This is the text of the speech I delivered last night at the Cambridge Reclaim the Night rally in King’s Chapel:

Good evening everyone; and can I just congratulate Ruth and the organisers for yet another great turnout. As some of you may remember, I came and spoke at the anti-Strauss-Kahn event, and there was a really impressive turnout for that one as well.

Speaking of which, I take it you’ve all heard the latest about the eminent former International Monetary Fund chief? I take it you’ve all heard that not only has his claim for diplomatic immunity over the alleged sexual assault of Nafissatou Diallo in New York been rejected so the civil case can now proceed to trial; not only is he also currently under investigation for “aggravated pimping in an organised gang”, but he could also now be facing gang rape charges after an escort alleged that he, along with three other men, held her down and anally raped her in a Washington hotel in December 2010.

At the risk of repeating myself, I’d just like to reiterate what I said the last time I was here – shame on the Cambridge Union for trying to make a name for themselves off the back of Strauss-Kahn’s notoriety; and shame on them for ever thinking it was okay to invite such a violent misogynist to address young people at one of this country’s most prestigious universities.

Having said all that though, there is at least one good thing that came out of Strauss-Kahn’s appearance here, and that’s the speak-out that took place during the evening protest, and that’s prompted the new Cambridge Speaks Out website that’s gone live tonight. A website that I’m sure is going to prove to be a valuable resource, along with Cambridge Rape Crisis, for survivors of rape and sexual violence in this city.

Talking of speak-outs, I also work for a Rape Crisis centre – Suffolk Rape Crisis in Ipswich – and I was doing some research into the history of the rape crisis movement recently when I came across this passage that I just want to read to you:

“Rape, as an issue, did not arise because certain feminist leaders viewed it as ‘the issue’ nor did it arise because it was a designated topic on a consciousness-raising list. Instead, rape became an issue when women began to compare their experiences as children, teenagers, students, workers, and wives, and to realise that sexual assault, in one form or another, was common.

Conditioned to believe that the rapist was sick and a social aberration, while at the same time held accountable for attracting and precipitating the sexual violence we often experienced, many women repressed their memories of rape. It was either an incident unrelated to their ‘normal’ lives as women or a situation they had let ‘get out of hand.’ In her first sessions of consciousness-raising a woman would ‘admit’ that she had been a ‘seductive child’ or that she had made the ‘mistake’ of drinking too heavily at a party or that she must have given her date ‘the wrong idea.’ But as women compared their experiences they began to come to some understanding of the anger they had kept hidden even from themselves. The pattern that emerged from their individual experiences was not a common pattern of assault – some had been brutally raped by a stranger while others had been assaulted by a lover – but a common pattern of responses that they encountered – ‘you’re lying’ ‘it was your fault’ ‘you should have been more careful’ ‘you’re exaggerating.’ Through the process of consciousness-raising, women moved on from the discovery that sexual assault was not just an individual and unique experience, to the realisation that rape, as an issue, was a means of analysing the psychological and political structures of oppression in our society.”

So, “You’re lying”, “it was your fault” “you should have been more careful”. How familiar do those kinds of accusations sound? These are victim blaming responses that could well have been written today. In fact anyone who’s picked up a newspaper in the last few weeks will probably have seen statements similar to these levelled at women and girls who have been raped and sexually assaulted recently, whether that’s in Rochdale at the hands of a gang of predatory male abusers, or in a hotel room with some of the so-called stars of the footballing world.

And yet the passage I’ve just read out was written in the early 1970s. It was written some 40 years ago. It comes from a book by the New York Radical Feminists called Rape: the First Sourcebook for Women, a book that came out of some of the very first rape speak-outs, which were organised by them from January 1971 onwards.

It just goes to show how little has changed when it comes to attitudes around rape and sexual violence, and how much work we still have to do.

But it also goes to show not only the importance of women speaking out about the sexual violence that is still endemic in our society, but how the work you’re doing here in Cambridge is part of a long feminist tradition, a tradition of consciousness-raising and women’s empowerment; of helping women to name the abuses that have been perpetrated against them, and then making the links between those abuses and the wider oppression of women and girls across the world.

And of course Reclaim the Night is also a part of that same tradition.

Did any of you see BBC’s Question Time last night? Well for those who missed it it provided a perfect example of precisely why events like Reclaim the Night are still so important and so necessary. Because when the discussion moved to the recent case in Rochdale, where young girls were groomed and raped by a group of much older male sexual predators, the very attitudes that we’ve been protesting about tonight didn’t take long to come out at all.

Much of the discussion centred not on the perpetrators of the horrendous abuse, not on those who have been tried and found guilty of crimes of rape, sexual assault, and trafficking, but on what the young victims were doing out at that time of night and what they might have been wearing. A vicar in the audience even said, and I quote:

“Children are guided by peripheral ideologies and interests, where they feel it is appropriate, at 13, to go out – forgive me for saying this – I’m not saying the victims in this case did that – but it seems prevalent on the streets in the area – where they go out dressed as if they are looking for that sort of issue to take place. They don’t give themselves the privilege of growing up any more.”

Seriously, that’s what he said, and he wasn’t the only the one to articulate victim blaming views like that. People talked about locking young women indoors after 7 o’clock at night, of curfewing them; they talked about the need to instil in girls the right values and instincts to keep themselves safe, and the journalist Peter Oborne asked “Why were these girls so vulnerable? Why were they so ready to surrender that innocence for a bag of crisps?”

And it’s not just on Question Time but in the rest of the mainstream media where the main focus this week has been on whether race or culture played an issue in the Rochdale case. Apparently race has been the elephant in the room, the thing no one has dared talk about in all this. And yet while everyone’s been busy talking about this thing that they apparently can’t talk about, the biggest elephant the room has ever held has been sat there all along.

And that’s gender.

Because while rape and sexual violence aren’t race issues, they most definitely are a gender issue. It was men who preyed on and groomed the young girls in Rochdale; it’s men who rape women and girls with seeming impunity in this country, and it’s men who must be held responsible for the street harassment and the crimes of sexual violence they perpetrate, not the women and girls who are the victims of those crimes.

So thank you for taking part tonight, and thank you for helping to challenge the rape myths and the victim blaming that are sadly still with us despite the last 40 years or more of feminist campaigning.

The Rape Crisis National Freephone Helpline is open from 12-2.30pm & 7-9.30pm every day of the year: you can call them on 0808 802 9999

This time last year I was convinced Cameron’s shitty attitude towards others was a simple case of sexism, as he appeared to treat female MPs with even less respect and more disdain than he treated others. But after his embarrassing performance today, I’m starting to think there’s more to it than that.

What I initially saw as Cameron’s sexism was especially evident when he told Angela Eagle to “calm down dear” during prime minister’s questions in April 2011, and it was also on display last Autumn when he told Nadine Dorries, again during prime minister’s questions, that he understood she was ‘frustrated.’ Indeed, Cameron resisted the urge to end that sentence with a “nudge nudge wink wink say no more”, but the guffawing from those around him helped to ensure the point was made. And yes, much as it pained me to do so I did stick up for Dorries on that occasion, and I would again if she were subjected to similarly boorish and sexist behaviour from the PM, or from anyone else for that matter.

Then during last week’s PMQs Cameron patronisingly commented “well read” to another female MP who dared to ask him a question, leading even more people to wonder what exactly his problem is with independent, outspoken women.

Today however Cameron showed that it’s not necessarily just women he’s got an issue with, it’s actually anyone who doesn’t agree with his world view. And before anyone says “but that’s politics Cath, and surely something you must be used to as a trade unionist”, it’s not the fact that he disagrees with people that I think is the problem, but the way he goes about it.

During today’s urgent statement on the Jeremy Hunt situation for example, Dennis Skinner made a perfectly valid point: why is the culture secretary getting better employment rights than the rest of the working population? And what was Cameron’s intelligent and considered response to this?

“well, the honourable gentleman has the right, at any time, to take his pension and I advise him to do so.”

Honestly, that was the response from the Prime Minister of this country to a democratically elected MP.

There are some who are now branding Cameron ageist as well as sexist, and others who are pointing out that there’s a class thing going on on top of that. John Prescott in particular Tweeted earlier that “Cameron’s arrogant treatment of Dennis Skinner & Margaret Hodge proved class IS an issue in politics” – managing to beat me to the obvious punchline in the process:

Cameron's arrogant treatment of Dennis Skinner & Margaret Hodge proved class IS an issue in politics. Cameron showed he has none—
John Prescott (@johnprescott) April 30, 2012

I think Prescott’s got a point. Cameron’s sense of entitlement, a sense of entitlement incidentally that you rarely see from those brought up without privilege and from those who didn’t attend the so-called top public schools, is now so evident and in your face he’s fast becoming an embarrassment. And I think he’s becoming an embarrassment not just to the Tories but to the country at large.

This man is meant to be our Prime Minister; he’s also meant to be our representative on the international stage. And I don’t know about you, but every time he appears anywhere now I cringe, wondering what on earth he’s going to do or say next: and more importantly, wondering how long it’s going to be before he loses his temper and turns into red-faced shouty man yet again.

And personally I think we all deserve better. Believe it or not, I actually think the Tories deserve better too.

Last Friday Wales and Sheffield United striker Ched Evans was convicted of rape and given a five year sentence. By Sunday lunchtime the hashtag #justiceforched had started trending on Twitter, and not only had the victim in the case been subjected to some of the most heinous misogynist abuse imaginable, she’d also, in complete contempt of UK law which grants lifetime anonymity for rape survivors, been publicly named.

A quick glance through the hashtag feed (if you can stomach it) shows how rape culture is alive and well  in this country. It also shows how completely ignorant so many people are of the laws on rape, specifically the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and the statutory definition of consent that’s contained within it:

“Section 74 defines consent as “if s/he agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice”.

The CPS provides this legal guidance on the issue of consent:

• The 2003 Act provides a clear definition of ‘consent’ for the purposes of the law of rape, and by defining it with reference to “capacity to make that choice”, it sufficiently addresses the issue of consent in the context of voluntary consumption of alcohol by the complainant;
• If, through drink (or for any other reason) the complainant has temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have intercourse on the relevant occasion, she is not consenting, and subject to questions about the defendant’s state of mind, if intercourse takes place, this would be rape.”

So, it couldn’t really be much clearer could it: if a woman is too drunk to consent to sex, then any intercourse that takes place is rape.

Sadly though, I suspect that even if we printed the legal definition of consent and the CPS guidance in sodding great neon letters and posted it on every billboard in the country, we’d still see a significant proportion of people claiming that a drunken victim of rape is simply a “slag”, and was “asking for” everything she got. Because despite all the hard work that’s going into dispelling rape myths such as this one – the one that says that women somehow “provoke” rape by their appearance or their behaviour, myths like these still prevail.

It never ceases to amaze me whenever I write about this subject how so many people are quick to jump in to try and deny the prevalence of these rape myths, or to deny that we do in fact live in a rape culture. Feminist writers are frequently accused of exaggerating the problem by discussing rape and sexual violence in such terms, or else we’re accused of putting women off from reporting rape and sexual violence by painting a wholly unrealistic picture of the reception they can expect to receive if they are brave enough to attempt to report the crimes perpetrated against them.

Well try telling that to the victim in the Ched Evans case, or to the women in the Assange case. Try telling that to Nafissatou Diallo, or to a host of other women who have taken just that step only to find themselves slut shamed and vilified, not only on social networking sites like Twitter, but in the mainstream media and in courtrooms the whole world over.

Because if anything is putting women off from reporting, if anything is making them think twice about seeking justice, it’s not feminists doing it, it’s the reception they see other women get when they try to do the same.

Ched Evans is now a convicted rapist, and yet he’s being bombed with messages of sympathy and support. His victim meanwhile is facing opprobrium and hate, for no other reason than she’s a woman who dared to try and seek justice for a crime that was committed against her.

There’s got to be something seriously wrong in our culture when the response to a crime can become so twisted in this way. And there’s got to be more that can be done to ensure not just that survivors seeking justice get all the support and help they need, but that anonymity for rape survivors means just that.

@stfumisogynists has documented a lot of the Twitter response to this case on the Little Tweets of Misogyny Tumblr (Trigger warning!)

The Rape Crisis National Freephone Helpline is open from 12-2.30pm & 7-9.30pm every day of the year: you can call them on 0808 802 9999

I realise it’s nowhere near as important or as newsworthy as the London mayoral race, but I too have been involved in an election recently, and guess what? I won!

Yep, I am now the Regional Convenor for UNISON Eastern region.

I’ve been trying to find an explanation of what the post is, because I suspect the title Regional Convenor is probably pretty meaningless to anyone outside of the trade union movement. The best I could come up with is this, from what I suspect is now an out of date UNISON document entitled Partnership working at Regional Level – A Best Practice Guide:

Key tasks of regional convenor

The regional convenor is elected by regional council delegates and is the senior lay member at regional level [Rule F 4.4.6]. The regional convenor usually chairs regional council and regional committee meetings.

Tasks relating to the office of regional convenor include:

• ensuring development and maintenance of strong and flexible branch structures including supervising allocation of regional pool
• monitoring deployment of resources allocated to the region to ensure that UNISON objectives are being effectively pursued
• implementation of national policies and campaign strategies, in particular, recruitment
• liaison with region’s NEC representatives
• supporting union communications and lay member education provision at regional level
• liaison with self organised groups, retired members and young members
• consulting with, and representing the union on, external bodies in relation to economic, political and social issues in accordance with Democracy in UNISON guidelines and devolution protocol
• participating in the regional convenors’ group at national level
• in partnership with the regional secretary, ensuring effective lay governance via regional council and other lay member democratic structures within the region.

Anyway, dry and dull though some of that might sound, it’s a pretty big deal (well it is for me at least) and I’m dead chuffed and honoured to have been elected.

One thing I’ve already learnt about the role is that it involves having to read through a hell of a lot of paperwork. This is what came through the post the other day for example, for a meeting I’m going to next week:

A folder full of papers for just one meeting! So much paperwork in fact it’s being held together with big metal springy things! (seriously, I’m a stationery geek but I don’t even know what this type of folder is called.)

And yes, I have covered up the super secret important contents of the folder. You won’t catch me out that easily giving away top secret internal UNISON documents. I wouldn’t want to risk Priti Patel or someone equally ignorant of the union’s political fund rules catching sight of the memo on how to ensure the continuation of our audacious scheme to coerce members into paying a political levy now would I? (insert tongue in cheek smiley here, just in case anyone actually takes that bit seriously)

What it basically all means is that I’m going to be spectacularly busy over the next 12 months or so doing that thing I do of defending workers’ rights, only more so. So, stand by for an increase in political/trade uniony type blog posts from me.

Oh and by the way, (shameless UNISON plug warning!) if you’re not a UNISON member yet but you work in one of the sectors that UNISON covers, look – you can even join online now.

Randeep Ramesh just described me as anti choice in the Guardian. In the style of Boris, you are a liar Randeep and a disgrace to journalism—
Nadine Dorries MP (@NadineDorriesMP) April 04, 2012

Very anti post 20 weeks, very anti gender selection abortion, very anti illegal abortion, but I am not anti choice.
#guardianemploysliars—
Nadine Dorries MP (@NadineDorriesMP) April 04, 2012

@NadineDorriesMP So are you saying you support abortion up to 20 weeks?—
  (@CathElliott) April 04, 2012

@CathElliott I will never, ever, attempt to restrict abortion below 20 weeks EVER. You work for a paper which repetitively prints lies—
Nadine Dorries MP (@NadineDorriesMP) April 04, 2012

@CathElliott And worse than that, you work for a paper which attempts to distort the work of elected MPs in Parliament printing lies—
Nadine Dorries MP (@NadineDorriesMP) April 04, 2012

@CathElliott If abortion ever were to be reduced below 20 weeks, it won't be me who does it.—
Nadine Dorries MP (@NadineDorriesMP) April 04, 2012

@CathElliott I prefer the European standard of 13 weeks and am impressed with how they do it – but I wldnt attempt to introduce that here—
Nadine Dorries MP (@NadineDorriesMP) April 04, 2012

@NadineDorriesMP Is that because you know you'll never win that argument though, or because you recognise it's anti-woman and wrong…..—
  (@CathElliott) April 04, 2012

@CathElliott Actually, because it's something I won't do or address in my role as an MP, my personal opinion can't be explained on here howe—
Nadine Dorries MP (@NadineDorriesMP) April 04, 2012

@CathElliott however, happy to discuss with you any time.You may find there is more we agree on than disagree. Your paper = lying disgrace—
Nadine Dorries MP (@NadineDorriesMP) April 04, 2012

@NadineDorriesMP Happy to discuss with you too. I'll be in touch, thanks.—
  (@CathElliott) April 04, 2012

And yes, I do have a remarkable ability sometimes to remain calm and respectful – perhaps I should think about going into politics (or not!).

But anyway, during that exchange someone pointed out this piece from the Mail in 2008 – As a young nurse, Nadine witnessed the horror of late abortions. Now an MP, she says the law MUST be changed:

“While she is campaigning for a 20-week limit now, Dorries would ideally like to see the limit reduced to the European level of 13 weeks. Recently, she watched an abortion at 19 weeks in a North London hospital.

“A baby aborted at 19 weeks is given a lethal injection into the heart. It is the most scary and unbelievably horrible thing to experience. This is Death Row.”

Which is fair enough, in that it still doesn’t contradict what she said in her tweets. Dorries says in that Mail interview that her ideal would be to see the abortion time limit reduced to 13 weeks, but she doesn’t say that she has any intention of campaigning for it herself.

But then this morning Unity posted this little gem on Twitter:

FFS, Is #Dorries still trying to peddle her '20 weeks' bullshit? She must have forgotten this yfrog.com/obk5pvfj—
Unity (@Unity_MoT) April 06, 2012

And here’s the full quote:

“You are right about one thing. I do want to go lower than 20 weeks.”

A statement that really doesn’t fit with this one:

“I will never, ever, attempt to restrict abortion below 20 weeks EVER.”

Confused? Yes, I do believe she is. And she’s not the only one…

Here are some pictures I took to mark the occasion. See if you can spot the glaring difference between them and us.

Praying at the shrine of the box of plastic foetuses

Put all the women at the front so it looks like there’s more of them…

Men who will never have to face the prospect of an unwanted pregnancy

More men who will never get pregnant.

“Woman not a womb”

“Women’s bodies women’s lives”

“Our bodies our lives our right to decide”

“Protect women’s right to choose”

Women standing up for women.

Men praying to their male gods

Click those beads all you like, we’re still going to win this one.

For more pictures and some ace videos of the protest go to

HarpyMarx – A woman’s right to choose….

Kate Belgrave – Pro choice demonstration, central London March 30

Unfortunately I can’t go to this, but it looks great, and now the organisers are offering a really good deal for readers of this blog:

“On Monday 26th of March 2012 for one night only, a performance of “A Memory, A Monologue, A Rant and A Prayer”  (based on the book of the same title) will be staged at The Lyric Theater in London.  The performance is produced exclusively to raise money for charity, where 100% of the proceeds will go to organisations helping to aid women and girls affected by violence.

Tony award winning playwright Eve Ensler (author of “The Vagina Monologues”) edited and authored this powerful collection of writings.  She along with talented performers and artists are donating their time and talents to this great cause.  Other confirmed artist include, Rosario Dawson, Neneh Cherry, Trudie Styler and Meera Syal MBE.   These talent women will be performing pieces to inform the audience about how violence against women affect everyone.  Furthermore we are delighted that Chris Dercon (Tate Modern), Iwona Blazwick OBE (Whitechapel Gallery) and Sue Dunderdale (RADA) are some of the directors engaged so far – it promises to be a fabulous combination of art meets theatre.

Following the performance there will be a Cast After Party, in which Premium ticket are also invited to attend this special event.  100% of the proceeds from the ticket sales will be donated to Women for Women, V-Day and Domestic Violence Intervention Project who all do incredible work in support of women impacted by violence.  Furthermore all proceeds from the ticket sales will be tripled thanks to the generous support of Goldman Sachs Gives and The Millby Trust.  Everyone involved with this project are volunteering their time, no-one is paid.“

And here’s the deal:

We are exclusively offering you our PROMOTIONAL CODE, valid from Wednesday 14th UNTIL SUNDAY 18th, to snap up tickets FOR ONLY TWENTY POUNDS!!!!!!! 

Please phone 0844 482 9674 and quote STUDENT OFFER to claim your discount, with no booking fee! (or go online and use promo code: VDAYSTUDENT, £2 booking fee applies)

As you’re no doubt aware, Mumsnet launched their rape awareness campaign yesterday – We Believe You

I’ll be blogging more on the campaign later, but I just wanted to highlight one of the Twitter hashtags that has already come out as a result of the Mumsnet launch -#ididnotreport.

This hashtag came about because so many of those who responded to the Mumsnet survey on rape and sexual assault revealed that they did not report the crimes perpetrated against them. In fact I think the percentage of those who didn’t report pretty much tallies with what we already know about the reporting of rape and sexual violence – something like 40% of adult women who are raped never tell anyone about it, and 31% of children who are abused reach adulthood without having disclosed their abuse.

Anyway, Mark Malone (@soundmigration) has now archived the tweets so they can all be read in one place – #ididnotreport archive.

There are hundreds of tweets there, because yesterday afternoon and last night hundreds of people decided it was finally time to speak out about their experiences of rape and sexual violence. Many thanks to all those who took part, and much love to all those who wanted to but still couldn’t.

And obviously please be aware if you’re going to read through the tweets that the thread can be triggering.

The Rape Crisis National Freephone Helpline is open from 12-2.30pm & 7-9.30pm every day of the year: you can call them on 0808 802 9999

Here’s my speech from Cambridge uni this afternoon. I was invited to speak along with Douglas Wigdor, Nafissatou Diallo’s attorney, following the Cambridge Union’s decision to invite Dominique Strauss-Kahn to speak this evening.

Good afternoon, and can I just start by saying thank you to the organisers for inviting me to speak this afternoon (and also a huge thank you to Douglas for coming all this way to contribute to today’s event).

I’ll just give you a very brief background on myself, on who I am and why I’m here. My name’s Cath Elliott, and as Ruth said in her introduction, I’m a freelance writer and blogger and a trade union activist. I’m a UNISON activist, and I’m chair of UNISON’s Regional Women’s Committee. I write (occasionally) for the Guardian’s Comment is Free site, for a site called Liberal Conspiracy, and I also write and edit my own blog site – too much to say for myself.com.

What some of you may not be aware of is that on top of all this I also work in a Rape Crisis Centre. I work for Suffolk Rape Crisis, and I’ve been involved in the women’s voluntary sector for a number of years now in various different guises: as a staunch advocate for specialist women’s services for example, as a campaigner, a protestor, and obviously as a feminist writer on issues around rape and other crimes of violence against women and girls.

So that’s me.

Now I want to kick off by making clear that I absolutely share your anger and disgust – anger that’s quite palpable in this room, and that we’ll no doubt see and hear more of as the day progresses and at the protest later – I share your anger and disgust at the Cambridge Union’s decision to invite Dominique Strauss-Kahn here today, as do many many more people up and down the country; some of whom have managed to make it here to this event, but many of whom unfortunately couldn’t.

I think like a lot of people, when the news first broke that Strauss-Kahn had been invited to address Cambridge University students, when the news broke that he’d not only been invited, but had accepted an invitation to address young people at one of the country’s most prestigious universities, I honestly thought it was some kind of sick joke.

But sadly it wasn’t.

And I really don’t care what excuses the union and others make about free speech, or about this being a long-standing invitation that Strauss-Kahn has only just now been able to accept because of the sudden and unexpected large gaps in his diary, the very fact that he was invited, and the fact that he’s here addressing students today, is nothing less than an insult. It’s an insult to women; it’s an insult to survivors of rape and sexual violence, and it’s also an insult to anyone and everyone who is concerned about what is going on in this country. By which I mean those who are concerned about rape culture, and about the violence against women and girls that is now endemic in our society.

And when I talk about rape culture I’m not just talking about things like UniLad and the so-called ‘rape joke’ Facebook pages that seem to be proliferating just lately – although they obviously have a significant role to play in feeding this misogynist culture – I’m also talking about rape myths; the rape myths that still predominate both here and in the US, and that played a part in the flawed decision to drop charges against Strauss-Kahn for the (alleged) rape of Nafissatou Diallo in a New York hotel room last year.

The myths that have become so deeply embedded in British society that in survey after survey after survey, a significant proportion of respondents have had no hesitation in claiming them as fact, and that are so endemic and so entrenched  in the national psyche that they even find their way into our court rooms, influencing both juries and judges alike.

Rape myths such as the one that says that women lie about being raped; that says that women falsely accuse men of rape out of some twisted desire to destroy men’s lives, and that then gives the impression, with the help of the Daily Mail and other red top tabloids, that the country is full of so-called ‘rape liars’ and false rape accusers. When in fact the reality, as we know, is that there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that more women falsely accuse men of rape than anyone else falsely accuses anyone of any other crime.

Then there’s the myth that says that when a woman is dressed provocatively she’s “asking for it,” or the one that says that if she gets drunk it’s her own fault if some sexual predator comes along and ‘takes advantage’ of her: the myth that says that inebriated women or women who’ve taken drugs or who’ve partied ‘too hard’ are somehow responsible for their own rapes and the sex crimes committed against them.

Rape myths: the tired arguments that are constantly used against us irresponsible and feckless women when we choose to dress “provocatively” or when we dare to walk around unchaperoned after dark; arguments that are used against any woman who’s ever been raped or sexually assaulted and who hasn’t been able to prove to the world or to the courts that she’s led a totally blame-free and virginal life.

Rape and sexual violence are endemic in this country and across the world: and they’re endemic partly because our rape culture gives men the message that when a women says no she means yes, and that when she’s wearing ‘revealing’ clothes or she’s pissed she’s actually ‘asking for it’ or ‘up for it’ or whatever other crass phraseology you want to use.

Just as an example of what we’re talking about, a poll for Amnesty in 2005 found that:

- a third of people believe women who flirt are partially responsible for being raped

- a quarter of those asked said that they thought a women was partially or totally responsible for being raped if she was wearing sexy or revealing clothing

- more than one in five (22%) held the same view if a woman has many sexual partners

- around one in 12 people (8%) believed that a woman was totally responsible for being raped if she has many sexual partners

- more than a quarter of people (30%) said that a woman was partially or totally responsible for being raped if she was drunk

- more than a third (37%) held the same view if the woman had failed to clearly say “no” to the man.

Let’s face it, if you’re a woman, and you’re one of the nearly 14,000 women a year in this country who’s brave enough to report a sex crime committed against you, someone, somewhere, will find a reason to argue that it was all your fault.

But people still wonder why tens of thousands of women choose not to report.

And yet we know there are many reasons for their reluctance to report. Some women bury the abuse and get on with their lives, only for memories to resurface many years later. For other women the stigma of sexual violence and the fear of having to relive the assault in court are too much for them to deal with. And for many women, the historic and widespread failure of the police to take rape victims seriously, and to treat them with dignity and respect, means that the criminal justice system is the last place they’ll ever think of going to for help.

And while rape myths still abound, and while it is still the victims being put on trial for the clothes they wear, the amount they drink, or for failing to live wholly chaste and innocent lives, few women will have the confidence to seek the justice they deserve.

So, it’s time to put an end to the myths that stop so many women from coming forward, and it’s time we stopped telling women constantly that whatever’s happened to them, at the end of the day if they weren’t dressed in a burka and sipping soft drinks when they were assaulted, they’ve only themselves to blame.

A woman has the right to say no whatever state she’s in, however she’s dressed, and no matter what her relationship or previous sexual experience with her assailant.

And if he can’t take no for an answer, or if he carries on regardless without checking for consent first, then the blame lies solely with him. It’s not her fault.

When a woman dresses in a low-cut top or a skirt that barely covers her backside: that’s not an invitation to rape her. When she has had a few too many to drink: that’s not an invitation to rape her. When a woman is in a relationship with a man: that’s not an invitation for him to rape her. And if a woman has already engaged in some form of intimacy with a man, again, that is not an invitation for him to rape her. And if a woman is cleaning your hotel room: that is not an invitation to rape her.

Women are not responsible for the crimes of sexual violence committed against them. The only people responsible for that are those who perpetrate these horrendous crimes.

And what about the perpetrators? While all this victim blaming and stigmatising is going on for the survivors of rape and sexual violence, what about the perpetrators of these crimes? How does our rape culture deal with their aberrant and criminal behaviour?

Well take this for an example. This is from an article that appeared on the website Salon.com in July 2011. It’s from a piece by Roy Black, the lawyer “best known for his successful defense of William Kennedy Smith on rape charges” and it’s entitled “Why we should protect those accused of rape“, in which the author attempts to argue the case for anonymity for defendants in rape cases.

Here are just a few choice quotes:

Here’s Roy Black talking about Strauss-Kahn:

“We did all we could to make a public spectacle of him. Dragged him off his Paris flight; interrogated him all night to look suitably haggard; paraded him, handcuffed between two beefy cops, through a scrum of tabloid cameras; then plastered the seedy photographs worldwide. He was hounded out of his apartment; shuttled from place to place like nuclear waste; an electronic nanny clamped on his ankle and suffered the ignominy of paying $200,000 a month for his own prison guards. We are relentless at public shaming and humiliation.”

Seriously, just let that last sentence sink in for a minute – We are relentless at public shaming and humiliation - and then remember: he’s talking here about men accused of rape, not about the victims and survivors of rape and other crimes of sexual violence…

He goes on:

“This type of abuse is routinely suffered by lesser-known rape defendants. They are terrorized by the media circus, and turned into carnival freaks. Unruly crowds rally in front of their home. They are followed, spat on, chased through the streets, forced to move, lose their sanity and some even commit suicide to end the abuse. They are the new victims of modern technology: Google, Twitter, Facebook and cable news.”

It makes your heart bleed doesn’t it?

No. Thought not. Mine neither.

And then there’s Whoopi Goldberg’s now infamous comment on the child rapist Roman Polanski:

“I know it wasn’t rape-rape. It was something else but I don’t believe it was rape-rape.”

And then of course there’s Julian Assange. Brave defender of free speech and civil liberties and exposer of corruption and dirty dealings right up to the highest levels of our national governments. Assange, the latest cause celebre of liberal left men the world over, surrounded by sycophants and media darlings, all of whom have shown themselves ready to sell out women at the drop of a hat and do whatever it takes to defend their latest poster boy.

Meanwhile, the (alleged) victims of his (alleged) crimes have been named and  shamed on the Internet, and accused of everything from having some kind of hidden agenda, to being CIA stooges involved in a plot to bring the great man down.

Survivors of rape and sexual violence who dare to speak out or who dare to seek justice are vilified, by the police, by prosecutors, by the media, and by wider society, and yet in the vast majority of cases the men who actually commit these crimes are given a free pass, or else, as is certainly the case for the famous and privileged, they’re lauded by their peers and instantly forgiven.

Polanski, Assange, Strauss-Kahn, Mike Tyson, there’s an endless list of men like these who, despite being accused and in some cases convicted of crimes of violence against women, have not only got off relatively scot free, they’ve been able, or should I say enabled, to rehabilitate their tarnished reputations, pick up their careers, and carry on pretty much as if nothing has ever happened.

And that’s what’s happening here today.

Strauss-Kahn should be hanging his head in shame. Instead he’s being paraded like a hero while some of this country’s elite students are hanging on his coat-tails and using his notoriety to try and make a name for themselves.

Well shame on him and shame on them.

And shame on the Cambridge Union.

Thank you.

This is the text of a speech I delivered today as part of Warwick University’s International Women’s Week. The event was also live blogged on the Student Journals site – here.

Hello, and many thanks to the organisers for inviting me to speak at this event. I hope you have a really successful International Women’s Week.

Okay, let’s have a look at some statistics.

I’ll start with Westminster.

According to the most recent figures from Fawcett, men now outnumber women 4 to 1 in Westminster. In fact only 22% of MPs are women, 22% of peers are women, and 17% (20 out of 119) of government ministers are women.

In local politics, while 31% of elected councillors are women, only 13% of local authority leaders are women.

As far as the media goes, there are only 2 female editors of national newspapers in this country and, according to a recent piece of research carried out for the Guardian, 78% of newspaper articles are written by men; 72% of BBC Question Time contributors are men, and 84% of reporters and guests on Radio 4′s Today programme are men.

Women make up a majority of full-time teachers, but only just over a third of secondary school heads are women.

Only 15% of high court judges are women, and there’s only one female supreme high court judge.

Only 22% of senior managers are women. And while women are estimated to be responsible for about 70% of household purchasing power, while they make up 46% of the economically active workforce and over half of all university graduates, their average representation in the business world stands at 10.2%. Only 14.2% of directors on FTSE 100 boards are women.

And that’s it for the statistics. But I do think it’s important to hear them because it’s only when we examine the numbers like that that we get a really clear picture of how things stand.

And how do they stand?

Well, there are only two logical conclusions that can be drawn from such staggering differences between men’s and women’s representation on the highest rungs of just about every career ladder out there. Either women are just really really crap at their chosen careers, or there’s something else going on that’s preventing them from getting to the top.

And my experience tells me that women are not really really crap.

But don’t just take my word for it. Did you know for instance that companies with women on their boards have been found to outperform their rivals with a 42% higher return in sales (oops, statistics again, sorry), a 66% higher return in invested capital, and a 53% higher return on equity?

Women are good for business. Women are good for employers.

Sadly though it doesn’t work the other way. Because clearly neither business nor employers are particularly good for women.

So what is it exactly that’s standing in our way?

Which brings us to glass ceilings and sticky floors, the invisible barriers that both prevent women from rising to the top of their professions, and in a large number of cases keep them from even beginning any kind of ascent away from the low paid low status jobs where their employment is disproportionately concentrated.

Invisible barriers such as systemic or institutional sexism. Covert sexism, that means that while employers are not directly discriminating against women, because that would be unlawful, what they do have are practices that make women’s advancement more difficult.

They might for instance insist on holding residential away days or training events without making any provision for childcare. Or they might do a lot of their key networking and planning on the golf course or in lap dancing clubs and other sex encounter establishments.

There might be a long hours culture, where employees are expected to stay late no matter what their domestic commitments in order to get the job done, night after night after night, because work-life balance is a foreign country, and in our capitalist money-beats-all culture we’re all supposed to act as though we don’t have children, or home lives, or interests outside of the organisations we’ve committed to working for.

Many, too many, businesses are still headed by those who place more merit in the old boy networks and the old school tie than they do people’s ability to actually do the work. And while not many business tycoons are as honest as Sir Alan Sugar was when he admitted that no one would want to employ a pregnant woman, it’s becoming increasingly more evident that plenty of other business heads secretly agree with him.

Women are still being held back because workplaces are not women friendly: there aren’t enough workplace nurseries, and the cost of alternative childcare can be prohibitive. There’s a reluctance to bring in family-friendly working policies, such as flexible working or condensed hours, and there’s still a lot of indirect discrimination going on in the way employers recruit, hire, promote and retain their employees.

So that’s the glass ceiling.

But I think things go even deeper than that.

Because I think part of the reason women’s representation at the very highest levels of business, and politics, and the media, is so paltry, begins before women even make it into the workplace.

Which brings us to the patriarchy. The rule of men.

Patriarchy. The way society, and that includes the early socialisation of our children and the gender stereotyping that attempts to dictate the different paths our boys and girls should follow; that includes our education system and the labour market, has been designed and shaped to fit men’s needs. Men made the rules, and the rules they made, the systems they set up, help them hold on to power.

That’s what’s holding us back.

And every time we challenge that power, every time women make progress in so-called ‘men’s spheres’, we’re met with a backlash.

It’s one step forward, and two steps back. What better illustration of this is there than the fact that despite us being over 40 years away from the equal pay act we still don’t have equal pay, and that despite more and more women joining the workforce over the past few decades, women’s unemployment now stands at a record 25 year high.

Twice as many women lost their jobs in the final quarter of 2011 as men. 1.12 million women are now out of work.

But what can we do to tackle all this? What can we do to ensure our daughters and our granddaughters are not restricted by the same barriers?

Well, obviously as a trade unionist I’d like to encourage all of you at the very first opportunity you get when you commence your careers to join whichever trade union services your workplace. Unions brought us many of the gains we’re now struggling to maintain: holiday pay; sickness pay; maternity leave and pay, the list goes on.

But I also want us, women, to think about doing things differently.

Just as an example, where women have succeeded in getting to the top in numbers is the voluntary sector, where 48% of chief execs are now women. I think you’ll find in a lot of cases those chief execs are running by women for women organisations, organisations set up by women, run by women, helping women.

And I want us to think about ways of working, ways of creating success, that do not simply replicate patriarchal, hierarchical power structures.

I want us to do things differently, to be more imaginative. Because if the last century or so has taught us anything it’s that the system as it is now isn’t working. It’s not working for women, and it’s not working for the working class.

And it’s time for a change.