I worked in a hip office. Everyone was trendy and right-on. It was a heavily female dominated industry and the office politics were biased towards intersectional feminism. Which I regarded as a good thing. I'd rather have a natter about reproductive justice than who won the football last night.

The office also had a swear jar. Say a word on the banned list, put a quid in the tub, with all proceeds going to charity. Nice. One of the "swear" words was... "guys". Not everyone sees guys as a gender neutral term.

"Hey guys, could you all..." BZZT Brian puts a quid in the jar!

"We've got a great team of guys working on this..." BZZT Get your purse out Davina!

All pretty good natured. Everyone slips ups occasionally, and it was fun hearing people change gear mid-sentence. "OK gu-gu-gu-gang! How are we?"

And then the Australians arrived.

Kylie (not that one) was from the Australia office and was starting a 6 month secondment with us. At her first all-staff, she was asked to say a few words.

"HEY GUYS!" She gushed, in the way only Australians can, "What a bonza office you guys have!! I can't wait to tells the guys back home about the work you're doing!!!"

Half-way through an exclamation mark, someone raised their hand. Barry, or maybe Mike, possibly Rav. "Ummm... Just so you know, we don't use the term 'guys' here..."

"What are you guys talking about?"

"Only... it's just... not all of us are guys. So..."

"Are you guys joking?"

"No. We've got a swear jar and everything."

At which point, the Australian let forth a torrent of swearwords - including a few I'd never heard before - about how men had no right to police a woman's tone. Which seemed fair.

Whereupon Gillian (or Niki, or Kanda) interjected to say that Kylie's debt to the swear jar was closing in on bankruptcy levels and, for the sake of international relations, this should probably be discussed over a pint.

A few months ago, I had a similar experience. Someone invited me to speak at their conference. I turned them down because I don't speak on all male panels, and politely informed them of that. The organiser - perhaps not unreasonably - took me to task on this. While she valued my input, it wasn't my place to tell her how to run her business. She was - as it happened - a young woman of colour, trying to make an impact in a PSM environment. And, maybe, I should stop telling women what to do?

It's a tough one. Cultures butt up against these fault-lines all the time. What seems polite to me, seems rude to you. What's commonplace in your culture, is a bit of a shock to mine. Some times it is good to stick up for your principles and defend those who might be marginalised. Some times it is best to keep your big nose out of things.

In both cases, we mutually de-ruffled each other's feathers. Turns out, by talking to other people and understanding their perspective, you can learn a lot about the world beyond your own experiences.

In Feminist City, through history, personal experience and popular culture Leslie Kern exposes what is hidden in plain sight: the social inequalities built into our cities, homes, and neighborhoods. Kern offers an alternative vision of the feminist city. Taking on fear, motherhood, friendship, activism, and the joys and perils of being alone, Kern maps the city from new vantage points, laying out an intersectional feminist approach to urban histories and proposes that the city is perhaps also our best hope for shaping a new urban future. It is time to dismantle what we take for granted about cities and to ask how we can build more just, sustainable, and women-friendly cities together.

This is an important book - but I was frustrated at its lack of practical solutions. Let's start at the beginning.

Philip Larkin famously discovered sex in 1963. Some women only discover feminism once they become pregnant. Because if you're a cis/het/white/rich/abled woman, then your privilege may insulate you from the worst aspects of sexism. And so the book begins, looking at the city from the vantage point of a new mother.

Kooky cafes down a flight of stairs are fun to visit when you're young and carefree - but a nightmare to navigate with a baby in a buggy.

I sometimes wonder why anyone gets pregnant deliberately. Surely they've seen just how poorly the urban environment is for women with kids? Surely their friends have moaned about the realities of navigating the city? Surely they remember the struggles of their own mother? But somehow they don't think it'll apply to them.

But that's unfair of me. The city should cater to its citizen's needs. Especially the needs of those performing the necessary labour of child rearing.

The first quarter of the book seems exclusively focused on maternal needs - which is an important (but not universal) aspect of womanhood. The next part of the book seems to argue that we should design away the ability to make the "wrong" choices. Think of it like an urban "Nudge Unit". That sort of makes sense - we can design cities not to have dark alleyways and blind corners. But designing a city where nothing bad can ever happen is problematic in three key areas.

1. Part of the fun of the city is that it is full of new and - sometimes - scary sensations. We could create a city in the same way as we design bland corporate malls. As the book acknowledges, a wipe-clean city isn't an interesting city.
2. Learning how to operate in dangerous environments and recognise danger are useful skills. Not everywhere in the world is safe, and understanding risk is important.
3. Who is being protected and who is being excluded? We could put a policeman on every corner. But there are many women - and others - who would find that a scary and threatening prospect.

Kern does make some excellent points about how urban "safety" is usually for white cishet women, at the expense of others. Over-policing drives out (some) women. Not everyone is comfortable being surveilled on CCTV.

While I agree with the overall sentiment of the book - that urban spaces are rarely designed with women in mind, and they do not allow them to thrive - the book proposes very few solutions.

For example, there's a good discussion on the problems with toilet access. There aren't enough toilets for women, and they're usually of poor quality. The book has some discussion of local activism without saying what that entails. If we accept that more toilets are necessary (and I do) then how do we get them? Is it something which can be solved with tax relief for shops opening up more loos? Can an economic argument be made that more toilets attract more customers? Should people piss over the steps of City Hall until more loos are made available? What about sticking a 🚺 on every men's toilet door so that blokes know what it is like to have to desperately search for a public convenience?

I'm reminded of how the Rolling Quads smashed up the pavement to install ersatz dropped curbs. What concrete actions can people take to change the urban environment?

Similarly, there's a brief discussion about how bus fares often don't cater to women's needs. A single ticket is fine if you're heading directly to work - but if your journey around the city involves dropping a kid at school, then off to work, then running an errand, then picking a kid up, then taking them to an event, and then home via a shop - the ticket prices can become prohibitively expensive.

Again, there are practical solutions which aren't mentioned in the book. Hopper fares let people take multiple journeys within an hour on the same ticket. But how do we convince transit authorities to offer these fares?

While the book draws on a great deal of theory - and is meticulously referenced - it doesn't contain many personal stories. The ones it does are mostly directly from the author. I don't expect her to exploit people's grief and tragedies - but a few more stories of lived experiences about where city design fails would have been useful.

Every time I cross the road, I'm reminded of the horrific case of Raquel Nelson. She exited a bus with her children, there was no crossing available, so they attempted to cross a busy road in the dark - her child was killed and she was charged with vehicular homicide!

It's such a powerful story because it contains all the elements of why feminist city design is important. This event could have been avoided if:

• Bus services were more regular and more reliable. There was only 1 bus per hour - they missed their intended bus and so it was dark by the time they arrived at their stop.
• Crossing points were installed by bus stops. That's the norm in most cities I've visited - they are deliberately designed to make it easy to cross safely.
• Cities were designed to minimise the need to drive. The person who struck the child with their car was visually impaired and appeared to be intoxicated.
• Road speeds were calmed. Slower speeds result in fewer accidents.
• Public transport was encouraged across all classes. Apparently, none of the jurors on the case had ever taken a bus. One supposes they had little empathy with the defendant's situation.

And so on. All practical things which can be designed or retrofitted into the city.

I suppose I'm being so critical of this book because it has such a powerful and important message. We need to design cities (and everything else) to be as inclusive as possible.

The eBook of Feminist City is currently 40% off from Verso Books and I highly recommend it.

This Is What A Feminist Looks Like (AKA spot the odd one out)

The conference was inspiring, depressing, uplifting and infuriating in equal measures. That's probably a good thing. I'll briefly discuss some of the sessions I attended and also what I think the organisers could do better next year.

The Conference

Kate Smurthwaite expertly chaired proceedings and kept the event running to time.  Not an easy task with several hundred people to shepherd.  I found the talks by Beatrix Campbell and Susie Orbach very inspiring but was very conscious of the fact that many of the aspects of feminism they addressed did not directly affect me. There was no doubting the passion and ire that the speakers felt and they held the audience spell-bound. A few interesting titbits I picked up...

• Labiaplasty is being "aggressively" marketed to young women.  That's the surgical mutilation of the sex organs for cosmetic reasons.
• Plastic surgery in general is specifically targeting young women and girls.
• The rise of photoshopping models is creating a idealised body image which is literally impossible.
• In 2006 the US spent $56 billion on education - it spent $100 billion on diet industry.
• If dieting worked - you'd only have to do it once and the industry would go bankrupt.
• For more discussion on body-image issues - visit AnyBody.

At the back of the hall were a pictures of amusing subvertising - that is sexist adverts which had been defaced.

Somewhat Strident has a set of stickers that you can use to "accessorise" any sexist material you find.  Zazzle sell a "This is offensive to women" sticker which can be stuck on to any poster you find offensive.

"It's easy out here for a pimp" anti-porn slideshow

This was simple a slide show with a commentary - no time for Q&A.  It was also quite US focused.  The material was from Stop Porn Culture.

The first half was about the pornification of society - especially that targeted at children.  There were audible gasps of horror at the "Hooters Girl (In Training)" t-shirt.

Is this suitable for kids?

Then there was the superb juxtaposition of these album covers.  One from Tiffany the other from Shakira.  Both aiming at similar demographics but separated by 20 years.

Tiffany Album from 1987

Shakira Album Cover

The essential point was that children are being groomed to believe that they are merely sexual objects.  That the only way to happiness is hyper-masculinity - guns, girls, bling - for boys, or hyper femininity - guys, stripping, submissiveness - for girls.

The porn aspect - as in the deliberate watching of sex acts - only covered a small portion of the talk.  It covered contemporary attitudes to pornography among young people, such as

"From what you've said, it sounds like your relationship is fulfilling otherwise, so it might be best to keep his porn-watching in perspective and to try deal with the feelings that come up as a result of your recent discovery." Gurl.com  answer to "My Boyfriend's Into Porn"

And the way that pornography producers don't just try to feature younger and younger models - they also seek to attract a younger audience.

"[Playboy] knew that this would really appeal to the 20-something crowd," said Playboy spokeswoman Theresa Hennessey.

Given my former involvement with the porn industry, you will be unsurprised that I didn't agree with all the sentiments presented.  However, it's very clear from watching modern music videos that women are usually presented as little more than sex-objects and men as all-powerful beings who can control women.

It may even be said that groups like the Pussycat Dolls are little more that strippers marketed at children.

I don't think that we need to protect children from their own sexuality - nor should we seek to regulate consenting adults' sexual urges.  But I do find it very worrying how highly sexualised images are being used in the most mundane and inappropriate places.

What's Wrong With Prostitution?

I've never visited a prostitute.  I've never known anyone who has gone - or admitted going - to a prostitute.  My knowledge is, essentially, from Belle de Jour and Band of Gold.  Presented by Rebecca Mott, Anna Travers and Denise Marshall of the Poppy Project.  What I heard was distressing, uncomfortable and yet, somehow, filled with hope and optimism.

I've linked to their sites so you can read their words rather than my interpretation of them - but I'll summarise some of the points which came out of the Q&A.

• "Prostitution isn't the oldest profession - agriculture is."  Prostitution hasn't been going on for ever - it is not inevitable.
• "Do a privileged minority of women prostitute oppress the vast majority who don't want to be involved?"  There are a few, well educated women for whom prostitution is a choice.  But their voices tend to drown out the vast minority for whom it is abuse.  The case for prostitution is often skewed towards the minority at the incalculable expense of the majority.
• Prostitution is rape. It is rape on an industrial scale. Too many left leaning / liberal groups ignore the mental, physical & sexual abuse of prostitutes.  Instead they concentrate on the "liberty" to sell oneself.
• The GMB have a union section specifically for sex workers.  However, they allow pimps, brothel-keepers and other "abusers" to be member.
• "Prostitutes don't need a union because prostitution isn't a job - it's abuse"
• Prostitutes shouldn't be criminalised - paying for sex workers should be.
• When Sweden criminalised paying for sex, their was a massive drop off in prostitute numbers.
• New Zealand's legalised brothels have lead to a massive increase in trafficked women.

It's fair to say that this session did change my opinion.  I'd previously been fairly blasé about sex workers.  I'd assumed that it was a person's right to sell their body if they wished.  But the reality of the massive scale of abuse has lifted the scales from my eyes somewhat.

As Rebecca Mott said (and I paraphrase) "You can't say that women choose prostitution. If you'd asked me, I would have told you I entered prostitution as a free choice and that I really enjoyed it. It was only after I was free that I realised what terrible abuse I had been through."

Poverty and motherhood: How society undervalues women's work🔗

I'm not a mother and I have no intention of being one.  That didn't stop the final two sessions of the day being inspiring.

• Abi Moore from Pink Stinks was hugely entertaining and moving on the needs to prevent "pinkification" of women's culture.  You can hear her on Woman's Hour.
• "Early Learning Centre - teaching girls their place since 1974."  Specifically in relation to their stifling lack of choice in girls' fancy dress.
• The average age of a single mother giving birth is 31. Not, as the tabloids would have you believe, 14.
• Less than 2% of new single mothers are teenagers.
• "Women's rights do not come cheap - neither do women"
• "Liberation does not look like Gok Wan!"

A full list of all speeches is available.  The event was also videoed and, I hope, will be available later.

So, on to the inevitable critique of the day...

Organisation

This was one of the most well organised conferences that I've attended. Sessions ran to time, everyone was given a handout showing where and when each workshop would be, the PA was loud enough so everyone could hear. However, there were some traps that they - and many other organisers - fell into.

Queues

It's the nature of events that there will be queues - but there are actions you can take to mitigate your patrons' annoyance.

• Tell people which queue is which.  It's incredibly frustrating to get to the front of one queue only to be told you were in the wrong one and have to go to the back of another.
• A simple sign or a few volunteers is enough to ensure people know where they are supposed to be.
• Get everything done in one queue if possible.  Rather than queue for a meal ticket and then queue for lunch, consider integrating the two queues or selling tickets directly to those standing around.

Dissent

There was a noticeable lack of dissenting opinion.  I'm not talking about getting Richard Littlejohn in to abuse people, but having someone from Red Thread or the English Collective of Prostitutes in the prostitution section may have been interesting.

However, it wasn't billed as a debate - so it's a fairly minor quibble.

Audio Visual

I've never been to a conference where the AV equipment has worked flawlessly.  FiL was better than most in that not too long was spent fiddling with microphones.

• Make sure you have enough mics. If you don't, make sure your cables are long enough to reach all participants.
• Do a dry run so you know your slides work.
• Don't position anything between a projector and its screen unless you want to make shadow puppets.

Microphone Shadow

Payment

I was surprised that this was a paid-for event.  After attending several free conferences / BarCamps, it's temping to think that every event should be free.  Given that the hall was full to busting, it's obvious that a sub £5 ticket isn't a barrier for entry.

The event was sponsored by The Maypole Fund - although there was no overt sponsorship.  No schwag, banners, leaflets etc.  I wonder if getting a few more organisations to sponsor the even could have lowered the cost further or paid for lunch.

There were several stalls - such as those from The Fawcett Society and Pink Stinks - who were selling membership, books, giving out fliers.  I'm not suggesting that they should be charged for exhibiting - but I wonder if, say, a Fair Trade chocolate stall would have been able to help fund the event.

Conclusion

Feminism isn't dead.  It's not even resting.  It is a living force with thousands of millions of women and men pushing forward for equality.  We're in a better position than we were, but are a long way from where we want to be.

This is not what a post-feminist society looks like. Not yet.

Further Reading

• The F Word - Charlotte Cooper reports back from the capital's second Feminism in London conference
• Subtext Magazine - Laura from Subtext also reviews the event