So much for the goal of the Olympic movement being:

to contribute to building a peaceful and better world by educating youth through sport practised without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play.

isn't it brilliant how they're upholding that by... well, prioritising the value of their logo over the publicising of legitimate protest against human rights violations? I sort of feel like that doesn't sit so well with their stated aims.

For a spot on and hilarious commentary on this, see a new YouTube video below... as long as it is allowed to be up.

In discussions of beauty - particularly those on women centered blogs - white women can understand being held up to an unrealistic standard of beauty. To be impossibly thin, impossibly blonde, impossibly clear skinned, with a body that defies the law of physics is presented as something that is attainable if you try hard enough and buy the right products, though many women find these efforts to be futile. What most of these conversations do not understand is that when black women pick up these kinds of magazines, or watch advertisements on TV, or popular television shows with popular white actresses, we do not get the message “try harder.”

The message we receive is never.

You will never look like this. Not if you straighten your hair, or lose weight, or work out every single day, or have the perfect body and the perfect wardrobe to match. Even if you fit all those requirements, you’re still “pretty for a black girl.” And if, for some reason, you do not fit these requirements, if your hair is frizzy or curly or kinky, if your thighs and ass will always keep your size in the double digits, if your features are not keen, if your skin tone is too deep, then there are many people who will never consider you beautiful.

Hat tip to Shapely Prose

Ealasaid Gilfillan wrote a really interesting piece on this controversy for The F-Word, back in 2005.

Since then, Summers has been turned into a pariah figure for those who think women don't get the top jobs because of discrimination, and a martyr to those who think the liberal agenda is to censor the results of scientific research. Both points of view seem to me to be simplistic and wrong.

The debate has been reignited this week by a new piece of research (paid content) which both sides of the debate claim prove their respective points and, by extension, either condemn or exonerate Summers. Jessica at Feministing and Jeff at Alas, a blog! (along with much of the mainstream press) are claiming 'victory for girls' as a result of this paper, but they're wrong. What this paper says actually backs up Summers' remarks. But it (like Summers) tells part, rather than all, of the story.

The paper finds that, on average, girls score as well as boys in standardised maths tests (at all ages) in the US schooling system. On the other hand, and backing up what Summers said, it shows the variance around the mean to be consistently greater for boys than for girls - in essence, girls cluster more closely around the average performer, whilst boys' performance is more varied. This is the part that has gone largely unreported.

So whilst it's true to say that boys and girls perform equally overall, it's also true to say that more boys do exceptionally well or exceptionally badly than girls. The top 1% of achievers in maths is disproportionately male (and disproportionately white male at that). Tellingly, I haven't seen anyone claim this means white folks are smarter - presumably it's obvious to everyone that socio-economic factors play a pretty big role in test scores.

The study suggests, essentially, that Summers had the beginnings of a point. What it doesn't do is justify the triumphant crowing of those who would have you believe that men are at the forefront of technical fields is because boys are brilliant and girls are rubbish (and should stay at home baking).

For a start, the fact that the test results of boys and girls have equalised by so much in just a few decades suggests that there's nothing very much innate about any performance differentials that exist. It's true to say that *right now* more men are maths geniuses than women, but it seems plausible that the pattern will continue to change.

Then we have the question of culture - the discussion thread at Marginal Revolution (which is really interesting) spends some time discussing whether other factors interact with pure ability when children take tests. You don't need me to point this out to you, but, for one, the role of parental expectations and encouragement may frequently be gendered. For two, the role of peer group interaction and its effect on an individual child's motivation to succeed in particular subjects is likely to be a factor. And highly likely to be gendered as well.

And once we're done with all of that, there's still a role for good old fashioned discrimination. There's endless evidence that discrimination still exists in all types of organisations and sectors. It exists during the hiring and promotions process, and it exists indirectly in most working practices. As Kate points out at the Cruella-blog, if there are more men in the 'genius maths' jobs purely because of innate ability, we'd expect to see correspondingly more women in the 'average maths' jobs - such as accountancy or tax - but we don't.

Add to that the unequal position of many women in the household (overwhelmingly primary carers for children even where two parents are working and more frequently single parents) and it ought to be obvious that workplace advancement is based on more than just ability (or even test scores).

Some of those factors will be 'personal choice' but the definition of choice becomes increasingly meaningless when it's considered as the cumulative result of economic and cultural imperatives. (I've talked about this before).

People who are trying to tear down Summers, or to use this study to 'prove' that women are as good as men are missing the point. The scientific 'fact' of this article is a jumping-off point for thinking about how gender interacts with ability, not a case closed. The data shows what it shows, but it doesn't tell us much about the causes of these differentials. It raises more questions than it answers.

Hat tips to Economic Woman and Greg Mankiw
First image from xkcd - and yes, it's good to give this another F-Word airing!
Second image by ntr23, shared under a creative commons license

That is, if you can concentrate on them, amongst the REALLY IRRITATING ARTICLES they publish.

The first was a comment piece by James Delingpole on the Nicola Brewer comments about maternity leave harming women's careers. Since he'd obviously written it to be an annoying little bastard* and bait people like me, I don't want to spend too much time on it, but suffice it to say the gist was: 'men are not genetically predisposed to childrearing, paternity leave is stupid'. This comment in particular struck me:

And now Nicola Brewer, the head of the Equalities And Human Rights Commission, is proposing I should be penalised for being male. She wants a "significant rethink of family policy", whereby men are given the same parental rights and responsibilities women have.

Penalised for being male, James? By having equal rights and responsibilities in the workplace? You know that penalisation and equality rarely mean the same thing, right? Now the current situation where women are overwhelmingly primary carers as well as (often) full time workers to the detriment of their careers - that's penalisation on grounds of gender. You don't know you're born, mate.

And I'm done rising to that one.

Then there's Rowan Pelling (who I usually like) opining that parents should be "proud" if their daughters become a Playboy Bunny. I'm sure most parents are overwhelmingly proud of their kids anyway, regardless of their career, but opining that there's nothing wrong with being a Bunny simply because the application process includes a maths test is oversimplistic to say the least.

However much Playboy try to sanitise their brand image by marketing pencil cases to under-age girls, it's still a porn brand, and a pretty misogynistic one at that. They own a suite of porn channels which run programmes such as ""Bound, Gagged & Shagged", "Piss Loving Lesbian Sluts" and "Extreme Insertions"*.

The human, female incarnations of the Playboy Bunny not only enhance the brand for these other activities, they *are* the brand. It's beside the point that the women working as Bunnies are "strictly vetted, rigorously trained and fiercely chaperoned" - they're the figurehead for the whole of the rest of the caboodle and, in a way, representative of the entire porn industry. To paraphrase Adhesively Unhallenged: if being a Bunny is so liberating, why don't men do it?

Finally, still on the sex industry (well of course - it's everywhere), we have reports that the heavily opposed lap dancing bar 'Club Redd' has burned down, just weeks after opening. The fire service have made no comment on the cause, but the club owner places the blame firmly at the feet of anti-lapdancing protestors.

Can I say first and foremost that arson is not cool?

Having got that out of the way - and assuming it was arson - proprietor Lee Valls demonstrates the contempt for women I can only assume is endemic in his profession by comparing the anti-lapdancing contingent to (you've guessed it) Nazis:

"With some people it runs to a high passion," he said. "I compare it to the book burning in Berlin in 1939."

Except it's not really, is it, Lee? Because - and I wish this point didn't need making - poor books weren't being exploited by rich drunks for jollies on a bibliophile's night out. Random passing books weren't subject to being read without their consent. All books everywhere weren't being degraded by the mere existence of libraries. Do you get my point, Lee? It's a shitty metaphor, but it's yours. A heads up: women aren't books.

(Also - comparing everything to the Nazis is so fucking lazy, isn't it? Not to mention disrespectful).

Any more for any more on irritating articles of the day? Consider this an open thread for crappy journalism.

*I totally did that to googlebomb him - click on it, won't you?
**hat tip to Bea on the LFN network for those titles!

This originates from a British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (BJOG) article in the current issue. I can't access the full text of this study, but the abstract concludes that outcomes "are in the same range as TOP [Termination Of Pregnancy] provided in outpatient settings", although the BBC and the Independent are reporting that 11% need subsequent surgical intervention in a tone which suggests this is abnormally high. Without checking the article I can't really tell whether this is the case.

Women on Web describe themselves as

"a digital community of women who have had abortions and individuals and organisations that support abortion rights",

The combination of the drugs mifepristone and misoprostol (commonly termed a 'medical' as opposed to a 'surgical' abortion) can be used until 9 weeks gestation and (in the UK at least) women can take them at home as an outpatient, under supervision by a medical practitioner. This report from last year finds no significant increase in post-abortion complications from medical abortions when compared with surgical abortion.

Women on Web apparently (I say apparently as I can't actually access the site from work, where I currently am) ask a list of 25 questions, and encourage women to see medical professionals and get an ultrasound before dispatching the drugs.

Unsafe abortion is a leading killer amongst women. The WHO estimates that 48% of all abortions worldwide are unsafe, and that 68,000 women die every year because of it. Earlier this year, Laura reviewed a programme showing the devastating effects of the outlawing of abortion in Nigeria.

I'm no medical practitioner, so it's hard for me to comment with any authority, but I will say that it sounds as though this website are doing a pretty valuable service. If the study is correct that buying pills online and administering them yourself is no less safe than inpatient care, then this has the potential to save an awful lot of lives. I would imagine the danger would be greater in those countries where medical facilities are insufficient to help women experiencing complications, or where women are too scared of recriminations to present for emergency help. Not to mention that £55 is a lot of money in some parts of the world. Do any of our readers with more medical knowledge than me have anything to add on this?

Audrey Simpson of the Northern Ireland FPA does also point out that, whilst Women on Web may be ethical and responsible, others may not be:

"There are potentially serious medical complications for women from sites which aren't well managed and this could be the new era of backstreet abortions."

The ideal, of course, would be that all women would be able to access safe, legal, free abortion whenever they need it. Backstreet unsafe abortions are totally unacceptable to anyone who cares about women's - human - rights. This is undoubtedly a pretty uneasy middle ground, but for an awful lot of women it could be the best option they have.

Hat tip to commenter Sian for pointing this out

Pic by Peace Chicken, shared under a Creative Commons license

Unfortunately Ms Saward didn't do terribly well, coming sixth overall - ahead of "Mad Cow Girl" of the Monster Raving Loony Party, but just behind Miss Great Britain - in what must have been the oddest by-election in living memory.

Davis won with 72% of the vote (on a 34% turnout that means that 24% of the population eligible to vote voted for him), although neither Labour nor the Lib Dems ran a candidate against him, presumably 'not dignifying him with a response'. Nevertheless, it is thought that he may have sacrificed his political career to make this stand, having previously been seen as the possible next Home Secretary. He now says he doesn't expect to find his way back into front bench politics any time soon.

Saward ran against Davis' platform (in particular disagreeing with him on the importance of DNA databases) saying:

"Mr Davis thinks that by forcing a by-election he is standing up for British justice. In reality he is attempting to strike a hammer blow through the very tools the police need to keep us safe."

Ms Saward was herself the victim of the infamous 'Ealing Vicarage' rape in the '80s, waiving her right to anonymity as a rape victim to campaign against sexual violence, which she has been doing ever since. She also campaigns for funding for victims of sexual violence, increased prison capacity, ease of housing transfer, support and training for medical professionals to deal with victims, and consideration of victims' rights during trial.

Gemma Garrett, otherwise known as Miss Great Britain, beat Ms Saward by 29 votes, having made a recent career of running in by-elections pledging to make politics "sexy".

Her mother said of her:

"She was all about public advocacy, particularly women’s rights. She volunteered for anything that would impact the world in a more positive way"

The man accused of killing Jana, a 46 year old artist, went on to kill himself in prison last weekend. He had served prison time in 2004 for assaulting a former girlfriend.

As Veronica at Viva La Feminista put it:

"We, the world, the feminist movement, the anti-violence movement, has lost a shining star"

RIP Jana.

A code of practice is to be drawn up stating how those "who as a matter of theological conviction will not be able to receive the ministry of women as bishops or priests" will be dealt with. The details of what will be in this code of practice remains to be seen, but the BBC reports that this is likely to fall short of the controversial "compromise" conditions demanded by traditionalists - the creation of male "superbishops" who would take over spiritual leadership of those who refuse to recognise the authority of their female bishop. Opponents of this measure said that it would effectively create a two-tier system of bishops, with women confined to the lower tier.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams (the head of the Church of England), was against this measure, saying he would be "deeply unhappy with any scheme or any solution to this which ends up, as it were, structurally humiliating women", a view supported by the 4,000 Anglicans (half of them clergy) who wrote to oppose a two-tier clergy.

The argument against women bishops is based on the fact that Jesus picked only men to be his 12 disiples, and the general biblical teachings of 'male headship'. Nevertheless, women priests have been allowed since 1992. Traditionalists who oppose women bishops have concerns that priests ordained by women bishops will not be 'properly' ordained and lack authority from God. (Trying very hard to keep a straight face here). Just a few short weeks ago I was writing about petulance from Catholic priests - this month, Canon Brandie blusters "if we don't see some provision that offers real ecclesiastical integrity and security, many of us will be thinking very hard about the way ahead". The Telegraph (sounding pretty cheesed off all round) gives some column inches to the tears of traditionalists and the victim mentality of the Rev Prebendary David Houlding, who complains "We are being pushed by a particular liberal agenda and we are going to have women bishops at the exclusion of any other view".

More refreshingly, Tory MP and General Synod member Robert Key (who supported reforms) said the church should "stop navel gazing" and get on with its business.

The Church of Wales rejected the same proposal in April of this year, and this is one amongst a number of issues which is threatening the unity of the worldwide Anglican Communion. The most contentious issue is that of homosexuality, which some say will split the Church. Christian Feminist has some interesting views on this:

"This isn't just a question of sexuality, its also a question of whether or not wealthy white countries [...] should be able to tell developing countries what to do [...] we cannot win this battle by continuing in fundamentally racist and imperialist attitudes. If the African Anglican Church is to change its mind on issues of sexuality, then African Christians and African LGBT people will have to lead the way. We can give our opinions and assistance to their struggle, but we don't get to be in charge."

Update: Zoe Williams on the (traditionalist) bishop who cried during the General Synod debate:

Fantastic!

You were quoted in the Daily Mail today, on the subject of the adoption agencies from which the Catholic Church is withdrawing funding. I understand that the future of those agencies is extremely uncertain as a result. Now that I have finished the reading the article, spluttering, re-reading it, and ranting at your breathtaking hypocrisy, I have a question.

I understand you weren't very happy about the legislation that was passed last year prohibiting you, and all others offering commercial goods or services, from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. I remember that Tony Blair wanted to grant concessions to religious organisations such as your adoption agencies, but that his cabinet (in a rare but welcome show of strength) revolted and, instead, you got a year's grace and some transitional funding*.

You said:

"The Catholic agencies do and did very good work. For the sake of a principle and certain political correctness we are losing some very good facilities [...] the government has forced us into this position"

I was agreeing with you until that last bit. Ridiculous to lose all those excellent facilities over a point of principle. Stubborn. Bloody minded. Petty. But - whose principles? Not the government's.

You said it yourself - you're doing a good job out there. I feel sure you're right. You're undoubtedly helping a lot of very unhappy children and parents. You must be bringing happiness to very many lives. I'm pleased that some "hundreds of thousands of parishoners ... have raised millions of pounds over the years to support the much-loved organisations". You're the expert on these matters, of course, but I'm pretty sure God would approve. These agencies seem like perfect examples of the charity, grace and love which the Bible entreats humans to show to one another. If religion has a place in our society (and there's an argument for another day) this surely must be its most important? It's a while since I read the Bible but I remember it being pretty heavy on helping the poor and the dispossessed, bringing God's grace not only to those of whom we approve, but to all of His children*.

I'm digressing - I had a question. It's a terribly simple one.

Kieran - if you think it's so unacceptable to deny needy children these services 'just for the sake of a principal' (and, by God, I agree with you) then why are you?

The government certainly aren't forcing you to withdraw that funding (money which doesn't by rights belong to you but to your parishoners who, presumably, gave it to you on the understanding that you'd use it to actually help children).

Nobdoy's saying the Church aren't fit to run adoption agencies. The government hasn't asked you to shut down, and - unless you're privy to some inside information that we're not - they don't want you to shut down. The only reason that the Catholic Church has pulled out of the adoption game is that you refuse to comply with the law that this democratically elected government has passed. You are selling these children up the river exactly on a point of principle - and a pretty negative one at that.

'Politically correct' you may think it, but the legislation you're so convinced you will be unable to comply with is not terribly unreasonable. As much as the Church has tried to spin that it's prioritising one group ('The Gays') over another ('Decent God-Fearing British Christians') - we both know that it's not. The only thing that legislation requires you to do is to treat people equally and without prejudice. I'd go so far as to say that it's pretty Biblically sound (think of it as a "let he who is without sin..." kind of vibe). Of course the placing of children with parents will be subjective to an extent, based on grounds of suitability which must be judged. But this law isn't asking you to hand out children to anyone who knocks on the door. What it is asking you to do is judge a case on its merits, judge a parent by their capacity to love and provide for a wanted child. Again, it's a decade or two since my scripture exams, but I'm pretty sure that was exactly the sort of thing that used to float Jesus' boat. You know - the humility to interact with people without judging them, judgement being the perogative of God, and God only. That sort of thing.

So, Rev Conry, how dare you defend your Church's wilful disregard of these children; children you know from first-hand experience need help? Not everyone is in a position to help. You and your church are - you have money, you have organisations with experience, you have infrastructure in place. You have petulantly withdrawn it because you haven't got your way, and because you want to score political points. You, along with your Church and the other self-righteous men (name checking: Rev Peter Doyle and Rev Malcolm McMahon) are blaming the government for not validating your prejudices. You are cynically playing with the futures of the children you should be helping - who I'm pretty damned sure God would like you to help - and you will be the only ones responsible for any unnecessary misery and suffering caused to these children because of your "principles". Please stop trying to pretend otherwise.

Sincerely,

Lynne Miles

*at least the New Testament - the Old Testament as I remember it is supposed to only be there for historical context since Jesus wiped the slate clean.

Lara's into crafts, knitting most particularly, and craft blogging. Part of the joy of craft blogging is proudly displaying photos of your finished items, but the super-swish, hyper-tidy visions of domestic bliss showcased in these pictures sometimes started to get Lara down:

by only focusing on the beautiful corners of your home you are tipping over into hyper-reality and showcasing an aspirational lifestyle [...] the fact that we know glossy lifestyle/fashion magazines aren’t real doesn’t make them any less damaging in my view, it still portrays an unattainable lifestyle and something for women to put pressure on themselves to aspire towards.

And so the concept of Messy Tuesdays was born - Lara and her friend Felix posted photos of their unfinished washing up, car boots stuffed with crap, untidy bookcases, and stacks of unrinsed milk bottles. Other bloggers have followed suit, and I want to join in. So here are photos of my spectacularly untidy desk and the patch of disgustingly dirty carpet uncovered under our laundry bin (well who honestly hoovers under their furniture?)

Why is this important? It's important because, as Lara says:

For someone who spent her teenager years wrapped in teenage angst about not being clever enough, pretty enough or thin enough, the idea that my home won't be beautiful enough, my craft not so well executed or my knitting up to speed has been at times quite tough.

I think this resonates in a lot of areas in our lives, particularly for women. An example. My boyfriend and I have a reasonably equitable division of household labour, although we are both, frankly, presidposed towards the slovenly. Still, we divide some tasks between us (I do laundry, he cleans the kitchen and bathroom), take it roughly in turns to do others (tidying the bedroom, cooking, washing up). The rest of the chores we kind of pretend don't exist (Ironing. Seriously. Who has time in their life for ironing?)

So far so good; nobody's angsting about the housework in terms of who does it. But in terms of who worries about it - well I totally have the upper hand. If we have people round for dinner, he'll usually tidy up whilst I'm at work, but I'm the one obsessively apologising to people for the (sometimes non-existent) mess. You know, like its my fault - more accurately, my responsibility. Cause although he may 'help out' (and get the praise for doing so) I will be the one who is on the receiving end of any disapproval which may be flying around.

I've been away a lot for work recently, and later this week I have an approximately ten hour turnaround between getting back from a week long trip, and going off on another week-long trip to visit the in-laws. I did as much laundry as I could last weekend, but inevitably we'll be short on socks and underwear and stuff by Friday. No problem, says he, we'll just wash it when we get to my mum's. The housewife-throwback inside of me instinctively shudders - what would his mum think of me if we turned up with a pile of dirty laundry? She'd think I wasn't looking after her boy properly. No matter that my brain knows this to be nonsense. No matter that if she ever said as much to me (which of course she wouldn't) I'd certainly manage to muster a pretty strong counter-attack. That's still my first reaction.

I read the recent Feministe thread on 'Being a Feminist Boyfriend' with some interest, and a few comments struck a chord with me.

Hugo Schwyzer:

We must be willing to do more than "help out"; around the house (the language of a child doing chores). We must proactively assert ourselves in domestic decisions, lifting a culturally-imposed burden off the shoulders of our spouses.

Raoul_j_Raoul:

That home is yours, so do not help with housework, DO housework.

and Anne Onne:

She, on the other hand, has probably been brought up to help around the house, that it must be done, and to a certain standard, and that people will judge her on it. And it's not a lie, they will. Your partner feels uncomfortable because she knows that any blame for the house not being spotless will fall on her, even if it's not her fault. She will probably do much more of the housework than you, because of this.

So, on reflection, perhaps we should take our dirty underwear to his mother's after all...! Strike a blow for the sisterhood? In the meantime, I'd like to see some more Messy Tuesdays.

Since our last update on the campaign, Former F-Word blogger Kate Smurthwaite (aka Cruella) and the others involved have done an amazing job of rallying support for the cause. The licensing committee have received between 300 and 400 responses from members of the public.

The team have also received support from some high profile politicians:

Local MP Diane Abbot:

“I am very impressed with the sheer volume of objections to turning Satchmo’s into a sex establishment. The high level of complaints shows how much our community does not need such an establishment. I sincerely hope that lots of local residents make it to the license request hearing on May 6th to show these objections in the most visible way and that the Licensing Committee take this show of public objection into account.”

And Mayor of London Ken Livingstone:

"The number of letters of complaint sent to Hackney Council by concerned local residents and businesses shows the strength of opposition to this proposal that runs through this community. I continue to support this residential community in its attempts to maintain the quality of life for all the families and residents who live in Stoke Newington and for everyone who works in and visits the area. It is the right of all local people to attend the Council hearing and I would urge them to do so."

The next step is the licensing hearing - which will be held at 7pm on Tuesday 6th May at Hackney Town Hall. I'll be there and hope to meet some F-Word readers whilst I'm at it.

I’ve said it before and I’ll again: patriarchy isn’t some vague intellectual conceit invented by radical feminists to pass the time in between trips to the Birkenstock store. It’s an actual humanitarian crisis, and it has actual consequences, even for you, even if you say it doesn’t.

The 'sex' industry has done a great job in focusing the debate on "women's choices", while the focus of any discussion on the subject should be on the consumers who CHOOSE to use pornography, and, in the case of prostitution, on the johns who CHOOSE to buy women for sex.

This carnival follows hot on the heels of the Feminist Carnival of Sexual Autonomy and Freedom, the Carnival of Radical Feminists, the Carnival Against Sexual Violence, the Radical Woman of Colour Carnival and of course our old friend, the Carnival of Feminists.

I'm so excited that so many carnivals, so many bloggers and so many commenters are out there in the feminist sphere, and that such a wide variety of feminist viewpoints are represented. I love bimbling my way through all of them, discovering hidden gems, disagreeing with some, agreeing with others and just generally having my perspective broadened. We've come a long way since Catherine set up The F-Word because she couldn't find any British feminists on the web!

Anyways. Read and enjoy, my lovelies.

"Gay scientists isolate the Christian gene" - because gayness can be inherited just like baldness.

Watch it a second time to read the scrolling 'news' bar.

Hat tip to the Bilerico Project

The first is that the level of hatred directed at Heather Mills has been breathtaking. We cannot possibly know the facts about either of them, about what their personalities really are, or whether the various allegations flying around are true. For what it's worth, I feel sorry for her, and suspect she's the victim of a particularly vicious press. Moreover, I don't think her claims were particularly outragous. She's looking after his child, who presumably ought to be privileged to a similar lifestyle that her (rich and famous) brothers and sisters enjoyed. And Heather alleges she turned down career opportunities in favour of concentrating on marriage and home on Paul's wishes. If that's true she should be compensated (more of that here). But that's not really what I want to focus on because the point I was coming round to making is this:

This obsessive focus of the media on high-profile divorce cases (frequently with a tone of disapproval about 'gold digging women') is misleading. The truth is this: women are overwhelmingly made worse off when their marriage breaks down. Men overwhelmingly get better off. Recently published research from the Institute for Social and Economic Research has found that women who split from their husbands between 1998 and 2004 were on average 12% worse off than they had been before in financial terms. Their ex-husbands, gallingly, get 31% richer.

Income levels are at their lowest for separated women in the year immediately following the split, as might be expected, and slowly recover. Still, after 5 years, women's average income remains 10% lower than it was before. Those women who are able to work or who find another partner do much better, but non-working separated mothers face particular financial hardship.

This is actually a big improvement from the picture just a few short years ago - married women separating in the early '90s got 30% poorer whilst their husbands got 36% richer. This improvement is not due to any sudden enlightenment on the part of the courts ("Hey! She's looking after the kids! If anyone has more money to throw around, shouldn't it be her?"). The relative change for men over the 1990s isn't big enough to explain this trend - the extra money that women are getting is not coming from them. In fact, the change is attributed to the increase in employment amongst single parent women, in particular the compensatory effect of measures such as the Working Family Tax Credit.

Essentially, then, when marriages break up, the courts fail to enforce equitable settlements, women as single parents are forced into work regardless of whether they think this is best for their family, and the taxpayer subsidises the whole caboodle. Men, one assumes, get themselves a PS2 with their spare cash and wait mournfully for every second weekend. Why aren't the newspapers reporting on that?

And Mills-McCartney? Well, whatever her faults, it looks to me as though she's getting poorer ...

The Royal College of Physicians was asked by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee to update their position relating to mental health and abortion (in wake of the inquiry into scientific evidence related to abortion, which we covered here).

The Royal College duly undertook a literature review and found that "the evidence base is inconclusive" and recommends that a full systematic review is undertaken around the issue. Specifically they note that some women experience mental disorder at some time during pregnancy and birth, and that whether abortions specifically have an impact on mental health "remains to be resolved". They say that women with pre-existing mental disorders who undergo pregnancy and birth *or* abortion need mental health support.

If you'd like to read the statement in full (more than the Sunday Times apparently did - and it's only a page long) - it's here.

Balanced.

Former F-Word guest blogger, Kate Smurthwaite, (aka Cruella of Cruella-blog) has been spearheading a campaign to stop Satchmo's on Stoke Newington High Street from being granted the license. You can read more about the campaign and see newspaper coverage of their protest last weekend at the specially set up Stop the Strip Pub blog.

Manager Scott Davis is quoted in the Evening Standard as saying

"We're trying to reinvent ourselves as a modern, stylish, cocktail bar that offers adult entertainment and live music".

"we believe it'll be positive for the area".

So tell us, Scott, how this strip pub of yours is going to be positive for the local area? Will it be through the increased noise and late night disturbance of hoardes of drunk, sexed-up men falling out at closing time? Will it be through the almost inevitable increase in street harassment of female residents in the area? The increase in street prostitution which may occur around the venue? The possibility of prostitution and rape of the women dancing there? The increased likelihood of being raped as a passer by? All potential results of lapdancing clubs identified by Eaves. Goodness me, Scott, it's a good job you came along with your ideas of how our community could be made better.

I'll be writing my letter to the licensing authorities this afternoon and doing all I can to support the campaign. I hope some F-Worders will too. They need to be with the council by 25th of March - full details and suggested content are over at Stop the Strip Pub.

Image from Stop The Strip Pub

Pamela Wright, the partner of Steve (recently convicted of murdering five prostitutes in Ipswich) was interviewed on Sky News last Sunday, to give her side of the story. Pamela was oblivious to Steve's actions, or even that he visited prostitutes, and it goes without saying that this is a pretty nightmarish time for her. She was brave, but visibly distressed.

And do you know what Kay Burley asked her? She asked:

"Do you think if you'd had a better sex life, he wouldn't have done this?"

No, seriously, she did. You won't believe me (I didn't believe it) so you can watch a three minute clip of the interview here. It's about halfway. I almost fell off my chair. Apparently women are now obligated to put out on demand, lest their partner get fed up and turn into a serial killer.

Liveblogger Debi Linton is so pissed off she's started off an internet petition to get Kay Burley sacked. Sign it, why don't you?

If reading that makes you despair for the male sex, this riposte by Nottingham's Mr Sex on Todger Talk may cheer you up a little:

Well, that puts a new spin on 'trickle-down' economics.Yes Patrick, all of these women desperately wanted to grow up to make a living by sucking on some sweaty, half a century-old IT spod-cock. Presumably, this twat also thinks that, by racking up another line of Wanker Powder on a toilet seat, he’s helping to put a Playstation 3 in the hands of some poor Bolivian urchin.

Thank God at least one man gets it. I've said it before, Laura's said it before, hell everyone has said it before, but as long as men like 'Patrick' think this:

I want to pay and someone wants to sell. As long as I'm not hurting them in any way what harm am I doing. I'm distributing my wealth to people who don't have it.

then it bears repeating.

The OVERWHELMING majority of women working as prostitutes - effectively all of them - are in it against their will. Either explicitly because they've been trafficked, or indirectly because they are hostage to substance abuse or poverty. There may be a handful of women out there who enjoy it - probably those who aren't so desperate for the cash they can't afford to pick and choose their clients, times and locations - but they're few and far between. The chances that you'll pick one of those women up off the street or from a calling card have got to be monumentally small. Facts on this sort of stuff are everywhere, but doubting Thomases can start with the Home Office prostitution strategy, which finds that 95% of prostitutes are drug users, homeless or both.

The question is not whether it's theoretically possible for sex to reduced to an economic transaction, but whether in the real world anyone can ever be reasonably sure that the transaction they're involved in right now is consensual. If a man cannot establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that the woman he is paying for sex is doing it of her own free will - and I would argue that he almost never will be able to - then he is not taking part in some benign free market transaction, he is a rapist. The next time someone tells you 'it's just supply and demand, innit?', remind them of that.

In that particular piece I don't think the image was unfair or out of context, since we were protesting a rally called by a high profile Conservative MP (albeit one who is about to retire). I don't generally intend to display partisan bias, but it is fair to say I don't consider myself a natural Tory. I have a special disdain for the type of Conservatives who manage to marry a belief in small government and a laissez-faire economic approach with an interventionist approach to people's private and family lives, and in particular their sex lives. It's always struck me as a fairly inconsistent set of values, to be honest. Libertarianism seems the more honest and coherent position than Conservatism in its traditional sense.

I'm nevertheless aware that there are those within the Conservative Party who have worked hard for women's issues, and who do not adhere to nuclear-family church-going warm-beer-and-cricket Conservatism. Eleanor Laing springs most immediately to mind, having worked on women's issues in parliament for some years and voted against her party for gay and transsexual rights.
John Bercow addressed the Abortion Rights rally in parliament which preceded the protest, saying that since some people had brought up the issue of changing the law on abortion (i.e. by restricting access to it) that "those who want an abortion law fit for the 21st century should use the opportunity to create it", and called for an end to the requirement for two doctor's signatures. He has also cast rebel "no" votes in the Commons against requirements for parents of under-16s to be informed about contraceptive prescriptions and for mandatory pre-abortion counselling. So I think pro-women Tories can and demonstrably do exist, despite my general disdain for the party.

With all that in mind, let's have a look at the Conservative report, launched this week by Theresa May (Shadow Minister for Women) to provide "a new foundation for Conservative policy on women's issues".

The report opens by criticising Labour policy on women as having been too heavily based on legislation, and for treating 'women' as an homogeneous block. The Tory approach, by contrast, would focus on women as "thirty million individuals". They are upfront about saying the Tory policy would be to pursue equality of opportunity, not outcome, which accords with Tory philosophy more generally. As Jess pointed out to me, this approach is at risk of understanding the structural and group dynamics of oppression against women. But those principles are really at the heart of Conservativism and unlikely to change, so let's press on.

Much of the document is light on proposals, and restricts itself to talking around a number of women's issues and presenting a range of evidence which implies 'something needs to be done' without saying much explicit about what or how. I guess you could say they're aligning themselves with the issues. In particular they reject the oppression of women in the name of religion or culture (FGM, polygamy, honour killings etc = bad) and stress the importance of the role of women in international development, reconstruction and poverty relief. To be honest, a lot of stuff that is easy to say and hard to disagree with. That sounds snide, and isn't meant to be, but there's not much on any of the issues in the back end of the document that is concrete.

Up front there's some stuff to get our teeth into. They criticize the Labour policy of trying to force single mothers into work, and for not providing adequate choice in childcare for those who do work. Their concrete proposals for women and work include:

• Compulsory equal pay audits when an employer is found to have discriminated at an employment tribunal (EPAs are currently voluntary under Labour, who introduced the concept).


• A "reasonableness test"; to be introduced for employment tribunals - currently an employer can furnish a "material reason" why someone is paid less than a colleague and a judge has no power to judge whether this is reasonable. This would change.


• Extending flexible working rights to all parents of children under-18 (not just mothers) to try to correct the balance of gendered jobs, where women are ghettoised in flexible jobs which tend to be low paying.


• Improve the quality of careers advice to girls in school, encouraging ambition and advising on the material impacts of the choices available to them.

• "Stable, long term funding cycles for Rape Crisis centres" (currently struggling for funding under Labour).


• Tackling societal attitudes towards rape by making "the teaching of sexual consent "a mandatory part of sex education".


• A review of rape sentencing.

• More resources devoted to catching and prosecuting traffickers.


• Increased funding for safe houses through the Poppy Project.


• Making safe houses available to teenaged trafficked women.


• Setting up a telephone helpline for victims of trafficking


• Ratifying the European Convention on Action against trafficking in Human Beings (which Labour has so far not done, due to fears it might encourage immigration (!) but which Labour has said it will ratify by the end of 2008) .

You can find the full document here.