How Women Live with Fear and ‘Don’t Turn Around’ by Jessica Barry

 

Melissa Pimentel - Random House, author, writer, How Women live with fear and ‘Don’t Turn Around’ by ,Jessica BarryHow Women live with fear and ‘Don’t Turn Around’ by Jessica Barry – published by Harvill Secker at £12.99

I wanted to explore the female-specific relationship to fear in my new novel, Don’t Turn Around. The novel opens with Cait and Rebecca driving through the night on a deserted road. Their destination is unknown. Out of the darkness, a pair of headlights appear, intent on destruction. The two women – who, up until that night, were strangers to each other – are forced to dig into their pasts to understand who might want to kill them. 

The answer, as most women know, is not straightforward.

Is it someone from their past? Their present? Is it a complete stranger with a thirst for blood? 

Cait has experienced the full terror of online abuse first-hand. An article she wrote about a bad date was met with vitriol, and she became a figure of hate on ‘men’s rights’ chatrooms. She receives death threats from total strangers. Worse still, her home address was published on the internet without her consent, so anyone who wanted to make good on those threats can find her. Is it possible that an online troll has finally tracked her down in the flesh?

Rebecca is the wife of a prominent politician in conservative Texas. She’s spent years playing the happy campaign life, but now she finds herself in a desperate situation. Her husband has turned against her, and there’s no one she can trust to get her across the Texas state line. She has to rely on a stranger – Cait – to shepherd her to safety. But there’s no guarantee that her husband hasn’t had her followed.

What about the man at the diner who stared at them so openly? Or that strange man at the gas station? Danger lurks around every corner. The world bristles with possible menace. 

Every day, women live with fear. It’s a low-level constant, familiar as breath. We mitigate it, negotiate with it, rationalize it. We make thousands of tiny calculations and calibrations on its behalf. Is that man following me? Should I turn around and face him, or should I run? Will my shoes let me run fast enough, or should I take them off? If I scream, will it scare him? Or will it just make him angry? Is there anyone around who would hear me?

For women, the potential for danger is everywhere. Walking through an empty parking lot at night. Going for a run. Sitting alone at a bar, or in a park, and a stranger approaching you. A guy standing a little too close behind you in line at the grocery story. The car that followed you ten blocks, horn blaring, because the driver thought you cut him off.  The moment you post on social media expressing a political preference, or a divisive idea, or critique. The sickening drop a few minutes later, when the first commentator calls you a bitch.

The statistics speak for themselves. Over half of women in the US have experienced physical violence. A quarter have experienced physical or sexual assault at the hands of an intimate partner. One in five women are raped in their lifetime. One in six women are stalked. 

Things aren’t much rosier in the digital world. One study found that seventy-two percent of online harassment victims are women. Individuals using female-skewing usernames are sent threatening or explicit content twenty-five times more often than those with male-skewing or ambiguous usernames. Close to two-thirds of female journalists have been threatened, intimidated, harassed or been subject to sexist abuse online. 

Of course, men are also the victims of violence and harassment: I’m not pretending otherwise. But I think that that women view the world through a specific lens coloured by the constant potential for danger. 

Ask a man what precautions he takes before going out for a run in the morning and you’ll likely be met with a confused look. Ask a woman and she’ll tell you about pre-planned routes and high-traffic areas and the importance of keeping your headphones at a low volume so you can hear someone coming up behind you. These seemingly-minor decisions shape how we move through the world. 

To live as a woman in this world, the question isn’t so much ‘What if something happens’ but ‘When? Where? How? Who?’ And the answers are ‘Anytime. Anywhere. Anyway. Anyone.’ 

Anyone could be behind that pair of headlights. Anyone could be waiting for us around a darkened corner, waiting to strike.

So far, so dark: I know. But there’s a silver lining in all this, and that’s the way that this fear bonds women together and, in a way, it’s what makes us who we are. You know that old cliché, ‘feel the fear and do it anyway’? That’s a way of life for us. Those mental calculations make us sharper. Those keys clutched between fingers make us tougher. Those close calls and rough scrapes and stories of survival make us stronger.

In order to survive their night on the road and make it to safety, Cait and Rebecca will have to work together. They’ll have to draw deeply from their experiences and from their personal strengths, and above all, they’ll have to learn to trust each other. 

Lucky for them, they’ve had a lot of practice at the art of survival. 

Exclusive Paddy Ashdown Interview ‘I Am Devoted To The Liberal Democrats’

Here is part three of our exclusive Paddy Ashdown interview. Take a look at part one and two.

That’s a good answer. In your diaries you are clear about how close you were to Labour before and after the ’97 election, and that PR was the price of coalition. Given that the Lib Dems eventually went into coalition with the Tories, with just a promise of a referendum on AV, how do you think events would have unfolded if you’d accepted a similar deal in ’97?”

I don’t know. I mean I can’t take you through the what would have happened parts of history. I suspect the circumstances would have been very different if we also had the referendum on a sensible system rather than a lesser sensible one. I don’t think you would have had the leading party in the country at the time deliberately doing what they could at the time to destroy the motion and the national newspapers at the time supporting them. That is the ‘what would have happened’ bits of history and we could all spend hours deciding how the world would be different  if Britain hadn’t won the battle of Waterloo; It’s very interesting but it doesn’t bear much relevance.

Paddy_Ashdown_3You also said in your diaries that you were worried that the party would start with Gladstone and end with Ashdown, what do you think was your greatest achievement as the Liberal Democrat Leader?

I have never ever believed that I am a good judge of my own achievements, I leave that to others to decide on what your achievements are. I was very proud to lead the Liberal Democrats for eleven years, I loved it, I am devoted to them. I was also very proud to be the International High Representative in Bosnia for the British Government.  No doubt I made mistakes in both of those jobs, probably quite a lot of them. When you have the privilege of doing jobs like that you can use it to your advantage and I quickly realised what I was good at and what I was bad at.

What do you think will happen with the Liberal Democrats in 2015?

I actually think all the polls now are wrong. I have to rely, as I always have done, on the good judgement of the british electorate, I think we have a good story to tell, we have been in government, everyone said we couldn’t do it. I think we have been more united than the Tories, tougher than the Tories, and played a really serious role in bringing our country through a crisis. If I know the British electorate at all well, when the moment comes, I think we’ll reap the dividends of that. I also think that the British electorate probably, having had the benefit of the coalition may not be very happy returning to absolute power in anybody’s hands. Also, having a coalition of some sort forces people to work together instead of spending all their time scratching each other’s eyes out. Maybe that is a much better system than what we had in the past. Those two things will help us I think.
Who Is Your Favourite Politician?

I think as someone said to me; ‘Who is my hero?’ and I said William Wilberforce who is as unlike me as you could possibly get, apart from Gladstone of course, who is the greatest Prime Minister this country has ever had both internationally and domestically, he was a man who said, “We did not march across the law of anti-slavery, we did not march towards a monument in the distance, we gathered friends like flowers along the way.” and I think he was an extraordinary politician.

Do you think we should have intervened in Syria?

No, I don’t. I’m against intervening in Syria while the opposition is so fractured and defused. Anyways, they’re being funded by extremist elements and encouraging extremist elements so, no, I thought that would lead us towards an engagement in what I think is a widening religious war. I did however think we should intervene in defense of one of the principles pillars of international law; a prohibition on the use of chemical weapons that has stood since 1926 and strained even Hitler and Stalin, and I thought that unless we were prepared to show strength to Assad, not by intervention because we wouldn’t have done, but there was a price to pay that was painful for breaking this principle of international law, then it would only have encouraged the wider spread of chemical weapons. So, no, I don’t think we should have intervened in Syria but I do think we should defend International Law and indeed one of the most important pillars of the international law that preserves some semblance of civilised behaviour in the prosecution of wars.

You testified against Slobodan Milosevic. Was that scary?

No, it wasn’t scary. It was more scary being bombarded by his troops. I mean, I testified about being in the middle of the Albanian villages when they were being bombarded by the main battle units of his army, that was much more scary.

I can understand that. You have done a lot of different things in your life. What is your favourite?

I think there is nothing I’ve done that will match my sense of pride of being a member of parliament for my own community of Yeovil. There is no thing you could ever do that matched being the representative in Westminster of the community you live in and love. So if somebody said you can have one line to put on your gravestone it would be ‘Member of Parliament for Yeovil’.

What was it like being an intelligence officer?

I was a perfectly ordinary diplomat

What is the best advice you have ever received?

Never stop learning.

Thank you Paddy.

 What do you think?

Exclusive: Paddy Ashdown On Clegg, The Tories, The Liberal Democrats & The NHS

Part two of our Interview with Paddy Ashdown. Here he talks about politics. Part three will be up tomorrow. Let us know what you think. Part one, where he talks about writing and his books,  is here.

Do you mind if I ask you some political questions as well?

No, go on.

Would you prefer the Liberal Democrats to side with Labour at the next election?

That is a matter not for me or my preference but it is a matter for the British electorate voting in the ballot box.

Do you think Nick Clegg has been true to liberal values?

Absolutely. I think he is remarkable. I think he is…I am devoted to the man, I think he is one of the most brilliant politicians in Britain today. Hugely, publicly, under-rated. He’s got very, very good judgement. He’s got extraordinary courage and he is a liberal down to the marrow of his bones. So I think he’d undoubtedly make the best Prime Minister that you could have today.

He has a very hard job. Doesn’t he? 

It’s a thankless job. I did it for eleven years and let me tell you it is the most thankless job  because you represent the only philosophy: liberalism, that makes any sense.

He has it tough because generally people don’t seem to like the Tories

No they don’t like the Tories and I don’t like them either. I spent my life fighting them. If the public elects a coalition where the only coalition that can have a majority in the House of Commons inherently, mathematically, adds up to ourselves and the Tories do they really want people that don’t listen to them?, the public democratic view. And you better ask yourself what they like best. Do they really like the complete and utter corrupt mess this country was left in by Labour, which would have bankrupted young people for the next twenty years or do they like two parties that put aside their differences for the national interest and work together to get us out of the worst recession we have had since the 1930s and back on the path of growth. Which of these two would you prefer?

I agree with that, Labour left the country in a very big mess.

Absolutely. People have likes and dislikes in politics and what I’m interested in is doing what’s right for my country. That is what I have always been interested in and if the Liberal Democrats pay an electoral price for that, and I think they will by the way, if they did, if I was doing what I believed to be right for my country and helping it out of a crisis then I am proud of that and that’s what politics is for.

Do you think the Liberal Democrats made an error over tuition fees?

Yes, they made an error by promising it when it couldn’t be delivered. We’ve been in opposition for a hundred years, we haven’t been in government, so of course from time to time decisions which were driven to a certain extent by opportunism. I said at the time that we were making a promise that I didn’t think in the economic climate could be delivered. If we had been in government by ourselves I think we might have decided to sacrifice other things in order to deliver what we promised but we weren’t in government, we were in coalition. So, no, neither parties manifesto has been in operation. Both parties have had to make some compromises. I don’t call that anti-democratic. I call that the operation of democracy.

Do you think the NHS is being privatised?

What concerns me more than anything else isn’t who owns the NHS but how the public is served. How the citizen is served. For instance, even under the last government, under Mr Blair’s government, I had to have some health checks done and I went to a private organisation run under contract from the health service as an alternative means of delivering health services, that is; free at the point of delivery health services, and they did a wonderful job. Now I could have gone to a health service hospital, it’s all paid out of our taxes, it’s all paid by the national health service. One of those organisations was privately run, one was publicly run. It doesn’t matter who runs it. I don’t believe in private health but if there is a private provider providing to the health service under health service conditions and they can do it better for the costumer, then that is surely what you want. I mean I don’t believe the argument that says private/public is the necessary argument. I am strongly in favour of public services being offered free at the point of delivery and paid for on taxation, but who actually runs the organisation that delivers it is far less important to me than how well the citizen is served.

I agree with that. That is a question we get asked a lot but I got an MRI on my back and it was done through the NHS via a private company and they did an amazing job. Very professional, very quick.

Yes, that’s right. If you had a monopoly public service I don’t even think it would be a better public service. It needs competition. It makes people live up to the mark. I bet you there were more people abused and receiving bad service and ignorant service when the NHS was a public monopoly. I don’t believe in public monopoly. I believe in things being paid for either by taxation, free at the point of delivery but then who does that?, providing it is subject to inspection and national control is a matter of irrelevance.

 

Exclusive Paddy Ashdown Interview: On His Books

Paddy Ashdown has been a Royal Marine, the leader of the Liberal Democrats for eleven years, High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, and is a life peer in the House of Lords. On top of that he has written 8 books, with the 8th coming out on the 5th of June. I can’t wait as I have loved all of his other books. I interviewed him about his books and politics. Here is part one.

Did you get the idea for A Brilliant Little Operation: The Cockleshell Heroes and the Most Courageous Raid of World War 2 while you were a member of the Royal Marines elite Special Boot Squadron?

No, my publisher approached me and said ‘it’s the 70th anniversary how about writing the book’. Which is my seventh book. I am just about to produce my 8th so it was a natural subject really.

What is your 8th book about?

The 8th book is about the largest resistance battle with the Germans in the Second World War. It is called A Terrible Victory, about the Vercors plateau on June 1944 and it was the biggest resistance German battle in Western Europe. [Learn more about the book here. It is about the chronicle of the French Resistance during World War Two]

That sounds fascinating. You have written quite a lot of books. Do you have a favourite?

I think the one I am working on now is always my favourite. I love writing books and whatever you’re working on consumes your mind so it is always the one you are most thinking about.

You’re books are very good. They are always very factual and have lots of history in them. How do you go about writing them. What is your writing schedule?

Writing The Brilliant Little Operation, and the one I am going to produce, Harper Collins will publish it on the 5th of June, takes me about three years of research. I mean, I start writing before then and overall I don’t like writing unless I have all of the research it is possible to get. Normally the whole process will take my three and a half to four years. Of which three years is spent on research. Going to the wonderful archive museum in Britain, the National Archives in Britain. In the case of both of my most recent books, to the Château de Vincennes in Paris, In France there are three key archives you have to go to. And also the Bauhaus-Archiv in Germany.

I spend a lot of time in archives. In writing my present book I have read sixty other books on the subject, all of them in French. In writing a Brilliant Little Operation I have read four books before and a lot of research. So research is very important.

You can really tell that when you read your books.

Thank you, that’s kind. That’s very generous.

Tomorrow: The Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives, Nick Clegg, Labour and the NHS: Exclusive interview.

 

Review: Copenhagen, Minerva Theatre, Chichester

Box Office: 01243 781312 www.cft.org.uk
Until 22 September

Photo credit: Conrad Blakemore

What was the purpose of the visit made by German Werner Heisenberg (Charles Edwards) to his friend Danish physicist Niels Bohr (Paul Jesson) as the Second World War raged? The answer is by no means swift in coming, but it is a compelling journey. Which is just as well; this is not a play that allows for wandering concentration.

The ghosts of Heisenberg, Bohr and his wife Margrethe return to the night of Heisenberg’s visit in 1941 to scrutinise the intent and rationale behind the house call. Eminently bright and highly respected, the younger man’s nation has occupied his elder’s country, thus thorough examination of several theories is necessary.

With a shared passion for scientific certainty the coals are raked over with forensic-like attention to detail, stirring human nature into technical hypotheses. Tempered by Margrethe’s perceptiveness and calm, blistering disagreement between the two men is revealing, but while such convulsions are fascinating it is the historical element that gives the play ominous depth: the creation of the atom bomb and its monstrous impact.

Director Michael Blakemore succeeds in maintaining a fluidity that is almost balletic. With a small cast and a stark set the focus on the trio is as intense as the play itself, but they impress throughout.

Patricia Hodge as Margrethe is breathtakingly good; elegant, circumspect and sharp. Charles Edwards as Heisenberg and Paul Jesson as Bohr are equally excellent, both absolutely convincing as boffins who, despite their scientific and mathematical prowess, are nevertheless vulnerable to human frailty.

Michael Frayn’s play is as much about morals as it is the quest for knowledge and you are likely to come away as many questions as answers. Oddly, this is strangely satisfying.

Why Cybersecurity Can Win the Fight Against Islamic Extremism By Cosmo Clark

Cosmo Clark is a cybersecurity and cyber terrorism analyst and observer whose first novel, Blue Eyed Infidel, a satirical sci-fi thriller in the vein of Orwell’s 1984, hits the UK shelves this week. Here Clark (a pseudonym) argues that computers, not bombs, will win the war on terror.

What do you think is the best way to win an argument? When I was at primary school, John Biggers, the village bully, thought he had the answer: to punch me in the face. Hard.

But violence didn’t work in the playground and it doesn’t work in the real world, either. Invading Iraq and bombing ISIS in Syria might win a few headlines for politicians, but in the long term, all it really does is create more terrorists, and leads directly to more attacks here in the UK.

It is my firm view (and one shared by a wealth of academics) that technology, not bombs, will win the global war on terror.

1. In-APP-propriate action: why we should boost, not ban, encrypted chat apps

Extremists talk to each other using secretive, encrypted chat apps. That’s how they groom new members, organise attacks and keep out of the public eye.

Our kneejerk reaction to that has always been to shut these apps down. But that would be a big mistake. Banning one type of app (or making it less secure) will only lead to more. That is a battle that can never be won.

Instead, we should be encouraging their use; remember, loose lips have and always will sink ships. We should be using covert spyware to infiltrate the apps and identify the bad guys.

2. Jihadi Join: why UK spies should be posing as online extremists

Islamic extremists will never love the UK. They don’t feel loyalty to a passport, only to their God. Trying to force them into ‘being British’ or to ‘integrate’ is a total waste of time and money, and just helps them know what to say in order to disappear into our society.

Instead, we should talk to extremists online in ways that make sense to them. To start with, that will involve doing things which will seem completely counter-intuitive. Let’s say you are a jihadi who wants to blow himself up. If you create an online persona as someone who can help them make that bomb, it’ll be much easier to grab the perpetrator – and the rest of his terror cell – when the time comes.

3. Dead ringer: using deceased ISIS fighters to communicate with terror cells

Technology changes quickly, but we’ve got two exclusive advantages right now that we should be using more. Firstly, we must put more pressure on social media companies like Facebook and YouTube to track (rather than ban) and report on Islamic extremists using their platforms. That’s harder than you might think.

Secondly, we’ve got access to cool resources like artificial intelligence. My favourite idea is to create fake cyber-personalities, ‘chatbots’ if you like, which are smart enough to hold conversations with real-world Islamic extremists. To be genuinely believable, these cyber-personalities could actually appear to be real people. There are roughly 25,000 Islamic extremists in the UK, and about 1,000 British jihadis who went to fight for ISIS and who have since gone missing. If a few of those deceased individuals popped up online, they could be treated as heroes. Only those ‘in the know’ would ever know the truth.

Blue Eyed Infidel by Cosmo Clark is out now, priced £9.99 in paperback and £3.49 as an eBook, and is available at Amazon UK. Visit www.cosmoclark.com.

 

IS LIFE INHERENTLY UNSATISFACTORY? By Paul Kwatz, author of Conscious Robots

Ask a parent “What’s the most important thing in your life?”, and they’ll say “My kids”. This pleases a biologist, who believes that, because humans are the product of evolution, “having children” has to be the most important thing in our lives (after eating and breathing). If it wasn’t, our genes wouldn’t get passed on, and evolution simply wouldn’t work.

But ask a parent “What do you want for your kid when it grows up?”, and the biological angle might be less obvious. “As long as she’s happy…” doesn’t seem to have much to do with survival.

Until we realise that “happiness” is the mechanism that evolution uses to control our choices.

Maybe you didn’t realise that evolution was controlling your choices. Maybe you thought your conscious mind was the thing that was in control. But consider our daily battle to stay thin. “Eat a donut, or go for a run?” The donut gives you pleasure. The running hurts. Why does the donut give you pleasure? Because your brain evolved when calories were scarce. And the running hurts because running uses up those scarce calories.

Pain and pleasure arise from a non-conscious part of your mind that you can’t control. If you could, you’d simply choose to feel great when you were running, and, well, life would be a easier if a donut tasted like a kale shake, wouldn’t it?

We want a nice house because we think it will make us happy, we want to be thin because we feel good when we’re thin, and we want our kids to be happy because, although we encourage them to work hard at school, we’ve got a sneaking suspicion that a great career is no easy ride: it’s only satisfying in direct proportion to the hard work we put in every year.

And we’re right to be suspicious. When humans were evolving, the most successful ones were the ones with the “never-happy-with-what-I’ve-got” gene. They didn’t sit around as soon as they were full of berries, they carried on picking until the bushes were bare, made jam and designed bows and arrows to protect their bounty. It’s why millionaires become billionaires and why movie stars chase another Oscar. They, like all of us, are the descendants of hunter gatherers that were never satisfied: regardless of what we have achieved in life, regardless of our mobile phones, air-conditioning and indoor toilets, life, as Buddha observed, is inherently unsatisfactory.

But the good news is that life is also inherently satisfactory. Because sometimes there’s a drought and the berries don’t grow. And it’s not going to do our genes any good if we sit around moping. Our evolved brains reward us when our situation improves – regardless of how low we have sunk. As long as we’re moving upwards, our brains are happy to hand out the pleasure. It’s what allowed your grandparents to be perfectly happy without phones and why the plains of Africa rang with the laughter of our ancestors. `

‘Conscious Robots: If We Really Had Free Will, What Would We Do All Day’ is out now in print, published by Peacock’s Tail Publishing and priced £4.99 in paperback and £2.99 as an eBook. Visit www.consciousrobots.com or Amazon UK

Shocking New Study Reveals Overwhelming Sexism in TV & Film Ads

Patricia Arquette , speech, feminism, oscar speech, equal pay, Winner of Best Actress In A Supporting Role Oscar 2015Women may be fighting for equality but there is still a long way to go. TV, cinema and online adverts are overwhelmingly biased against women, with men appearing on screen FOUR times more than women, and men speaking SEVEN times more than women, according to groundbreaking new research.

The study by the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media – founded by the Thelma and Louise star – and ad agency JWT New York, looked at more than 2,000 ads from over the last 10 years to get the results.

The report, released at the 2017 Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity – the biggest global event in the advertising world  –  also found:

·       Women are twice more likely than men to be shown partially or fully nude.

·       There are twice as many male characters in ads than female characters.

·       25% of ads feature men only, while only 5% of ads feature women only.

·      18% of ads feature only male voices, while less than 3% of ads featuring female voices only.

·        Women in ads are mostly in their 20s while men are in their 20s, 30s, and 40s.

·        Men are almost twice as likely to be funny than women.

·        One in 10 female characters are shown in sexually revealing clothing – six times the number of male characters.

·        Men are 62% more likely to be shown as intelligent.

·        Women are 48% more likely to be shown in the kitchen while men are 50% more likely to be shown at a sporting event.

·        One in three men are shown to have a job compared to one in four women.

 

The researchers concluded that female presence and portrayal in ads has not changed or improved for more than a decade, from 2006 to this day.

The report, called Unpacking Gender Bias in Advertising, examined a decade’s worth of winners and entries to the Cannes Lions Awards – the Oscars of the ad industry – using automation to analyse the split between men and women.

It aims at raising awareness of explicit and implicit gender bias in advertising, and its powerful ripple effects in the world.

Madeline Di Nonno, CEO of the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media, said: “By changing the narrative, the images we use, the stories we tell about women, we can dramatically change the way the world values women and how women and girls see themselves. It’s not enough to portray more women. We need a more progressive and inclusive representation of women.”

Brent Choi, Chief Creative Officer, J. Walter Thompson New York: “What this research shows is that our industry has tent-pole moments, amazing actions or campaigns when we all rally around women, but when it comes to creating our ‘regular’ ads for our ‘regular’ clients, we forget about them.”
The research from The Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media at Mount Saint Mary’s University and J. Walter Thompson New York, in collaboration with University of Southern California’s Viterbi School of Engineering, analysed more than 2,000 films from the Cannes Lions archive (English language only).