September 2008
September's comments!
Whose feminism is it?, by Annika Spalding
From Debi Crow
I'd just like to say I really enjoyed your article, and I think it is so important that it was written and got published. You make many good points that all women and feminists need to consider.
I can also tell you you are not alone in feeling left out sometimes. I feel like that a great deal of the time (less now than in the past, but I used to more consciously try to "fit in" then than I do now). I am married with a young child, I do not have a Women's Studies degree etc etc. In fact, I have now pretty much given up on the label "feminist" for myself - it just doesn't seem to fit all that well, although I still believe most of the things I used to.
Anyway, I just wanted to say congratulations on a great article - I really hope it gets feminists and feminist organisations thinking about being more inclusive!
From Hazel
Annika, Thank you for posting this. As a working-class disabled white woman I too often feel excluded; so many discussions about what to do in the (white collar) workplace, how to raise your (middle-class) children, and so many articles about disabled (victims) women, and poor women claiming benefits (who are victims of the system). None of which really feels like it's my life - or my feminism, for that matter.
It's only a bloody tampon, by Gemma Bolwell and Harriet Chandle
From Tom Hulley
Doesn't the producer know that controversy also puts 'bums on seats'? Of course, that is not the main point. How sad that your important and principled work is put under such unfair pressure. I complained to my local council about a series of obnoxious, sexist and racist stand up comics appearing at our local council funded theatre -nothing to do with us they said! So if your are male and stand on the stage insulting women, black people, old people, disabled people etc. it is fine. If you try to make people think about change then you will be censored. It is tough but keep up the struggle.
From JENNIFER DREW
Yes, indeed why is 'menstruation' taboo when routinely we are subjected to film and theatrical images of men engaged in either single or group rape of women. Likewise images of male sexual and physical violence against women are 'eroticised and presented as entertainment' with hardly anyone batting an eyelid.
Unfortunately your company had no choice since either was withdrawing the supposedly offensive scene or have financial support withdrawn.
At least this scene has been shown publicly to theatre audiences and your company has learned how prejudice and bias does enact a heavy toll. Similar somewhat to the outcry expressed by a number of television viewers who wrongly believed an Eastenders storyline about a male adult who is known to the family, manipulates the family in order to sexually abuse and attempt to rape a female child. Same question why? Is it because some issues are better kept hidden and out of sight. But who are the ones who benefit and who are the ones who are made to feel 'dirty and deviant.'
From Andrew
I just wanted to say what a shame it is that you were put in this position. The situation would be laughable if it weren't so sad. It is a disappointment that the producer wasn't willing to back you, though I completely understand your decision to continue with the performances and am sure that the good it did for women's theatre was immeasurable.
From Claire McCann
This is a great article and clearly highlights that some issues are still taboo! It has also spurred on a very interesting debate for a few of us feminists here, having to deal with positive and negative comments on the link to your article from my facebook page!
From The Countess
I believe that the 'Greenham Common Women' protesting against US nuclear missile bases in the UK in the 1980s tied 'used tampons' around the perimeter fence of a missile silo.The 'radical' (read 'abhorrent') nature of this act seems to have not changed at all ...
Her Naked Skin, by debi withers
From Eleanor T
Fantastic article, Debi! A very thoughtful and intelligent review.
Loving outside the line of monogamy: Tristan Taormino's new guide to open relationships, a review by Red Chidgey
From Sarah Irving
I read Red Chidgey's review of Tristan Taormino's book on non-monogamy with interest. As a woman currently in a monogamous relationship but who has tried non-monogamy in several permutations before, one of the things that disturbs me about discussions of non-monogamy is their tendency to focus on the people within the core relationship and on how to manage and maintain this relationship, and on how fulfilling an open relationship can be.
What they often don't address fully is the situation of people who are on what might be termed the 'receiving end' of non-monogamy.
Obviously this largely refers to the kind of relationship where there is a core partnership but where its members are free to sleep with other people, either as ongoing 'secondary' relationships or in casual encounters. This, in my experience (which is mainly of a politicised, anarcho/a non-monogamy setting), seems to be the commonest variety. There are of course long debates to be had about the power relations within those 'core' relationships, and the frequency with which the decision to be non-monogamous might come from one, more emotionally powerful partner within them. But as I said, I'm interested in how rarely I see proper discussion of the position occupied by the people outside of this, who in books, pamphlets and articles on the subject tend to remain somewhat shadowy. Of course, many of them may be totally happy with their role - they may get a sexual relationship with minimal demands on their time, or fun casual sex with a total honesty about there being no more complex relationship expectations to pop out of the woodwork.
But I've also seen too many cases of people who've been really into the person they've slept with, and have effectively had to put up with knowing that they are totally and unchangeably in second place because they know that it's all they are ever likely to get, but are too involved to walk away. Or people who've slept with one half of an open couple without full information on the nature of the deal they've inadvertantly become part of.
However casual that encounter, people exercising their choice to be in open relationships need to be completely up-front about what they can and cannot offer, and about the limitations they have on the time and emotional effort that they can put into a relationship. Of course, in a perfect world no-one would be in emotional exploitative or unfulfilling relationships, and they're woefully common in monogamous as well as non-monogamous circles.
But the sense of liberation and positivity which often surrounds writings on non-monogamy seems to me to fail to address some of the downsides, and to fully admit the extent to which freedom for one person can mean exploitation for another.
In a well-run open set-up, the person in the open relationship has a loving, supportive environment to go back to - it's the third (4th, 5th, nth) person who can be vulnerable.
I might be underestimating Taormino's book, and maybe it does stress the need for ethical treatment of, and more consideration towards, those outside non-monogamous core couples. But I didn't see too much evidence of this in the review, and it's something sadly lacking in many pro-polyamory publications.
From Ruth
I think it's a bit strong (and unnecessary in context) to call monogamy a "lie". For many of us it works perfectly well, thanks, even if it owes more to tolerance and forgiveness than romantic notions of "the One" - on which it is in no way dependent.
Jess McCabe, editor of The F-Word, replies
Yep, after thinking it over we did too and the headline for this feature was changed. Red has written a full response to these comments on the blog, which you can see here
Across the porn divide, by Debi Crow
From Jennifer-Ruth
I thought this was a wonderful article Debs. I tend to feel more at home and agree with radical feminist ideology than I do with sex-positive feminism (a term I really hate, because I am not anti-sex! I will try using it if women identify with it though. You made a good case for and against it in your article).
However, I have never really understood the sniping between bloggers based on this differing ideology, because the core of feminism remains the same. For instance, I do have certain feelings about gender but they can only come from inside myself. It makes no sense to me to dismiss what trans-women feel or to deny their voices. Besides, I have a very feminine appearance, so it is probably easier for me to deny the existence of gender whilst at the same time slotting perfectly in to what society expects me to look like. How can I possibly say what I feel about my gender is the way that everyone feels?
Another example is that I lean towards being anti-porn and I see a lot of problems with porn and in its effects in society. But I have a friend who has posed for pictures in adult magazines. Should I not be her friend? Her body, her choice. Why should I disrespect that? But I digress...You are right, debate is very important, but speaking out for women is more important. We have to be able to speak out and fight for women - tiny blog wars mean nothing in comparison. I don't have my own blog and I am not a prolific commenter but I love reading all the different feminist theories. I love that there are all sorts of women out there fighting for women. I love that there are women who recognise how badly we still need feminism and that they won't shut up about it. I find all these strong women - including yourself - an inspiration to make me stand up and call out sexism in my day to day life when I see it.
From m Andrea
Oh please, the problem isn't some "great mystical divide", it's that the people who enjoy prostituted women have nothing to say to anybody who doesn't agree with them besides insults. I am tired of people who believe that one-sided "communication problem" is somehow the fault of anybody besides themselves.
From A Different Helen
Debi Crow's article, "Across the Porn Divide", made me think long and hard. I know where she is coming from - I do not like conflict and confrontation and would much rather everyone got on. And of course she is right, we can get on perfectly well with people we fundamentally disagree with. I have been an atheist since the age of 12, but most of my best friends are devout Christians. Although we are poles apart on religious issues, they know where I stand and I know where they do, but in all other respects we get on famously. I can even get on perfectly well with male chauvinists. They may not like the fact that I am an educated working mother who earns as much as they do, but we can still put our differences aside to work effectively together.
However, I do have a problem with the pro-pornography and pro-prostitution crowd. Feminism for me, and surely this is not contentious, is about equality. Yet while women can be bought and sold as chattels for male sexual pleasure, and the misogynistic anti-woman propaganda that is pornography is openly for sale in High Street shops, women can never be equal. Supporting the sex industry, is for me, not feminist by definition. If some women want to collude with the patriarchy by selling their bodies and undermining the status of women in society then thats fine - I fundamentally disagree with what they are doing, but no doubt I could still get on with them as people. What I cannot accept though, is when they argue in favour of the sex industry from a feminist platform. The sex industry and those that profit from it are not interested in equality for women, but in making money, and they associate themselves with feminism simply because it serves to legitimise what they do, and so protect their financial interests. In calling themselves feminists they are being deceitful and insincere, and their presence in the feminist movement undermines it. If, for the sake of harmony, we extend the hand of acceptance to the pro-pornstitution crowd, we may as well say "Well, lets just accept patriarchy then - anything for a quiet life"!! And that's not what we become feminists for, is it? Debi is just being too nice.
From lucy
In response to the article 'Across the porn divide' by Debi Crow , I would like to ask the author if there are any particular women's sites that she could recommend, I am interested in debating gender issues although I do not think I fit in to trditional catogory of feminist thought. I had not heard of the term 'sex positive' before reading your article but I think it may apply to my own veiwpoint . Thankyou it would be great if yourself or anyone reading this comment could suggest sites where I can engage in discussions about issues relating to women in modern society.I am interested in sexuality and ways in which a women can empower herself through a strong image (I am a punk) and greater awareness of her sexuality.I hope this comment made sense I havent really written anything in ages!!!
From Aideen
What a delightfully well-written article! The author got her points across very clearly, not to mention the fact that her argument was very necessary. A pleasure to read.
From Eleanor T
Fantastic article, Debi! A very thoughtful and intelligent review.
Uglies, a review by Cazz Blase
From tabi alonso
Have you read from Colombian author, Gustavo Bolívar, "Sin Tetas no hay Paraíso" (no tits,no paradise) novel? It is to say the least, horrifyingly showing the new standards of beauty all aver our cities. Try it, you will not be dissapointed.. Tabi
From Genevieve
While I enjoyed Cazz Blake's article about the Uglies trilogy (quartet?), one very important thing was left out of her synopsis of Uglies--Tally's relationship with David was one of the key elements in her development towards an acceptance of the beauty of ordinary people.
From Lottie Elle
For the review of the Uglies series. I loved the series itself, having discovered it quite out of the blue, and it did what i love best about reading books - it made me THINK. To be honest, I couldn't stop thinking about it, still can't really. What is beauty? What is so special about fame? All these questions! This was a great review all the series and gave it an also great summary.
Janes in Love, a review by Sarah C L
From Soirore
Janes in Love cannot fail the Bechdel test because it is not a film. Also something cannot fail in part. If there are moments in a film where two women are talking about something other than men it passes.
If you want to make a criticism of the graphic novel you should use a method that suits what you want to say rather than appropriating and misusing one designed for another medium. Yes I know the Bechdel test comes from a comic but it is explicitly about films.
Sarah C L, author of the article, replies
I realise the original strip refers to films, but in what way are those criteria inaplicable to any form of storytelling? If I had listed a similar set of rules without referring to Bechdel/Wallace, you would probably be complaining that I was using their ideas without crediting them properly! Tsk, what a waste of good comic book reading time.
From Serian
I haven't read the comic yet, I'm checking whether my library has it as I read it but it sounds okay to me.
If the main character hasn't been given a completely huge chest, tiny waist and thighs then I'm happy.
But I do think that it isn't a problem that they mainly talk about boys. I'm 14. Adolescence is not exciting and most of the guys suck.
It's a fact. So do a lot of the girls. But even so one of the things we talk about most is guys.
It's not that we do it because we think it's what we ought to be doing, we do it because we want to.
I can see why you don't like that part of the comic but it is important. Guys make up a great deal of the conversation. At least we can do it in a way that doesn't take away from who we are.
Sarah C L, author of the article, replies
Like I said, I'm not the target audience for this book, and you can decide for yourself whether the Janes' interest in boys is to the detriment of the story and the characters or not.
Part of feminism is about challenging the status quo, and what is generally considered to be 'normal'. If women in the past had accepted everything they did - and by extension everything that was done to them - as normal, natural and inevitable, then we wouldn't have the vote, let alone abortion rights, fair divorce laws or a legal definition of rape that doesn't treat it as damage to another man's property.
I find it interesting that you say that adolescence sucks, but just accept that as the way things have to be; the concept of 'teenager' didn't even really exist before the 1950s, when it was invented to create a new consumer market. Perhaps if our society made adolescence more interesting, you would have more exciting things to do than talk about boys?
The Perfect Vagina, a review by Amy Clare
From Cara
Brilliant article. Pretty much what I felt, too. Good programme, didn't go far enough. And LOL at the point that there aren't men going around hating their penises - yeah, as if!
From Andy Davies
I'm skeptical as to whether C4 really intended it to be a feminist program- I think it was just another C4 docu-porn program. It's more designed at dirty, sexually frustrated middle-aged men and sexually overactive teenage boys. But it is interesting to hear a new take on it. I agree it has a "love yourself as you are" moral (without having watched the program, but heard quite a lot) which I'm sure can only be good, but I don't believe that's what was intended by the program. I think C4 is getting too much credit for that!
From Jenny
I totally agree. The programme\'s message was clearly a positive one and I can\'t fault it for that. However, as it finished I was left with a sense that it didn\'t delve nearly far enough into what is a very complex situation. Also, was anyone else a bit irked by the terminology Lisa Rogers used throughout? I\'m all for reclaiming language for women, but am not wholly comfortable with such casual use of terms like \'flaps\' etc. This jokey, faintly derogatory way of referring to vaginas seems to be one of the reasons why women may find it difficult to accept the uniqueness and specificities of their own bodies. Just a thought. Overall though, yes a charming documentary, definitely a step in the right direction.
From Nasiba Wasim
you know while i was watching the programme i wondered if id get a chance to comment on it and voila! i feel that this was a long awaited documentry that should have beenshowed time ago. i watched half the show with tears in my eyes as the women expressed their emotions and i thought amy did an EXCELLENT job presenting, may i also add HOW BEAUTIFUL IS SHE! with such a busy lifestyle and children of her own Lisa Rogers still found time to do such a project and i respect her for that. in small but meaningful words....thank you...
From Sniff
This programme irritated me enourmously as it was presented by an ex-model (whom I found hypocritical) and the analysis was the usual post-feminist take of "we're all equal now therefore women must be making a free choice to do this / feel this way".
I really wanted the prog to explore the porn influence more and discuss how the different (and unequal) social location of men and women, and all the issues of objectification surrounding that inequality, lead to the porn look becoming normalised and expected of women whilst men remain relatively unscathed.
The programe also treated labiaplasty as some sort of abhorrent new trend, when in fact it is just the latest in a long line of misogynistic self-mutilation practices expected of women. Personally, I would rather have my labia chopped (as it only needs to be done once) than spend a lifetime battling to remove body hair, as most women do but fail to recognise as equally coercive as they have been indoctrinated into believeing that they do so out of choice.
Jess McCabe, editor of The F-Word, replies
Hmmm, the programme took a uniformly negative approach to the whole concept of labiaplasty. I don't think it presented it as an uncomplicated free choice.
Frankly, I find the comparison of labiaplasty to hair removal hard to understand - one involves a temporary, reversible bit of hassle (not a mutilation), the other surgery on one of the most sensitive parts of the body.
From Rosie
Excellent article. I didn't watch the program myself, instead I got a review of it down the pub from two friends. From the way they were talking about it, I'd say Amy Clare was absolutely right in saying that this documentary was not nearly brave enough or probing enough. My friends (one male and one female) didn't seem to have been instilled with any feminist feeling, but rather were talking as if the program were a freak show, showcasing the most disgusting fannies. Their conversation just became about what makes a nice vulva. One friend friend used the phrases 'beef curtains' and 'badly stuffed kebab' to describe 'bad' fannies, and the other echoed these sentiments saying there should be no 'frilly bits'. (Why are frills feminine on clothing but not genitals I wonder? The patriarchy could at least be consistent!!)
There was some criticism of one of the surgeons, who was deemed 'creepy', for showing pictures of a sixteen year old's vulva. 'But she did have the worst one', my friend reasoned straight afterwards.
The most bizzare thing was that, to round off the conversation, the male friend said he thought it was ridiculous for anyone to have cosmetic surgery. 'It won't make you happy, you should accept yourself as you are.' I felt like screaming that perhaps the REASON people aren't happy with how they are is phrases such as 'beef curtains' being bandied around in casual pub conversations!
I think this illustrates pretty well how documentaries such as this sometimes only do half a job - my friends were repelled by the idea of surgery, but still agreed that the girls' vulvas were disgusting. I completely agree with Amy Clare that more questions needed to be asked about WHY our beauty standards are what they are.
One thing I would take issue with though in Ms. Clare's article, is the question 'why are similarly large numbers of men not experiencing a plethora of painful emotions at the sight of their penises?' I personally would guess that many, many men DO have painful lackings of confidence about their genitals. There was a similar documentary a while ago about men who agonised that their penises weren't big enough, causing them serious self esteem problems - certainly not something to be dismissed. A couple of these men went through with surgery. As well as being more truthful, I think it is immensely uselful to feminism to include an analysis of the worries men have about their genitals alongside an analysis of the worries women have. Why do men think they should be bigger and women think they should be smaller? Surely this is very telling of the sexual roles of active and passive, dominant and submissive that society has traditionally, and is still, assigning to men and women.
From Lucy
Aren't vaginas invisible in that they are inside women's bodies and vulvas are the visible women's genitalia? Why is the word vagina used instead of vulva in all articles about vulvas and in the media (e.g., "The Vagina Monologues")?
From Tris
Without disagreeing with the article in general, I'd point out that a large fraction of men DO worry about their dicks, especially when they are teenagers, and I don't know anyone who gets more spam about labiaplasty than they do about penis enlargement...
Amy Clare, author of the article, replies
I accept that men do feel insecurities about their penises, particularly when it comes to size, however I feel that what prompts these women to undergo labiaplasty is in a different league. Men may (wrongly) feel that to be desirable, they need a bigger penis. Whereas women are being told that to be desirable, their genitalia need to be small, 'neat', 'tucked in', hair-free and essentially childlike. It is this that most disturbs me, and there is no male equivalent to this, as men are never told that they need to look like little boys in order to be sexually attractive. You're right about spam emails offering penis extension more often than they offer labiaplasty - however, this lack of spam advertising clearly hasn't done the labiaplasty business any harm, in fact, business is booming, so go figure. While any industry that plays on people's insecurities (be they male or female) and offers up an unrealistic image as 'normal' in order to make money is wrong, I feel that those which encourage women to look like little girls are doing the most psychological damage, as this constitutes an erasing of women's adult sexuality.
Why my son wears pink, by Penni F
From kate
hurray! i'm currently writing about contemporary understandings of masculinities and children, particularly looking at education and literature, and the level of normativity is still pretty shocking to be honest. but it's great to hear of parents encouraging individuality and diversity, and those values will definitely stay with your son later in life. sounds like you are raising him to be a strong and open minded character, and having been encouraged to express himself so openly will be sure to challenge anyone who tries to tell him otherwise! if only more people allowed individuals to be themselves, instead of trying to make us all fit into out-dated, limiting and boring stereotypes! kate
From Alex Brew
Gorgeous. Thanks! It's courageous and so necessary to bring up a human being - not a boy or a girl.
What a load of wank, by Sophie Platt
From sam
on the article about masturbation go on girls get wanking. it's good for you it connects the brain with the body with the soul.
Sisters! Some of us are mothers, too!, by Ruth Moss
From Carlota Larrea
I was happy to read something about motherhood on this website. I think the author is spot on that nowadays feminism seems to ignore issues related to motherhood.
From Annika
Thank you so much for the "Sisters! Some of us are mothers, too!" article.
I have just found out that I am pregnant, and while I am excited for the furture, I was also a little wary.
I believe that I am a feminist, but had begun to wonder if there was room in today's feminism for a first time mum.
So thank you, for writing this. Thank you very much for speaking for us.
From Claire
Yes. Lots of women are mothers. Mother is a subcatergory of female. Lets not conflate the two things.
I am a woman of 32 who does not want children. The current fashion - government policy, media, employment law, campaign groups - is to conflate 'woman' with 'mother with 'parent''.
This encourages discrimination in the workplace. Many roles - for good business reasons - are family unfriendly or it is far less efficient eg to have a job share. Employers are forced to compromise business needs for parent = mother = woman. Only rational then that many empoyers don't want to employ women of childbearing aged (if you want the citation for this research google it).
So my interests - as a women who doesn't want to be a mother - cannot coincide with women who do unless the parent = mother = woman equation changes. At the moment I'm putting in business necessary hours which mothers won't (cf part time and flexibler workers) and going to interviews where employers wonder about my commitment/maternity leave. This is called neither having the cake nor eating it.
In the name of the father..., by Sarah Louisa Phythian-Adams
From Libs
Aghhhh! I've also just got married and am heartily sick of the number of people who actually look angered when I tell them I'm not changing my name.
My partner and I had very few, very short uninvolved discussions about this topic years before we even thought of getting married. He likes his name - I'm not keen on mine but don't particularly want to change it for anyone. Neither of us wanted to change our names - end of story. Years later, when we decided to get married, we didn't even talk about it. It wasn't an issue until random relatives and workmates kept asking, digging and finally demanding "well what does Chris say?!" I suddenly realised it wasn't actually something we had discussed recently and so decided I had better check that he knew I wasn't changing my name. When I asked he seemed a bit confused at first - wondering why it would even be an issue. Once we'd started the conversation he did then bring up the worry of kids and we came to a similar solution, albeit slightly different as our names just won't double barrel. Basically we would pass both our names down to our kids but for girls my name would be last and for boys his name would be last (we assumed the last name would be the real surname and the second last a sort of extra middle name). When the kids were old enough to decide for themselves they could keep/use/pass on the name that they prefered because both names would be on their birth certificate. Again we were happy with our inspired, simple alternative and returned to our cups of tea. Yet when I tried to explain this "madness" to our nosy relatives I was also greeted with a sniffy "that's a bit confusing." and "what a palava!". Hmmm and I thought changing my name, work email, business cards, passport and who knows what else was a palava!
Now I've thought about it I've realised that many of my friends have changed their names after marriage (one did have a truly awful name tho and couldn't wait to get rid of it) I respect their choice but I do wonder about the amount of pressure that is heaped on women to just put up and shut up. Still, I guess that's an old story.
From Michelle
I really enjoyed Sarah Louisa Phythian-Adams' article 'In the Name of the Father'. How encouraging to know someone else has given this issue the thought it deserves, and come up with a brilliant solution as well. I don't plan to ever marry, for many of the reasons Phythian-Adams mentions, but I will certainly consider this name scheme for personal use should name-passing become relevant to me.
From Cara
what a brilliant solution! I think it should be made law, NOW.
From anon
I thought that Sarah Louisa Phythian-Adams' "In The Name of the Father" was incredibly unfair. I fall into her third category of women who are obviously accepting the patriarchal society in which we live by choosing to take their husband's last name because of distaste for their own. Why didn't I change it as soon as I was legally able to do so instead of waiting for the "convenience" of marriage? Because that would have been horribly offensive to my father's side of the family! It is a name I have been teased about for my whole life, and no, my husband's last name did not happen to be the one last name I absolutely adored, but it was certainly an improvement. I don't see why such a personal choice should be attacked in this way, or why I should be seen as less of a feminist for choosing to change my last name.
From Tris
I have to admit that this is normally the sort of thing which I think is pretty trivial, and which all the proposed variants seem clumsy compared to the status quo.
Sarah's system for preserving both names is so simple and effective though, that I'm pretty sure it SHOULD become standard immediately.
It's both fairer AND more useful than the current system. Inspired!
From Grace
This is such a great article and I was so glad to read the in depth models of name keeping/changing as so much thought and love had obviously gone into it.
Unfortunately I am no wiser about my own decision in this case! Which is of course not that fault of the author, but perhaps some one could offer advice? I don't like my surname - even though I love my Dad his family are idiots and my name also gets spelled wrong constantly, and sounds like 'migraine' (McGrainor). Equally I don't want to take my partner's surname (Barnes) because it doesn't seem right to just become Mrs Barnes to me as a feminist, AND I don't really want to be affiliated to his mother in this way (as near to a 'handmaiden of the patriarchy' as I've ever met I think!). I think really my partner would be happy to change his name as we have already talked about just picking a new name, but his family are the kind of people that would be mortified by such a denouncement of tradition and they're not even the kind of people you can discuss things with (my partner particularly has terrible trouble trying to express his feelings to his mother because she has honed a sad-dog expression perfectly for whenever he says something she doesn't like!).
So honestly, I'm in a pickle. I do want to get married, I do want to have the same name as my children, I don't want my surname and I don't want his either but he is rightly worried about the repercussions with his family should he give up their name. I don't know if anyone can help me on this, or tell me to stop being such an idiot, but just wanted to express my situation as it was so prominent in my mind reading this piece.
Sarah Louisa Phythian-Adams, author of the article, replies
Firstly to say that I can totally understand your position. It seems that on mentioning marriage suddenly a strange door to the 1950s is opened and people you had otherwise thought to be quite forward thinking are expressing disapproval at the slightest deviation from the good-wife homestead model! The first thing you have to realise is that you can't win! Unless you become Mrs Barnes, even if you do, you will most likely meet with some resistance, bullying and cajoling, which will range from grand rhetoric to accusations of just being 'petty'.
I can understand your dilemma regarding your chosen names when you consider all of the background. However, there is a counter-weight. Two things that didn't make it into the article I wrote was my sister's heartache over changing her name and, though I am reluctant to bring it up, watching friends go through messy divorces. My sister married eight years ago now. Her hubby is from India, and she found the scrutiny over his immigration quite intimidating. So much so that she felt that if she didn't change her name it would in someway look as though she wasn't committed! It wasn't until we lost our parents, that she expressed how truly upset she had felt over feeling pressured into changing her name (another one of the reasons I wanted my system to give equal weight to both parent's names). So much so that she considered changing back. Of course - she then gave birth to their first child and was faced with the same dilemma that she wanted to share that same bond with her own son - hence the cycle started again!
Secondly I had watched people I knew get divorced. Despite wishing everyone happiness in their partnerships, I'm sorry to be the one to say it, but divorces are a sad fact. With about 85% of women changing their names - according to US statistics - the deed poll offices are kept quite busy with women wanting to change them back - who then find themselves either without the same surname as their children or changing their children's names also. That didn't go in the article because I think it unfair to point the finger at newly weds and say 'nah nah, half of you will divorce anyway', it seems quite mean spirited - especially since I am myself newly married. Mind, if you were to believe some people - they'd say that not changing your name shows a lack of commitment to marriage and will mean that you (i.e. me) will be one of them! In any case what I'm saying is - not that I think you'll get divorced, but that other people's imposition of the good-wife model is by no means the panacea they paint.
The way we got around the issue in the end was to emphasise the partnership element of getting married. That the values of equality that we wanted to pass on to our children was not supported by the traditional model - which was based in Patriarchy and a history of oppression. From what you say, I'm pretty sure your mother-in-law will be quite upset if you deviate in any way from Mrs Barnes, but at the end of the day it's your decision because it's your name which you will live with every day. I read this article by a woman who was similarly conflicted - you may find it helpful - or not (!).
From reading your dilemma, to be honest - my first thoughts were what would be wrong with 'Barnes-McGrainor' or 'McGrainor-Barnes', except that you pointed out that you didn't want either. Does the two of them together not sound sufficiently different?
With regards to your surname, I was told (only a couple of weeks ago actually), that there is a significance to the Mc or Mac part of a name - in that it meant 'son of' and the equivalent 'daughter of' did exist but was 'Nee'. I can understand that with the patrinomal system only the 'son of' would survive. Perhaps you could combine your names leaving out the 'Mc' or just keep Grainor. Or if you really want neither, perhaps you could look back over your husband's and your family trees and find a surname you both like in there? Or indeed - make a new one up?
What Not To Wear say to your co-worker, by Kelly Draper
From Michelle Brampton
I am also a teacher but at an all girls school. In one of my Media Studies lesson last week one of the girls cried during a discussion about female perfection (we were exploding the myth of the Barbie doll look/Jordan)...she suffers with low self-esteem and, this is what was great; she said she felt relieved that this myth was exploded for her - she said she felt free! This made me feel good, but also incredibly sad.
From Ellie S
In response to the article "What not to say to your co-worker" There is a group on facebook called. BOYCOTT Womens Magazines that Promote Negative Body Image. The more people that join the more influence we will have on those that buy theses magazines reguarly.
From Irina
i have read similar articles many times, the message of it is painfully familiar, but for some reason yours reduced me to the point of spitting hellfire.
I just cannot get over the fact how much this got into you, how much you seem to be oppressed by this issue. But you have indicated that you kinda know what to do about it by saying at the end that it is a good thing to have a dress sense that embarrasses 14- old boys.
So you know what to do: not to dash for the new pair of killer heels (named aptly for what they do to your comfort and health) but to tell the morons to fuck off.
If i were you i'd rather revel in others dissappointment over my dress sense. I'd enjoy showing that i don't care about their opinion, concept of feminity, etc. Be defiant. It is the only possible and right reaction. I bet if you couple it with the assertive look and stance it would be great. Great for everybody: you, because the more assertive you look and behave the less likely some wanker to attempt criticisms (they do it mainly to whom they perceive as weak and not being able to give back as good as they get), to others - who might fear volunteering unsolicited opinion thinking you will trash them and to other women who might think " she doesn't give a shit and she is happy, so i can be like this too".
Please get angry, and not submissive. I have long ago learned to enjoy defiance and I know that some people's dislike is the best compliment ever. Please don't internalize other people's problem (i.e. their misogyny).
From sian norris
i am totally with you on that dream kelly. i spend a lot of sleepless nights working out how i can get the funding to make that magazine, rather than slog my guts out writing for things i don't believe in. i think the magazine and tv obsession with "correcting" women is terrifying. it worries me that if I have a daughter, no matter how hard i try to raise her to love herself, the influence of these ads and outlets will drown out my voice. we need a media revolution.
Mooncup, a review by Ailsa
From Dawn Walker
I have never heard of the Mooncup before. I was about to forward Ailsa'a review to all my family and friends, but balked at her prolific use of the "c" word. I am not a prude, I am a lorry driver, I hate to admit it but I swear like a trooper regularly, but I like most women hate that word, and don't understand why she would ruin a very good piece of writing in that way.
Could Britney Spears be the feminist icon of our generation?, by Theadora Jean
From Frances Sales
Ms Theadora Jean has very interesting points in her article about Britney. As the star has pointed out many times in her songs, it is her prerogative to do what she wants. Why can't we just respect that? I've noticed that when we women decide to do something that's not "in the plan" or to get more than what's expected of us--everyone condemns our actions. The world hasn't changed after all. Women are still second-class citizens. Shame.
How to create a woman's glossy magazine in five minutes, by Catherine Redfern
From abii
all i wnat to say is thankyheww you reli helped me make a grade A in english i had to make a cover of a magazine thanks lmao
Is Tarantino really feminist?, a review by Emma Wood
From Gillian
i consider myself a riot grrl and third wave feminist. i think that deathproof was a brilliant film! and it made me feel empowered as a girl in geeky boy comic book land at least. i mean you have to consider that it is a fantasy horror type film and is unrealistic, thats what tarrintino does. Its great to see that he's having female characters winning against men. Isn't that the point? i think it's a compliment. it's about getting revenge on the big bad men that we all hate and the fact that they don't have to find a man to do it for them. i get what you mean, in the way its from a sci-fi 'male' perspective, that battling till the end, extreme violence and seeking revenge, isn't how we women would typically go about revenge, but thats a matter of opinion. Murderous car chases are also not something we do in modern life but i think thats a separate issue about tarrintino films. the point i'm making is that in his own way, i think he is geniunely trying to do women justice, and have good roles for females in his films. Zoe Bell is just the coolest chick ever and does her own stunts! That's something that goes against the grain, and he put her in his film. Not bad i think! Kick ass!
Are you married? If not, why not?, by Victoria Dutchman-Smith
From Eric
And yet, if the statistic I have read in a recent american book is true, those in 40% of marriages are much happier than all the other categories (single, divorce, living together etc.). There must be something very worthwhile in marriage for such a high statistic . Perhaps it gets down to the people and what they believe, and really how much they love each other
From Lisa Firth
Absolutely, I agree 100%! I'm sick of trying to explain to people why I choose not be married, to assure them that it is my choice and not a secret plan to lull my partner into a false sense of security before I ensnare him, to convince them that I am not on the look out for someone better and just making do until then, and to get them off the defensive because they themselves have chosen to marry and take my not doing so as a personal insult. I reject marriage and all its outdated patriarchal and religious associations. I do not feel the need to have my union sanctioned by society, church or state. My chosen partnership and commitment to same is purely a matter, as far as I am concerned, for my partner and me, and to some extent our nearest and dearest. We will soon be taking part in a Humanist commitment celebration: non-legal, non-patriarchal and distinct from marriage in every way, to celebrate our partnership with the few people we hold dearest. And I will always be proud to hold up my head and say that I am an unmarried woman.
Get mad, by Jamie Lee Merrick
From Karen Vaughan
Couldn't have put it better myself. I too have recently read some excerpts from "pro-men" websites and to say that they are now the hysterical gender is an understatement. I work with lots of men that are fortunately used to the idea of equality but some of what I read on the web is downright scary. Keep speaking up for us, ladies!
The mechanics of feminity, by Emma Hadfield
From Karen Vaughan
Hi. I liked the article about women and mechanics: you want to try qualifying as one! I'm a fully qualified engineer in mechanical, electrical and motor vehicle disciplines and the amount of shit I had to take at college because I didn't look like Jordan but had a brain instead, it was unreal! Equality hasn't reached engineering sadly. I can also read maps, take engines to bits etc yet male mechanics still treat me like little girly no-mind, until I tell them I'm qualified! Suddenly they go white and can't get their heads around the idea that an engineer can have a vagina! BTW, I've noticed generally the F word has become a swear word again and the men are starting to feel threatened (they are wonderful macho creatures aren't they!) I hate this because it's not like they've even suffered a percent of what women have in past few thousand years and they are doing bricks!
Page 3 - Ban It!, by Kate Allen
From LC
When I first saw page 3, as a young girl of maybe eight, I was confused and upset by it. I could not understand why people producing or READING a newspaper would feel it appropriate to have such a sexual, personal and utterly sexist picture (in this context) as a daily feature amongst the pages of a NEWSpaper. I knew porn existed, but that when my friend and I found an old porn mag, the content didn't upset me. It was clearly aimed at men, but the stories described fun, consensual sex - respect for women as sexual partners. Page three gave me a serious shock. It made me doubt the sanity of people who felt comfortable reading about major news events with a sexual image right beside it, as though as though reading about someone's suffering was a bit too much like hard work, and needed a bit of garnish. And as a young girl, knowing that all those adults, male and female, in the newspaper office, and in the homes of the men AND WOMEN who bought it, took it for granted that this was a completely appropriate use of and mainstream image for a young woman, the atmosphere that "this is fun, and if you don't agree, you're wrong" made me feel like absolute, absolute shit. Even at that age, I felt it was fundamentally inappropriate, because of the context, in a newspaper lying on my friend's family's breakfast table. It took away a lot of my faith in adults, and my hope in what I could be. It made me feel very small. It felt like the world putting me in my place. It frightened me, and it still does. The only upside, is it provides an easy guide to avoiding a certain number of absolute idiots, beause they can be identified by the paper they are carrying.
Why men should care about gender stereotypes, by Alex Gibson
From bianca
hey i really liked what you had to say. i know you were more about the men however i do know where your coming from. I agree and think men and boys should take your advice because personally i wont be bringing them food while there watching tv so they better grow up. i am quite passionate about these topics so good work =]
Knife crime and masculinity, by Jennifer Drew
From Molly & Nathaniel
We found this article very useful when researching knife crime for sociology. Some very interesting points were made
This webpage lives at: http://www.thefword.org.uk/comments/september_2008
From Michelle
Really interesting and important article, thanks for writing and giving your thoughts.
I feel addressing who is and is not 'included' within feminism is a very pertinent topic and something we constantly need to be aware of, so that we acknowledge the many differences between women and the ways in which feminism needs to tackle all kinds of inequalities to improve all women's lives.
I think a key way in which to start to reach out to groups of women who perhaps traditionally and historically have not been involved in feminism, is to listen to those women, without imposing a more 'enlightened' feminist view on them. Just because a woman does not define as a feminist, or has not read up on feminist theory, does not mean she isn't politicised or has opinions on the way the world should be and how her situation could be improved.
I think it's important not to see feminism as a more enlightened state, and expect other women to 'catch up', as it's not as simplistic as that, and listening to all groups of women can go some way to ensuring feminism is relevant to all woman and has something for everyone.