Gay Africans are facing increased persecution in a continent where two thirds of countries retain laws against homosexuals. Sorious Samura investigates what it’s like to be gay in Africa.

Dispatches produce another great documentry, definately worth watching!

The LGBTQ Association is not responsible for the content of external sites.

Historically, the male response to the feminism has fallen into three main categories: the patriarchal masculist, the profeminist, and the antifeminist – all of which have been around for quite a while.

The patriarchal masculist view is that which supports a patriarchal society in the opinion that it works and is fair. These masculists will argue that men should go out to work to be the breadwinners so that their partners can live easier lives at home. It is their view that women are liberated enough by being free to visit friends and spend time with children. They believe that the feminist movement is harmful for the stability of the nuclear family and detrimental to the position of man in society.  I found a website which describes the ideologies of patriarchal masculism named ‘Why feminism is a farce’. I would describe it as… interesting – but I do expect a forehead vein or two to pop.

It is worth noting that progressive masculism is distinctly different from patriarchal masculism; progressive masculism is a term used to describe the liberation of men from their stereotypical gender roles and does not necessarily conflict with feminism.

The antifeminist is not necessary against female liberation, but may question the methods used by feminists to achieve liberation, believe that the movement can not achieve liberation, that female liberation is already achieved, or that female liberation has gone too far and men are now the oppressed.  It is somewhat a vague term and hence leads to seemingly oxymoronic ‘antifeminist profeminists’ who strive to further the liberation of women but do not agree with the methods commonly utilised to accomplish equality – for example a topic often up for debate between feminists and antifeminists  is the use of positive discrimination with the intention of reaching gender equality.

The profeminist has existed for a long time. Several male Greek philosophers and playwrights would suggest that a perfect society would be one where everybody had equal opportunity regardless of gender. As society has historically repressed the voices of women, the vast majority of early feminists were actually men. There were unfortunately too few and unheard to change how the world worked. More men began to realise that equality between the sexes was necessary during the abolitionist movement against the slave trade. Women were forbidden from attending one particular World Anti-Slavery Convention in London; many abolitionists refused to vote, stating it was hypocritical that men and women were to be separated in the same way that the whites and blacks were being separated. The patriarchal masculists argued that it was unfair to subject women to ‘dirty’ topics normally designated to men for discussion. A profeminist, Thomas Wentworth Higginson, responded:

“I do not see how any woman can avoid a thrill of indignation when she first opens her eyes to the fact that it is really contempt, not reverence, that has so long kept her sex from an equal share of legal, political, and educational rights…[a woman needs equal rights] not because she is man’s better half, but because she is his other half. She needs them, not as an angel, but as a fraction of humanity.”

As the feminist movement really kicked off during the 19^th and 20^th century, more and more men began to get involved. Men also began to realise that their women were not the only victims of a patriarchal society; in the 1970s, the men’s liberation movement began which attempted to break down gender roles in society and disband patriarchy in the same fashion as the feminism movement. Many of these organisations were seen as patriarchal masculist but several worked hand-in-hand with feminists to change our society and bring about true equality.

Nowadays most men will probably agree with feminists when it comes to having the same voting rights, that the streets should be safe for women, etc. However many men will still shout demeaning comments at women on the street. There are men out there who still objectify women. There is still a split when it comes down to the more radical feminism, or more specifically the tackling and reforming of our patriarchal society. I personally believe society needs to change – I for one am tired of seeing the old white men in charge. I don’t think men need to be selfless to be feminists either – my personal belief is that it comes down to it, men’s and women’s liberation (and most other forms of liberation including LGBT, disabled, black, etc.) are in essence one and the same: the fight for equality and for people to be recognised as just that: a person.

Iranian filmmaker, actress and lesbian activist Kiana Firouz is in danger of being deported back to Iran for her “crime of unrepentant homosexuality“; for which the punishment is execution.

Kiana worked as an underground activist for LGBT women’s rights. During this time, she documented the horrific treatment of LGBT people in Iran and shot footage for a documentary about the commonplace horrific abuse of human rights there. When items of footage were discovered by Iranian Intelligence, Kiana was harrassed by agents in Tehran and fled to the UK as a student two years ago. Kiana has since directed and played a key role in Cul de Sac, the culmination of her work.

Her application for asylum in the UK was rejected by the Home Office, who were fully aware of the persecution Kiana faced in light of her sexual orientation. The Ministry argued that she could return to Iran and conceal her homosexuality. Seeing as the well-publicised evidence blatantly contradicts this ruling, it would seem that the Home Office is guilty of, at best, gross incompetence; at worst, wilful negligence.

LGBTQ rights in Iran

Iran’s “lawful” approach to sexuality; noosing two unidentified gay teens for their “crime”.

LGBTQ equality was once a reality in Iran, prior to the 1979 Islamic Revolution; a Gay Liberation movement was in the works and even publicised gay marriages were tolerated. Since then, the country’s laws regarding LGBTQ rights have been based on an extremely conservative interpretation of Islamic law. Homosexuality is punishable by lashing, or execution by hanging in more “extreme” cases; Transexuals are institutionalised and often forced to undergo hormone treatments; LGBTQ people as a whole undergo sex change operations for fear of extreme persecution. It is utterly disgusting.

Make no mistake; forcing Kiana to return to Iran is nothing short of marching her to her death. We’re talking about a women who, in the face of extreme oppression, had the courage to step forward and speak out against it; to put a face to the abuse suffered by Kiana and her LGBTQ comrades in Iran. Every free and liberal LGBTQ person has an obligation to stand with her in solidarity and prevent this travesty from taking place.

What the student community can do

First and foremost, please sign this petition and join this Facebook group and show your support. And please…spread the word. Raising national awareness of this issue is a crucial part of this campaign.

Both the Lib Dems AND the Tories pledged to change the rules specifically for asylum seekers; acknowledging the consequences suffered by LGBTQ people who – just like Kiana – were sent back and told to keep quiet under the previous Government’s policy. That being said…the new Minister for Women and Equalities, Theresa May, has consistently voted against LGBTQ rights and – in my humble opinion – was a poor choice for the job. Regardless, it is time for her to do her part to uphold her party’s pledges. I will also be writing to Lynne Featherstone, the Lib Dem undersecretary for Equality – who, by contrast, has an excellent voting record for LGBTQ rights – to doubly ensure that conservative views towards homosexuality in the UK do not further jeopardise Kiana Firouz. I invite you all to lobby your MP’s to take action on this issue.

Some of you may remember my “Give Blood Because We Can’t” campaign back in Freshers’ week. The National Blood Service since initiated a policy review which I mentioned in my post-October Guild Council post, which began with a forum to which members of the NUS LGBT campaign were invited. The forum brought forth several proposals, including a five-year ban on gay/bisexual men, rather than a lifetime-ban imposed under the current policy. Although this was just as unacceptable, it indicates that they’re under enough pressure to make some kind of fair concession.

In light of this review, Give Blood Because We Can’t became an ongoing awareness campaign, as action campaigning is pointless while a decision is still being made. That being said, this review will conclude this summer; conveniently, after a general election has taken place. The LGBTQ community must make it abundantly clear that it will not tolerate any attempts to retain the current, outmoded and downright homophobic policy; regardless of how many right wing officials are elected to power.

Project Negative are holding a protest outside the Birmingham Blood Donation Center on Tuesday, 5th May, 5PM – 7PM. We’ll be going as a group and meeting at University Station between 4:15 and 4:30 to get there with plenty of time. If you’re able, please come along and show your support!

RedBrick released an article on November regarding a proposal by the EHRC to include sexuality in the national census. RedBrick contacted me for comment, which I eventually – other commitments aside – provided as a comment on the online article. This issue has come up a number of times this year and there’s a strong feeling (and frankly, ironically fascist) prevailing view that there is only one corrent opinion on the matter.

This proposed measure – which I regard as immature and in need of serious refinement (as I said in my comment) – is another instance of attempting to solve the problems of society with positive discrimination i.e. pedastooling a category of people who have been historically oppressed. While, in theory, it’s a viable short-term solution which encourages minority participation and forces greater diversity, it’s an extremely artificial measure of adjusting demographics that is not viable in the long term. Labour-dominated organisations such as the NUS and (to a lesser extent) the Guild and the LGBTQ Association over the past few years seem to believe that it is.

First and foremost, employing positive discrimination as a long-term solution presupposes that a certain minority (LGBTQ being a keen example) is consistently oppressed and will remain oppressed for the rest of time; therefore they deserve ongoing special treatment. However, it’s easy to lose perspective over time and we have to take a step back and ask ourself “why did we want this in the first place?”

• Are we looking for payback? Do we feel that majority groups must suffer as we [once] did?
• Do we quietly enjoy the extra attention we receive from society, and do we want to continue to continue exploiting it?
• Are we so afraid of history repeating itself that letting go of this special treatment will restore the oppression we suffered before?
• Is using “the historical oppression and misrepresentation of one group” a convenient cover for why – as an example – there is less involvement from women than men in a certain group?

Let’s not kid ourselves; positive discrimination is a balancing act and often breeds resentment among majority groups. They are made to feel powerless and as if they are being punished for the transgressions of others “like them” throughout history. It also encourages minority groups to retain their own resentment and ultimately perpetuates this endless segregation, which is hardly conducive to achieving equality in society.

Admittedly, one could argue that positive discrimination is part of the reason that the LGBTQ Officer position exists. I’d quite willingly accept that argument, even if it does put the viability of my job into question, and instinctively I’d try and defend it. In my mind, LGBTQ support is more about being there for people who feel isolated in a decreasingly heteronormative society, but aims to give them what they need to accept who they are within society; not to segregate themselves in isolated groups. Myself and the Officer team attempted to convey the importance of such non-segregation with the LGBTQ housing issue last year. The naive idealist in me hopes that, one day, sexuality and gender equality will evolve to the point where an LGBTQ Officer and Association are unnecessary.

Since stating these views on this particular RedBrick article, I have been attacked by several Labour advocates on campus and in the NUS who seem to believe that their view is the only correct view…confident that they are given the “divine right” by the fact that the government they support is currently in power – and I stress “currently”. I hasten to add that some of these reactions have been nothing but nasty and spiteful, and hardly deserving of consideration, but the sheer numbers of student who submit to these attitudes is deeply concerning.

Matthew Shepherd, tragic victim of a homophobic hate crime.

I believe that everyone should have a fair and equal chance to succeed in life, regardless of race, sexuality, gender, ailment or any other such irrelevant factor. If we respond to discrimination by discriminating in the other direction, so to speak, we may never overcome the borders of segregation.

The oppression suffered by LGBTQ people, ethnic minorities, women and disabled students – particularly in the past – was unacceptable. The oppression we are still – to some extent – subject to from certain groups is unacceptable. This oppression has manifested itself in some horrific tragedies over the last few decades and it is our duty to see that that they are never repeated. This is, after all, why we have liberation, but just remember that the point is to ensure equality for all; not battle for the supremacy of one group over others.

That’s this Friday coming; as the poster says, http://scifinight.lgbtq.co.uk/ has all the information.

Again, as the poster says, works of science fiction have contributed to the struggle for LGBTQ equality by drawing attention to the issues faced by LGBTQ people through analogy, or – as is the case with Doctor Who and Torchwood – illustrating a non-heteronormative world and smashing any natural audience expectations of heterosexual main characters.

I am helping with the running of this event; so whether or not you have a nerdy side, come along. It should be educational as well as entertaining.

Today, 11th November, marks the 80th Remembrance Day which commemorates the sacrifices made in war; notably both World wars.

Remembrance day holds a special significance to LGBTQ people everywhere. The freedom to even fight for equality would not have been possible had it not been for the sacrifices made in past wars; especially given the persecution that gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans people suffered under the Nazi regime during WW2.

The University and Guild held the respectful two-minute silence in keeping with tradition to remember those who fought for the freedoms we enjoy. From where I was standing by the Aston Webb building, I was amazed to see just how many people stopped where they were, what they were doing to take part. I would like to thank everyone – LGBTQ students or otherwise – who participated.