A recent comment article in the Daily Mail struck me as just one of the many misguided views of the ongoing Ukraine crisis. Mr. Hitchens appears to be convinced that it is the EU which has acted aggressively, not Russia; on closer examination such arguments are not particularly convincing.

For one, there are plain factual errors. Mr. Hitchens writes that “since 1989, Moscow, the supposed aggressor, has – without fighting or losing a war – peacefully ceded control over roughly 180 million people, and roughly 700,000 square miles of valuable territory.”

Mr. Hitchens appears to be either forgetting that the Soviet Union did not simply decide to liberate its member states; it experienced a total economic collapse, leaving disintegration unavoidable.  

The word ‘peacefully’ is a surprising choice. Take the example of Chechnya; the Russian Federation fought two wars to prevent its independence– one of which it did lose, costing the lives of around 100,000 Chechnyan civilians according to human rights groups. Very peaceful indeed.

Other errors are rife. This is perhaps one of the few instances where conflating NATO and the EU is a mistake, given that the two have disagreed over the pace and scope of sanctions.

Stating that the EU wants Ukrainian wheat is a nice subtle way to accuse the EU of imperialism (going after a country’s natural resources is, after all,  commonly seen as one of the main reasons prompting imperialism), but is also a bit of an odd claim to make; the EU produces over seven times more wheat than Ukraine, and wheat is hardly one of the world’s most valuable commodities.

There is however a point to be made concerning the acquisition of resources. The current conflict area contains around fifty advanced Ukrainian arms factories which can produce weapons compatible with Russia standards and, before the crisis, helped supply that country’s military. One incident overlooked by Western media is how the ‘aid convoy’ sent by Russia this summer returned home carrying large quantities of factory equipment it had stolen from Eastern Ukraine.

However I am probably being too harsh on the writings of a single person, so it might be useful to consider the pro-Kremlin stance in general. Much is made out of the fact that the EU has supported the newly elected Kiev government (usually known by some combination of the words ‘fascist,’ ‘western’ and ‘Junta’ to those opposed).

Perhaps the best way to counter this is to compare the scale and method of foreign involvement. The Western world has largely declared open support for Kiev, has provided it with aid to avoid total economic bankruptcy, and has frequently considered arms sales to Ukraine.

Meanwhile Russian involvement in Ukraine includes tanks, hundreds of Russian ‘volunteer’ soldiers as well as intangible Russian aid such as training the rebels. While tanks are easy to spot, the presence of soldiers is harder to confirm, as, according to the BBC and various human rights organizations, the fallen Russians are buried in secret.

The Scottish comparison

Mr. Hitchens illustrates the EU’s presence with an example of Russian politicians appearing in Edinburgh to urge Scottish independence (presumably according to Mr. Hitchens both Scotland and Ukraine naturally ‘belong’ to England and Russia respectively, which enables the comparison to work).

The example can be built upon. Imagine that Scotland had voted for independence, but that the Shetland Islands had remained strongly against. A week after the referendum, English forces land in the Shetlands, remove the Scottish administration from there and forcibly pass a local referendum which annexes the Shetlands to England. The one pro-Scottish radio station on the island is silenced and its journalists are intimidated before the vote.

Encouraged by the Shetlands and financed by England, rebels in Dumfries and Galloway– a border area where the majority want to remain in the UK– rise up and throw out the Scottish administration. Worried about a pending disintegration of the country, Edinburgh (a.k.a. the ‘fascist Edinburgh junta’ by those who reject the referendum result) decides to send in soldiers to recover control of the area.

Following initial defeats the rebels are saved at the last minute by the miraculous appearance of tanks, military equipment and friendly ‘volunteers’ from the south of the border. After months of bitter fighting which leaves parts of southern Scotland devastated, a ceasefire is agreed under which English influence over Dumfries and Galloway is de facto recognized.

In the following year, despite the ceasefire, thousands more are displaced or killed as English backed forces continue their offensive, intended to cripple Scotland and thus destroy its legitimacy as a nation on the international stage. Eventually a full peace deal is negotiated, under which Dumfries and Galloway become an autonomous and quasi-independent part of Scotland. The road is now set for the area to be fully annexed by England in future.

Of course the above scenario would not have occurred had Scotland become independent, as it was clear all sides would respect the result. However it does provide a more functioning analogy to Ukraine than Mr. Hitchen’s one.

To be entirely fair on Mr. Hitchens, he does succeed in making one correct statement in his article. Mr. Hitchens is entirely right in saying that comparisons between Hitler and Putin made by “stupid, ill-informed people” are cheap clichéd ways to make President Putin seem more ‘evil,’ even if admittedly both share a common theme of nationalism, restoring a once-fallen Empire through military means and exploiting ethnic tensions to fulfil territorial goals, all while acting callously towards the democratic world.

It would have been nice had Mr. Hitchens also spoken out against those calling the Kiev government ‘fascists‘ and ‘Junta,’ — some kind of confused attempt to link the government with General Franco’s one during the Civil War.

That said Franco and the Kiev government do share one similarity, namely that they are both up against Russian troops and ‘volunteers.’

The original comment article by Peter Hitchens can be accessed here

Recently, Lou Burns was instructed to cover up while breastfeeding her baby in the Claridges restaurant in London. Soon after, Nigel Farage suggested that women should “do it in a corner”, stating, “It isn’t too difficult to breastfeed a baby in a way that is not openly ostentatious.” It almost sounds like Farage has some experience in this area. Maybe he should write a new book, ‘How to be a mother – the British way’. You never know, it could be a bestseller.

But I doubt it. Thankfully, women are not going to be ‘put in the corner’ by a white, privately-educated, former-banker cis-male who has about as much identification with women (or indeed any other underprivileged group) as a teaspoon. In response to the incident, a group of forty mums organised a ‘nurse in’ protest outside Claridges. One protestor, Clare Mariscal, carried a banner saying: “That’s what breasts are for, stupid.” As she pointed out, “No-one has any problem with breasts when they’re displayed in a dress. Boobs are everywhere – people only object when they are used for their normal and natural purpose.”

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG%%10722%%[/mm-hide-text]

The responses of Claridges and Farage are symbols of how patriarchal considerations of ‘appropriateness’ are used to control women’s freedom of action.

Why should you be offended or embarrassed by breastfeeding in public? Ironically, covering up with a napkin almost draws more attention to the fact that you are breastfeeding. It seems to me that the only answer is that breasts are portrayed in our culture almost exclusively as objects of sexual desire for the gaze of men. This is a blatant manifestation of patriarchy: female sexuality is deemed appropriate and acceptable only when viewed through a patriarchal lens – when within male control. Breasts are deemed ‘appropriate’ when women are being perceived as sex objects, but ‘inappropriate’ when women are acting as subjects – whether through breastfeeding, or expressing their own sexuality.

In other words, female sexuality is deemed ‘inappropriate’ whenever it smacks of female autonomy. Through an amendment to the 2003 Communications Act, the UK government recently banned a list of sexual acts in porn. It is interesting that this list of “content that is not acceptable” banned female ejaculation alongside strangulation and aggressive whipping. It is both baffling and enraging that female sexuality is demonised in this way.

I personally feel that porn is symptomatic of our dysfunctional and voyeuristic attitude to sex – in an ideal society, there would not be a need for it. But if it is going to be circulated, it should be fully representative of the sexual experiences of both women and men.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG%%10723%%[/mm-hide-text]

The legislation also banned facesitting in porn, to the outrage of many. Itziar Bilbao Urrutia, a dominatrix who produces porn with a feminist theme, asks: “I mean, why ban facesitting? … [because] its power is symbolic: woman on top, unattainable.”

Women’s sexuality has become a battleground.

Women’s freedom of action is constantly checked by considerations of patriarchal appropriateness; they must cover up when breastfeeding in public, and they must not ejaculate in pornography. In Chimamanda Adichi’s powerful words: “We say to girls ‘You can have ambition, but not too much. You should aim to be successful, but not too successful. Otherwise, you will threaten the man.’… We teach girls that they cannot be sexual beings in the way that boys are.” It seems we are also saying to women, “You can express your sexuality, but not too much. You can breastfeed in public, so long as you cover up. You can enjoy sex in porn, but not so much that you ejaculate.”

These incidents also demonstrate how our definition of what is ‘appropriate’ for women is filtered through other structural inequalities of class, race and heteronormativity. The idea that breasts are for lads’ mags, not five-star restaurants, relates not only to the division of men and women, but to the division of class. Pippa Middleton recently criticized Kim Kardashian for exposing her “booty” in the media, conveniently ignoring the fact that her fame was significantly furthered by the nation’s objectification of her own, ‘classy’, white-lace-and-silk-covered derrière.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG%%10724%%[/mm-hide-text]

Regarding  the structural inequality of race, famous women of colour are more prone to being regarded as ‘inappropriate’ in their expression of their sexuality. Beyoncé has attracted significantly more criticism for embracing her sexuality than Miley Cyrus, when both claim to be feminists. As Lauren Rankin argues: “When white women get to decide who is ‘feminist enough’, particularly around women of color, they are perpetuating racism. They are policing the boundaries of who is acceptable and who isn’t. This is nothing more than a tool of racist patriarchy wrapped in feminist rhetoric.” 

The structural oppression of heteronormativity also informs what we consider to be ‘inappropriate’; it creates a hierarchy in which heterosexual acts are privileged and elevated, while non-heterosexual acts are stigmatized and labelled ‘inappropriate’.

The fact that ‘appropriateness’ is filtered through these privileged assumptions shows that the struggle against the patriarchy has to be an intersectional movement – in other words, it has to address other related forms of oppression, such as class, race and heteronormativity.

The porn legislation effectively demonises the sexual activity of those without privilege – whether male, heterosexual or ‘vanilla’ privilege. Charlotte Rose says that it “certainly makes me wonder if this is all about white knight syndrome: blokes who don’t understand anything other than straight, lights out missionary position sex, believing they’re somehow doing the rest of us a favour by banning whatever grosses them out”.

We should stop this obsession with ‘appropriateness’ and focus on the bigger picture. All the time we spend bickering about whether Beyoncé is really a ‘better’ feminist than Emma Watson or Taylor Swift, or whether Pippa Middleton is a more respectable sex symbol than Kim Kardashian, we are getting more bogged down in patriarchal prejudices born of structural inequalities. Instead of applying the criteria of ‘appropriateness’ for admission into the field of ‘serious feminism’, we should be thinking about what an anti-patriarchal society would really look like. Such a society would surely be founded upon the principles of equality, freedom, and solidarity with those without ‘privilege’, rather than the demonization of these groups.

The fact that women are prevented from breastfeeding in public and ejaculating in pornography shows how the battle against the patriarchy is not over. The struggle against oppression calls for an intersectional movement against systems that elevate the privileged and label others as ‘deviant’ or ‘inappropriate’. If that movement is ‘inappropriate’ or ‘inconvenient’ for the privileged, then so much the better.

Lorna Finlayson recently argued in The Guardian for the need for state school colleges in Oxbridge. As a state school student myself, I felt patronised and belittled by her suggestion.

She talks of her concern for the disproportionately low number of students from “non-traditional” backgrounds, or, in other words, less advantaged backgrounds. I could not agree more. She also talks about busting stereotypes, but this is exactly what the introduction of state school only colleges would not do.

When it comes to the issue of access, statistics about background are often bandied about, such as the fact that 5% of students from private school went on to study at Oxbridge in 2011, as opposed to 1% from state school. However, when people cite these statistics, they often do not contextualise them with the fact that a much lower proportion of state-educated students apply. The problem is not that “private school students obtain higher grades,” but rather that state school students are not receiving enough support from their own schools to undergo the application process. I agree with Finlayson that action is necessary to shake the oppressive structures still present within the university, but I feel that creating a form of social segregation within the university would not achieve this. 

The argument that state school colleges are comparable to women-only colleges becomes redundant when we consider that the latter were only introduced because women had previously been banned altogether from enrolling at university. As sexual equality in education has gradually improved, sex-segregated colleges have mostly become co-educational. As a member of a former women-only college, I revel in the pride of being part of a progressive body, reflected by the college’s decision to embrace gender equality and to fight against sexual discrimination.

A move to women-only colleges would be a move back into the past. In the same way, the creation of state school colleges would be a step backwards for the University, serving only to reinforce the hierarchy that already exists. All too often I have been the brunt of comments such as, “Oh, you’re from state school? It must have been easier for you to get in then, they favour state-schoolers,” or belittled by notions of us being “less intelligent” than our private-school counterparts. Creating a college where only state-schoolers can apply would simply seem to prove that right.

One of the most exciting parts of coming to university, for me, has been meeting people I never normally would have: those from worse-off backgrounds than my own as well as, yes, those famous Etonians discussed by Finlayson. And, indeed, some of them do live up to the stereotype. But to create a divide between state and private school pupils would simply deny us the opportunity to prove them wrong, and deny both of us the opportunity to make friends with those we otherwise might have dismissed as clones of our own stereotypes.

Finlayson talks of a continued division and inequality between state and private school students, and condemns the society to which it belongs. It is not this that I disagree with. In fact, I do feel keenly at times this state/private division in Oxford, although due less to antagonism, I believe, than to lack of shared experience. However, further entrenching this division by the introduction of separate colleges would only support the stereotypes of there being any distinction at all. So please stop patronising state school students. We are just as capable as our private school counterparts, and we do not need to be told otherwise.