Bitch magazine are in trouble and need to raise $40,000 by 15 October in order to print the next issue. Their website says:

While it's true that $40,000 is a lot of money, we know the number of you Bitch supporters is in the hundreds of thousands. And we're asking each of you who values independent, nonprofit media and intelligent feminist cultural analysis to contribute what you can to ensure that Bitch thrives. And while we can't say what form Bitch will take in the future (our direction will depend, in part, on your feedback), we can say that we've been hard at work to find an innovative publishing model that will allow us to maintain the spirit and integrity of Bitch while also reflecting the changing world around us.

As a nonprofit, reader-funded media organization, our fate really is—and always will be—in your hands. We don't need a parent company. We just need you!

Donations can currently be made through the Bitch website and they're also trying to find a way to incorporate Paypal into the site. (I will post an update in the comments here if this comes to fruition.) There is more on how to help on the Bitch website and, if you happen to partake in Facebook, there's also a group dedicated to helping spread the word.

As Noble Savage has pointed out, thank goodness someone has now seen sense.

Sandra McNeill, of Campaign to End Rape has has spoken about the attitudes inherent in the original error:

Old prejudices like if a woman is wearing a short skirt or acting in a certain way are still operational...They seem to think that all women should live like middle-class housewives of the 1950s. Nobody lives like that anymore. They are simply silly, silly prejudices... By reducing compensation because a woman has been drinking CICA is operating under those old prejudices.

Meanwhile, Gweem of Me and My Army paints a stark picture of what those mistakes really mean and, on a more disappointing note, Michael White of the Guardian says compensation is "not about blame" but then talks at length about "personal responsibility" and holds up examples of people who wear Rolex watches in rough parts of town and "bladdered stag party boys" who "get stroppy with the consul when they lose their passport in Riga." (I agree with purplefluff's comment that no-one actually goes around implying mugging victims were "asking for it" anyway. I'd say holding this up as a more neutral example of personal responsibility just serves to prove the point that it is the perpetrator of a crime who is to blame and not the victim!)

You can still listen to Kate Smuthwaite talking about this issue (along with the frightful Lynnette Burrows) on Tuesday's Jeremy Vine show on Radio 2.

Thanks to Rebekah, Lewis and Jo for alerting us to reports on this story

If you fancy reading a real howler, check out this prime piece of retrogressive poppycock from the Daily Mail that I discovered through Polly Styrene's blog today:

...Clearly, men and women are increasingly out of sync, and the key could be in learning to re-balance ourselves as women and reclaim our essential softness.

Emergency! Men and women are out of sync! So what's the answer? Working together to challenge the stereotypical behaviours that have been handed down to us and continue to stifle our true selves? Of course not! The answer is that women need to suck up to men and pander to any latent machismo they might be harbouring in some desperate effort to slyly and passively ensnare one.

No thank you.

There's more. The writer tells us:

Two years ago I went to dinner with a doctor who told me that I 'wasn't in touch with my femininity' as I 'didn't flirt or wear much make-up'.

His diagnosis also included the undeniable fact that I was in 'acute need of affection'.

Maybe I just have a lot of faith in men (i.e I'd say there are plenty of good ones around so, if you're that way inclined, you'll probably find one eventually) but I reckon she should have been out of there as soon as this condescending prat started spouting such dictatorial, traditionalist drivel. Then again, as someone who admittedly has been known to flirt and wear make-up, I guess that I may have ended up rooting out his bullshit somewhat later on in the date. Still, calling him out on his creepy attitude when his arrogance eventually surfaced, while also helping him understand that "no, this isn't some Mills-and-Boon shrew performance that will end in my submission to your worldly ways" would have been an interesting challenge...

One truly mind boggling part of the article is when the writer ropes in a cosmetic surgeon, who clearly fancies himself as a bit of an expert on ideal female behaviour as well as looks, to talk about the problem of materialism (sounds reasonable but you know it can't last!) and how the credit crunch is going to force women towards their "authenticity" because "they will no longer be able to pretend that they are rich or successful." Really.

Another man who knows all about how we women ought to be conducting ourselves is Psychologist Jeff Allen:

The feminine principle is about allowing things to unfold and happen, not always interfering.

Career women think that they have to be in control to make it happen, but if they stop and tap into some kind of emotional intelligence and empathy, it makes them better problem-solvers.

Incredibly, the writer of the article appears to find this patronising load of bluster enlightening:

I can see that being feminine is about allowing oneself to yield more and control less.

Two nights ago, I went to dinner with a male friend, and for the first time in years I looked more feminine, acted more femininely and, crucially, felt more feminine.

Not in a simpering way, but with a profound realisation that being able to show vulnerability isn't a female weakness but a sign of a woman's strength.

I love that "not in a simpering way" bit. Oh, the wise and confident feminine archetype who is no fool but knows her place! That mythological creature who is such a smart cookie that she manages to make patriarchy look empowering. No crude signs of servitude for this cartoon femmie the writer seems so keen to emulate. She yields with complete panache! This is guilt free oppression for the traditionalist man who doesn't want to look like a brute, because the archetype is designed to enable him to pretend it isn't happening.

I laughed but, honestly, I dread to think of some lonely woman who fancies men (and hasn't been with one for a while) reading this. I hate to think of her resigning herself to having to pander to such rubbish when, actually, there's nothing wrong with her at all and any man worth her time will accept her as a fully functioning human being rather than some modern Stepford wife in training.

Addendum: Overall, Laura and I picked out different quotes but I've now slightly cut one of mine to avoid repetition, as I didn't directly comment on the text in question anyway.

It's easy for me to say this now but I think I would have been compelled to add a comment to the entry if I had reached it to find very little had been said in the F-word comments about the ageist references to "dusty wombs" and "prune faced pensioners." However, criticisms had already been made and I didn't have anything to add to them. I would assume the same could be said for any other bloggers who didn't comment. This meant I was a bit riled to find Anji suggesting that we were negligent for not commenting and that even the publication of the post was somehow our collective responsibility:

Ms O’Reilly tried to make excuses for herself with “for those who have said they are using my post as proof of ageism displayed by The F Word - this post was my opinion and my opinion only.” However, it is impossible for her to not be representing the F-Word because she is writing for them. This was not a personal blog, it was a blog for a well-known feminist web site. There is no such thing as subjectiveness when your words are published by a site like that, because by allowing it to be published they are inherently saying “As a site agree with this behaviour.

I also find it interesting that none of the other F-Word writers (with the exception of the wonderful Anne Onne) have commented on the piece to call Abby O’Reilly out on her bigotry and prejudice. I am disappointed - in her, in the other writers, and in the editors of the site for letting such an ugly and sickening piece of blatant misogyny be published under the banner of ‘feminism.'

Hang on a minute. A "site like that"? Are we being mistaken for a national newspaper here? A big powerful corporation with massive funds and therefore massive responsibility? I know the F-word has had a certain amount of media interest, and therefore influence, but let's get this in perspective! Because the last time I checked, it comprised around 200 voluntary contributors (and counting) with different opinions and backgrounds. As I understand it, Catherine started the site as a place where a variety of feminist viewpoints could be expressed and the blog was an add-on to the features rather than the driving force behind the site. Sure, there have always been some ground rules, in terms of etiquette, for anyone wanting to take part but any feminist is free to contribute and, hopefully, also free to make mistakes without being hounded out of feminism. We should all expect to be called out on any prejudices that, sadly, we might harbour but berating writers who played no part in a post and attempting to persuade us to act like a baying mob, in some effort not to be associated with it is, as far as I'm concerned, totally not on.

The demand to be seen to be doing the right thing (as opposed to being encouraged to genuinely try to do so) seems just plain creepy to me. Is pressuring each other to superficially tick boxes and please the crowd really helpful to the cause? Surely being critical about prejudice stems from a desire for social justice and a belief that we all share a duty to eradicate discrimination? If the feminist movement takes an authoritarian approach and reduces the matter to lip service, hollow posturing and social control, no-one will ever learn anything and nothing will ever really change. We'll be just as bad as the very structures we fight against and those of us who might have stuff to work on will just end up nodding blandly in order to save face.

And what were we supposed to do anyway? Band together in some pompous show of mud slinging at Abby? Circle round her like vultures? Publicly denounce her so that everyone would know once and for all that we, the F-word, do not agree?

I'm more than willing to risk wounding a friend's pride for the worthier cause of drawing attention to discrimination but if that necessary wounding seems to have already taken place, I'll be damned if I'm going to run over and have a go myself.

I think both Anji and Joanne make excellent points about anti-choice arguments and ageism so, in essence, I agree with them. No problem there. The problem is that, on reading them, I have a sense that any defence against the charges made against us as F-word writers, will wrongly be taken as a show of support for ageism! For me, trying to make sure my genuine disagreement with the post is unequivocally clear just makes my words feel phoney and hollow even though I mean every word. Is this how feminist discourse is supposed to be? Because I don't see that there's anything liberating about it. (I also think all this is a little ironic when one considers that, less than a week before chastising us for not ganging up on Abby, Anji herself was somewhat exasperated to find a feminist she loves dearly being "sent to Coventry, Blyton-style" by other radical feminists for a perceived transgression.)

Who has the right to tell a voluntarily run website what stance they should take and when they should "speak out" as representatives? The comments about accountability in the comments for Anji's post make me wonder if it's worth anyone bothering to contribute to a collective website at all. What are we supposed to do? Disown any blogger who writes one bad piece? Three strikes and you're out? People complain our "Contemporary UK Feminism" tag is pompous but then expect us to act like some high and mighty, big branded faceless company! Can't we just be a collective of individual flawed human beings taking the opportunity to speak out and offering our time for free to be able to do so? Does the success of the site mean we are owned by the readership? I appreciate that influence brings responsibility but penalising people for a bit of recognition in their field just seems churlish. There are so many brilliant feminist blogs out there that deserve exposure. The F-word is just one of them so, rather than punishing the blogs that receive attention, I'd suggest we could instead be putting our energies into getting more and more voices heard. More than those that currently receive attention.

It seems like the politics don't really matter when it comes to that irresistible urge in us all, as human beings, to find a pariah, somewhere, somehow . We seem to love to have someone to bash or boss around. Even when we're trying to make a more equal world, it seems we can't resist the opportunity to try to dominate one another. I always thought feminism was about trying to free ourselves from empty, authoritarianism but it seems we just can't resist those stuffy conventional moral codes that say we are obliged to react in a specific way when someone behaves badly. Fuck that.

Mob mentality is not the way forward!

For the record, all this stuff actually led me to forget to consider what I really think about the future possibility for much older motherhood! I was generally inclined to sniff at any criticism of women choosing to become Mothers later in life but, on reflection, think Polly from Size of a Cow gives some good reasons why it may not necessarily be a good idea.

...masculine, upwardly mobile men, aged 25-44, who are passionate about cooking and the rewards that it might bring - pleasure, praise and potential seduction.

Aside from the glaring traditionalism suggested by their unquestioning use of the word "masculine," this all sounds very compelling but is making the whole thing sound like a sex craze involving the contents of people's stomachs really the most honest way to demonstrate their findings? I know "sex sells" and all that but it sounds to me like some branding expert considered the seduction part and decided the public would only be able to muster up any interest in the phenomenon if they forgot all the other factors and focused on the sexy bit.

The background is this: PurAsia are just about to launch a new Asian cooking product. They say they commissioned the report because they realised they needed to consider men more when looking at their "target market." Sounds fair enough. However, it looks like there's no need for gender traditionalists to worry that such inclusion will challenge the status quo because the report frequently refers to how these "unabashedly male cooks" approach their cooking in a so-called "male" way (whatever that means). Oh. So, in case we were wondering, these guys are not at all like women or anything shocking like that. No way.

To be fair, it's not all retrogressive stuff. Professor Melanie Howard is quoted saying:

Cooking is an efficient contribution to the house given the time you spend ... it means that you’re a good modern bloke and you’re playing your part...

But no! Wait! She also says "it is actually a more rewarding and creative form of domestic contribution" (more rewarding than the bits women can still expect to do?), along with this:

Many celebrity chefs are conspicuously masculine, red-blooded men. There is no suggestion that cooking is anything less than manly, which I think does make this field more attractive to men - and can actually also appeal to women.”

The message coming through here is that men will only take an interest in something traditionally seen as "feminine" if they have macho role models to show them it's still "manly." Isn't that rather insulting to men? I'd say yes because, even today, it seems they are widely assumed to be so utterly misogynistic that their every move must be informed by reassurance from other men that they are still part of the gang and still very different from women. How sad.

On the one hand, we are being told this is a case of men being progressive. On the other, it is being admitted that it's macho. Either way, there have certainly been some contradictory messages contained in the reporting on this issue. On a more positive note, there were guests* on BBC Breakfast this week, arguing that the matter is "more of a new man thing than a macho one" but this was slightly soured by the admission of one guy in their vox pop that he "leaves the practical stuff" to his girlfriend. Much as I'd like to be optimistic, I would say this sounds very much like the scenario one my boyfriend's chums described when she said her boyfriend loves cooking so it is her job to do the clearing up. Each to their own when it comes to private arrangements in relationships but it sounds to me like he got the better deal there.

In keeping with the argument that this is an all-too-common state of affairs, the presenter Sian Williams suggested women are often expected to multi-task and undertake a number of domestic chores, while men are given more opportunity to choose one job they can take pride in. Interestingly, one of the guests replied that it doesn't matter that some men don't like to clear up because we have dishwashers now and that means "everyone can have fun." I guess he actually meant to say everyone who can afford a dishwasher can have fun. Oh well. I suppose those who can't will just have to battle it out if no-one wants to clean up. Someone's going to have to buckle aren't they? But, surely, when it comes to domestic work, whoever does it and however dull it is, it's still important?

The trouble is that we seem to still be living in a world where work only becomes worthy of respect if it predominantly becomes "Men's work" and understood as something that does not detract from "manliness" if a man does it. Sadly, I'd say this study is a symptom of that.

Photo by McBeth, shared under a Creative Commons Licence.

* I didn't catch the names of the guests who appeared on BBC Breakfast this week to talk about men and cooking so if you know who they were, please get in touch!

Like Teresa, I have to say I too am extremely irritated by the increase in targeted adverts on Facebook and find it hard to believe that they are even effective because, as a matter of principle, I would never respond to any of them (even if I wanted to lose weight). The personalisation inherent in these campaigns seems to be rooted in the idea that quoting a person's age, alongside prompting her to wonder if maybe she could lose some weight, will give her a warm glow that is bound to lead her to hurriedly click that mouse so she can buy products from this wonderful company that has gone to such trouble to reach out to so many women of the same age at the same time. Because all chicks want to lose weight right?

I reckon Teresa's idea is fantastic and particularly love the ad pictured above. I really hope the idea catches on (we're certainly considering giving it a go here at the F-word!) and the only criticism I have is that, as far as I can tell from what Teresa says on her blog, only one group has been targeted: single women aged 18-30. Still, I can appreciate that Teresa is paying for the ads out of her own pocket and that covering all the groups who potentially get targeted with this trash would potentially be a bit much for just one person.

So if you can spare a few quid and a few moments, get subvertising!

As Eileen Atkins said in the interview, she will not really be playing Germaine Greer but a fictional "well-known feminist who's written lots of books and changed people's lives." The major text authored by the character is called The Cerebral Vagina; a title which seems to attempt to evoke both The Female Eunuch and The Vagina Monologues but I would argue actually conjures up a caricature of feminism rather than any convincing-sounding feminist theory. In keeping with this, Atkins' brief talk of feminism in the interview was all too familiar. She seemed to be tentatively emphasising feminism's importance as a faintly embarrassing but, nonetheless, "very necessary" Thing-of-the-Past. Her implication was that we've achieved equality, but with the roundabout suggestion that maybe it's not really what women want after all:

...The comedy is about what feminism has done to everybody because people are very muddled about it now. I mean, um… You know, I think it was very necessary -myself personally- and I think we needed to (pause) become more… much more equal with men but then you get equal with men and then, suddenly, a lot of women then really actually would like to be thrown across the room a couple of times or dragged along the floor… Do you know what I mean? (cue to Jonathan smiling and looking engaged) There's a sort of feeling about them too that they also want... They want to be equal but they also want the men to top them...

Is there really anything so "sudden" about there being a lot of women who find rough treatment thrilling? (Anyone would think that Mills and Boon never existed!) Atkins seems to be implying that we now live in an egalitarian Utopia that -who'd have ever thought it?- actually makes women yearn for Real Men.

I can appreciate why Atkins may have been compelled to take a tentative approach with regard to feminism but holding up women who "like to be thrown across the room a couple of times or dragged along the floor" as possible evidence that maybe women don't really want to be equal in society is just ridiculous. In my view, it adds to the usual scapegoating of such women as traitors to feminism when, actually, it should simply serve as a reminder that women have diverse sexual preferences! There are plenty of masochistic men around and, funnily enough, I don't see many people making sweeping statements about men in general or men's status in society because of their existence.

Photo by Danny McL, shared under a Creative Commons Licence.

NB: I changed one of the words in the final paragraph of this article. The details can be found in the comments.

Harajuku is an area in the Shibuya ward of Tokyo, Japan. The term Harajuku Girls is commonly used in English Language media to refer to teenagers dressed in any fashion style there (Knight, 2007). The area's young people have a reputation for being fashionable and, in particular, are directly influential on the publication Fruits (a fashion magazine that promotes the styles seen in the area). According to Wikipedia:

"Harajuku Girls may be members of various sub-cultures including Gothic Lolita, Ganguro, Gyaru, and Kogal and may also be dressed as characters from an anime, movie, or manga (known as cosplay)."

You might also be aware of the term "The Harajuku Girls" in relation to the back-up dancers that have appeared with Gwen Stefani during her solo projects. I admit I don't know a lot about them and get the impression that this mystery is kind of the point. I also tend to find myself uncomfortable with this set-up when I see Stefani appearing with them in interviews and I never actually see them speak. Not even once. Again, I realise this is all part of the performance but can't help wondering what Asian women make of all this. After all, Stefani is the one who gets to bask in their reflected glory, while also fronting the show as The Star (i.e the one who leads the gang and puts out albums with her name on the cover). The Harajuku Girls, meanwhile, look pretty cool but definitely seem to be appearing as ornamental aspects of the performance who, essentially, flank Stefani.

I have to say I wasn't particularly inspired to alter my view when I got to the end of the interview with Gwen Stefani's husband Gavin Rossdale in today's Metro:

Metro: Does Gwen leave her Harajuku Girls lying around the house?

Gavin: Yes. They move out of the way if you ask them but who gets upset about having some Harajuku Girls in the house? They’re great.

Okay, okay... I'm sure it could be suggested that both Metro and Gavin were being firmly Tongue-in-Cheek when they uttered those words. After all, one could easily retort that the Harajuku Girls are professional performers who choose their projects and inspire fans with their style and presence. The performance is based on the concept that they are beautiful art objects and that's all it is: a performance. This means killjoys like me should stop wringing our hands over all the privilege and try to appreciate it for what it is: again, a performance.

These reflections do not change the fact that my mouth literally dropped open when I read that final question in the interview. Is it really misguided of me to ask what exactly is going on here?

Are the Harajuku Girls stylish and formidable performers who have effectively sculpted themselves to become an impressive human art form or are they just playing out some awful stereotype that portrays Japanese women as silent, supportive and decorative?

Photo by Extra Medium, shared under a Creative Commons Licence.

I’m pretty much split 50/50 with regard to whether this game is worthy of critique (just make sure you do this if you link to them for reference anywhere). However, you might be interested to have a look at the rather poorly argued comments from Nicolas Jacquart, a partner in the company behind the game, in Thirteen1's article. If these are anything to go by, I'd say any feminist gamers who fancy dropping the game makers a line in the "Ask Miss Bimbo" discussion in the thirteen1.com forum that's online right now will have an easy debating job on their hands. According to Jacquart, “any publicity is good publicity” (handy silencing strategy there!) and he has hit out at their critics with this particularly weasley line:

With the way they over-protect young females, you could almost say it's sexism from the media. They don't need to be protected any more than males do, yet a game about taking weight supplements to increase a characters muscle, then using this to get a hot girl, would never receive the kind of criticism we are!

The magazine adds:

Would there be a hint of sensationalism from the media if it was called Mr Stud?

Let's, for a moment, say they have a point here. You see, I genuinely am quite sick of girls being overprotected as a matter of course so I guess you could say Jacquart has managed to push my civil libertarian feminist buttons with that particular line. First point of call for the investigation? How about that sexist game all about taking weight supplements to "get a hot girl"? You know, the one that apparently has the feminist gold seal of approval because nobody's criticising it? How about "Mr Stud"? (Because everyone knows that people who take issue with “Bimbo” characters generally have no problem at all with the notion of a “stud”!)

I can’t find either of them! Admittedly, I’m not the most knowledgeable person when it comes to gaming but could it be that they are talking about the lack of reaction to a sexist game that doesn’t actually exist (and isn't there a reason for that?) to make a point about a sexist one that really does? Clever Stuff.

I await "Mr Stud" with baited breath.

Thanks to F-Word reader Bob for alerting us to this story.

I’ve been thinking about Zohra’s entry on the personal not always being political in the abortion debate but wanted to make sure we won the battle to retain the 24 week limit before I voiced my thoughts about it, as they specifically relate to how I think personal preferences and convictions on later abortion intersect with the need for abortion on demand.

While I think Zohra has very astutely highlighted the unfortunate apologist rhetoric of some pro-choicers, I also agree with some of the comments in response to it. I would say we need to stand alongside those people who support the right to choose, regardless of their own inkling with regard to what they think they might do and/or have done when faced with an unwanted pregnancy.

For example, a woman might personally feel that she could never have an abortion beyond a particular point, while also realising that there are many situations where a woman might want and need one beyond it. She can wholeheartedly support that woman's right to terminate her pregnancy at a later time but have her own personal reasons not to do the same. I think such a standpoint is significant in the fight for abortion on demand because, as the law currently stands, that woman could

1) go to her doctor when just a few weeks pregnant, saying she needs an abortion as soon as possible because she doesn't want to allow the pregnancy to develop to a point where she would feel unable to terminate it, and
2) still end up a lot more pregnant before she can get one.

I would like to see the medical profession adopting a code of ethics that views allowing a woman who emphatically says she doesn’t want to be pregnant to remain so for even a couple of weeks longer as wrong. Surely the apparent risk of regret that anti-abortion campaigns so like to draw attention to is worth it if every woman is given a better opportunity to terminate an unwanted pregnancy before it develops into anything resembling a "baby"? Okay, so this one is a bit of a no-brainer if someone is against abortion full stop but, despite the recent attempts to lower the limit, I still suspect that plenty of anti-abortion campaigners would prefer a woman to go through a later abortion rather than an early one. I would even go as far as to say it is actually in their interests for unwanted pregnancies (even those which -against their wishes- eventually end in abortion) to develop as far as possible. I think there are some people out there who genuinely want abortion to be really horrible, difficult and traumatic and that they know this is somewhat more likely to happen if unwanted foetuses are forced to develop beyond a cluster of barely discernible cells.

The campaign to reduce the limit was arguably little more than a diversionary tactic. I didn't see those who argued for a reduction of the time limit loudly saying that early abortion should be made easier to make later abortion less likely. As Zohra noted, the debate on abortion law should be about improving access and advancing more progressive policies but that particular campaign has been sadly lacking. I'd say this has happened because pro-choice energy and effort has had to be put into defending a time limit that already had medical backing and really did not need to be challenged in the first place.

The recent threat to go backwards has conveniently put the need to go forwards on the backburner. As Laura and Jess said earlier today, that battle must now recommence.

Photo by Labour Youth, shared under a Creative Commons Licence.

Though arguably not quite worthy of my "fury," I discussed this thinly veiled effort to keep the sexes in their traditional places on the Richard Bacon show on Tuesday (scroll through to about an hour and a half in). Colin has said he is "blowing a raspberry" at so-called "political correctness" and this obviously makes the book sound edgy but there isn't anything very rebellious going on as far as I can see. If anything, he just seems to be blowing a raspberry at women in celebration of the fact that we get looked at more than men do.

Judging by what Pierre Louis Colin said during our discussion and the quotes I've read, I'd say this "guide" is basically one man's quaint, misty-eyed fantasy of a culture where men who fancy women stride about, all-seeing and all-knowing, while we lovely ladies feel special because -oh joy!- these lofty adventurers might have something flattering to say about us. Here's a prime quote:

In this troubled century, while from America come the echoes of another moral order, the responsibility of the contemplator is immense: in his respectful courtesy depends a part of the survival of our civilisation of liberty, of gentleness, and of grace.

Surprise! The contemplator is framed as male. If you were in any doubt with regard to the unequal conditions that underpin this assumption, here's a Daily Mail comment to contemplate:

Now that's my kind of elected official. The kind of guy you can sit down and have a beer (or a glass of wine) with and shoot the breeze about sports and women.

Doesn't this commenter realise that smugness is deeply unattractive? Okay, I admit I'm being obtuse now...

That said, I'll admit that I have been known to "shoot the breeze" about men. I've also done a fair bit of roaming about, quietly observing and contemplating them. Of course, all that hanging out alone in public spaces sometimes leads to me being interrupted by some random guy who has decided to loudly make it clear that he is going to contemplate me but, hey, what the hell. As we are constantly told -in no uncertain terms- equality has been achieved! If I get frustrated, I can always pop to my local newsagent to grab one of the many magazines showcasing sexy men with full boners, getting thoroughly rogered by anonymous women for my pleasure...

All that talk of the freedom to "contemplate," along with the author saying he is on a "high mission," seems to allude to the intellectual. Perhaps such high-mindedness is beyond me because I have to admit I'm having trouble appreciating the great philosophical high ground to be gained from making a special trip to the Spiral staircase at Cafe Louis Philippe to look up women's skirts (one of Pierre louis Colin's recommendations in the book). Perhaps I would understand if some randy lover of men informed me of the cunning ways that I could invade men's privacy by sneaking a look at their cocks without their permission. Perhaps a tour of the urinals is in order? I wonder what the Daily Mail would have to say about that? (They don't seem to have much faith in men so I'm guessing the words Asking, For and It would figure somewhere.)

In all seriousness, I don't really think there is anything wrong with anyone admiring another person's beauty. Being a sex object from time to time is fine if it doesn't drown out everything else or become unmanageably one-sided. As I've said before, I also happen to think men miss out when society doesn't fully appreciate the beauty of their bodies.

Hopefully, for the women of Paris, this book will prove to be a passing novelty item. If it doesn't, they can probably expect some very annoying tourists.

Photo by KRFulton, shared under a Creative Commons Licence.

Personally, I've always refused to count how many people I've had sex with. I could work it out if I needed to but it's a number that I refuse to be defined by. In my experience, some attempt to pigeon-hole people according to how much sex they've had is generally the reason for the question and I've read plenty of articles in women's magazines to back that up. (I recall one in Glamour featuring women holding up score cards in the street and another inviting men to judge women according to how many lovers they'd had.)

What I'm more interested in is what people actually mean when they ask the golden question. Indeed, when I've asked someone to clarify it, they often reveal that they're only referring to people who I did "It" with. When I probe them further (no pun intended), they often reveal that they mean conventional vaginal intercourse. Generally speaking, if you say you get it on with the other sex, it is assumed that only so-called "going all the way" counts. Andy from South London (a respondent in Kira Cochrane's vox pop at the bottom of her article) echoes this trend by saying he's not sure if a couple of his lovers "count" because there wasn't "full penetration."

Of course, how far it goes in makes all the difference.

He also wants photo requirements on job applications and airbrushing in magazines to be outlawed and for the levy to be donated to "the ugly." I'm right with him on the first two goals but I must say the mind boggles when it comes to how on earth the government would decide who could be classed as "ugly." Would they use a very narrow definition that attempts to boil attractiveness down to an exact science? (For the record, the one I've linked to looks pretty sexist too.) Would there be a sliding scale or a sharp cut-off point? Would the government have to make turning up to get assessed compulsory? Or would they rely on people voluntarily stepping forward as potential "uglies" for official confirmation? Imagine the backlash! Surely a whole section of lower taxpayers (not to mention the recipients of the funds) would end up being vilified for their certified status as "officially not good looking"?

Thank goodness Lucy Mangan jokily suggests rebates for late bloomers. Just think of all those people who spent their early years suffering as apparent ugly ducklings only to be penalised for turning into swans...

Then again, maybe we'd actually see a positive result, as hoardes of tax-dodgers got slack in the effort to make sure they looked as minging as possible. Perhaps some people would discover that life is much more fun when you don't fritter your time away on trying to look attractive?

As ever, the Daily Mail agenda came flooding through:

It is thought the phenomenon has its roots deep in evolution, with men who sow their wild oats being more likely to pass on their genes to the next generation.

Women, on the other hand, gain little from being free with their favours and prefer stable types who will provide for them and their children.

Yawn.

In brief, the story is this: Daisy Idwal Jones was employed as one of the models flanking the show's participants on the catwalk as they did their final walk of glory. Wan apparently turned the charm firmly off for the supporting models, calling them "slags" and "dirty little sluts" as he directed them. He also allegedly made references to their genitals. In addition to this, Idwal Jones states that she hadn't given consent to be filmed at any time other than when she was on the catwalk but was, nonetheless, interrupted and filmed in the changing room by the camera crew. When she told the producer how angry she was about this, she was simply told it would "make great TV."

There's definitely a strong hint in the comments for this article (and aren't the Daily Mail ones always a joy?) that Idwal Jones is just some “pass the smelling salts” type getting her knickers all in a twist about Wan's camp and vulgar humour but it seems to me that it wasn't the language that was the real problem here but the way it was directed. Personally, I don’t care what words he used. I'd simply say that behaving dismissively towards the models and directly insulting them, would be deeply hypocritical behaviour for someone doing a show that claims to be all about making people feel good.

There have also been suggestions from some commenters that Idwal Jones is just exaggerating the story in order to get publicity for the ethical agency that she is setting up. This is a fair point but, then again, it doesn't take a genius to suggest that she must have had some shitty treatment somewhere along the line to even see the need for such an agency in the first place. Sonja's comment on celebgalz.com backs this up:

...She gave this interview a year ago and the Mail tied it in with the start of the new series of HTLGN, not with Daisy launching her agency.

She was more bothered by Gok referring to her genitals (not on display, just to clear things up!) in front of a laughing film crew than the foul language he used in general, and I think it’s about time someone exposed the way so-called celebs are abusing fellow performers, as well as generally pointing a finger at the more unpleasant sides of the business. As a former actress myself I can really relate, and as her friend I know how shaken she was by the unprofessional treatment she received.

About time, too, agencies started treating models with the respect they deserve without withholding fees for months on end and encouraging girls to starve themselves! I don’t know how anyone can argue with that.

There's also some scathing commentary from Paul English in the Daily Record:

Judging by this show's central premise, Gok thinks the average woman's self-esteem is so low, it holds her back from doing all manner of things that would make her happier.

These seem to include wandering through shopping centres in the buff - watched by her mortified children - and padding down high streets in her scants.

Emily Pankhurst would be proud.

Then again, many of the girls caught up in the self-destructive psychological circle of shows like this (ie - feed women's neuroses, give them a make-over and smugly take their thanks and praise) probably think a suffragette is something they get under their eyes that can be covered up with a decent concealer.

Much as I want to like How to Look Good Naked, I'm starting to think perhaps the whole set-up is just a camped up version of the satirical man-takes-charge scenario that Lucy pointed out in the comments earlier today. I'm all for women and men crusading together but I do think something stinks when I see a woman who doesn't like her body being urged by an over-zealous self-esteem guru to slip into something "more feminine." As Natasha from London says in the Daily Mail Comments "Whatever happened to sisters doing it for themselves, not sisters getting a man to do it for them?"

Following up on the allegations recently levelled at us, Zenobia at Mind the Gap has offered some wise words about the importance of open and fair criticism.

Successful debate obviously requires co-operation on both sides and, as well as suggesting the F-word could have been a bit more robust in dealing with what was essentially an unfair accusation, Zenobia points out that critics need to be realistic about what any one blog can be expected to achieve:

I get the feeling that people are expecting the F-Word to represent the entirety of UK feminism, and to provide True Feminist Enlightenment, when they can’t possibly do that, they’re human after all. They’re not there to teach you all about feminism, or to agree with you and make you feel good, or to validate your opinions...

...It’s just as unfair to treat people as infallible goddesses as it is to treat them as subhuman scum. In fact, one often results in the other. So stop it, be open and honest, argue, debate, and don’t be afraid to criticise and take criticism.

That said, I don't wholly agree with Zenobia's conclusions about women's unfortunate history with authority:

The other thing is, we’re used to looking up to authority figures, and waiting for someone else to tell us what to think and do. This doesn’t pan out too well in feminist groups, because (1) we’re supposed to be rejecting patriarchal power structures, and (2) we’re used to looking up to male authority figures, so as soon as the phalli vanish, we’re left milling around aimlessly biting ourselves in the arse...

...I guess what I’m saying is, as women, we’ve forgotten how to engage with each other, because female friendships and female sense of community are very taboo, we’re supposed to interact in family units instead. So instead of engaging with each other, we tend to be looking around for the dad figure to tell us what to do next.

While I certainly agree that we generally expect some "authority" to be just around the corner, I would perceive a somewhat different fall-out from that. If anything, I think the legacy of patriarchy tends to make women -especially the feminists amongst us- extremely touchy about leadership. (Perhaps another good reason for us to try not to dictate to each other or undermine one another when it comes to contentious issues?)

The same applies to other oppressed groups. Anyone can get duped into doing stuff they don't really agree with, however dissident or conforming they generally are (indeed, I'd say a painful awareness of that fact is often what makes a person dissident in the first place), but -from what I can gather- it doesn't generally seem to be the white middle class men in our society who resent authority the most passionately.

From my own observations, it seems that plenty of men are happy enough to look to a leader to ask "what's next?" and that this is precisely because they are comfortable that a slice of the pie could be theirs soon. We women, on the other hand, are not only understandably susceptible to scarcity mentality, but we also tend to be more suspicious of those who have power or attempt to take it. We're often the ones to say "who the hell does s/he think s/he is?" if someone bursts onto the scene as if they're in charge of the manor. We're the ones more likely to see authority as bad, evil or, at the very least, problematic. We've already got traditional power structures still bubbling away beneath the surface so the last thing we need is yet more people telling us what to do and what to think. The trouble is that an open and inclusive space is at risk of informally reinforcing the structures we were trying to fight in the first place.

As ever, it seems that, feminist groups and organisations can sometimes experience complications because of an active rejection of party-lines, structures and hierarchies as well as the usual problems one would expect when they formally occur.

I think people have a lot of respect for Jess and Catherine partly because they have both shown that they are not raging authoritarians. They both have a flexible and inclusive style as organisers and I'd say this is necessary due to feminism's painful awareness of the indignity that hierarchies generally bring. If the F-word suddenly claimed to have all the answers, a lot of people within the feminist movement would quite rightly be sceptical.

I would suggest it's no coincidence that, as the F-word continues to become more influential, we are experiencing somewhat more flack from the critical and radical resources that problematise power the most. In many ways this is perfectly reasonable and necessary but we need to make sure it doesn't lead to us being unfairly labelled as the enemy.

I was pretty resolute in my instinctive answer to this question when it was initially put to me but, as Kate demonstrated, there are actually a variety of ways of answering this question as a feminist.

Overall, however, I would still argue that it's a man's world because:

1. Men don't tend to be discriminated against at work because of their biological ability to become parents but women of childbearing age often are. Also, if a man-born-man feels the need to become a biological parent (which obviously isn't the be-all and end-all but that's another debate) he can generally look to a woman to do the scary pregnancy and birth bit. How lucky is that?

Obviously, not all women have wombs but I've yet to find a man lamenting his lack of one. Indeed, it seems that the ability to give birth is often a disadvantage in practice, despite actually being a theoretical advantage in the first place.

2. It still seems that the majority of men can walk around topless on the beach without attracting comment. The majority of women can't.

3. Convention encourages men to take it for granted that they will get to keep their names if they get married. That doesn't mean every man will but the question of name-change still doesn't come up as much for men as it does for women and this implies that female identity is still framed as more mutable than male identity.

3. Men are generally less likely to to find their Facebook celebrations of their drunken high jinx in a damning Daily Mail feature. They can even get their willy out for a wee in public and, though it might attract a few tuts, it is seen as something to be expected and I've certainly never overheard anyone saying "he's going to get himself raped."

4. A ropey female DJ will always attract attention. A ropey male one might just get away with it (depending on where he's playing). As a sometimes-ropey female DJ on occasion, I'm speaking from experience here.

A good female DJ generally attracts amazement and surprise. The same applies to a woman who is geeky and knowledgeable about records. Again, I'm speaking from experience here... Yes, I realise this could be considered to be something of an advantage. It just wears a little thin when the guy you are trying to chat to about that rare Lime 12" just keeps looking at your boyfriend and saying "amazing!" and "you've done well there mate."

5. The old cliche about men being able to put it about without attracting anywhere near the same level of vilification that "easy" women do still seems to hold true. Only recently, I read a Scarlet mag piece that asked a whole load of guys in the street about women who sleep with men on the first date. Unfortunately, a number of their answers were disheartening.

Overall, I would say we women often get it good for all the wrong reasons (i.e chivalrous ones), while men often find themselves having a hard time for displaying behaviour that is seen to be "like a girl." Men are unfortunately viewed as more dispensable but receive more respect while we women are cherished and preserved but punished for our mollycoddled existence by being regularly cast as mere shadows of our male counterparts.

There's also the controversial question of getting checked out at the doctor. Women are encouraged to do this all the bloody time. Men are encouraged not to do it enough. I'm not sure what's worse but I know I don't appreciate being made to feel guilty if I haven't jumped at every available chance to be a good girl and spread my legs for the doctor. (Roll on HPV testing I say!)

If so, Dollymix's warning from Shinykatie about crime e-mail forwards will make you chuckle. She also did a less jokey post about the problem in March, focussing on the very misleading "Through a Rapist's Eyes" piece that Tigtog from Hoyden About Town very thoroughly critiqued (and is also well worth a look).

These hoax e-mails' are little more than mealy-mouthed insults to women's intelligence. They add to society's cosy celebration of female vulnerability and waste the time of those who genuinely want to change things. When I had the misfortune to receive several within a short space of time a few years ago, I actually set up an e-mail address purely for the purpose of anonymously flagging up such warnings as potential crap, without having to agonise over whether my bursting of the togetherness-through-fear bubble would cause offence. However, it never really caught on and, seeing as I quite like the idea of orchestrating a reactionary chain of scarestory spoiling to end the chain of scarestories, I'd like to share it with F-word readers to cut, paste, edit and use as a mythbusting tool:

Dear Friend,

You have been sent this message for one of 2 reasons:

1. You recently forwarded or received an e-mail alerting people to a potential danger and, as I'm sure the message was sent in good faith, I want to assure you that the story is untrue or

2. You are part of an internet community that is likely to be concerned about some of the issues that dominate scare stories and I'd like you to join me in putting a stop to the scaremongering

There is a quick, simple and free way of finding out if the story you've been forwarded is true or a hoax.

Just go to:

http://www.snopes.com

and then type a key word from the story into a search.

Some recent examples of scare stories include:

* Warnings about robbers/attackers who approach women in car parks, ask them what perfume they wear and then offer them a scent to sniff which is said in the e-mail to be a substance that makes the sniffer lose consciousness

http://www.snopes.com/crime/warnings/perfume.asp

* Variations of the urban myth about a killer lurking in the backseat of a woman's car

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/madmen/backseat.asp

* Tales of a drug called Progesterex that is apparently being used by date rapists to sterilize victims

http://www.snopes.com/toxins/progest.htm

* The myth that Tampon manufacturers use asbestos in their products to promote bleeding

http://www.snopes.com/toxins/tampon.htm

* There are also various e-mails containing potentially dangerous generalisations on how to avoid being raped

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/rape.htm

Obviously, e-mail is a potentially good way of keeping friends and colleagues up to date on issues like personal safety but for this to truly work, we all need to check whether e-mail warnings stem from hoaxes before taking the further action of forwarding them on.

Have you found this e-mail useful? If so, please consider keeping it and then forwarding it whenever you receive an e-mail that looks like a potential hoax.

Thanks for reading this,

A Scarestory Spoiler

Currently, positive discrimination is illegal. The issue of whether it might actually be called for was the topic of a debate I briefly took part in, along with Simon Woolley of Operation Black Vote and Personnel Today's Tony Pettengell, on the Richard Bacon show last Tuesday. You can still listen to this discussion on-line until later on 25 March.