Every now and again, I’ll hear someone make a remark that goes something like this: “Racism in the movement is just hold over bitterness from the second wave. We third wavers know better than that.”

Upon hearing/reading this statement, I find myself clutching my stomach from laughing so hard.

Now second wave feminists (and the movement they lead) had their share of problems, no doubt. But some of the things I hear coming out of the third wave aren’t much better. (Hint: Writing about an issue that impacts women of color once every six months does *not* make you immune from spouting racist or xenophobic bullshit the rest of the time. Just a statement for the record.)

The Yorkshire Building Society (well know gender activists there) did a survey about customers attitudes to gender roles. Now if you believed the first Telegraph article on this you'd think that "Women 'are happy to be housewives' " (which was their headline). But wait, what's that, a misleading portrayal of research results? No you do surprise me....

First off the research did not ask, contrary to the representation of it, whether women should return to the home completely. It asked what things were valued by a (heterosexual) man or woman in a partner.

The top three things most valued by men in their partner [were] domestic tasks, namely, taking care of the home (44%), cooking (39%) and cleaning (33%).

From Easier.com

Now it seems to me that restrictive choices might have a role to play here because if I were asked what I value in my partner it's not ability to earn money or to iron a shirt - it's much more esoteric things like ability to understand me, make me laugh or talk sense when I'm stressed. However, to continue with the wierd mismatch between research and reporting....

Yorkshire Building Society questioned 1,527 people to find out what they most valued in their partners. The research shows that 38% of women value the financial stability that their partner provides. Conversely, when looked at from the other perspective, this number is halved with only 16% of men valuing financial stability in their partner. Only 9% of men surveyed thought they would not be able to cope financially if their partner were unable to work. However, this number rose to 15%, when women were asked the same question. Worryingly, only 29% of people had discussed with their partner how they would cope financially if either of them were unable to work despite the evidence of the invaluable role their partner can play in their life.

From Easier.com

Ah OK so here's the rub - basically, if we turn this around 91% of men and 85% of women thought they would financially cope if their partner was unable to work. Given the differential levels of homemakers and long-term disabled in women and men that is actually pretty good result. Lets me cheerful, the vast majority of people felt they could cope if disaster befell and a partner had to stop work. But lets also remember that this only asked seemingly heterosexual people with partners - it didn't ask the single parent family or the single widowed pensioner how they were coping.

Meanwhile, and also according to YBS:

"the typical adult would earn an extra £8,000 a year on average if he or she was paid for the housework and other chores done week in, week out for free.

From MGM Advantage

Now the gender neutrality of this is somewhat amusing and misleading, because we know from other surveys (see here and here and here for example) that housework still tends to be done by women even when they are working. (And The Telegraph has previously covered an argument that women's lower market earnings (i.e. outside the home) are directly linked to their greater domestic burden in the home which is also the basis of this paper here). £8,000 seems quite a low figure, after all ONS study of time use has estimated that unpaid domestic labour contributes around £700 billion to the economy and the Wages for Housework campaign is advocating a wage of £500-600 per week (£28,000 approx pa) for unpaid domestic workers.

The Telegraph did at least publish an alternate view, Ceri Radford argues choice is the important thing. I think I'd aver that it's actually representing the research correctly, but then I'm an unusual woman (seemingly, if the Telegraph coverage is to be believed) as both I and my partner want me to work.

The Star ignores that University entrants are now mostly female (according to UCAS 55% of University applicants and 54% of University entrants are now female - although The Times chose to represent this as risking "men free" universities). But this is still gendered with men outnumbering women in mathematical sciences, physical sciences, computer science (by almost 4:1), engineering (by more than 4:1) and architecture (data from UCAS and HESA)

Many rides have a maximum chest measurement over which the safety braces won't work. Now if you are a bloke you only have to worry about the absolutely measurement and squishiness of your chest. If you are a woman, however, it's about the size, comfort and bruising potential of your breasts. And that's not an easy thing to calculate...

The whole issue is gendered and yet that fact seems oddly overlooked.... as this article from icBirmingham proves:

Bosses at Alton Towers have introduced strict weight restrictions on four of their biggest attractions as a safety measure. And the theme park has revealed that the obesity crisis in Britain means it is considering a re-design of rollercoaster seats to accommodate the overweight. One special ‘fat seat’ for larger passengers has already been installed on the £12 million Oblivion. But the 70mph ride bars those with a chest size of 52 inches or more - around 20 stone. Heavyweight passengers with similarly large chests have also been banned from the popular Nemesis and Ripsaw rides. And restrictions are even tighter on the £12 million roll-ercoaster Air. Anyone with a chest size of 50 inches or more - around18st- is banned from the 50mph ride. Embarrassingly, those suspected of being over the weight limit can even try out a seat before they join the queue for Air to see if they fit in. But the chest restrictions have been described as a crude estimation of weight by a leading Midland obesity expert. Dr Ian Campbell, chairman of the Nottingham-based National Obesity Forum, said that over-weight teens as well as adults could be discriminated against by the new policy."

It is perfectly possible to be a healthy weight, female and have a chest size approaching 50 inches and the purported relationship between weight and chest size only works, really, for men. Women are built different and carry their weight in different places. Other blogs and question boards online have covered this issue before (see What Fat People Don't Like as an example.

It reminds me, however, of how the physical world continues to take male (and abled bodied) as the basis for their decisions. Like this about replacement knees and this on doors This paper talks about the assumption of the male norm in design more generally and not to forget, of course, the Women's Design Service who have talked about this and other similar issues for years. In fact WDS have just launched a new site, Gendersite to talk about the built environment and design and gender.

Looking back, I'm amazed at how much we achieved - many feminist ideas, such as the right to maternity leave, have become mainstream - but I'm also horrified by the casual misogyny of 21st-century life. Since my book, Misogynies, was first published in 1989, it has got much worse.

From The Times

Orangina - "naturally juicy" like pole dancing, porn and anthropomorphising animals to be "sex" objects.

Photos taken at the scene by investigators and shown to this reporter revealed the family was living in unimaginable filth. The photos showed thousands of roaches and roach dirt covered every part of every room. They crawled in and out of drawers, cupboards, and furniture. Old pizza boxes were stacked in one corner of the living room with dozens of empty plastic soda bottles strewn about on the floor. In the kitchen, counters were covered in stacks of dirty dishes and old empty cans of food. Bags of garbage were strewn about the house, mixed in with dirty clothes and other trash. Workers have hauled away two Dumpsters full of trash so far, and the work still is not done, Dutton said. Investigators say the wife told them she was not allowed to clean.

From Independent Mail

The woman and children escaped when Thurmond decided to conduct an extra-marital affair. No further comment needed really....

• "worrying" trends including long working hours, insecure jobs and poor pay.


• An estimated 35,000 women who migrated to the UK to work faced a disproportionate risk of being illegally underpaid.


• Around one in seven recent migrants were found to be working more than 48 hours a week


• Recent migrants were also more likely than other groups not to have a written contract.


• Recent migrants were more than twice as likely as other workers to be paid less than the minimum wage.

Meanwhile Sweden, responding to the apparent "threat" of the 46 gender reassignment surgery cases per year, is going to try and legislate that all gender reassignment cases must go through prerequisite castration (i.e. before long-term treatment commences). (From The Local). Wherever you stand on the debates around transgenderism this can be seen as a way of enforcing bodily standards on people and reducing gender to simply the reproductive organs.

Meanwhile Jen Sorenson has a really interesting article up here on why there are so few female political cartoonists.

Drawing cartoons and comics has traditionally been a guy thing—a somewhat nerdy guy thing, but a guy thing nonetheless. Without role models who look like you, or friends with similar interests, any activity becomes less inviting. It might not even cross your mind as a possibility.

From Campus Progress

And now for the gripe - according to the Guardian Nicole Cooke's achievement was down to the trainer and the team director, both men.

Road racing has never been an exact science and never will be, but the British cycling performance director Dave Brailsford and his team have been working on it and it showed yesterday. When Nicole Cooke sprinted across the line to claim Britain's first medal of these Olympic Games, it not only marked the pinnacle of the Welsh woman's eight-year international career but was also the culmination of a meticulous planning process going back more than a year.

From The Guardian

I'm sorry - is this "woman wins gold medal, but be a man's achievement" in play or what?

Edit: For more on this kind of misogyny go see this (in which the Independent reduces Olympian Sportswomen to "pin-ups") and this (in which apparently the best reason to watch female Olympian's is the possibility of a "wardrobe malfunction"). And then read this from Feminist Philosophers and this from Kira Cochrane at the Guardian (although on the latter, why is this considered "Lifestyle" - is being a woman suddenly a "lifestyle choice"?).

Meanwhile there is a Science Medley up at BlogHer all about women related science stories. This is a fabulous thing in my mind, so I'm flagging it here.

Feministe has more on the controversy about KBR (who were owned by Halliburton), rape of their female employees and their response - to silence the victims rather than find the perpetrators. And Femininisting has a video clip of the amazing slam poet Alix Olson on sexism.

Carnival of Feminists is up here for more roundups of feminist blogging.

And a couple from the Guardian, in case you missed them, Melissa Dene takes issue with the idea that a career and a family must equal superwoman, and Julie Bindel asks whether lesbian writing still needs to be separately categorised as such.

But yesterday the Daily Mail (and others) were reporting that Dr Jessica Ringrose from the Institute of Education has called for feminism to be taught to girls in school to help with their self-esteem. Ringrose's research has found teenage girls are increasingly likely to rely on sexual attractiveness as the main measure of self-worth and are increasingly using sexual insults in all-female conversations.

'It's important for girls to have a forum for discussing these issues so "feminism" isn't such a dirty word,' said Dr Ringrose. Lessons in feminism could also help overcome the myth that men and women are now equal. Dr Ringrose said most schools see gender equality in terms of exam results, where girls now outshine boys in most subjects. But in the adult world, women are still paid far less and face dilemmas trying to balance work and family life. Feminism needs to be 'reinvigorated', said Dr Ringrose."

From The Daily Mail

It's only her suggestions as to who might be role models which make me roll my eyes somewhat. I love first wave feminists as much as the next person but does a 13 year old necessarily see their relevance - after all the 1900's were a very different time where most of these girls would have been either in service or working in factories and agricultural settings, some would have been prostituted, or, the eldest amongst them, married. Why not flag up women achieving stuff now, and recently, who have made a difference - I can think of a few, Margaret Cho for example or Anita Roddick or Eve Ensler? What about mixing in Inga Muscio along with Virginia Woolf? The issue of feminist heroines or role models is a vexed one, I know. Both Elaine Showalter in the Guardian and Natasha Walter on our very own site have alluded to those who can and should be included who are contemporary figures as well as historical ones. Thing is by flagging only the historical and the fictional (Ringrose also mentioned Lisa Simpson) we make feminism appear either dead or illusory - and it is neither. Lets focus on the vibrancy of the movement(s) and see what we can compile.... So, dear readers, who would you nominate for the top 50 feminist heroines/role models?

But it's not all good news - the chemical industry has to be consulted first.

Guardian reporter Tom Phillips has interviewed the man accused of killing Cara Burke. Warning *DO NOT LISTEN TO THIS* if you are likely to get upset at unapologetically misogynistic self pity. But I will say Phillips draws the interview to a close saying that Mohammed D'Ali Carvalho dos Santos doesn't seem like a violent man! What! WHAT! This is a man being held for killing, dismembering and dumping is ex-girlfriend's body. If that's not a violent man, what it?

I'm not going to post excerpts to spare readers who might be upset - I'd ask that anyone else who is considering doing so *does* think about the potential impact on others first please.

Remember: the personal is political.

The more we speak up about our experiences, the more people we find who have gone through the same thing, and the more we can learn from each other, and discover exactly how common some of those experiences are — and thus, understand that those experiences are not our own personal failures, but the result of a society-wide approach to the issues we face.

And the more we speak up, the more other people, who don’t share those experiences, hear. The more information they have, straight from the people affected, rather than the (very limited) mainstream conversation that tends to exclude those people de facto. And thus the better understanding we can all form about these issues.

You are not obligated to speak. You can share exactly as much as you are comfortable sharing. But to those people who feel relief upon meeting another person who understands all of those “private” things that weren’t “relevant” to the conversation before: Speak up. I want to hear you. Start a blog. Comment on other people’s blogs. Make no secret of your day to day, minute-to-minute experiences, even when speaking with people in “real life.”

Not least because this is what men do to women

A woman pushed on to rail tracks by two men she told to stop smoking has said she felt "really lucky" to be alive. Linda Buchanan landed inches away from the 750-volt live third rail at Farningham Road station in Kent and suffered a broken wrist....it appeared she had spoken to the two men about smoking earlier in the week.

First up, UK news - an ex-chief superintendent of the Humberside Police force has been found guilty of incestuous sexual assault and rape. I don't think I need to say more on this other than how amazingly courageous the woman was to report this. The attacks lasted over ten years and the man was also found to have made contact with other paedophiles over the internet. Friends in high places and all that..

Talking of the Police, how's this for transphobia (also from the UK), in the case of the murder of transsexual Kellie Telesford the defending barrister, Joanna Greenberg, came out with this gem:

"While we are referring to her as a female out of courtesy because that is how she wanted to be known. She was nevertheless a male with a man's strength and you would have thought that she, as a victim, would have fought her attacker but there was no signs."

BBC News

The defence are maintaining (simultaneously) that is was 1. a sex game gone wrong, 2. the injuries were self-inflected. Doesn't explain why the defendant stole her phone, Oyster travel card and electronic equipment mind.... Reminds me of this case in the US too. Meanwhile Feminist Philosophers, following the transgender toilet at Pride incident (and others), tells us about third gender toilets in Thailand.

Over in the US it seems speaking out against sexist = killing your own career if Katherine Heigl and the threats against her are to be believed. Which may be what is meant by "an inner glass ceiling" which is the current popular explanation for why women aren't in top jobs. Glad to see that old chestnut of it being our own fault is still kicking around.

Of course it doesn't apply to men, Martin Bashir has been made to apologise after sexist comments at an event for US journalists. He is reported to have said "I am happy to be in the midst of so many Asian babes...In fact, I'm happy that the podium covers me from the waist down." and

Bashir went on to say a speech should be "like a dress on a beautiful woman - long enough to cover the important parts and short enough to keep your interest - like my colleague Juju's".

From BBC News

Feministing is also highlighting this montage about Disney and masculinity which is worth a viewing.

Elsewhere however it has been realised that there are declining numbers of women in employment in the US and that it might be connected to economic factors and not biological ones.

"When we saw women starting to drop out in the early part of this decade, we thought it was the motherhood movement, women staying home to raise their kids," said Heather Boushy, the senior economist at the Joint Economic Committee of Congress, to the The New York Times. "We did not think it was the economy, but when we looked into it, we realized that it was."

From Feminist Majority Foundation

Meanwhile the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has published their report on Engaging and Empowering Women in Poverty which includes the radical suggestion that "Government should increase the opportunities for women living in poverty to engage directly with policy-makers, to design and deliver more efficient policies which truly address their needs.".

Also in the news, the US Government Accountability Office have released a report on sexual violence against domestic workers by diplomats. What's worrying is there was enough of this to full a report! Wonder when the UK will follow suit and 'fess up to the stuff it's diplomats and soldiers (whilst we're at it) do abroad. And also at the Feminist Majority Foundation is coverage of the story that poverty and hopelessness are driving Afghan women to prostitution. We covered something similar here. Which leads to Alternet.org's interesting excerpt from a book on sexual slavery, here.

This video of Noam Chomsky on pornography is also doing the rounds - it has some great responses to well-worn arguments for those who want a crib sheet.

And Feminist Allies is highlighting the work of The Body Positive around body issues. Also this week Stonewall have released their report into how the NHS can better serve lesbian and bisexual women in their health services. Prescription for Change is available here. Some good news at last. But then you consider that Ohio is planning a male veto in abortion law and the heart just sinks again. Oh and pharmaceutical companies are arguing there isn't a market for a male birth control system according to this article at Pandagon. And, surprise surprise, Republican Presidential candidate John McCain is anti-contraception, or at least he can't remember if he is or not....

So. John McCain is so opposed to contraception he voted against requiring insurance plans to cover it like other drugs, and either so indifferent to women's health and rights or just so out of it he doesn't even remember how he voted. That's the way to show American women you really care.

From The Nation

Hat tip to Hoyden about Town for the top image and this one from a face-cream advertiser in days of yore, for really there is “nothing so sad and ridiculous as a shiny-nosed girl trying to be a charmer”

And this has been produced in response to the New Yorker/Michelle Obama cartoon thing a while ago
.

And further to this on DeBeers and tribalism Penny Red highlights this from Britain's Next Top Model.

And remember, as Feministe points out there are still women in the Presidential and Vice-Presidential races - nominees from the Green Party, Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente, both black women and both receiving almost no coverage whatsoever....

Now aside from the dodgy methods on this (they asked a general population sample, not a perpetrator sample, for example) this is one of the most abhorrent conclusions I've ever read.

Firstly men rape because they can and they can get away with it. Any attempt to mask that as "ignorance" or a lack of "ethics" is appalling. How does one explain abuse by religious personal (which the Anglican and Catholic churches have been dogged by) - are they merely the students who fell asleep in seminary classes? How does one explain this or this or this or this or this or this or this and why is it the Vatican released a report acknowledging that priests in some countries were forcing Nuns to have sex to lessen their risk of exposure to HIV? (Also here and here).

But it's also the implicit woman-blaming here - mothers are presumed to be the ones who do the primary socialisation and instil basic religious or ethical knowledge. So if rapists lack that then it's a lack on the part of the mother. So, victim of sexual violence, your abuse is the fault of another woman - not at all to do with the man who committed it. He's just a hapless victim of poor upbringing.

CIFARHs advice, in the face of their own findings that 85% of the sample knew someone who had been raped, was avoid walking home alone, dress decently, fear God, avoid bad company, punish rapists severely and provide sexuality education. Only two of those (and that's focus on the positives and rephrase that ....Two of those) might actually help, the others are a mixture of the usual victim blaming stuff and, frankly, measures of no discernible impact.

Executive Director of CIFARH, Professor Innocent Ujah:

He urged students to join in the campaign against sexual violence by taking up the fight against the malaise with their fellow students and discouraging indecent dressing among them.

From All Africa.Com

Yes dear students, don't fight against this by policing male student behaviour, no, go out and police female behaviour because rape is obviously about "indecent" dressing rather than male impugnity. But the contradictoriness of this is stunning - if lack of religious knowledge is the key cause then why not demand students tackle that? Or generally tackle the misogynistic culture that allows men to rape without fear of capture or punishment? No, obviously men's behaviour must leads to women being held responsible for it - it's standard apologist stuff - a man committed a rape? His mother didn't raise him properly, the victim was indecently dressed and therefore asked for it, his female friends didn't education him or challenge him. It's everyone's fault except the perpetrators.

On a related note the Department for Children, Families and Schools has a consultation out on sexual explotation (child prostitution) here.

This is the picture that has to give us pause for thought. It shows the towel covered dead bodies of two Roma girls, Cristina, aged 16, and Violetta, 14, whilst Italian crowds sunbathe around them.

As the Independent has said, it prompts us to rethink the treatment of Roma throughout Europe. But there is also a gender element - these are girl children and they are girl children from a minority group in the population.

Four girls apparently went into the water, two were rescued by private life-guards from a neighbouring beach. No-one on the beach closest appears to have done anything to help when the girls got into trouble in strong currents. Civil Liberties group, EveryOne has questioned whether the Roma girls would have voluntarily entered the water - initially they had gone down to the beach to hawk goods to the day-trippers.

A statement from the group said: "Two young Roma would never have left their scant merchandise for 'a refreshing dip' in the waves. Two Gypsy girls would never have gone bathing in full view of everyone because of the modesty that is one of their distinguishing characteristics."

The Guardian

Not least because the drownings happened outside of Naples where a Roma encampment was recently burnt down to the ground and the inhabitants had to be evacuated (More at Buzzle). And because Italy's president has recently imposed manditory fingerprinting for all Roma peoples, including children, and Roma children are routinely forced into "special" schools.

Al-Jezera were one of the first to report the incident, and the only to carry a quote from Violetta and Cristina's family

A female relative of the girls, who wished to remain anonymous, said: "How could it be that no one helped? I hope God punishes you and I hope God curses you for the rest of your life."

Al Jazeera

Edited to correct spelling. Thanks for the corrections lovely readers!

The prompt? A guy threatening to dowse me in petrol today for daring to question his actions.

So I filled the car up today at my usual filling station which is a supermarket one. After I'd started to fill an attendant put cones out because they were expecting a delivery. The cones blocked off all the pumps. Shortly afterwards a mint green van (reg Y148 ?NK) pulled up behind me, sat there for a while and then the driver's mate got out, moved the cones they pulled around me to the pump in front. Then they parked, skewed across all the available space. Out got the driver. Politely I said "Are you not going to straighten up?" - he looked at me, tutted and continued fiddling in his wallet. So, undeterrred I said "Sorry I do find ignoring me quite rude, are you not going to straighten up so I can leave when I'm done?"

"No." He said. "Why not?" I said. "Because I don't [expletive] have to." he said.

Hmmm thought I. "No you don't," I said, "But you are blocking me in entirely which is kind of difficult." He had now found his card to pay (it was pay at pumps).

"What is it with women that they are too fucking stupid to use reverse?" he replied.

I pause, but then consider myself too angry to let is pass. "I can use reverse perfectly well," I say, "It's you who appears to have a problem with reversing, given you can't even straighten up your van".

He looks at me (by now he's putting petrol in his van, I've finished filling my car and am closing the gas tank cover). "Listen you [expletive] bitch, come here and say that."

"No thanks"

"I'll [expletive] pour this petrol over you and set fire to you." He is now holding the nozzle facing me and occassionally pumping the handle until petrol dribbles out.

"Really," I say getting into my car. I reverse out and think about getting a staff member involved but then realise it'll do little or no good - they have CCTV, they've seen it and they've done nothing to help.

This was at 7.45am in the Home Counties. Anyone else has similar experiences?

an online guide on How to Have a Feminist Wedding states "Part of feminism is about expressing your identity as you see fit... so if you have your heart set on a more traditional option, like a poofy white dress, go for it. You won't be thrown out of the feminist club." Au contraire, yes you will. Your feminist club membership will become invalid. A woman who adopts any one of the baggage-ridden conventions continues the tradition of wives enslaved by their husbands. Women - or men - who accept this damaging ritual can never call themselves feminists with any integrity. Prioritising romantic notions of "tradition" over any feminist sensibilities is failing to practice what you preach.

The Guardian

There are so many flaws in this paragraph alone... so lets unpick a few....
1. He deems himself able to tell a feminist website that their assertion is wrong and his is right. Because obviously a man knows what feminism is about better than a feminist website.
2. He assumes all weddings take place for the same reasons and are all about the romantic, traditional, patriarchal model. Frankly, bullshit, women have diverse reasons for marrying (or not) and to reduce them to the idea of simpering no-brains for it is patronising.
3. According to his logic his "fervent feminist" best friend, who he's about to marry, will therefore forgoe her feminist credentials. Either that or he truly believes he (and his intended) are the only people able to do it differently and are therefore exempt from his own assertion that getting married means you can't be a feminist.
4. He accords the "traditions" of weddings more influence than they can have except by the constant restating of them as rigid and enforcable rules. Part of challenging patriarchy is to show that those symbols can be redone differently and that the institutional privileges they represent can be rethought out. Does a white dress mean someone can't be an anti-rape activist? Does having female attendants mean you can't also demand equal treatment for women? And how does this chime with women entering civil partnerships with other women? Does their adoption of the traditions of marriage (as some have) mean they are also hopelessly and fallibly tied into patriarchal inscriptions of how it should be even if they are marrying their female partner?

Well Mr Nunn, here's a wake-up call, you can do it differently! You can challenge the status quo and also mark out your life-long commitment to another person. No-one has called into question my feminism since I spoke my vows (although some admitted surprise that I would legally tie myself to a man). And you can do it differently, if you are not so engrained in male privilege.

We had a humanist ceremony in which we stated our pledges to each other, and shortly before that we'd had a civil ceremony (attended by us, three friends and the registrar) in which we did the legal stuff. But our vows, not the state imposed ones, and our ceremony were as far from patriarchal as you could get - both sets of parents walked both of us down the aisle to symbolise their support and that they would walk by our sides; our friends and our parents spoke and offered their advice; our whole audience vowed to support and love us. It was a marking of our relationship as the primary one we would have and also a very practical way of ensuring my partner would receive the pension rights and next of kin rights I wanted him to have should anything happen to me. Yes we eschewed most of the traditional symbols of weddings, I wasn't "given away" but I did have my Dad on one side of me, and I was proud to as he's been there through my thirty-odd years of life as a constant source of love and advice, as has my Mum who was on the other side of me. I didn't give up my name - it's much more interesting than my partners and I have professional publications in it - but we did both take each others surnames as new middle names and therefore gained new initials. I did wear cream because I suits me and because I wanted to - did it symbolise virginity - did it ****! Did I readily submit to being wed, yes, it was a joint decision which we haven't regretted. By doing so did I readily submit to patriarchy? Don't make me laugh.

It changed nothing about our domestic arrangements - I didn't suddenly feel the need to wear gingham or bake more cakes, my partner didn't feel the need to assert his masculinity more, I remained the main wage-earner and the more career oriented of the two, he remains committed to being able to follow me when my job demands we move. But this isn't a reversal of the usual patriarchal norms, I am not an honorary "man" - we're doing things differently.

And I don't need a man to tell me that because I occassionally wear a silver and titanium band on the third finger of my left hand that I can't be a feminist. Doing so doesn't make me a fool or misguided - it marks us out as able to think for ourselves. I'd issue a word of warning to "Strife" (as he names his intended) to be wary of a man who would marry you, claim to be a pro-feminist man and then diss the vows he's making and your right to determine what it can or can't mean. Seems Mr Nunn may well have some more reflection on his privilege and his views to do. In the meantime, Mr Nunn, don't presume to tell women, any woman, what is and isn't feminist and don't, whatever you do, presume to tell women, from your position of male privilege, what is and isn't "feminist" - you do more to reinscribe masculine oppression of women through that than any number of feminists wearing the biggest, flounciest white meringues of dresses to get wed to their male or female partners.