In September 2010, a colleague and I will be hosting a conference at the University of Manchester on female werewolves in art, literature, folklore and film. While this might seem like a remarkably specialised subject, the response we’ve had so far has been overwhelming. It seems like 2010 is going to be the year of the she-wolf.

My own interest in female werewolves - and the original idea for the conference - came about almost by accident. I wrote my PhD thesis on monsters in medieval literature and two of my central texts featured male werewolves. As I was looking at the ways in which monsters are gendered, I put a neat little footnote to the effect that werewolves are usually male, though there are sometimes exceptions. I think I originally mentioned the film Ginger Snaps and Buffy the Vampire Slayer as examples of notable female werewolves. Not long after that, a friend mentioned that there is a female werewolf in Terry Pratchett’s Discworld series. Then someone else recommended I read Suzy McKee Charnas’s short story ‘Boobs’. I watched The Curse, Cursed and An American Werewolf in Paris; I found an entire anthology of female werewolf stories published by Cleis Press; I saw work by Australian visual artists that does amazing things with the motif of the female werewolf. Everywhere I looked, I found more examples of fascinating and disturbing she-wolves, and I realized that a footnote was not going to be enough to do them justice. Around the time my own ideas were starting to develop, I was introduced to Carys Crossen, a PhD student at Manchester. Carys is currently writing her thesis on post-1800 werewolves, with a focus on gender and sexuality. We pooled our knowledge, and the conference began to come to life.

Carys and I are not the only researchers working on werewolves. As we’ve been marketing the conference, I’ve been struck by the growing interest in this subject. Female werewolves are a hot topic in current scholarship and a number of recent PhD theses and articles have grappled with the problem of what exactly a female werewolf is or why there are fewer she-wolves than he-wolves. But these questions are not just the preserve of the academic community. In 2010, a number of new books and TV shows will feature female werewolves in some form or another - including (and I still don’t know if this is a joke) a Sex and the City-style show about four werewolves, produced by the Fox Network. It’s pretty difficult not to conclude that werewolves are indeed the new vampires.

But is there a reason why werewolves are usually male? I’m afraid I don’t have an absolute answer to that. Some of the speakers at the Manchester conference will be putting forward their own views on this tricky question, and drawing on folklore, mythology, psychoanalysis and historical evidence to shed some light on it. But the incredible response we’ve had to our call for submissions, from people working in diverse areas - from witchcraft trials to self-help books, from visual art to Scottish folk tales - makes me wonder if there even is a definitive answer. All I know for sure is that female werewolves continue to have a strong hold on the imagination. They’re alluring, certainly, but also challenging and threatening. And they definitely don’t belong in a footnote.

The She-Wolf conference will be held at the University of Manchester, 9-10 September 2010. The submission deadline is 31 March 2010. For more information, contact Dr. Hannah Priest at hannah.priest@manchester.ac.uk.

Linocut by Jazmina Cininas, 'Angela prefers the company of wolves', used with permission

Each year, International Women’s Day provides a welcome opportunity to assess the progress which has - or has not - been made toward gender equality and the advancement of women’s rights around the world. This past year has seen the 30th anniversary of CEDAW, the UN’s international bill of rights for women, which defines discrimination and lays out an agenda for the 186 countries who are party to the treaty to put into action. Though we are still a long way from global gender equality, some important steps have been made in the right direction.

The UN General Assembly’s resolution, passed in October, to create a new ‘super agency’ combining the work of the UN’s four disparate bodies working to end discrimination against women, was the result of years of campaigning to create an organisation whose resources and status reflect the importance of the cause at hand.

The UN Security Council has reaffirmed its commitment to promoting women’s participation in decision-making in matters of peace and security around the world, and created a new Special Representative post to take forward its important work to address sexual violence in armed conflict.

But for all these resolutions and statements of good intent, progress is slow when it comes to actually improving women’s lives. A new report by Action Aid reveals the extent of continued inequality across the world; 60 million girls are assaulted at or on their way to school each year; 41 million girls do not receive a primary school education and two thirds of illiterate young people are women. As many as 1 in 3 women are sexually abused in their lifetime, and women make up less than 20% of MPs in national Parliaments.

The conference rooms and negotiating tables where lofty ideals become international treaties are far removed from the realities in which the majority of women live; indeed, often these two worlds seem to have little impact on each other. But those of us who have the privilege of being citizens in a democracy (however imperfect), can at least make our voices heard, to try to hold our own government to account and force it to play its part in the global campaign for gender equality.

The British Government’s record on promoting women’s rights internationally is mixed - perhaps not surprisingly, given that our own Parliament is just 19.5% women. Selling the invasion of Afghanistan as a mission to liberate women was a terrible blunder which may well have done more harm than good to efforts to promote women’s rights abroad, confirming for many their suspicions that gender equality is a concept used for advancing an imperialist agenda. But for all its faults, when compared with other governments around the world, ours deserves some praise for its efforts. The British Government was one of the leading advocates for bringing the women’s movement to the table at the UN Security Council, and remains one of only 14 UN member states to have developed a National Action Plan for incorporating gender analysis into all our foreign policy.

However, in the 30 years of CEDAW’s existence, the UK has not once put forward a candidate for election to any of its 23 committee seats, nor is it fielding a candidate in this year’s elections. The UK will not nominate a candidate for the position of Under Secretary General to head up the new UN Agency for Women, or for the post of Special Representative Against Sexual Violence in Armed Conflict.

While the Obama administration has appointed an Ambassador at Large for Global Women’s Issues, Gordon Brown has no such plans - and I’ll be more than a little surprised if the next government does.

This has caused considerable upset among activists and campaigners in the UK. “Surely,” asks gender expert Lesley Abdela, “the Government cannot be suggesting that there is no one in the UK who is qualified for any of these posts?”

I suspect the reasons have far more to do with political calculation and horse-trading, to which Baroness Kinnock almost alludes in her explanation of this omission. It is not that the Government doesn’t care, but that it has only so many funds, and so much political capital with other UN member states, and it is not prepared to use up those resources on rights for women.

For all the lip service it has paid to this issue, our Government has decided that women’s rights are not a high priority in this country’s relations with the wider world.

It has been almost 100 years since the declaration of IWD and we still have some way to go in securing the human rights of all women, both here in the UK and across the globe.

The current economic climate is another additional excuse for the systematic failure of decision makers to effectively address and tackle the continued and shameful discrimination and oppression millions of women experience all over the world.

Our women’s sector is diminishing before our eyes. In particular, women’s organisations that support ethnic minorities, refugees and other long neglected groups in our society are taking a considerable hit, with reports of their services being de-commissioned at an alarming rate.

Unfortunately, we know that with a reduced women's sector comes increased inequality for women. So it is more vital than ever that the organisations and services we provide do not completely disappear.

During increasingly difficult times women as individuals and as organisations are renowned for their creativity and resilience and survival. So what should be our collective creative responses to this crisis? What choices do we have and what remedies should we be adopting? What kind of leadership should we be demonstrating?

I believe it is absolutely essential for us as women to work differently and better. In working towards the liberation of women and towards the liberation of mother nature (environmental sustainability), the choices we make at this time will inform the legacy we leave our children and future generations.

One of the crucial things we must do is maintain the diversity and number of women's organisations and services, and let me be clear; I mean women’s organisations and services led by and for women and women only.

In a hostile commissioning environment, during an economic downturn and with a potential change in government, our unity and solidarity is more crucial than ever. We must rise to this challenge and respond with sisterly concern, constantly asking ourselves - how do we make choices which promote our own organisations and those of our sisters?

One of the things which saddens me the most is the excuse I sometimes hear that because of commissioning processes we must compete. We don’t, we can form partnerships and we can collaborate.

We always say to decision makers - we want to see political will in support for our sector. We also need to see that will within our own sector. Leadership is either about about power and control or liberation. We have choices - we don’t have to follow the herd - we can be so much better than that.

So for this year, and in honour and celebration of the sisters, mothers and grandmothers who fought and died (and who continue to do so) for the rights we do enjoy, let’s be the best we can be. We are different - but equal - to men, so let’s celebrate and showcase that difference and lead the way as an example of another possibility … a better world for all.

Photo by gaelx, shared under a Creative Commons License.

The Association for Improvements in the Maternity Services (AIMS), along with the National Childbirth Trust and many midwifery organisations, are Reclaiming Birth by organising a march to Whitehall via Westminster Bridge this Sunday, 7 March, with a rally and speeches afterwards on the importance of real options in maternity care. The gathering point is Geraldine Mary Harmsworth Park, Lambeth Road, London SE1 4EQ from 13:00 with the march setting off at 13:30. A march guide and poster promoting the event can be found on the AIMS website.

I've written before on the sometimes horrifying consequences of a poor maternity service and have asked you to speak out against the closure of units known to provide pregnant women with excellent care and real options, regardless of their income level or postcode. Unfortunately, despite many organisations' best efforts, these things are still happening with alarming regularity. Promise after governmental promise to reform maternity care in the UK has gone unfulfilled. Since 1993, we have been told that major changes are needed to provide an adequate service to all women, yet change has not come. As with many 'women's issues', it has been put on the back burner, waiting for some mythical, opportune time in which it can be properly addressed.

And now, a growing number of women are dissatisfied with and even harmed by their maternal care. An October 2009 survey conducted by Netmums in association with the Royal College of Midwives found that 30 per cent were not offered free antenatal classes, 13 per cent were offered no choice in where they could have their baby, 35 per cent reported being left alone during labour at a worrying time, 22 per cent did not feel involved in decisions about their care and 43 per cent of mothers did not have sufficient access to a midwife on the postnatal ward. Things obviously need to change and the Reclaiming Birth march hopes to help bring those changes about.

If you are unable to attend (and even if you are!), please consider signing the petition and writing to the Minister of Health and your MP. Contact details and sample letters can be found here. Monetary donations to help cover the costs of the rally are also appreciated.

It’s never easy for the women’s sector!

At the best of times, funding for organisations supporting and lobbying for women can be scant and unreliable, but with the current economic climate these already tenuous links are becoming even more fragile.

Despite this often precarious existence, women’s groups have responded with impressive resilience and resourcefulness, whether by harnessing social media as a lobbying tool, or by developing enterprising methods of raising their own income in order to stay afloat.

Nonetheless, at the moment funding from public bodies is likely to decrease because of the recession, and we need more than ever to demonstrate the power and importance of the women's sector.

To do this, the Women’s Resource Centre is planning to produce a landmark report to demonstrate to the government and funders the vital role women’s organisations play and the need for such groups and to help compile it we have a questionnaire we need members of women’s organisations to complete.

We want to make sure that we are collecting information on a number of issues:

• the impact of the recession on the work of women’s groups
• bidding for public service contracts
• the work you do to make change in your local area
• the support you get from the WRC

By completing this questionnaire you will play a vital role in our research. And what’s more, all completed questionnaires - where full contact details are provided - will be entered into our prize draw! There will be two £100 prizes for your organisation or another not-for-profit or social enterprise of your choice.

The WRC aims to be accessible and inclusive. If you would prefer, this questionnaire can be completed over the phone. To arrange this, please contact Sue Christoforou on: Email: suechristoforou[at]wrc.org.uk, Ph: 020 7324 3030.

The survey should take about 15 minutes to complete. All responses will be anonymous, so there will be no way for your answers to be traced back to you.

The survey closes 28 February 2010. If you would like to respond to the survey but think you may have problems meeting the deadline, please contact us.

Maura points out the lack of 'alone time' given to women in other articles in the piece, saying that actress Ingrid Pitt is the only woman with any time in the spotlight - half a page in a 'My Life In Horror' section.

Maura told me: "I really do not enjoy bringing up this matter. Equally, someone has to say something. I'm not being over-dramatic, or asking for anything outrageous. What I want is that women get a fair representation."

Presumably, SFX will issue some sort of apology, as the story has now been picked up by The Guardian and Maura is in contact with the editors. One might think, however, that the industry should have learned its lesson five months ago, when the British Fantasy Society had to issue an apology for their anthology In Conversation: A Writer's Perspective, Volume One: Horror, which interviewed solely male writers in the genre.

The most ironic thing about all this, is that it has happened during the 'Women in Horror' month, an event created because female creators in this genre get so little recognition.

Here in Wales, a new charity, Beat Cymru launches at the National Assembly for Wales today. It is part of the UK charity Beat, the re-branded Eating Disorders Association.

As part of the launch process, the new charity carried out research with the company Beaufort to establish people's view on eating disorders in Wales. Very little research on perceptions of eating disorders in Wales exists, therefore this research is to be welcomed. It is an attempt to gather information towards setting up an anti-stigma campaign, and in establishing who the charity should target support services to, and self help groups.

The research was shocking indeed. Of the 1,000 people surveyed across the country, one in five said that they did not think of eating disorders as a mental health issue. Only one third think people with eating disorders are more likely to die than people with other psychiatric disorders, and a significant proportion believe eating disorders are a lifestyle choice, are brought on by sufferers themselves - particularly older respondents and (older) men.

It's clear that an anti-stigma campaign is essential, especially given that more than three quarters agreed in the survey that "talking about eating disorders is often a taboo subject", and that many thought that an eating disorder was brought about by a diet gone wrong.

An estimated 56,000 people suffer from eating disorders in Wales, and we know that there is a rise in men who are suffering from eating disorders - many showing symptoms of compulsive exercising. But despite the gloomy findings from the statistics, Wales is moving forward on this agenda.

In conjunction with the launch of the new charity, the cross-party group on eating disorders which I founded and chair at the National Assembly - a group which provides a voice for those with eating disorders in Wales, has successfully lobbied the Welsh government for change (health is devolved to Wales).

We have secured a framework on eating disorders in Wales from the Health Minister, with ￡1m of funding for community services for the next three years. We are also campaigning for self esteem and confidence lessons to be a main part of the National curriculum in Wales as a way of seeking to stop young people from developing eating disorders later in life. We are dedicated to calling for a national in-patient treatment unit in Wales, as currently people who need specialised treatment must apply for private treatment in England.

I have met many people who suffer from eating disorders since my involvement with this campaign, and this evening at the Senedd we will hear the story of Sarah Perrot from Swansea, a young ice skater who had an eating disorder.

Young women I have met are pressurised to be thin, to look attractive, and we need to educated them to believe in themselves, and to recognise that the images on their screens and the airbrushed pictures in their magazines do not reflect the normality of the people we see every day on our streets.

I look forward to working with Beat Cymru in the future, and to tackling the stigma associated with eating disorders.

On 28th January the government announced changes to the parental leave system, which currently allocates the birth mother up to twelve months, of which nine months can be partly paid. Her partner (male or female) gets up to two weeks at minimal pay. The government’s new plans allow the mother to allocate all or part of the final three months’ unpaid and three months’ paid leave to her partner should they wish. The Conservatives wish to allow couples to take 38 weeks of a total twelve months’ leave in any combination they want. As someone who looks after children when his partner is working, earns roughly what she does, whose partner is currently feeling much like this about maternity leave, and who only managed by luck to have an extended period of time with my first son, I should be jumping for joy at these moves to allow us choice. Both, however, are deeply flawed.

There can be no real reason for allocating the early part of leave only to women and the later part, potentially, to their partners. Women often need less than six months to recover after birth, and that time should be for their own physical or emotional wellbeing and treated as ‘sick’ leave, not incorporated into leave for childcare. The Conservatives’ proposal comes close to what has been argued for by Jennifer Gray on this site, but ignores one key piece of reasoning behind an EHRC leave proposal. By allowing leave to be taken simultaneously, male partners may indeed get to ‘help out’. Regardless of the time spent actually caring for children, ‘helping out’ and ‘assuming responsibility’ are not the same, and it is notable that more men think they take ‘responsibility’ than women think their partners do. The sphere in which responsibility is taken also needs examining. I know many men who undertake a fair share of the childcare at home, but rarely take the baby out of the home, something which would be impossible if they actually looked after children on their own. Allowing men to act as societally invisible subsidised domestic sidekicks in a supposedly woman’s world does not promote the idea that childcare should be their responsibility too.

My key objection is that ‘choice’ is not sufficient to change the idea that this leave, and childcare, are primarily intended for women, and may make the situation worse by suggesting the current status quo is desired rather than enforced. Gendered inequalities in existing pay and welfare structures mean that choice is so constrained by external circumstance that what ‘makes sense’ can hardly be seen as choice at all, so that two in five men do not take even what leave they are currently allowed . The problem goes much deeper than economics. From the children’s centre staff who refer to me as ‘’babysitting’; to the women at baby group whose discussions about childcare never consider their men staying at home; to a barrage of media coverage, the world outside of the feminist blogsphere is one in which the assumption of female caring is so strong it makes choice and criticism of that choice about when and if a woman returns to work, not whether her male partner should be involved. The law needs to change this, not work within it.

Meaningful reform of parental leave is critical to parents and non-parents. The initial period of leave influences which partner does what for the rest of their children’s childhood, and the way their children and other adults perceive gender roles. The image of women alone as child carers constrains all adults, and women especially. We don’t need a law which states that men can do childcare if they want, but one which states that they should. Its basic components must be a separation of the recovery period of the mother from leave given for childcare, and leave periods for both partners which allow some flexibility but which cannot be taken largely simultaneously. The government claims these ideas offer ‘radically more choice’; it would be better for us all if they simply offered a more radical choice.

In 1973 the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Roe v Wade. The court held that "a woman has the right to choose abortion care until fetal viability" which meant the restrictions on abortion that two thirds of US states had previously enacted became illegal.

In the UK, the 1967 Abortion Act had legalised abortion in England, Scotland and Wales. Northern Ireland's legislation still blocks this act.

Naral Pro-Choice America are marking the anniversary of Roe v Wade in a way that we can all join in this coming Friday:

Blog for Choice Day 2010

Join us on Friday, January 22, 2010 - the 37th anniversary of Roe v. Wade - for the fifth annual Blog for Choice Day!

What is Blog for Choice Day?

Each year, NARAL Pro-Choice America poses a question to pro-choice bloggers before the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and then asks them to blog their answer on January 22.

Blog for Choice Day provides us with an opportunity to raise the profile of reproductive rights in the blogosphere, all the while celebrating Roe's 37th anniversary. Plus, it's a great way to let your readers and the mainstream media know that a woman's right to choose is a core progressive value that must be protected and advanced.

Last year more than 500 people participated in this effort. We hope you will join us this year!

If you don't have a blog, you can still participate! You can post your response in a Note on Facebook, or tweet your response on Twitter and use the hashtag #bfcd.

This year's topic

In honor of Dr. George Tiller, who often wore a button that simply read, "Trust Women," this year's Blog for Choice question is:

What does Trust Women mean to you?

Let us know that you'll be participating by filling out the form below. We'll publish a list of everyone who's blogging. Be sure to tag your posts with "Blog for Choice" to show all your readers that you're joining in.

There is a sign up form on the link above if you would like your blog post to be linked to the Naral website. I would suggest however, that you only sign up after you have a URL address for your blog post, as last year's page links to the blogs involved but not many are links to the specific post.

Every single woman from Asylum Aid on Vimeo.

(Transcript coming soon.)

In her latest inspection report, the HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, Anne Owers, expresses serious concern at the plight of a small number of scared and isolated single women asylum seekers held in the largely male establishment of Tinsley House. In the criminal justice system, if women are to be detained in prison, they would never be placed in a men’s prison.

This issue was raised in a report published at the start of December by the Women’s Asylum Charter - supported by over 200 organisations. Every Single Woman reported that at Tinsley House a woman can regularly be the only female detainee surrounded by 116 males. With such a disproportionate number of females to males, women feel intimidated, scared and isolated.

In Every Single Woman we made reference to the findings of an earlier investigation into Tinsley House by the Chief Inspector held in March 2008, where she reported: “We were particularly troubled by the plight of single women. At one point during the inspection there was only one and she lay in bed most of the day avoiding the communal accommodation. The amount and quality of accommodation now afforded to single women had been reduced, and they appeared marginalised and almost forgotten. They were left to share facilities within a mainly male establishment and this could be both embarrassing and intimidating. Their situation should be addressed as a matter of urgency.”

More recently, women in Tinsley House told the Chief Inspector they felt unsafe and uncomfortable mixing in communal areas with male detainees. This meant not only leisure facilities, such as they exist, including the gym but in areas such as the dining room. The Chief Inspector noticed piecemeal improvements, such as in the clinic there were notices explaining that female detainees could see female staff, including doctors and nurses. But her latest report, released on 18th December, more than 18 months after the previous report into the same centre, states: “On our return for this unannounced follow-up inspection, conditions had generally deteriorated and the arrangements for children and single women were now wholly unacceptable.”

The limited nature of any improvements at Tinsley House, such as they are, which take place alongside worsening conditions in other areas, expose the lack of a strategic approach both within the centre and within the wider asylum system for ensuring women seeking asylum receive gender-sensitive treatment.

The Chief Inspector’s report states “there were no specific policies or strategic initiatives to address their needs … There was no clear time-limited strategy with an accompanying action plan to show progress. There was no oversight from any management committee.”

Supporters of the Women’s Asylum Charter believe that people who come to the UK to claim asylum should not be detained but if they are, “Women asylum seekers detained in Immigration Removal Centres should receive, at a minimum, a comparable standard of treatment and facilities to women in prisons in the UK.”

And following such a damning report from the Chief Inspector of the UK Border Agency needs to take action. Firstly in the instance of Tinsley House it must conclude women can no longer be housed there or, as the Chief Inspector suggests, that the opening of Brook House nearby might allow Tinsley House to be refurbished to hold only families and single women. But more importantly the UK Border Agency needs a change of culture designed to produce a genuinely gender-sensitive asylum system to ensure that women asylum seekers receive a comparable standard of treatment to women in similar situations who are settled in the UK, and so that situations such as those that have arisen in Tinsley House cannot do so in future.

To read the Every Single Woman report and watch the short film, visit www.asylumaid.org.uk/charter

Anne Owers' report into Tinsley House can be read here.

On November 28th 2009, 300 women, children and supporters reclaimed the night in Leeds. The weather held, and from 6pm the crowds gathered outside Leeds City Art Gallery, sharing opinions, stories, stickers and placards. The march began with a speech from the Leeds Reclaim the Night steering group co-ordinator, who welcomed Liv Bailey, NUS National Women's Officer, who gave a rousing speech and encouraged us all in a sing-a-long and feminist chant practice session. Then, headed up with our Leeds banner, the march began.

The route took us past many of the Leeds lap dancing clubs, where chants of "women's bodies not for sale" rang out. The vast majority of people who passed shouted their encouragement, those who looked baffled were given flyers and those angry with us were drowned out with chants and singing (as well as provided with flyers).

We had two steering group members on megaphones leading chants and songs and steering group members and stewards keeping the march together as we made our way around town and across roads, chanting and singing and celebrating to our final rally destination of The Civic Hall. We were welcomed with hot drinks, partner organisations shared information and our interactive consultation map was on display.

We had a great line-up of speakers: Al Garthwaite talked about the history of the event (read more here), Alison Lowe encouraged us to get involved politically, Jess inspired us with her insight and experience, Jalna Hanmer informed us with her wealth of knowledge, Sandra McNeill roused us with her call to arms and Leanne Sutheran reminded us why we were all there and what a great success our night had been.

We were then invited to our after-event club night 'Reclaim the Dance Floor' at the Common Place, with music, poetry, dancing and conversation.

We've been so pleased that we have received such positive feedback and press coverage, and we welcome anyone who has ideas and opinions of how we can improve the event to get in touch. If you would like to get involved, either as a steward next year, as a member of the steering group, or just to stay informed of the 2010 event to attend, please e-mail us at reclaimthenightleeds[at]googlemail.com or join our facebook group (search for: Reclaim the Night Leeds).

The first meeting for the planning of the 2010 event will be in February, so please do get in touch and help us make next year's bigger and better. For more information about Reclaim the Night Leeds please see www.reclaimthenightleeds.org.uk.

Photos by our official RtN-L photographer Anne-Marie Atkinson.

So, it's that time of year again. Compulsory happiness and lots and lots of family time. For some, the happiness comes naturally and the family time is cherished. But for some who are survivors of childhood sexual abuse, the Christmas season can be agonising.

For me, though the abuse happened all year round, it always happened on Christmas Day. Because we always spent Christmas Day with them.

While most of the family was laughing and joking, I was taken elsewhere in the house by one or both of my abusers. The fact that it was Christmas day made it more memorable somehow. It could be that it always happened on August the 8th or April the 27th too, but why would I remember that date?

I dreaded Christmas every year. I was supposed to smile and be happy and enjoy the time we all spent together, but I loathed it. As an adult this continued, until I realised I did not have to do it any more.

The first year I didn't spend Christmas with the family was awful. I felt so guilty, I felt like everyone thought I was being 'difficult' (the rest of the family do not know about the abuse), and I felt like even though I wasn't there, with them, this crap was still haunting my every thought. I took a big overdose, and was dismayed to wake up. While getting away from that environment was good, the abuse was still so present in my mind. I could not get rid of it just by being somewhere geographically different, though this was definitely a start. And it made me more safe.

But the following year was better. I had already taken my stand, and dealt with the family reaction to me not spending Christmas with them, and rather than spending the whole time in a crisis, I felt like I was taking positive steps to make Christmas into something I wanted it to be, rather than something I had to do.

There is an awful lot of societal pressure to 'do' Christmas. Even now, after years of doing it my own way, I have learned that you can never tell people you are doing NOTHING on Christmas day. They look horrified! They invite you to their home, they suggest alternatives. They can't imagine that anyone would want to opt out of the celebrations altogether. Thankfully though, I do do something, but it is so much on my own terms, and so far removed from the traditional family day that I feel more in control, and more like I'm making it my own.

But it does not remove the memories.

Even if I can avoid the actual abusers, it is harder still to avoid those around them who were complicit in what was happening, by not doing the things that should be done to protect a child. I can cope better with those people now, but would always rather have no contact with them.

Even if your abuse wasn't directly related to Christmas, that does not mean that it has to be an easy time of year for you! If the abuse was in the family, then family gatherings and strange nostalgia can make you feel as isolated as ever. If they knew about the abuse, and the abuser is still involved in celebrations I can only imagine how devalued you can feel. And if, like me, they don't know about it, then 'innocent' mentions of the men involved feel like a punch in the stomach, but I do feel I have to smile and nod when I hear their news.

And if the abuser was a stranger, or family friend, a trusted adult, or anyone at all, enforced cheer can be so hard. Of course we are sometimes happy, and sometimes sad. But the pressure to be on top form, when you might be having a difficult period of flashbacks and nightmares and memories, is so painful. Spending time with children, be they relatives; or friends' kids, can bring you face to face with a tiny person the age you were once, and the realisation that however much you might blame yourself at times, when you look into that 4 year old, or 8 year old, or 12 year old's eyes, you know without a shred of doubt that there is no way that anyone that age - including yourself - could EVER be responsible for the bad things that happened to you. And that is both reassuring and shocking. Personally, I give myself a hard time with, 'Well, I was a very grown-up 10. I wouldn't expect most 10 year olds to be able to find a way out of that situation, but surely *I* should have done'. Then I see a 10 year old and realise that no, 10 years old is (while disputed by 10 year olds!) really, really young. And in any case, if I was a 'grown-up' 10, that was almost certainly due to the abuse that had occurred before, which had also groomed me to 'accept' the further abuse as normal.

Being with children at Christmas makes me scared too. Scared for them. When you are a survivor, there can be times when every child you see seems to be at risk. You get overwhelmed by the dangers we all face.

But in the context of coping with Christmas, trying to relate to children in terms of how sweet and lovely and childish they are, can put into perspective not just how little power you had, no matter how much you have told yourself otherwise, but also how, while you may not have done it consciously, chances are you have hated your child self at some point, for having been abused. Spending time with kids will also show you that there is no way that you could have been such a hateful child, because, as a rule, children aren't hateful. They are trusting and loving and kind and funny and mischievous and always full of surprises. And when they're naughty, even that doesn't make them deserving of hate, it makes them normal children.

This can help you to see that the child you were was not hateful, evil, dirty and responsible. She actually was a little child, doing little child things.

Other things to bear in mind when facing Christmas as an abuse survivor are where you are and what you do. Some people with the right jobs choose to work on Christmas day. It's a legitimate reason to not participate in all the celebrations, and it gives people who want the day off more of a chance to get that. Many people volunteer at homeless shelters and crisis centres, serving up Christmas dinner, offering health care or providing entertainment or a friendly chat. If you have funds, you could go away somewhere, perhaps somewhere where Christmas isn't even acknowledged, never mind celebrated.

You can also start to create your own rituals. If you want to celebrate Christmas, but not in a way that's inherently linked to a difficult childhood, then imagine what you would really like to do to celebrate, while trying to remove all society's pressures about the season from your mind. The day might start with an early morning stroll. You might write and illustrate a cartoon. You might clear out the clutter from the attic! You could also look at how other societies, cultures and religions celebrate special days, and get some alternative ideas.

Those also work if you opt out of Christmas altogether. Once you get used to people fretting about your lack of plans, then it's all yours. You can get on with it as if it's no different from any other day, perhaps using some self-made rituals if you find yourself feeling left out of the loop.

You may want to be with family too, and coming out of it unscathed is all about working out how best that happens for you. If your abuser/s was a family member, your plans might involve seeing the rest of the family but not them. If no-one in the family was involved in the abuse it may be easier to negotiate creating your own terms around what you do, and don't, want to do in the mad few holiday days.

But that's just the day itself. The lead-up to Christmas can be tough in different ways. I find that it is a time when my flashbacks will increase, both in frequency and intensity, and that I think a lot more about the abuse too (chicken? egg?). Sometimes this makes me angry, other times upset, most times I feel very vulnerable and fragile. This, on top of the usual stress and angst of the build-up to the dreaded day, can mean that the weeks beforehand can feel unbearable.

During the most difficult periods of coping as an adult survivor of childhood sexual abuse, some of the things women can really benefit from are firstly, being really gentle with yourself. You are feeling bad enough already, without increasing that by beating yourself up for feeling so bad!

Secondly, make a conscious effort to place the blame where it should be - on the abuser, not yourself.

Thirdly, look after yourself as best you can, or let those around you who may offer to. Eating as well as you are able, not drinking too much alcohol, trying to maintain a sleep routine, can all help to strengthen your physical and emotional defenses against onslaughts of awfulness. You know yourself what helps you and what harms you, so follow your own self-knowledge and do whatever you need to, to cope.

If you've been affected by issues like these, you may wish to contact Rape Crisis

Today while skimming through the list of status updates and the like on Facebook I was horrified to discover that an old school friend has joined a group called “Facebook Rape is a Common Side Effect of Going to University”. The name alone was enough to make me feel sick, but it got worse when I clicked on the link. A post appearing on the group’s wall reads, “this has to be the 2nd best form of rape”. I don’t think I have words for the amount of wrongness here.

Sadly this is not the only group of this nature; a quick search reveals many more groups about so-called “Facebook rape”. Perhaps it is foolish of me to be surprised by the existence of these groups, when in the last few months the phrase "Facebook rape" has become more and more common. Recently I have also come across the phrase “yawn rape” (apparently this is putting your finger into someone else’s mouth when they yawn; I don’t know why you would do this in the first place) and heard someone describe burning sausages as “absolutely raping them”.

Allowing rape jokes to become commonplace is unacceptable. It is triggering for victims of sexual assault for a start. But it also diminishes the horror of rape and its impact on the victim’s life. We live in an age of shockingly low rape conviction rates and high levels of violence against women and victim blaming. It is worrying that for many young men and women rape is increasingly seen as something laughable. Until there is a change in attitude and people stop equating rape with a minor inconvenience or childish prank I fear that rising conviction rates and preventing violence against women will be an uphill struggle.

It is possible to report Facebook groups, and hopefully if enough people complain about the offensive nature of these groups they will be removed and banned altogether.

To do this, you do need to click on the group and on the left side of the page there is a link to “report this group”. You have to select a reason from Facebook’s predetermined list. Unfortunately this is a pretty poor selection, but the “racist / hate speech” category seems the most relevant of those given. After this is selected you are asked for additional comments. In this section I wrote

This group is not only triggering to victims of rape of sexual assault, but it also diminishes the horror of rape and the trauma experienced by many women. Hacking someone's Facebook page is not akin to an act of violence against a person. The trivalisation of rape in this way amounts to hate speech against the victims of sexual assault.

Feel free to use this if you wish. Once a complaint has been made against a group the administrator will review it, although Facebook will not get back to you with the result of the action (I guess this means we have to keep searching for the groups to see if they have been removed!).

Tackling those that make rape jokes in real life sadly may be a little more difficult, but if we can get this removed from a site like Facebook, that’d be a good start!

When we think of reproductive rights, we often automatically associate the term with access to birth control and abortion.

But reproductive rights also include women who have chosen to complete a pregnancy and are seeking care and support antenatally and in childbirth.

On the face of it, it may seem that women who have made this choice have it easy, with little to fight for or be conerned about other than the usual 'mum-to-be' anxiety about the process of birth and the health of their babies. But for many women the lack of choice and increasing pressure to submit to a medicalised and micro-managed model of childbirth (where "the safety of the baby" often takes precedence over the mother's autonomy) is distinctly risky, not only to her health and that of her baby's, but to women's reproductive rights.

Women from disadvantaged socio-economic groups are even more at risk than others, with their chances of dying in childbirth being six times the rate for those from middle class backgrounds.

One-to-one care and continuous support in labour are important to every birthing woman, but especially to those who suffer the consequences of inadequate care at a much higher rate and severity level. That's why women's right to choose where, with whom and how they give birth is every bit as important as their right to prevent or terminate a pregnancy.

It's also why the Association for Improvements in the Maternity Services is asking for our help in preventing the closure of the Albany Midwifery Practice, which serves around 200 women each year in Peckham, in South London, the 14th most deprived district in England.

Nearly half of the women using the midwifery service choose to have their babies at home, where they receive uninterrupted, dedicated care from a midwife known to them.

The Albany Midwifery Practice has long been recognised as a centre of excellence, with statistically better outcomes for mothers and babies than King's College Hospital, the facility that is seeking to terminate its contract and, consequently, its ability to operate (14.4% Cesarean rate and a perinatal mortality rare of 4.9 per 1000 at Albany, as compared to 24.1% and 7.9 per 1000 at King's). They also boast much higher breastfeeding success rates (80% as compared to 35%).

As stated in the press release:

In order to justify the suspension of the service King’s College Hospital appears to be trying to make the case that the service is unsafe. They have looked at a selected number of Albany cases admitted to their Special Care Baby Unit and asked the Centre for Maternal and Child Enquiries to investigate. We understand, however, that they have not examined the deaths of babies that have occurred in the King’s unit nor the babies from there who were also admitted to the Special Care Baby Unit. Nor do we have what AIMS believes is crucial data - comparative rates of mental illness after childbirth, where we believe the Albany is likely to have far better results.

AIMS demands that King’s College Hospital releases the CMACE Report and the comparable statistics for its own consultant unit so that data from both services can be examined objectively.

If you can take a minute to sign the petition and/or donate to help fund their fight, it would be very much appreciated. Spreading the word via social networking sites would also be useful.

The photos are by Sarah from Uplift Magazine and Ange from Million Women Rise.

This candle is for myself as I stand here and reflect on how far I have triumphed over the forces of violence inflicted upon me by a system that is designed by man to pin me down.

From the forces of external threats to my body, to the internal threats of allowing negative messages to dominate my experience of womanhood. From my attempts at self harm because of the absorbed hatred towards women, to the pain I’ve experienced through suffering repeated violent attacks by a male relative. From the day to day listening to the voices that say a woman can never win, can never be free, to the attacks on the streets because of what I look like or who I choose to love. From the voices of the teachers who said I should set my sights lower, to the media who say I will never measure up. From the adults around me who said my body didn’t look right, to all the opportunities robbed from me because of my gender. From my employers who will never pay me the commensurate wage for my efforts, to the threats of violence I face now for merely speaking out.

I stand as a survivor and will continue to concentrate my efforts on never being defeated.

Aung San Suu Kyi, our sister who is under house arrest for peaceful resistance in Burma, and a woman who I stand in solidarity with at this vigil today, spoke once of living with ‘grace under pressure’. She says: “Fearlessness may be a gift but perhaps more precious is the courage acquired through endeavor, courage that comes from cultivating the habit of refusing to let fear dictate one’s actions, courage that could be described as grace under pressure - grace which is renewed in the face of harsh, unremitting pressure.” As women standing together today this courage is something we each possess. Within a system that threatens imprisonment, torture, rape, death, losing friends, family, property or means of livelihood, poverty, isolation or failure simply because we are women, it is not easy to free ourselves from the miasma of fear but we must lead the way. Fear is not the natural state of what it is to be a woman and fear will not keep us in our place.

I will live with grace under pressure and not let fear dominate my life nor my experience of being a woman nor my experience of being alive. I will live freely by loving courageously, offer peaceful grace instead of violent rage, never sell out because of the threats I face, stand alone where I must and together where I can.

In her memoir, Heartbreak, Andrea Dworkin lists some of what she feels is the worst immorality of being human. One of them states how the worst immorality is on setting ones goals so low that one must crawl to reach them. Today, in honor of every woman who is experiencing male perpetrated violence in our shared world, I am resetting my goals. I will set a goal so high that I will stand tall, stretched out and develop my heart so wide in order to reach it. I share this goal with Million Women Rise.

Our goal is to see an end to violence against women in my lifetime.

Our goal is to lay the foundation to make this possible within the next 10 years.

Our goal is to enable 10,000 women to take to the streets in the UK on 6 March 2010 to call for an end to male violence against women.

Our goal is that 10,000 of us stand united here in Trafalgar Square next March to celebrate our womanhood, our determination, our love for humanity and our courage.

Our goal is that all young women embark on their adult life with a positive perception of who they are, with recognition of the power they possess and feeling confident of what they can achieve in the future.

These goals I am sure are shared by us all, as Alice Walker states: "We are the ones we have been waiting for", there is no time for complacency, our gathering tonight is testament to this truth. I will use my privileges as a woman living in the UK and strive to create peace worldwide. I determine to run as fast as I can to the aid of our sisters overseas, to our sisters in the regions, all across London, on the street where I live. Tonight as we gather here let’s determine together in our hearts to do all we can, it begins with us. With our courage we are free.

On Thursday evening the pilot episode of Misfits was broadcast on E4. It seems that E4 has decided to jump on board the current superhero revival and make it's own programme about kids with superpowers. Being a comics book and superhero fan for most of my life I was intrigued enough to watch.

The show is a world away from Professor Xavier's School for Gifted Mutants. It's about five young offenders who gain superpowers whilst completing their community service. But I don't really want to talk about the plot (which although seems like it was written in the E4 canteen was rather entertaining) - I want to talk about the superpowers the characters obtain and why I was so angry once the programme finished.

Of the three male characters one can turn invisible, one can turn back time and the last has not yet had his power revealed. Of the two female characters one has a psychic ability and the other...well, she's developed the power to make men so attracted to her they try to rape her when she touches them. No, really. The character, Alisha, is someone who is not afraid to use her sexuality to try and get her own way. By giving her power to make any many attracted to her to the point of rape is obviously the writer's attempt to juxtapose a "consequence" to her actions. She's a tease! Look what men are like if you tease them! They can't stop themselves! She's getting the superpower she "deserves".

More than that, I have read many female superheroes becoming depowered or killed or raped...but I have never seen a female superhero be given a power from the start that actually DISEMPOWERS her. Everyone else gets something cool - Alisha gets to be an example to all sexual women in the UK. And here also lies the myth of female empowerment via sexuality...patriarchy always tells us how we have "power" over men due to our sexuality, but punishes women viciously if they try to use it (think about the word slut, think about Katie Price, think about how people bring up previous partners of the victim in rape cases...). Alisha is basically the avatar for this misogyny.

This is one of the most blatant examples of rape culture I have ever seen. A woman punished for using her sexuality. A woman who can be raped without consequence because it isn't the man's fault as her powers literally "make them" rape her. A male-gaze fantasy who was "asking for it" and was given powers to fit! A woman who has the worst damn superpower I have seen in my 15 years of reading comic books (and I have read some damned sexist stuff!).

By watching the trailer for the next episode it does indeed seem that Misfits will include an attempted-rape or rape scene with Alisha. This is a programme that I really could have enjoyed, but instead I felt a bit sick after watching it.

You can watch the first episode of Misfits on 4OD

The Representations of Women in the Media Project was set up three years ago by the Bristol Fawcett Society, who spent a day in June 2007 collecting evidence exploring representation, from the number of films showing in the local cinemas that were directed by a woman (none) to how many pictures in the newspapers were of men and women (twice as many of men). The project grew in 2008 when, joining forces with Bristol Feminist Network, the two organisations decided to take a snapshot of how women are represented in the media over a month long period, between October and November.

The results were shocking.

We counted how many women performers, artists and directors were featuring in Bristol’s “alternative” venues. In one arts cinema, out of 28 films on show only 4 were directed by women, whilst a second arts cinema and gig venue had 1 woman directed film out of 19 films in total. Comedy also showed its exclusive side, in one month a local alternative comedy venue had no female comedians performing.

One mother watched Cbeebies over a day, to find that none of the stories told on the channel that day had a female narrator. Character representation didn’t do well either, whilst 70% of the characters on the Cbeebies shows that day being male, only 30% were female. Regular TV was no better; one volunteer recorded who was appearing on her screen as she switched it on throughout the day. Whereas a woman appeared on the screen 5 out of 10 times, men were present 8 out of 10 times.

Objectification was another issue we wanted to explore. We spent an afternoon flyering lad’s mags in city centre newsagents to try and discover how normalised pornographic imagery is in society, making a film to try and explore creatively how women are objectified. We counted magazine covers to discover the percentage of idealised women and men, and active men and women. 85% of magazine covers in WhSmiths and Borders showed idealised women, 15% of idealised men. And, in an uncanny reversal, 85% of covers on display showed active men whilst only 15% showed active women.

()

This November we are doing it all over again, and we’re getting even bigger! We’re looking at airbrushing in magazines, and how minority ethnic women are represented. We’re exploring how queer women are represented, women adverts, gender stereotyping in children’s media, gender of storytelling in films. We’re finding out how often women appear on comedy panel shows, checking how domestic violence and rape is reported in the news, and much more.

Our research is based around counting and stats, but it is also based on creativity, exploring how we feel and experience representation in the media and expressing how we want to be represented. We know that our research may not be scientific, but it creates a snapshot of how women are experienced through the media today, and offers examples of how women appear across the media. Our evidence testifies that, contrary to popular belief, women do not have equality of representation in the media.

Bristol Feminist Network and Bristol Fawcett Society will be presenting the project findings at the Malcolm X Centre, Bristol, on the 28th November. We are setting up at midday and the talks will begin around 3pm. Please keep checking Representations of Women in the Media Project> for further info.

In July, Lisa Jardine, Chair of the Human Fertilization And Embryology Authority (HFEA), announced that the HFEA is likely to rescind the longstanding ban on paying women to donate their eggs to others, for fertility treatment (www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6728391.ece).

We are campaigning against this because:

• Egg donation carries serious health risks - in every country where there is a financial incentive to donate eggs, poor women are induced to take those risks, whilst middle-class women who can afford the fees, and the IVF industry, benefit.
• Turning human body parts into commodities is unethical and will eventually lead to a market in kidneys and other organs.

The HFEA will decide in December whether to even bother consulting the public on this issue - feminists must speak out now to prevent this encroachment of the free market on women's bodies.

The Risks of Egg Donation

In order to donate eggs, women have to undergo the hormonal treatments which are part of the standard IVF procedure.

Amongst the risks of IVF hormonal treatment are:
• Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome (OHSS), which affects up to 10% of women. Given the number of eggs involved, it is almost inevitable that some women will suffer OHSS. In 2005, a woman died in London from complications of OHSS;
• still uncertain long-term increased risks of ovarian cancer;
• stress and mood swings during the process.

These risks are the reason why relatively few women offer to donate eggs for others, leading to a severe shortage of donor eggs in Britain (see below).

The Case Against Selling Eggs

There are two main reasons why payment for egg donation has always been resisted in the UK.

Firstly, offering financial incentives to do something that very few women are currently offering to do because of the risks, will lead to poor women (and eg. students looking to fund college expenses), being exposed to health risks, whilst only middle-class women who can afford the fees and the IVF industry will benefit. In Eastern Europe, there have already been a number of scandals in which women have died or been hospitalised after hormone treatment, in order to donate eggs to Western European ‘fertility tourists’. In fact, it is the severity of this problem that the HFEA is exploiting to argue that paid egg donation should be allowed in Britain (see below).

The second reason for not allowing paid egg donation is that it turns human body parts into commodities, which can be traded by the fertility industry. The traditional view is that human body parts have a special ethical status, which should not be reduced to that of commodities. If payment for egg donation is allowed, it will eventually lead to a market in other human body parts, such as kidneys.

The HFEA’s Dishonest Arguments

The argument that a ‘regulated’ market in Britain is better than fertility tourism is fundamentally bad and dishonest. Since when is it acceptable to argue that: “Here is a bad thing which we have always opposed, but since people are going abroad to do it, we might as well cave in and let it happen here”? In order to combat sex tourism to Thailand, shall we set up regulated brothels in Britain for underage girls? Since British couples are now going to India for sex selection to make sure of having baby boys, why not overturn the UK ban on sex selection, too? Britain would do better to uphold its ethical principles, and resist the encroachment of the free market into every aspect of human life.

Rather than submitting women to the risks of egg donation, we need to address the social and environmental causes of the infertility epidemic. Where women need egg donation, we need to find safe and ethical alternatives that do not commercialise reproduction.

Speak now while you have the chance

Feminists must make it clear that there is strong public opposition to the HFEA’s plan. Sadly, the feminist movement in Britain has historically failed to campaign on these issues, leaving an open field, for, of all people, the pro-life lobby to carry the banner of protection of women and against commercialisation of reproduction. It is time that this absurd situation changed.

To lend your support to this campaign contact: no2eggsploitation[at]riseup.net. There will be a meeting to discuss the campaign at 7.30pm on October 27th at the Feminist Library meeting room, 5 Westminster Bridge Rd, London SE1 7XW. See www.no2eggsploitation.wordpress.com for more details of the meeting.

The Tories, at their party conference yesterday, announced proposals to slash the number of sick and disabled people claiming Incapacity Benefit by 20%. They plan to introduce a more stringent test which they claim will find 500,000 people to be ‘fit for work’; those people will then have to find a job or claim Jobseeker’s Allowance. This cost-cutting, goalpost-moving exercise is remarkably similar to plans outlined by Labour in their Welfare Reform Green Paper, released last year. In fact, Incapacity Benefit now no longer exists for new claimants; it has been replaced by Employment and Support Allowance, and funnily enough, this new benefit contains a more stringent test to qualify for the ‘support’ element (the equivalent to Incapacity Benefit). This is unsurprising given that both parties were advised by the same ‘expert’, David Freud.

Not only is Incapacity Benefit in the sights of both parties, but other disability benefits are under threat too. In another recently released Green Paper about the future of social care, the government have suggested that disability benefits, for example Attendance Allowance, be ‘integrated’ into social services budgets (i.e. cut). This is a move that would take independence away from millions of disabled people. Attendance Allowance (AA) is a disability benefit for over-65s, whereas younger disabled people claim its equivalent, Disability Living Allowance (DLA). Both benefits are implicitly threatened by the proposals.

So what does all this mean, and why is it a feminist issue? Well, let me start by saying that the plans will affect every sick and disabled person, and cause an increase in poverty among both gender groups. That’s a given. However, a few things are worth considering:

Many chronic, long term illnesses affect proportionately more females than males: for example, MS affects four times as many women as men, chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) three times as many , and fibromyalgia nine times as many. Women are also more likely to suffer from a mental illness than men. Illnesses such as CFS and fibromyalgia, like many mental health problems, are difficult to assess - they are ‘invisible disabilities’, and benefits forms are simply not set up to deal with them, as they mainly rely on simple questions about manual tasks. A more stringent test can only make this situation worse, not better.

As women live longer than men, the majority of the elderly population is female; also, the longer a person lives, the more their health is likely to deteriorate and the higher the cost of living becomes to accommodate that. This means that the suggested cuts in AA will disproportionately affect elderly women, who are likely to have fewer savings than men due to having worked less, or for less pay. Figures quoted in a recent Guardian article showed that 40% of current recipients of DLA (care component) and AA would be below the poverty line if these proposals became law and they lost these benefits, with 90% living on less than £250 per week. It would be interesting to see this statistic split up along gender lines.

Finally, a word about carers: the majority of carers in this country are women, and carers will be badly affected by any cuts in any disability benefits, as it will be on their shoulders to pick up the financial slack whilst continuing to perform (unpaid) caring duties. This is especially worrying given that female carers suffer more mental health problems as a result of caring than do male carers. Many carers give up work, or go part time, in order to care for a sick or disabled family member; disability benefits help to make this possible.

As a person with a disabling long term medical condition, I am alarmed by the proposals and suggestions being put forward by both main parties. They treat ill people like scroungers, disabled people like children, and take carers for granted. I am genuinely worried for the future. If you would like to help, please sign the petition to safeguard DLA/AA, which can be found here.

Another day, another piece of sexist research being loudly trumpeted in the media, with the result that mothers in paid work are yet again under attack.

The BBC has been reporting a study today which suggests mothers in paid work are more likely to have unhealthy children. The researchers studied 12,500 five-year-olds, and found that those children of mothers who worked were more likely to consume sweetened drinks, spend longer on the computer or in front of the television and be driven to school as opposed to walking or cycling. Unsurprisingly, fathers’ work habits were presumed not to be important.

As usual with these kinds of studies, the information given is patchy and vague. The apparently unhealthy activities mentioned above were described as “health behaviours likely to promote excess weight gain” - but there was absolutely no mention of whether the children in the study were actually overweight or unhealthy. The study picked on a few activities and seemed to disregard other factors, such as what the children's actual meals consisted of, whether the children played any sport, and so on. It was not what you might call a clear picture of the children's lives and activities, and yet the BBC saw fit to report it with the subheading: “Children whose mothers work are less likely to lead healthy lives.” Healthy lives, full stop. Nice over-generalisation, BBC!

As for the non-existent fathers, it always astounds me how, when it comes to child-rearing, most people assume that men are no more than sperm donors. Professor Catherine Law, who led the study, explained their absence from the research thus: “Fathers’ employment levels had not changed whereas the numbers of working mothers had increased dramatically.”

This factor is completely irrelevant, which makes Law’s excuse a cop-out. This was not a longitudinal study looking at the effect of parental employment hours over time on children’s health, therefore the apparent unchanging level of men’s employment (Law does not specify over what time period) is meaningless. There is no reason why fathers’ working hours could not have been included in this study. What Law really means, of course is: “Fathers aren’t responsible for childcare, so how much they work doesn’t matter.” Which is the assumption made by the entire study and the ensuing media reports.

Although I’m not surprised, I’m pretty angry with the BBC for reporting this so heavily and allowing women to be once again publicly criticised and shamed for simply being human and doing what men have been doing (without criticism of course) for time immemorial. Despite the researchers’ weak protestations that “our results do not imply that mothers should not work”, the message is crystal clear: your child will end up obese if you don’t be a good girl and stay at home.

Studies like this are not helpful in any way, and the more they are reported on, the more people continue to believe the myth that only women should be responsible for child-rearing. The idea that a father could be equally responsible for his child’s health is still too radical for our times, it seems.