Of course, this has inflamed tabloid interest in her attack, with almost any male celebrity she has ever been photographed with now the subject of speculation. As it stands the names of a footballer, a TV personality and a small-time film star have been bandied around the Internet as if the nation is involved in some sort of celebrity whodunnit, which not only means that, inevitably, innocent men are going to be accused, but that the severity of rape itself is being diminished, becoming nothing more than tabloid fodder, with papers scrambling to break the story rather than deal sensitively with what is a heinous crime and one that has a shamefully low conviction rate.

Price’s decision to publicly discuss her rape was, on Wednesday, the subject of channel 5’s current affairs programme, The Wright Stuff, and as a result Price called the show to defend her decision to conceal her attacker's identity, stating that she would “never, never absolutely not” name him. While, understandably, it must be extremely difficult for rape victims to speak about their experiences, Price is a TV personality who has made the transition from glamour model to mainstream celebrity owing to her outspoken and confident public persona and her determination to speak her mind, all marketed as part of her independence and business acumen. Therefore her silence is, in itself, a strong statement.

The vast majority of women who are attacked neither speak about their experiences, nor report them to the authorities. The reasons for this are manifold, but include fear that they will not be believed, that their personal lives will be subject to the basest scrutiny and judgement, and that there will be aspersions cast upon their morality. It is a physical and emotional trauma that a lot of women suffer in silence, worried that they will be seen as the cause of their own abuse. While Price now feels able to speak about what happened to her, making the claim in a national publication, maintaining the anonymity of her attacker is not only inconsistent, but also downright irresponsible.It perpetuates the idea that rape is part of the male privilege, positioning guilty men above puishment, and suggests that female victims should consider their attacks something that they must just quietly accept. According to the Guardian:

The government estimates that as many as 95% of rapes are never reported to the police at all. Of the rapes that were reported from 2007 to 2008, only 6.5% resulted in a conviction, compared with 34% of criminal cases in general. The majority of convictions for rape resulted from an admission of guilt by the defendant, whereas less than one quarter of all those charged with rape were convicted following a successful trial.

Price should realise that as a public figure she can lead by example, and is now in a position to offer strength to women who are living in silence, wrongly convinced that this is their shame. She has no obligation, of course, she is an individual, but as she courts the media she must realise that by now refusing to name her attacker she is fuelling misogynistic attitudes that encourage the dismissal of rape allegations as nothing more than a form of attention seeking, meaning that in actual fact it will become harder for women to come forward, fearing a disblieving reception. While she claims that she did not anticipate the media reaction her comments have incited, Price is well-versed in the machinations of the British tabloid machine, making this an extremely poor explanation.

Cynical journalists believe that this is nothing more than a publicity stunt by Price, designed to win favour with the nation following her vilification during her divorce from Peter Andre, and the fact the name of her assailant is said to have been “accidentally” caught on camera during the filming of her ITV show, What Katie Did Next, will probably fuel this belief (especially as it was said to have happened during a magazine interview). However, this attitude is reflective of the general scepticism accorded many rape victims, and her claims must not simply be dismissed, but properly investigated. The reported involvement of the Suffolk police will hopefully lead to the serving of justice.

Officials recorded 12,560 cases of women prisoners injuring themselves - mainly by cutting and burning - last year, equivalent to almost three incidents per inmate. In 2003, 6,437 instances of self-harm were recorded in English prisons, about 1.5 per inmate.

Paul Holmes, the Liberal Democrat Justice spokesman, said:

It is nothing short of a disgrace how women are treated in our overcrowded penal system. It shows how desperate the situation is that the number of incidents has doubled.

The issue of women in prison has been ignored for far too long. There are record numbers behind bars but no evidence of a corresponding rise in women committing more serious crime.

The Government must realise prison is not the right place for female offenders who pose no threat to the public.

While 4,291 women are currently serving custodial sentences - slightly less than last year - it is still almost double the number held a decade ago. According to the article:

Research suggests that more women are sent to prison for shoplifting than any other crime. Forty per cent of sentenced women serve just three months or less. More than half of women in prison report they have suffered violence at home, and one in three has suffered sexual abuse. Two-thirds have a neurotic disorder, such as depression, anxiety and phobias.

Juliet Lyon, director of the Prison Reform Trust, said:

Women injure themselves repeatedly in prison because they are mostly in a terrible state: poor, scared and ill, hurting from painful separation from their children, and detoxing from drugs and drink.

Why do we lock up our most damaged and vulnerable women in bleak under-staffed institutions which, despite best efforts, are almost bound to make them worse?

Despite government promises to invest money in community programmes to aid rehabilitation, and to to look at tough alternatives to jail for women with small children, the prison system is still failing female prisoners.

Fawcett is best known for her role as the beautiful crime-fighting heroine Jill Munroe in Aaron Spelling's Charlie's Angels, launched in 1976. The programme, featuring three female detectives, was so popular that it reportedly attracted 59 per cent of the viewing public at that time.

Perhaps her most memorable broadcast was the video diary she left behind, bravely chronicling her battle with cancer. In May 2009 the two-hour documentary, titled Farrah's Story, was viewed by an audience of nine-million people on NBC in America. Speaking about the programme she said she was fulfilling:

...a certain responsibility to those who are fighting their own fights and may be able to benefit from learning about mine

Research conducted by Tesco's Baby & Toddler Club found that since April 2008 the number of full-time fathers has risen from 192,000 to 342,000, which is an increase of 80 per cent. The report also found that seven in ten mothers and fathers share parental responsibilities regardless of who stays at home.

While the Metro says that changing social attitudes and the supposed emergence of the "sensitive new man" is the primary reason for this development, more emphasis needs to be placed on increased unemployment resulting from the credit crunch, which means that this is not necessarily a conscious decision for a lot of men.

These statistics have been presented in such a way as to suggest that men are fast becoming primary child carers, failing to show the number of stay-at-home mothers by comparison - specifically the percentage of homes where there is both a stay-at-home dad and a stay-at-home mum.

While these results are said to represent the dissolution of traditional gender roles in Britain, the nature of this as a report specifically analysing the role of fathers suggests that the stay-at-home dad is still considered an unusual phenomeneon.The subtext to the media coverage it has been given also suggests that men who do favour domesticity should be praised, despite the fact women have been staying at home and caring for their children for generations.

Tsk! This is why very few gender based surveys ever do anything but bolster gender stereotypes.

While Margolis has written a response to Mikhailova’s piece, there are a few salient points worth addressing. Firstly, this has in no way “threatened” Mikhailova’s career but has, in fact, made it. This, as she proudly claims, was “the first high-profile ‘expose’ of an online writer’s anonymity,” and as a result Mikhailova walked straight out of university to the Times’s newsroom where she began a much coveted job as a reporter. Very few people have the opportunity to begin their careers on a national newspaper and the Times, like many other rags, has done nothing but demonstrate the extent to which the British media favours the scandalous and denigration of others, rewarding the morally reprehensible behaviour of wannabe hacks with staff jobs. Mikhailova, instead of seeing journalism as a medium of communication that enriches the reader's understanding of the world, was unfortunately caught in this maelstrom of sensationalism and backstabbing that has come to characterise the press and therefore, not suprisingly, favoured self-promotion above all else. Simple as.

Secondly, she bemoans the appearance of “fresh character assassinations” around the blogosphere everyday as fans of Margolis’s blog, and those who sympathised with her position, used the Internet as a platform to express their distaste at her mistreatment. It’s not nice and it’s not pleasant being criticised by a wealth of anonymous commentators online. My personal, albeit considerably smaller scale, experiences have taught me that. But they have also taught me that if I want to write something controversial I have to be prepared to accept that people aren’t going to like it. Was Mikhailova expecting the Pulitzer?

Ok, so someone set up a false sex blog under her name. So what? She was receiving, while still a student, a level of criticism and attention usually only given veterans of the British media. Plus, as she says, she had support: “Cue an extensive effort by the Sunday Times legal team to take it down — successfully, thank goodness.” Lucky girl. It’s a shame that Margolis didn’t have the privilege of an expensive legal team fighting her corner, eh? It's not nice that personal details, along with photographs of Mikhailova, were published on the Internet - and I wouldn't condone that - but surely she must understand that she was, likewise, the author of Margolis's complete and utter lack of privacy - only on a much larger and more detrimental scale. The old adage that you should treat others as you would like to be treated yourself is probably worth mentioning here.

There was no need to ‘out’ Margolis’s identity, and Mikhailova fails to provide adequate justification for doing so, or to offer an insight into her motivation. The content of Girl with a one-track mind is in no way enhanced or diminished by knowing the author’s true identity, and Margolis was metaphorically publicly flogged for having the audacity to speak candidly about sex. Because that’s what it was about. Let’s not forget that the issue here is not just that Mikhailova chose to ‘out’ Margolis, but that she drew on aspects of Margolis’s professional and personal life (even writing about her parents) to present her as a morally degenerate woman with a “shameless interest in sex.” Of course, the whole media debacle caused Margolis heartache. How could it not? And if Mikhailova, instead of waxing lyrical about how detrimental it had been for her, accepted her proactive role in causing an individual a lot of unnecessary upset, then she would have at least gained a slither of credibility.

As it stands she was and is an ambitious journalist who abandoned her integrity to get what she wanted. That’s fine. But don’t write a pointless piece trying to explain away what you have done without, in fact, offering any explanation at all. Mikahilova just sounds like a school yard bully who’s upset because nobody wants to play with her anymore, and is using the argument that this is a natural consequence of the disparity between new and old forms of media to try and invest her actions with legitimacy. The blog is a medium that offers its users anonymity, and as such can provide insightful, interesting and blunt commentary on a range of topics which might otherwise not be given air time. It also allows a diverse range of people - those who for personal or religious reasons, for example, cannot speak publicly - a platform to share their views free from condemnation.This is the point, and what journalists like Mikhailova are doing is forcing bloggers into self-censoring their opinions before publication for fear that they may gain too much attention and be considered too influential to remain faceless. Instead of pedalling yet another article out of someone else’s misfortune, maybe Mikhailova should just leave it go?

To achieve these measurements Simpson reportedly had to work out for two hours a day, six days a week, in addition to doing a number of toning and resistance exercises to shape her body, which were so rigorous that even the thought has me breaking out in a sweat.

This week the press went into overdrive when photographs emerged of Simpson looking like she may be more than a size zero as she sang from her new country album, Do You Know, in a gig in Florida last weekend. Needless to say the media has been characteristically ruthless, illustrated by the below cartoon taken from The New York Post:

Here a severely obese caricature of Simpson is telling her Dallas Cowboys boyfriend, Tony Romo, that she has met someone else, while Ronald MacDonald sits in the background with a Big Mac meal. Not only does this image endorse almost every stereotype about fat people there are, but is a gross distorition of reality, which not only disrespects Simpson, but all women. This image would only be made worse if Ronald MacDonald was washing Simpson with a rag on a stick, while she chain ate MacFlurrys, but then again there's always tomorrows rags to go through for supposedly satirical pictures. Yawn.

If you look at photographs of Simpson, she has a body that many women would still envy. At the most, she is probable a UK size 12, below the UK national average of a size 16 and the US average of a size 18. Yet, she is being berated for her weight-gain which, minimal though it is, probably seems more visually apparent considering that she was so painfully thin before. But, this aside, whether or not Simpson is a celebrity, she should not be forced to self-reflection by a heartless mass media that trades happily on other people's misery, especially when she looks no different to other women you may pass on the street.

Understandably, Simpson's sister, Ashlee, has spoken out on her MySpace page about the criticisim her sister is receiving from the international press, saying she is "completely disgusted" and that it's "completely embarassing and belittling for all women to read about a woman's weight or figure as a headline on Fox News." Ashlee is right. This is just another example of women's issues being marginalised by the news machine. The only criticism I have of Ashlees defence is that she felt it necessary to say her sister was a US size 2 (a UK size 6), which is still very very small. Photographic evidence suggests that Simpson is larger than this, and while this is of no consequence, that Ashlee felt the need to say this suggests that she still feels a need for her sister to conform to these unrealistic body expectations at the same time as condemning them. Simpson looks healthy, and surely that's the most important thing.

The criticism Simpson has been subject to is the kind that perpetuates the belief that weight is inversely proportionate to success and beauty, meaning that the thinner you are the more attractive you are considered to be. It is the sort of criticism Simpson has received that incubates insecurities and self-loathing in girls and young women, making them anorexic and bulimic and perpetually unhappy with the way that they look.

Simpson's weight fluctuates. So what. A lot of women (ane men for that matter) would claim the same. I know that mine does, quite significantly. I'm a size 16/18 at present, but I have been smaller and I have been bigger, and in each instance I am aware of the changes to my body and do not need them to be pointed out to me, and I'm sure Simpson feels the same way. In a 2007 interview with Harper's Bazaar, Simpson said that she prefers her curves to a super skinny physique, going further to claim the quest for a size-zero body is "emotionally destructive." It's so easy today to become obsessed with the way we look and how much we weigh, and we are largely encouraged to do so. Surely Simpson is a much better role model as a curvaceous talented woman than the catalogue of stars promoting the idea that in order to make it one has to have a completely visible rib-cage?

I'm not sure about the Mirror's fictional creation. Why? Because of the six cartoons offered by the paper each day, Mandy is the only female character who has her own comic strip. She is juxtaposed with veteran Andy Capp, Horace and Scorer to name a few, giving the distinct impression that she has been shoe-horned in so that the Mirror can't be accused of not catering for a female readership.

It seems that in creating Mandy the Mirror has not only made her into the traditional big-breasted blonde caricature that populates the tabloids, but has also attempted to tick all the boxes in the hope that she encompasses as many female lifestyles as possible. She's not only a sexually liberated "girl-about-town man-eater," but she is also an independent single mother. The Mirror might believe they have broken some sort of taboo here (you haven't!), and while I realise a cartoon is usually by nature an exacerbation of reality, what I don't understand is why the Mirror felt it necessary to make Mandy such a densely concentrated comic creation instead of offering more for a female readership.

When it comes to comics "male" seems to be the default, with female characters rarely represented as damsels to be rescued (and thus to demonstrate the superior intellectual and physical abilities of the men folk) or as humorous fodder.

Fellatio is rarely discussed as an expression of female sexual empowerment, but rather as a form of male dominance. Taking a man’s penis in our mouths is traditionally seen as an act of submission; it is assumed we do it against our will. This makes it a feminist issue. Maybe the slang terminology used to describe oral sex is responsible? We “give head,” implying that in doing so we lose something, gaining nothing in return. That the process of blowing is described as a “job” suggests it is hard work, the antithesis of enjoyment; a necessity to survive; an act requiring such effort that the “giver” should receive some form of remuneration. This probably has its genesis in the historical stereotyping of women who fellate. It was an act performed by prostitutes in brothels. It was done in darkened alleys and kept secret by “morally corrupt sluts.” A married woman who was so bold as to take her husbands cock in her mouth was later called a “whore,” but that she would do it was unlikely. Anne Boleyn was said to have “bewitched” Henry VIII with this “whore trick” cultivated during her time in France. It is claimed she blew herself all the way from social mediocrity to the throne (although her transgressions later catapulted her to the gallows).

Likewise, mainstream pornography has defined the “blow-job” as sexually degrading for women. It is a sex act performed by a woman on a man for his pleasure alone. It is a sex act performed by a woman on a man to sate the longing of horny male voyeurs, eager to see their masturbatory fantasies fulfilled in celluloid if not in reality. In 1972 the infamous American porn film Deep Throat was banned in some countries and became the subject of obscenity trials, with Linda Lovelace (pseudonym of Linda Susan Boreman) hitting the headlines for her ability to take an erect penis completely into her mouth and throat. This was a variation on what was commonly understood to constitute a “blow-job” at the time.

Boreman (who became acquainted with anti-porn activist Andrea Dworkin) later claimed that she did not consent to many of the explicit sexual scenes, and that she had been forced to do this at gun-point by her abusive husband. In 1986 she said that “virtually every time someone watches that movie, they’re watching me being raped,” with the 2005 documentary about the film (Inside Deep Throat), exposing the extent to which Boreman had been savagely exploited sexually, physically, emotionally and financially. This has all fed into our perception of oral sex as a tool of masculine control, designed to humiliate women for the excitement of men, but is this argument too reductive? Can fellating a man, in a mutually consenting situation, be liberating for a woman? Is it an empowered female action, rather than the epitome of misogynistic control? And can we just enjoy it?

Err, I’d say yes to all of the above. A woman can enjoy “giving head” and still proudly self-define as a feminist without having betrayed her belief systems. I view the “blow-job” as a form of male surrender, something requiring a mutual degree of trust and self-restraint. I have never considered it to be anything but empowering for a woman when all involved are amenable. There doesn’t have to be an emotional connection between participants for fellatio to be pleasurable, of course, as the power shift can itself be arousing, and I can understand why some women genuinely want to “give head.” In some instances I believe it can be a more intensely intimate experience than coitus, simply because of the rescinding and reclaiming of control involved. It is one of the only times when a man is completely physically vulnerable, allowing his female partner to have autonomous control over his pleasure and orgasm by manipulating his most sensitive organ (the organ that defines his gender and can offer him mortality through reproduction) using one of her most powerful organs; her mouth. Our enjoyment emanates from the realisation that we can easily control a man's ecstasy.

The mouth can be an aggressive part of our anatomy, and at the same time as offering gratification by mimicking the vagina we know that it could induce severe pain, placing the male receiver completely at the mercy of the female giver (and her back molars). This has a historical precedent. The vagina dentata (latin for toothed vagina) myth was initially coined to discourage men from having sex with “strange women.” This was explored in the 2007 film Teeth, during which the virgin heroine discovers she has a toothed vagina following her attempted rape (the attacker dies, as do subsequent men who try to rape her). Unlike the original myth, the message is not simply to encourage men to take recourse to sexual self-preservation, but is rather a celebration of female sexuality and sexual power. The toothed vagina enables the female protagonist to protect her chastity, with the knowledge of her unique physical attribute making her grow in confidence from a quiet and meek girl, to a headstrong young woman. Does fellatio not work on the same principle? While men may attempt to verbally denigrate women who perform the act by casting aspersions on their sexual behaviour and morality, is this nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction to the subconscious realisation that we have taken charge? And therefore, is "giving head" just another feminist step along the road to our complete sexual liberation?

Spurr’s supposed friend Kate seems to be a bit of an erratic one, putting her “nice, mild-mannered man whom she supposedly loves” through an emotional mill just to “keep him on his toes.” Kate’s not chilled. Oh no. Instead she has an “overwhelming urge to get stroppy on occasion,” in order to “test his commitment” and “make sure he really cares.” Spurr explains that:

In reality it's a perverse way to prove that you're wanted but I find that lots of women press the self-destruct button to get this confirmation at some level - his anger, his pleading, his hurt - from their partner…Of course it's liable to backfire, and the person she hopes will ride with her behaviour decides that it's not worth all the hassle after all. Where does it come from? Usually from complicated feelings of wanting desperately to be loved but feeling unworthy of it. The person gets almost angry that her partner seems to love her. “Love me? Well, let's just test that,” the thinking goes. Meanwhile, the partner is thinking that he'd do anything for a simple life, with a loving relationship in which no one reaches for that dreaded button.

Presumably Kate’s a fictional character, because if not Spurr’s a disloyal friend as well as a sweeping generalist always eager to villify women and present us as emotionally impaired. However, working on the premise that Kate is almost certainly Spurr’s imaginary creation makes her suppositions worse, since she has quite clearly presented men in the form of Kate’s hen-pecked partner as victims of woman’s inherent “desperate” longing to be loved.

Oh, Dr Spurr, forgive us, for we know not what we do…either that or consider giving up the day job. This behaviour is neither exclusive to, nor representative of all, women. To suggest otherwise bolsters stereotypes of the “needy” puppy-bitch-like little lady, wagging her tail while chewing her masters slippers and pissing on the rug until she gets the attention she deserves. Not on.

Maybe this was acceptable in the 80s? It may have been acceptable at the time..etc..but, Branson, not now, oh no. I don't think this ad is particularly complimentary to men or women. You have the beautiful (female only) air stewardesses gliding through the airport surrounding the (of course, male) pilot, as desperate men salivate over these young beauties (one man wanting to change his ticket) and older women look on with envy. If this campaign was designed to spark longing for the "good ole days" it has failed badly, since all it has done is demonstrate the extent to which gender roles were unbearably oppressive just a quarter of a century ago.

Maybe without the visual this ad could be palatable, since the best thing about it is the soundtrack. Frankie Goes to Hollywood has to be up there with the all time greats, surely?

In the promotional photos for her 11th studio album Hard Candy, Madonna is pictured wearing white fishnet stockings, knee-high bondage boots and a white g-string, with a strip of white material resembling a surgical bandage wrapped tightly around her chest, displaying her super toned midriff. Her breasts are not exposed in a glamour-girl type pose, and she is not offering a glazy-eyed, come-hither stare. There is something almost Amazonian about the photos. She has a commanding presence, strong and empowered.

Madonna has never been shy to admit she cares for her body, openly speaking about the gruelling exercise regime she follows to remain super fit. The photos are not obscene, nor are they particularly daring by celebrity standards. In comparison to a lot of shoots capturing female starlets covered in nothing but thin slivers of silk or strategically placed petals, this is quite tame. Physically she is in great shape, with a figure envied by women half her age. While aesthetically she does not look disgusting or unacceptable - if her age was not known she could easily be mistaken for a considerably younger woman - the knowledge that she is 50 has lead to a spate of vitriolic reports across the nationals. The Daily Mail claimed that she has “no intention of growing old gracefully” and asked “will she still be doing this at 70?” Gordon Smart at The Sun run with the headline “Terrafied of Madonna,” remarking that he would use the photos to “promote Saga holidays for the over-50s” before drawing comparisons with the “terrifying Zelda from TV’s Terrahawks.” He also speculated as to where the photo was touched-up during the editing process to get ride of her “crepey boobs.” Daily Mirror columnist Sue Carroll argued that Madonna’s get-up was simply an unsuccessful evil ploy to try and make Guy Ritchie jealous:

If Madonna’s latest pose is aimed at showing Guy Ritchie what he’s missing, I don’t think she’s quite pulled it off. Gladiators might be keen to snap her up, though. She certainly looks a lot more butch than Oblivion.

Nice. Carroll clearly considers Madonna's visually apparent physical strength as a betrayal of womanhood. Firstly, regardless of age, almost all photographs are photo-shopped, and so it’s not fair to criticise her for that unless every digitally enhanced image of a celebrity is going to be as closely scrutinised. Secondly, what’s notable is that Madonna’s critics assume that she wants to be fancied and objectified; they assume that she has had these photos taken purely to provide titillation for external parties; they assume that to be seen as sexually desirable and, excuse my language, "fuckable" is not just a priority, but the raison de etre for female celebrities. This is why Madonna has been berated because she is not seen to fit the template of what we should desire and aspire to look like. Whether or not this was a consideration on her part is not discussed.

The comments made by these journalists did make me wonder if they had actually looked at the photos, or if they were just swept away by the tide of insults that they did what they thought they were supposed to do; say she’s past it. This is Madonna. These were taken for her album cover. Madonna is an international star. A household name. If she fashioned album covers Blue-Peter-style using old cereal boxes and pipe cleaners they would just as easily fly off the shelves. Madonna’s name sells albums, the cover is negligible. She chose to have these photos taken. Why? Who knows? Maybe she finds it particularly liberating to be photographed? The impression I got from the shoot was that she was deliberately subverting traditional poses by female stars, covering up her breasts, putting forward her strong jawbone, and tensing her muscles. She is in control - an independent woman unfazed by the pressures of youth culture, instead challenging it.

But why is Madonna’s age such an issue? While she is in good shape even if, like a lot of women of varying ages, she was slightly portly or rounded, presumably her choice to strip to her underwear shouldn’t be considered salacious news to be chewed to bits by a greedy press? I’ve never really understood why there is such a direct correlation between tolerance of dress and age. While I can see that it may be inappropriate for a twenty-year-old woman to wear a baby romper for anything but fancy dress, we are quickly educated that once we reach a “certain age” a number of clothes are no longer appropriate. But what age is this? Does it vary from one woman to the next?

The mini-skirt is considered the privilege of the young, as are tank tops (or anything showing midriff for that matter) and low-cut tops. Once one reaches this undefined “certain age,” she is supposed to wear nothing but long dresses, matching jacket and trouser/skirt suits and high-necked blouses. It’s advisable for the very respectable to opt for a pearl necklace to fully exuberate an air of maturity. But from where does this attitude emanate? Is it bore of the belief that while men become distinguished with age, women are traditionally considered to become less sexually attractive and therefore any attempt to wear clothing with confidence is interpreted as a desperate attempt to recapture youth, and thus as unattractive?

Whereas the vast majority of men dress for themselves, it is always assumed that women dress for other people. It is always assumed that a woman is like a pretty iced cake in a shop window, waiting to be picked, which may be why people are generally more judgemental about a woman’s choice of clothes because we have to be seen to conform. The same can be said of women who do not appropriate what's considered to be traditionally feminine attire. Wearing baggy clothes and big boots while sporting a short hair-cut is almost certain to elicit derogatory comments regarding a woman’s sexuality because she is likewise seen as transgressive. First and foremost, clothing has become our outer packaging - the armour we wear to fight from one day to the next. The mass media needs to be more accepting of the idea that a woman does not always dress in order to be deemed attractive and, in response to the Mail’s question, yes, I think Madonna will probably still be doing this at 70, and so what if she is? No-one is being forced to look at the photographs. Go for it, Madge!

Most of the entertainment in Big Brother, however, emanates from the breaking down of social pretences. This year’s Celebrity Big Brother has been no exception but has, in many instances, made for particularly uncomfortable viewing. What has been prominent is explicit sexism, something that has remained largely unreported by the mainstream media. So much has happened that it would be impossible to relate it all in one post, but I will summarise as best I can…Recently, for example, the male housemates stayed up late debating whether or not it is acceptable to call a woman a “bitch” or a “ho.”

To his credit, Scottish socialist politician Tommy Sheridan, 44, argued that the terms are always disrespectful, only to be contradicted by actor Verne Troyer, 40, who claimed that calling a “random girl” a “ho” or “bitch” was out of order, but “when a girl steals from me she’s a ho.” I don’t know if Troyer, who shot to fame playing Mini-Me in Austin Powers, has being particularly vulnerable to this sort of behaviour, but presumably if a woman steals from him she is a “thief,” a “criminal” and not a “ho.” “Ho” is used as a derogatory sexual slur, so why would it be necessary to cast aspersions on a woman’s sexual behaviour when she has transgressed the law? It’s not acceptable to steal, but if a man takes something that doesn’t belong to him, he’s predominantly judged by that crime only, with discussions surrounding his sexual premise not even entertained let alone pursued. Is the idea of a woman’s morality and integrity so entwined with her chastity that the moment she does transcend the law she is deemed sexually abhorrent? And this argument in itself neglects the word "ho," what it actually means, and the reasons for the associations we make with it, which is a minefield of mysogyny. "Ho" is a negative term for a woman who is sexually active and enjoys a rich and varied personal life, but why do we allow this detrimental terminology to continue to form part of our vocabulary?

What’s more disturbing is the free reign rapper-turned-tv-chef Coolio, 45, has been given in the house by Big Brother - by which I mean he has not been reprimanded for his chauvinistic, and often aggressive, behaviour. He is lecherous, tactile and clearly has difficulties interacting with women. He takes recourse to sexual suggestion whenever he has the chance. While his words are probably not supported by intention, that he is clearly intimidating some of the female housemates should be enough to warrant him being told to calm down, or at least ordered to take a cold shower. Mutya Buena, 23, former Sugababe and now a solo singer and song writer, quit the show after being saved during the live vote, claiming that she had to go home. She later confessed that her decision to leave was largely fuelled by uncomfortable sexual advances made by Coolio, who she rightly said is “old enough to be my father.” Buena was furious that the producers didn’t step in sooner. But why didn’t they? Even during Channel 4 broadcasts of the show (which go through a gruelling editing mill) it's been clear that Coolio is over-stepping the mark, so why doesn't Big Brother challenge him?

It’s not as if sexual harassment doesn’t happen in Big Brother. In 2006, a female housemate in the Australian version of the show was held down by one contestant as another rubbed his penis on her face in an act known as “turkey slapping.” While some of the nationals did pick up Buena’s story after she spoke about feeling intimidated by Coolio, that he had been acting inappropriately has been visually apparent to all watching the show, but until she spoke of it, it was ignored. Is it the case that until a sexual assault has taken place, Big Brother will not reprimand housemates, and the national newspapers won’t consider overt male sexual intimidation as inappropriate behaviour until a woman has been physically harmed or at least speaks about it herself? As long as we don't complain, is sexual harrassment a readily accepted part of our social interactions with men?

If Coolio wasn’t a celebrity would his behaviour have been tolerated as long as it has been? While I am not suggesting he could have potentially attacked Mutya or one of the other female housemates, this “boys being boys” attitude of tolerance and acceptance does permeate through all social strata to the continued detriment and silencing of women.

While it suggests boys and girls are equally accountable for this behaviour, what this documentary exposed was the extent to which girls are victims of sexual harassment and physical assault from an increasingly younger age - beginning at nursery school level. Whereas for boys bullying predominantly takes the form of name-calling, with aspersions cast on their sexuality and sexual premise, girls not only have to contend with this, but also with lewd comments and threatening physical molestation. “Gay,” “lesbian,” “frigid,” and “slut” are used as part of an offence verbal currency (considered representative of sexual “abnormality”) that boys and girls spend frivolously. The documentary also found that schoolboys are vulnerable to sexual attack not by schoolgirls, but by their male classmates. This is a growing problem. Panorama, in conjunction with the charity Young Voice, conducted a survey of 273 children and youths and found that one in ten 11-19 year olds had been sexually bullied, a form of intimidation ranging from rumour-spreading about sexual activity to rape. Schoolchildren, specifically boys, are using sex as a form of power and control, but why? Why are they so sexually aware?

The programme was disturbing. One reason given for the growth in incidents was prevailing “gang culture” in parts of the country. Very often boys are encouraged to carry out sex acts for gang membership, and girls are given protection in return for their “favours.” While some girls consent to this, probably believing it’s easier to concede without fuss, others are forced against their will. Speaking anonymously, a number of parents relayed their daughter’s experiences. One 15-year-old girl from London was lured into a classroom by a group of boys and physically forced to perform a sex act. The girl was seriously affected afterwards and was too scared to go to school. When her parents sought a tutor from the local education authority they were informed that this service was only made available to pupils who had been excluded - more specifically, the girl’s abusers could have the privilege of a tutor but she could not (the provision was “not for victims”). As a result she transferred schools and feels insecure and scared in busy places (especially in the presence of groups of boys).

A 13-year-old girl from the south-east spoke of how crass comments made by one of her male peers quickly turned sinister. He sat next to her in assembly and lessons, stroking her chest and legs. She tried to ignore it until one day, while queuing for a class, he slid his fingers up her skirt and under her knickers. Her mother contacted the school and was told that the boy would be spoken to and his parents informed. It wasn’t considered a serious incident. Furthermore, having reported the episode, the girl was harassed by female classmates. One “friend” told her that everyone would now hate her, since the boy in question "does it to everyone" - apparently it was NOT a big deal.

In the west country, the mother of a five-year-old girl considered herself a failure after her daughter was molested by a male classmate. The police couldn’t get involved because of the boy’s age (and one does have to wonder why a five-year-old would act this way - what’s happening at home?). The little girl was scared and so conceded to his request to go to an empty room with him because she didn’t know what to do. He said he wanted to touch her and so she let him. A five-year-old little boy who has yet to go through puberty surely didn’t have these sexual inclinations? While I have previously read articles claiming that infants and children do masturbate, presumably this is owing to an innate sexual need and curiosity rather than an act with an overt sexual subtext resulting from sexual attraction to another person? That this boy saw his classmate as a sexual object was, then, the result of nurture, not nature. However, it is she who has had to move schools. It is she who was mentally scarred and has terrible nightmares.

Children now consider themselves sexual beings from a young age (well before they are physically mature), and as such want to explore their sexualities in a way they feel they are supposed to. Boys are growing up seeing women as nothing more than toys promising sexual gratification, and the prevailing attitude that this is “just boys being boys,” even though it is to the detriment of girls, is investing generations of young women with the belief that this is how they are supposed to be treated and something that has to be accepted. It is normalising the mistreatment of women. That schools tend to ignore this behaviour is unacceptable.

While the guilty boys are free to enjoy school with little or no disruption, their female victims are not only mentally and emotionally distressed but have to change their lives and circumstances to be protected from harassment. They have to bare the onus of responsibility. It is their education that potentially suffers. The implicit suggestion is that it is the girls who are at fault since they are the ones who suffer and are punished by often having to move schools, but for what? For nothing more than their sex. For having the audacity to have been born female. Ridiculous, isn’t it? A girl is groped or grabbed between the legs and is penalised for not keeping quiet. Grown women who are attacked are said to have asked for it - to be deserving - by wearing short skirts. It is the ease with which girls are positioned as the problem that silences women as they mature, which explains why so many of us are reluctant to speak out when we are sexually harassed in the work place and are raped. The current school situation suggests that this is only going to get worse.

Paula Telford, spokesperson for the NSPCC, believes that instead of such instances being dismissed as innocent childhood games, effective handling by schools could help to significantly reduce this trend. While not always the case, she said that this needs to be “nipped in the bud” from an early age since a percentage of boys who are overbearingly sexual do mature into aggressive and dangerous sex offenders. Not all, but enough to suggest that for the greater social good it should not be ignored. But, where did this problem originate? And why is it getting worse? That sex can be used as a tool of dominance and control is nothing new. That popular culture encourages young girls to aspire to sexual maturity and young men to lust after women in order to assert their masculinity has exacerbated the problem in the school yard.

Women are positioned as sexual commodities. Little ladies can now go to beauty parlours and have treatments and make-overs coveted by women more than three times their age. Before baby girls can walk mothers are bombarded with advertisements for tiny high-heels, designed to look cute, suggesting a maturity well beyond their years. Little girls can replicate the sexy styles of twenty-something women, wearing baby mini-skirts and halter-neck tops, knee-high boots and sparkly lip-gloss. Infants and young children are encouraged to look like smaller versions of grown women, shown-off like designer shoes while everyone speculates about their age.

Since popular culture has promoted the idea that little girls are little dolls, it’s not surprising that said little girls believe that’s their worth. It’s not surprising that little boys view said little girls as public property, expecting each one to react in an amenable and accommodating way. Similarly, computer games endorse violence against women. Female avatars are commonly presented as caricatures of the female form - big-breasted, tiny waisted beauties who must be killed as violently as possible. Young, impressionable boys are being conditioned to view women as sexual fodder that must obey their every command. Boys are told they have to be sexually candid and have sex with lots of women to be considered men. That doesn’t make it excusable, but what it does do is explain why these attitudes have filtered through to the playground and, like girls, boys can also be seen as victims of our over-sexed society.

That girls are being denied the right to an education without being sexually harassed does indicate that this has gone too far, but what can be done? Innocence, once lost, can never be returned. While schools can try their best to implement strategies to educate boys and girls about the ways to behave socially, this is a band-aid rather than a long-term solution. Girls can be encouraged to step forward and share their experiences in a non-judgemental environment (this should go without saying, anyway), but that sexual misconduct is flourishing in the playground suggests that maybe it’s too late for a reprieve?

French law states that women are entitled to six weeks leave prior to giving birth and up to ten weeks afterwards. However, Dati never intended to remain absent from the office for longer than she felt necessary. Just before going into labour she allegedly claimed that “giving birth is not a disease,” and was vocal about her intention to resume her position within a week - even working from her hospital bed. I'm not a medical profession, but as I understand it, a caesarean section is a complicated, serious procedure, with women often told to limit their physical activity for weeks following the operation. That Dati looked so healthy on her prompt return to work is impressive. For health reasons she will have to amend her schedule so that she can properly recover (and hopefully she has taken this seriously). That she decided to return so soon after giving birth is shocking because it is unexpected. It is shocking because the vast majority of media attention accorded maternity rights is orientated around the discrimination of expectant mothers in the workplace and reluctance of employers to neither support initial leave, nor introduce flexible working hours to cater for the needs of parents.

It’s a fact that pregnancy often leads to dismissal for many women, with those working in "the City" reportedly particularly vulnerable to discrimination. Mothers-to-be employed in the financial and legal sectors often work right up until they give birth, shrouding their baby bumps in black smocks to try and prevent their pregnancy from being visually apparent in male dominated environments. Why? Because many employers view pregnancy as a problem. Women who have babies are often not taken as seriously in the workplace. Their commitment and ambition is unfairly questioned, and thus many women feel that they have to work overtime in the hope that their careers won’t be irreparably disrupted. It’s unfair, but it’s common knowledge.

Therefore, that Dati has declined to take maternity leave to which she is legally entitled is seen as controversial and detrimental. Anne Perkins and Madeleine Bunting have heavily criticised Dati. Perkins wrote:

...her refusal to take maternity leave is the ultimate failure. If women in public life behave as if they cannot take time out from their career for the vital work of mothering, then who can? Dati has undermined the efforts of a generation to persuade employers to recognise the importance of family to their employees.

With Bunting claiming Dati has endorsed sexist speculation that women make an “inordinate amount of fuss” about pregnancy and childbirth, adding that:

Photos of her [Dati] freshly back at work are over all the newspapers on both sides of the Channel. Not only has the 43-year-old returned to her job but she has magically regained her figure and managed her usual immaculate coiffeured elegance. She has even, damn it, managed to find matching earrings at a time when most mothers are blearily staggering around their bedroom in a daze of exhilaration, exhaustion and pain. If she can do it, why can't they?

The "ultimate failure?" Really? Not a bit harsh, do you think? Perkins and Bunting both make reference to Dati’s physical appearance. While she probably has a network of nannies working 24/7 to care for her baby (unlike the vast majority of new mothers who have to wake for night feeds and nurse their crying babies without the advantage of assistance), that she hasn’t gained a massive amount of weight and has regained her figure is not the result of “magic,” but probably good genes. Some of us have them, some of us don’t. Bunting takes a cheap shot. Sure, I can appreciate the argument that normal mothers may look at Dati and wonder why they haven't recovered as quickly, but the vast majority will consider her relative position of privilege (she is, after all, something of a French celebrity and financially affluent), and also that what she has done is considered so extreme and unbelievable that it has been worthy of international media discussion. This is not what women do, and while I understand that, why, exactly, has Dati been so heavily criticised? And is it fair to claim that she has completely reversed the work of maternity rights’ activists?

Dati can return to work at her own discretion. She is accountable to no-one but herself and her child regarding her approach to work and motherhood. Regardless of her professional position, her role as a mother is part of her personal life; she shouldn’t have to justify her actions, nor amend her behaviour to do what is seen as the “right thing" by the standards of people she does not know. No one should, unless they are acting illegally or inappropriately in a way that is detrimental to another person. As with the vote, campaigners wanted women to have the option of maternity leave. They wanted it to be mandatory only in so much as it would be a viable option for a working mother, allowing us to be mothers and have careers. It needed to be made available so that women who wanted it could take it without judgement. While women can vote, not all women do. We have the privilege of choice, and that is what our foremothers wanted. Dati chose not to take maternity leave because she did not feel the need. We can speculate on the underlying reasons and consider her decision in the context of our pre-conceived ideas of motherhood, but the fact remains that it was a personal decision that she had the right to make. The personal life of any politician is often subject to media scrutiny, with those in the profession often invested with the responsibility of providing a “good example” to the masses about how one should behave. However, is this not a poisitive example? Is this not feminism in action? Can Dati not be viewed as the archetypal liberated woman since she has refused to do what is seen as convention, instead doing what she wants despite the anticipation of vitriolic criticism and speculation about her mothering abilities?

While men in the UK are now permitted to take a period of paternity leave at the discretion of their employers, very few do. The vast majority of new fathers rarely take more than a day or so off work depending on the time and day their offspring decides to make an appearance. So, should the fact Dati was eager to get her political thinking-cap back on almost immediately as the dressing was applied be seen as gender equality in action? Siobhain Butterworth echoes the same sentiments and has, in my opinion, produced the best commentary on this issue. She states that we should “mind our own business” and that:

Undoubtedly, if Dati had chosen not to return to work for several months, if she were to come out strongly in favour of breastfeeding, and if she were fatter, some women would feel reassured about their own choices. But you have to wonder where feminism has taken us when women are judged because they don't conform to the current view of what a "good mother" looks like. This stay-at-home version of feminism may not suit every mother or every family. Women shouldn't feel pressured by employers or anyone else into going back to work early after childbirth, but nor should they be made to feel that it is socially unacceptable, or that they are letting the side down, if they decide to take only a short maternity leave.

The most destructive aspect of Dati’s decision has been the news articles and commentaries it has provoked (which is not her fault). The vast majority of journalists - especially those writing most vehemently - have been women. That the national media has shown en masse the extent to which women can be women’s worst enemies (Bunting’s analysis, for example, is unnecessarily catty), judging each other most damagingly when one is not seen to conform (and at worst, as transgressive) does nothing for feminism. The implication is that should a woman decide not to take the maximum maternity leave then not only is she failing as a mother, but also as a woman, and ergo not only is she failing herself, but also womankind. Harsh, no? It's certainly too much pressure. The unnecessary emphasis place on the fact that she wanted to return to work - which in this instance has been considered synoymous with the professional environment - does nothing for the status of mothers. The implication is that motherhood is easy, that caring for a new baby is almost like a vacation, when, while the demands are different, many would argue that motherhood can be not just as (but often more) demanding and rigorous than a job with designated hours of service and a set salary.

When stripped of polemic this was simply a woman who was told she could take 10 weeks off work and thought, should I? Nah! I’m alright, thanks. This isn’t news. It was suprising, but not news, and definetely not news that warranted the media attention it received. Maybe this is what Dati wanted. As a public figure increasing in status internationally any media coverage can be used to her advantage. However, what does this say about the nature of news in general? This shortly followed the groundbreaking reports that Paris Hilton claims to have slept with just two men (who really cares, would it matter if it was 100? It's her business.) and Cheryl Cole’s admission that she does, in fact, struggle to keep her weight down. Both made national headlines and both were broadcast on news programmes. Perhaps critics would have performed a better public service had they considered Dati’s story in the context of the trivilisation and marginalisation of women’s news, since this is one of the biggest obstacles facing feminism in the twenty-first century - not a woman deciding she wants to work before her baby has even seen a rusk, let alone chewed one.

I like denying myself pleasurable things because women should be martyrs. I ate a cake once, in secret, but I try not to be ‘naughty’: skipping pudding means I’ll be slimmer and more attractive to men! Anyway, who says obsession with one’s weight is boring? I always hold off from having sex on a date because not ‘giving in’ to men means I have ‘power’ over them. I insist men pay for me on dates because that makes me feel feminine. The fact I earn more than them is irrelevant. Men buy and women put out: that’s just the way it is. You can’t fight human nature! I think women should take responsibility for rape, by covering up more. Men, poor things, get worked up by seeing women’s bodies and it’s not their fault they then can’t control themselves. Testosterone is a very powerful thing! I always fake my orgasms because I want men to think they’re expert lovers. If Belle from Secret Diary of a Call Girl can prep her vagina with lube to pretend to her customers that she’s sexually aroused, so should all women.

Enjoy!

According to this article on November 28 2008 Rajo Devi, age 70, gave birth to her first child, Naveen Lohan, following IVF treatment in Haryana, India. Devi married Bala Ram, 72, in 1954, and while they longed for a child they were unable to conceive. Ram was encouraged to take a second wife by Devi’s family in the form of her younger sister, in the hope that a child would result, but this union was likewise fruitless. Having sought medical tests, Devi and Bala were assured that they were not infertile, and the reasons why they couldn’t conceive were unknown.

This year Devi and Ram received fertility treatment at a medical centre in India using a donor egg and Bala’s sperm. The identity of the egg donor remains anonymous. Fears surrounding Devi’s health during pregnancy (reportedly because of her age) meant that medical professionals were keen to limit the possibility of her conceiving twins because she wouldn’t have carried them to term. Devi, who underwent the menopause over twenty years ago, became pregnant in April this year following the second round of treatment. She gave birth to a 3lb baby girl (two months prematurely) following a single embryo transfer procedure.

The average life expectancy at birth in India (according to the United Nations) is 64.7 years. This means that it is highly unlikely Ram and Devi will live to see their daughter grow up, or even mature past infancy. I can understand that they were desperate for a child. I can also understand that culturally they felt it necessary to produce offspring in order to validate and elevate their status in their community. However, further to this and Devi’s proclamation that they had “longed for a child all these years and now are very happy to have one in the twilight years of our life," their newborn daughter is not enough. They are hoping that further fertility treatment will lead to the conception and birth of a son. Besides confirming the idea championed in some areas of the World that a daughter is a disappointment, it is likely that Devi will also be well into her 70s by the time a son is born through further fertility treatment.

In the UK couples are having children at an older age. According to the Office of National Statistics (ONS) in 2007 1,091 women over 45 gave birth, compared to just 540 in the same demographic in 1995. I have no figures outlining the percentage of natural conceptions set against IVF conceptions, and considering that we are living longer in the UK and taking care of ourselves, this is a reasonable age to want to have a child. Parents are concerned about financial security, and the vast majority of people do not feel they are in a position to support a child until they are older. However, what about when this age creeps up to 60/65 (which it will do)?

No matter how healthy we are, there are limits to what we can do physically as we get older, and conscientious living can only extend our lives so far. That science has enabled women to have more control over reproduction is only a good thing. I also appreciate that the health of women can vary quite significantly, and that the physical well-being of two women of the same age can be remarkably different. However, considering that this is not the first instance of a woman past the age of 65 conceiving and giving birth through fertility treatment, would it be sensible to introduce an upper age limit preventing any woman (regardless of wealth or circumstances) above a certain age from being allowed access to fertility treatment? Specifically, should those women who have experienced the menopause (with the exception of those who have gone through the menopause prematurely or have, for medical reasons such as the need for a hysterectomy, had their reproductive abilities suspended before they would have naturally expired), be denied fertility treatment, especially when it requires a donor egg and sperm to be a success?

I am genuinely interested in varying opinions on this topic because, try as I might, I cannot personal see any reason why a post-menopausal woman would be encouraged to have a baby past the age of 55 (at the absolute latest). Today I asked my 70-year-old grandmother if she would consider having a baby now. She looked at me as if I was crazy and said absolutely not. The reason she gave was that she didn’t think it would be fair on the child and that she gets tired more easily than she did when she was younger. I think she is fairly typical of a lot of 70-year-olds. The case of Devi and Ram, to me, centralises arguments regarding the rationale behind procreation. Was this a pursuit motivated by the desire for a child who they could look after and know as an adult as well as a baby, or rather by their determination to ensure the posessions that they have accumulated throughout their lives remains the property of a blood relative? I understand that as human beings we (mostly) have an innate desire to pass on our genetic material, but doesn't there come a time when we should abandon parental aspirations and accept that it just wasn't meant to be?

Sure, I know that realistically I could make changes at anytime throughout the year, but there’s something about the chiming of midnight on December 31st that makes my desires seem more attainable. The fact that a number of people also feel this way means there is comfort in the collective want for change (and that there is always someone to console you if you, as does happen, abandon your initial plans). According to Wikipedia, a New Year’s Resolution “is a commitment that an individual makes to a project or the reforming of a habit, often a lifestyle change that is generally interpreted as advantageous.”

The top 15 goals people commonly set are to: lose weight, gain weight, get out of debt, save money, get a better job, get fit, eat right, get a better education, drink less alcohol, quit smoking, reduce stress, take a trip, volunteer to help others, be less grumpy and be more independent. So, if you have any resolutions, what are yours?

The vast majority of mine are covered by this list. I want to lose weight, be healthier, exercise more, write more, read more, and spend less time online so that my eyes don’t shrivel up and turn to dust by the time I’m 26 (to name a few), although my complete and utter lack of will power means I’ll probably be writing the same thing this time next year. Ah well, they say it’s the thought that counts, and in this instance it’s a sentiment I am more than happy to endorse!

On the subject of New Year's Resolutions, however, I did happen across this cartoon:

The look of wavering indifference on her face as she lifts her coffee and obviously thinks her partner (presuming it is her partner) is a complete moron is priceless. Here's hoping 2009 will herald a greater move towards gender equality!

What an image, eh? Good ole Matt Groening.

The university poll of 1,500 teachers revealed that 80 per cent of male teachers face pupils answering them back every week compared with 70.8 per cent of female teachers.

More pupils are likely to answer male teachers back in the classroom and disrupt their lessons. Female teachers report a drop in rowdy behaviour, though they are more likely to be harangued by aggressive parents.

The picture painted by the research shows similar overall levels of disruption in the two years (2001 and 2008) - although the trend is towards more aggression against male teachers.

What seems to have been neglected during the analysis of these results is an appreciation of the different ways in which male and female teachers manage their classes. What I can remember from my schoolgirl days is that the aggressive teachers elicited an aggressive response from pupils, and those who took a more placid yet firm stance bore the brunt of bad teenage attitudes, but nothing particularly threatening. Male teachers (at my school) were more inclined towards the former method of chastisement. Female teachers the later.

What I can recall also is that (generally) it was the male teachers who were the most confident in the classroom, often using humilation tactics (one maths teacher in particular was downright cruel to a lot of the boys) and thus they precipitated a more impassioned response from students. These, as I say, are generalisations constructed from my personal memories, but I believe that a survey of this nature cannot be fully appreciated unless all factors are considered. Student behaviour towards teachers cannot be understood without also assessing the attitudes of teachers towards students.

The furore was sparked a year ago when one mother received a message from Facebook administrators asking her to remove a picture. She was informed that should she attempt to repost the image she would be banned from the site. This led to the creation of a Facebook group titled “Hey, Facebook, breastfeeding is not obscene!” which currently boasts an impressive membership of over 72,000 people. Furthermore, this anger and displeasure culminated in a protest organised by the Mothers International Lactation Campaign (MILC) on Saturday 27 December 2008, with legions of supporters denigrating Facebook’s ‘no-bare-breasts’ protocol outside their Palo Alto offices. Those who couldn’t be physically present showed solidarity with fellow complainants by simultaneously changing their Facebook profile pictures to display images of breastfeeding. To articulate their collective discontentment Helen Farley, organiser of this “nurse in,” submitted an open letter to Facebook, berating the higher echelons of the social networking site for its “discrimination against breastfeeding mothers” since:

When pictures are removed of breastfeeding and not of artificial feeding, breastfeeding mothers are being discriminated against and a wrongful double standard is set.

Facebook’s defence has always been that the site does not promote the publication of images that could be considered offensive, including those in which the nipple or the areole is fully displayed. There is no explicit reference made to breastfeeding. Any nipple or areole shot has been subject to a cull. Barry Schnitt, Facebook spokesperson, commented:

These policies are designed to ensure Facebook remains a safe, secure and trusted environment for all users, including the many children [over the age of 13] who use the site.

To me, this seems reasonable enough. This isn’t about breastfeeding. This isn’t about seeing breasts as abhorrent or breastfeeding as an obscene function; as something that should be prohibited and hidden.I can appreciate that breastfeeding mothers feel that once they have made the decision to nurse their babies they are in some respects isolated from society, largely because of prevailing social attitudes. This, of course, is unacceptable, but Facebook is not to blame. Facebook didn’t purposely intended to censor breastfeeding, and this hostility seems to be sadly misdirected. It just so happens that female physiology is such that in order to breastfeed one has to expose her breasts, especially her nipples and areoles. Facebook's actions are about nothing more than determining if the publication of images of partial nudity on a site whose usership ranges from children to pensioners is appropriate. It wouldn’t be. What should Facebook do?