No sign of naming or acknowledgement of the problem in sight. Instead a tool of tokenism, silencing and condoning. And so…
They will stand with their shiny good guy badges and the feminists will wear their mean man hater ones and they will fight on.
We have a historical habit of conflating wealth and character in the UK. This is core to the class system.
It is also core to the Classic Liberalism political ideology our current government believes in today – the idea that a person’s situation depends entirely on the individual decisions made. It does not acknowledge inequality of opportunities.
Historically in a more religion centric society that if you were poor or you were disabled that was because YOU had made bad choices. You must be sinful or immoral in some way, which is why punishment for poverty was justified.
Then came The Beveridge Report which found that actually the 5 giants were at play. It was from The Beveridge Report that education, housing standards, the NHS and the welfare state was born. It made economic sense too.
Then came the 80s with its “nanny state” rhetoric and back to blaming the poor for things infact the rich controlled. The media run by billionaires are friends with the billionaires in the government but divide and conquer tactics are effective. We now see again the rolling back of the state and the teachings of the Beveridge Report forgotten, we see more of the demonisation of the poor again.
So why does this matter to those working with children and young people?
Well the obvious reason’s related to the hierarchy of needs is that children’s needs for warmth and food are less likely to be be met as the number of children in poverty rise with the cost of living crisis.
There is also the SEMH impact. If we as a society have decided that those on benifits are “lazy”, “scroungers”, “feckless”, not good enough to be tenants, probably criminals and thugs, whose children shouldn’t have been born if they couldn’t afford them and are a drain on decent tax paying people – then we teach our children that being poor is something to be ashamed of.
Despite the wealth of their family not being something that children and young people have any control over or responsibility for, with the cost of living crisis brings their demonisation. We have created a new generation of children who we have taught to be ashamed of their existence, that they are less worthy of respect or consideration, that they are not good enough. This will translate into how they feel about themselves and in turn how they are treated by others. What is acceptable behaviour towards them and what circumstances they should tolerate.
Let’s look at these ‘terrible people draining society’. Most on befits are currently in work but their employers are able to underpay knowing the welfare state will make up the rest of the wage. Unpaid ‘women’s work’ is the backbone of our society and contributes 140 billion a year to the UK economy, carers get £65.45 a week to live on, not even minimum wage and are saving local authorities thousands per month, SEND children are found by government green papers to be failed and not have access to a better quality of life because of these failings. These people are in circumstances out of their choosing and contribute hugely to our society. Yet all these people are labelled “dole scum”.
Children who believe they are worthless who should be grateful for what they get, carry that throughout their lives. They read the comment section. It is ingrained into them that they are worse than useless because their very existence bothers everyone else.
– They do not grow confidently enough to access education or employment opportunities.
– They are more likely to be exploited by gangs and groomers who make them feel like they matter and belong.
– They accepts unhealthy and abusive relationships because they don’t believe they are worth or can do better.
Is this what we want for a generation of cost of living crisis kids?
Exploitation, abuse and mental health issues? To accept the self fulfilling prophecy that they are the worthless criminals they are told they are?
Is it time for us to admit that we do not live in a meritocracy? That there is no correlation between a person’s wealthy and their character. That if hard work had anything to do with money, African women would be the richest people in the world. To stop burdening our children and good people in our society.
Stop measuring a person’s worth based on their contributions to capitalism.
Let’s teach our young people that their worth comes from their thirst for knowledge, being part of the communities, having good emotional regulation skills, feeling OK with asking for help, knowing they deserve consent and respect in all aspects of their lives, on seeing failure as a learning opportunity and not something to get defensive about and to deflect.
There are so many more important things to be than rich. Including the recognition that an unequal society contributes to that and not personal responsibility.
Maybe that’s a lesson we all could learn before it’s passed on to our children.
So as promised, we give you the summary of the Hooters License Hearing at Salford Council. When we arrived it was clear that a PR strategy had been made by the Hooters side. Getting selected previous Hooters employees and current ones all speaking on behalf of the applicant and all sporting the same “Hooters Girl look”.
The first hour of the hearing was brief Duncan Craig who was also a customer and friend of the applicant, giving his subjective experiences and life story. He then proceeded to do the same for apparently “poor Julian who had put his life savings into this” (although he later claimed he was a very successful business man whose other branch made £50,000 a week) and that he was a really kind guy. This guy was always there for friends and staff, he’d done things for charity and more. The applicant Julian may be a wonderful person, he may rescue kittens from trees every weekend – that didn’t make it relevant.
Duncan went on to claim that the public of Nottingham were behind this venture (he provided no survey or proof of this of course but this was just the first of his unsubstantiated claims) and went on to say that “the truth of the matter was there was no correlation between Hooters and the sexualisation of women”.
Gemma Aitchison representing YES Matters UK questioned him on this, asking him for his qualifications in sexual objectification that gave him the backing for his claim that there was no correlation. Trying to deflect he pointed to the women brought to support the applicant. “No, they have experience in being a Hooters employee, I asked for your qualifications in the subject to substantiate your claim”. He was forced to admit that he had none, unlike many of the objectors attending.
This isn’t the first time that Duncan has just decided something wasn’t true because it was his opinion of the character of his clients, it seems it’s a common go to tactic in his profession:
“But barrister Duncan Craig dismissed the suggestion as “laughable” and described Mr Hanlon as a nice, gentle man who is also a vegan”
Others offers of the irrelevant were from the noticeably aggressive Racheal Moss (Previously Tansey) who shouted while glaring at the opposition that she was a mother (as relevant as Julian being nice) and that she took her children into Hooters. Many parents do many things Racheal. I would never take my child or any of the children I work with into Hooters but I’m not so delusional that I think that’s any proof of anything.
She claimed that she was the manger of a successfully run Hooters in Liverpool but was forced to admit it wasn’t open yet…
Her soon to be branch was also met with objections such as “As well as being degrading to women, Hooters is a cheap, tatty bar chain with no class, no edge, no style. It will be an embarrassment to the city.”
Racheal is certainly no stranger to the company world with a string of previous business behind her. She was also the director of this company who were forced to pay out for sexual harassment of their employees that was reported but not taken seriously… “incidents happened on a daily basis and often in my presence and I can state that I found this to be degrading and humiliating on each and every occasion. Miss Williams said that she also emailed company owner Rachael Tansey about her harassment ordeal and resigned in September 2014 after getting no response.”
Looks like the Hooters Girls of the Liverpool branch will be in safe hands doesn’t it?
Instead we focused silly things such as the FACT (whether Duncan likes it or not) that the sexual objectification of women and girls is directly linked with violence against women and girls. Something which he dismissed as a “sideshow” and went on to interrupt Miriam Jacobson (from Womenchester & FiLiA) or try to. Perhaps showing the attitude towards women that the Hooters brand inspires…
It was then highlighted that Greater Manchester had made a commitment via the Gender Based Violence Strategy which states: “[set]out a comprehensive, responsive programme of service delivery to enhance the safety of women and girls, while preventing gender-based violence from occurring in the first place and challenging the attitudes and inequalities that enable it.”
During questioning the applicant admitted that the average age of their employees was 24, that they had no male waiting staff only male employees in the kitchens and behind the bar. That the uniform was only available in “athletic sizing” and that yes, the name of their brand which had nothing to do with the sexualisation of women and girls was infact referring to women’s breasts.
Those opposing the motion were: Womenchester, FiLiA, Men at Work CIC, Yes Matters UK, ClearPath Directive, Manchester Women’s Aid, Trafford Rape Crisis, Trafford Domestic Abuse Services, Manchester Feminist Network, Women’s Equality Party Greater Manchester, Greater Manchester Doulas CIC, Sisterhub Chester, Manchester Women’s Rights Network, Stockport Women’s Rights Network, Northern Rad Fem Network, End Abuse, Wigan, Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham Salford Mayor Paul Dennett, Local MPs: Barbara Keeley, Labour MP for Worsley & Eccles South and Rebecca Long-Bailey Labour Party MP for Salford & Eccles, Councillors for Salford Quays Jake Rowland and Ann Humphreys (Labour) and Alex Warren (Lib Dem) Councillor for Trafford, Joanne Harding (Labour) Councillor for North Reddish, Kate Butler (Labour) Councillor for Davyhulme West, Karina Carter (Labour) Councillor for Priory Ward, Louise Dagnall (Labour) The Salford Quays Community Forum – so the local community Helen Grant, Trafford Strategic Manager: Crime & Antisocial Behaviour David Challen, campaigner for legal reform, speaker and specialist in coercive control. Tom Farr, lawyer specialsing in human rights and sex trafficking. Andrew “Bernie” Bernard, campaigner, educator and speaker against domestic abuse Dr Stephen Burrell, Assistant Professor (Research), Centre for Research into Violence and Abuse (CRIVA), Durham University Chris Flux, founder of Men Against Violence campaign Chris Green and Björn Suttka, Male Allies Challenging Sexism Michael Conroy, Men at Work CIC, Youth Mental Health and Domestic Abuse Intervention Trainer Alan Garner, Domestic Abuse Programme Facilitator and Education Partnership Officer Sophie Walker, former WEP leader and Co-founder ActivateFund and The CEO of Salford CVS to name a few.
The final contradiction to be pointed out by Miriam Jacobson, was that Duncan was claiming that they were nothing to do with theHooters brand which meant paying out for sexual harassment at work:
Birthday cake for 12 year old boy at the Hooters in Bristol
However he claimed they were part of the Hooters brand when they raised large amounts of tax saving money for charity.
Duncan claimed that the idea that sexual objectification of women and girls was linked to violence against them was untrue, personal opinion, and irrelevant to the Hooters application. This was met with clarification by Miriam Jacobson representative of Womenchester and FiLiA by reading out of multiple peer reviewed studies including from the World Health Organisation and a study on the impact of being a Hooters Girl.
Ironically despite Duncan constantly claiming things without being qualified to do so, because they were his opinion, Councillor John Warmisham went on to accuse the opposition of just that telling the MEN “Opinion and personal choice are not relevant or legitimate reasons to refuse an application and decisions are made by the Licensing Panel after careful consideration”
Despite the predicted outcome of the hearing being that Hooters won their licence, there was some success. They withdrew the vague plans of “dancing” and “a sort of club” plans. And those who opposed are looking at the appeal process.
The fact is that what this hearing with its predictable tactics and decision shows is that the sexist ideas based in gender stereotypes are alive and well. The idea that feminism is about choice (it’s not) that sexual objectification is empowering (it isn’t) and that making money from those harmful stereotypes means you’re still a nice guy if you do stuff for charity. The fact is that neither morality or women as commodities should be things you can buy.
Despite the tactics, staring, name calling and lying, those opposed made sure to listen when the Hooters side spoke, we didn’t interrupt or shout, we opted for showing basic respect.
Salford has decided that the safety and well-being of women and girls does not matter as much as men’s rights to profit from and enjoy them. And that all these strategies and lip service since Me Too and Sarah Everard have been nothing but tokenism. And that going against the Equality Act 2010 and the Gender Based Violence Strategy are just personal opinions.
No matter how much research and proof, as long as there are men out there who refuse to acknowledge the reality of violence against women and girls, we will have no change. We will have no rape conviction, domestic homicides and child sexual abuse because unqualified men think they know better than evidence about trauma, victim blaming, perpetrator tactics, gender stereotypes and yes sexual objectification. Nothing will change because they will not let it. It works well for them, keeping them in profit, entertainment and out of any accountability.
Hooters is a brand that profits from reinforcing the sexualisation of their Hooters Girls, who all have to have the Hooters look, who have it in their contract to flirt with customers who bring their families along so their sons can see it as normal too. At the hearing I asked for #DEEDSNOTWORDS and unfortunately Salford Council have failed to deliver.
Instead opting for sexism with a side of fries #NoToHootersSalford
The Hooters is an American company whose business model is based on the sexual objectification of their female staff as entertainment with your food. Waitresses are usually teenage or young adult women that conform to beauty standards because they too are on the menu.
Sexual harassment is part of the job, part of what is being sold and they want to come to Manchester, specifically Salford.
Greater Manchester has a long and proud history of women’s rights and more recently has put in place panels and working groups to tackle violence against women and girls. To try to rebuild trust as their police force is in special measures, we have a historical high in domestic homicides and a historical low in rape conviction. So given this important message about the rights to safety and citizenship to its female citizens, why would a company based on the sexual objectification of the women who work there?
Some more ignorant around this topic may argue its empowering and women want work there. The fact is that the sexual objectification of women and girls has a direct link with the violence against women and girls – they cannot be separated. So what is Hooters doing to take responsibility for the impact of their business?
Not only the safety of the women who work there but the normalised sexual objectification and entitlement attitude will also impact how women and girls in the area are treated. How they are seen, spoken to, touched, listened to. What is accepted and normalised impacts us all, how we see others and in turn how we treat others. This is no exception.
So what are Hooters doing to balance the sexual exploitation of local women and girls for profit? Are they providing mental health services regularly to waitresses suffering normalised sexual harassment at the least at work? If an incident of sexual assault were to occur would they provide CCTV for reporting or would that alienate their clientele? Are they providing the extra funds it takes for the waitresses to be what they expect in terms of weight, cleavage, make up and appearance? Contacting local schools in the area to provide resources for sexual harassment?
What matters more, men getting sexual gratification or the safety of women and girls is an age old argument. One it’s time for Salfords licensing board to answer. And we will be watching with interest, how they answer.
On June 10th YES Matters UK, Womenchester, Men at Work CIC and other groups will be at the hearing to find out.
We think the women and girls of Manchester deserve safety in their city and that is more important than sexism with a side of fries. #NoToHootersSalford
This is the thing. Lots of people talking about if they don’t get pay rises of at least 7% they are accepting a pay cut and the rising cost of energy bills they are worried they won’t be able to afford to pay.
Unpaid carers don’t get pay rises. Regardless of inflation, the cost of living, whatever. They send you the letter that says “the amount the government says you can live on £64.45”.
And for those in sunny Bolton at least, you have to have Pay as you go gas and electricity meters in your social housing homes. They are already more expensive to pay for energy on. But we won’t get to make an installments arrangement or remind them they can’t shut the electricity off with disabled dependants – the house simply falls dark and cold once the money has run out.
I think about the carers who look after those who need machines to keep the one they’re caring for…safe, well, alive. They need that equipment but how can they manage it? This isn’t work equipment, not a company building, they don’t get training, they don’t get breaks, they don’t get pay according to performance reviews and carers allowance is no where near minimum wage.
So they will sit, without support or recognition, in the cold and the dark and watch. Watch the person they gave up everything for out of love, deteriorate and die. And there’s nothing they can do about it.
But you know, people on benitfits are scum right, so who gives a shit.
G. Aitchison 