I've always leant strongly towards the social constructionist theory of gender. As I discussed last week, this model has allowed me to challenge what society generally accepts to be the norm regarding gender roles, characteristics and identities, enabling me to embrace a female identity defined only by myself. I had previously struggled with the label "female" because I didn't feel comfortable with what this label generally means and entails in patriarchal society. No more. In short, embracing the social constructionist theory of gender has been a liberating experience for me. Fuck gender, I'd say, let's get rid of it altogether and then we'll all be free.

Lucky, aren't I? Not to mention arrogant. Because as a cis woman (by which I mean non-trans), I have the privilege of being able to write off gender, of deciding that it doesn't matter to me any more. A little while back, when I first came across the term cisexual, I questioned its validity. Helen G said that, as a ciswoman, I must have 'only ever experienced my subconscious and physical sexes as being aligned'. I found this strange, because I've never felt like a woman in my head - I just am.
Well exactly! Something in my brain is quite happy for me to exist with a female sexed body, and it is the very feeling of being myself - of not feeling gendered, but being comfortable with who I am - that indicates that my sex - female - is completely in harmony with the gender my brain - I, my soul, whatever - expects me to be.

I cannot begin to imagine what it would feel like not to experience that harmony. But I can imagine that if one does not feel that sense of just being oneself, of not being obviously gendered because one's brain accepts one's sexual body (i.e. if one is cisexual), if one's brain, or soul, or being, whatever you want to call it, feels differently sexed to one's body, it must seem insulting, arrogant and privileged to hear others claim that gender is just an illusion, that we should destroy it, that we'll never be free until we rid ourselves of this socially constructed, patriarchal delusion.

I realise now that my previous beliefs that we could - and should - rid ourselves entirely of gender are all of those things. How convenient and easy it is for a cis woman to say that gender is nothing but a social construction. How arrogant to ignore the experiences of trans gendered people, not only because I was genuinely never aware of them before, but because they posed a threat to my convenient little theory of liberation that worked so well for me that it must work for everyone else on the planet!

Yes, the existence of trans gendered people challenges the social constructionist model held so dear by radical feminists in particular. That doesn't mean we can just pretend they don't exist - it means we need to rethink that theory.

The experience of trans gendered people indicates that there is at least some natural, biological component to gender. Accepting this idea does not mean that we cannot recognise and challenge the socially constructed nature of patriarchal conceptions of gender, of masculinity, of femininity, of our roles and qualities and characteristics as men and women, and the extent to which those qualities are valued within our society. Both cis and trans people suffer due to the restrictive nature of the patriarchal gender model. In Whipping Girl, trans woman Julia Serano describes how trans women seeking gender realignment surgery are often forced to conform to traditionally feminine modes of dress and behaviour in order to convince their therapists and members of the medical profession - whose concepts of gender are often firmly entrenched in patriarchal nonsense - that they are really committed to "becoming" women, that they really "understand" what it is to be a woman.

I'm sure any woman reading this - trans or cis - would tell them where they can shove their notions of womanhood. And I'm sure any woman - trans or cis - would be able to describe the effects that these patriarchal notions of womanhood - and in particular the sexism in which they are based - have on our daily lives.

No, we don't all share the same experiences as women. Trans and cis woman no doubt have very different experiences of womanhood, and of life in general. But so do Black women and White women, gay and straight and bi women, able and disabled women, British and Indian, old and young. You get my drift. What unites is our common experience as the sexual underclass. The discrimination we face as women manifests itself in different ways for different women, and it does not override the other forms of discrimination many of us face, but it is something that can only be overcome if we work together, if we support each other. And that means fighting against all the forms of discrimination we face.

So, for those who like to “question transgender (politics)”: if the existence of trans gendered people upsets your world view, then perhaps - instead of trying to find a way to explain them away, to frame them as the enemy, to ignore their personhood because you feel that your politics is far more important than their well-being - you should give that world view a wee bit of a rethink. I know I have.

I wrote this post in the spirit of trying to be an ally (well, making a start at it anyway), so only supportive/positive comments will be published. Feel free to discuss other points elsewhere. Comments may take a while to appear as I am away from the computer for much of the day.

While caring for the female student, I felt a sudden impulse to expose her breast. Not knowing how to deal with this feeling at the time - and to put it more clearly, not knowing how to make sense of such an urge, given my personal values and my politics - I acted upon it. With a digital camera I kept with me regularly, I briefly photographed and took a few seconds of video of the woman’s breast. She did not consent to this act, nor did she have any knowledge of it at the time. This event ended as quickly as it began, leaving me in a state of disbelief at what I had done.

Oh, and he also has the cheek to expect that he will one day be "welcomed back into a community of feminists".

Dream on, sugar. There's no excuse for what you did, you don't deserve women's trust and you can certainly give up any pretensions to the labels of feminist or women's rights activist. Accept you did a shitty abusive thing, move on, and don't come back.

We need supporters of your ilk like a pro-lifer in the GP's chair.

H/t Renegade Evolution.

Perhaps the "girls" can shed some light on this, but while the cowboys understandably didn't expect the women to do too well after just ten days' training, the stereotypical chauvinistic comments made by some appeared to be put on for the camera, and the admiration they expressed at the end of the programme after the women successfully herded a group of over 300 cattle across the plains more or less unaided was certainly neither begrudging nor insincere.

The voice over (male, of course) was pretty irritating - if I point out that it was deemed necessary to highlight that successful barrister (Dr) Laura was single (cue knowing nods from Daily Mail readers) you get the general impression. However, I have no real beef with the show - it's just reality TV entertainment after all. Yet it did highlight some important issues: why this constant need to prove that women are just as good as men? Why strive so hard to be accepted by men in their world and on their terms? Isn't it time to take a step back and start questioning the core values which underpin not only society as a whole but also some areas of feminism?

Most people will tell you that feminism is about equality. But, as French feminist Luce Irigaray astutely asks in Je, Tu, Nous, equality to whom? To men? If we hold up men, and therefore the patriarchal masculine roles, qualities and values as woman's ultimate goal, then what becomes of woman? In Helen's recent post on the gender estimator, reader Snuffles admitted to a momentary feeling of disappointment at being told she was more female than male, and I for one can certainly add my voice to that admission. Men - man's traditional roles, man's past times, man's strengths - are viewed as infinitely cooler, more worthwhile, more important than women and women's traditional roles, past times, qualities and values. As Julia Serano highlights in the excellent Whipping Girl (which I'm only half way through - more on this soon), femininity - be it patriarchal, natural, innate, constructed, individual, performative - is thoroughly devalued in our society.

When I was younger, I wanted to be a boy for these very reasons. I was never prevented from doing anything or behaving in any way because I was a girl, yet I knew it was much cooler to be a boy. As I grew up - and particularly when I found feminism - I learnt to reconcile my identity as a woman with what society would view as the more masculine aspects of my personality, and I realised that being a woman couldn't just mean xyz if I was w: I didn't need to deny or belittle my sex in order to be who I am. Yet I still catch myself trying to be one of the guys, to prove that I'm no different from them - just as good as them, just as worthwhile as them, in the areas they deem to be important - because I'm still subject to the deeply ingrained teaching that men are simply better than women.

We all know that's not true. So instead of trying to prove ourselves, to gain recognition from the man on his terms, to fit into his world, to be equal to him, I say let's be who we want to be, make the world we want to live in, with the values we hold dear, and let's work towards genuine liberation for everyone - women and men - from the constraints of the patriarchal gender system and the sexist values that support it.*

In short, forget equality: can I get an L...?

*Just want to make it clear that I'm not in any way directing this at the women who took part in Dangerous Jobs for Girls - I couldn't do what you did! - the show's concept just lead me down this train of thought.

Extremely cool pre-1922 Cowgirl photo by Heather Green Photography, shared under a Creative Commons License.

The government is also calling for the abolition of the provocation defence for those who kill their partners. As Harriet Harman correctly highlights, this 17th century law, and the misogynist attitudes that underpin it, has allowed men who murder their wives to get off extremely lightly - if not entirely - for far too long:

For centuries the law has allowed men to escape a murder charge in domestic homicide cases by blaming the victim. Ending the provocation defence in cases of "infidelity" is an important law change and will end the culture of excuses.

There is no excuse for domestic violence, let alone taking a life. Whatever happens in a relationship does not justify resorting to violence. So men who kill their wife will have to face a murder charge and will no longer be able to claim 'it's her fault, she provoked me.'

Changing the law will end the injustice of women being killed by their husband and then being blamed. It will end the injustice of the perpetrators making excuses saying it's not my fault - it's hers.

Sadly - but unsurprisingly - the proposals have caused outcry in certain circles. David Howarth, Lib Dem justice spokesman, claims that:

On domestic violence, ministers are guilty of hype. As the government's own research shows, there are no recent examples of men being found not guilty of murder simply because of sexual infidelity.

Nice, Dave, really nice. Two women killed every week by partners or ex-partners is just "hype". In any case, this isn't about being found not guilty. This is about men like Paul Daulton, who received only two years in jail for manslaughter after killing his wife Tae Hui:

Dalton punched her, she died, then he cut up her body with an electric saw, and stored the pieces in a freezer. He was cleared of murder on the grounds of provocation; the judge said that he had suffered "no little taunting on her [his wife's] part". Dalton received just two years in jail for her manslaughter, but got three years for what many might consider the lesser crime of preventing a burial. He is appealing against the sentence.

The proposed laws would ensure that men who kill their wives cannot resort to misogynistic defence strategies in order to avoid the punishment they deserve, and I really fail to see what's so wrong with that. While I cannot comment on whether the government's approach to murder law reform is the right one from a legal perspective (being entirely devoid of legal knowledge), it is certainly heartening to see gender inequalities within British law being addressed in this direct way. If the QC quoted in The Guardian is anything to go by, those calling for a more general and radical overhaul of murder law certainly don't appear to be in any hurry to seek justice for those killed by violent partners:

Overall, the effect of these changes will be to keep people who have killed through loss of temper or self-control in prison for longer than necessary. That is hardly a reform.

Well, no, not if you think losing your temper with a wife who cheats on you somehow diminishes the crime of murder. Fortunately, those in charge of the reforms have other, more progressive ideas.

NB: Don't even think about reading The Mail's response to this, entitled "Go soft on killer wives". Now that's provocation.

We've worked ourselves half to death in order to conquer the career ladder, yet in the process we've trampled our core femininity into the ground.

These days, as a single parent and sole breadwinner, I often feel more masculine than feminine.

Working full-time, making every decision, paying every bill, driving myself everywhere, booking tickets for holidays, lugging the Christmas tree in - it's all completely de-feminising.

Shit, being in control of your own life really sucks, doesn't it? As recently as this very afternoon I felt a rather uncomfortable twinge in my groin as I filled my car up with petrol, paid for by my own hard graft, and looked down to see I'd grown a penis!

Seriously, why don't these FeMail writers spend their days fainting prettily and polishing their fingernails if the freedom feminism continues to grant us is so soul destroying? Do they ever stop and think that maybe they wouldn't have the privilege of waxing lyrical about the wonders of some mythical internal femininity, based solely on our ability to "yield more and control less", if it wasn't for those dastardly feminists who positively forced them to become career women?

It ain't sisterly, no, but this kind of crap really makes me retch - these are intelligent women using a privileged platform to do nothing but encourage other women to view having control over one's life as some kind of soul destroying disease (oh, and it also stops men fancying you. Because we all want a guy who's threatened by you insisting on paying half the bill. Because we all want a guy full stop).

If you don't like working, and insist on dating guys that are stuck in the dark ages, that's fine, be my guest. You might want to start by handing in your notice at The Mail. But don't try and extrapolate your personal preferences and experiences (oh, and your friend Sophie's) onto half the population. Thanks.

Ignoring the lyrics, it's perfect pop, I have to admit, and scarily catchy. But let's not ignore the lyrics:

This was never the way I planned
Not my intention
I got so brave, drink in hand
Lost my discretion
It's not what, I'm used to
Just wanna try you on
I'm curious for you
Caught my attention

OK, so she thought she was het, but she got a little tipsy and suddenly a girl catches her eye. Fair enough, from where I'm standing - heterosexuality is assumed to be the default, it is pushed, it can take a while for other desires to come out in some cases, and alcohol can certainly bring out our hornier sides. However, this new feeling of attraction is described as a loss of discretion. Clearly she would never have done anything as foolish as kiss a member of the same sex if she hadn't been pissed. Hmm.

I kissed a girl and I liked it
The taste of her cherry chapstick
I kissed a girl just to try it
I hope my boyfriend don't mind it
It felt so wrong
It felt so right
Don't mean I'm in love tonight
I kissed a girl and I liked it
I liked it

Ah, here comes the boyfriend reference - she's not a lesbian, kids, don't worry! - and the justification that the kiss was meaningless. Which is fair enough, if that meaninglessness stems from a lack of emotion, just having fun, but it becomes clearer as the song progresses that it was meaningless because it happened with a girl.

No, I don't even know your name
It doesn't matter

Again, fine by me - plenty of us pull people we don't know, and I don't think the implication here is that it doesn't matter because she's a girl. But then we get:

You're my experimental game
Just human nature

Human nature - good, we do like to play, try things out, and copping off with other girls isn't unnatural. But gay and bi girls aren't - as certain men and, I think, the writer of this song seem to believe - walking laboratories for het girls' sexy experiments. Personally, I'd be quite happy to be Katy Perry's experiment, but it's not all about me. As Erica points out:

I feel like every time two girls (whether straight, lesbian, bi) perform sexual acts for straight men it perpetuates the idea that we are there for their entertainment. Putting up with this on a regular basis really gets me down.

Then we get:

It's not what good girls do
Not how they should behave
My head gets so confused
Hard to obey

Us girls we are so magical
Soft skin, red lips, so kissable
Hard to resist so touchable
Too good to deny it
Ain't no big deal, it's innocent

BUT but but... While I think the most obvious interpretation of the song and video is as a reinforcement of the current trend of heterosexual male co-option of female same sex attraction, it's also pretty heterocentric to assume that the gaze here is male. Why can't it be female? Why can't Perry and her ladies be performing for the girl? For us women watching who think she's hot? The fact that she wakes up in bed, even if it is with a man, does suggest that all that's gone before was some kind of dream fantasy, that the women are dancing and playing for a woman (Perry), not for men.

And while women kissing women simply to turn men on is certainly problematic, if the social sanctioning of girl-on-girl action enable girls to explore and have shame-free fun, can we maybe just say to hell with the boys and get down to it?

Enough rambling from me: thoughts?

Harriet Harman has announced that the Report stage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, which was timetabled to be debated in Parliament on Monday 14th July, will now be debated after the summer recess ending on 6th October.

The anti-abortion lobby is continuing its ideological campaign against women's fundamental rights. A number of restrictive anti-abortion amendments have been tabled as well as positive amendments to improve the law for women. Pro-choice supporters are encouraged to take every opportunity to lobby their MP during the summer and autumn using the Abortion Rights model letters and briefings available on the website.

The additional campaign now required in the Autumn will require additional support. If you haven't already, now is the time to encourage friends, colleagues and family to join Abortion Rights as an individual member, to affiliate your organisation or trade union branch or to give a donation. Supporters can visit the webpage to join and donate online or to download forms to pay by cheque or standing order.

Get to it!

Between 2005 and 2007, servicewomen reported a rise in six out of nine types of inappropriate sexual behaviour, ranging from comments about their sex lives to obscene gestures. Nearly a quarter of those surveyed were sent explicit material such as pornography, according to the previously unpublished survey for the MoD. Other incidents included peepholes being cut in the walls of women's showers and a servicewoman being told by a senior officer that 'I should sleep with him because he is a higher rank'.

Another was humiliated at an official function in the officers' mess, when a card was sent to the top table suggesting she was 'available for sexual favours'.

In response, the Equality and Human Rights Commission will be launching a joint venture with the MoD to tackle these issues. However, ensuring that women are able to do their job without harassment is apparently "controversial":

...some senior officers argue privately that operational effectiveness could be jeopardised by imposing civilian attitudes on army life and that traditions such as soldiers decorating their lockers with pornographic pin-ups should be left alone.

Liam Fox, the shadow Defence Secretary, said that while the armed forces should meet their duty of care to all troops, they should not apply 'a degree of political correctness which might be excessive' to the military.

Note how the issue of serious, institutionalised discrimination is reduced to supposed whining about a couple of nudie posters and the oh-so-detested political correctness. No surprise, really, considering that attitudes within the armed forces simply reflect those of wider society:

One in five servicemen still did not think that telling a junior woman she would get a promotion if she slept with them was harassment; asked why they thought harassment cases happened, 46 per cent of the men said it was because women 'over-reacted'.

Not dissimilar from the reactions we get when we complain about street harassment.

Of course, working in the armed forces is tough. Really tough. But no one's asking for women to be exempt from the mental and physical challenges all servicemen have to face, simply that they should not suffer extra difficulty while trying to get on in their careers due to sexist discrimination. These women, like Corporal Sarah Bryant, are prepared to risk their lives to do the job they have chosen. So if they come forward and say there's a problem here, it must undoubtedly amount to a hell of a lot more than the occasional flash of pin-up titties when the boys open their lockers.

According to the EHRC Chair,

'The MoD now has a very good system for when things go wrong. Now we need to make sure those things go wrong much less frequently. There has been positive change but they want to do more and we are going to help them achieve that.

...We ask our brave service personnel to put their lives on the line, regardless of gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation or religion. For soldiers who are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice, the very least we can do is make sure they are treated fairly and with respect by their own colleagues.'

Nice words, here's hoping for some action.

“I’m going to serve it right at the body, about 128 [mph], right into her midriff,” he said. “If she’s not crying by the time she comes off court then I did not do my job.”

Asked if that meant he hated the Russian, with whom he trained as a youth player, he replied: “Hate is a very strong word. I just despise her to the maximum level just below hate.” He added that he would not like to sleep with Kournikova, “because she’s such a douche”. Instead, “I wouldn’t mind my brother, who is kind of a stud, nail her and then reap the benefits.”

He also referred to other female players as "sexpots". His remarks have been condemned by Billie Jean King, Serena Williams, the Association of Tennis Professionals, of which he is a board member, and the Women's Tennis Association, who for some reason responded with incredible generosity:

A spokesman for the Women’s Tennis Associationsaid: “We believe that he has learnt from this and will not be repeating his behaviour,” adding that the player had apologised personally to Larry Scott, the tour’s CEO.

Apparently Gimelstob does not "feel that the views I expressed last week accurately represent the person I am or strive to be". So either an arrogant misogynist who has no idea when to keep his mouth shut took control of his body for the duration of the interview, or he needs to get striving a little harder, because all the rest of us are seeing is an nasty piece of work who deserves far more than a one match suspension. I know which option I'm going with...

I can't believe they actually used the word "ethnics"...

Hat tip to the ever lovely Alex C.

Authorities in Kota Bharu have distributed pamphlets recommending that Muslim women do not wear heavy makeup and loud shoes when they go out to work in restaurants or other public places. [...] The goal of the modesty drive was to prevent rape and safeguard the women's dignity, said a spokesman.

Policing women's appearance and pre-emptively blaming them for rape in one fell swoop? Ten patriarchy points for you, sir.

Sadly, it looks as though they're about to apply the same disastrous practice to nursing:

The health secretary, Alan Johnson, wants the performance of every nursing team in every ward across England to be measured, with the results published on an official website.

Johnson said he wanted to promote friendly rivalry between wards over which nursing team could achieve the highest score. Trusts might decide to offer a reward to the top nursing team, but that would be a matter for local management.

The government wants to publish each trust's overall nursing quality score, to inform patients when they are choosing where to be treated. The scheme will be piloted and first results are likely to emerge next year.

Yes, you read that right, instead of receiving the pay, support and working conditions they deserve, nurses are going to be subject to the same competitive, stress-inducing (and no doubt paperwork intensive) monitoring systems that teachers have to endure while trying to get on and do their job. But it's ok, folks, because it's all in the name of our favourite false friend, choice. As if choice is any replacement for quality care...

Now, of course anyone doing any job should be monitored to make sure they're doing it well. But Johnson's project reminds me of transport secretary Ruth Kelly's latest scheme to sort out congestion and accidents on my local main road, the A14: a multi-million pound information system to inform drivers of congestion ahead so we can "choose" a different route. Rather than tackling the causes of the problems in our public services, the government just wants to be seen to be doing something, and uses individualism and choice as its nifty excuse.

In the case of nursing, we all stand to lose out. Struggling hospitals - and workers - don't need public humiliation, they need funding and support.

As in many traditionally feminine sectors where workers put up with poor wages and working conditions in their desire to do a job that helps others, nurses are being let down by a society that values the production of wealth above all else, and by a government that cares more about the rhetoric of choice and far-from socialist concepts of competition than the people who are actually willing to get their hands dirty.

Lapdance clubs are licensed like any ordinary pub or karaoke night - with a Premises Licence. Fawcett is calling for lapdance clubs to be licensed as Sex Encounter Establishments - as sex shops are. This would give local authorities powers to apply vital conditions and restrictions on the clubs to protect both the women who work in them and women who live in and travel through the area.

You can find a model letter here.

While we're on the subject, can I just say a big fuck you to the guy in Sheffield station earlier today who was wearing a bright yellow t-shirt with "RAPE!" written on the chest. You're lucky I was busy waving off a friend, or you'd have really got an earful.

The wedding night party was still under way at the family’s home in Roubaix when the groom came down from the bedroom complaining that his bride was not a virgin. He could not display the blood-stained sheet that is traditionally exhibited as proof of the bride’s “purity”.

Mr X went to court the following morning and was granted a annulment on the grounds that his bride had deceived him on “one of the essential elements” of the marriage. In disgrace with both families, she acknowledged that she had led her groom to believe that she was a virgin when she had already had sexual intercourse.

French feminists such as philosopher Elisabeth Badinter have spoken out vehemently against the decision:

...women's sexuality is a personal matter in France, personal and freely determined [...] This decision will result in young Muslim women rushing off to hospital to get their hymens fixed. Instead of of defending women, defending these young girls, the court has increased the pressure on them

Her second statement may seem to be a bit of an exaggeration, but The Times claims that:

Although officially discouraged, the 30-minute operation is in increasing demand from Muslim women who fear the consequences of being unable to prove their virginity on their wedding night. Numerous agencies offer services for surgery trips to north African nations. One is offering a “hymenoplasty trip” to Tunis for €1,250 (£980). Internet sites and blogs are full of would-be brides in fear of the test of “the blood-soaked sheet”.

Either way, I certainly agree with Badinter and other French commenters that it is highly worrying to see what in France is a fully secular institution (you have to get married by the State, religious marriage is a secondary and optional extra) bowing to patriarchal religion. Although the court case was supposedly based on the fact of her lying about her virginity, rather than on her not having an intact hymen, neither would be an issue if it wasn't for the patriarchal concepts of virginity and woman as property.

However, they are also calling for the decision to be overturned, while the case is being used for political point scoring in the French Assembly. The woman herself seems have been forgotten. What good would it do her to overturn the ruling? Her lawyer said she welcomed the decision as 'a great relief. Despite everything, she is very happy; the decision has allowed her to regain her freedom'.

She's already been shamed and humiliated by patriarchal custom and values, and should not be forced back into a sham marriage.

Both offer plenty to get your teeth into, whatever your perspective!

While I'm here, can I ask: why are there next to no "sexy" images of men on sex positive* sites, or sites focusing on porn for women etc? Even the logo for Hot Films for Her features a sexualised woman rather than a man, despite the fact that many of the films are aimed at heterosexual women - so why isn't the site advertised with a picture of a juicy man? Not all women are attracted to women...

Just seems to me that there's a bit of the same old woman = sex idea going on here, and while the presentation of the woman and the context in which she is presented may be different from the mainstream, I wonder how radical this kind of approach is if the focus is still on women as the sexually stimulating object or subject. I'm not condemning the work being done by sex positive feminists - indeed, I've been intrigued by the work of Erika Lust (link NSFW) and will be reviewing her Five Hot Films for Her in the near future - but the image given out on some sites, or rather the promotional material for that work, does seem to frequently fall into this well-worn trope.

*I'm not a big fan of this term, but for want of a better word...

(1) When will these bloody misandrist women stop whinging and get the hell off the net?

(2) Street harassment hardly ever happens and it's all ironic, harmless fun anyway.

(3) But women love it and ask for it - look, they've got boobs!

I really don't think I need to waste any time taking down these these charming (for the most part) gentlemens, so instead I thought I'd ask for a quick hands up of anyone who's experienced street harassment; no need to leave a description or anything unless you want to, just a nod to show how depressingly normal street harassment is. And because, unlike the CiF commenters, I actually understand that street harassment is one of those things whose effect can only be measured and understood by the victim, you get to define what it is.

I'll start the ball rolling with a big hands up (and that's just one of many).

'But hold up PC party poopers!', cries the adman. 'We haven't used a black woman! And, anyway, "Dark" doesn't mean impure, it means exciting, sexy, femme fatale...'

Yet it's a white woman who encompasses all these things. Hmmm.

Thoughts?

The Emos - short for Emotional - regard themselves as a cool, young sub-set of the Goths.

Although the look is similar, the point of distinction, frightening for schools and parents, is a celebration of self harm.

Um, no. Many teenagers, especially girls, self harm for a whole range of reasons - the music didn't make them do it, and it certainly doesn't make anyone commit suicide. Self harm scars and marks can be seen as cool (though I think this happens in a number of subcultures), but at least this means those involved are being open about their practice and can get some help: self harm is a symptom of underlying issues, and those are what needs to be dealt with. On top fact checking form as per usual, the Mail journalist also cites mock emo websites as evidence for her view of the subculture, and lists pop punk band Green Day as emo. They really have no idea how many hundreds of thousands of people they've pissed off there, do they?!

Anyways, word seems to be spreading about the protest and it could well turn into an all out "The Daily Mail spouts a bunch of crap and we're bloody sick of it" march, so if you reckon you can handle a bunch of suicide obsessed kids with long fringes and razor blades then you may want to join them! Maybe you could try and get them to shift their arses for some political protesting while they're at it...

1) We need to continue to counteract the anti-abortionists' lies and emotive rhetoric on late term abortion, turning the debate back onto women. For a start, we can scrap the anti-choice claim that "nearly two thirds of the public and almost three qurters of women support a reduction in the upper time limit". This conclusion was drawn from a highly misleading survey which included the question:

At the moment abortion is legal in Britain up to the 24th week of pregnancy. However, doctors can now save the lives of premature babies born as early as 23 weeks. From what you know, what do you think the legal limit for abortion should be?

A new MORI poll, published yesterday, encourages respondents to think about the situation of the women concerned, and found that a majority of women of child bearing age do support the current time limit.

2) We must push back the tide of blue sweeping the country to ensure the Tories do not win the next election (I know, I'm rapidly losing the will to live on this one): according to an analysis of last night's votes, the upper limit could be cut if Cameron gets in. And we know that won't be the end of it.

3) Northern Ireland's abortion law must be brought into line with the rest of the UK.

4) Women must be able to access abortion on demand, which means scrapping the necessity to gain the signatures of two doctors and, strictly speaking, having to prove to them that carrying on with the pregnancy poses more risk to the mother and/or to her existing children's physical or mental wellbeing than having an abortion.

5) Support must be increased for single mums and the minimum wage raised to a real living wage in order that women are not forced to abort on purely economic grounds.

6) Abortion must be freely available on the NHS as soon as possible after the woman requests it: no more long waiting lists or being forced to go private.

7) Sex education and access to contraception must be improved so fewer women have to access abortion in the first place.

8) Nadine Dorries and friends must be exiled to a small island, far, far away from here where they can spend their days merrily changing the nappies of all the world's unwanted babies born in countries where women cannot access abortion. Oh, that's cruel, I know. Poor kids.

Feel free to add to the list in comments. And go join Abortion Rights if you're not already a member.

Photo by internets_dairy, shared under a Creative Commons licence. (Caption reads: "It's outrageous! My friends over there can't hear my illiberal views!" Ace.)