Thin Privilege, is, in my opinion, one of the worst forms of privilege. None of them are ok, at all. But thin privilege is a little harder to discern, a little more insidious, a little harder to fight. I'm happy to be told I'm wrong- I don't want to play the 'X oppression is worse than Y oppression card' here, or deny the damage done to individuals and groups by other forms of privilege.

It's just that Thin Privilege is so unbelievably socially acceptable, that even the government are in on the act. We don't as a society accept racism, or sexism or homophobia. We, have, in fact got laws against them. There is however, no law that protects fat people from discrimination. There is no law that says I can sue my employer because my colleagues regularly and routinely interrogate my choices of lunch, and berate me for 'not being good'. I am 25 years old, and the people in my office tell me I am not being 'good' because I ate a fricking sandwich.

I can take action if they disparage my heritage. I can take action if they disparage my gender. I can take action if they disparage my sexuality. I am protected in law, at least from those things. I can do nothing when they disparage my weight, and make jokes about fat people, or comment on how lazy and stupid a fat person must be, and comment that they couldn't possibly care about themselves. There is no law to protect me from this. I have to accept their hideous and cruel behavior, because somehow, the fact that my body type is not an accepted norm means it is ok to ridicule, bully and mistreat me.

And when I complain, they tell me that it is because they are trying to 'help' me, and that their actions are for my own good.

I know, I am not the only fat person who experiences this. I know from speaking to other people, both online and offline that this is common. There seems to be this notion, this idea that thin = good and fat = bad. Some of the comments I have seen on this blog have borne this out. No matter how liberal or progressive, or devoted to equality someone is, it appears, that there is nothing that stops a thin person from exerting their privilege over a fat person, and reminding them that thin= good and fat = bad.

This is my last post in my guest blogging stint here on The F Word. I want to use it to remind you all of this- when you check your racial privilege, or your gender privilege or your class privilege or your able privilege, please check your weight privilege too. Are you about to trot out something about 'obesity is a drain on resources' or another one of those well know fallacies about weight?

Are you about to comment that someone should eat more fruit or exercise more or restrain themselves more, in order to comply with your image of a bodily ideal? Before you do that, think, for a second about what it is to live in a body that society hates. Think for a second, about what it is like to walk into a room, and have every single person in that room assume that are lazy, stupid, unwashed, unattractive and that you have no confidence or self esteem. Think what it is to be told daily, everywhere you look, and by people you speak to, that you would be better, could be better, indeed, that you SHOULD be better- if only you tried harder.

And when you think that, and take that second, check your Thin Privilege, and remind yourself that EVERY BODY is a person, and as such, has a value and a worth that extends far beyond their physical appearance.

At first I thought Change 4 Life would be ok- it targets parents, and explains the importance of making sure kids have good nutrition. Then however the adverts with lurid fat trains piling up inside a plasticine child's body came out. At this point I just got cross. Terrifying people into accidentally starving their children, and making children scared of being fat, is not the way to make sure you have healthy, nourished children. And, I KNOW people, who having seen those adverts, will panic that they are accidentally killing their children and promptly slash the amount of food they offer to them.

Then, this morning, I log into my Google reader, and am met with this post from Junkfood Science. It details two advertisements from the Change 4 Life campaign, which were run in womens magazines. Both threaten the children in those adverts, with premature death, - one for eating a cupcake (girl) and one for playing computer games (boy). Besides the obvious and irritatingly sexist assumption that only boys play computer games, and only women care about their childrens nutrition and physical activity levels, both adverts are threatening children with dying for doing two very normal childhood activities.

These adverts make me furious on many levels. As a Mother, it is difficult enough, when my daughter comes home crying because someone at school told her she was fat and ugly (she's actually 'underweight' and always has been). My son regularly refuses to eat foods because he has been told at school that they are bad for him.

As a Gamer, I am annoyed that once again computer games are being blamed for children not doing more activity. Just looking at my kids, and their friends, who all have access to at least one games console, not a one of them engages in less than an hour of physical activity. We live on a council estate, in an area that is recognized as having health inequalities, and a level of comparatively high deprivation. The reason those children have access to games consoles, is because their parents will save all year, scrimping on luxuries, walking instead of taking buses and so on, to get them a console as a big Christmas present. Also, especially with the advent of the Wii and the Blance Board based games, which massively encourage physical activity, and it seems clear to me that once again the Government is falling back on time old and dangerous assumptions.

Finally, as a fat, but healthy, woman, I'm annoyed. This campaign against fatness, which for some of us, is our natural body shape, is infuriating, inaccurate and highly dangerous. Parents need to be supported to make healthy lifestyle choices, with a focus on Health, not avoiding fat. It should not be cheaper to go to Iceland and fill your freezer with frozen, processed foods than be able to buy fresh vegetables and lean meats/fish to cook for your family. Fat people should not have to suffer humiliation, and be accused of being a drain on resources, just because some idiot in a government department decided that fat was the danger of the day, despite an awful lot of evidence suggesting otherwise.

On paper this may seem like a great idea, and would certainly be a step towards moving British maternity leave arrangements in line with some of the more equal arrangements which can be found in Europe. However, cutting Maternity leave from 6 months to 9 months, when only 6 weeks of that leave is currently paid at 90% of the mothers earnings, and the rest is paid at a statutory rate of £117 is a terrible idea, which will impact very negatively on Mothers in low inome families in particular. That's before you get to the hideous hetronormative slant to these changes- what leave for example does the non child bearing mother of a child born to two women get? And what leave do gay men get when they have a child? Once again the government has conveniently ignored any families that do not fit a 'traditional', hetrosexual mould. What happens if the Mother is the main breadwinner or doesn't WANT to stay at home for 6 months? Can her partner take the leave she could have taken?

I really think that more equal leave for parents following the birth of a child is an absolute neccessity. Having a baby is a massive strain both physically and emotionally and having a second parent at home not only allows a new or expanded family time to recover, it also allows them time to bond and form a cohesive family unit. What I would like to see is paid, flexible leave that can be taken by any parent of a child at any point in the first year following the birth/adoption of a child. This would allow for both parents to be off in any combination they can think of. This would mean that rather than a one size fits all apporach, families are able to work out something that fits them best and allows for both parents to properly enjoy time off with their new child and each other, without being under pressure to return to work.

I have an attitude towards porn that I know many feminists have an issue with. I'm not quite pro porn..... but I'm definitely not anti it and I think that there is an important distinction to be made between porn made and viewed by adults who are consenting, non- coerced individuals exercising their autonomy fully and choosing to engage in sexual acts on film as a method of sexual expression, and those who are coerced, non- consenting or exploited. I don't necessarily believe that all porn is exploitative. I do however appreciate that there are a lot of feminists who would quite strongly disagree with me, and I can see the validity of their arguments. I will also agree that the majority of porn is exploitative, as is the mainstream porn industry as a whole.

A lot of noise is being made these days about 'hardcore internet porn' and indeed, any quick google will bring you back gazillions of porn sites to cater to any desire you may have. However, and here is my very big thing- to find this porn you must actively LOOK for it. It isn't as if turning on your computer will immediately result in porn of every description flooding your screen. Unlike magazines such as Zoo and Nuts, which are available just about anywhere, and do not offer anyone a chance to choose whether or not to be greeted with unrealistic, misogynistic images of half naked women, internet porn must be actively sought and viewed.

I do agree that watching porn has a very detrimental affect on the minds of teenagers. I do think that porn should be an exclusively adult arena. What I don't agree with, is that it is the sole responsibility of the government and Internet Service Providers (ISP's) to initially sort out the accessibility of pornography.

I consider that to be the responsibility of PARENTS. It isn't that hard to set up parental controls on your computers and internet- I have parental controls on our family pc, parental controls on our satellite television and when they reach an age when they are old enough to need/want laptops for studying my children will have parental controls on those too. I was angered by the shows denial of parental responsibility when it comes to protecting children from the more harmful aspects of porn. Yes, pornography should be regulated, and yes the government do need to work to create a society where children receive adequate sex education which focuses on sexual relationships being about mutual respect and understanding both in and out of emotional relationships. It is also the responsibility of the government ( and everyone else) to create a society where this is no such thing as coerced, non consenting porn.

To argue however, that it is solely the responsibility of the Government and ISP's to deny access to porn, is to deny parents the responsibility of looking after their children. It also, I think, doesn't address the need for parents to talk to their children about sex and pornography and issues surrounding the way porn portrays sexual relationships, and about the differences between real sex and porn sex.

I can and do appreciate that not all parents are responsible (or aware of the danger), and I am aware and do acknowledge that not all children have parents/ familial guardians who are available to talk to them about sex, porn and using the net safely. I do think the government should perhaps sort something out so computers which are brought/sold in Britain come with parental controls automatically set up. The onus is then on adult users of the computer to disable the parental settings, which handily avoids anyone not knowing how to set up parental controls.

In the same way it is the responsibility fo parents to regulate their childrens' televisions viewing, and indeed we trust parents to do this, it is parents responsibility to regulate childrens internet usage, because it is a parents role to regulate materials seen by their children within the home. Obviously a parent can do nothing about what is viewed by children outside of the home, BUT they can be warned of the dangers of internet porn and regulate their childrens access to adult websites in the same way they would regulate them viewing it on television.

To bring the state into it, is I feel, the beginning of a slippery slope towards state parenting, and a further expansion of a nanny state and surveillance society.

Lets just be clear here. The Guardian reports that:

The prime minister was stung into action following fresh revelations about Jacqui Smith's husband, Richard Timney, using her expenses allowance to watch two soft porn films. The home secretary is already under investigation by John Lyon, the parliamentary standards commissioner, over her £116,000 claim for her second home in her constituency, Redditch.

Except Jacqui Smith wasn't using her expenses allowance to watch soft porn movies. Ms Smith submitted a claim for her media package, which she is perfectly allowed to do, and then later realised she had inadvertently claimed for her TV bill and not just her internet bill. She attempted to sort the problem and then it was discovered her HUSBAND had ordered and watched 2 soft porn movies when she was ABSENT from the property.

Could someone please explain to me, being as I'm but a humble feminist who doesn't understand all this high falutin' political talk, how this translates to 'using her expenses allowance to buy and watch soft porn'? I mean seriously? She wasn't there, she didn't do it and now the media are calling for her resignation and calling foul, because of something someone else did!

The second accusation against her, about the second home claims is also ludicrous. Again the media is calling foul along with various members of the Tory Party, and the Daily Fail offers us this glorious quote :

The Tory leader said: "I think she has got some questions to answer about the second home issue. It does seem to me pretty incredible to claim that the home where her family is, that is not her main home."

Insiders believe the troubled Home Secretary has a matter of only a few months to save her political career.

So she spends most her time in London working, where she lodges at her sisters house. This, one presumes, essentially makes her Redditch home her weekend/holiday home. Which to my mind makes it a second home. I'm not sure why David Cameron has such an issue with this. Could it be because Ms Smith is a woman and well, she should be at home with her family, where she belongs. Not dabbling in all this politics business.

Now I'm not going to disagree that MP's do seem to be able to claim an awful lot of money for an awful lots of things and this may not be a good thing. However, if the choice is between the occasional expenses claim being a bit dodgy, and only the very rich and well off being able to afford to run for Parliament, I'd rather deal with the odd dodgy expenses form thanks.

It seems clear (to me at least) that is Ms Smith was Mr Smith this whole shebang wouldn't have been so extensive and no one would be calling for her head with such fervour. Given that media coverage of her has mostly focused on her fashion choices, I suppose we shouldn't be surprised. I just really hope that this doesn't de-rail her, because while she can still make some problematic decisions, Ms Smith does seem to be doing a relatively good job as Home Secretary.