Me and My Army

"But why would a woman withdraw consent at the last minute?"

2010-02-22T01:58:00.004Z

[Possible trigger warning]

I keep hearing it. Time and again, in the newspapers, on the television, over the radio. 'If a woman is in bed with a man and suddenly says no, that doesn't count as rape.' 'That's just provocative!' 'Unfair! Capricious! Conniving!' These people literally cannot understand why a woman would want to withdraw consent after she's started getting it on with a man. Obviously she just withdrew consent in her mind so she could then undergo months of humiliation in court with a slim possibility of getting him punished for rape! Yeah, that's gotta be it.

If you really, totally do not get it at all, here is but one scenario I can think of off the top of my head.

Say I was going out one night with a guy, and things were going well, and we decide, 'Hey, let's do it.' And it's all going well until we get down to the act of intercourse, and I notice he hasn't produced a condom. So I remind him to put one on, maybe offer him one thinking he doesn't have any, and he refuses because, I don't know, he doesn't like the way they feel. Or maybe - and this does happen - he starts off using a condom but then removes it halfway through before trying to continue.

That's a deal breaker, right there. We can continue doing other things which don't carry any health risks, but those genitals aren't going near mine without protection. Aside from increasing the risk of unplanned pregnancy, it's for the benefit of both partners' health - he can't be certain that I've been for a sexual health check-up and I am equally unclear as to what his status is. Unless I am absolutely 100% certain as to whether or not someone has a sexually transmittable disease I don't want to run the risk of contracting one. So at this point, whether or not I have already removed clothes, if he appears willing to run the risk of either contracting something or passing something on to me (neither's a good sign - even if I know I'm clean, if he's willing to run the risk of catching something then there's a fair chance he's run that risk countless times before with others) then I'm out. Consent withdrawn. No condom, no intercourse.

That's just ONE reason that a woman might back out at the last minute. It's not flighty or unpredictable, it's just plain common sense. There are many other reasons for such an action, say, not wanting to participate in a particular sexual act that he's suddenly insisting upon. Maybe it's HURTING and she wants to stop.

It is not a crime to say, 'Actually, no, I'd really rather not do that.' And it is REALLY, REALLY easy to respect such a request. All you have to do is STOP. That's it. Clean conscience, nothing against you, you are safe in the knowledge that you haven't forced someone to do something against their will.

Anyone who carries on when their partner has said no (or even, 'No, no, no, no, no... alright, yes, just so you'll let me go home') has committed rape, whether or not the woman admitted to enjoying it, whether or not charges were brought against them. Sex without consent is, by definition, rape. In fact, even if the woman later says 'Well, it wasn't all that bad' - wouldn't you rather not run the risk of doing something she DOESN'T enjoy by just leaving it 'til later? Stopping might make it more likely that there'll be a 'next time'. Continuing means that you're a self-centred prick.

Quick Post: 'Male' as default

2010-02-05T20:55:00.007Z

I was reading through a news article today when I spotted this little image:

Looks fairly unassuming and inoffensive, right?

Read it again.

'His'.

Oh, STV link-image-designer. I realize that it would take up an awfully large amount of space in that little box if you were to type 'his or her', and 'hir' still hasn't quite made it into common parlance, but would it kill you to type in 'their'? Lots of people use it as a gender-neutral term. It's only two letters longer. It doesn't break the flow. Most importantly, it doesn't imply that all MPs are male. This probably wasn't your intention, but it's there. When I and many others read 'his', we don't think 'person', we very specifically think 'man'.

Really, this is the 21st century. Despite being in the minority, Britain has had a number of non-male MPs and MSPs for a good while now - by the time I was born, we'd even had a female prime minister, and her time in power was hardly forgettable. There's no excuse, in this day, age and country, for using 'he' as a supposedly neutral default.

The Patriarchy's Perfect Woman

2009-12-11T11:46:00.001Z

From Natalie Dee. Proper blogging will resume at some point.

Says it all, really.

2009-11-03T21:03:00.004Z

Why I Hate Buying Hallowe'en Costumes

2009-11-02T14:03:00.004Z

From a website competition to win money to buy costumes:

You don't even need to see their faces to know that the two in the middle are men. Seriously, SEXY FREDDY KREUGER?! The CHILD-MURDERER?! (Dude, where the hell have your trousers gone?) The lady on the left looks more like a cheerleader for Jason Voorhees than the charachter himself. Why is it that so many costumes aimed at girls are so tame and dull like this? Short skirts and cleavage-exposing necklines do have their place on Hallowe'en - my Silent Hill nurse outfit from last year is an example of this, a monster born from a man's entrenched insecurities around hospitals and intensely repressed sexuality. 'Sexy', however, has no place in costumes for these characters. Note the great pains taken in these pictures not to hide or disfigure with prosthetics the women's (pouting) faces. Note the high-heels, footwear that really wouldn't work for Freddy and Jason as they lurch through swampy wasteland and launch themselves at they victims.

Thing is, though, if I wanted to buy an outfit like those the men are shown wearing, I'd be hard pressed to find one that fits. Why? Because all the 'proper' Jason/Freddy costumes that are easily available are made for men. I'd be drowned by them, making a rather comical homicidal maniac at best.

This is why I make my own damned costume every year. Grr.

Evolving

2009-10-14T16:23:00.002+01:00

I've been looking back over my old posts, and a lot of them strike me as either poorly written or no longer in keeping with my views. Which is a bit of a problem, as I don't want to give the wrong impression of myself but I'm not sure I want to delete them either.

I may just shove them into an archive to be polished up and re-written later, if I think that's worth doing.

In the mean time, time are a' changing and this blog has to, too. The list of sites on the right has been cleaned up a little, with those that have been inactive for half a year or longer removed and some URLs updated. A few new ones, mainly on disability, have been added - FWD/Forward and The Deal With Disability are both worth checking out if you have the time! I'm also on a search for someone else to co-blog, as I am, quite frankly, lazy in my updates and it'd be nice to get one or two others on board to keep things going and hopefully post about all the things I regularly miss. If you are a young UK feminist I'd be particularly interested to hear from you, as I feel that the UK blogosphere seems to be a bit small compared to the huge swathe of US feminist bloggers out there. I won't mind hearing from people outside the UK, though! Drop me a line and tell me a bit about yourself if you wish to join me here. Hopefully this site will become a bit more than just me ranting into cyberspace, in time.

I do not want to be a Hepburn in anyone's world.

2009-09-02T14:29:00.003+01:00

I hate generalisations. I particularly hate them when offered as excuses to dish out shit, misogynistic relationship advice. 'Women just LOVE babies, and thus should be happy to do all the hard work with them - making your husband (never partner or, heaven forbid, wife) share the responsibility will force him to hate you!' Or, 'Men hate women who think for themselves! Never express an opinion unless it's his own.'

Naturally, this quote from the book How To Be A Hepburn In A Hilton World makes my blood boil. In bold, my responses to each point.

It's no secret that we girls start fantasizing about a fairy-tale wedding and happily-ever-after love story around the same time we start teething (I still have a wedding book that I compiled at age six!). Good for you. I did none of that, I was too busy climbing trees and playing with our two spaniels. Relationships are a big deal to us. I agree, my friends and loving partner are very important parts of my life. We want to hear all about our roommate's new boyfriend (beyond his name and whether something's going wrong, I'd rather not hear everything. Your boyfriend, not mine.), have to get every detail of our coworker's upcoming nuptials (weddings are some of the most boring things I've ever experienced. Conversations about planning them, even worse.), and lament right along with Jennifer Aniston over Brad Pitt as if he cheated on us (spare me.). We love to watch TLC's A Wedding Story (no), feverishly scan Us Weekly for the latest blossoming celebrity romance (all I read is the Student BMJ and National Geographic. Why? No dull, vapid, bland, boring celebrity gossip, no fashion spreads, none of that bullshit.), and sob every time we see Sleepless in Seattle (I have never seen this, nor do I plan to.). We spend hours prepping ourselves for a date (about as much time as I'd spend getting ready for any other night out - under and hour. Two hours tops if my hair needs a lot of work to achieve Siouxsie-heights.) and even more time obsessing about what our potential children will look like (I spend more time making plans to never, ever have them. And why worry about their looks? Are you really that shallow?) and whether or not our initials mesh nicely (My previous question is answered. That's... pretty shallow.). Conclusion: girls love love. (Yeah, but none of those things you've listed are equated with love in my mind.)

You see? None of her advice, based upon her perceptions of what women are like, would work for me because her description of what women are like clashes utterly with my own personal experience. Oh, and the whole thing is based on that false virgin/whore dichotomy that everyone worth their salt should know about.

Fuck that. Hepburn was beautiful and a talented actress. I don't think I'm that bad in the looks department and my acting skills are fairly good, but I'd quite like to be me. And that means continuing to ignore stupid, dated advice such as that doled out by Jordan Christy.

Every feminist is fallible. Some, unforgivably so.

2009-08-23T17:04:00.011+01:00

We all have our idols. I'm rather keen on the musicians Thom Yorke and Amanda Palmer, the activist Julia Serrano, numerous talented and hard-working friends and family. Up until recently, there was also Germaine Greer. There's no denying it, she has written some iconic, challenging, revolutionary stuff in her time. Some of her work is nigh indispensable to the average feminist, providing a foundation to work from or awakening the anger we didn't know we had at the treatment of women. Unfortunately, and more and more often as of late, she has also caused the awakening another anger. Anger at being called non-existent. Anger at being seen as 'less than' - by the very people who claim to be fighting your side. To pick an example, she has belittled the latest generation of feminists, as if nothing has happened at all since the second wave. She has bought into the stereotype of the modern feminist, the female chauvinist pig, the girl for whom 'empowerment' is nothing but lipstick, pole-dancing and being seen as sexy, who sees anything else as dowdy, unimportant, outdated. This image is an insult for the millions who try to be so much more, who tirelessly speak out for our political, reproductive, social, HUMAN rights and are still being judged solely by their fondness for certain fashions.

And of course, she's transphobic.
There still lingers the line of thought, with her and many of her devoted followers, that only the cisgendered woman is truly a woman. That you must be both inwardly and outwardly female, chemically female, raised female to be female. That even if you felt so disconnected with your past gender that you went through years of humiliation and pain to be allowed to live as a woman, did so for decades, tried to 'pass' - no matter what, if you were at any point seen as 'male' before your transition, no matter how briefly, you will never be a woman, and thus it's okay for you to be talked about like some form of mutant. If you haven't transitioned, you will be ignored and dismissed as some wannabe man.

Hell, even when Greer is possibly* speaking in favour of a particular person** she cannot help but let her thoughts be heard on trans women.

Nowadays we are all likely to meet people who think they are women, have women's names, and feminine clothes and lots of eyeshadow, who seem to us to be some kind of ghastly parody, though it isn't polite to say so. We pretend that all the people passing for female really are. Other delusions may be challenged, but not a man's delusion that he is female.

Think they are women. Ghastly parody. Delusion. Words written by a woman who has been lucky enough to never have any doubt as to what she is. To listen to her you'd think it was a breezy walk in the park, that every trans woman wakes up one day and thinks, "Gee, wouldn't it be swell to just, like, change? I think I shall be a lady today."

I've read the debate a thousand times, of how trans women will be threatening to cis women who have faced abuse when they show up in changing rooms and woman-only spaces, how they'll never know what it's like to be raised female, et cetera, ad nauseam. I'll admit I cannot speak for women who have faced years of abuse and just want a safe haven. I have not idea what it's like for them - but I also have no idea what it's like to be trans gendered, to be raised as something you have a powerful feeling that you are not. All I can say is that there is no excuse, at any point, to treat anyone as subhuman, to write about them in such hateful language, simply for trying to live their life. They aren't attempting to harm anyone else, yet to hear some of the vitriol directed at the trans community you'd think they want to wipe out the rest of the human race. Remove the 'trans' prefix, and what do you get? PEOPLE. As in, human beings. Men and women. Not monsters. It's little wonder that some just ain't feeling feminism.

The more I read from Greer, the less admiration I feel. I cannot happily align myself with someone who freely dismisses whole groups of people like this, no matter how great their past work has been. Articles like this, I'd expect to see in the Daily Mail. Not in the supposedly progressive Guardian - but we all know what Comment is Free is like.

*The article is so disconnected and fluctuating it's hard to tell exactly what she's getting at.
** My thoughts on Caster Semenya? An androgynous woman is still a woman.

Diary of a Hairy Young Lady: The Reaction So Far?

2009-07-24T15:14:00.009+01:00

Positive.
You heard me. Good press. No hard feelings. People are still treating me like a human being despite the obvious evidence of hair follicles on my arms, shins and oxters. Most people I've met personally haven't made any comments at all about this aspect of my appearance, which is good - I'm not looking to be treated as 'special' or 'different', I just don't want to get any grief. The comments on my very first post in the series tell the stories of several women - one of whom is growing her hair to show support for her daughter who is receiving flack for daring to be normal*. It always makes me smile to hear such positivity around a subject that's often seen as disgusting.

In fact, in all the time since I started posting these blogs, I have only received one negative comment. From a complete stranger. On a Youtube video.
I'd made a short tutorial for a friend who lives in another city on the spur of the moment a few months back. No preparation involved just sat down, made the video and uploaded it so she could see. I didn't mind other people seeing it, but it wasn't one of those 'Hello, Youtube! Check this out!' clips, so I hadn't made much of an effort with my appearance. I was scruffy and my hair was a little greasy, I'll admit, and the commenter pointed this out - whilst also telling me to shave my armpits, saying they were repulsive. I cheerfully assured them that the video was misleading, and that I do actually wash all my hair on a regular basis.

That's it. One insult since January. From someone who I don't know, will probably never see and don't particularly care about.

There is hope yet, my friends.

*I'm not saying that women who remove the 'extra' hair are abnormal, I'm saying that those who don't aren't.

The niqab and the police - a post on 'hiding one's identity'.

2009-06-27T14:18:00.016+01:00

I prefer not to delve into this subject too much; I am not Muslim, I have never had any religious convictions of any sort and so I cannot speak much about the compulsion to express one's faith in a very visible way. In terms of gut feeling, I see no problem with the head scarf, jilbab, chador or any other form of modest dress provided that choice to don such garments is a truly free one - there's no reason to force women to either cover up entirely or to wear garments which flash a lot of skin, and it should be left to the individual to decide where on that scale they wish to fall on a day-to-day basis. In terms of covering the face too, that's a complicated one which brings in lots of questions about human nature, the teachings of the Qur'an, the occupations of women, freedom and the nature of free will and choice, amongst other things. I'm not going too far into that here. I just have a single response to a particular point.

I'm currently listening to a debate on Radio 4 about the practice, specifically, of covering the face with the full niqab or burqa. A few people were bringing up the issue of identification and security - what if these 'masked' women go into a bank, or through an airport? Shouldn't they be required to show their faces? The woman responding these questions, a religious scholar and law student who I think wears the niqab, pointed out that in these situations she would go to one side and show her face to a female member of staff, allowing her to be identified without having to reveal herself to any male members of the public or staff in the process. Then more callers went further - what about on the street? They feel 'really uncomfortable' when they see a woman with a covered face. One said they didn't know if such a woman would smile back, so to 'avoid the snub, he wouldn't smile at her, thus he was being forced to be unfriendly'. ('Give us a smile, love', anyone?) Others said they felt there was a 'wall' being put up, that such women were openly refusing to be a part of our society.
There seems to be this huge preoccupation with always seeing a woman's face. In a society where women are constantly Judged on appearances, where our smiling faces are used to sell everything, where a woman is a 'bitch' for not altering her outward show of emotions to make others more comfortable even when she's just trying to walk down the street in peace, we have become obsessed with the fact that some women - for whatever reason - are not conforming to this. We attack them, we call them backwards, we attack their religious views, their husbands, their entire culture. Women must be identified at all times, even though there are no laws against being anonymous, save for in particular situations. We are outraged that a particular group of people are refusing the be identified by anyone who passes them by. Yet, whilst we rain down upon them with insults and vitriol, there is another group of people, very well respected in our society, who are occasionally also hiding their identities - and breaking the law whilst doing so. Not nearly as much fuss is being made about these people, and when someone does speak up they are often called a liar, or told they're exaggerating, or accused of stirring up trouble. Who are these people who are getting away with this blatant anonymity? The police.

Before I go on, here is the obligatory disclaimer - I feel the police are a good thing in many situations. The majority of them are conscientious, upstanding members of society who want nothing more than to ensure that everyone is safe. Yet there are some members who, at some point, have done something serious to undermine the public trust in the law forces and to make our society a less free one by preventing people from exercising their rights, particularly at protests such as the recent G20 rallies, and these people, who were breaking the law and every bit as dangerous to the public as those who ransacked the bank branch, need to be called out and disciplined.
They are the law keepers, the peace keepers, role models to thousands, and regulated by a set of laws themselves. One of these laws states that an officer, when uniformed and carrying out their job, must be identifiable. Their faces must be visible, sure, but there are other things too - it's easy to forget one face amongst many, and in situations where people might want an officer to identify themselves there are often whole groups of police present. Whilst in uniform they must display a number which identifies them, which can be seen on the epaulette*. Just ask Met commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson. If asked by any member of the public, they must give this number - they can keep their name to themselves, but the number must be given. This means that, should an officer break the law, this number can be passed on to the relevant authorities and the relevant action can be taken - the police are thus kept in check by the public, without putting their personal lives at risk by showing a name that could be looked up in a phone book. For the most part, this rule is followed to the letter. Yet already there are stories all over the place of officers who refuse to display this number. Not usually from sightings of them as they're on the beat, but often at protests, where tensions run high. You know, where people might actually want to know those numbers. Because things like this are likely to happen.

Picture from here. This officer has been suspended for beating a protester. Where's the number?

"Numbers on riot police are like spots on zebras", to quote one seasoned protester. Either it's not worn at all, or (according to several accounts) a piece of tape is stuck over it, masking it whilst the commanding officers aren't looking. When asked for their numbers by the public, they refuse to disclose this information. Now, when the same members of the public attempt to photograph these officers in an attempt to get some record of identity to pass onto the authorities, they could be arrested. In fact, here is video footage of this happening. A woman requests a number, it is refused, she asks her fellow protesters to take pictures and at that point they are dragged away, forced to the ground and arrested. Interestingly, an officer makes sure that the protester's face was visible to the police camera by grabbing her around the throat and forcing her head up, but the officers had all their own faces blurred and continue to hide their own identities. There is no law that makes the photographing of a member of the police illegal, for the record**. In this case, it was the officers who were ignoring the rules, for the protesters were doing nothing wrong. This is far from an isolated incident, and I've been told by a lot of people that these women were lucky to have avoided being beaten in the process. When it comes to events like this, I wouldn't just feel 'uncomfortable' at seeing an officer without a number - I'd feel threatened. A face is useful but, in a situation like this, often not enough and, furthermore, if it's effectively being hidden by threats of arrest, the police might as well be wearing masks. Yet already, people are speaking out to defend these actions, forgetting all the footage and tragedies from the recent rallies in London.

I ask this: why do we feel so strongly about a few women, a tiny minority of our population, hiding their identities but still respecting the laws around identification, when there are people who have been given power over us, WHO ARE REQUIRED TO BE IDENTIFIABLE IN ORDER TO BE PROPERLY REGULATED, who are just... getting away with it? If all members of society must be accountable, then more action needs to be taken to ensure the example is being set by those who enforce the law. And if you don't think this, then please - stop picking on Muslimahs. You don't need to know who they are at all times. They aren't breaking the law. They're just trying to walk down the street.

*From a Home Office spokesperson: "...the public has a right to be able to identify any uniformed officers while performing their duties."

**"The taking of photographs in a public place is not subject to any rule or Statute and there are no legal restrictions on photography in a public place. Police Officers do, however, have a discretion to ask people not to take photographs for public safety or security reasons. The offence is not intended to capture an innocent tourist taking a photograph of a Police Officer, or a journalist photographing Police Officers as part of his or her job. It does not criminalise the normal taking of photographs of the Police. There are no legal restrictions on taking a photograph in a public place except where the picture is taken with the intent of committing a crime or terrorist act."
- Response from Nigel Battersby, GMPA Legal Adviser at Police Authority Meeting, 1/5/09
Many police officers, despite this law, continue to claim that it is illegal to photograph them under any circumstances and make it difficult for people to do so when they are trying to gather evidence of misconduct. The 'intent to commit a crime or terrorist act' is a rather vague detail that can be expanded to cover pretty much anyone.

Quote of the Day

2009-06-15T16:09:00.005+01:00

"Here’s the reason, stated plainly: Forget for a moment that Palin is anti-choice, something that makes my fucking blood boil. Let’s consider only her party-affiliation: If Palin runs around with Republicans, the enemies of women’s rights and women’s organizations, does she have any right to turn around and expect feminists to defend her in feminist terms? It’s like Caitlin Flanagan and Phyllis Shlafly – “women” shouldn’t work, but I will, thankyouverymuch. Palin: “women” shouldn’t have everything that feminism and liberals want them to have, but my daughters need feminist defense."

The Apostate on Sarah Palin's sudden conversion to feminism.

Shortened version: Feminists can, should and often will speak out against sexism regardless of the target woman's political alignment, but it's really galling when those same women turn around and say, "Thanks for the support. Now fuck off.".

Diary of a Hairy Young Lady: Dare to bare!

2009-06-13T16:18:00.005+01:00

Adverts are everywhere now the weather's heating up. 'Get your legs ready for summer!' 'Don't hide away!' 'Dare to bare with Nair!' Clearly, us women need Wilkinson Sword and Veet to enjoy the hot weather, for we cannot show an inch of skin if it's got any of that... that... stuff on it. Urgh. We'd be run out of town.
Same with all the lotion companies - we may be Scots, but that's apparently no excuse for having pasty skin, and the bizarre, unnatural Oompa-loompa 'Maryhill Makeover' look is bursting back into full bloom nationwide. To quote an Irish woman on the radio, "I used to go home and all the girls had white faces and orange hair. No they all have white hair and orange faces."

I hereby declare that my legs ARE ready for the outside world. At any time. With their natural coat and sans fake tan.

Click for full-sized hairy glory!

I will also admit that I'm rather fond of Carl Sagan's work.

What marks a feminist?

2009-06-11T16:09:00.007+01:00

[NOTE: I'M LEAVING THIS UP FOR NOW, BUT I'M INTENDING TO MODIFY IT SLIGHTLY - LARGELY BECAUSE I GOT SIDETRACKED AND CONVEYED SLIGHTLY THE WRONG MESSAGE. It's posted on Feministing somewhere, where someone's comment alerted me to the fact that I was, in terms of my intended message, talking bollocks.]

There are several saying out there which talk about how a true friend will support you through the hard times as well as the good, stick by you even when they disagree with you, that sort of thing. I've been drafting a couple of posts and they got me thinking about some feminist acts I've encountered recently:

On the news last night, I saw Zahra Rahnavard, wife to the Iranian presidential candidate and reformist Mir-Hossein Mousavi, stating her view that women should be allowed to choose what they wear without fear of recrimination by people like the current morality police. She herself was fully covered, with not a hair visible, though many of Mousavi's supporters are less strict about their headscarves.
I have a few devoutly Christian friends who would never terminate a pregnancy unless their lives were at risk, but have no qualms with other women choosing otherwise.
Feminists all over the place decide not to remove their body hair as both a political statement and personal preference, but don't chastise other feminists when they choose to be clean-shaven.
Stay-at-home mothers are often uncritical of the decision of other mothers to join the workforce. Don't let the Daily Mail fool you, these women aren't in the minority.

It's all very well to be a feminist, or to follow any political or religious movement because it happens to agree with your own personal choices. But sometimes I just feel that the true feminists among us are those who, regardless of their own beliefs and practices, are willing to trust other women to make their own decisions in life without simultaneously making judgements and demoting them as 'less good' because of their choices. Opposing all attempts to restrict our freedoms, even if you yourself may never make use of them, preferring to spread honest information to allow others to make up their minds as you did rather than force everyone to follow your own line of thought. Allowing women to make truly free decisions.
In essence, supporting every woman's right to choose - in ALL areas of her life.

What would YOU define as truly feminist?

Busy, busy.

2009-05-25T19:16:00.003+01:00

Sorry about the lack of posting on here lately. My exams are tomorrow and I've been studying like mad. I've not slack off entirely, though - head on over to Rambling of Today's Yoof for a post on cancer and the media and a quick note on voting. If you haven't read it yet, Philosophical Weegie also made an excellent post there on the public response to a simple ad for the morning-after pill.

Jazz - Delicious Hot, Disgusting Cold

2009-04-20T08:00:00.007+01:00

To sort-of steal the quote from the presenter who played this on Radio 7 yesterday, every day should be started with the Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band. It really does take some skill to be able to play so badly so well.

Now, back to university.

Diary of a Hairy Young Lady: Conversations with other young ladies.

2009-04-05T17:21:00.005+01:00

My friend was a little upset last night at the club, so I took her aside to where we could hear each other to have a chat. As we sat down, she glanced nervously at my strappy vest.

'Are... do you still do that... not-shaving-your-armpits thing?'

This was a little unexpected; such questions don't often just pop out of the blue from teary-eyed people who are asking advice on relationships. Nevertheless, I answered her question by raising my arm, exposing its now rather fluffy depths.

'Oh, cool. I'm doing that too - was worried I was the only one!'

The conversation then went on without further mention of hairiness.

Domestic Violence - Isn't it time someone called 'cut'?

2009-04-03T17:22:00.008+01:00

Whilst Rhianna has been dragged out as the DV poster girl and had to suffer all the humiliation and idiotic, sexist commentary that comes with such unauthorised public exposure, Keira Knightley has teamed up with Women's Aid to produce this national awareness campaign against domestic violence. I must warn you, this could be triggering - the message isn't softened.

Knightley's line about 'not agreeing to this, this isn't in the script' is a telling one - women never 'ask' to subjected to this abuse and violence. Not by getting together with these men, not by staying with them, not by going back to them, not by 'nagging', not by being late home, not by burning the dinner - in the theatre of a woman's life, ABUSE WAS NEVER IN THE ORIGINAL PLOT - and she wasn't consulted when the scriptwriter added it in.

Also, via the Feministing Community, a Canadian PSA against verbal abuse:

Killing Us Softly 3

2009-04-01T23:33:00.003+01:00

Kate posted an abridged version of this excellent talk a few days ago and I just had to dig out the full version. So, if you have a half-hour to spare, make yourself a cup of tea and sit back.

Jean Kilbourne talks about how advertising reflects and influences our view of women, often with a little humour but never de-emphasising how serious this subject is.

I couldn't help but notice that, in the comments for the first video, someone talked about how incredible it was for a man to post these videos. Whilst I am very pleased to see people spreading videos like this about and actively supporting the feminist cause, proudly calling themselves feminists, I couldn't help but bitterly think how very different the comments would be had a girl posted these. For every time I see a woman posting a feminist video or column, the comments are filled with vitriol, sexism, degrading comments; when men post feminist videos and columns, they are praised for being so amazing and brave as to believe that women are human beings too. So while I commend everyone, regardless of gender, who makes and spreads these videos and blog posts and articles and artworks, my joy is always edged with bitterness that, even here, sexism rears its ugly head.

I Love Emilie Autumn

2009-03-08T04:38:00.005Z

Taking the old 'Girls are grateful for the attention, and obviously want all the guys in the joint to objectify her' line and turning it into a song.

Thank God I'm Pretty

Thank God I'm pretty
The occasional free drink I never asked for
The occasional admission to a seedy little bar
Invitation to a stranger's car
I'm blessed
With the ability to rend a grown man tongue-tied
Which only means that when it's dark outside
I have to run and hide can't look behind me
Thank God I'm pretty

Thank God I'm pretty
Every skill I ever have will be in question
Every ill that I must suffer merely brought on by myself
Though the cops would come for someone else
I'm blessed
I'm truly privileged to look this good without clothes on
Which only means that when I sing you're jerking off
And when I'm gone you won't remember
Thank God I'm pretty

Thank you God
Oh, lord
Thank you God
Oh, oh and when a gaggle of faces appears around me
It's lucky I hate to be taken seriously
I think my ego would fall right through the cracks in the floor
If I couldn't count on men to slap my ass any more
I know my destiny's such, that I'm all stocking and curl
So everybody thinks that I'm a fucking suicide girl

Thank you God
For the occasional champagne I never asked for
The occasional admission to a seedy little bar
Invitation to a stranger's car
I'm blessed
With the ability to rend a grown man tongue-tied
Which only means that when it's dark outside
I have to run and hide can't look behind me
Thank God I'm pretty

Thank God
Thank God
Thank you
Thank you
Thank you God!

Today Did Not Start Well

2009-03-04T11:41:00.002Z

I woke up with a headache, couldn't find my dissection kit, ran out of cereal, knocked my shins off things - the whole lot. My concerns, however, are minor compared to the news today of the ways in which the recession is hitting women.

First, a report on GMTV told how a fifth of women and a quarter of men (surprise, surprise) felt that, if a business has to make some employees redundant, the the maternity-leavers and possibly the working mothers should be given the boot first. Can't be having women with children working to support their progeny, can we? Why, they may have concerns outside of making their employer rich! They're a drain on the economy - in fact, I bet they're the reason for the whole recession. Women! Go back home and let the ~~mostly male~~ people in suits get us out of the fix they created. The men will save the day if you just stop stealing their jobs! etc.

With the sour taste from that little newsbit still in my mouth, I returned from classes to find this Guardian article sitting in my inbox. It's predicted that violence against women will go up as people (men) get more stressed about finances.

The attorney general, Lady Scotland, has also warned that domestic violence will rise with increased financial worries. The government booklet devotes a section to the impact of the recession on divorce, violence and family tensions.

"Economic downturns can be difficult times for family relationships. Worries about finances can create additional tension and in some cases, where couples have already decided to part, problems over selling the family home can deepen tensions," the booklet states.

It goes on to say: "Women may face threats from violent or abusive partners." Information about the state-funded services on offer for victims are set out in the leaflet, with advice about when to call for help from the police. A separate report headed "Are women bearing the brunt of the recession?" published today by the Fawcett Society echoed the government's concern, warning that "women's social and economic circumstances make them particularly vulnerable to economic downturn". The campaign group for women's rights said there had been an increase in domestic violence referrals.

Fix the economy, please. And whilst we're at it, teach those guys some better ways to manage their anger. You know, something OTHER than lashing out.

Sod today for a bundle of laughs, I'm going back to bed.

Why The 'What About The Men?' Question REALLY Bugs Me, Part I

2009-03-02T20:59:00.006Z

A bit less navel gazing from me, more on Feminism As A Whole! Let's go.

There are lots of questions that feminists are asked all the time - what it is, if they hate men, if they hate certain clothes/cosmetics/activities/sexual practises, if they're all lesbians... but one that's been cropping up a lot for me lately has been the ever present, "Why don't you campaign for men's rights too?" Variations on this include 'I prefer the term 'humanist'', 'Men get abused too' and 'What about human rights?'. There's a really, terribly grating assumption underlying this, of course, and here'

Just because I'm a feminist does not mean I don't care about non-females.

The thing is, I also identify as a humanist, just like you, my dear detractor. I care a lot about the humanitarian crises all over the globe, the famines, the race issues, the legions of young men outnumbering the scores of young women who are sent out to fight in unnecessary wars every day.
However, I also identify as feminist, because I care about the rights of women as a specific group of humans who sometimes have different needs and problems to other members of the species - needs and problems, I may add, which are often trivialised and overlooked. When I say 'I'm a feminist' I'm not saying 'I only care about women', in much the same way as a maths student doesn't necessarily ignore everything that doesn't involve numbers and equations.

I was thinking of an analogy for this today as I walked to uni - how do I make people understand that feminism isn't thinly-veiled sexism when that's what they are told all the time? The it hit me - the answer lies in my own future career.

Think of the medical profession. As students begin their path, they study a broad, over-arching subject - Medicine. For five years, we look at a variety of ailments, common problems, societal issues relating to health, general first aid, communication skills, hygiene - things that we'll need to know about in just about any medical profession. When we graduate, we start to specialise a little, applying our knowledge to general surgery and medicine during our foundation years, transitioning from 'people who know' to 'people who practise'. Then we start to choose our precise area of specialisation. Some go into surgery, and from their focus on particular areas - neurosurgery, ears, nose + throat surgery, heart surgery. Others take a different route, becoming medical consultants or going into research, and others leave the hospitals to become community health workers and GPs.

These people all received the same basic training in university, with the same goal - 'I want to help people'. In the same way, people who care about human rights usually start off the same way, learning about all the injustices in the world, wanting to do something about it. They march, they write letters, they get angry, they read. They build up their basic knowledge of as many common issues as they can, to try and create a solid base from which to speak. Some then start to identify strongly enough to, say, become a member of a general group against injustice - think Amnesty International. They may become more than a lay member, working up to become a key figure in the group's administration, building up more in-depth knowledge and reading news from all over the world, writing about a wide variety of subjects, working hard to keep as up-to-date on as many things as possible. These are like the general practitioners of the humanist world - they're one of the first groups people go to to find out about campaigns, about the issues that affect everyone. They link a huge range of human rights groups together.
The 'specialists' - the surgeons, the consultants, the psychiatrists of this humanist hospital - are the more focussed groups. They may campaign for gay rights, or women's rights, or speak out against racism, or work to fight poverty. Among them you may then get the really specialised groups (neuro/heart surgeons, say) who have chosen to take a very specific path - imagine all the different feminist sub-groups!
At each level of specialisation, these people are learning more and speaking more about their chosen subject. What they are not doing, however, is divorcing themselves entirely from their roots. An ENT Consultant may be more focussed than a General Practitioner - but they are both doctors. The difference is that the GP has chosen to keep up with a variety of medical subjects and work on a primary care level, whereas the consultant knows a lot more about various head-region maladies and will be able to deliver specialist, advanced treatment to those patients whose earache the GP was unable to cure. They both work together though, as part of a huge medical network, and they will both know a fair amount about a number of overlapping medical issues that they both face. In the same way, I as a feminist am trying to understand the roles that women play in societies and the issues they face, but this will overlap with a number of other subjects that I'm less 'specialised' in and I'll encounter a fair few others in my day-to-day life, and so I learn about some of those as well as I go along. I know a little about gay men's rights, for example - but if I want the full story, I'll go to the experts in that area. And, if there's a campaign against gay hate crime, I'll be going with that too, but I can't say I'm a leading figure there - my role will be more of a supporting one.
There are many people out there who are 'specialists' in more than one area, too - someone may be a feminist AND a campaigner for African-American rights AND a trans activist. They could know a lot and do a lot about all these areas - so if you see someone speaking as a feminist, don't assume that that's they ONLY thing they do anything about.

What I'm trying to get at, in my usual convoluted way, is this - yes, I care about your rights too. I care about human rights passionately, but I don't know everything and I find it quite hard to keep up with it all, so I've chosen to focus on one area. I'm... a humanist specialist. I'm keeping up as much as I can with as many things as possible, but my most developed area lies with the subject of this blog.

So, why aren't I talking about men? For the same reason that you wouldn't ask a podiatrist to perform a hysterectomy. I know about general human rights and women's rights, but if you want some specialised analysis of the trials of the male human - well, why are you reading this?

Rape Crisis Centre Faces Closure in London

2009-02-03T11:10:00.002Z

These places need funds, you know. This is just awful. As Amelia points out, Rape Crisis centres are often ignored and forgotten about, deemed unimportant until another woman is attacked and needs their help. When this service is gone, where will survivors go for help? No-where else offers the specialised care that they do:

Because we are in the voluntary sector, everyone thinks that we are working for free, and that we are middle-aged, middle-class women who want to help these poor victims. The reality is that our eight, paid counsellors are highly trained members of staff, with degrees and diplomas in counselling and sexual violence training. Some have master's, all have thousands of hours of experience. We are working at a level equivalent to that provided by the NHS or higher.
The NHS doesn't offer specialist rape crisis assistance. They offer short-term courses, but women who may have been abused for 10 or 15 years when they were children may find that six weeks of counselling is not enough. Sometimes we work with people for up to a year. Last year we saw 320 women, but also offered emergency couselling and a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week telephone helpline.

Be as cynical as you like, but I'd like to savour this moment.

2009-01-22T03:06:00.004Z

A friend of mine, after hearing US President Obama's inauguration speech, commented that it was fantastic, encouraging, exciting - yet he couldn't help but be reminded of a similar great speech delivered back in 1997 by the the victorious new Labour leader, Tony Blair, who had come to save us from the horrors of the Conservatives and bring Britain into a new age of equality, health and happiness for all. Over a decade, several eroded liberties and a couple of unjust wars later, we look back on that moment and mourn. Although, that said, the introduction of the national minimum wage was a fantastic idea for which we are all grateful. It would just be so much better if our shiny amazing New Labour hadn't turned out to be 'like the Tories, but just slightly more towards the centre'.

Yes, we're a jaded and bitter lot here in Britain. Whilst Washington D.C. was swamped by millions of excited Americans chanting "YES WE CAN!", a good number of the Brits watched on reservedly and thought "... but will you?" Some noted that Obama was treated as a hero before he had done a single thing as President. Others noted dubious donations, having seen so many politicians over here engaging in underhand financial activities. Others (all white, I noticed) got frustrated at constant references to his race: "Just because his skin's dark doesn't mean he'll be any better than the white prat he beat!" (We can't even enjoy a great historic moment anymore without griping, it seems.) Still more suggested that, considering his predecessor, it won't take much for Obama to be 'better', and we should reserve our celebrations for the time that he proves himself to be more than just 'not Bush'.
Yet so far, our pessimism appears misplaced. The proposals set down on the White House's website are inspiring. The promises for transparency are encouraging. Suspending all activity is Guantanamo Bay? OH HELL, YES! The new President, whilst not perfect (not a few have noticed his opposition to gay marriage), he still seems to be more than a small improvement on the Republican administration.
Of course, it's not unknown for the new guy in the Oval Office to make big changes to mark his entry, only to dumb down or reverse things later. But for once, in spite of those who surround me, I for one would like to look forward with a little more hope. This involves attacking my inner cynic with a minigun, which will at least stun it temporarily. The Presidency in the USA often sets the tone for our Government over here. Bush helped take the world to hell, and we watched in growing disbelief as our own leaders started to imitate him. If Obama can live up to his promises, it may just put a little pressure on those in Westminster to stop messing about and treat us ordinary people like we matter too (well, one can dream, at any rate). The whole world is watching and taking note. This is big.

Besides, I have assessments to worry about without stressing over someone else's new leader. Smile, everyone!

Diary of a Hairy Young Lady, Day 1.

2009-01-03T01:59:00.012Z

Y'know what I'm sick of? Tabloids and gossip spreads going out of their way to find famous women with the slightest hint of body hair just so they can loudly denounce them for daring to ditch the razor for a day or two.
You know what pisses me off even more?
This. This shoddy, stupid, pathetic excuse for journalism which tells everyone that, not only is hair on a woman's body DISGUSTING, it's also UNHYGIENIC and DIRTY and makes you HIDEOUS. It's all true because a woman grew a little bit of pit-hair and, surprise surprise, some men were repulsed because they've been raised in a culture which shames women for daring to put even a toe over the line of conventional beauty rules, and have been trained to see such women as sub-human.
FUCK YOU, The Sun. TO HELL WITH ANY STUPID BEAUTY ARTICLE OR WOMAN'S MAG WHICH DARES TO TELL ANYONE THAT THEIR NATURAL HEALTHY BODIES ARE VILE. It shouldn't matter if you do or do not shave your pits and legs. Really, whatever you prefer. Cool, fine, awesome. What I want is for those who prefer less hair to stop picking on those who see nothing wrong with a fuzzy woman. That's all. Live and let live.

Of course, I can't just leave things at that, so here: my own little diary of hair-growth! Now, I'll admit, I'm cheating - my armpits haven't been shaved for a wee while, so I'm not starting from point zero here. This is what I look like after 2am on Day 1, having just decided to do this:

Those of a fashion-sensitive disposition may be shocked to realise that this unspeakably noticeable amount of underarm fuzz is NOT due to a momentary slip in a usually impeccable grooming regime, or due to a lack of razors - I usually shave under my arms about once a month, so my armpits are normally like this for about two and a half weeks out of every four. They don't get covered up unless I'm cold. They get flashed about, willy-nilly, all over the place. But just for you lovely people, I'm gonna let these babies grow free for a bit longer, and if I'm treated like mud then I'll be sure to tell you. But I can promise you this - such moments of unpleasantness are actually quite rare. Thing is, lots of men and women can actually accept that hair happens, and treat a girl like a human being even if she doesn't have the same standards as Zoe-from-the-Sun says she normally has. I think it's about time that people hear the story from someone who doesn't see womanly stubble in the same light as, say, cat vomit in one's slippers. It's just a normal aspect of most people's bodies, like fingernails and skin. Please, if any of you ladies have any stories, good or bad, about your own bodily hair then feel free to share them! Let's get some feminist voices out here.
So, my status on this first day - about half a centimetre's growth of dark hair, dark circles under eyes from lack of sleep, dark clouds swarming round my pissed-off lady-brain. See you soon with an update!

Unsurprisingly, 'more feminine' = more acceptable in law firm.

2008-12-23T16:10:00.001Z

I keep telling myself not to, but time and again I find myself drawn back to the dull, dismal drivel in Femail that I, as a carrier of two X chromosomes, am supposed to be naturally interested in. It's almost as is I WANT to get irritated.

Women working at top law firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer have been told that, in order to to achieve the 'correct' professional look, they must 'embrace their femininity'. This means two things: skirts (well, okay...) and high heels (sigh). Never mind that these shoes are, at best, uncomfortable and at worst extremely bad for your feet, ankles and back. No, no, apparently forcing one's feet into an extremely unnatural position makes you stand BETTER. If you are a woman, that is.

Freshfields says it has been offering the image course to staff for some time.

'It's basically a session on how to project a professional image within the workplace,' said a spokesman.

'It's advice rather than a list of do's and don'ts.

Around 90 employees attended the makeover session in recent months as part of an induction programme for trainees.

One image consultant who used to be a lawyer explained why women might have been given advice to wear heels.

Lucinda Slater, founder of Best Foot Forward, said: 'It helps them stand better and gives them height.'

Oh, advice, is it? I'm willing to bet that having an official sounding personal tell them to wear them will make more women fell pressured to choose shoes they find uncomfortable when they'd rather wear flats, but maybe I'm just a cynic. I mean, heavens, I KNOW how uncomfortable heels can be because I choose to wear them occasionally on nights out too. I do rather like being tall, and they look quite good. But from TWO NIGHTS of wearing them, here are my list of complaints:

Blisters
Rough skin
Sore toes
Pain along my right big toe and up its related metatarsal bone
Broken toenails (they were cut short, but having my full body weight pushing down on the very ends of my feet causes the toes to swell and any extra crushing can then crack the nail)

The sore metatarsal was a sign to go back to my just-as-nice and far-more-comfortable Docs until all damage has been rectified.
It's one thing to occasionally wear such shoes, we all know they hurt but lots of us also rather like them, but we decide when to stop and go flat-footed again. When an employer either actively encourages or even flatly tells the women it employs to wear these shoes every day that they come into work, I call bullshit. That's DAMAGING, and the more successive days that heels are worn, the more damage they inflict and they more likely it is for such damage to become permanent. Furthermore, they look no more professional than a good pair of well-crafted flat smart shoes, and we should be able to take a female lawyer, a very smart, well educated woman, seriously without making her teeter about on stilts and dress all pretty and 'feminine' for us, especially if this isn't a choice she'd otherwise make. Some women like skirts and heels, others prefers trousers and flats. Let's stop treating one as somehow 'better' (which is what they mean by 'more professional') than the other.

Remove the Gag - sign the petition.

2008-12-20T13:26:00.005Z

The Global Gag Rule, implemented in 2001 when US President George W. Bush came into power, denies US funding to overseas health centres if they offer or even mention abortion, even if it's legal in that country. This means that they must stay quiet if asked, they cannot even provide basic information, and if a clinic receives funding and doesn't offer terminations but has a related clinic which does (even if that doesn't get any US money), that centre will no longer receive any money either. These centres aren't just abortion clinics, they offer basic health care, advice, family planning, maternity services. So when these clinics are forced to close due to lack of funds, entire communities are denied the basic services that they have a right to receive. Mothers are more at risk during pregnancy and childbirth. Couples receive no information on contraceptives and safe sex, leaving them more likely to contract STIs or end up with an unwanted pregnancy which, y'know, they may wish to terminate, thus driving more women to the back streets as they have no support or safer alternatives. These clinics also offer vaccinations and medicines, such as anti-malarials. Thus, the GGR has left millions of people sick and dying because of the American Religious Right's closed-minded moralistic selfishness.

There's now a petition to the President-elect, asking him to remove the GGR upon his inauguration. Sign it here.

Story via Feministing.

New President - New Chances for Women?

2008-11-07T17:48:00.008Z

The Obama team have launched a new website, Change.gov, outlining their proposals and offering the American people a chance to have their say. Excellent! My inner sceptic is reminded of the UK version, allowing us to send online petitions to the government, which rarely seems to make much impact, but here's hoping that it's more than just an empty popularity-generator. Certainly there's a lot of positive stuff in there!

Naturally, I went straight over to the 'Women' section of the agenda, and it makes me smile. Headings such as 'Empowering women to prevent HIV/AIDS', 'Fixing the nation's healthcare system' and 'Supporting stem cell research' jump out - and for all the pro-choicers out there, here's the reproductive rights section:

REPRODUCTIVE CHOICE

Supports a Woman's Right to Choose:

Barack Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in that case.

Preventing Unintended Pregnancy:

Barack Obama is an original co-sponsor of legislation to expand access to contraception, health information and preventive services to help reduce unintended pregnancies. Introduced in January 2007, the Prevention First Act will increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education that teaches both abstinence and safe sex methods. The Act will also end insurance discrimination against contraception, improve awareness about emergency contraception, and provide compassionate assistance to rape victims.

Oh my. Along with the recent pro-choice voting going on over the pond, this new load of sensible speak is a breath of fresh air after all the 'Zygotes=fully-formed cute babies in miniature' rhetoric. See, if all this comes true, the USA may have a chance of shaking off the unfortunate 'idiotic bigot-rich power-crazed backwater' image that it's been building up under Bush. I can't find anything on LGBT rights though, which brings back my reservations. Considering the recent successes of motions like Prop 8, what's in store when Obama is finally the president? Hopefully it'll be positive too, but there's no mention. More progressive action, please!

Election night in another country!

2008-11-04T17:41:00.003Z

But it could affect us over here and it WILL affect other countries threatened by war and relying on US aid, so damn straight I'm getting excited! Here's a little vintage humour. This is, incidentally, exactly how us Brits see politics.

I always imagine Ron Paul as Kevin Philips Bong.

I recall someone describing the difference in attitudes to political matters between the UK and USA. In Britain the situation is hopeless, but never serious, whilst in America the situation is serious, but never hopeless. And that's why we have a lot of satirical programmes such as Yes, Minister and across the pond they have drama like the West Wing.

Quick Hit - Dismissive Doctors

2008-11-01T19:18:00.004Z

Over at Ramblings of Today's Yoof we have a trio of posts about doctors being dismissive because of gender, i.e. treating men with dignity and women as hypochondriacs when both present with the same symptoms. All three bloggers have had negative experiences which we think were influenced by our sex - alongside my suspicions that the GP was brushing me off, there's Becca's history of being told her problems are psychosomatic and being prescribed ineffective treatments as she sat crying in front of the doctor and, disturbingly, Curly Sue's visit to hospital where her life was put on the line as the doctors wrote off symptoms of a ruptured appendix as 'minor issues' such as constipation or 'bad period pains'; meanwhile, a young man with the same symptoms got surgery quickly.
Check them out, and please, if you have had similar experiences of your own, feel free to tell your own stories.

Feeling Spooky!

2008-10-31T17:41:00.003Z

I'm not 100% healthy, but I'm rested and ready for some scary shenanigans. So, to everyone who's been sending me well wishes, I thankyou very much, and to all, I wish you a VERY happy, safe and fun Hallowe'en, hopefully free of sexism and racism.

I'm not the type to dress as 'Sexy ____' for anything, but on Hallowe'en I can take a 'sexy nurse' outfit and twist it to my own needs:

An Apology

2008-10-25T22:21:00.006+01:00

I'm sorry I've not been posting recently. I've not been well.
I started studying medicine at the end of last month and, a few weeks in, I started feeling really tired all the time. Not just a bit stressed, a little worn out due to the sudden onset of work where before there had been none - more a complete lack of energy, and inability to concentrate, a struggle to stay awake whenever I sat down for even a moment, hours spent staring into space, mind blank. No matter how well I slept each night I'd wake up feeling like I was crushed under a sack of rocks, then I'd carry those rocks around until my classes ended, at which point I'd go straight home and into bed because there was no way I'd be able to concentrate on the books full of jargon that all medical students must peruse on a regular basis, let alone carry on with all the other things I loved like my hobbies, working with the Glasgow Feminist Network (who are back after a summer break! Hopefully I'll be actively involved with them again soon) and, of course, posting to this blog.
This all reached a head a few days ago when, trying to study the immune system within the context of transplants and being unable to absorb any information no matter how hard I tried, I just broke down and sobbed. A bit alarming for me, considering I've never cried outwith the context of death, extreme pain or heartbreak.
Anyway, it's finally pushed me to go and see a doctor. Last time I visited the GP he put me off the place entirely so I've arranged to see a new one in a different practise. Hopefully they'll be able to help me out there. In the meantime, I'll do my best to think of something interesting to say upon my return.

Oh! Another thing! I'll also be co-blogging with Becca at Ramblings of Today's Yoof! I'll be doing my normal feminist ranting but also hope to go into other things that interest me, such as health, society, science and silly little things that get me through the day. Becca's already kicking off with some interesting articles that she's found, so do go over and have a look.

Thankyou, Feminism.

2008-10-10T14:22:00.009+01:00

Feministing has the 'Friday Feminist Fuck You/Yeah' now, where they either vent their anger about a particular anti-woman person or group or praise someone who has helped the cause. In a sense, this is a bit like that. I'm saying thankyou, on a Friday... but not to any one person, not to an organisation. I would like to thank Feminism.

"What for?", you may well ask. "There are lots of positive things that can be attributed to the feminist fight, are you grateful for ALL of them?" Well, yes... but today, there's one particular reason at the forefront of my mind.

My virginity.

To those of you who find this strange, sit tight, let me explain. I know there has been a lot of inaccurate criticism of feminism in this area. The suggestion that telling girls that sex isn't sinful and need not be marriage-linked will turn them all into raging sex-addicts who have 15 pregnancies and 9 STDs and 100 partners under their belt by the time they reach the grand old age of 13 has been flung around a lot recently; I've lost track of the number of times I've read about the spread of abstinence-only education, or seen yet another book being published about how wonderful it is to be a virgin because having sex will RUIN YOU, or scrolled through another thread full of people expressing the view that a girl's sexuality is the property of first her father then her husband (REMEMBER THAT LESBIANS ARE SINFUL), and how all of these things are seen as good and the only way to have a healthy sexual attitude.

This, my friends, is rubbish.

I am 19. I have had 3 boyfriends, in relationships ranging from 6 months to 2.5 years. I also have vaginismus, a fact I have known about but initially could neither name nor understand since I hit puberty. There have been several situations where I could have been pressured* into penetrative sex, where I could have ignored the fact that I knew I could get hurt because 'losing your virginity is supposed to be painful'. Where I could have been pressured into a whole range of things before I was ready. Currently I am on the path to overcoming my condition (yay all-month swimming!) but am still refraining from The Big Sinful Act That Will Make Me Worthless And Un-Marriable through choice - I don't feel that I'm ready yet. I'm perfectly fine with this decision, I'm happy with my choice, and my current partner is fully supportive of it.

To whom do I owe my ability to say no and not feel guilty about it? What helped me stay a virgin until I'm ready?

The people who define sex as a sin?
The idea that sex must be saved for the man I marry?
Being fed scary misinformation, such as 'condoms don't work at all'?
Modesty, trying never to excite a man's sexual desires by covering up everything below the neck?
Purity pledges?
A big ceremony where I tell daddy that I will never have sex before marriage?
Never being told about sex?

No.

I had a flawed but still comprehensive sex education at school. I filled in the gaps with information from sites like Scarleteen and from groups like the Sandyford Initiative, and was so impressed by these people that I too hope to be able to help others in the realm of sexual health in the future. Religion played no part in my upbringing, and my parents were always honest whenever I had questions to ask. I knew that condoms have a high success rate when used correctly and can protect against a range of STDs. I have no dreams of marriage, and don't want to turn my sexuality into a bartering chip. I HAVE WORN SKIRTS ABOVE THE KNEE! I also think that purity pledges do nothing, and statistics have reinforced my opinion that abstinence-only sex-ed doesn't work at all - and can be harmful.

What I do have to thank:
Being told that my body is my own, as is my sexuality.
Being told that it's okay to say no.
Being told that no-one has the right to force me into anything.
Being told that, whilst sex can be a good thing, it should only happen when both me and my partner are ready, and it is not a bad thing to ask someone to wait if they are but you're not.
Being told that there is nothing shameful about my body - allowing me to seek help and find out about my vaginismus instead of hoping it'll go away and never understanding it.

All these things - bodily freedom, integrity and autonomy, openness about female anatomy, the belief that women are worth something and can make the right decisions for themselves when given all the relevant information (as opposed to being told what is and isn't right or blatantly mislead) - these are all championed by feminists everywhere, every day. I know more about myself through talking to other women in a frank and open way than I would from being told not to touch that thing there, it's bad. I have been able to help myself. I have been able to make a choice and have the courage to stick by it, because I know there's nothing wrong with abstaining - but I also know there's nothing wrong with not being a virgin, either.
As a bonus, thanks to all those progressive types out there who don't demonise normal human behaviour, I also know a good deal about safe sex. When I'm ready, I'll be ready.

So, thank you Feminism, and all forward-thinking groups, for allowing me to be happy with my hymen. And to all those who still think that feminism forces girls to sleep with everything with a pulse - don't let the door hit you on the way out.

*they never intentionally tried to force me into anything, but due to a combination of misguided thinking and a few other things the problem still arose. I'm on good terms with my exes, they ain't bad guys - if anything, they've learned what is and isn't acceptable now. Had I been unable to express myself, however, things would've turned out very differently.

Interlude

2008-09-15T08:07:00.009+01:00

I'm currently in my final week of preparations before I start university and start learning about exciting new things involving facts, instruments and bits of the human body I was previously unaware of. So, in the spirit of broadening one's horizons, I present to you a video with nothing to do with feminism, which is quite good for a bit of mind-boggling during one's ten-minute study break. Things start to get a bit odd by the 5th dimension. Enjoy!

Via: Video Blog

Just want something fun and cheerful? Never fear, for here are the guys who made diet coke and mentos into something infinitely more spectacular than we could have imagined, doing the same thing to post-it notes.

Women Against Sarah Palin

2008-09-12T20:37:00.002+01:00

Proof that we don't just vote for vagina-owners. A few e-mails asking for women's opinions of the American Vice Presidential nominee generated thousands of responses. Here you will find lifelong Republicans who are withholding their votes, conservative and liberal women alike horrified by the policies and views expressed by Palin and McCain. Go read it.

Phyllis Schlafly Sexism Watch

2008-09-07T17:30:00.009+01:00

Inspired by the multiple sexism watches for Sarah Palin, Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton that have been running over at Shakesville, here's mine. On Point Radio has a post on a call made about Ms. Schlafly's comments calling Democrats as 'pro-abortion' as opposed to pro-choice, and saying that all democrats would abort a child if it had Down's Syndrome. The host didn't call her out for this, but an hour later a caller did. Phyllis' reasoning was that there's a 91% abortion rate for children with Down's Syndrome in the USA, but of course this statistic doesn't say what the political affiliations of the women having the terminations are.

Now there are a lot of things I could say about Schlafly. She is anti-choice, anti-feminist, opposed to the Equal Rights Amendment and a firm believer that all women should abandon any thoughts of careers and stay home making babies, unless those women happen to be her (she is a lawyer, editor and activist). She shouts down the very movement that fought for the privileges she now enjoys. She will also support a woman in a public role if they happen to have almost exactly the same views as her, as shown in her support for the ultra-conservative Palin. She is, in short, the kind of person I despise. HOWEVER! That doesn't mean that the following comments are valid or warranted:

Phyllis Schlaffly [sic] is an ignorant, bigoted slut - a total warrior whore for the Republican party.

I'd say she was ignorant and bigoted, both descriptions are as justified as they are harsh. But... 'slut'? 'Whore'? Translation: Oh hey guys, there's a woman, and the worst thing a woman could do is have sex with people. For money, no less! Let's denigrate women everywhere along with the subject by demonising female sexuality and equating prositution - something that millions of women worldwide suffer through every day and try to escape from - with 'women saying things I don't like'. And you know, a male politician saying the same thing would not have such gendered insults hurled at him. Criticise the remarks and context, criticise the politics and speaker, but do NOT insult her gender - it has nothing to do with what she said. Insults like this show possibly as much ignorance as Schlafly's comments.

76 and counting!

2008-09-07T16:08:00.002+01:00

The bloglist at the side is getting longer by the day. To your right you will find radicals, liberals, activists, theorists, columnists, different religions, nationalities, skin colours and, importantly, views. It's not entirely representative of the online world of feminism but hoepfully it'll get better with time. As always, if you spot a feminist blog (or even a blog which ties in with the issue without being devoted to the subject) then drop me a line and I'll check it out and, most likely, have it up shortly.

New Look

2008-09-03T15:44:00.003+01:00

Having got started shifting things around and doing minor changes to layouts and code during the blog move, I thought I might as well continue flying on the wings of motivation and spruce the place up a little. Hence: the new banner! It's a bit wonky as I had to use a permanent marker (having lost my fineliner) and all the ink leached into the paper, but I like it so far.

An explanation

2008-09-03T05:22:00.002+01:00

Me and My Army has moved without warning. Something -not sure what, mind - went oddly wrong with my old blog at apparentlyequal, and I've spent the last few hours getting everything up and running on a new account and deleted the old blog. I'm sorry about the inconvenience of it all - whilst I doubt I had that many regular readers, I know that plenty of people had linked to me a few times and will now have to seek me out and change their links.

I'm still typing!

Ain't That Fancy?

2008-09-03T04:38:00.004+01:00

The blogroll now shows you exactly when each blog updates, so the old list and asterisk system is now out the window. The exceptions seem to be Pandagon and the actual blog on the F-Word (though for reviews and features it's fine), for which I can't seem to get a feed. Both sites still have a link up, though. Hope you all like the new look!

BBC in 'stupid reporting' non-scandal.

2008-08-29T15:55:00.001+01:00

From the BBC Breaking News Alerts in my inbox:

Obama names Biden as running mate

and, a few seconds ago

McCain 'picks woman running mate'

Because, you know, her name isn't important enough to be a headline. Those crazy women are all the same, so rather than give the Republican candidate's newly-chosen running mate a name, we'll just alert everyone to the fact that she has ovaries and only give her an individual identity in the body of the alert. For the record, this woman is Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska. According to the BBC website:

At 44, she is younger than Barack Obama and is credited with reforms during her first term, but she is relatively unknown in US politics.

Well, thanks for making her that little bit more well-known as 'a woman'. She was, apparently, an unorthodox choice when compared to her more high-profile (male, but that's the default so it's not mentioned) rivals for the post, and maybe there is a bit of political motive behind choosing a comparatively young woman considering the high profile of sexism (against Clinton and Michelle Obama, for example) in this race, but I seriously doubt that she was chosen solely based upon the number of X chromosomes she carries. Heavens, her gender would have been clear had they mentioned her name in the headline, but instead the BBC chose to make that her sole identifying factor.
'A woman'.
'A Non-Male'.
'An Other'.
Also, making her femaleness seem more important than it truly is? The BBC is now as patronising as those who think women always vote for women just because they're women. Sisterhood's all well and good, but there are many other things factoring into our decisions and most of us realise that a vote for Palin is a far cry from a vote from Palin/McCain. One of them, for example, isn't very pro-woman at all. Guess which one.
I'll sign off with a few of Palin's achievements, nabbed from her Wikipedia article.

When elected, Palin became the first woman to be Alaska's governor, and the youngest governor in Alaskan history at 42 years old upon taking office. Palin was also the first Alaskan governor born after Alaska achieved U.S. statehood. She was also the first Alaskan governor not to be inaugurated in Juneau, instead choosing to hold her inauguration ceremony in Fairbanks. She took office on December 4, 2006.

Highlights of Governor Palin's tenure include a successful push for an ethics bill, and also shelving pork-barrel projects supported by fellow Republicans. Palin successfully killed the Bridge to Nowhere project that had become a nationwide symbol of wasteful earmark spending.^[9]^[16] "Alaska needs to be self-sufficient, she says, instead of relying heavily on 'federal dollars,' as the state does today."^[10]

She has challenged the state's Republican leaders, helping to launch a campaign by Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell to unseat U.S. Congressman Don Young^[17] and publicly challenging Senator Ted Stevens to come clean about the federal investigation into his financial dealings.^[9] Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard praised Palin as a "politician of eye-popping integrity" and referred to her rise as "a great (and rare) story of how adherence to principle—especially to transparency and accountability in government—can produce political success."^[10]

In 2007, Palin had an approval rating often in the 90s.^[10] A poll published by Hays Research on July 28, 2008 showed Palin's approval rating at 80%.^[18]

On the negative side, she is ~~pro-life~~ anti-choice and is in favour of abstinence-only education, she promoted drilling in Alaska, and, despite wanting to reduce greenhouse emissions in the state, is of the belief that global warming has nothing to do with us at all. She opposes same-sex marriage and only grudgingly allowed such couples benefits but excuses this with 'I have gay friends'. THESE are things I'd want to know about a politician, they give insights into what messages a presidential candidate would want to promote, who they are reaching out to. Yes, I say again, her gender may be an ill-advised factor in the decision, an attempt to attract ex-Hillary supporters (how naive) but Palin would not be where she is now had she not also been a successful Republican politician - she's not just 'some woman'. McCain would not want an unpopular, incompetent unknown as his sidekick, regardless of their sex.

Don't Be That Guy

2008-08-19T03:21:00.003+01:00

Just a quick post tonight. Head on over to synecdochic for a detailed explanation of what makes a man in a feminist space into That Guy - the self-absorbed, entitled, careless idiot who couldn't give a damn about what you think because his opinion's way more important than any woman's. This one point rang very true for me. When I talk about rape, or unfair treatment, or the damage patriarchal society causes to people, I spend half my time* in arguments tying myself in knots trying to take everyone's experiences into account so that I don't get guys doing this, as they inevitably will:

6. Co-Opting The Argument.

Okay, if you're still with me, first of all, thank you. Second of all, I'm about to say something that (in my experience) makes a vast majority of men I've ever said this to sit up, open their mouths, and say "But --":

The absolute last words you should ever say in a discussion of sexual assault are "men can be raped too".

Or "but men can be falsely accused of rape". Or, well, pretty much anything that attempts to shift the focus of the conversation, subtly or not-so-subtly, away from women's problems and onto men's problems.

Because most women have spent their entire lives living in a world where it's All About Men's Problems. (In fact, we can generalize that: most people without $Privilege have spent their entire lives living in a world where it's All About $Privileged_Group's Problems.) When a discussion is happening among people without a particular privilege, it's ridiculously common for a member of the privileged group to come across it, see that rage or upset directed towards the people with the privilege, feel like they personally are being attacked (because they are a member of that group!) and leap in, guns blazing, to talk about how their group is also affected by the systematic brokenness of our society.

This doesn't calm the rage. I think it's probably pretty safe to say that no woman, ever, has heard the words "men can be falsely accused of rape" and suddenly said "Yes! You're right! Let's stop talking about how angry we are that women worry about being raped and start talking about how angry we are that men worry about being falsely accused of rape!" Whether or not it is a problem (and I so do not want to have that debate, and if you're tempted to bring it up in comments, please go reread points 1-6 again), by co-opting the argument like that, by attempting to re-focus the argument like that, your actions will be taken as not giving a shit. Your actions will be taken as trying to make it All About You.

On the surface, this can look like women doing the very same thing I've been cautioning you against: them trying to say that your experience isn't valid, and that their way of viewing the world is the only way possible. And yeah, in some rhetorical circles, that might be happening, because women are no more automatically enlightened than men are. Having a vagina does not make a woman automatically not-an-asshole any more than having a penis automatically makes a man an asshole.

But ultimately, the fundamental difference is this: because men are the group with the privilege, every conversation, if not stated otherwise, is assumed to be about men's worldviews and men's issues. And for a woman (who's used to running smack into that default assumption a hundred times a day), finding that she's in the middle of a very good conversation about something that matters to her in a place where her worldview is being given due weight and consideration can be so tremendously uplifting that to have someone come in and (in essence) say "Whups, just kidding, let's restore that status quo, it's still all about me" is either a). very frightening, or b). very enraging.

Co-opting the conversation like that is a rhetoric-specific form of Point #1 all the way back up there. By coming into a conversation in that fashion, it does not matter what your intention is. There is a much-greater-than-nontrivial chance that the women who are listening will view it as an expression of entitlement and a manifestation of your privilege. And in a predominantly-female space, there is a much-greater-than-nontrivial chance that the women inhabiting that space will feel empowered to tell you to sit the hell down and shut the fuck up.

Sometimes it is not about you. If you have ever received a LiveJournal response anywhere along the lines of "your life, so hard", or "let me tell you, internet, it is tough being a white man", or "get off the cross, we need the wood", this is a sign that you have been That Guy.

Does this make you angry? Does it make you feel upset? Do you feel like your right to speak, like your right to be heard, has been silenced?

That's the space many women live in all the time. And we can't put it down and go back to a place where that silencing doesn't exist the way you can. Because for us, the conversation you just took over was that space, and we are sick and tired of repeating this fact over and over and over again.

Don't be That Guy.

*This is difficult in fast-paced online arguments where, by the time I've finished writing my all-inclusive, non-judgemental post with full disclaimer, people have moved several points on and my post is now out of context. Oh, and people are now discussing how hard it is to be a man, regardless of the original subject.

Reclaim the night? I do it all the time.

2008-08-16T14:00:00.000+01:00

The ghetto boys are cat-calling me as I pull my keys from my pocket
I wonder if this method of courtship has ever been effective?
Has any girl in history said, "Sure, you seem so nice, let's get it on"?
Still I always shock them when I answer, 'Hi, my name's Amanda'.

- Amanda Palmer, "Ampersand"

Time for some anecdotes!
When it comes to acts of personal feminist freedom, I, like many other, have to do it alone. I've never shaved my legs, but until recently I wouldn't bare them at all outside of the swimming pool or P.E. class either. So going out and overcoming the self-conciousness of showing my legs at all, and them being the unpopular hairy kind on top of that, was a bit of a challenge at first. Now I chuck on a shirt, skirt and shoes and stride down to the shops without a care in the world, no tights necessary. It took a while, but I got there. One thing that I had to do without the chance of phasing it in, however, was walking home at night. Alone.

I'm not talking about a quick walk down a couple of streets from a nearby corner shop or a friend's house. This is a half-hour journey from a pub or nightclub when I've missed the bus (one-hour wait at a quiet bus-stop in the small hours of the morning? No.) and there are no taxis in sight. I can't book taxis from these places, it's against their policy, and calling them, as I have done a few times, will lead to a minimum half-hour wait - on my own, again. Sometimes I stay the night with a friend and head off at a more sensible hour. If we're both out and leaving at the same time I can walk about half the journey with a different friend before we split off in opposite directions, which still leaves me with a twenty-minute lonely walk ahead. Like it or not, the choice is often waiting around alone or getting a move on, also alone. The latter strikes me as more sensible. I'm sober, I'll be able to walk fast and I won't lose my bearings.

So what can I expect as I march through the town, head held high like I couldn't care less? Leers. Cat-calls. Occasionally ducking into a nearby late-night eatery if I think I'm being followed (which has happened before). Oh, you get different kinds of harassment. Some try to 'converse' with you - 'Hi, how are you, you look tired, where've you been?' These men tend to persist until you take a different direction to them, ignoring the fact that I'm stonewalling them asnd clearly have no interest. Others swerve and block my path, forcing me to look at them as I avoid them. Groups in cars (usually on the way out to meet everyone) whoop and holler. Some men don't seem interested in anything other than pissing you off - they walk past you, saying 'You, me, in here.' whilst staring at you, but never drop their pace and continue walking straight past, seemingly just to make you feel like a piece of meat. There is nothing to do with attraction* here - I just happen to be a woman with no male guardian. When I'm with a female friend, we draw fewer comments but still get them - when I'm with a male friend, we get none. The worst kind is the man leaning casually against a wall, who notices you and leers at you as you pass, continuing to stare as you go down the street. I always check a second time with this kind, as I don't want to have to shake off and lose someone in a residential area again.

I also notice that I'm often the only girl walking home alone. Other women are in crowds of friends or, if they are alone, they clearly weren't on a night out in the first place. This very thing seems to attract unwanted attention, as if a man walking solo down the street is somehow 'normal' but I'm a weird freak of nature. What with all the warnings against being a woman alone, and my actual experience with men (and yes, it's men, a lot of them each night and not just one or two. When I get harassed even once by a woman, for being a woman, then I'll stop talking exclusively about the men.) on the street, I'm not surprised.
I tend to wait out the night with others more and more these days.

*Especially as men behave quite differently when they are trying to attract you as opposed to merely piss you off and intimidate you.

I'm glad I hadn't fetched my tea just there...

2008-08-12T14:16:00.000+01:00

... for I most assuredly would have spat it all over my monitor. The Guardian reports that rape victims are having some of their compensation withheld if, before they were attacked, they had been drinking alcohol.

I'll break that down for those who don't quite understand this.

1) A woman goes out for a drink, or has a glass or two at home before going out.
2) A man, who statistically speaking has probably also been drinking*, attacks the woman.
3) If the man had indeed been under the influence it has for a long time been seen as a mitigating factor (by the public and thus, the juries as well as a few terrible judges) as his 'judgement was impaired' and he may have thought the woman was 'leading him on' when she wasn't. This can sometimes lead to reduced sentences despite the fact that whether he was drunk or not is hard to prove unless he was caught and breathalysed pretty quickly.
4) However, because the woman was drinking, instead of punishing the man for breaking the law and taking advantage of a women in a more vulnerable state than him, she is being punished for doing something that isn't against the law at all, in a public place where almost everyone else was doing the same thing as her and where there were no warnings that there was a rapist in the room.

Punishing the woman for having the audacity to hope that she wouldn't be raped is quite simply abhorrent. This is victim blaming, being thrust in the faces of women who are already traumatised enough by their ordeal as it is.

Helen, a beauty therapist who has not worked since the incident, said: "When I read the CICA letter I just had no words; I could not take it in. It felt like I was being punished for having the audacity to step up and say 'I don't think this should have happened to me.' It was like going back to the 70s, saying 'she was asking for it'. How else could you read the letter but as saying it's my fault I was raped?"

Helen told the CICA she had been drinking but did not say how much alcohol she consumed. The police submission said it was "possible" her behaviour had contributed to the incident, because she had drunk a "large amount" of alcohol.

Maybe I'm just reading a slightly ambiguous section wrongly, but sounds to me like the police are taking a few liberties here. She didn't disclose how much she'd had to drink- does that mean she gave an unspecific estimate of 'a lot' or did she just say she'd had something to drink and then someone else decided she'd had 'a lot' because, in some peoples' minds, drunk women are the only women who get raped? I can't tell from this. However, the police should know better than to say that being drunk makes a women a rape target. As we all should know by now, the likelihood of a woman being raped is dramatically increased by her proximity to a rapist. There aren't little disembodied penises that fly around targeting any woman with a glass of wine or a pint in her hand, no matter where she is.

In a second statement, issued later, the CICA said a mistake had been made in Helen's case and its policy was not to reduce awards to rape victims on the basis of alcohol consumption.

Oh, really. So how come 14 victims in the past year have had this very thing happen to them? Clearly there's something going on here. Hopefully, this won't be happening in the future but, cynic that I am, I don't think this is the last case of its kind that we'll be hearing. CICA may try to make amends, but they're a drop in the ocean. Attitudes still haven't changed in many places.

*In this study, for example, over half of the men who had attacked women had been under the influence.

Support for working mothers declining

2008-08-06T10:54:00.000+01:00

Ugh. Go read it, click the title. Public opinion is turning against working mothers (more so) as, both here and across the pond, surveys show that more and more people are believing that those women who have kids and also go out to work are compromising their family life.

"While British attitudes are more egalitarian than in the 1980s, there are signs that support for gender equality may have hit a high point some time during the 1990s," said Scott. "When it comes to the clash between work and family life, doubts about whether a woman should be doing both are starting to creep in."

First, I can't help but notice that the public opinion of what a family is consists, yet again, of mummy, daddy and the kids. I'm not sure that the 'family life' of single mothers would be vastly improved if they dropped out of the workforce and relied solely upon benefits purely so that they can fit into the idealised role of the stay-at-home mother*. I'm sure that their children are happier when there's money coming in too, but maybe I'm just crazy. What about stay-at-home fathers, are they just not up to scratch? And as for lesbian couples who are allowed to adopt here, which of them counts as 'house-mummy'? Dear public - think. Cheers.

Focussing upon the 'traditional' family now. There are poor families. There have ALWAYS been poor families, and in these families a second income is extremely helpful. Not every family unit is fortunate enough to be able to rely solely upon Daddy's income. There seems to be this bizarre notion flying about that, 'back in the day', no married woman ever did any work outside of the home, taking her away from her children. What wash. When living below the poverty line, it has always been that those women able to bring in more money for the family have gone out to do work along with the father. They may have been able to get the children looked after by the extended family, friends or neighbours, or they may have had to hope that the children could look after each other, but when times are hard women have always tried to do something about it. It's about survival, about looking after yourself and your offspring. It is, in short, motherhood.

Moving on to the middle classes - the ones with a well-earning father where the woman 'chooses' to work. (Note that Daddy never 'chooses' to work, it's just assumed that he will be the default. No matter if Mummy was also working successfully before her marriage and the birth of her children, once that wedding band's on it's her who's choosing.) If both parents are working, the numbers show that it is still the woman shouldering most of the parental role. Oh, no doubt that more and more fathers are taking a more active role in family life aside from breadwinning, but in a breakdown of hours, mothers are still disproportionately more busy here. They are the ones organising the babysitters, cooking and clearing up, laundering the football kits and so on. They are getting more worn out in general - social attitudes about the division of family labour here aren't equalising at the same pace as working rights, and women are feeling the pressure as a result. At the same time, many workplaces aren't adjusting to allow for the flexible hours that such women require. Women do still want to be there with their children, particularly at the beginning, but for some dropping out for a year may mean losing their job or being demoted to a lower-paid role. If they do manage to hang on their careers, not everyone can afford a full-time nanny upon their return to the workforce. So, juggling difficult work hours with their household roles is hard and this will have a knock-on effect for their family if the struggle is particularly bad, making more mothers feel that they must make the decision between working and having a family.

Social attitudes are clearly outdated too. There's still the idea of mummy always being there personally for her children, the father being an authoritative but slightly more distant figure. Many people grew up with this, little boys and girls grew into men and women without ever having this notion challenged, and the lesson is sometimes hard to unlearn. It's time we started teaching our children that a family is no longer about gender roles. When children grow up expecting to be modern parents as opposed to the traditional Mummy or Daddy, change will be far closer than it is now. We're getting there. There's been progress. But we aren't at the finishing line yet.

*I say idealised, but I do recognise that many women who do want to stay at home receive a lot of flack for it. You just can't win, t'would seem.

A few tweaks

2008-07-11T00:32:00.000+01:00

I'm on holiday and have far too much free time on my hands, so I'm doing a bit of belated spring cleaning here. I was horrified to discover how lax I've been with the blogroll, which I sadly discovered contained a fair few dead blogs. It's always a loss when another feminist stops typing online, though it's encouraging to note that one or two had stopped typing in order to better pursue 'real-life' feminist work and activism. To these women I send my best wishes. Others had deleted blogs in disgust with the world of online feminism, or have been so hounded by trolls that, if they haven't stopped for good, they now blog privately to only a select audience. Unfortunately, I found myself deleting more links than I merely updated. I hope that next time the list will grow, not shrink - and in the spirit of this, head on over to The Angry Black Woman, the newest addition to the list! As always, if you you enjoy a feminist blog which isn't in the sidebar, send me the link and I'll add it in.

There are tennis fans...

2008-06-26T13:55:00.000+01:00

... and then there are fans of women who play tennis. Or rather, their bottoms.
Yep, it's summertime here in Great Britain and the charming, world-class tournament that is Wimbledon has begun. The men's games have been reported upon fairly normally, with all the disappointment and excitement directed at various players' performances. The women's games have also been receiving the same depressing commentary as always - aside from a bit of cursory critique of each player's ability on court, the majority of the mainstream coverage of the sport has, yet again, been about the ladies' bodies and clothing choice.

This year though, instead of just posting a million upskirt shots, the tabloids (and, unfortunately, some of the more upscale papers) have had something to complain about. Guess what? One of the lovely lassies isn't conforming to their fantasies. Maria Sharapova, one of the world's best tennis players who won the Wimbledon women's tournament against the favourite and defending champion Serena Williams at just 17 years of age in 2004, has decided that she'd like to play wearing shorts this year. Nothing too tight or too baggy, neither too long nor too short; just a pair of white fitted women's shorts, allowing her comfort and freedom of movement without having to worry about what kind of underwear she has on as they will always be hidden from the crowd. Why not? I'd do the same - personally, if I were in her position, playing tennis in front of millions of viewers and knowing that there are tonnes of seedy reporters who will jump at the idea of plastering my arse all over their front pages without my permission, perhaps wearing shorts might encourage them to consider my gameplay instead. Y'know, like they do with the men's tournament. And hey, her legs are still visible, her outfit is shaped and fitted, so if they really must comment upon her body it's still there to see. In fact, you'll notice from the picture that she's showing more or less the same amount of skin in her shorts as in her dress. Millions of women participate in sports dressed in similar attire every day - it is practical and comfortable, doesn't flap around and generally does the job of covering you up without negatively affecting your gameplay. Which is what all basic sportswear should do.

Ladies and gentlemen, at this point I must confess that I am utterly, completely bored. I want to get angry about something, or maybe be pleasantly surprised. With this in mind, let's see what that beacon of bad taste, The Sun, has to say on the subject.

DISMAYED tennis fans yesterday condemned Maria Sharapova’s new Wimbledon shorts as pants.
They reckoned the leggy Russian babe will look far too manly — and asked: Where are the tiny skirts we love so much?
...
Roofer Steve Johnson, 35, of Earlsfield, South London, said: “I come here for the tennis but there’s no denying it’s a bonus to watch some of the women players running around in short skirts.
“Sharapova’s a great player but I feel she’s letting down blokes in the crowd by opting to wear shorts.”
Marketing executive Gary Olsen, 40, of Bristol, said: “Sharapova’s a great looking girl and a great talent.
“But I don’t understand why she feels the need to recreate the look of Martina Navratilova.”

It's okay, folks - I've taken my tranquillizers today and have none of that dreaded PMT that will no doubt turn me into a raging monster incapable of rational thought*, so your country is safe! Also, here's a personal confession - I think a lot of the tennis players today are hot. The men and women on court, and in many other sports (rowing, anyone?) are physically stunning as a result of their training. However, there's a difference between "casually noting that the athletes are good-looking" and "reducing 50% of the players to their collective body parts and sex-appeal and normalising this in the media", which is what I'm taking issue with today.
Firstly, using Martina Navratilova as an insult is probably one of the worst things here, because it shows how common the judgement of women by their appearance is. Yes, Navratilova did wear shorts on court. She's also the former World #1 Women's Tennis player, and has been described as "The greatest singles, doubles and mixed doubles player who's ever lived", but that's irrelevant because she didn't pander to the heterosexual male gaze, which is the whole point of women's tennis don't'cha know.
'Letting down the blokes'?! Here's the thing, Mr. Johnson - Sharapova does not spend all her time playing in tournaments and training to stay in peak physical form just so the lads can have a nice bit of totty to ogle once a year. This is her CAREER. She enjoys tennis and is so fucking good at it that she can play in the biggest event of the year and have a good chance of winning. She is an athlete, not a Hooters waitress, and her future in the world of tennis rests upon her being able to play the sport better than the vast majority of people, not upon whether you can see her bum and give it marks out of ten.
Moving on to Mr. Olsen. I can't help feeling he only chucked the word 'talent' in there as a nod to decency, to stop people saying he's just a dirty old man. As we've already established that, standing still, Sharapova's outfit reveals no less than her previous ones, we can gather that he, and the other men in these articles, are angry because they can't look up a young woman's skirt. Allow me to spell out in simple terms, Gary, the possible reasons for her decision to wear shorts.

She wants to.
She is fed up of having people like you, strangers she's never met, passing comment upon her like catcallers in the street.
There are no rules against wearing shorts.

What's all this about her being manly? So WHAT if her attire is a tiny bit less feminine than before? So WHAT if her knickers aren't on display? She's a woman making a choice about what she wants to wear. Her clothes do nothing to conceal the fact that she is female, in fact, if you are calling her outfit masculine then I suggest that you imagine Roger Federer wearing the same ensemble.
Quite.
Whilst it's not as 'ladylike' as the tennis skirt, it's still a far cry from what's considered 'menswear'. But even if it were utterly manly, why does it matter so much?

Why?

Because women's tennis, never forget, has little to do with tennis. The sport is just to get the ladies moving and bouncing for the men. Then, when the tournament has ended, you can see all those women you have been feverishly fantasising about naked in Playboy magazine. These women, these world-class athletes, these sporting role-models, just aren't doing their job if they don't dress up all feminine and sexy for the men. If they aren't getting their bums out for the lads, what right do they have to be on court? What's the point of women entering Wimbledon if they're just... going to play tennis?

*It's true! That's what menstruation does! I read it on the internet somewhere!

CEO Barbie 'unrealistic'

2008-06-24T12:34:00.000+01:00

Post title is the link. This is The Onion's take on the recent news that women on Wall street are rarely found in the top spots.

Image originally found at Feministing.

Sex(ual violence) and the City

2008-06-07T16:22:00.000+01:00

Click the title for info. Police appeal here.

On Thursday night 5 women, aged between 20 and 36, were indecently assaulted over an area covering the city centre and west end between 6:15pm and 7:45pm. Analysis of CCTV footage and victims' testimonies have lead the police to suspect that all 5 attacks were carried out by the same man, and one woman was attacked TWICE. Here's the suspect:

These women were not 'out alone after dark' as at this time of the year they would have been travelling in broad daylight - and these areas aren't the most deserted at these times, either. Get those stereotypes right out of your mind.
I've only just heard about this and can't really comment at the moment. Check back later.

Death in the City

2008-06-07T15:52:00.000+01:00

On the morning of the 29th May, the body of Moira Jones was found in Queen's Park on the south side of Glasgow. The following day, another woman, Eleni Patchou was found stabbed to death in the west end, as a result of a robbery at the restaurant where she worked. No link has been drawn between to two attacks.
A sentiment I heard expressed a few times by several people was that the woman in the park 'was probably African and/or a prostitute'. The area around Queen's Park does have a larger concentration of ethnic minority people, but why does that matter? Does it some how make it less of a crime if the victim had darker skin, or if she had to sell her body to make a living? And WHY did they assume she was a sex worker? There are prostitutes of all backgrounds (and sexes, but a male murder victim is never assumed to be a prostitute) all over the city, and yet I'd never heard this assumption made so soon after other attacks! Right away, before any information other than the sex of the victim had been released, people were making racist, classist and sexist assumptions and expressing them in a way as if such circumstances made this any less of the tragic and horrific crime that it was. Oh, and for the record? She was a white, UK-born sales consultant. What assumptions will people make with that information, I wonder?
No-one has been arrested in the case of Eleni Patchou, who was a trainee manager at the west-end restaurant. She was the last person left and was locking up after closing time when the attack occurred. No assumptions were made about her background. No-one was dismissive. Everyone was shocked, angered and saddened. Both investigations are ongoing. Neither of these women deserved their fate. I hope that the families of both victims receive justice and murdering bastards are found soon.

UPDATE: The GFN is holding a vigil to honour the memory of the female victims of violence in the city.

Eleni Pachou. Moira Jones. Michelle Reid. Jeannette Cooper. These are the names of four women killed in Glasgow so far this year. Some have already received more media footage than others - there may well be more names to add to this list, names that never reached the newspapers.

Last Thursday five woman were sexually assaulted in Glasgow in the space of an hour and a half - the Thursday before that, Moira Jones' body was found. The day after, Eleni Pachou.

The women of Glasgow - the women of the world - should not have to live in fear of men's violence.

We will be holding a vigil in George Square, at 6pm this Friday the 13th, to commemorate the lives of Eleni, Moira, Michelle, Jeannette, and all the women we've lost.

This will be a peaceful vigil with singing, flowers and candles. It will be a time to grieve for the women we've lost - but also a time to stand up, be counted, and let everyone know... we won't stand for this anymore. Violence against women must stop, and until our society changes, more women will die needlessly at the hands of men everyday.

We must let the city know that the women of this city are not and will not be victims. We invite men to attend this vigil and be bold about their refusal to participate in a culture then denigrates, objectifies and, ultimately, kills women.

Join us. Please forward this message, and invite your loved ones to attend with you.

In memory and in rage,

Glasgow Feminist Network x

Protesting!

2008-06-07T15:27:00.000+01:00

Weeks after the event *headpalm* here's my account of the pro-choice protest in Glasgow on Monday 19th May.

I arrived there at a little past the starting time of 5.30pm, and there was already at good crowd of around 30 people there, chanting and waving placards. I picked up a 'Keep abortion safe, free and legal' sign and located some of my friends from the Glasgow Feminist Network. Aside from us there were several groups represented incuding Glasgow University's Labour group, Socialists and several others. There were men and women of many ages there, and one woman near me had brought along her baby, who sat in their pram and wooped with glee whenever we cheered! Just goes to show that being pro-choice doesn't mean you are anti-life. Helping to direct the event was a woman from the Socialist group whom I had met previously at the protest at Glasgow University Union.

As opposed to just standing and chanting, several speakers had been called out to speak about the importance of a woman's right to choose. Once they had all been out there was an open megaphone to anyone in the protest who had something to say. And boy, did I have something to say after spotting the 'Pro-Life' group across the way:

'Women need love, and who are they *points* to say we don't love them - after all, one way to show how much you love someone is to TRUST them to know what's best for themselves!'
Some of them had stuck 'Life' labels over their mouths. Whether they were trying to show us up as loud-mouthed bullies as well as pretending to be silenced if up for discussion, but the result of the vote on Tuesday showed that speaking out is better for supporters of women's rights than hoping for the best and shutting up. We'll be keeping our megaphones, thankyou!
One rather telling thing that I noticed was that, compared to our gathering, the other protest was about a third of our size. We were definitely the Pro-choice Majority.

Full post tomorrow

2008-05-21T03:15:00.000+01:00

But for now, a memento from Monday's protest in Glasgow and a message to all the anti-choicers out there:

Spot the Harry Enfield fan

2008-05-11T17:23:00.000+01:00

All I've been doing online is procrastinating, it would seem. To pass the time, here, my new t-shirt (on my chest, SHOCKHORRORWHATASLUT!). Cheap black t-shirts and tippex make for some good fun.
(For those who don't know, here's the reference:)

I wore it out to a club last night and had quite a few compliments! I'm going to make myself a few more less in-jokey shirts as well - I don't have the money to order nicely made stuff online, but that doesn't mean I can't have anything! Ideas for the next design, anyone?
Enjoy the rest of your weekends, mi'dears, and I'll try and get something serious written soon.

UPDATE: Next design!

Squee!

2008-04-29T23:42:00.000+01:00

I finalised my decisions; I'm going to medical school this year!

The pay gap - undervaluing womb-carriers.

2008-03-11T11:33:00.000Z

Click the title for more. The TUC has discovered that the pay gap - you know, that thing which doesn't exist? - trebles as women get older.

The difference between men's and women's pay more than trebles when women reach their 30s, TUC research revealed today. It found women leaving school at 16 and going into a full-time job earn 9.7% more than their male contemporaries. But from the age of 18 - and throughout the rest of their working lives - they earn less than men.

In their 20s, the pay gap for full-timers is a modest 3.3%, but in their 30s women take home 11.2% less than the men. And in their 40s - the peak age for discrimination - the gap rises to 22.8%. The TUC said the undervaluing of women in the workplace was partly due to a "motherhood penalty".

Got that? A pay gap is always there, with 16-17 year-old boys getting less and then women getting less as soon as they are a legal adult.
The gap has been blamed upon jobs being built around traditionally male skills and lives - 'soft' skills aren't valued and, if you parent a child and want to be able to divide your time effectively for that, the 'top jobs' are inhospitable. As women are more likely than men to do the majority of time-consuming parenting, they cluster in the lower jobs where they can get necessary leave, work at home etc. and don't go for promotions that they are qualified for. As for part-time work, women are earning over a fifth less than their male counterparts per hour in that area.
Yes, this is discrimination against mothers and indeed any parent. If you are prevented from attaining a senior role because it fails to acknowledge your role as a parent - not just a parent, a MOTHER (who will likely be earning less than a father), that is discrimination. People are complaining all the time about an ageing population, yet in a world like this is it any wonder that women put off childrearing for longer? Having jobs which are technically open to everyone but weighted heavily in men's favour due to an emphasis on masculinity and inflexible hours is discriminatory. It IS possible to have flexible hours for the top jobs, to be able to do some work from home etc. Many successful companies have proven this. Why are we making it so difficult for half the population to progress in their careers?

Cheer up

2008-03-07T22:28:00.000Z

A muppety video, 'Put Another Log On The Fire'.

Bumped frae Feministing.

Why I'm a Feminist

2008-03-03T18:48:00.000Z

On Saturday the Glasgow Feminist network held a public participatory reading at Borders entitled 'Why I'm a Feminist'. Instead of coming along and having an author or scholar do all the talking, people brought along books and materials that opened their eyes to the fight for gender equality.
I searched around for something by Ensler or Dworkin or Greer or... well any of the feminist authors in my bookshelves that would sum up my reasons, but no-one truly represented my reasons for being a feminist. I then forgot about it until the day, and with nothing else to read I wrote down my piece on both sides of an A4 sheet and jumped on the subway into town without editing or re-reading (looking back, I'm proud that I remembered my statistics correctly!). Here it is with added references.

I wasn't always a feminist. When I was a little girl I just assumed I would be treated fairly... or better than boys because they were smelly and I was pretty and a princess and everybody loved me, of course - but even then there were signs that I was wrong. An example of this is the nursery picture books I loved. There was mummy the housewife or the beautiful queen, and there was daddy the farmer, baker, banker, king, outdoor hero, he-who-saves-one-from-the-big-bad-wolf. The princess would love being pretty, was chastised for messiness and a temper (also known as an opinion) and always needed a prince for lifelong happiness. Lastly, the doctors were men and the nurses were women. Always.
I internalised all of this. I hated trousers and Lego because those were for my brother and told Dad that I wanted to be a nurse "because that's what girls do". He told me that was good and nursing is an honourable profession, but girls could be doctors too. I didn't believe him. (I recently discovered that, around this time, my mum finished her job as a research Biologist not only because she wanted to see her children more but also because she was being given a hard time at work since giving birth to us.)
Then I entered the real world. A world where famous chefs are men but we'd never dream of giving a boy a toy kitchen or iron or anything domestic because it's too feminising. A world where Wal-Mart pulled a line of T-shirts featuring a girl saying 'Someday a woman will be president' because it was in some way 'anti-family values' yet kept the one of a boy shoving an 'uppity' girl ("Problem solved!") despite the worldwide epidemic of domestic violence. A world where I'm told to be scared to go out after dark, even though statistically I'm 10 times more at risk of victimisation from an intimate whilst my brother's more likely to be, and has been attacked by a stranger when out. Where the woman who married Steve Wright, the Ipswich murderer, was recently asked if she thought that if only she'd had more sex with her husband, he wouldn't have seen and killed those women. Where my bodily freedom is government-controlled, whether I want to plan or end a pregnancy. Where I'm 'asking for it' if I get raped whilst drunk even though the majority of rapists are inebriated when they attack, yet that somehow excuses them. Where I'm still likely, in our modern country, to be paid less and given fewer opportunities than my male counterparts, where male violence against women causes more deaths and disabilities to 15-44 year olds than cancer, malaria, traffic accidents and war put together, where almost a third of the British public say violence against women is absolutely fine and half - 50%, one-in-two! - say domestic violence is a private matter that should remain behind closed doors where we can't hear or do anything about it - and where people who say they want this all changed for the better are called man-haters, crazy, or worst of all, ugly fat spinsters *cue mock distress*.

I don't have the answers to this. I believe that my position is perfectly logical and morally right, and I want people to know that when half the population of the world is poorer, less healthy and more frightened than the other, I care. I want REAL equality, new attitudes, men proud to be sensitive and women proud to be assertive; people being who they are as opposed to what they are told they should be.

And I'm going to med school this year.
Your future doctor is a feminist.

Lord wants virgin nurses or no nurses

2008-02-29T00:02:00.000Z

Well, not quite, but Lord Mancroft is clearly shocked that the nurses looking after him have sex.

Lord Mancroft told the House of Lords that he was treated at the hospital in 2007, and described the nurses as "grubby and drunken".

"The nurses that looked after me were mostly grubby. We're talking about dirty fingernails, slipshod, lazy."

The hospital said it had received no complaint but would be contacting Lord Mancroft to discuss the matter.

Yes, nurses should be held to high standards, should take care of their appearance and personal hygiene as a fundamental requirement of working with hospital patients. And DRUNKEN, you say? They were drinking on the job? They should be sacked!
Oh, no. Nothing so serious. Here's what he ACTUALLY means.

"It's a miracle I'm still alive. But worst of all my Lords they were drunken and promiscuous."

"How do I know that? Because if you're a patient and you're lying in a bed, and you're being nursed from either side, they talk across you as if you're not there.

"So I know exactly what they got up to the night before, and how much they drank, and I know exactly what they were planning to do the next night, and I can tell you, it's pretty horrifying."

Emphasis mine.
Nurses shouldn't act like the patient isn't there and shouldn't gab about their personal lives whilst caring for patients, but come ON! WORST OF ALL? Not the lack of hygiene, the careless attitudes, the laziness - no, these nurses DRINK! and have SEX!!! like MEN do sometimes!!!!!!!!! Pass the bleeding smelling salts, I'm not prepared to be cared for by human beings with lives outside their work. If I'm not going to be nursed by teetotal virgin angels that have no vaginas, or at the very least women who pretend to be just like this, I'd rather not be cared for at all.

That's what Mancroft's insinuating, perhaps with less melodrama. By his own wording, he's treating the fact that these nurses go out, drink, and have sex in their free time with as much horror as if they had been drunkenly humping the patients themselves. The real complaints to be found here are

that the nurses weren't maintaining an acceptable level of hygiene and therefore could be putting patient health at risk
were discourteous towards their charges
were scruffy and unprofessional, and
that drinking heavily the night before going into work could impair their ability to deliver a high standard of care (whilst discussing this in front of a patient will do nothing for their trust in their carers).

THOSE are complaints. 'My nurses like alcohol and have libidos' is not.

Dear Lord Mancroft,

Grow up, lodge real complaints and stop slut-shaming.

Yours,
Mwezzi.

No "kisskisskiss for you". That might be too slutty for your tastes.

NOTE: Click the title of this post for the BBC article. Neat, huh? Please tell me if you prefer this format or not.

Doctors are supposed to help, right?

2008-02-22T13:28:00.000Z

Back at the start of November I got ill. Very ill. Can't-get-out-of-bed, can't-eat-due-to-severe-pain ill. It turned out that I'd come down with a nasty case of tonsillitis, so I saw a doctor for the first time since I broke my arm 10 years ago. She was sympathetic and patient, she listened to my concerns and symptoms, gave me a quick once-over and prescribed me a ten day course of penicillin. This particular GP has a long waiting list of patients who prefer to see her, and she must've been busy, yet I couldn't have hoped for better treatment at such short notice.

Fast forward to today. Since my tonsillitis was treated I've had a persistent cough, at one point coughing up thick discoloured mucus for a period of at least 2 weeks. I've had aches and pains, suffered lethargy and disrupted, irregular sleeping patterns, and have been much paler than usual. I'd been working in a pharmacy over Christmas helping people with common winter cold and flu related problems, which may not have been great for my weakened immune system but gave me a fairly good grounding in the basics of what is and isn't normal, and from my personal knowledge of my own health I knew this wasn't a normal cold - they used to be the only health problem I'd have, getting them once a year, and I'd have shaken it off in, at most, a fortnight. This was my first long-term illness; yet still I was prepared to leave it for as long as possible in the hope I'd fight it off unassisted. However, today I finally gave in a saw a GP. Not the same one as last time. He was also a busy man, of course, and I understand that he has many patients to see - but this didn't warrant his interrupting me as I listed my symptoms to 'remind' me that he had house visits to do, as if I'd just popped in for a chat without making an appointment. I was instantly made to feel like a nuisance. My sleeping problems were brushed off with standard advice that I'd seen before - 'try reading, don't use the computer near bedtime, cut down on caffeine,drink something warm and milky, gentle midday exercise, warm baths' - which I'd tried before, but felt so belittled that I didn't say. I wish I had. He looked a little put out when I explained that no, I wasn't a student, nor was I undergoing any stressful points (or at least, not for the full 3 months!). I guess I he realised I wasn't so easily brushed off. My cough was diagnosed, after some chest-hearing, as a viral cough - these are fairly common after an infection like I've had, and can take a while to go away, and I was advised to come back in another month if it hadn't subsided. This is fine, I understand this, but the way it was delivered just made it sound more like he was dismissing me as a hypochondriac than as someone who has a very slim medical file and no history of such complaints who has a very good reason to be worried. On the plus side, my paleness and lethargy was plain to see and he ordered some blood tests done - I suspect anaemia (like my mother has) or some other deficiency, I'll find out when my results come in next week.

This reminded me of another case I heard. A friend of my mother once came in in a fury and said, "If your daughter becomes a doctor, make sure she doesn't become a pompous git!" Her own daughter is away at university and had been suffering from a variety of stress-related and other health problems, and eventually went to see a GP. He basically looked down his nose at her and dismissed her concerns as 'women's problems' and that he 'suspected you girls get these complaints all the time'. Seriously! She has problems which she hasn't had before, goes to see a doctor as any concerned person would, and is told she's overreacting and a silly little girl!

Why are so many doctors - and I hate to say it, but the majority of such complaints I hear seem to be about male GPs towards female patients - such condescending arseholes? They are trained and paid to help all their patients without making them feel like they're stupid or making stuff up. No WONDER the first GP has such a long waiting list, when some of the others at the practise are so unsympathetic. 'Women's problems'? How about, instead of packaging up all sorts of complaints into these two words (which seem to have become short-hand for 'unimportant time-wasting matters'), the doctors explain to the patients the possible causes for their complaints and, if it IS possibly related to hormonal changes in a woman's body, help her to understand what's happening and give ways to help cope instead of dismissing her? We don't get a lot of readily-available information about our bodies aside from 'you'll grow breasts and have periods during puberty. This may hurt a little. Try not to get pregnant or infected if you must have sex. Eventually you'll be unable to have children, so remember to have plenty when you're young or you'll regret not contributing to our already oversized population and following the urges you must have if you're a real woman.' A lot of the changes caused by hormones and the possible discomfort this can cause is ignored, so when women DO experience them it can be worrying or even frightening, so WHY DON'T DOCTORS UNDERSTAND THIS? More to the point, why do we have to go so much out of our way to find out about such things?

Ugh.

[UPDATE: All this 'medical rape' stuff recently just got me even more riled. Men and women across the medical establishment are ignoring their own patients. All these stories are coming from women - that is the one common factor in these tales so far, it is WOMEN who are feeling that they have been truly violated, although there are men who are also having their concerns and voices ignored. Where is all this arrogance coming from? Why are doctors, nurses and midwives ignoring the need for their patients to consent to any and all procedures, failing to see how traumatic it can be to have ANYONE force ANYTHING upon someone who's already in a vulnerable state? Are doctors also carrying out prostate exams on men whilst they're repeatedly told to stop, or are they only forcing things into women 'for their own good'? WHAT'S GOING ON?]

Making up for lost time

2008-02-10T02:36:00.000Z

I've been dormant recently. I had so many idea for posts, so much on my mind, and yet didn't type a word. Everything in this post will be a brief game of catch-up, but will summarise a few things for me to expand upon when I get my head together, get all my university interviews right out of the way, relax and stop worrying ~~and learn to love the bomb~~.

Firstly, I must again direct you to my best friend's blog, Ramblings of Today's Yoof. She's got a list of facts and has checked it more often than Santa would, so head on over there for info on health, alternative contraceptives and cosmetics, politics and why feminism is still important. Link's in the sidebar!

As I mentioned previously, the ever-outspoken Ann Widdecombe came to our fair city back in January, her only stop made at a Scottish university. I have a few things to say about the chosen venue, the Glasgow University Union, so prod me about that later. The talk was on the Embryology Bill which, although not containing anything about abortion itself, would be replacing the old Bill which does influence the laws on abortion here in the UK. A demonstration was organised by the university's Labour group, and many other groups - the Glasgow Feminist Network being one - were in attendance. It was immensely encouraging to see such a good turnout, with men and women of many kinds out in protest against the current efforts of anti-choicers to lower the current UK abortion limit from 24 weeks to 12 or less, all supporting the right of women to have full reproductive justice. Unfortunately entrance to the talk itself was restricted, and as I was not a member of the student union or already signed up to attend I was barred entry - though many people did get in, and from what I hear there was a lot of rhetoric and the old implication, based upon a single anecdote, that women having abortions make fast, rash decisions without thinking them through properly and always regret them afterwards, so of COURSE they must all be delayed and have as much anti-choice (as opposed to truly informative) material rammed down their throats until they realise that they don't actually want to terminate after all. Which is, of course infuriating. Here is the placard I was holding:

See that little thing in the first "0" of "200"? That's a lapel pin that, along with wristbands and other things, came from an anti-choice stall. It is a pair of small silvery feet, showing yet again how that movement spouts emotivist garbage whilst women all over the world DIE, along with all those poor foetuses with their tiny little feet, forever denied the chance to go 'pitter-patter'.

Blaming inanimate objects

2008-01-25T09:12:00.000Z

Gets to the point. It's funny how, with crimes that are committed (mainly against women) that involve fear and power, such as domestic violence and rape, non-living objects (poorly-placed doors, alcoholic drinks) seem to get blamed so much more often than the attacker. More needs to be done to remove the fear of speaking up - possibly one of the main reasons that such crimes are still so common.

Where's that 'Blog-For-Choice Day' Post?

2008-01-23T04:30:00.000Z

... you may well be asking. Mwezzi's pro-choice, and yet she hasn't said a thing on the subject all day!

My reason is simple - on Wednesday night, I shall be attending a peaceful picket of a meeting by anti-choice MPs (including Ann Widdecombe as an 'anti-choice feminist' - just so they can say 'See! Real feminists, the big important people who we approve of, aren't evil baby-killers!'). Considering the relevance of this, I've decided to leave my post a little longer, even though I'll miss the 'official' day on which to post it, and include any experiences that I deem fit for posting. It's important to keep the pro-choice discussion going all year, not just on a single day, so although I'm missing the big online event, I don't mind.

'Yale sluts' fight back

2008-01-22T14:55:00.000Z

The Women's Centre at Yale University are suing a fraternity for sexual harassment after they posted a picture on Facebook of several of their members standing outside the Centre holding a sign reading 'We love Yale sluts'. Because I'm in a hurry, I'll just let my outrage at such a stunt be implicit (and Feministing says it well enough), but I did enjoy a rather stinging comeback in the comments to yet another 'bloody overreacting feminists' idiot:

D '10 says:

I hate it when law-illiterate morons threaten to take legal action against people for non-crimes. Get your act together Yale Women's Center.

January 21, 2008 7:18 PM

Y '11 says:

I hate it when ignorant morons hold up a sign that is derogatory to women in front of the parent organization of the support group for rape victims on campus. The Yale Women's Center should clearly respond to this photograph. There is a case to be made for sexual harassment here, and sexual harassment is a crime. Get your act together, Zeta Psi.

January 21, 2008 7:37 PM

You tell 'em. Calling women 'sluts' at a place that helps women that are often accused of 'asking for it' and 'being provocative' is beyond the fucking pale. Why must people constantly try to undermine (any organisation set up for) women? Why is such sexism considered funny? Holding up a 'we love the KKK' sign in front of a vandalised Asian community centre would be rightly seen as racism - why don't we treat sexism in the same way, why do we dismiss it as mere tasteless humour?

New Blog Links!

2008-01-16T17:37:00.000Z

I've added a couple more feminist sites to the right there, and you'll also notice a new section - "Of Interest". This is for not-necessarily-feminist sites that are well worth a look at - and the first one, Ramblings of Today's Yoof, is written by a friend so I will be very sad if you don't visit it. It currently focusses on consumer advice for people interested in all things green and earth-friendly, as well as products that could be better for you. She's covered budget- and environmentally-friendly household cleaning products (and knows which ones do and don't work!) and even fairtrade contraceptives, so go have a look. She also writes about human rights, and this includes feminism - she's just put up a video of standard anti-feminist bullshit, which we've both flagged.

Slut-blaming, again.

2008-01-16T17:22:00.000Z

From BBC coverage the of the Ipswich murder trial:

Despite the case being about determining whether Steve Wright killed these women, they had to slip in this comment:

Peter Wright QC, prosecuting, said the decision by the women to turn to prostitution "was ultimately to prove fatal".

Yep. Deciding to sell their bodies ended their lives, not the decision of one disgusting person to hunt them down and kill them. *sighs*

Glasgow Feminists!

2008-01-07T21:18:00.000Z

Come, gather! The Glasgow Feminist Network has recently formed and is looking for women of a feminist slant to come along and share your views and ideas! The third meeting is tomorrow (Tuesday) which reminded me to post about it. It's still in the early stages and we're still deciding how the group should be, so the more input we have the better. Last time it was decided by a vote that the majority of meetings will be women-only - I have a post to write on this about the reasons for this and my own thoughts on the matter, so save your objections or comments on this for then before you start accusing me of being a rabid anti-male separatist. However, we hope to hold other events that will include men as well, as we do not wish to exclude anyone entirely. For women who have children and need to hire babysitters in order to attend meetings, there's a collection to help towards that cost. The specifics of where and when future meetings will be held can be found in the following places:

Facebook
Myspace

Yet another 'Str8t men R teh bestest' study.

2008-01-06T16:00:00.000Z

This week we learned that MSN has nothing better to publish other than yet another scientific study of no use whatsoever. This one states that straight women and gay men are inferior drivers to straight men. No mention of lesbian, transgendered or bisexual drivers, natch. We have a 'poor sense of directions... and are slower to take in spatial information.'

Of course, my first reaction was this: if women are such rubbish drivers who can't judge distances, how come they make fewer insurance claims than men? Sounds like more men are misjudging their speeds and distances and smashing up their vehicles to me. But at least they're quick to do so! I think a superior driver would be one who isn't a danger to themselves or the general public, don't you?

This isn't feminism - but it's so important it needs to be spread.

2007-11-20T12:37:00.000Z

I lifted this directly from my best friend, so none of the wording about from the very last 4 words are mine. I've never been so shocked before - this is a proposal which is almost guaranteed to affect the people of Europe and the USA, and many other parts of the world. At a glance, I can see potential for epidemics caused by highly resistant strains of bacteria, increasing dependence upon drugs and medicines, and the end of truly organic produce. And it's all being forced upon us. Read it.

This concerns YOUR health, and YOUR life, not to mention your (future) children...

Ok, put your hand up anyone who's heard of the Codex Alimentarius?

No one?

Neither had I. But it's going to have a huge impact on your lives, make no mistake.

Here is a video about it: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5266884912495233634&pr=goog-sl

And a website (yes it's American, yes it's relevant to you as well): http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php

Another one: http://www.natural-health-information-centre.com/codex-alimentarius.html

And the "official" one: http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/index_en.jsp

PLEASE LOOK AT THE OTHER ONES FIRST SO YOU KNOW WHAT TO LOOK FOR IN THE OFFICIAL ONE.

If you're unable to view the other websites, or the video, or you're just plain lazy, let me summarise. The Codex Alimentarius Commission is the World Health Organisation and United Nations working with the World Trade Organisation and pharmaceutical companies and banks to control food standards. The WTO and pharmaceutical companies and banks, as you may have guessed, have no interest in protecting the consumer. They control things like the level of pesticides in food that are acceptable, which antibiotics/steroids/growth hormones can be fed to animals intended for consumption, guidelines for vitamins & minerals, some labelling of food.

According to the Codex Alimentarius, vitamins and minerals are now classed as "toxins", and as such we must be protected from them. Do you or anyone you know have the desire to be protected from vitamin C? Under their guidelines, any amount of vitamin/mineral/herb that produces a noticeable effect on someone's wellbeing will be forbidden (For example, Vitamin C over 200mg). I thought the point of nutrients was that they produced a noticeable effect, no? And since when were NUTRIENTS (essential for life and functioning etc) classed as toxins? Obviously too much of anything is toxic (even water), and there are limits, but shouldn't that make either ALL food and drink toxins, or NONE?

Under the Codex Alimentarius ALL cattle will be given growth hormones, and antibiotics. ALL animals intended for consumption will be given antibiotics. ALL meat intended for consumption will be irradiated. That includes "organic" food.

Under the Codex Alimentarius, any GMO will not require a label, so you will not know whether you are eating genetically modified plants or not.

Any country that does not follow the Codex Alimentarius guidelines will have massive trade sanctions imposed on it. Britain is definitely going to follow them, as is America, and most of Europe. It supersedes all laws the countries have on food standards, and will reduce our access to information about the food we eat. It will effectively gut the alternative medicine industry, and deprive people of options. Any nutrient or herb over a certain dose will either be illegal, or have to be bought at grossly inflated prices on prescription from pharmaceutical companies.

This will come into effect in 2009, and it's been worked towards for over 40 years. If you're not worried... well, you should be.

I do not know everything about the Codex Alimentarius, and don't claim to. I'm just sharing some stuff that I only stumbled across in the last couple of days. I think people have a right to know what's going on with their food and health. I certainly want to know what's being done to my food, and if any of my healthcare options are being taken away from me. It may seem like I'm talking about some sort grossly exaggerated doomsday theory, but I don't believe I am. You can check all my sources, and help me out if you believe I'm wrong. I just want to know the truth.

Here's a European petition about the Codex Alimentarius: http://www.laleva.cc/petizione/english/intro_eng.html

Spread this around. Talk.

Out of interest...

2007-11-17T16:09:00.000Z

Are there any Scottish, or indeed Glaswegian feminists reading this?

"Sport needs to change" - for women, that is.

2007-11-15T11:11:00.000Z

Today's Guardian has this article which explores the radical idea that maybe, just maybe, fewer women are taking sport because it's not seen as a very girly thing to do.

"Social pressures which portray sport as unfeminine and encourage girls to be thin rather than fit are an important barrier preventing girls and women from taking part in exercise, according to the study by the Women's Sport and Fitness Foundation.
Negative experiences of sport in school and low body confidence also put women off exercise, the research found.
The prime minister, in a recorded address at the report's launch today, will warn of a "critical under-representation of women and girls in sport" at all levels, and will urge "a cultural change that allows girls to see sport and physical activity as aspirational".
"Sport needs to change so that it becomes as much a place for women and girls as it is for men and boys," he will say, telling sports bodies to "work harder to understand women's lives".
A failure to reverse the decline in women's fitness will have serious health implications, ranging from obesity and heart disease to depression and low self-esteem, Brown, a former rugby player and keen sports fan, will tell a conference on women's sport, Raising the Game, at Arsenal's Emirates Stadium.
The prime minister will also attack the "critical lack of investment and profile" at the elite end of women's sport, with no professionally paid women in team sport in the UK."

Finally, after all kinds of hand-wringing about how girls and women are getting too fat/thin, they're actually doing something positive and trying to get us to be... healthy. It's about time. Women's football has it's own league and competitions, but it's not taken as seriously, and female professional footballers cannot have a career focused upon their sport. (Update: The F-Word now has this post on the subject. The players for England's World-Cup-standard Women's Team got a minuscule £40 a day for their efforts, and had to fit their training around university life or work. Many are now unable to train because they must work to make up for lost earnings during the tournament. They feel unappreciated and aren't being given a reasonable chance to maintain their sporting abilities to a high standard. Not quite the same for the male players at the same level, is it?) The mere fact that it is called 'women's' football - as opposed to just 'football' - marks it off as 'other', and reflects a pervasive attitude towards it and other sports; the women's league is not seen as the 'real thing' and is not given as much respect. Tennis has caught up in this area, with women now finally being awarded the same cash prize as men, but not after a lot of pathetic arguments including the notion that, because women (with their slightly different physical abilities in comparison to men) play fewer sets, they don't deserve as much - never mind that they are dedicating themselves to the sport, working just as hard and are just as impressive out on the court. When the women of sport aren't given as much airtime or respect, how can the laywomen be persuaded that it's so great?

Away from the professional side, I can also agree with the talk about girls in general not seeing sport as attractive.

"The foundation's chief executive, Sue Tibballs, said: "To put the challenge into perspective, there has been almost no change in the level of women's physical activity in the UK for the past 20 years. The forecasts show that the situation is getting worse, which points to a real crisis in women's sport and fitness."

...
Girls and women feel "at best, pretty ambivalent about sport," Tibballs said.
"When you think that the highest profile women in sport are the Wags, is it so surprising that girls have these attitudes? Being active and sporty is not an aspirational place for young women to be."

Sport gets you all sweaty, the clothes aren't stylish, and it's hard to look decorative when you're throwing yourself around the gym. I've noticed girls in gym classes stop applying themselves as much or mysteriously get ill every time a large sports hall was shared with a male class.In mixed classes, some were constantly worried about what they looked like. Somehow, the way you appear under the male gaze became more important than just getting out there and having a bit of fun. And don't get me started on the changing rooms; I'll be here all day. I know that appearance is not - CANNOT - be the sole repelling factor for the majority, but it's worrying that even a few people are put off sport by it.

Personally, I'm glad that the government is finally taking some steps in this direction - in the long term, if successful, it could lead to more positive female role models - and young girls may stop seeing 'footballer's wife' as a more worthy life goal than 'footballer'.

An Incident in the Underground

2007-11-02T16:13:00.000Z

The following passage was posted in a Myspace bulletin and is an eyewitness account of sexual harassment. It may be triggering, and I found it to make for rather unsettling reading.

How can I explain this story, and why am I starting a topic regarding this? It's just bothering me. Something felt wrong.

After work tonight and meeting my father for dinner, I went to Brooklyn to check out an art gallery a friend was in via the F train. As all was said and done, I had to hop back on the F train and transfer to the J/M/Z to get to Broad St.

This is a very empty and dead stop.
So I sit down and begin reading Kevin's journal, since it is perfect for commuting and a girl around my age (early 20s) sits next to me waiting for the train.
Nothing unusual there.

However a man, late 30s, early 40s appears. And he looks dirty. He gave off this "You don't want to talk to me on the streets, let alone underground" vibe. He wore a busted up cap, and the weirdest accessory of all was a little dog. Something you'd see Hilton or Lohan walk around with. Not to be one to try and fall into stereotypes, even if it means what kind of dog a person like that would normally buy, I shrugged it off.

Until he walks straight to this young woman right next to me and asks "Do you like dogs?"

I'm a bit paranoid in general, and with him going straight up to a girl that has to be about 20 years younger than him and asking if she likes dogs... It felt like he was carrying that thing around as bait. And not like "Girls like dogs and it's a good conversation starter... When you're at Central Park for your morning jog." This was unusual. I immediately could tell she was uncomfortable because she began muttering and mumbling answers to him. "Mmm" was "Yes" after the 4th or 5th time the guy said "What?" to her.

I then get concerned when he began asking her where she lived. How long she has been in New York City, if she lives alone, how much does she pay for rent... What kind of conversation openers are that?!? This guy... Maybe he is just socially inept?

At that point I was noticing I was rereading the same paragraph over and over again, focusing more and more on this guy than our beloved director. I put the book away and tried to give off this "back the fuck off" glare at this guy, which I'm told I can do easily, being the kind of person that can't hide his emotions on his face.

This girl began biting her nails and fidgeting in her seat. I didn't know what to do. I thought in my head to whip out my cell phone and write a text message, but not send it to anyone... Then show it to her saying something like "Oh.. check out this message I just got" Which would read "Is this guy bothering you?"

The everyone's equal side of me fought this urge and I said to myself that this woman can take care of herself. If she was really uncomfortable she would get up and leave to get as far away from this guy as possible. I do not need to intervene.

The realistic side of me said "Doing anything might very likely make her think you're trying to stalk her too. Let them be."

Then when the subway came she gets up and says "Oh. I'm on the wrong side." and walks away from the guy. Immediately in my head I feel relief that she does make a move on her own.

Then the guy FOLLOWS HER. Follows her down the stairs to the other platform. If this guy wasn't going downtown like I was... What was he doing there?

My paranoid imagination kicked in again. I paused before going in the subway knowing it was too late to do anything civil and hoped to god this guy will just be creepy and not make any horrific movie-like moves. I just watched as I went into the subway car. Completely worried about a complete stranger as if she was someone I've known for years.

I feel terrible that I didn't do anything. I called my parents. My mother, a shrink, told me similar things that I was thinking and that ultimately, there was nothing I could do. My father shared other views that was in my head as in, if she was really wanting my help, she would initiate saying something like "Is that a book by Kevin Smith? Have you seen his movies too?" and she would be the one to show the guy to get the hell away.

But I just feel uncomfortable and worried and I wanted to share it to someone.

When I was speaking to the man who posted this to request permission to replicate his story, he mentioned several times how cowardly he feels, how he wishes he'd done something. Yet how many of us can honestly say that, had we been in his shoes, we'd have acted differently? I get the feeling that the women he was sitting next to was going through the same thought processes as he was, and was maybe worried that dragging him into the situation would make it worse.

What I'm wondering is this: where were the security guards? Do they have CCTV in the New York subway system? At near-deserted stops like this, anything can happen. In the Glasgow underground system there are cameras and staff are usually nearby. Why was this woman left to, essentially, fend for herself? I wouldn't want to be left hoping that a random stranger would a) have the capacity and b) not be nearly as scared as I am to help me out. It's not as if sexual harassment is unheard of on the NYC subway system, as this report documents.
(A taster of the report: On the threat of sexual harassment and assault,

· 63 percent of respondents reported having been sexually harassed in the
New York City subway system.
· 10 percent of respondents reported having been sexually assaulted in the
New York City subway system.
· 69 percent of respondents reported having felt the threat of sexual assault
or harassment in the New York City subway system.
· Of those respondents, 51 percent of respondents reported “sometimes” or
“frequently” feeling the threat of sexual harassment or assault in the New
York City subway system.

That's staggering.)

Going back to the man whose account is above, his thought processes also seem familiar. 'Maybe he'll leave her alone when the train comes.' 'She'll ask if she wants help.' 'I can't do anything.' 'What if I make things worse?' And then, hindsight - 'I should have done something.'
We should all do something. We need to combat attitudes towards women. We need to do more to educate everyone on what counts as harassment (anything unsolicited and unwelcome, essentially). It struck me, as I was reading this, that maybe the stranger with the dog thought that his actions were acceptable. Perhaps this could be that his threatening demeanor has, as in this instance, held back others from telling him otherwise.

A final thought from the onlooker - he feels that, if anything, he has learned from this experience and, should there be a next time, will do something - anything - to let the harasser know that what he is doing won't be tolerated.

I hope that woman is okay.

Ugh

2007-10-29T17:37:00.000Z

Upon reading a blog post over at The F-Word on the subject of last names, I was reminded of a small incident that occurred a few weeks ago concerning my title. I was at the job centre filling out forms when my advisor turned to me and said...

"You've missed your title. Is it Miss, Mrs, Ms...?"

"Ms."

"So you're divorced?"

*huh? WHAT?!*

"... No. I've never been married."

"Okay then."

I then watched, a little shocked, as she wrote down my title: MISS.
I didn't want to hang around, and was a little tired and couldn't be bothered arguing. But considering that the title 'Ms.' is supposed to be neutral and can be chosen by women regardless of their married, single or divorced status, AND HAS BEEN SO FOR QUITE A WHILE, this kind of ignorance is unforgivable.

Not quite feminism, this time.

2007-10-14T16:26:00.000+01:00

The debate on global warming has become even more heated (excuse the pun) this week after it was announced that Al Gore had won the Nobel Peace prize. On the one hand, there are fans cheering him on, glad that a man so passionate about slowing global warming and saving what natural environments we still have is being recognised for his work. On the other hand, we have those who say his argument was flawed or even completely false, that global warming is a myth and that we are now one step closer to banning all cars and placing strict limits on ego/penis size, or something.

So I want to stop, and take their scenario - that Global Warming is nothing to worry about, and if it is happening it's Not Our Fault.

I think of it from that point of view, and you know what my conclusion is?

SO WHAT?!

Seriously! Even if our cutting down forests has absolutely no impact upon the global temperature, shouldn't we still preserve them? Do we really want to live in a world devoid of all natural beauty, where the only green spaces are other people's lawns? Do we really want to destroy all the wildlife we marvelled at as children? To only ever see exotic monkeys, sloths, polar bears, leopards, peacocks etc. within the confines of zoos until they eventually die out completely? If our pumping toxins into the sea poisons and kills all that swims, shouldn't we consider finding a different way of disposing of waste? When our cars pump out gasses that befoul the air, hang in smogs and cause all kinds of respiratory diseases, maybe, just maybe, we should consider reducing the amount of pollution! All this is said without even considering global warming.

Honestly, I'll never understand some people.

I can totally sympathise with this.

2007-10-04T14:26:00.000+01:00

From Crimitism, the way procrastination works:

Open Word.
Stare.
Get up.
Alphabetise DVD collection.
Re-organise DVD collection by genre, ensuring there is no distinction between animation and live action. That “animation” is considered a genre is a pet peeve of mine, as if DearS and My Neighbour Totoro belong in the same room, let alone the same shelf.
Realise I haven’t done any work.
Have panic attack.
Watch The Seventh Seal to cheer myself up.
Re-organise Doctor Who DVDs, CDs and novels in chronological order, based on the time period that the story is set in, purely because I know it will take the longest possible time and require me to cross-reference various continuity guides.
Realise what I’ve done.
Collapse into abyss of self-loathing.
At least it’s not Dragonball Z.
Feel marginally better.
Write paper on snake symbolism throughout history, beginning with the Mahabharata and ending with Metal Gear Solid.
Try writing new blog update.
Delete it.
Start again.
Give up.
Consider enrolling in another course after I graduate.
Realise that the course I want to do next year requires units I’ve already finished, and whether or not I complete this degree is irrelevant.
Ponder whether “I have three unfinished degrees” makes me look like a broadly-knowledgeable journeyman or just a directionless waste of biomass.
Stress-induced illnesses say: Who cares!
Download application form.

Replace 'DVD re-organising' with 'Room tidying' and you get a rough idea of what I'm like whenever I have something more important to attend to. Application forms, unstudied texts, thankyou letters to write, blog post ideas piling up... I think I'll get mum a cup of tea instead!

Have I linked you yet?

2007-09-28T15:10:00.000+01:00

Much as I love reading and writing feminist blogstuff, I'm somewhat absent-minded when it comes to keeping on top of all my links. So I'm asking for your help: If you read here and have a feminist blog that I haven't linked to in the sidebar, post it in the comments and I'll head on over to check yours out and put up a link. Similarly, if you find a broken or otherwise defunct link in the sidebar, give me a shout and I'll remove or fix it.

Cheers!

[UPDATE 1: Feminist Fire and Mind The Gap have been added! Go read them if you haven't already. That is a COMMAND.]

Glasgow, City of Rape Culture 2007

2007-09-07T09:20:00.000+01:00

A report in today's Evening Times speaks of the appalling record of sexual assaults and rapes in Glasgow this year.

Mr Connel spoke out as new figures obtained by the Evening Times revealed there were 192 rapes reported to Strathclyde Police between January and the end of July this year - only one fewer than the same period last year.

There are three things blamed - inadequate transport for the thousands of nightly clubbers to get safely and quickly home in, a lack of responsibility on the part of young people and - here's the interesting bit - 'lap dancing culture'.

Well, I'll agree on the transport part. I once waited for a bus which would take me and my three friends home for over half an hour in the cold and wet. Taxis were, of course, all taken and started to become fewer and fewer as time passed. Eventually we all gave up on it, trooped together and walked the way home. The transport in this city is reasonably good, but it could be better - more frequent buses to ALL areas of the city, more taxis, even a 24-hour subway service instead of having one which closes at around 11.30pm (or earlier on a Sunday).
Of course, transport is no guarantee you'll be safe - buses in particular have a rather poor track record for assault. But it's still a bit safer than walking the city streets (possibly alone) at night.

'Lack of responsibility' - I was surprised here, as it wasn't immediately translated into 'young women getting drunk and making themselves into targets.' Of course, alcohol is factored into it - but the sex of those inebriated is not specified:

"We are not asking folk to regulate their lives to the nth degree - but think a bit ahead, have money on your phone, don't get lost, stay with your friends. It is really simple stuff.

"When people are under the influence their skills in dealing with these kind of things are decreased dramatically."

'Folk', 'people'. A call for common sense without saying 'you're female, don't get drunk.' Refreshing. However, there is a little, tiny flaw here - of the six attacks mentioned in the report, three people were at least 30 and only one person was specifically mentioned as having been attacked after going clubbing. One woman was walking her dog. Another, waiting for an early bus to work. One girl was attacked in broad daylight. Three of the attacks are mentioned as having occurred whilst other people were nearby - one woman tried to flag down cars, another was dragged off a busy street, the third was 'yards away' from other clubbers. And one woman was gang-raped in a West End square near bars, homes and galleries. Despite all these things, the report has focussed on warning the young drinkers out at night, telling them to stick together. Being in well-populated areas didn't help any of these women, nor did their sobriety.

Finalement! Le point le plus controversé! (How bad is my French?)

Diane Travers, personal safety tutor with Glasgow-based Wise Women, said she was concerned about what she called the "lapdance culture" in Glasgow city centre.

She added: "Our current culture of lapdancing clubs is worrying, especially hearing so many young men talk about it.

"There is a connection between lapdancing - which is sexual exploitation of women - and rape.

"It is saying that women are there to be watched and used and that they are there for entertainment."

Ms Travers claimed the statistics were the tip of the iceberg because so many women who were raped by someone they knew did not report the attacks.

She said: "It is easier to report an attack by a stranger but they are less inclined to talk about a friend, partner, boyfriend or someone in their family.

"It is very chilling to realise rapists are people who appear like normal everyday guys that we talk to in the pub or at home."

Mr Connel agreed lapdance culture and many television images were adding to the problem.

He said: "It is all about exploitation and it is all about behaviour I would say is unacceptable but [sic] is creating the wrong type of role models."

Note, they say it's a 'connection' not a 'direct cause'. For the record, there IS evidence that links a sudden rise in sexual assaults in previously 'safe' areas with the opening of sex clubs and shops. An example of this is the Lilith report, showing a rise in sexual assaults and rape (by 57% and 50% respectively) in Camden over three years following the opening of strip clubs. (Thanks to Witchy-woo for the link!) However, this doesn't stop people from leaping to their defence in the comments section:

Why do we demean a horrific subject by trying to relate the activities of monsters who, frankly, need no encouragement, with sonething like lapdancing?

These filth would do what they do regardless of motivation. Perhapslate night drinking could be a stimulus, but again, where is the evidence?

The only people exploited at table dancing clubs ar ethe men who leave with empty wallets. My expereince is that these clubs are well marshalled with proactive and strong securtiy on site.

(Now, I'm going to leave the debate on whether porn is in and of itself harmful. It's still early and I'm lazy. Having re-read the following paragraphs, I've realised that I'm already beginning to rant.)

For a start, not all lap dancing clubs are like this. Object has covered this.
Why is discussing things that feed into negative attitudes that LEAD to such attacks 'demeaning the subject'? It's a valid point. (Oh, and 'late night drinking'? Inebriation in a potentially dangerous person makes them a threat REGARDLESS of the time of day.) Also, are these men exploited? They are feeding the demand for such clubs, they're giving these women a job. I doubt all the dancers would be out there performing to the drooling masses if they weren't paid for it - they need the money, they are paid to do this, without the punters they will be unemployed unless they hold down second jobs. The men (and indeed, women) who attend the clubs are paying for a service they want. Are farmers in the third world exploiting me when they ask to be PAID for the bananas and chocolate I eat?
Also, it's not so much the act of erotic dancing that is at hand here, but rather the attitudes that arise from the complete normalisation of such pornographic things throughout our daily lives. Lap dancing has now become something that people go to for a night out, is portrayed as 'just a bit of fun', pole dancing is 'merely' exercise with no sexual connotations AT ALL despite having roots in the sex industry and, along with images of half-naked women and other pornographic imagery, has reached out beyond the confines of the sex industry and has seeped into the rest of our culture. You no longer have to go to a sex club to see lap/pole/table dancers, and therein lies a problem. When we are constantly, unquestioningly exposed to such things as 'normal', when they are everywhere we look, it has an affect on us. Women are - on billboards, in magazines, in adverts, movies, television programmes - portrayed as decorative, as sexual objects, as things to be paid for, used and then forgotten about 'til next time. And the more we're exposed to it, the more the message sinks in. THAT is what is leading to the RISE in rapes. Yes, there will be people who do terrible things to men and women who aren't porn users or regulars at Stringfellows, but in a culture where woman (and it is MAINLY women) are constantly portrayed as lesser, as the 'sex class', why is that surprising?

Tagged!

2007-08-03T11:43:00.000+01:00

Just as I thought that I had slipped safely under the tagging radar, Arantxa delurked and got me. Here goes!

A. Each person lists 8 facts/habits about themselves.
B. The rules of the game are posted at the beginning before those facts/habits are listed.
C. At the end of the post, the person then tags 8 people and posts their names, then goes to their blogs and leaves them a comment, letting them know that they have been tagged and asking them to read your blog.

I have a pair of freckles on either side of my left inner elbow which match up exactly when I bend my arm. This, for no particular reason, fascinates me.
I have learned (through one-time necessity!) how to operate my manual camera with my teeth. Not brilliantly well, mind you - I wouldn't recommend it.
When I was quite young I attended ballet, tap dance and Highland dance classes. This was how I discovered that dancing isn't really my thing. Nowadays, I dance like an embarassed, drunken spider if I don't have a specific set of steps to follow precisely.
Living with dogs my whole life has trained me to go on half-hour walks every evening, regardless of whether I have a canine escort or not.
I'm a teetotaler, yet have been mistakenly seen as the most inebriated person present at more than one informal gathering. Who needs alcohol when you can 'get drunk' at will, retain all mental faculties and not suffer a hangover afterwards?
I am currently knitting a basic scarf. I learned stocking stitch back when I was little by asking my mum to teach me, and recently I thought that I might as well develop the skill a bit. This is an extension of my interest in learning to make my own clothes, something I keep telling myself that I'll learn to do 'later'.
I haven't been to a hairdresser in about two years, and have no intention of breaking that record. Why? Last time I went in, they couldn't even decide whether my hair colour was 'light brown' or 'dark blonde'. It's plainly the former. Also, I only require a trim every once in a while, and I have no intention of forking over £20+ for such a straightforward task.
I have lived in a house with animals since the day I was brought home after birth; since then there has never been a single day when there was not at least one dog and one cat living as part of the family. As a result, I can stay home 'alone' for ages without seeing anyone and not care, but if the cat or dog is not also there with me I get lonely fast.

Now to tag people! Grace, Book Girl, Charliegrrl, Lonergrrrl, Pippa, Heloise, Thinking Girl, and any eighth person who would like to do this. Everyone seems to have been tagged already!

Wolf-whistles

2007-07-31T17:16:00.000+01:00

Recently I've been going out more - I have free time, new friends and a willingness to have fun, so why not? I went to a couple of clubs, had a good time and was hit on by a couple of guys. Now, when I'm at a bar or a club, I'm prepared for this, I don't really mind - I mean, people often go out to bars and try to hook up with people, it can be part of the fun, half the patrons, male and female, are flirty and so a few attempts to be chatted up are to be expected. Time and a place etc. Usually (in my experience), if you make it clear you aren't interested, it's cool and you get left alone - you may even make a few friends.

However, when I'm nowhere near the bar, I DON'T APPRECIATE THE ATTENTION. I don't enjoy having strange men whisper things in my ear as I walk down the street to post a letter. I don't like groups of men eyeing me up on the Underground. WOLF-WHISTLES AREN'T WELCOME. This never used to happen to me, I used to go out and just be another person on the street, then all of a sudden I turn 18 and it's like I broadcast a signal saying 'Harass me! I have a vagina!' Why don't these men understand how threatened you can feel when a strange person who looks like they could knock you over with a flick of their finger starts leering at you? How it makes you HATE being who you are, if only for a few moments, because it feels like YOU brought this attention on yourself? I'm not doing anything differently. I'm not even looking at these people half the time until they draw my attention with their idiotic comments. But suddenly, I'm all too aware of myself. Of my gender. Of my physical weaknesses. I hate it, and wish people would leave me alone. I'm not ready to go back inside yet.

Waitaminute, The Sun isn't victim-blaming?!

2007-07-05T20:55:00.000+01:00

An online petition has cropped up at The Sun calling for a 24-hour hotline for rape victims and more specialist centres for them. Which is good. I signed it. It accompanies an article in which the journalist Abigail Grant tells of her ordeal (which is detailed, and may trigger) when a man broke into her house and attempted to rape her 12 years ago, seriously injuring her in the process, and her experiences when they finally brought him to trail recently, 12 years after the attack. There are also details of other recent rape cases that were carried out appallingly - the man who got off practically scot-free after he claimed that the 10-year-old he abused (and that IS sexual abuse, as a child cannot legally give consent no matter what you say) was 'dressed provocatively', and the other recent one where it was implied* that the victim was 'glad of the attention' when she was gang-raped. The article highlights the huge prejudices that exist in rape cases, highlights how unfairly they are treated and calls for change.

However, I did have a few questions when I looked at where the article was featured in the site (I only knew about it via The F-Word, which linked straight to the petition). It is in the 'Woman' and 'Real Life' (personal accounts etc.) sections. Not on the Home Page. Not in the 'News' section, despite the fact that rape is a current issue and recent events are mentioned. In the sections that it does feature in, it's not immediately noticeable - Real Life has it after dieting articles, something about new mothers having sex (SHOCK!), humourous pictures of eggs and mobile phone allergies. And in the 'Woman' section.... sex, sex, fashion, diets, guys, fashion, celebrities.... ah, there it is!

So, despite this being an important issue which affects everyone, despite having a message we should all hear, it's been cordoned off as purely a 'women's issue' and hidden down the pages of two of the 'girlier' sections. I can understand why is would be in the section of personal accounts, but come on! It's a bit more important than weight loss and hot pants! Nice to know how important you guys at the Sun think this is, but I should've expected this, really. The Sun isn't exactly renowned for it's gleaming track record in highlighting the inequalities that exist in our country, except perhaps how 'unfair' it is that some women don't look like Pam Anderson.

Thoughts, anyone?

*Sorry, make that 'stated in plain language by the defence barrister', because the victim was overweight. Just to add insult to the injury.

Comments

2007-06-25T03:02:00.000+01:00

Oops - looks like I checked the 'hide comments' box by accident. Goodness knows how, but it happened. They should be back now, though.

Politics

2007-06-24T18:09:00.000+01:00

While it was no surprise to learn that Gordon Brown will be running the country for the next few years, our new Deputy Prime Minister was a little more unexpected. Harriet Harman won the race by an approximately 0.6% lead, finally pulling ahead of Alan Johnson in the final round of voting.

Ms. Harman has been described as 'Labour's in-house feminist', and in her acceptance speech said that she would work for equality of women as well as men, among many other things. However, some of her comments were a little confusing. She said that she realised the need for more women in power in order to have a truly representative and fair government, but then went on to say that, as women need more opportunities, she would be 'championing the family'. Now, does that mean she'll work for childcare, to allow more women to pursue a career? Is she somehow assuming, because or despite her own position as a professional working mother, that all women want families if they don't already have them? Why were 'women's rights' equated so flippantly with 'family rights'? They may be closely connected, but they are by no means one and the same. What, exactly, did she mean? Mwezzi doesn't know. Hopefully her intentions in this area will become clearer.
Despite these initial musings, I'm not going to dismiss her out of hand. After all, she has campaigned for more female MPs, paid parental leave and has been critical of the party's stance on women's rights - definitely a good thing to keep in mind when mulling her speech over. Her other policies, including improving youth work and apologising for the war, and her focus and willingness to go against the grain if she opposes something are all promising. The only thing left to do now? Wait and see how she performs in her new role. Good luck to her, I say.

Messing About

2007-06-15T23:45:00.000+01:00

Mwezzi --

[noun]:

A master blogger

'How will you be defined in the dictionary?' at QuizGalaxy.com

Nicked from Feministe. Yeah, this is the ultimate in lazy blogging, but when you get a randomised answer like that, posting duty calls. Normal service resumes soon, I promise!

Battered Woman Chic

2007-05-28T01:40:00.000+01:00

The United Colors of Benetton have come up with their 'Colours of Domestic Violence' ad campaign, ostensibly to raise awareness of DV. Now, they've had some controversial campaigns in the past - for example, anti-racism:

or featuring death-row inmates:

Apart from the company logo, the focus of these posters is on the issue they're raising awareness for. But let's look at their new one, shall we?

(via Adpunch)

Oh, look at those bruises. At least she colour-co-ordinated her wrap! Oh, isn't she stylish!

Yep. Benetton is hawking their products, and domestic violence sells. They could have focussed on the faces, where the signs of battery are clear, and have provided a straight-to-the-point message. Instead, in all three adverts, the clothing choice of the 'victims' is very obvious. This is just exploitative.

Of course, the first discussion I saw of this didn't see it that way. Nope, the focus was 'what about the men'. Men get beaten by their wives too! UCoB is anti-men! Those women are trying to make as all appear evil!
I'm tired of this.

Lazy blogging II: Feministe

2007-05-22T01:30:00.000+01:00

Before I go to bed, here's a post for everyone who continues to say that women are treated equally on the internet. Flea at Feministe blogged about a discussion that was had about a father who, tragically, had to make the decision for his dying wife to end a wanted pregnancy, and how different his reaction was from what had initially been expected:

I think about Amy Richards, the selfish, lazy, convenience-oriented slut with a husband who should have put her in her place, or Cecily, the murderer, or Biting Beaver, who struck such a major nerve that her life was threatened, the lives of her three children were threatened, her bodily integrity was threatened by rape, and she was offered, via email, not one, but two recipes for “herbal abortions” that would have killed her had she taken them. And for her the threats began shortly after the condom broke. What was different between his post and theirs? Nothing, really. In fact, his story and Cecily’s story were so similar they could almost have been the same tale, one told by the husband and one by the wife.

Similar experiences, different genders, wildly different responses.

'Sorry to hear of your loss. No parent should have to make such a decision. Our hearts and prayers are with you and your wife.'

'Hey, let's kill the slut before she kills her child - LET'S OFF 'EM BOTH! Bitch has it coming.'

And they say that they're pro-life.

Lazy Posting: Here's to Scarleteen!

2007-05-13T17:06:00.000+01:00

I've embarked upon exam leave recently and so have a lot on my plate, but during a break I came across a great post on abortion over at Scarleteen* (now added as a feminist site, though if you want a more accurate description, it's humanist and pro-life in the truest sense of the word.) It's written from the editor's personal experience.

I was pro-choice before that abortion. I remain so. Thousands upon thousands of women in the past have died to make that choice, before abortion was legal, and then, and now, those who do not support choice, let me make this clear, do not oppose abortion. They oppose a woman's right to make choices for the quality of her life and her children, and that is not supporting life or any quality of life. It is supporting an ideology and dogma that cannot fit something so subjective and varied as every single woman's choices and set of circumstances.

Being pro-choice is not often or necessarily being "pro-abortion." I do not believe it should be used as birth control, for instance: as a replacement for known reliable methods of accessible birth control. I personally believe that as women, it is our responsibility -- if we do not want children at any time -- to do whatever we can to avoid getting pregnant. However, there are times things happen, we make mistakes, birth control doesn't work, natural abortion doesn't work, when we may change our minds about wanting to be pregnant even in planned pregnancies -- and surgical or medical abortion is an option we may consider like any other, and may easily be our best option. There is no need to apologize for that, and no need to demonize that choice or oneself in any way. It is as valid and acceptable as any other.

Being pro-choice, in my mind, is being pro-child. Anyone who tells you that it is in the best interest of a child to grow up without the most basic things they require, reared into a family that either doesn't want them, or who simply isn't ready, or who harbors anger and resentment towards them is not thinking of the best interests of a child. Anyone who tells you that there are thousands of families just waiting to adopt ALL children isn't familiar with the fact that hundreds of thousands of children every year remain without homes and many will never have permanent homes, especially minority or special needs children. Many saying such things are projecting their own values and morals in the larger sense, and the person that benefits most is themselves: not children, not the women who bear and rear them.

Full article here.

*For those who don't know, Scarleteen is an American site offering unbiased (i.e. without religious or societal values) contemporary sex education for teens, and was of far more use to me in many respects than school sex ed ever was. While a lot of it could be considered 'girl stuff' by some, it does its best to run the full gamut from sexuality to erectile dysfunction to religious views on sex.

Religion and Politics - Making A Bed To Tell Lies In.

2007-05-05T01:35:00.000+01:00

Up here in Scotland we have just been receiving the latest news about our local elections, the missing votes, the recounts, the gains and losses. When my parents were readying themselves to vote on May 3rd, my mother an I sat in the living room looking through the various leaflets we'd received from all the hopeful candidates. There was the SNP, giving us a simplified version of their manifesto, and there was Labour, telling us not to vote for the SNP. The Conservatives echoed Labour's actions in the past few years in their own policies, then told us to make a difference by voting for them. Even the BNP tried their hand, with a big red-white-and-blue leaflet telling us that they were just like Labour but without the ethnic tolerance. But hang on, there are more parties than that. Where were the Greens? The SSP? Come, on, there are some gaps to fill in here.
A quick Google search yielded odd results. The Scottish Christian Party called the extra-liberal Greens 'eco-fascists' due to their plan to stop giving government funding to religious schools, and to merge them with non-denominational schools. The SCP says this will remove parental choice. Alright then, let's see what those lovely Christians have to say to convince us that a fully religious education (not just R.E.) is still a good thing. Off I trot to their website. Being an atheist, I have no intention of voting Christian when my chance comes. However, aside from that, the SCP gave me plenty to dislike.

I followed the sound of some cheesy music to a television spot that they had in Inverness, styled like a news broadcast. I was immediately faced with at least two reasons to oppose them:

According to research, teenagers who have an abortion are up to 800% more likely to develop breast cancer in later life, with abortions among under-16s reaching record levels. This spells a cancer crisis for Scotland in the coming decades...

Huh? What study was this? Last time I looked, the overwhelming evidence was that there is no link between having a safe, legal abortion and breast cancer. Look here (emphasis my own):

In February 2003, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) convened a workshop of over 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. Workshop participants reviewed existing population-based, clinical, and animal studies on the relationship between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. They concluded that having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer.

But wait, there's more! Cut to Dr. Murdo Murchison, former Director of Health for Grampian Health Board:

...There are other problems, much more immediate; there's the immediate psychological problem for the woman concerned, there's [sic] possible fertility problems, and these are all areas of considerable concern.

Where to begin?! Fertility problems are extremely rare - in fact, they're more a problem with unsafe abortions of the kind practised in back-alley terminations, and if abortion is legal and easy to obatain, if doctors are trained to perform them correctly... well. Suffering infertility from an abortion in such circumstances would be almost unheard of. Not to say that women shouldn't know the risks, but it's a risk that is far smaller than the report would have you believe here. There is a risk to every medical procedure out there, including getting tetanus jabs - and early abortions carry a smaller risk than later, surgical ones. The majority of abortions occur early on (I'll link when I find that). As for psychological problems, Feministing covered this one a while back. It links to a ten-page NY Times article that shows a lot of evidence that abortion itself doesn't have psychological implications, and is, in fact, no worse than carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term:

Academic experts continue to stress that the psychological risks posed by abortion are no greater than the risks of carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term. A study of 13,000 women, conducted in Britain over 11 years, compared those who chose to end an unwanted pregnancy with those who chose to give birth, controlling for psychological history, age, marital status and education level. In 1995, the researchers reported their results: equivalent rates of psychological disorders among the two groups.

Studies have also found that harmful psychological effects can actually be created by so-called 'abortion counselling' that basically tells the woman that she has killed a human being and must live with and atone for that for the rest of her life. If I can find the relevant links for that, I'll update this post later. On a related note, if they want to cut abortion rates, they might want to consider educating adolescents about safer sex and the like - from the insider accounts I get, the sex-ed currently on offer in some of the Catholic schools is beyond the pail. However, I doubt that's on the SCP's 'to-do' list.
...It isn't! Here's what their manifesto says on the matter:

The Scottish Christian Party will call for sex education classes to be given only to children on a parental opt-in basis. The Scottish Christian Party will fight for the promotion in school of chastity before marriage, and faithfulness in marriage, as the safest sexual practice, as and when sex education is taught.

What? They abhor abortion, but also don't want mandatory sex education? Does anyone else see a problem here?

So far, so bad... but we ain't finished, oh no. You can't have a party preaching the gospel truth without a hearty dose of sexual intolerance, can we? When telling us to vote for the SCP, the party's leader, Englishman Rev. George Hargreaves invokes Godwin's Law:

In 1933 Adolf Hitler passed a law saying that Kosher food should be banned. Within 10 years he was murdering millions of Jews. Next week on the 30th April, regulations come in that affect Christians. The Sexual Orientation Regulations come into force. We must stop this. Go out and vote for the SCP on May 3rd, it is the only way we can stop the Sexual Orientation Regulations from becoming law, which is the first stage of persecution of Christians in this land.

What, exactly, are the SORs? Well, another site, Christian Concern for Our Nation bemoans them and gives us an outline:

What are the Sexual Orientation Regulations (SOR)?
Using power they gave to themselves through the Equality Act 2006, the government are pushing through a new law (the SOR) which will make it illegal for providers of goods, services, facilities, premises, education or public functions to discriminate against the recipients on the grounds of their sexual orientation i.e. whether they are homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual.

Oh dear, Christian, Muslim or indeed any religious schools will not be allowed to say that gay children will go straight to hell, and are abominations. B&B owners won't be allowed to turn away gay couples. What is the world coming to, when we can't tell people to be heterosexual or die? Check the manifesto again...

The Scottish Christian Party will also call for the re-instatement of Section 2A, thus calling for the end of the promotion and “the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship."

In essence, this party wants to turn the clock back on women's reproductive rights and to reserve their 'right' to treat 'undesirable' or 'unGodly' types such as homosexuals as second-class citizens. Then they have the audacity to say that others are persecuting them.

I sincerely hope these people didn't make any major gains this year.

Newt in a Teacup's questionnaire

2007-05-04T01:46:00.000+01:00

TCupnewt has created a women's survey on body image, in order to get people to share their experiences in that area and hopefully get people talking. Read the full details (and find the blank template) here.

Name: Mwezzi (internet paranoid!)

Age: 17

Height: 5'7" - 5'8"

Weight: 8st2.

Do you consider yourself attractive?
In a mundane way - I wouldn't say I'm unattractive, but I wouldn't say I'm out of the ordinary.

Do others consider you attractive?
Apparently so - I've been complimented by strangers as well as by my family and boyfriend.

What is your biggest insecurity and why?
I'm a braless wonder because I feel more comfortable without, and also do not really need one, but as I tend to be surrounded by male friends/classmates/dog-walkers when out of the house I often find myself hunching, folding my arms or rearranging my hair to disguise any possible pointiness. I don't like the idea that it could draw people's attention, even if I know that the person I'm talking to won't actually notice.

Have you/Would you consider using plastic surgery? Why or why not?
I'd never consider it. There's a lot to go wrong when resorting to such measures, and I think that my natural dimensions and appearance suits me far better than any modification would.

What is your relationship with make-up?
It's a weekend thing. I'm a bit gothy and like to change my image completely when out of school, but I don't use it to appear prettier or disguise any shortcomings - it's just part of the outfit, so to speak.

How much money do you think is reasonable to spend on your appearance?
Not including clothes, I spend about £3 pounds in total - that's the rough cost of both types of eyeliner. Occasionally, that goes up to a bit under £6 in order to get facewash because I'm an oily-skinned type. I don't like to spend too much on my clothes so looting second-hand and charity shops is my forté, and overall I think I'm being extravagant if my overall appearance on a normal day, including the above, cost me more than £15.

What is your experience of dieting?
I have never dieted - though my mother has always been concerned about her weight (and she is overweight, so it's not all in the mind) and has always tried to exercise regularly and eat healthily.

Have you/ anyone you know tried any specific diet programs i.e. Lighter Life? How did that affect your health? your moods? your relationships?
N/A

Do you have any experiences of eating disorders i.e. either yourself or someone you know?
Despite statistical probabilities, I am not aware of anyone I personally know suffering from an eating disorder.

Have you had negative experiences relating to your appearance and people’s reactions to it?
I got a fair few snide comments about my unshaven legs when I took P.E. and I still get a few disapproving stares when in public changing rooms.

What about positive reactions to your body?
My boyfriend has never been anything but positive about my appearance, and I do occasionally draw compliments from people, otherwise complete strangers, who talk to me when I take the dog for a walk.

How has your body image and attitude changed over the years?
I've become a bit more secure about my underweightness; I've come to terms with the fact that it's just the way I am at the moment, and I'm still healthy.

What do you love about your body?
The skin on my tummy. Interestingly, so does my boyfriend. It's very soft.

What is your opinion on the media portrayal of women’s bodies?
One-dimensional, unrepresentative and often downright fictional, to oversimplify my opinion. Don't get me started, I don't want to type out that essay again.

What would you change about the way you/ your friends/ your family/ general people see their bodies?
I wish people would start admiring the positive aspects rather than focussing on what they perceive to be the negative ones. I also wish people would stop worrying about their weight for any reason other than health reasons. Worrying that you're not slim enough is different than worrying that you may be damaging your health by continuing to be a certain weight.

What makes you feel beautiful?
My hair, when it's clean.

and just for fun… Do you shave legs/pits/upper lip moustache?
Nope, except when I'm wearing one specific top I will go baldpits. And I'm phasing that out too.

Wrong time of year

2007-05-02T17:56:00.000+01:00

The current administration in America may have a depressing record for Women's Rights, but don't fret! They care enough to send out a poorly-timed seasonal card!

From Married to the Sea (image links there, as usual).

Anti-Feminist Bingo!

2007-04-15T17:15:00.000+01:00

Two bingo cards have recently sprung up as a way of 'spotting the trolls' or anyone who doesn't actually give a shit about feminism or they would not be saying these things. The first one, concerning 'general anti-feminism' is from Hoyden About Town:

The second one, concerning the more specific subject of anti-feminism in comics, is at Girls Read Comics (And They're Pissed):

Click each one to go to their respective blog posts. And before you say something daft because you can't be bothered reading the actual posts, I'll say it here: Some of those entries may not be anti-feminism in and of themselves. Case in point: the 'Patriarchy hurts men too' square in the first card is actually part of the feminist philosophy, and has been discussed many times all over the place. However, if spouted along with several other phrases there, it's almost always a way of de-railing a discussion and is basically another way of saying 'But what about the men?!'. Remember, this is bingo - you're scoring five-in-a-row, not one.

Everyone else is talking about it....

2007-04-01T16:29:00.000+01:00

... so I will too. Word has been getting around recently about yet another documentary that I didn't see, this time about women with body hair. Shazia Mirza's 'Fuck Off! I'm A Hairy Woman' was about her experiences when she, a self-confessed hairy woman, ditched the razor and began to grow out all her body hair. Unsurprisingly, she was met with complete disgust.

I didn't see it, though, so I can't say much.

However, I can say that we still have hope, for there are men out there who neither fetishise nor demonise body hair. When I shaved under my arms recently (I decided that the top I was wearing was the only one in my wardrobe that I preferred with bald underarms due to a need for antiperspirant to make full contact with the skin and thus make handwashing slightly easier), I got two reactions. One from an old friend who I had talked into ditching the razor a few years back, who said that she now had boasting rights about her fluffiness until mine grew back. The other was from my boyfriend.
He was a bit disappointed. He preferred the fuzzy, like me.
Damn, that made me feel good.

Anyway, yes, fluff. Personally, I hope that I'll see the day when people don't actually debate it anymore, because they won't really notice. At least, not in the way they do now. I hope people won't be saying that hair on a woman (apart from on her head) makes them feel physically sick and that it's somehow 'not right'. Hell, nobody really seems to see it as a moral outrage if men do or don't shave, beards or elsewhere - it's just seen as personal preference (or in some cases, a religious thing). It's just 'guys have hair. Sometimes, they don't.' Whereas a woman who doesn't shave risks being seen as irrational, lazy, even (paradoxically) unnatural. What woman in their right mind would see her natural fuzz as anything but abhorrent?

Well, put it this way. To all the men out there who just don't get it, imagine the razor burn you get after shaving your beard. The itch when the stubble's growing back. Bit irritating, isn't it? Painful at times, for some. Now imagine that itch in your armpits, all over your arms and legs, between your legs and round the base of your penis, where clothing is CONSTANTLY RUBBING. Imagine being told that this itch is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL to being seen as attractive to anyone. Imagine being told that having even a little bit of hair down there is enough to make others want to throw up. Imagine feeling compelled to go out and buy bleaching products and lots more shaving cream than you currently do, book appointments at the barbers every few weeks, waste ridiculous amounts of your money to ensure that all those extra hairs remain invisible. It's time consuming, it eats all your cash and you're getting really insecure about those hairs. Now can you see why some women are saying that enough is enough? If not, I say you try out the 'beauty regimes' that you insist we undergo for a year, then come back and I'll ask you again.
To all the women who don't get it, and are already going through all of the above... well, basically I'd rather spend my money on (and time doing) other things, and it's all to do with personal choice. You wanna, I don't. Stop sneering at me in changing rooms. I'm as female as you are. No, I don't care what people might say, or I wouldn't be in this situation.

Thank goodness that I'm surrounded by less judgemental people.

You cannot perfect perfection

2007-03-25T22:09:00.000+01:00

In response to a recent article (quoted at the F-Word) on how famous women are often 'prettied up' on celluloid to make them look nice for the masses, I have at least one positive counterexample. Did anyone watch The Hours? The movie makers, bless them, actually made an effort to create an accurate Virginia Woolf, even making a prosthetic nose for Nicole Kidman to transform her entirely:

That said, Ms. Woolf was already pretty damn good looking to begin with. But at least they didn't have her looking like Kidman on film.

...last one today...

2007-03-17T14:41:00.000Z

I love this quote from Laurelin as she dissects some of the insults that are hurled at her:

‘Dyke’- neither ‘lesbian’ nor ‘canal’ are insults.

On Evolution (for all you rabid Biology fans)

2007-03-17T12:19:00.000Z

Quite often, I find articles stating that men are like this or women are like that because of genes, and thus they are all thus and if they aren't they're abominations of nature. They say that humans are all one way because they evolved. I think that this is a bit of a fallacy, as it ignores another crucial part of being human - our potentially long life spans.

Let's start at the basics here. The mayfly. It has a tiny lifespan, leading it to be called the 'one day fly' in various languages. (Its temporary nature is reflected by the rather beautiful name the French have given it, l'éphémère.) Once it has emerged in its adult form, it has a day to fly off, find a mate, breed, find a suitable area to lay its eggs and then do so before it dies. With such a tiny window of time within which to fit everything, it would mean the extinction of the species if it had to first learn how to perform all of its actions - especially in the absence of any parents to do the teaching. Thus, it makes sense that the little naiad is largely controlled by its genetic make-up.

Creatures such as elephants and us ape-y types are a bit different. We can live for decades. We produce fewer offspring than our small, short-lived neighbours and these offspring receive a good deal of parenting before cavorting off to be independent like all the cool kids. All this parental help we get gives us a greater survival chance in the early years, and also mean we have plenty of time to learn from observation, trial and error and straightforward lessons from our parents. We also continue to learn throughout our lives, picking up skills and tips as we go. Thus, human behaviour has a lot more to do with learning than it does in the case of a mayfly. We have different personalities, different ways of expressing ourselves, different habits. To say, then, that we will be a certain way purely because of our genes is to deny that we have any individuality and also says that parenting means nothing - we could be brought up in any way but will always be X. Even parenting doesn't predict us though, as is shown by numerous cases of children 'turning out differently' to expectations. We are influenced by social and familial pressures and our own growing minds and ideas, with our genes only providing a 'groundwork' for many of us.

Let's look at evolution in the case of monogamy. If we are to look at our closest relatives, chimps, which share a whopping 98% of their genetic material with us, you will see that they are... not monogamous. Gorillas... no. In fact, I learned by reading The Descent of Woman (Elaine Morgan's precursor to The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis) that where natural, genetic monogamy happens, it is usually in the case of creatures like gibbons and a wide range of both aquatic and terrestrial creatures which are so fiercely territorial that, if they did not go through a stage of imprinting that would allow them to bond with another member of their species with which they would mate with and allow to live with them, they and their species would face some serious problems establishing themselves. Humans are rather less territorial than that, yet we still get people saying that women are monogamous purely due to genes. If we went through the imprinting process then we could say that love at first sight was universal, we'd go through a short period of time in which we would latch on to a mate and, once the window has closed, wouldn't so much as look at another one. Cheating in relationships would be EXTREMELY rare if not unheard of.
Not. The. Case.
The evidence suggests that our genetic foundations do not mark us as monogamous, and thus the practice of monogamy is a result of choice and social influence. I'm not saying 'monogamy is bad'. I'm saying 'there's no proof that humans are monogamous by default'.

There are several examples of this, all ignoring the human capacity to learn and be influenced. So before simply saying that humans should be a certain way because of what they are, think about the other factors first.

I'd rather eat chocolate, too...

2007-03-16T16:57:00.000Z

... but I won't deny that other women prefer 'exercise'.
Joan Sewell has just written a book. But not just any book, oh no. This book is about how any woman who is not like her must be delusional.

The idea that women’s sex drive can match men’s is politically correct piffle, says Sewell, who is 45. Her memoir, I’d Rather Eat Chocolate: Learning to Love My Low Libido, recounts one frustration after another in a buildup to an anticlimactic conclusion: she’s just not that into sex. Such a pronouncement may not be titillating, but it’s groundbreaking, says Sandra Tsing Loh in the March issue of the Atlantic.

Libidinous ladies parade across our television screens—in Sex and the City, for example, or Desperate Housewives—but Sewell thinks they’re faking it. Like many real women, they are conforming to an image of supposed sexual liberation as they throw down their men and play rough. Poor Sewell, then, is the deviant.

The ensuing interview basically draws out her views: she doesn't like sex, and actresses and porn stars are faking it because that's their job, therefore all women are faking it because they are incapable of doing anything other than imitate the imitators. Or something.
I'm a bit like Sewell, in the fact that I have a very low to non-existent sex drive (and I'm not even married or over 40, something she feels factors into it) and think that the current raunch culture encourages girls and women to put on the display of lust where there is in fact none. However, our views diverge there. Whist Sewell decides that women all have low libidos and fake it all the time even when not in the public eye, I feel that women have different libidos and some fake it due to social pressure; but even then, many have the confidence to say 'no' if they aren't in the mood. Certainly, there's a problem with some feeling obliged to put out when they don't want to, feeling they must be something wrong with that - this is something to be remedied. But to go as far as saying that women are almost all sexless is like saying that women are almost all gagging for it - it's not progressive, ground breaking or subversive, it's just another way to make people feel that there's something wrong with them.
She also implies (if not yells, in your ear, with a megaphone) that all men are sex fiends who are only being monogamous to keep the little lady happy. Wow, what a way to box the men in AND make their partners feel guilty. This woman is clearly a beacon of truth and light to us all.

Update: I think this quote sums up the interview.

It’s all an act, then, and the truth is that men are fundamentally lustful and women are not?

Men are far more interested in sex, and if they can get as much sex as they want, they’re going to try. They do tailor their sex drive, at least the gentlemen do, to women. Sometimes they have to, just to get them into bed, and sometimes they genuinely want to. But men had harems in the past. Women’s lib has made monogamy more of a standard, but if it were left up to men, would that be a standard? You know, I don’t think so. I think they like having a main squeeze, a woman they can be emotional with, but they also like the idea of having sex on the side. Are women completely monogamous? No. But it tends to go the other way far more.

You talk about evolutionary influences on libido, and I wonder how real you think they are, how acutely you think we feel them.

Well, across so many cultures, men are more promiscuous, men want more variety, men want more women. And for women, security overrides the sexual urge. That happens because, well, the woman’s sexual urge is weaker. Maybe it is because of biology.

This argument ignores socialisation, for a start. Let's take Islamic culture, for example, where men can take up to 4 wives. Is this because they are inherently more lustful? Well, the reason given in the Koran is that men have a duty to protect women, so taking in more than one wife was a way of looking after those such as war-widows or older women who were more dependant and needed shelter and support. It isn't encouraged in the scriptures to take more than one wife simply because you want them, and if you are incapable of treating them all equally then you should remain monogamous. (How closely this is followed in some areas is a different story.) Before Islam, in some Eastern countries it was fine for women to have several husbands as well, though this was outlawed by the new religion. I'm going to look this up and get back to you (I can't find mah book!) but there is also a community out there (in the great beyond!) which actively encourages women to take multiple partners. Here in the West, however, women's sexual desires have up until comparatively recently been ignored or even denied - sexual desire of any description was seen as a disease in women in the 19th century and a variety of treatments, including clitoridectomy, were used to 'cure' them of their lustful ways. Now, having no desire may be seen as a bit odd at the very least, and asexuality is recognised to be the least common sexuality out there. While Sewell isn't going as far as to say 'women have no desires at all', she is putting 'low libido' as the norm for the vast majority, largely based upon her own experiences and assumptions from data which can be interpreted in a number of ways.

Feminism 101

2007-03-14T22:52:00.000Z

If you have a general question about feminism and its large issues, from 'is it victim politics?' or 'why not tell them to defend themselves against rape?' then head on down to the Feminism 101 blog and have a snoot around.

Sexism never went out of fashion

2007-03-08T23:14:00.000Z

I'M RE-HAULING THE POST. BACK LATER.

What kind of a feminist ARE you?!

2007-03-02T14:25:00.000Z

Is a question I occasionally get. I shall try and answer that before I answer the more unusual question later.

Okay, let's see. Well, first up, I'm by no means fixed in all my views yet. At 17 years old, I've not been properly 'into' the movement for very long at all, but women's issues have always grabbed and held my attention.

Books

In terms of literature, my personal feminist collection is sparse, consisting of Female Chauvinist Pigs, A Brief History of Misogyny (a current favourite), The Beauty Myth, Price of Honour (next in line for reading) and The Female Eunuch. Interestingly, it is that last one, the one so highly praised by seemingly every feminist I come across, that I found the least engaging. I never finished it, so I cannot comment on it completely, but as your average girl on the street, a mostly male group of friends and no background in the feminist 60s-80s period in which the book was published, I found it difficult to fully relate to. Perhaps someday I'll read it completely with a different eye. Meanwhile, it was Ariel Levy's flawed and much-criticised paperback that got me hooked. Her arguments are far from perfect, and she does sometimes come across as having little respect for people who do actually enjoy and embrace 'raunch culture' as a true reflection of their sexuality, yet as someone who does find such a society both intimidating and dull (if it could be possible) as well as alienating, I was heartened to find someone who - at least to a certain extent - saw it as I did. Despite everything people have said against the book, for me, it was as good a starting point as The F-Word was in finding out what feminists are saying here and now.
However, I don't think that 'blame the slags' is a good philosophy.

Discrimination and the 'isms'

I have always been an avid reader, and always enjoyed a good story. When in primary school and nursery I could usually be found in the book section, and the picture books were my earliest source of information about the world apart from my actual day-to-day experiences - and in the books that I saw, the doctors were always male and the nurses were always female. Our family doctor, similarly, was and still is a man, and on our occasional visits to the hospital we would be surrounded by female nurses - so I assumed that the books must be right. So when my dad asked me once what I wanted to be when I grow up, one of the first things I said was 'a nurse'.
'Why? Don't you want to be a doctor?'
'Only men can be doctors.' I replied matter-of-factly. Regardless of the intention of the books, this was what I had learned. This was sexism, accidental or not. I also learned that families always consist of Mum, Dad, and minimum of two children and the family pet(s) - I didn't know what divorce was until I met my best friend, I didn't know that women can love women and men can love men until a family friend passed around some wedding photos. I assumed that EVERYONE gets married at some point. Girls must try and look pretty all the time, while boys go out and rip the knees of their trousers climbing trees. I learned that white people marry only white people, Asians marry only Asians and so on. Hopefully, the books have become more representative since then.
Now that I'm older I am told that women are damaging the family by going out to work, but men aren't (I OBJECT!) - reinforcing the picturesque nuclear families in those picture books. Every now and then, a study tells me that I find maths challenging purely because I'm female, and the roughly 5:1 ratio of boys to girls in my maths class is discouraging. Immigrants are destroying our way of life. Black single mothers should be blamed entirely for their family's breakdown. Et. Cetera.
I wish I'd been shown more accurate depictions when I was younger. Maybe not all stories of family breakdowns and cancer, but even just a few mentions - a few female doctors or male nurses, a child with parents who are co-habiting - something. I wish people would stop reading the fucking Sun. I wish that people would stop automatically trying to pin the blame upon a single group whenever something goes wrong. I hope that things will improve. I look forward to it.

I was going to go on longer with this, but I've found a way to summarise it all. Feminist Critics made a list of the things that they believe feminism has got right and which they agree with - it basically says everything about how I see things. When I analyse something, these are the basic premises that I start from:

1. There is a gender system

Males and females are socialized into masculinities and femininities. Masculine and feminine behaviour is not simply determined by biology.

2. The gender system is damaging

Masculinities and femininities can be damaging and dehumanizing to both males and females.

3. Women are oppressed

Women have suffered various types of systematic mistreatment throughout history, and continue to do so in the present. This mistreatment is unjust. If it can be called “oppression,” then women suffer gender oppression.

4. Sexism exists

Sexism—hateful, contemptuous, bigoted, or discriminatory attitudes based on sex—is real. Sexism can be institutionalized socially and politically. The feminist identification and critique of misogyny has mitigated misogyny, though institutionalized misogyny still exists.

5. Males have unjust advantages

Males have some systematic advantages over females that they do not have a right to.

6. Marginalization of the experience of women

Prior to feminism, the experience of women was marginalized in academic and scientific disciplines, and in public discourse.

7. Sexuality involves power dynamics

Under the gender system at least, sexuality is intertwined with power dynamics. E.g. male-dominant, female-submissive, and male-active, female-passive. These power dynamics are not limited to heterosexuality. The link between power dynamics and sexuality can be damaging to people.

8. There is something wrong with pornography

Pornography can be dehumanizing toward both its users and towards its participants. Even if pornography can be defended on legal grounds, these liberal arguments doesn’t protect it from moral critique.

9. There is intersectionality of oppression

Gender oppression and oppression based on race, sexual orientation, or class, can combine multiplicatively into oppression that is more than the sum of its parts.

10. Beauty standards can be damaging

Beauty standards and objectification can be damaging to female self-esteem. It would be both practical and moral to change images of beautiful women in the media in certain ways.

Overall, I think feminism is a positive force, and one I gladly associate myself with. Yes, there have been times when we've 'got it wrong' as it were. All movements have their highs and lows and sub-groups of differing opinions which occasionally clash. But don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. I hope I can 'grow into' the movement over time, I want to learn more, and I want to see it succeed it improving conditions for women (and, hopefully, everyone) worldwide. I want to be a part of that.

I've got your 'consent' right here...

2007-02-18T18:07:00.000Z

Just in case you didn't hear me.

Now for something completely different and waaay after everyone else has finished talking about it.

The Vagina Institute. A group whose sole purpose is to tell you that your genitalia is ugly and that you should be ashamed if it doesn't match those you see in the average porn magazine. That is, if you are female. Somewhere, earlier in the week when this was first pointed out and a reference was made to male genitalia, the comment was attacked as being potentially damaging to the ego of someones son. No mention was made to the harmful effects of telling the majority of women that they have ugly vaginas which will cause their partners to ditch them if not 'corrected'.
Let's see what happens if some of the Institutes paragraphs are regendered (or more 'masculine' language added)...

UGLY PENISES VS. GOOD-LOOKING PENISES...

...how your penis measures up to the most masculine, most handsome penises in the world. The essence of manhood resides in the beauty of form, function and size... the further away the penis and testicles are from the preset parameters and symmetrical values, well the penis tends to be not as good-looking, in fact we can use the word 'ugly' to define it correctly...

Yeah, real nice. Feeling good about yourselves, guys? I know I wouldn't.
And guess what, all this stuff about vaginae being hideous is all packaged up to look professional, with statistic adding weight to their findings. So not only do they say that you have nasty genitals, but guess what? THE WORLD thinks that you should change it for the better. Keep in mind that many women already do have insecurities about their vulva, and and some have had 'corrective' surgery - sometimes loosing all feeling down there in the process, or making sex PAINFUL. So despite everything looking just like the pornographic ideal, and thus making her appear 'sexier', the actual act has now been wrecked. For some more regendering, I will refer to Naomi Wolf's Beauty Myth:

Imagine this: penis implants, penis augmentation, foreskin enhancement, testicular silicone injections to correct asymmetry, saline injections with a choice of three sizes, surgery to correct the angle of erection, to lift the scrotum and make it pert. Before and after shots in Esquire. Risks: total numbing of the glans. Diminution of sexual feeling. Permanent obliteration of sexual feeling. Glans rigidity, to the consistency of hard plastic. Testicular swelling and hardening, with probable repeat operations, including scar tissue formation that the surgeon must break apart with manual pressure. Implant collapse. Leakage. Unknown long-term consequences. Weeks of recovery necessary during which the penis must not be touched. The above procedures are undergone because they make men sexier to women, or so men are told.

Even without surgery, it can be damaging. Being told that you are ugly, repeatedly, day in day out, can lead to a fall in self esteem. Women are constantly told that they smell bad down there, that they're too hairy. The Vagina Institute, like many others, now makes it 'official': many women have unsexy vaginas. When you are told that your vagina is so hideous that your partner hates looking at it, that it's a turn off to them, then the you may indeed have some serious anxieties about going to bed with them. Same for men - not really a good idea to barrage them with abuse about how they're too small, too thin etc. as that will make many men feel bad. As many already know, a drop in self esteem is usually mirrored by a drop insexual performance, difficulty with arousal etc. But there is no Penis Institute, spouting statistics and saying that your testicles are officially ugly. Only this constant assertion that 'some women think that...', just like the whole 'some men say that...' thing. It's just not the same.

Making the point abundantly clear.

2007-02-11T20:54:00.000Z

A tip of the hat to Laura for her post on women's attire and rape. Not a recent post, but I've just found it and it's still worthy of a read if you have a minute to spare.

I have a post brewing about more recent things, it'll be up soon I hope.

Climate change campaign

2007-02-01T17:07:00.000Z

Taken from the Alliance for the Planet (L'Alliance pour la Planète), and edited for relevance:

Take part in the greatest campaign against climate change!

Alliance for Planet issues a simple call to all citizens, 5 minutes of respite for the planet: everyone extinguishes their lights on February 1, 2007 between 19h55 and 20h00 [18:55 - 19:00 GMT]. This is not to save 5 minutes of electricity on this day, but to draw the attention of the citizens, media and leaders to energy wasting and the urgency to take action against it! 5 minutes of respite for the planet: it doesn't take long, it's free, and it will show to politicians that climate change is an important subject which must be included in political debate.

Why on February 1? Because on that day, in Paris, the climate experts of the UN will release their report in Paris. One should not miss this chance to alert our governments and leaders of the urgency of the world's climate situation.

Spread the message!

Instant Favourites

2007-01-30T18:29:00.000Z

Here are two interesting posts that have recently turned up:

*Women just shouldn't have sex if they don't want to have babies.

I can imagine how well these very same men will take widespread constant refusal to have sex. Can't you? "You're a prude! A tease!" So how about men? Should they have sex with other men?

Ginmar lacerating some of the most common arguments from anti-choicers.

I also take issue with those protesting raunch culture being labelled “conservatives”. What could be more conservative than dressing up as a sex object, as men would like you to be? What could be more conservative than fitting into a commercial, plastic, popular mould of female sexuality? The author of this article is the conservative one for advocating women to carry on being what they have always been, and in turn maintaining his ‘right’ to objectify women as men have traditionally been encouraged to do.

Michelle pointing out a young man's rather dubious stance on our freedom to participate in, but not to object to, raunch culture.