About the comments

Yes, I know a couple of you have sent in comments that I've done nothing about. That's because, in all my clear-headedness, I forgot to verify them. As I don't see them as trolling (I know you guys, and know your intentions) rest assured they will be posted up at the weekend along with my replies to the questions you asked.

In the meantime, I have prelims to sit.

Quotes of the Week

Though not necessarily from this past week. A couple of posts that stuck in my mind.

All the equality legislation in the world hasn’t altered the fact that while women have proven able to become one of the men in the workplace, men still haven’t become one of the women in the home.

THE KILLER IS PRESUMED TO BE A WHITE WOMAN WHO HAS BEEN LET DOWN BY MEN IN THE PAST.

Tipping the cotton-elastine blend.

Yeah, I'm digging out old artwork again. Not to say much, simply to point out that, if those people on the cutting edge of fashion truly saw the way you dress as a form of personal expression, they wouldn't mind and thus wouldn't ridicule people who choose not to follow the latest trends. The amount of times I've heard comments and had people burst into obvious giggles just as they pass me merely because I am wearing (shock horror!) a long skirt is starting to make me loose faith in the ability of humans to grow up and get used to the fact that some people just don't like skin tight jeans or the current fashion of cropped tights/leggings under short denim skirts. I'll be wearing my velvet drapery with pride, thank you very much, and I shall be striding down the streets with the supreme satisfaction of wearing exactly what makes me feel comfortable and good about my appearance.* Yes, that includes the zany top with the mismatched sleeves. It's real fashion! EVERYTHING GOES!

One thing I have noticed is the increasing number of girls who sent the 'catty' remarks my way who, only a year or two ago, were hardly the most sartorially up-to-the-minute. In biology, we learn about the huge capacity we primates have for learning from our environment. If my suspicions are correct, they may have attracted a certain amount of flak for their appearance at some point between then and now, as the transformation from 'plain' to 'fashionable' seems to be rather dramatic to be a simple evolution in their clothing tastes; perhaps they have learned from others that it is acceptable to ridicule those who obviously dress differently. The general public and their media has certainly become more judgemental (in the most open minded way, they swear) as of late.

In conclusion: I'm fed up with people that go about judging my appearance who then get really offended when others judge them by their own. I'm neither a prude nor religiously orthodox**, to answer the two most common comments. Leave me alone before I smother you with my voluminous sleeves.


Hm. Perhaps it's time to show them that top.





Then again, maybe not.


*Also, the material feels fantastic to wear and touch. Those of you who have ever worn large amounts of velvety material will know what I mean.

**I'M NOT EVEN RELIGIOUS!!!

How very telling.

I was very surprised, upon reading the sitemeter report, that my humble little webcomic, usually only viewed by people who know me, had been getting so many hits - more in this past week than in the last month. Upon closer inspection, however, I discovered that it was all thanks to my response to Anonymous. Read through it, and try and pick out the key words that brought people from as far afield as South Africa. A hint - it wasn't the word 'feminist'.

My opinion of Internet porn users is made worse with every search word I read. I wouldn't mind if it weren't for the fact that there are a fair few guys I know who are porn users and a good deal more that I don't know about who probably are as well. I wonder if they use these same search criteria in their quest for masturbatory material. There's plenty of violence and rather disturbing fantasies in there. I find out even more just by reading through the blogs in the list at the side. Ignorance was bliss, a lot of these things I wish I'd never read - and am even more sorry that people actually find these things appealing. The kind of things associated with rape, pain and even death for millions of women worldwide are associated with sexual pleasure for millions of porn users worldwide. That is seriously messed up. And don't say it's merely 'natural instinct'. While the most basic aspects of sex are likely innate, a lot of it, including courtship and sexual practise are heavily influenced by other humans and external stimuli. The eroticisation of control (almost exclusively by men) and violence (almost exclusively against women) has lead to many young men and even women growing thinking that that is what sex is all about, and an upsurge in rape (and many traumatised women not realising that what they have experienced is defined as rape, not 'just sex'). Before, it was virginity and chastity belts. Once feminism really came into it's own, sex was all about showing forcing her to recognise that he is still in charge. Defend it all you want. Have a look for yourself. Don't refer me to porn sites - I don't care that there are 'alternatives' which are 'woman friendly' or that not all porn sites show rape (how do you know?). These search queries seem to say a lot more about what some people want to see than the images that they may actually see.

...

...and that, my friends, is EXACTLY how what was supposed to be a short comment turns into an unplanned rant.

Here's to you Martha...

... you really haven't got a clue.
Yup, seems I've been targeted by the oh-so-dull Martha, aka Booboo, aka Marian. A little bit of websearching has revealed some of his posting history, and with help from Laurelin and subsequently Trolbuster, have filled in the gaps. Despite posting under the name of Martha, however, he appears to be using an IP address similar to Jack Goff - another troll. How strange. Reading his blog is real good fun, not least due to his transparency. Using all the evidence I gathered, plus the first few words of the comment he left without realising that I have moderation powers, I have built up what I think is a very accurate picture of this rather irritating troll's current form.

Yes, I bet he talks like that. A word of advice to Martha - don't refer to those that you would have us believe to be your own tribespeople as 'sand niggers'. It's a bit of a giveaway. Also, I can tell what country all the visitors to this blog are in, and you seem to be situated in North America. It even tells me your city and state. If I'm mistaken, well, there's only one other possibility for the day you commented, and it ain't Afghanistan.

This is fun. Would anyone else like to draw a portrait of their troll(s)? Tell me if you do, I'd love to see.

Mature female = rape target

I was blearily skimming through the news during the wee small hours this morning when I came across this report from the BBC on a nine year old girl called Ashley in America. Ashley suffers from a condition which 1) has suspended her mental state at that of a three-month-old baby and 2) effectively renders her helpless as she is unable to talk or move herself around, though she can move her arms and legs. She is a fully conscious human being and has a full life expectation; however, her life depends on constant care and attention by others as she very clearly cannot take care of herself (she's been nicknamed 'Pillow Angel' by her parents because she will not move from where she is set down - usually on a pillow). Because of this, her parents have taken surgical steps to 'improve the quality of her life' whilst simultaneously making her 'easier to care for', a means to the aforementioned end. Along with hormone treatment, Ashley has undergone surgery to have her uterus and breast buds removed (she is already entering puberty at the age of seven). As Ashley will never be able to raise a child, this is to 'reduce the discomfort' of menstruation and the growth and presence of breasts, which will be especially uncomfortable for Ashley because she comes from a family of large breasted women and such organs will make lying down, something she does almost all the time, extremely uncomfortable. (There is also a history of breast cancer in the family.) Thus, to improve her quality of life, these ostensibly unnecessary organs have been removed. Along with hormone treatment, this also suspends her development; Ashley will remain in a child's body for the rest of her life, to make carrying her easier, reducing her chance of various health problems associated with increased weight and severely limited movement and, in her parents words, she will retain more dignity in a body that is healthier, more of a comfort to her, and more suited to her state of development.

Now, I understand these concerns. All of these, while they have been seen by some as providing mere convenience to the carers, also allow more comfort to the child and increase the effectiveness of care provided to her. It is not something I'm going to go into because I have extremely mixed feelings on the issue ( a) She cannot consent to such drastic changes to her own body, but b) she may well be more comfortable and happier without this that and the other, but c)... ) that will just make this post ramble on endlessly. BUT, and this is where my ears prick up and I KNOW what I think, there is another reason for the surgery (emphasis mine):

The operation [removal of the uterus] also removed the possibility of pregnancy if Ashley were ever the victim of sexual abuse, they said.
The removal of the girl's breast buds was also done in part to avoid sexual abuse, but was carried out primarily so she would not experience discomfort when lying down, the parents said.

Does that not worry anyone? That one of the reasons for removing a young girl's sex organs is an attempt to ward off rape? The parents are going to be the primary carers of this child, but they are probably thinking forward to a time when they will be unable to look after her. What does it say of society when parents will resort to surgery in part to protect their child? Also, it is highly unlikely that they would have listed 'prevention of sexual abuse' as a reason for removing all signs of sexual maturity from a boy. I, for one, am appalled that this has become a such concern. A future carer is seen as a potential abuser unless this child REMAINS a child. But even then, it's a good idea to remove the womb, just in case. Is there no way of ensuring they find a carer/carers who will look after Ashley without taking advantage of her regardless of her physical appearance? And why is it HER body that is seen as potentially provocative? That sounds similar to the old rapist's excuse of a woman provoking him (and thus deserving it) through her appearance. I'm not saying that the parents see their child as such, and I do think that they genuinely have their child's best interests at heart, but is this not a symptom of something... wrong with society?
I advise you to read what Ashley's parents say and make up your own mind.

Quick note...

I've added a couple of older posts (correctly dated) from another blog which I now hardly use. So now you know why the page is suddenly longer.

Apologising for the way I am.

I was a little hesitant about making this post. I get the feeling that I'm going to get a lot of backlash for it, and it's really difficult to convey my intended message here and not have it interpreted in the wrong manner. I'll do my best.

Real women have real bodies with real curves. And Dove wants to celebrate those curves.

...you'll be happy to hear that some teen magazines (like Seventeen and Teen Vogue) are finally getting a clue, featuring more 'real' girls with curves and all.

All of the above are positive comments. It's fabulous that fashion magazines and multinational cosmetic companies are recognising that you can have big thighs, a big bum and cellulite (well maybe not; then Dove would loose money on their firming creams) and still look absolutely gorgeous. In short, it's possible to be both big and beautiful, you needn't loose 3 stone to look fantastic. But look closer at those quotes. Each and every one of them does something that's just as damaging as the taboos they are fighting; they make a sweeping generalisation of what a 'real woman' is. They do not intend to be offensive, but each time I read comments like this it really hits home - because, according to them, I am not a 'real woman'.
I am around 5'8", and weigh 8 stone. My BMI* of around 17 classifies me as underweight. I have visible ribs and slightly protruding hipbones, and a spine that makes leaning against walls uncomfortable due to its lack of padding. My wrists are a bit angular, and I can fit my fingers around them with a bit of room to spare.
I am not this way through dieting or obsessing about my appearance. I eat as much if not more than my sister, who is almost the same height and about a stone and a half heavier - a 'healthy' figure if ever there was one. I have never opened a teen or fashion magazine in my life, and have always dressed how I like in comfy, loose clothing. My figure is not a product of an eating disorder, a strict exercise regime, or surgery. It is my natural shape. And in the quest to reverse the stereotype of thin=beautiful*, all those well meaning commentators and concerned critics have started to demonise all women who are a bit skinny. Not just the women with eating disorders - and they need our help, not our scorn - but women who are also actually healthy but not within a certain weight range. I've seen pictures on forums that members crowd round and mock, and I think, 'That girl looks just like me...'.

As I mentioned earlier, full-figured women are beautiful too. But does that mean I can't be? When I looked, I was a 'real' woman too - after all, I was brought up as one, I have the same anatomy, the XX chromosomes, I'm the same species and I most certainly FEEL like I'm female. But now it's me getting the scornful comments, just like the larger women were before. Is this progress? People proclaiming to love women 'of all shapes and sizes' provided that they are curvaceous? I'm a size 8 17-year-old female with a flat chest. Does that mean I'm less of a woman, less of a human, than the size 16 diva with all her curves? No. I'm as much a woman as she, and vice versa. I shouldn't be made to feel insecure about my body any more than she. Anorexia is a serious health problem, but so is obesity. Do we want to see the skinny women of today dying of clogged arteries next year because they forever saw themselves as 'too thin' and ate too many high-fat foods? No. We are ALL women. We all have different bodies, which function in different ways, with different structures and metabolisms, each of which is suited to each individual. None of us should be seen as anything less simply because we are the 'wrong shape'.



*Yes, I'm fully aware that this is a flawed measurement. But ignoring that, I LOOK underweight too.

*Yes, I'll get round to the demonisation of the larger figure as well. But this is a personal thing I had to get off my chest.

Contraception spreads AIDS.

A response to Jessica's "Shocker..." at Feminsting.com .. Obviously there are negative effects of contraception which both you and Christine fail to mention. The contraceptive mentality, that is, sex separated from marriage and pro-creation, has resulted in over 25 million deaths (world wide) from AIDS since 1981. How pro-family is it that this mentality has resulted to millions of AIDS orphans? Additionally, here in the US the increase in abortion is related to easy access of contraception. Failed contraception often leads to abortion, and killing one's offspring isn't pro-family. (By the way 54% of women who have abortions used contraception.) When you are dead from AIDS or abortion, life isn't better, is it? Obviously, there is far more to the story than Christine Page's biased writings or the juvenile rants on Feministing.com

That was a response on No Room For Contraception (NRFC) to a post at Feministing which celebrated the improvements made by accessible contraception to marriages, women's career choices and education. NRFC claims that the rise of contraception has lead to the rise of AIDS and abortion, and is a strong advocate for Natural Family Planning (abstinence within marriage during the wife's fertile periods) as a means of family planning.
I'm going to go through the claims step-by-step:

1) The 'contraceptive mentality' caused a rise in AIDS.

Not quite. Certainly, sexual promiscuity is a factor in the spread of STDs. However, the rise in AIDS was not caused simply by lots of people having lots of sex, but rather by lots of people having lots of sex without using protection. Take Africa's epidemic as an example. During the conflicts that have devastated many parts of the continent such as Darfur, rape was used as a military tactic to break down the people. Inadequate or no sexual education has lead to many people contracting the virus due to incorrect or NO condom use. Sexual inequality and poor women's rights further exacerbate the problem - it is not uncommon for men who KNOW they have the virus to force their wives to sleep with them without protection. Rape within marriage doesn't get postponed if there aren't any condoms to hand, and if they are it's likely they will get ignored. All of these have lead to a rise in AIDS.
Now, it has recently been shown that condom use in Africa is increasing, with 60% of single women using condoms to prevent pregnancy. Meanwhile, despite attempts by the Bush administration to impress the idea of abstinence into the African peoples' minds, abstinence rates have remained the same.
This shows that no matter what you tell them, people will have sex when they aren't married. To continue to believe that you can just tell people not to have sex and then assume they won't is not only naive, it's dangerous, especially in the midst of such an epidemic. The failure of programmes such as The Silver Ring Thing and True Love Waits demonstrates this very well. Yes, contraceptives can fail. But we cannot stop people from having sex, so it is better to prepare them and give them a chance to protect themselves than to deny them any protection, no mater how successful it is.

2) Failed contraception leads to abortion, abstinence does not.

This looks good on paper; if you do not have sex at all, you will not end up pregnant. This is actually true - in theory. Unfortunately, it's a form of prevention that's easier said than done. Abstinence programmes have proved to be monumental failures, contributing to the rise in STDs and unwanted pregnancies by misinforming people about contraception or disregarding it altogether. Within marriage it may be a little easier to work with your partner on this one - that is, provided that your partner is not the abusive type and is not having an affair. However, NRFC has not taken into account the fact that almost all Americans have sex before marrying and have been doing so for decades, and I doubt that it's different over here in the UK or anywhere else. Religion hasn't managed to prevent people having sex. Abstinence programmes, both religious and secular, are failing to do so now. Why? Well, face it - most people find sex fun and highly pleasurable in the right context. Furthermore, while it is true that failed contraception can lead to unwanted pregnancies (especially if the morning-after pill is hard to get), it is equally true that people who don't use contraception and who do not know when their fertile periods are (tell me just how many adults, let alone teenagers know this?) end up aborting unwanted babies too. Perhaps the fact that a slight majority of abortions were performed on contraception users would suggest that people who use contraception really do not want a child. The other 46% either had complications, the NFP failed, could have had religious issues with contraception but weren't too good at NFP either, or - and here's an idea - weren't using contraception because they were told it doesn't work or weren't given any info at all. Perhaps a majority of people using contraception has caused the imbalance. Perhaps they forgot to take the pill. I'm not saying that any of that is actually true, but quite simply, a 4% difference is a) unconvincing and b) not impressive unless you give details of every cause of unwanted pregnancy among both sets of people.
And 46%... gee, that's a lot of non-contraception people getting abortions too.
'But if they would just abstain...'
Look around you. We live in a sex-drenched society. Pornographic images scream out at us from every newspaper stand. Women are told by magazines to look sexy, and men are told by their magazines that sex is something that they should all have as often as possible. Actually, scratch that, everyone;s told that. TV series, adverts, movies - everyone's having sex! Wax your legs, guys will find you more attractive! EVERYONE, SHAG! As Ariel Levy pointed out, running this plus the idea of abstinence through the teenage mind will often produce a message that says girls should be sexy, guys should want to do it with sexy girls, sex is amazing, don't have sex. It doesn't really compute. So, you can either cut everyone off from the world and keep the two genders isolated from one another until they reach marriageable age, all the while teaching them every tiny detail about their bodies until the girls can tell how fertile they are by examining their fingernails, or you can give everyone a full sex education than includes contraception as well as NFP, and let them make their own choices in life.

3) Killing one's offspring isn't pro-family

I agree. To kill a child or indeed any human being is a terrible crime to commit, be they a preschool child, a 60-year-old journalist or a 30-year-old working in an abortion clinic.
So tell me. When exactly is the offspring well and truly 'alive'? From conception, when it is a clump of undifferentiated cells? From 20 weeks, when some prematurely born children do survive (but cannot do so independently) and are at severe risk of being permanently damaged as they haven't fully developed? When it is capable of surviving independently of machinery? WHEN? No-one seems to agree. However, the majority of abortions here in the UK are performed well before the 24-week limit, within 13 weeks. Are all these foetuses truly 'alive'? They certainly look human and fully formed when you see all the propaganda pictures. But that cute smiling foetus is, in reality, around 7cm long. That's the length of my forefinger. Also, it takes about 13 weeks for all the organs to form. With abortions happening at various points within this 13 week time, a lot of these foetuses would not have the organs that are necessary to life. Some have no brains, or hearts, or lungs; to say that they are alive or capable of life at these stages is, in my humble opinion, false. Thus, as they aren't alive, they cannot be killed. Stop being emotive and be precise - tell us, what is your definition of alive, and how many of these foetuses fit that description?

Extra notes

NRFC, elsewhere on their site, warns of the health risks of chemical contraception. Now, this is also legit information. The hormone pill can have some nasty side-effects for women, can increase the risk of cancer, and some people have allergic reactions to latex in condoms, (However, there are non-latex versions.) and of course in some cases NFP is the best method either due to your beliefs or health problems associated with available forms of contraception. On the other hand, there are some women for whom predicting what stage of their cycle they're at is extremely difficulty due to health problems which cause extremely irregular cycles. Removing the option of contraception for everyone would do more harm than good. Also, I notice that they provide 'education information such... documents of the Catholic Church'. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the Catholic Church has other reasons for opposing contraception, many of them religious. Catholicism is a patriarchal religion, and banning contraception and abortion is a step back in women's' reproductive rights, removing from them the power to choose not to be a mother, the choice to have sex for any reason that isn't procreation, reducing them to their wombs. Wake up and smell the coffee - NOT EVERYONE BELIEVES IN GOD, JESUS OR INDEED ANYTHING DETAILED IN THE BIBLE. Stop preaching. I hope never to be ruled by a government that bases all of its laws on something that was written by men as a tool of power and which I do not believe in. I want to be free to make choices about my body and my life. I don't want to be seen as merely a womb on legs.
I would say more, but this post is already long enough.

Introduction

Hi. I've wanted to do this for a while, but never plucked up the courage to do so. Well, here goes; I've started my own feminist blog.
Now, I'm a little inexperienced in this area, considering that I have thus far focussed upon drawing a webcomic that has nothing to do with this particular subject. However, I have to start somewhere, and that 'somewhere' is here.