FBrape campaign

On May 21st 2013, the Women, Action  & the Media group wrote an open letter to Facebook, which was signed by over 100 advocacy groups, asking them to review their policies on permitted content.

Background

There has long been a problem on the site. While its “community standards” seem to be fairly clear:

“Facebook does not permit hate speech, but distinguishes between serious and humorous speech*. While we encourage you to challenge ideas, institutions, events, and practices, we do not permit individuals or groups to attack others based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability or medical condition.

Facebook does not tolerate bullying or harassment.

Sharing any graphic content for sadistic pleasure is prohibited.

Facebook has a strict policy against the sharing of pornographic content and any explicitly sexual content where a minor is involved. We also impose limitations on the display of nudity. We aspire to respect people’s right to share content of personal importance, whether those are photos of a sculpture like Michelangelo’s David or family photos of a child breastfeeding.”

These rules seemed to be enforced in a somewhat sporadic and misdirected manner.

People were often complaining of their breastfeeding photos being taken down. While some may (oddly) disagree with people being public about the act, people should be able to share these images on their own platforms. You can hide other people’s photos that you don’t personally want to see. But these images were being removed because they were ‘offensive’ and breaching the terms.

In a now-famous case, one woman who had undergone a double mastectomy followed by an ambitious tattoo project had her torso image taken down. This was not a pornographic image. Other educational materials have been removed, even anatomical drawings, which one would have thought would surely be unobjectionable.

Yet, alongside all of this, some very disturbing and hateful pages were being left alone. Pages sharing images of women with extensive facial injuries, bruising and bleeding, hair emerging from a closed car boot, women collapsed at the bottom of flights of stairs, men forcing women’s heads down toilets – all with nasty misogynistic captions including incitement to rape and domestic violence – and purely pornographic pages devoted to sharing photos of “sluts” and people’s ex-girlfriends. Graphic examples (not for the faint of heart) and some more background on the campaign as it went along can be found on this page.

So, what could be done about this?

Strategy

Facebook makes a lot of money from advertising. Companies pay to promote their ads, and these are semi-customisable as to where they appear on the site, and to whom. The hateful pages as described above also have ads displayed, so what WAM and other groups (including @everydaysexism and @thewomensroomUK) did was to start a hashtag campaign on twitter alongside the open letter: #FBrape.

On this hashtag, users shared screenshots of companies’ ads featuring on these pages with violent misogynistic content and asked them to pull their funding from Facebook. Reporting the pages individually has never worked; even if the complaint is upheld, a new page springs up and remains unchallenged.  So getting companies to affect Facebook’s profits seemed a more sensible and effective way to go.

Results

Within days, companies started to pull their ads from the site in response to rising pressure via Twitter and letter-writing. Articles were written for the Independent and the Guardian and the campaign was shared widely by individuals and sites such as Buzzfeed and Huffington Post.

Victory?

This week, Facebook has agreed to review its policies and has taken down a large number of pages, as well as making plans to work with WAM and the Everyday Sexism project to implement new guidelines and monitoring. Facebook’s statement and WAM‘s statement are available to read. See also: BBC, Channel 4 News, HuffPo and HuffPo again.

In a win for women, for Facebook, and for human rights, FB agrees to act against gender-based hate speech bit.ly/18xhtTU #fbrape

— Women’s Media Center (@womensmediacntr) May 28, 2013

While companies like Nissan helped this campaign to work by ceasing to pay for adverts on Facebook, others notably did not, instead steadfastly refusing to engage with tweets and comments asking why. It will be interesting to see if anything ever comes of this given how many people have pledged not to buy their products any more. Dove and audible.co.uk, for example.

I’d like to see a list of companies who did and didn’t pull their ads, so that people can continue to make informed choices about their purchases. Please leave a comment if you have such a list, or one company name you’d like to highlight.

Dove seemed not to pay attention to the campaign or what people were saying, instead giving a standard copy-paste response in some cases:

Thank you for raising this. Dove is committed to representing beauty of all ages, ethnicities, shapes and sizes. We believe in celebrating real beauty and in raising the self-esteem of women and young girls globally. We were shocked to see our advert on these kinds of pages and have spoken to Facebook who have removed all the pages that have come to our attention. If you do see a page like this, please private message us the link so that we can ask Facebook to remove it. As Facebook advertising targets people, not pages, we cannot select which pages our adverts appear on. For the future, we have refined our targeting to reduce the chance of any adverts appearing on similar pages. If there are more pages like this that haven’t been removed, please private message the links to us and we’ll have Facebook take these down.
Thanks
Dove

As stated above, reporting individual pages does not solve the problem. It’s clearer policy and enforcement that needed to happen. Fortunately, it seems like it will, regardless.

Social media is an evolving entity. Policy and lawmakers are struggling to keep up – and some users are having spectacular common sense failings in the process. In related fall-out, users who posted on University “rate your shag” pages may now be facing legal action. That’ll teach ‘em…

What it wasn’t about

*Free speech. Yes, free speech includes things you find offensive. But Facebook is a service that people sign up to use, and agree to terms of use when they do so. It does not owe anyone a platform, particularly not people who are clearly breaching their guidelines. I’ve talked with friends about other places on the internet that no doubt have extremely offensive content; 4chan etc. Their advertisers choose which boards to advertise on, and in places like b/, the ads will only be from companies who really wouldn’t care about such content (hardcore pornography outlets, for example).

Edit: it’s also not about censorship. People throw this word around a lot lately. Please learn what it means before you join in. Facebook as a company is well within its right to make sure its users comply with the terms of use. People do not lose their right to be misogynistic bastards just because they can’t post whatever they want on Facebook, they can go and do it elsewhere. I can see how close to censorship it seems, but I don’t buy it. Please see the comments below for some other people’s posts and discussion about this.

Some will say we all just need to learn to take a joke. Hopefully this shows that the vast majority of us are no longer willing to accept misogyny covered by a thin veil of supposed comedic intent. Comedy is not about oppressing the already oppressed, or promoting violence and hatred towards certain groups.

Facebook is so widely used now, particularly by younger people, and it has the power to influence general attitudes; it is not only guided by them. By joining the fight against misogyny rather than aiding it, we could start to see some real positive changes. It is heartening to see a campaign so well-organised, with a clear purpose, receive so much support and have such an effect so quickly.

May there be many more.

Skinny bitch

In our culture, we’re all taught that the shape of our body really matters.

Two separate issues

It starts early. I remember complaining to my mum that my thighs were fat, when I was about 8 years old. How absurd (because they weren’t, and what a ridiculous thing for a child to be worrying about), when I look back, but I remember how I felt at the time and it was serious. It’s a pretty constant battle for most women trying not to scrutinise our bodies day after day – this obsession can form the basis of debilitating illnesses.

Childhood obesity is also of course a real problem – that parents cannot afford or do not have sufficient education to feed their children healthy food that doesn’t put their lives at risk is a tragedy, and a huge challenge for public health measures to tackle. It’s important for us to maintain a healthy weight for a variety of reasons; it lessens the risk of heart disease and cancer for starters. We all want our friends and families to be happy and well, so if people are trying to lose weight or bulk up to address this, great.

But there’s a difference between weight-related concerns that focus on health and another category of scrutiny; one that is far more shallow, cultural and full of underlying hatred and insecurity. People (and I cannot exclude myself) make negative comments on other people’s bodies all the time. We’re taught that it’s OK, that it’s our business, it’s just humour, and so on.

The ugly side

The women’s magazines (and the men’s for that matter), just about everything on television, the tabloids and many of the people we interact with daily – they all think it’s acceptable, appropriate, or even some sort of duty, to monitor fluctuations in how fat people are, or are not. I won’t get into the issues around having babies and what the media does with that, it’s a bit of a separate topic.

My problem I suppose is the kind of language that surrounds all of this. “You’re so skinny, you bitch“ - it comes from a variety of people, people who are close and loving, people who are acquaintances and really have no right to comment. It’s seems to be based on the idea that it’s so important for women to fit their bodies into acceptable forms, and what this does to us – whether we realise it or not – concerns me. Obviously men face these things, too – “fat-shaming” is not exclusively directed towards women.

A particularly high-profile and shocking case of it has occurred this week and came from Abercrombie and Fitch. As most of us are aware, the USA’s obesity rates are shockingly high, and most shops will stock American sizes 0-14 and sometimes above. A&F, however, are very unlikely to do so, as Robin Lewis revealed of their CEO:

“He doesn’t want larger people shopping in his store, he wants thin and beautiful people… He doesn’t want his core customers to see people who aren’t as hot as them wearing his clothing. People who wear his clothing should feel like they’re one of the ‘cool kids.’”

So apparently you have to be thin to be hot and cool - oxymoronic vocabulary quirks aside, I’m sure most people would disagree with that. Personal tastes are one thing (I am attracted to people of a similar slim build to myself, for example – and I have friends with exclusive preferences for bigger builds) but they vary hugely between individuals, and one cannot criticise anyone else for that. But this retail policy from a company CEO does sound prejudiced and extremely insulting.

On the other hand, they are a company and are permitted to choose their audience and which kinds of customers they want their products marketed towards. If you specifically choose some subjective categories like “good-looking” and include “thin” within the entry criteria to that category… well, it’s offensive. Is it wrong? I’d say it’s ill-advised, much like I dislike sexist marketing for MAN CRISPS. Is it worse, or not, than that?

Fighting the tide

As I grew up I heard my dad call Lisa Riley on You’ve Been Framed a “fat cow” and say she should get off the TV as a result. Or he’d say “your fat friend…” instead of using their name (partly because he didn’t know it, but that always upset me). It’s easy for those of us who can maintain a low body weight relatively easily to point at and accuse people who cannot, but it would be nice if there were some more consideration around.

Going back to the health issue, a lot of conditions can cause people to become overweight, or to have extreme weight fluctuations. Medications can affect this, too; whether it’s a kind of birth control or steroids… how would you feel if that person whose weight you just criticised were undergoing cancer treatment? Sure, we make our little in-jokes quietly to ourselves and each other, but like street harrassment this too often spills over into unwanted and upsetting interactions.

Women with large breasts face an added level of this, with barrages of comments ranging from what people mistakenly think are compliments  to accusations of being too slutty by showing a lot of cleavage (often something that’s difficult for such women to avoid without always wearing some variation of a sack) and an assumption that they should be grateful for what they are “endowed” with.

This is a sad state of affairs for many reasons. For starters, no woman should be judged on the size of her bust; with “flat” chests in my family it’s something I’ve seen the flip-side of, too, and have even received such comments myself (somewhat in error!!) based on strange men deciding it’s something worth using as an insult when I didn’t want to talk to them on a dating site.

As someone pointed out on Twitter this morning, one of many problems with Page 3 is that it perpetuates an idea about breasts, aspirations and attractiveness, which can be really damaging. Mastectomy is tough enough to deal with, without a daily reminder that women are only (desirable) women when they have (big) boobs. While the debate on page 3 is extensive and multi-faceted, if you do want to sign the petition against it, it’s here.

In addition to that, larger ladies have a lot to contend with: health issues such as back pain and possibly breast cancer risk; the inability to find clothes that fit, not to mention them actually being affordable.

All angles

But it’s not just fat-shaming. A friend who deals with multiple health conditions posted the picture on the right this morning and sparked a little debate around it (which prompted me to write this).

I’m also reminded of the Beautiful South‘s song, Perfect 10 (that I alternate between enjoying and not):

The anorexic chicks, the model 6
They don’t hold no weight with me
Well 8 or 9, well that’s just fine
But I like to hold something I can see

I have trouble saying that this is any more acceptable than unsolicited comments towards overweight people instructing them to eat less or run more. It’s a song, sure, and it’s about a couple of big people enjoying each other, but for some reason that strays into insulting others.

Women are often swept along by the misogynistic undercurrent and say incredibly horrible things about other women, as well as judging themselves harshly. I put on weight in my late teens and I lost it in my early 20s, partly due to illness. The amount of comments I have received on this over time is only now beginning to overwhelm me, and when this picture came up suddenly a number of instances came to mind.

I wish my friends, or their friends whom I barely know, didn’t feel the need to call me a bitch for getting back to my normal weight – I’m a small person. I feel more comfortable in myself having lost the excess. But it wasn’t exactly fun getting to that point – as is the case for many people, I’m sure. I didn’t do it for anyone else, or to spite anyone, either. I don’t want to feel like I should apologise just because I fit into something, or it’s too big for me. Being ‘skinny’ shouldn’t be the ultimate goal of all women*, and we shouldn’t be at each other’s throats about it.

When I was eating dangerously little and people kept telling me “Hey, you look great!”, that didn’t exactly spur me on to healthier behaviour. Weight loss and gain is a complicated seesaw and you’re unlikely to know the facts behind it for people you don’t know very well.  It’s also never about one person, or one comment; It’s the frequency and ubiquitous nature of it. Just like one guy inappropriately touching you in a whole lifetime would make no difference, it’s the constant barrage of little things that turn it into a problem.

No stone unturned

Too fat, too thin, ‘real woman’ this, curves or bones that – it seems no one is immune.

*I haven’t touched on fad diets, why I hate gyms or pretty much anything regarding the health & fitness industry. But this article just appeared in my timeline courtesy of a couple of excellent friends, so you can read that for some great commentary on how women in politics are described, some links to what I’ve written above and the writer’s experience of finding a job in fitness. One of the take-home messages being:

“I wonder how my life would have been different if people had encouraged girls (me) to be strong instead of skinny”

And wondering what we can do for our young women today, to spare them some of this crap we’ve grown up with and are now trying to get over!!

“I became a more capable, energetic, independent, and mentally focused person once my focus shifted from what my body  looks like to what my body can do“

Battling sexism

Recently there have been yet more stories centred around sexism and misogyny in our culture. I’d like to discuss two that have interested me this week.

At least they got the apostrophes right..? Via guardian.co.uk

A battle won

Today, thankfully, there has been some Good News! A rarity, it sometimes seems, and something to be celebrated. Congratulations to the Science Museum and everyone who spoke up about Boots separating their children’s toys by gender, and including the sciencey ones only in the boys’ section.

Other retailers have binned this outdated, damaging stereotyping behaviour so, while it’s unfortunate that it’s taken a company like Boots so long, it’s good to see them following suit.

“…It’s clear we have got this signage wrong, and we’re taking immediate steps to remove it from store.” – Boots

Yes, it’s wrong. I’ve said so before and will continue to be angered by needless gender separations in stores for e.g. toys and magazines.

It may well be a bit of a chicken and egg situation. So they say they organised it with the separation because of “customer feedback” – parents want to find toys for their boy/girl easily? They can’t just browse a toys section and pick out something they’d like?

photo by Andrew Holding

To be honest, that sounds like it’s parental stereotyping at work. I’m not going to buy dolls for my boys or cars for my girls, that wouldn’t be right. Well, parents, I implore you – consider your child as a person, irrespective of their genitals/chromosomes, and encourage them in what they enjoy, what they find fascinating, whether you think it’s “gender-appropriate” or not. Be better.

Unfortunately there are other stores – such as Morrisons and Clarks (see image) – who continue to separate toys like this, and it’s frustrating for some parents. Read more in this article by Andrew Holding.

Edit: I have also contacted Wilkinson regarding their toy section that I spotted in Stratford recently. Through this I have discovered this excellent Twitter account, LetToysBeToys! They even have a petition.

A new conflict

You may also have heard that the Bank of England is suggesting that Churchill replace Elizabeth Fry on our £5 notes, which would likely come into effect in a few years, in 2016. This would leave no women on our banknotes. If you really think people are so stupid that you have to point out that the Queen is a woman, you are entirely missing the point. If I must explain, the figures on our notes (apart from the current monarch) are there because of their achievements; their contributions to society and UK progress. Not because they were born into a royal family. So be quiet.

At first glance, this might not seem like the worst thing. The figures on our bank notes change periodically, when we have to redesign the notes to counter fraud. Elizabeth Fry has been on £5 notes since 2002, and we had Florence Nightingale on £10 notes from 1975 to 1994. But they are the only two women, and replacing Fry will erase all acknowledgment of female achievement from our notes for some time – unless one of the others is redesigned with a new female figure at the same time.

Today’s BBC Radio 4 Woman’s Hour episode included a discussion on the banknotes decision (8 mins long in the link). Plenty of female candidates were pointed out; that most won’t have heard of many of them, despite their amazing work (for example, Beatrice Webb, economist and co-founder of the LSE), is surely reason to increase visibility of forgotten female influences in our history.

Wut about the menz?

I do not accept the argument that history has recorded men as the winners, therefore we should accurately represent that. Here and now we are trying to create a more equal society (well, some of us are) and part of that is doing what we can to correct the mistakes of the past. Acknowledge that sexism and misogyny are alive and well, and used to be even worse – so let’s pull the suppressed achievements of women out of the dark and show them to people living and growing up now. Similar instances of just that include the edit-a-thons in which people have dedicated time to editing pages to give due credit to women, for example in the history of science.

This is important for young women (and men) – to realise that gender is not a barrier to achievement, despite what the history books may show. These little sexist acts build up, and while lacking female role models on banknotes may be a little thing in isolation, it’s one of many that add together to give young people the message that women are underachieving and undeserving of recognition.

I do not agree that striving to have at least one woman on our notes, giving some small recognition to the contributions of approximately half of the population that have been systematically erased, is overcompensating or being unfair to men. Striving for something closer to equality instead of extreme (pro-male) bias, whether that bias be “historically-accurate” or not, is not overcompensating, only pushing for equality. That’s feminism, it’s not asking for no men to be recognised, only to make a positive change that will address an imbalance.

Aside from the gender balance issue, there are other reasons we might object to putting Churchill in particular on our notes (thanks to Liz for pointing that one out).

This will depend on your view of what our currency is for. If you think it’s simply a leaf out of the history books, then this is unlikely to bother you.  The Guardian have picked up on the story and are running a poll. If, however, you would like to object to the removal of all female achievers from our bank notes, you can sign the petition. Also follow @weekwoman and @TheWomensRoomUK on Twitter for more.

Edit: spectacularly on-topic and brilliant is Suzanne Moore’s article today about successful women eschewing feminism as if they don’t need it and never benefited from it. I have had direct experience of this kind of sentiment and am very glad someone has hit the nail on the head with a piece like this.

Another edit: I have also had a rant about the banknotes on this week’s Pod Delusion. Indeed, it is worth acknowledging that Clydesdale bank do in fact have two women on their banknotes; Mary Slessor on the £10 note (bit of a double-edged sword; women’s rights yay! Christianity-spreading boo) and Elsie Inglis on the £50 note – an excellent physician and suffragist.

LiftGate: QEDcon2013

Hello everyone.

So you know before we get going, some of this is meant to be tongue-in-cheeck, mainly because I wanted to make use of a pun. It’s also got little serious bits in it and partly it’s because I just got home from QED and I need a bit more of it in my life before I let it go for another year…

Also I haven’t been blogging much lately, I don’t know why. Haven’t been inspired, also busy with new job(s) and imminent moving house! I didn’t write a post about QEDcon 2012 because I was mega-stressed with thesis-writing at the time (nearly couldn’t attend because of it) but this year I shall follow from the 2011 posts:

I love QED

As does everyone I speak to who’s been. This was its third year and it certainly lived up to expectations based on the last two. I’d looked forward to it since I left in 2012; extremely tired on the Sunday evening, I slept through the whole train journey back to Euston. Cleverly, this year I booked the room for Sunday night too – to anyone who can afford a bit of Monday off and the extra expense, I highly recommend this!

Some of the organisers are good friends of mine (do listen to Skeptics with a K if you haven’t before; one of my favourite podcasts! Also check out the infrequent but giggle-inducing InKredulous) but even if they weren’t I’d still have to give them many hugs/hi-5s/no-contact congratulations (delete as preferred) because, together with all the volunteers, they do a truly amazing job. I think I’ll be joining their ranks next year!

Highlights

Rocking up on Friday evening for the mixer in the bar, coming back to a now familiar place and seeing lots of familiar faces (as well as plenty of new ones!) is brilliant. Some drinks, some chat, some hugs and a lot of excitement.

On Sunday we made a bit of a snap decision to listen to Natalie Haynes talk about similarities between Greek tragedies and soap operas, and the relevance of other classical authors such as Pliny, Juvenal and Virgil in modern life. Her explanation of why people saying quis custodiet ipsos custodes is quite hilarious was just perfect. Despite clearly being high on caffeine and sleep-deprived (which she acknowledged with comedic excellence), I hugely enjoyed her talk. With a Latin A level from school, I have missed classical literature and ancient history ever since and it was a lovely reminder.

Just before this, Carrie Poppy, all the way from the US of A, gave her talk on the value of anecdotes. I very much appreciated this. As an intactivist, a lot of the research I do in this area involves listening to people’s stories of how circumcision has had a negative impact on their lives. This is not valueless, quite the opposite. When an argument in defence of something often contains “but I’ve never heard anyone complain about it/I’m fine!”, exposing the truth that in fact a great deal of people have been harmed is very important indeed. I think a lot of skeptics could learn from this, and rein in the (often appropriate, admittedly) data or gtfo kind of attitude.

An excellent set from Chris Coltrane included a perfect bit on being bisexual and biphobia, which definitely resonated with a selection of us in the room! We shook his hand for that.

There were so many other things. I collected a promised hug from Colin, due to my having Tweeted a semi-regular plea for cheery thoughts when I was feeling sad one time… and having walked past him on the way to the station one day but not managing to stop and say hi in time!

ElevatorGate

For the unaware, here’s a quick bit of background on an incident you’ll need to know something about for the rest of this section to make sense.

There are other skeptical conferences. At one such event, a female speaker gave a talk that included some advice on being respectful to women, and after some time at the bar got into a lift (or an elevator, if you’re from the other side of the pond) to go to bed.

In said lift, a male delegate at the conference decided to ask her to his room for coffee. Possibly innocently, possibly with hopes of some kind of friendlier-than-that situation, who knows. After the event, said female skeptic (who is well-known to most skeptics) made a video for her website that was about an hour long, which included a short statement on this incident.

She asked him, and guys like him, not to do that kind of thing. If it’s late and you’re in a confined space alone with a woman, don’t proposition her (or say something that’s likely to be interpreted as such). It’s just a bad idea.

Fair point. Unfortunately this exploded into ridiculous discourse and all kinds of people jumped in with their views; why is she implying he might be a rapist and why doesn’t she shut up and die – together with deeper and deeper analyses of male privilege, misogyny and all sorts. Including a very misjudged and sexist comment from Richard Dawkins. The fall-out is still happening, somewhat absurdly.

Given this, just about every time a few of us got in the lift, someone would make a joke about “ElevatorGate”, as it’s now known. It was very funny.

We giggled. It was also nice when loads of us packed into the lift at one point and, to save space, partner and I took the opportunity to have a cuddle. After laughing about the close quarters, one girl did ask: “You do know each other, right?” – I think it’s great that people are coming out and asking that, rather than making assumptions or keeping quiet when they witness what might be an uncomfortable situation. Progress.

LiftGate

What wasn’t so funny was when I was chatting, wine in hand, with some other drunk folks after the Saturday night entertainment, trying to work out what strange game they were playing (it involved placing a wine bottle upright on the floor, using teamwork to avoid touching the floor with anything other than that bottle past a certain point).

When my flatmate said something like “Maz, be on our team, you’re light!” and picked me up briefly, a little way off the floor, to demonstrate this fact, we were amused.

However, when a random guy I had never met, who did not introduce himself or ask before going ahead with his copycat behaviour, proceeded to wrap his arms around the tops of my thighs and pick me quite high up off the ground with a grin on his face, which was pressed against my front – we did not laugh.

In fact, my partner told me afterwards that he’d felt like punching him at that point (not usually a violent person). In different circumstances, I might have let him.

Now, I’m not insinuating that this person was anything other than an inebriated reveler who saw something mildly amusing (he was not to know the previous lifter was well-known to me) and decided to join in the fun – I hope that’s the long and short of it.

However, at the risk of kicking off #liftgate, here is my advice – don’t do that. Don’t approach strangers and touch them somewhat inappropriately, even in a partying environment. My displeasure at this may have been enhanced by the fact I was wearing a loosely hanging dress I hadn’t worn before – and I don’t wear dresses often anyway.

But there it is. In the grand scheme, a small thing – I am not traumatised or accusing this person of deliberately treating me a bit like a bit of sports equipment free to be tried out in the shop, I expect he just wasn’t thinking.

That’s the point though; a lot of us are socially awkward, and it’s worth taking a second to think before you act (or speak). All of that is overridden by meeting loads of brilliant people this weekend, catching up with friends, learning some cool stuff and having a generally awesome holiday. Plus I got to use my pun-thing.

Edit: Following some commenting and Twittering, all is well – let this be an example of How Not To Be A Dick. We all make mistakes. Pointing things out, accepting our errors, apologising for them and being forgiven – it’s easy and it doesn’t have to turn into a giant flame war. Live and learn.

Links

I will try to update this over the coming week or two with links I find to other posts, picture albums and so on relating to this year’s event. Feel free to tweet them at me, that would be helpful!

The amazing intro video can be watched over and over again here!! The 2011 and 2012 videos are also available. Everyone gets Milton Mermikides‘ theme tune stuck in their head for a while!

Here’s Stevyn (with whom we had a lovely lunch discussing Qi curiosities and other things on Saturday) with his favourite bits. He mentions our protesters, and I’ll try to find more mention of them. You can also read more about his Skeptical Bobby talk!

You can even listen to Saturday’s Pod Delusion Live recording!

Robin Ince mused on his panel conflict, which I unfortunately missed, but I liked reading this anyway. Here’s a summary of that session by Violetta Crisis. Daphna Shezaf has also written about the conference, and the aforementioned panel.

Some of Robin’s rage was expertly captured by @gwendes – have a look here.

Pixie359 thinks about what more can be done in skepticism.

Alex Gabriel defends Atheism+ for The Heresy Club (I missed this session too).

Hayley has put her thoughts into words.

Eventifier keeps track of twitter traffic generated by events, pretty cool stuff. Over nine thousand tweets… >480 photos, 26 videos – from more than 1200 accounts, apparently!

See Liveskeptic for some storify (collections of tweets on a particular subject/talk).

Here’s a Flickr album from Richard Cooper and here’s an open Flickr group by Kevin Friery that anyone can upload their images to. Friday (including afternoon tweet-up), Saturday and Sunday photos by Rob McDermott, plus a lovely pan of the RDF hall. The Hampshire Skeptics page also has some great images.

My photos are here but I’ll try to put them on Picasa at some point.

Shisha scheisse

Inspired by a recent tweet from Rhys, I have decided to reproduce a little bit of work I did on explaining “shisha” to someone otherwise unaware.

I still quite frequently find that people are ignorant of what it is (and isn’t) and what the potential harms are – indeed many will claim it is safer than “traditional” cigarettes. So I’ve tried to summarise all of that here. Please feel free to add your favourite sources on this topic in the comments.

What is shisha?

Shisha or sheesha is a method of smoking flavouried tobacco through an apparatus called a hookah. It is also known as “waterpipe tobacco” because the smoke passes through water before it’s inhaled.

The tobacco is available in many (often fruit) flavours and the popularity of shisha, especially among younger people (18-24 years) has increased in recent years. This appeal has been attributed to a more pleasant/less irritating smoking experience, cheaper costs, it being a sociable activity and perhaps carrying less social stigma compared to cigarette smoking nowadays.

How is shisha harmful?

It’s commonly thought that smoking tobacco using shisha is far less harmful than cigarettes. This is false; it actually seems that this method can be just as dangerous as cigarettes, causing many of the same diseases (including cancer, respiratory diseases and heart disease) and risks to pregnant women and children.

The water-filtering of the smoke does not remove the harmful substances from the tobacco smoke. Users are still exposed to carbon monoxide, tar (light cigarettes are not safe either), chemicals that cause cancer (carcinogens), and the addictive substance nicotine.

It has also been noted that exposure to carcinogens may actually be higher for shisha users due to the greater amount of time spent smoking; typically up to an hour, as opposed to the average 5-10 minutes for a cigarette. The WHO has compared one shisha session to smoking 100 or more cigarettes. It’s also common for shisha smokers to also be cigarette smokers, which complicates research.

Shisha pipes can also spread infectious diseases due to sharing the mouthpiece with others while smoking; including gum disease, TB, hepatitis and herpes. Passive smoking can also harm those nearby who are not actively smoking, perhaps more than cigarette smoke because of the additional fuel used to burn the tobacco, which also realeases harmful chemicals. This is further exacerbated by venues offering indoor smoking facilities.

It is accepted that more research is needed to fully understand the risks of shisha smoking, but, based on current evidence, it is safe to say that it is harmful. An early day motion was put forward in 2011 suggesting more should be done to educate the British public about the potential dangers of shisha, and to ensure smoke-free legislation is followed around the country.

Is it illegal to smoke shisha outdoors?

For the law fans: smoke-free legislation states that any premises open to the public or used as a place of work must be smoke-free in all enclosed spaces (those that have a ceiling or roof; and, except for doors, windows and passageways, are wholly enclosed either permanently or temporarily).

This does apply only to enclosed spaces, according to the Health Act (2006): “In any case, premises are smoke-free only in those areas which are enclosed or substantially enclosed.” – c. 28, Part 1, Chapter 1, S. 2: smoke-free premises, etc. point 4.

Local authorities may impose additional smoke-free premises that are not enclosed if there is a risk significant exposure to smoke, and owners of establishments may choose to make their outdoor spaces smoke-free. These areas must be clearly marked with no-smoking signage.

Smoking in smoke-free premises is an offence, but being unaware that an area is smoke-free is a legitimate defence; it is the responsibility of the management to make the smoke-free status clear, and to challenge offenders.

The act specifies ‘tobacco’ and ‘smoking’ but does not currently differentiate between cigarettes and shisha. Cafés specifically catering to shisha smoking are not exempt from smoke-free legislation and must comply by ensuring smoking spaces are not enclosed.

Final words

Anyone who knows me knows what my view on smoking is. It’s pretty similar for this. I think there are much better ways to have fun with friends than breathing in smoke, and I’m sure in future people will look back on these pasttimes with disbelief.

For people who have seen loved ones suffer because of this expensive, unhealthy habit, it’s really a no-brainer. I won’t patronise you further, and I hope this proves useful to some.

Circumcision debate

UCLU ASHS 28/02/13

Antony Lempert (GP & Chair of the Secular Medical Forum)

vs.

Jonathan Arkush (Vice President, Board of Deputies of British Jews)

Here’s the full audio of the debate; it’s about 1hr 10mins but I’ve put highlights in my Pod Delusion report! I’ve also put timings on my notes below so that you can skip to the relevant bits if you like.

Antony had met Jonathan in July 2012 for Sunday Morning live, they had some email exchanges but they stopped because:

“he didn’t seem to like my Human Rights arguments and kept saying things like live and let live“

- which I thought was funny, because that is pretty much the crux of the anti-circ position. And that boring old “human rights” argument people keep digging up, ugh!

Antony has tried in previous years to get routine infant circumcision debated at the BMA annual meeting; apparently, though, changing the wording of a proposal to remove “female” so that you’re discussing infant genital surgery generally is a no-no. Better luck this year, hopefully.

Debatable

It’s worth noting that some of the oft-discussed issues around MGM were irrelevant in this case. Arkush (I’ll refer to him as JA and to Antony as AL throughout) argues only from the perspective of a Jewish man upholding his faith; his interest is in the “religious rights” of individuals and families, so ignores arguments to do with necessity/benefit, health, female genital cutting and so forth. (For more on these, please see previous posts.)

I think an important take-home from this debate was something AL also pointed out: that there does seem to be a confusion in these of arguments. People cite “parental rights”, requesting tolerance, respect and permission to keep doing what they want to do. All well and good, until you harm other people.

The problem here seems to be that some parents do not believe their children are people in their own right. Interesting, as I wonder how many anti-abortion campaigners (especially in the USA) are pro-circumcision?? That’s a tangent though.

Without recognising that a child’s right to bodily integrity exists and you should really respect it, people end up thinking they can treat their child-property however they wish – sometimes culminating in something as disturbing as removing their most sensitive erogenous body part.

Obviously I am completely biased as a fully-fledged intactivist; there was no way JA would have convinced me of his position. He was at all times calm and polite, to his credit. However he also clearly holds some disturbing views about mental health (accusing all men who are unhappy about their circumcised status, who claim emotional trauma, to in fact have some other underlying condition) and the non-religious (with another worrying suggestion that lack of faith may lead to psychological issues, and people being devoid of values).

AL has kindly allowed me to use his slides to add information here, so you can find some interspersed with my notes below (part 2. AL 15 minutes).

Summary

JA considers it his right as a Jewish person to remove his sons’ foreskins in accordance with the traditions of his culture. He does not believe it is at all harmful. He argues against banning things we find distasteful, carrying this argument to an interesting and shocking conclusion when he disagrees with banning one of the most disturbing forms of male circumcision: the metzitzah b’peh, in which the Mohel sucks the blood off the child’s wound, thus exposing him to disease and an increased risk of death. Live and let live? The baby being worth little consideration here, apparently.

AL draws on strong arguments based in medical ethics to highlight that non-medically justified (it very rarely is) routine infant circumcision (RIC, or more accurately NTEF: non-therapeutic excision of the foreskin) is a permanently damaging procedure with complications that are often serious, and parents should not have the “right” to choose cosmetic surgery for minors, just because they are their parents. The child is not their property, and their responsibility is one of protection.

—

1. JA 15 minutes

00:00:00

Started with an appeal to tradition “Judaism is one of the world’s oldest faiths” (00:02:00)

The bible is clear that is matters “how we treat other people…” Indeed!

Rules, customs, values and ethical considerations

He follows Jewish traditions because he wants to

He would like family to inherit his tradition and values in turn

Judaism & Islam practise circumcision (asks us to note only boys at 8 days in Judaism) (00:02:45)

God commanded the practice from Abraham, with no reason given (00:02:55) “I wanted to keep that precept”

He “some Jews” pick and choose which parts of the tradition to keep, seemed to disapprove (00:03:30)

‘Brit’ (as in Brit milah, the circumcision ceremony) means covenant or promise (00:03:45)

It’s “more logical to keep all the rules I possibly can” (00:04:20)

Says circumcision is “safe and simple” (00:04:30)

Must be performed by specially trained and regulated individuals, “many are doctors” (00:04:45)

“Initiation Society” set up in 1752 (00:05:05)

Cited example of royal family being circumcised and the same doctor cutting him as did Prince Charles ?! (00:05:45)

“In the Jewish community, complications are virtually unknown” – cited high standards (00:06:00)

Appreciates the arguments against and respects them (00:06:50). Guesses they consist of:

1) Wrong to impose on babies? “There are many things we decide for our children” (00:08:00) Waiting would be worse, it’s “safest and kindest … when the child is 8 days old” (00:08:50) and “more painful at 18″ (00:11:15)

2) Psychological issues? He dismisses these, calls it an “odd” claim, saying “some people believe they are… not in my experience” thinks any problems are down to something else and people blame circ only as displacement. (00:09:45)

“Children have a right to be brought up in a faith we choose for them…” (00:10:20)

People are glad and relieved and grateful this was chosen (00:10:45)

“I would not like to look different from them” ! (00:11:00)

To “we disapprove of this ritual/custom/value so we ought to ban it” he says the fact you disapprove is not a reason to ban; unless socially harmful (00:11:45)

We regulate rather than ban e.g. smoking (00:12:20)

Taking away “rights to believe” (00:12:45) – “It is not a fair way to run society… unless you can prove it is harmful to society as a whole” – 4000 years Jewish/muslim tradition… 60% American men cut (00:13:30)

Somehow tries to justify by quoting BHA (00:14:25) “Recognises the dignity of individuals… treats them with fairness and respect… respects and promotes freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law, and equal treatment of everyone regardless of religious belief” – “so please give me that equal treatment, let me circumcise my son” – from the perspective of a parent who wishes to cut children.

—

2. AL 15 minutes

00:15:50

Main points:

Function & sensitivity; autonomy; irreversibility; indoctrination; confusion in discussing parental rights

It is often argued by those in favour of ritual circumcision that parents have the right to procure circumcision in much the same way as they decide which school to send them to, whether to baptise them and the favourite comparator, whether or not to vaccinate their child. (00:17:45)

Childhood immunisation is an intervention that cannot wait until adulthood and one with overwhelming evidence of protection from serious childhood diseases such as measles and tetanus. It does not remove body parts.

(00:18:15) Responsibilities of doctors

GMC guidance first words: “make the care of the patient your first concern”

Primum non nocere

(00:18:50) In September 2012 GMC issued a child safeguarding statement acknowledging possible damaging influence of religious and cultural beliefs:

In some cases, it may be difficult to identify where parents’ freedom to bring up their children in line with their religious and cultural practices or beliefs becomes a cause for concern about a child’s or young person’s physical or emotional well-being.

(00:19:20) Key principles of Medical Ethics:

1) Autonomy 2) Beneficence 3) Non-maleficance 4) Justice

People think “their rights are under threat when they can’t cut someone else’s body?!” (00:20:10)

constraints on personal autonomy should never be used by people claiming ‘cultural autonomy’ to justify the forced removal of healthy body parts from non-consenting people. (00:21:05)

It has been illegal to tattoo children from 1969 (00:21:50)

For those without the capacity to choose, questions must be asked about procedures: is it permanent or temporary? Is there clinical benefit? Any restriction of future decisions? (00:22:20)

Not only do medical associations not recommend it, many condemn (00:23:10):

The Royal Dutch Medical Association “…a violation of a boy’s rights to autonomy and physical integrity.”
The President of the British Association of Paediatric Surgeons, (BAPS) “…an irreversible mutilating procedure… rarely, if ever, an indication for male circumcision of boys aged less than 5 years old”
Chairman of the Swedish Paediatric Society “…an assault”
Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons “…does not support… routine circumcision”

Was promoted to limit masturbation (00:24:30)

1993 study in the Journal of Surgery, looked into complications (00:24:50):

- Meatal Stenosis (narrowed urethra opening)
- Scarring and sinuses
- Erectile dysfunction
- Denuding of penile skin
- Psychosexual problems
- Infection and bleeding
- Urinary difficulties
- Amputation of the Penis
- Death

Nigerian midwife manslaughter conviction 2013, baby Goodluck

Birmingham hospitals provide circumcisions on the NHS. FOI requests have revealed data showing that complications often cited as “tragic and unforeseen” “isolated incidents” are actually quite common (00:26:20)

For an operation the British Association of Paediatric Surgeons say is rarely if ever needed.

Sorrells 2007 and Hoebeke 2013 on sensitivity and function; circumcision removes the most sensitive area of the penis. (00:27:10)

Frisch 2011 reported on circumcision harms to women: “Frequent Orgasm Difficulties in Danish men… and a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women” (00:28:15)

Men who speak out about circumcision damage are often isolated by circumcising communities, threatened and ignored. They are not well-supported to argue their case and are conveniently seen as non-existent, with advocates always saying they “haven’t heard” anyone complaining. It’s a sensitive issue anyway and being shunned for disagreeing makes it even less simple to do. (00:28:45)

November 2009 lawsuit between 20 y/o man and his GP over his meatal stenosis, dysuria, abrasive pain, tight circumcision, a sinus and asymmetric scarring leading to bent penis; was told he had “no case for medical negligence, because this level of damage is fairly routine” (00:29:20)

The UN convention on rights of the child 1989 – signed by all countries except Somalia and the USA
Article 14 (1) Respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion
Article 19 (1) Protect the child from all forms of… violence, injury or abuse… including sexual abuse whilst in the care of parent(s)…or any other person who has the care of the child
Article 24 (3) Take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children. (00:30:10)

Blinded by religious privilege, we can lose sight of the child, and the adult the child will become

—

3. JA 5 minute retort

00:31:45

Emotive language!! Anti-semitic? (!)

40 million Jews, who collect data (really? Where is it?)

we don’t argue that it’s needed so that’s a moot point

WHO, AAP ‘pro’ stances

I don’t follow the practice because of health benefits “although HIV is drastically lower”

BMA and GMC have circ guidance! Ethical and religious values are important

These [negative comments] are minority views and not reflective of the whole practice

I want to make decisions for my children

in society we tolerate costly things e.g. drugs and smoking

—

4. AL 5 minute retort

00:36:35

We should aim for progress, not tradition

Actually the USA is the minority view.

Obviously it’d be better to have some actual data on here!

In Jewish law: if 3 of your babies die, you don’t have to cut the 4th

Mohel reports are… where? Also easily dismissed

Milah UK Autumn 2012 set up to challenge German ruling

BMA is clear on circ, illegal under Human Rights act? BMA conference debates

—

5. Questions and discussion

00:41:00

1) Edward Presswood

You said your son was circumcised and didn’t even cry. Can you describe how it was done without making him cry?

JA: “I’m a bit squeamish but I wasn’t there. Local anaesthetic, quick, guard in place, wine in mouth to encourage child to sleep, feeding after, Mohel visits for following 2 days” (00:41:10)

Defends Jewish practices in comparison to ‘less well regulated’ procedures (00:42:05) such as baby Goodluck and another boy who died after a Rabbi cut him (00:42:40). Blamed the mother for ignoring instructions to call doctor/hospital/mohel if there was any bleeding. AL interjects with further information (00:43:25). “The issue is that taking a knife to a normal child’s body exposes them to risk that they don’t need to have”

JA: “complications in the Jewish community are extremely rare”

2) Jewish audience member: possible harm to welfare [when not cut]? Would boys have preferred “most likely” to have had it when they were younger? (00:45:20)

3) Difficulty with making things illegal; wouldn’t it still happen (00:46:25) – see FGM. No prosecutions. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make things illegal.

4) USA ‘looking normal’ concerns (00:47:55)

JA: Jewish community isn’t responsible for USA high circumcision rate; social reasons

AL: AAP is a trade organisation; it’s a cultural phenomenon and doctors profit from it (00:49:25).

5) EP: Orthodox Judaism Mohels – what about tolerating/banning the sucking [metzitzah b'peh] practice? (00:50:15) – JA wouldn’t ban it!! “I’m just very chairy about going for bans” (00:52:25 – sorry about my phone buzzing there!)

00:52:50: AL on deaths from circumcision being excluded from studies’ data analysis (approx. 200/year)

6) 00:54:30 – asks AL for opinion on HIV/circumcision research. NB/ 57:30:00 a member of WHO circ “expert” board invented circumcision devices?

7) My question (00:58:15): would you really consider opposition to genital mutilation (as it is generally universal where it occurs; regarding male or female, hospital or elsewhere, religious or cultural etc.) to be anti-semitic?

I won the debate with this, because JA fell for Godwin’s law, and compared us all to Nazis and communists (00:58:45-01:00:40):

“the chancellor Angela Merkel was acutely concerned about a country where circumcision was last banned – incidentally 2 world rulers in modern times who sought to ban circumcision were Hitler and Stalin – so that’s the company you’re in”

At that point I did a \o/

8) How can you agree with criminalisation of theft and not with thieving a part of someone’s body? (01:02:10)

JA: parental decision because child is too young, a parent is entitled to that – compares to ear piercing or tattoos. Defends his right to remove healthy body parts from an incapacitated child. Cites “everyone I know in the Jewish community feels the same way”

AL: reiterates that those who speak out are ostracised by “the community” (01:04:30) and JA confirms that one woman on the Board of Deputies was removed because of her synagogue was ‘upset’ by her dissenting opinions (01:05:15). Insists someone would not be ignored if they said they were “born with” a circumcision that harmed them, but is picked up on this because he already dismissed them in his speech.

9) How would you feel if your son had to be castrated (?), how would you explain that to him? (01:07:00)

JA doesn’t seem to accept that risk of serious injury or death is a good reason to avoid this unnecessary surgery, saying hewould feel “desperately guilty and sorrowful” – he would say “I consciously exposed you to such risk as there was … but I probably would make the same choice again”

EP: asks if he does recognise there is a risk (yes) (01:08:45)

He also let slip that he believes those who lack faith also lack any values (01:09:15). Nice.

Life of Pi

I’ve moved this book/film review over from my Posterous space because, well, Twitter bought them and it’s closing down. Boo!

Towards the end of 2012 I picked up, read and passed on my copy of Yann Martel’s Life of Pi.

I wanted to read it before I went to see the film, because generally I prefer to compare film adaptations to books than the other way around. Once you see a film, you have your visuals and you carry them over to the book. I quite like to let my imagination (and the author’s words) do the work first time around.

Anyway, I enjoyed the book; it’s bite-sized compared to most of the 1000-odd page fantasy tomes I tend to wade through. It is at times amusing, upsetting, magical – there were some poignant lines I noticed and should have made a note of as I went along.

Before seeing the film, my impression of the story was that it was one of interpretation. The reader is left with questions and decisions to make by the end and I suppose the conclusions you come to are probably guided by the kind of person you are and the values you hold.

It can be about God if you want it to be – I don’t think it is, but I’m biased. I don’t find it pro-religion, and I don’t find the film to be pushing that agenda either. But you could probably interpret it that way if you really wanted to. Some have decided to take issue with the “I will tell you a story that will make you believe in God” line but I find that unnecessary.  I think it’s more about considering how we view and deal with things that happen in life and the power of storytelling.

The book, compared to the film, does make more of a point of there being logical explanations for animal behaviour. Pi’s father is knowledgable on the matter and tries to impart this wisdom to his sons, which ultimately benefits Pi himself. The film seems to cut down on this aspect, which is perhaps why those who have seen the film (but haven’t read the book) might think the emphasis is more on the religious stuff than I felt it was?

Overall I think the film represented the story very well indeed, with only a couple of additions that didn’t spoil anything, but they didn’t necessarily add much for me. There was one omission but I understand why it wasn’t included as it would have required the filmmakers to make a decision when that’s better left to the reader in the story. It’d be *spoilers* to expand on that but I did have a quick facebook chat about it and someone agreed it would have been tricky.

Visually, it’s fantastic. Colourful, joyful, sometimes surprising (greatly enjoyed the people next to me jumping half out of their chairs at one point!), emotional. It is definitely worth seeing in 3D, the technology is used well (but do sit quite far back!).

I recommend going to see it, and do let me know what you think.