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.

To the man who started this viral email:

If this was a real story how come when I do a search on the media database I subscribe to, which has access to all publications written in the English language over the past 30 years - local newspapers, national newspapers etc, there is no record of this incident?

Please don't send out anymore emails along these lines. Women have enough childcare issues, equal pay issues and a ton of other crap to deal with without your input thank you. We don't need your help to feel further oppressed than we already are. It is enough that we are made to feel unsafe after dark on the streets and frightened about getting into taxis on our own without more of this kind of scare-mongering. I for one won't be made to feel powerless and helpless by emails like this and I won't be modifying my behaviour one iota.

However please do feel free to send round robin emails calling for men to do something about male violence against women.

The reality is that most violence against women occurs in the home and is carried out by a partner or ex-partner:

1 in 4 women will experience domestic abuse in their lifetime.

Two women a week are killed by partners or ex-partners.

It seems like every day there is another example of a man who killed his wife and children and then killed himself, excused in the media and elsewhere as a result of job losses, economic crises etc.

No-one calls this a gender war, but that is what it is.

In contrast the amount of female on male murders is slight, but always celebrated and hyped, and women will typically receive harsher sentences than men for the same crime. (See http://www.justiceforwomen.org.uk/ for more info.)

Most women know their rapist, yet less than 6% of the small amount of rapes reported in the UK result in a conviction.

Not all men are rapists and murderers, but you don't have to be a male perpetrator of male violence to do something about it, just as I don't have to be a female sufferer of male violence to do something about it.

Men need to start calling their gender to account and educating their sons, brothers, fathers and male friends.

I know a handful of men who are actively taking a stand against male violence against women. (See http://www.whiteribboncampaign.co.uk/)

There should be many, many more.

Still I Rise

You may write me down in history
With your bitter, twisted lies,
You may trod me in the very dirt
But still, like dust, I'll rise.

Does my sassiness upset you?
Why are you beset with gloom?
'Cause I walk like I've got oil wells
Pumping in my living room.

Just like moons and like suns,
With the certainty of tides,
Just like hopes springing high,
Still I'll rise.

Did you want to see me broken?
Bowed head and lowered eyes?
Shoulders falling down like teardrops.
Weakened by my soulful cries.

Does my haughtiness offend you?
Don't you take it awful hard
'Cause I laugh like I've got gold mines
Diggin' in my own back yard.

You may shoot me with your words,
You may cut me with your eyes,
You may kill me with your hatefulness,
But still, like air, I'll rise.

Does my sexiness upset you?
Does it come as a surprise
That I dance like I've got diamonds
At the meeting of my thighs?

Out of the huts of history's shame
I rise
Up from a past that's rooted in pain
I rise
I'm a black ocean, leaping and wide,
Welling and swelling I bear in the tide.
Leaving behind nights of terror and fear
I rise
Into a daybreak that's wondrously clear
I rise
Bringing the gifts that my ancestors gave,
I am the dream and the hope of the slave.
I rise
I rise
I rise.

Maya Angelou

“He has suffered so much”, “It was a long time ago”, his admirers say. Both true, neither means we should forget what he has done. “He didn’t know she was 13”- possibly true, again no excuse. Rape is a crime, no matter what the perpetrator has gone through, how many years have since passed or how old the victim is, or was perceived, to be.

Among the highlights of the horrors, the Independent - from whom I would have hoped for better - closed its news story with the following lines:

“Polanski once demanded of an interviewer: “Do you think there is anything more to my life than my relationship with young women?” This weekend’s arrest suggests that in spite of his huge achievements as a film-maker and artist, the answer to this question as far as the US judicial system is concerned is still a resounding “No”.”

Well, of course it is a resounding no. Is the US judiciary now some sort of film critic? When crimes are assessed is it obligated to take into account what else the perpetrator has done for the world?

No, and we wouldn’t wish it to be.

The next day, the Indy called it “Polanski: the big debate”, with a very intelligent piece from Dominic Lawson - one of the few writing common sense on the subject - pitched against Harvey Weinstein arguing Polanski should be freed. Weinstein wrote of Polanski’s “so-called crime”. There is nothing “so-called” about what he did: even under the highly unlikely scenario that she had consented, it would still have been statutory rape because she was a minor.

I don’t see anything wrong with celebrating Polanski the film-maker, because moral judgments should not inform artistic verdicts. But nor should genius excuse criminality. Given him Oscars if you want, but Polanski the rapist deserves to do his time.

Sisters, you are all warmly invited to join with the women of Leeds as they march to Reclaim the Night on Saturday 28 November 2009. We see our Reclaim the Night March as direct action by self-defining women to reclaim the streets and assert our right to feel free from fear of rape and sexual violence. The march will take women on a route around the city centre to reclaim places where women feel vulnerable from attack; the last stage of the march will be open to all. There will be a post-march reception with speakers and stalls

Why are we reclaiming the night in Leeds?

As readers of the website will probably know, research by Rape Crisis England and Wales suggests that as few as 10% of rape and sexual assaults are reported to the police. Of these few, only around 8% result in a conviction; in West Yorkshire the conviction rate is 8.3%.

We feel the march will publicise these dismal rates of conviction more widely, as well as expel some of the myths around rape and sexual violence. We also hope to challenge some of the public’s attitudes towards rape and sexual violence, as exemplified in the Amnesty International research, which suggests that there is a general sense that a woman is partly responsible for being raped if she is out alone, had a drink or dressed provocatively.

Our aim: We assert our right, as women, to challenge and feel free from the fear of rape and sexual violence wherever we are, by reclaiming areas around Leeds where women feel vulnerable from attack.

Our objectives are:

1. To raise awareness and understanding of rape and sexual violence committed against women and girls. This will include exploding myths around rape and sexual violence and challenging public attitudes towards rape and sexual violence as symbolised by the low rape conviction rate;
2. By publicising the prevalence and effects of rape and sexual violence, provide a platform for campaigning for improved services in the Leeds area, thus striving to make safer and sustainable communities;
3. To build partnerships with national and Leeds based organisations and ensure Reclaim the Night Leeds is citywide;
4. To encourage and promote the participation of all self-defining women and work towards encompassing their diversity.

How can you support Reclaim the Night Leeds?

Email us on: reclaimthenight@googlemail.com

• There are lots of ways you can help. The most straightforward is to pop 28 November in your diary and come and join us march to defend our right to feel free from fear!
• If you’re Leeds-based you could help out by displaying a Reclaim the Night poster or distributing some leaflets.
• Volunteer. We’re looking for people to help the night run smoothly such as stewards and other helpers.
• Again, if you are local in West Yorkshire, you could even do more by getting involved in our friendly and supportive steering group. There are a wide range of activities to get involved in from writing funding applications to organising the late night dancing!
• Spread the word by chatting to your friends, family, neighbours about Reclaim the Night Leeds. This is something for all the women of Leeds.

More info on Facebook

This year, Saturday 10 October is a very special day. London’s Conway Hall will play home to the second ever annual Feminism in London event.

What is Feminism in London? Primarily it is what the name implies it to be, though I must mention that the FiL committee will not just be representing the woman-power we’ve got going on in the capital, but will also provide a platform for a range of global, historical and ethical issues, as well as those we have on our doorstep here in Blighty.

The day will centre around a series of workshops and talks, hosted by plenty of prolific feminist icons including Susie Orbach, Beatrix Campbell and Denise Marshall, alongside empowerment- groups such as The Southall Black Sisters. The full line-up of speakers can be seen at the Feminism in London website (www.fil.btik.com) but suffice to say, the speakers consist of a wide range of women, from those who are survivors of rape, prostitution and child abuse to those who have campaigned relentlessly for women’s and/or human rights issues.

There will also be women present who have founded some of the most important female events and/or charities of our time, flanking with women who have struggled with (but survived) single motherhood, the pay gap and countless other misogynistic injustices. The range of topics affecting our speakers are all covered in the day’s workshops, which consist of the following:

• Racism and sexism: what are the issues for black and minority ethnic women?


• "It's easy out here for a pimp" anti-porn slideshow


• What are the issues for pro feminist men?


• Feminist self-defence and assertiveness training


• What’s wrong with prostitution?


• Raising children in the age of porn


• No recourse to public funds


• Commanding the camera and setting the agenda: media training with camera


• Poverty and motherhood: how society undervalues women's work


• Rape and Sexual Violence


• Power in Bed


• Activism training: how to run a successful campaign

Feminism in London will be held at Conway Hall, Holborn (WCIR 4RL) on Saturday 10 October from 9:30am- 5pm. Details of the event can be found at www.fil.btik.com http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1809652522#/event.php?eid=172422660135&ref=ts and http://twitter.com/F_i_L

For more information please email feminismlondon@yahoo.co.uk

[Ed note: Jess will be there as an official photographer on the day, so come say hi! There will also be a feminist tweet-up, organised by sometimes guest poster at The F-Word Charlotte Cooper after the event, at nearby pub The Perseverance, 63 Lamb's Conduit St. Come stop by and say hello, whether you're on Twitter or not :-)]

Katie Price (the former glamour model more commonly known as Jordan) has stated that she is one of the estimated one in four women in this country who has been a victim of rape. She spoke publicly of it for the first time earlier this month in OK! magazine but has taken the decision not to name her rapist. I was disappointed this morning when an article appeared on The F Word by Abby O'Reilly covering Price's decision. O'Reilly argues that Price ought to name her rapist publicly, and states that the decision not to do so is "downright irresponsible".

I believe it is just plain wrong to tell a rape victim what she 'should' do about her rape, to dictate to her how she 'should' be dealing with it. I am surprised that people who consider themselves feminists are implying that a victim of sexual assault owes it to the world to publicly name her attacker or to report the attack to the police. Apparently because she is a celebrity and someone who is in the public eye, she has an obligation to do what we want her to. What happened to supporting victims and/or survivors by giving them what they need?

Instead of berating someone for not doing what we consider to be the 'right' thing we should be concentrating on changing society and the legal avenues which make it so difficult for rape victims to name their rapists and pursue criminal charges. Of course all women should be able to report rape to the police, and to reveal their attackers. In a society which treated rape with the seriousness it deserves, I don't doubt that many, many more women would. But not all of them - and regardless of their relative anonymity or celebrity status, the wishes and decisions of those who choose not to should be respected as the right decisions for them.

We know that only 6% of rapes which are reported manage to get convictions. Is it so surprising then, that a rape victim - any rape victim - would choose to be one of the 95% of rape victims who do not report the crime to the police? Especially considering several years have passed since Price's rape happened, the chances of being taken seriously and there being evidence enough to gain a conviction are so small as to be negligible. Alongside that is the fact that going to trial would mean reliving an extremely upsetting experience.

Price knows what (most of) the world thinks of her; most of the news articles I've read on this talk of her rape in such terms that make it clear they do not believe her, that this is some sort of publicity stunt. She is already seen in a poor light by the majority of major media and the general public which hangs on its every word. What would she achieve by publicly naming her attacker?

Naming him would lead to a trial in which she would have to relive her rape, a trial which as we already know she is unlikely to 'win'. And when she lost, the whole nation would then jump around saying "I told you so" and brand her a liar - imagine the effect that will have on her and her family. Not to mention, it would be just another reinforcement of that tired old trope that "women always lie about rape" (actually false rape allegations are statistically no more common than false allegations of any other crime). It must have been bloody hard for Price to talk about her rape in public, and she should be applauded for her bravery.

O’Reilly’s piece implies that as a public figure, Price has some sort of duty to become a figurehead for rape survivors, to show women who have been raped how it should be done. I don't think this is fair. All women who have survived rape should be supported in dealing with their experience in whatever way they feel to be most appropriate for them, with no conditions or quid pro quos, and so should Katie Price. None of us have the right to tell her what she 'should' be doing, and I think it's time we gave the support she needs at this difficult time without resorting to making declarations about what she ‘should’ do.

(500) Days of Summer is the latest indie hit about to make it big. Based on the true story of screenwriter Scott Neustadter’s failed relationship, the opening credits insists 'any resemblance to people living or dead is purely coincidental' - and then goes and spoils it by finishing with "Especially you, Jenny Beckman. Bitch."

Charming.

In today’s Daily Mail, Neustadter reveals the heartbreaking love story behind the film. Or, um, not. “We shared the same taste in books and music,” he reminisces. “That had to mean something, right?” What it meant, apparently, was that he spent months lusting after her - and committing the cardinal sin of subjecting all of their mutual friends to the saga of his unrequited love - only for it to end as badly as he knew it would. She didn’t want to refer to him as her boyfriend - who can blame her? - and the bitterness he still feels spills out into both the article and the film itself. Crushed, his only option was to slink back to the US, tail between his legs, and immortalise her as Zooey Deschanel.

No wonder the film is such a masterpiece of passive-aggressive misogyny. The trailer warns us that Hansen “grew up believing that he would not be truly happy until he found The One. Summer Finn did not share that belief.” The women’s movement that taught Summer to have goals other than a husband is subtly denigrated, and her dislike of traditional relationships is portrayed as a personal flaw of Summer’s - she just doesn’t care enough to keep her man happy, or even to keep him at all. Recklessly pursuing her own life at the expense of the fairytale ending that even men have been conditioned to expect, she’s a Woolf in sheep’s clothing.

Summer has been accused of being the latest in a long line of what blogger Nathan Rabin calls Manic Pixie Dream Girls - sparkly, peppy love interests whose only role is “to teach broodingly soulful young men to embrace life and its infinite mysteries and adventures”, and as such get no character development or plotline of their own. In fact, it is her refusal to conform to this mould that makes her the villain of the piece. In his tabloid diatribe, Neusadter implies that her desire to “be her own woman” was selfish, rooted entirely in a desire to act like a man - to be, as she puts it in the film, the Sid Vicious to his Nancy Spungen.

The predominant emotion that comes across is outrage. How dare she not reciprocate his feelings, when he "so desperately, even pathetically, wanted to make [it] work”? About the only thing he gets right is the fact that he was pathetic - the kind of passive aggressive ‘nice guy’ who claims to be content with something, all the while gilt-tripping her over wanting something more. He refuses to take any responsibility for the way the relationship worked out, and despite the fact that he claimed she called all the shots it’s clear that the only person who was really in that relationship was him. It’s another example of a man being confused and frustrated, when the perfect girl he’s put on a pedestal turns out to be a woman as flawed as the rest of us, with thoughts and hopes and dreams all of her own.

The philosophy of the film can be summed up in one line, where another (male) character describes her as “an uppity, better-than-everyone superskank”, managing to imply that she’s both frigid and a whore in one sentence. Now that’s impressive scriptwriting.

The Liberal Democrats have produced a 42-point manifesto for women, which includes proposals on airbrushing in advertising, domestic violence, and 12 months’ parental leave for mothers and fathers.

It’s a shame that the presentation of the 'Real Women' manifesto is so patronising. There’s the headline for a start - imagine the scorn it would attract if it were titled 'Real Men'. What’s with the Ribena colours and the women’s magazine sub-headers? (Want some “real confidence”, anyone?)

Behind the self-conscious girliness there are some good points (see below), including proposals to make equal pay claims easier to bring and to win, efforts to make late-night travel on public transport safer and more money for rape crisis centres. Other proposals include 20 hours’ free childcare per week for all children regardless of age or parental income, plans for thousands of extra midwives and health visitors and the right to request flexible working to be extended to all carers.

The paper, which is not yet policy and is to be debated at the Lib Dems’ annual conference in the autumn, doesn’t seem to have been discussed much in the national papers, though there is a Comment is Free post by the author, Jo Swinton MP. Jo comments on the manifesto’s pledge to make advertisers state when an image has been airbrushed.

The paper’s only policy on 'sex encounter establishments' (lap-dancing clubs) is a free-phone trafficking hotline, with advertising of the hotline to be a requirement for all those holding a lap-dancing licence.

The manifesto also wants an end to “the increasing criminalisation of non-coercive prostitution”, as well as increased efforts to help those wishing to leave the sex industry. Earlier this year, the party opposed the Government’s Policing and Crime Bill, which creates an offence of paying for a prostitute who is “controlled for gain with force, deception or threats”.

The Lib Dems' Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Huhne, said the law would drive prostitution underground and that the “right way to protect vulnerable sex workers would be to regulate the sex industry so that brothels are places of safety”.

What would a feminist manifesto look like?

As a reference I’m including here the list of seven demands agreed on at the 1978 National Women’s Liberation Conference:

1. Equal pay for equal work.
2. Equal education and job opportunities.
3. Free contraception and abortion on demand.
4. Free 24-hour community-controlled childcare.
5. Legal and financial independence for women.
6. An end to discrimination against lesbians.
7. Freedom for all women from intimidation by the threat or use of male violence. An end to the laws, assumptions and institutions which perpetuate male dominance and men’s aggression towards women.

Key points from the Liberal Democrat 'Real Women' paper:

Families

• 12 months’ parental leave for mothers and fathers
• Thousands more health visitors and midwives
• Up to 20 hours’ free quality childcare for all children
• Encouraged mediation session for divorcing couples

• Ban use of altered or enhanced images aimed at under 16s
• Advertising using enhanced images to clearly state where digital retouching has been used
• Cosmetic surgery advertising to carry information on “success rates”.

• Allow “class actions” in equal pay. One woman could make a legal claim on behalf of a group rather than each woman having to make a claim individually.
• Allow the use of “hypothetical comparators” in equal pay claims. When someone puts in a claim for equal pay, they need to compare their pay with that of someone else - the comparator. In sex discrimination claims, the claimant doesn’t have to produce a male employee who is in exactly the same position. So if she is an assistant manager she doesn’t have to find a male assistant manager who has been treated differently; she can point to evidence that a “hypothetical” male assistant manager would have been treated differently. In equal pay claims the claimant would currently have to find a male assistant manager who is receiving more pay. If there is no male assistant manager the claim fails.

• Late night trains would have a “secure carriage” where a guard would sit.
• Stopping on request between stops on late night buses to minimise the distances women have to walk

• More rape crisis centres and sexual assault referral centres
• Classes on rights and fair treatment in relationships in schools
• Women in refuges to be allowed to continue to work
• Improving systems to report abuse
• Retaining services targeted at ethnic minority women
• All women to have access to violence against women services
• A free-phone trafficking “hotline”, with compulsory advertising of the hotline in sex trafficking clubs [ed: I think this was a typo, and meant lap-dancing clubs, as above]
• Ending criminalisation of “non-coercive prostitution” and helping those who want to exit the sex industry

It's been a year since David Cameron's speech in which he argued that social problems were the result of people’s choices and called for an end to moral neutrality.

Since then he’s been rather quiet on the subject of morals. We had to wait until January for Ken Clarke to be reported criticising Cameron’s policy of giving tax breaks to married couples and warning that within the party “stuff I associate with the religious right in America, I think, is having too much influence.”

Fast forward six months and now we have the man who sets Cameron’s “mood music”, a member of the Tory leader’s inner circle and former theologian, saying that he sees abortion as “unacceptable”.

And that same-sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to adopt children!

The evening’s chief provocateur is Phillip Blond, director of the Progressive Conservatism Project at Demos. Blond stirs the conversation pot by arguing that society should discourage adoption of children by gay couples. There is much hooting around the table and a call for data supporting his claim that having one parent of each sex is best for kids. Instead, Blond resorts to a line of argument I find weak, namely that since humans have raised kids in heterosexual couples for aeons, it must be good.

If this is supposed to be Progressive Conservativism - what does the unprogessive type look like?

Another indicator of what we might expect in terms of social policy comes from Iain Duncan Smith’s “broken society” report, which informed Cameron’s decision to make tax breaks to married couples Tory policy.

Which is full of gems like...

We took evidence from many people working with people entrenched in the most persistent poverty who particularly noted the levels and effects of fatherlessness within this population, where it is so easy for a single mother to get support, concern and benefits… there appears to be an easy dependency on the state which people will not willingly give up. This is an environment where young women routinely express the attitude that ‘everyone else is a single parent anyway, so what’s the big deal if I become one.’

It’s unclear what point he’s making - that young fathers would stick around if there were no benefits available to the mothers? - but the subtext is clear: he wants those same benefits reduced.

Although there have been lots of reports of a clear-out of the old Tory guard in the wake of the expenses scandal, there have also been suggestions that the new young Tories coming through are even more socially conservative than their predecessors:

Those most likely to be new Tory MPs are, in general, less concerned about climate change than terrorism, oppose green taxes and are hostile to gay adoptions.

We’re going to have reason to be afraid in 2010. Very afraid.

Club des Femmes enjoys this kind of archaeological excavation. For us context is everything. This year we ended up in the swinging sixties pre- and post-decriminalisation. Watching The World Ten Times Over you could be forgiven for thinking that lesbianism didn’t exist. The clues are there if you watch for them carefully but nothing is explicit: revelation pre-decriminalisation had to come through performance, in moments of gesture and the subtle shift of feeling in expression. Watching it with hindsight this summer was telling. It revealed the intensely coded, hyper-vigilant culture in which any same sex relationship had to operate. The Killing of Sister George, post decriminalisation, by contrast was a relief.

The Killing Of Sister George is a revelation because it is so upfront. It is simply a complex drama that focuses on a lesbian relationship. It is radical because of that, because of its directness and because the film uses real lesbians as extras and real locations to add an air of authenticity. A culture that was previously hidden is revealed.

This is a film about coming out to a world used to secrecy, hints and suppression. This is the film’s triumph and also its tragedy. Watching the film 40 years on it’s terrible to observe the moment when visibility begets a new conformity. Where in The World Ten Times Over there is a separation between convention in the outside world and the possibility for unconventional relationship shapes in private, in The Killing of Sister George we witness what happens to the kind of lesbian who doesn’t play along with hetero norms. We are simultaneously watching the formation of stereotypes (the evil exploitative lesbian in Coral Browne’s Mrs Croft, the ingénue in Susannah York’s Childie who both conform in some ways to recognisable codes of power) and the elimination of the person who doesn’t fit in, in Beryl Reid’s George. Mrs Croft and Childie, attractive, fashionable and sexual, can survive their new-found visibility. They define the kind of lesbian that can pass successfully in the new world, who conform to convention - youth is rewarded, beauty, wealth and power. Humour, masculinity in women, the taint of class, are all shown to be despised.

In this way, the new-found lesbian visibility in the '60s is simultaneously exploited and critiqued by the film. George’s impotent isolation at the end is not simply a result of character, it is a perfect image for what happens to those who do not play the game. I had only ever seen the film before on TV. It was a great experience to watch The Killing of Sister George with a diverse modern audience. In an age where lesbians in cinema are still the vampires to be slain, the punchline to male jokes, it was great to critique the pressure to conform communally.

"Release the puns" must have been the call to journalists when news was delivered that a brothel in Berlin was offering a green discount for those arriving by public transports, bikes and the like. Parking this here and riding that, pumping other things and so forth.

The unbridled joy of being able to sidestep any kind of moral questioning of the appropriation of the green movement to move women's bodies for a little less money in these economically depressing times. So firstly, yes, brothels in Germany are legal and one would imagine a brothel with any secrets to hide wouldn't be out and proud sourcing journalists to draw attention to its dealings, but then I'm quite sure the very legal strip clubs in our country don't think there's anything wrong with charging their dancers to perform and taking the majority of a night's working wage in the name of running their businesses.

However, highlighting the brothels insistence, as Treehugger does, that it uses only German and/or EU citizens to staff its business is not much of a recommendation of respectability, unless you don't believe the trafficking and abuse of women can happen within one country's borders (a 2009 report put one quarter of sex trafficked victims as German nationals), or within the EU, especially considering Germany's problems in the recent past.

There's also the teensy problem that these (modest) discounts probably didn't come at the behest of the women working in the brothel, but the boss (read pimp), who saw a marketing opportunity (again as I don't know if the women pay residence or simply get a wage from working in the brothel so I don't know who this effects what they'll get at the end of the day). Safe to say, these 'nice motivated models', trafficked or not, are clearly going to cause you as little consternation about the legitamacy of their existance as their personal enjoyment while you get your concessionary screw session (45min or 15min) thinking about how good and ethical you are for not spewing environmentally unfriendly substances out of your car to get your happy end.

Don't let my concerned position allow you to think I'm entirely against the fluffy pointless parts of the news to distract from the normal hand wringing, panic stricken, head shaking stuff, but I do have a problem with the normalisation of the sex industry, particularly parts where women's bodies are bought and sold in less than the best circumstances. Want to take the piss out of greenwashing? It's not hard. At least when you're talking about the biodegradable nature of bullets they're unconcious, unsentient things, not living, breathing humans.

But the bill will also hopefully change the lives of women who kill their partners after years and years of abuse, and bring men who kill their partners to justice as well.

Clause 44 looks at loss of control as a partial defence to murder. The important part of this clause for me, is the fact that a person cannot be convicted of murder if their loss of self control has a qualifying trigger.

Clause 45 deals with that 'qualifying trigger', stipulating that fear of serious violence from the victim is a qualifying trigger for loss of self control and subsequent murder/assault. This means that women who kill their partners after prolonged abuse and violence fear of violence from their partner will have this counted as reason for their actions.

Clause 46 abolishes the defence of 'provocation' that is often used by men in cases when the prolonged abuse and violence that they have brought on their partner has finally ended in their death. This defence often means that while women serve life sentences for the murder of their violent partners, men often get away with suspended sentences of short sentences because they claim that they were 'provoked' by their partner.

The implementation of these clauses could mean that women no longer serve these long sentences for the murder of their violent partners, but there is a danger that when violent partners kill women they could also claim that there was a 'qualifying trigger'.

It is no surprise that, although the bill was brought to the Commons in January, these clauses have received pretty much no publicity at all, although Julie Bindel did mention them in The Guardian.

When implemented, these clauses do have the power to change the way that women who have fought against or killed their violent and abusive partners are treated by the Judicial system - hopefully for the better. It also means that men will not longer be able to employ the simple 'provocation' defence when they kill their partners after prolonged violence and abuse.

Justice for Women is a feminist organisation set up in the early 90's that supports women that have fought back against or killed their violent partners.

One of the defining characteristics of the feminist movement, as well as other liberal movements throughout history, has been the in-fighting and internal spats which have at times becomes so important to the participants that they overshadow everything else, taking over as the primary cause on which people focus their efforts.

What I had not realised though is that these spats don’t necessarily happen organically, but are pushed upon you by others who, wanting a good story, would rather a good fight than a co-ordinated campaign. I’ve specifically noticed this over the past week while promoting my book, where some branches of the media are only interested in it if it can be written about in terms of an argument between feminists, or as one person put it, a bitch fight. Clearly this language isn’t helpful, and neither are such spats.

In some ways I have gone along with this for publicity. I wrote a column in which I claimed that previous generations of feminists have let us down. Have they? Well, in some sense they have. After all, feminism has moved on and criticising us, which many older feminists do, for our clothes, our sex lives, our alcohol consumption, is not helpful. But they also achieved much for which we should be grateful.

Other publicity opportunities I have been less keen to take up - an national newspaper article, for example, that wished to pitch my mum and I against each other each talking about feminism from the perspective of our own generation. We have things to say on this, of course - we agree with each other on about 80 per cent of feminist issues, and strongly disagree on the rest. But we didn’t trust the editors not to make us out to be having a major argument. After all, it’s not just my mum and I who largely agree with each other but most feminists have more that binds us together than tears us apart.

Of course my book, which looks at issues affecting women’s lives in today’s western society, has lots which other feminists may take issue with. To start with, the cover looks like "chick lit". This is a deliberate decision to try to bring in readers who wouldn’t normally pick up a book on feminism. If my book is only read by people who already consider themselves to be feminist then it will be a failure.

And the lines I take inside the book will no doubt rile many feminists. I do not think that you have to believe in abortion to be a feminist, though I am pro-choice and would like everyone to be. I don’t have a problem with short skirts, high heels or pink. I do think that when a man buys you dinner it is disingenuous to think you haven’t given him the impression that something sexual may happen.

And I am guilty of not being sisterly towards all women in it. I have an issue with Fay Weldon who I call a ‘misogynist in feminist clothing’ for example. And it’s not in the book but I have written before against the journalist Liz Jones, who I think does women a huge disservice with her writing.

I know that many readers of The F Word will take issue with many of the things I say in my book. And they should - discussion is how we develop and form our own ideas. Similarly I don’t agree with everything on The F Word, though I have found it very helpful in informing my own thinking and have quoted it in many places in the book. I suspect that over the coming years I will find myself speaking on a platform with many of The F Word’s contributors. And I expect that in some of these cases the organisers will have invited us so that we can have our own spat.

I very much hope that we manage to avoid this, whether we disagree or not on the issues, as feminism will only succeed when we stop the internal fighting and agree that as long as you make your own choices in life, whatever those choices are, if they are made freely then they are feminist choices.

I was afraid that Germaine Greer's Four Decades of Fun with Feminism gig at Gulbenkian Theatre, Canterbury might at best be an apology. I feared that at worst it might turn into a renouncement of the Eunuch 'theories' for which she has become so renowned. My apprehensions had no grounds, however, as I discovered to my relief and enjoyment as Greer made us laugh, cringe, scoff in mutual disgust and even cry with her reflection on feminism since her most celebrated work was first published in 1970.

In the 90 minutes for which she played, Greer addressed firstly the phrase for which she has been both credited and chastised in equal measure, that "women have no idea just how much men hate them", explaining how the quote has evolved as a freelance feminist tagline in its own right and been interpreted (and misinterpreted) by feminists and others alike. From there, hammering through issues such as women in the workplace (for which, she cheerfully insists, she should not be "blamed") and the (ongoing) questions about the role of women as mothers, she was both entertaining and insightful in equal measure.

When discussing female desire Greer, flanked by nods of agreement from most of the audience (and whooping from some!), asserted that women "have not been helped by Sex and the City", and assured us that she is "not despondent...just worried" about the situation of feminism and womanhood today.

Four Decades of Fun with Feminism exceeded my expectations in almost every way (except that I did expect to be star-struck when given the chance to talk to her directly towards the end, and wasn't disappointed) and the audience, seemed to share and be endeared by her overall sentiment and bottom-line of not aspiring to be an "equality feminist" (quipping that being male is not something she has ever aspired to) but instead addressing women in their own right to be their own experience, not experiencing life as an 'other'.

She also thinks that tarragon, as a seasoning in food, is very overrated.

Most of the comments I’ve seen in the American blogosphere have annoyed me as they were UK-US centric, when they were not straight-up offensive. I'd like to see more contextualisation and nuance.

France's social model, also known as laïcité, is not "better" or "worse" than those of the US or UK, just different (see this great explanation). It's held dear by the vast majority of French people - no matter their religious affiliation. An inquiry on burqas wouldn't last two seconds in the UK because the multicultural model here is more or less happy to accommodate a nation made of many identities who actively claim their differences. The French Republican model insists on considering all its citizens to be children of the state - ideally devoid of any individual characteristics or special treatment, all treated fairly and equally. Of course, both models fail more often than not as we still silence minorities and perpetuate racism, colonialist attitudes, sexism and so on.

But here's a few key points to add to the debate:

• Unlike in the UK, few French women wear the niqab and very few wear the burqa. This is partly because they are more likely to descend from Algerian, Morrocan and Tunisian families where the burqa is not often used. In addition, most French Muslim families who immigrated in the 60s and 70s were usually not strongly religious. From what I can gather, those who do wear the burqa do it by choice (and not coercion) as a radical political act. Still, serious data is missing. This is why an inquiry could be a good idea: a map of numbers and religious affiliations is needed.
• Most French Muslims are overwhelmingly opposed to the burqa, seeing it as an extremist symbol. Not enough is said about such Muslim secularists who oppose the burqa. For example the French Muslim-feminist group ‘Nor Whores Nor Submissives’, which made waves a few years back, fully endorses the government's inquiry. It sees a direct link between the degradation of women's rights in France's underprivileged neighbourhoods and the growing number of political Muslim radicals who "take women's bodies in hostage". Another militant feminist-Muslim group, Les Insoumises, is more nuanced in its approach: it is clear that it detests the burqa, but worries about the implications of such a ban for women (‘Will they be forced to stay at home?’ seems to be the main question).
• A lot of the debate will focus on practicalities: kindergarten teachers asking about the security issues involved in giving a toddler back to a parent whose face cannot be seen; questions about going to the Post Office to receive employment checks where identification is necessary; identity controls by the police; receiving medical treatment. Such practicalities are crucial and hard to legislate on.
• If our government decides to legislate on the burqa, it would paradoxically automatically turn women who wear them into second-class citizens in the eyes of the state by treating a minority of women differently than any other citizen. In turn, the secular principle our constitution is built upon would be undermined. For that reason, I think the government should refrain from legislating at all.

But in the meantime, it would be very nice to not read a deluge of comments which only see the issue through an Anglo-centric prism - especially since launching an inquiry isn't like putting a ban in place right away. On the contrary, it's about launching a national debate involving the French public and elected politicians. And while I'm sure many politicians will use the platform to spout racist and sexist nonsense, I always think that debating women's rights in the public space is better than keeping quiet.

This is a guest entry by Jessica Reed, who works for Comment is free. She's French and English but more French than English.

At the panel debate, "Body Image: the impact of magazines", last night at the Women's Library, it became apparent to me that life is probably easier if you're on Susie Orbach's side.

Luckily, I am, and so listening to three industry experts discussing the effect of magazine images on women's interpretation of their own bodies was an insightful - if a little predictable - experience. Nothing particularly new was said, nor were any shatteringly bold statements made (if you discount National Centre for Eating Disorders' [NCED] Deanne Jade's revelation that, apparently, women's magazines are not very much to blame for eating disorders as instead they provide us all with jobs...) but the banter, sharing of old (and recycled) ideas and questioning session was enjoyable to one with a vested interest in the psychology of women, beauty and food.

The debate began with Jade, representing the NCED, addressing the question of where women's perceptions of their own bodies originate and a quick audience participation experiment involving recognising our default attitudes to our own bodies. Elementary as it may sound, the exercise did make me consider how amazing/frightening it was that, in a group of women confident and astute enough to show up at a debate on women's body image, so few were able to automatically associate one positive word with their own bodies.

Following Deanne Jade was a representative of the British Medical Association, Dr Vivienne Nathanson, who spoke in more statistical and official-research-shows based tones about the current 'obesity crisis' and what we all need to do to (sigh) feel better about ourselves and live longer.

Orbach spoke for a shorter time, but her address was concise and unwavering from her official line on fat as laid out in Fat is a Feminist Issue, first published in 1978. She covered issues from Weight Watchers (who, she said, encouraged her to lose a stone in weight at her first meeting) to diet companies being prosecuted under the Trade Descriptions Act and then briefly to the ageism perpetuated by magazines for women in selling youthful (Orbach argues, pornographic) images as a necessity of life and worth to women of all ages.

When asked about the system of 'traffic lighting' on food labels, and the now seemingly intrinsic link between food and virtue, Orbach and her co-panelist Dr Nathanson expressed fundamentally different views on the subject, with neither appearing to understand the root of the other's ideology on the issue. Orbach, a champion of the 'hungry? eat, full? stop' technique, agreed that the effect of such green-orange-red signifiers has not been and can never be a positive one on both our body image and our physical health. Nathanson, however, seemed to somewhat misunderstand this argument and instead flew the flag for the BMA's 'Change for Life' programme, which advocates a 'move more, eat less' policy to tackle the widely-reported obesity epidemic in the UK.

It was above all a lively debate, with definite moments of tongue-holding by the members of the audience, particularly at the BMA rep's complete misinterpretation of the whole situation. Sympathetic, however - for the most part - to Dr Nathanson's good intentions, the atmosphere was one of collective support for the divorce of food from virtuous and sinful characteristics, and primarily for Susie Orbach and the maintenance of her original FIFI message.

I feel another Dove film coming on...