From Rachael Halemor

Re: Filling the hole: Thanks Katie for a sane response about eating disorders. I am so bored of hearing that it is an 'individual' response to inner-turmoil. It is not - it is a perfectly sane response to a very sick society that denies women rights to a voice and to their own bodies. It is at epedemic proportions and one would think that if it affected as many men - that there would be a society-wide and governmental response to such tragedy. Calling them illnesses are just ways to avoid positive action and yet again - to pathologize women's experiences. And I say this as a recovering compulsive eater. I could never have recovered until I let go of being 'ill' and realized that I had to openly shun patriarchy. Result? A loud and confident women!! Thanks again.

From Fiona

I just wanted to say this was a great article and i agree that the mental agony of anorexia is both deadly and is ignored. I was diagnosed with atypical anorexia over a year ago and although i have managed to maintain my body weight and eat regular meals every day my mental torment has been ignored by everyone including professionals at the eating disorder clinic. It is not enough for me to eat regular meals everday, thats not really the problem, the problem is that i have no self esteem - i would say that since the age of ten (i am now approaching 23)i have hated my body. This self hatred means i live a very resticted life and its awful to think im not the only one with this self loathing. Although i have no idea how to promote a more positive body image unless women are told their bodies are beautiful and feel empowered anorexia and body dismorohia are not going to disappear.

From Kellie

An honest and intelligent article with a new perspective.

From Matty

Re: Revolution Girl Style Now!: Riot Grrrrl completely changed my life. When I first heard about it I was really into the concept, but at the age of 14 or so I did not have any particularly formed feminist opinions. I was a little young to really get into the thick of the movement, but I went to a few gigs here and there, read a few zines and a few interviews in the NME.

I do remember a women only riot grrl gig being advertised and thinking "I don't like that, separatism is not the way", but was convinced to go by a friend who had no-one else to go with. It was that gig that had a powerful enough effect on me to stamp a feminist mindset on me from that point onward. It took me a long time to crystallise my views, but they were all born from the realisation that I behaved, felt and acted utterly differently when surrounded only by women. It wasn't, I realised, an exercise to ban men, but to help me question and understand myself as a woman in a patriarchal society.

I'm a performer now, and 15 years later it's memories of the riot grrl movement that caused me and a friend, Lucy to open a women only comedy night where I know for a fact I've brought the concept of feminism to women who hadn't previously considered it. It may have taken a few years, but Riot Grrrl made a feminist out of me and no mistake and through it I'm still trying to spread the message to other women and understand it myself.

From Jessica

Re: Feeling a bit uncomfortable?: While reading Jane Purcell's 'Feeling a bit uncomfortable', I found myself in a whirlpool of laughing and crying and also flinching, esp. at the flaming nipple section. My friend has recently fallen pregnant, and it has given me an opportunity to think about the rituals of birth and raising the child thereafter. My friend is planning on a home birth. I'm fully supportive of this, my own mother regretted having me in hospital, because of the atmosphere, I was not the problem. She had my sister at home, and although she admits to it being easier in part because of the second birth phenomena, she also is adamant that hospitals cause a great part of the discomfort and stress that is felt. I was reading Germain Greer's 'Female Eunuch' in which she suggests that lying down is not a position that allows the woman to harness her potential strength. Greer suggests standing or crouching, allowing use of the back muscles and gravity. I suggested this to my mother, and she said this was an absurd suggestion, great in theory, but women giving birth are so tiered withing the first stages alone...well she suggested I try it, see how I feel!! It is interesting to think about just how much of the "medical" rituals are useful for women during birth and how much Purcell's "NFI" theory is in actual fact relevant.

From Ruth

I loved Jane Purcell's article. It's always great to read an article about motherhood from a feminist perspective (as I think some people believe that once you become a mother you instantly stop being capable of being a feminist).

There was just one part of the article that I might - just slightly - take issue with.

"But the gap between knowing why you should breastfeed and the experience of it is enough to drive away 55% of UK women in the first week." That's true. However what's also true is that of all the women who stopped breastfeeding in the first six weeks, 90% didn't want to stop. I think that's a real shame. For the ten percent that did want to stop, it's fantastic that they managed to breastfeed as long as they wanted to and stop when they wanted. But for the others?

Just telling women not to beat themselves up about it isn't enough. In fact I think it almost detracts from the issue. Of course women shouldn't feel guilty (although sometimes that's a bit like telling the pope not to feel catholic) but sometimes I think saying "oh don't feel guilty it's not the end of the world" is a bit of a fob-off when what they might be better off hearing is "yes it's terrible you did not receive the support you deserved and you have every right to feel angry, rather than guilty, let's do something about this so it doesn't happen again" and investing money in midwives' pay (although this should happen as a matter of course anyway) won't work (as who is going to use their own wages to pay for extra training?). We need breastfeeding to become a priority. Not in a "ram it down your throat if you don't want to do it" type way of course, but in such a way that midwives and health care professionals are actually ALL fully trained in how to support women who do want to do it.

I do agree that far too much is done to try to persuade women to breastfeed in comparison to how much support there is to actually do it... there is support, but it tends to come in the form of unpaid volunteers (like myself) or the occasional fully-trained breastfeeding midwife, who might work part-time (like the one at our local hospital) and be unable to get to you when you've delivered.

However I have to say, I never had breastfeeding rammed down my throat; in fact the opposite was true. I was told by midwives my baby needed formula in hospital; when I returned home I was told by a midwife I should give him a bottle to help him sleep, a health visitor told me he was gaining weight too slowly so I should bottle feed him... again, all issues that could be solved with better training of paid professionals.

I think in the main though we see eye to eye on your article! I think that it really is a woman's right to have the birth she wants, whether this is at home with candles and a birth pool, in a birth centre or in a hospital with all available painkillers, and I think whichever she chooses she should have access to the best possible appropriate care, and not treated like a second class citizen.

From Jo

In response to Jane Purcell's article on Maternity Ward experience. What a fantastic article! Well written, funny and insightful. This is exactly the kind of thing I want to hear about to get a better idea about what having a baby might actually be like. It's not often you hear about post birth 'shock pain and terror'. I loved the description of the 'hand grenade' feeling too! This is a real account of birth, much more helpful than looking at pictures of smiley smug 'Alice band wearing' types. Thanks very much.

From Susan Francis

Re: How not to write your policy on transgender rights: I agree totally with Emma Wood's article on transgender policies. I'm shocked that A:gender present such gender-essentialist views at all, let alone as Truth. The trans activists I've read are allies of genderqueer people. It seems such an obvious place to stand - does anyone really want to be tied into those straight-jackets of gender roles that the gate-keepers in the NHS (used to) demand? I've been puzzled by the attitude of some radical feminists to trans issues, which seems highly biological-determinist in its turn (and also ignores the existence of transmen as far as I can tell); I wondered where those writers got the fantasy from of ex-men playing up to patriarchal stereotypes of womanhood. Looks like they're in adversarial symbiosis with those plonkers at A:gender.

From Jennifer Drew

Emma Wood's article on How Not to Write Your Policy on Transgender Rights was spot-on. As Wood wrote this policy takes the view that women and men are all innately different. The answer of course, is because women's brain are different from men's. This is biological essentalism wherein all humans are either female or male irrespective of physical features because biology says so.

Such views serve to reinforce sexist discrimination and guess what it will of course, be women who, because they horrors - differ from men are therefore less than men. Well done Emma for raising this biological essentalist nonsense.

From Kate Middleton

An interesting commentary on the Home office policies on so-called 'gender reassignment'.

You are quite correct that it is disturbing that biological essentialist views are being promoted in this way by official policy documents. Like so many of these documents, much of it is a pastiche of previously published material which includes the 'the current medical viewpoint' produced for the Parliamentary Forum on Transsexualism by the 'expert' psychiatist Dr Russell Reid which argues that transsexualism is biological. As usual with these policies it includes unattributed quotes from this document as if they were fact.

However, the 'gender is socially constructed' paradigm of thought is just as tyranical as biological essentialism in my view and can be used to argue that 'gender identity disorder' is a result of faulty learning on the part of a child and used to justify 'behavioral modification therapy on young children. This 'diagnosis' has been used increasingly to persecute children who are suspected of possibly growing up to be be gay or lesbian as well as those who might need to transition to the sex opposite to that which they were identified as at birth.

In Phyllis Burke's book Gender Shock, she records how Professor Richard Green of Charing Cross Hospital believes that homosexuality is biological in origin but that parents have the legal right to seek medical treatment to try and modify possible pre-homosexual behaviour. Green was recommending 'intense behavioral modification therapy' as late as 1987 and was greeted on his arrival at the GMC in March by a group of women with a transsexual history who were no loner under his control with 'look, here comes Satan!'

The concept of gender was promoted by psychatists in the 1950s and 1960s like John Money and Robert Stoller in order to explain people with intersex conditions as well as transsexualism. Money's attempt at reassigning a normal boy as a girl which was used by Kate Millett in Sexual politics 1969 as evidence that 'gender' is learnt and that male/female behavioral differences are purely social in origin but this experiment later was revealed as a disaster and academic fraud and David Reimer had transitioned back to being a man before committing suicide in 2004.

The stereotypical assumptions revealed in this policy are most disturbing; anyone who doubts that women can be aggressive should read Alice Sebold's Lucky and the poems she wrote about what she would like to do to her rapist. Or Judith Herman's Trauma and Recovery which includes accounts of what certain women would like to do to the men who had violated them.

I sat in briefly on Dr Russell Reid's trial in the GMC in March and listened -to my absolute disgust- to the male 'experts' talking about the 'female role'. What is that? Flying fighter planes? sailing alone round the world? Playing Rugby? Women do all these things though this does not seem to be a fact of which these people are aware.

I would argue that there is a place for biological theories of causation if it reduces aggressive attempts by the medical establishment to change people's sexuality or sense of being male or female and protect the rights of children and young people to be treated with compassion and humanity. The study to which you refer has actually been replicated with 40 more subjects in 2000 with the same results and, one would hope that it might encourage a new generation of practitioners to treate the people who they are supposed to be helping with humanity and humility. Or course, the danger is that they might just find ways of trying to eliminate what they perceive as undesirable people if the causes were identifiable.

It was refreshing to read your thoughtful post after reading Julie Bindel's incredibly uninformed and prejudiced nonsense on The Guardian website comparing 'gender ressignment' with 'aversion therapy' under the banner of lesbian feminism. As the policy to which you refer points out, there was about a thirty percent suicide rate with such treatments.

It is very sad to see such people advocating 'counselling cures' for other people when they might very well be subjected to such abuse under the psychiatric 'diagnosis' of 'gender identity disorder' in order to 'cure' them of their lesbianism. It is very sad to see others who have been persecuted inmoseing their views on others and spreading misinformation in this way.

The most important thing is that people should be allowed their personal autonomy over their life, body and expression of personality without interference and persecution from ignorant people.

From Rosemary

Re: Does ‘gender neutral’ language serve to cover up male violence?: 5th December 07. BBC Breakfast ran a story on how young girls are being duped into prostitution by teenage boys. Did they ask what can be done to stop boys selling out younger girls? No! They focussed solely on how we can empower girls to say no. That's good, but what about catching the criminals? What about educating boys to respect their female peers??

From Ingrid

I was kind of puzzled by the article. Perhaps the lack of references were to do with the writing form of f-word but it did make me wonder if you were basing your view on generalisations rather than actual empirical research of the media. Similarly the framing of rape by the media is much more complex –and I think it is the unspoken assumption that the perpetrator is male which the language hides, and that the portrayal of the victim as a gendered person (woman, she etc) is done, maybe misleading or poorly, to invoke a connection. Interestingly I was speaking to a journalist about the legal restrictions on what the could print before someone had gone to court and in the initial cases where the police don’t have a suspect they may be legally unable to confirm that the person is a male/man. And as to saying that statements about the public being aware/careful, I wonder if it is indeed the intention of the police to make everyone aware –in that everyone should look after others they know.

I went on to Google and tried to look for recent articles where the gender of the rapist wasn’t mentioned and from what I can see the situation is much more complex that you outline. In some cases the portrayal of the victim and how she was raped seems aimed at gathering sympathy and more importantly empathy which heightens the feeling and maybe preventative behaviour ‘that situation could happen to me’. This view is based on a brief analysis of the whole content (i.e. the gender not being specifically referred to as ‘male’ but the person being referred to as ‘he’ and photos of the ‘accused’ being included).

Similarly with domestic violence –some statistics indicate that as high as 19% of domestic abuse victims are male, in half of which the abuser is male. Having grown up in a household where my mother was violent against my father and now seeing my sister being violent against her boyfriend, I can only but conclude that gender plays is far different role that the simple one you wish to outline.

Perhaps you are drawing on more detailed work, in which case I’d be interested to read it.

From Deborah Svidler

I really appreciated your article. Thank you for bringing attention to such an important issue that most men AND women tend to omit. It definitely sends out the right kind of message we should be getting in our society, something that is so difficult to encounter nowadays. Great job.

From Noel

As I see it, it's not specified if males commit acts of violence (either against males or females) because violence is perceived as a male thing. If you hear the phrase "...a soldier tortured and killed..." do you think about a male, or a female? You don't think about this picture, right?

I, as a male, see this as a bad thing, because I'm someone concerned about the violence against anyone, specially against woman. I don't like to be thought as violent just because I'm a male, just as my girlfriend doesn't like to be thought as submissibe just because she's a woman.

I'm wondering: how should we clearly state when a male attacked a woman or girl, without tagging the whole male gender as violent, reinforcing the male violent attitudes?

Anyway, your article made me think =)

From John F.

Regarding the article "Does ‘gender neutral’ language serve to cover up male violence?" by Jennifer Drew. I actually want to throw out a comment to Jennifer specifically, for her to think about.

Omitting the "male" in "male-perpetrated violence," as I see it, is somewhat the opposite of what you describe, yet at the same time can make the same negative contributions.

People tend to not mention the sex unless it's NOT a man for the same reason a straight person will assume others are straight unless told otherwise: Because our limited viewpoints cause us to expect the default. Hell, the act of widespread social expectation itself defines what a default will be.

This means that it's more a normal thing to most for a man to commit violence, and a more abnormal thing for a woman to do so. This can be seen by masculists as the "assumed guilt" of all men and a lowering of their social status. Or some can see it as, such as you say, excusing (through normalizing) the actions of men as less important/fixable/problematic than the violent actions of women.

But of course all this only comes from the fact that yes, men are more apt to commit physical violence than women, but there are only two sexes and one is most likely going to be better or worse at any one thing than the other gender is. Beyond that, more reasons for this go back to animal nature itself, and the checks-and-balances of nature's gender system of reproduction.

No, it's not meant to be between pure equals, men and women are slightly different in just the right ways, and have their more-unique gender-specific positive and negative traits, coupled with many we share more commonly as basic human traits.

And that's what this is all about, traits, the same traits we see every day in society and can see clearly through history, as well as in nature. Some feel the need to criticize/fear those with whom they don't share enough traits, but that view is slowly becoming less popular over the centuries.

From Eddy

In response to your article about the gender of words becoming neutral in order to protect men:

I'm a gay male, and was raped by the same. He was also my best friend.

So yeah, women are commonly the ones being raped, but not all the time. Rape is not just a crime against women. A woman and be raped by another woman, a man by and man, and any combination of the two.

If words are becoming neural, they should be done so to both, ie XX were committed in 2007, so on and so forth.

From arvan

I could not agree more.

I agree that accountability is missing. I will personally use the language that you suggest, for the very same reasons that you stated. Generally, in life, I find that when accountability is 'missing' - it is no coincidence: it is being avoided.

It is no coincidence that media outlets neglect / omit / or "forget" to make overt statements of male accountability for acts of aggression or dominance to women. Men enjoy greater wealth and freedom over women, worldwide. Men control the media and government messages.

I see that the state of women, as a whole is still that of a slave or livestock. For every one woman who stands her ground, claims her space in society and makes her own way, career and choices - there are probably one hundred that are enslaved by brutality, religion, deprivation of education and the bribes that come from dressing up pretty for the "master's" (man's) favor over others.

The message you have drawn attention to here, is one of millions of messages that reaffirms both the desired subservient state that men relegate women into - and elevated state that men place ourselves into.

I am not optimistic that this will change without catastrophe.

From Mia

Re: How to Look Good Naked: How is this show good for the women on it? I love Gok, he is f-a-b-u-l-o-u-s. And I love the idea of showing the reality of what most women in the UK look like, and normalising it within the media. What don't I love? I don't love the way a group of women are lined up in a row, going from thinnest to fattest, with the contestant (if you can call her that) asked to indicate where on the weight scale she thinks she lies. The fact that she may be smaller than she thought is a moot point; there are women in that row who are larger, and by framing the situation in such a way as to make the contestant happy that she is not as fat as the woman on the end, one inevitably ends up destroying that womans confidence for being bigger than is acceptable for the show. What the hell? It also disturbs me that it is seen as ok to line 'em up and use them as dehumanised indicators of attractiveness. As is they are not people, as if the only way to feel good is to feel thinner than you are. Would YOU want to strip down to your panties and act as an example of what NOT to look like? Didn't think so.

From sian

hmm, surely the real issue is why women have low self esteem, tackle these reasons and you help solve the problem. fake tan doesn't do that! and so, unlike nicky hambleton jones, he doesn't suggest invasive surgery, and says you can look good with your figure, but still involves slapping on fake tan, waxing, dying, fake hair to achieve the ideal "feminine" look. this isn't really celebrating women's natural beautty. and why does he have to say "my girl" all the time? she's not your girl gok - she's her own!

From Marina Tyndall

I love love love your new shop. That is all.

From Diane

Re: Men want ‘lobotomised’ women: O.k., is it really? I don't think so. I want to know why more feminists aren't focusing on ageism(sp?)?. I hail from America, unfortunately, and have witnessed many insults to the female, especially the "aged" woman. What ever could they mean? They clearly mean that a woman beyond a certain age (30?!!) is not worth the chromosomes she hides within that all-important mitochondrial dna. Men are no where near as important genetically, sorry. When we as a species can decipher the merits of existence beyond reproductive age, I will quit the cycle of self-destruction imposed (self-imposed) at age 16! What a waste. Women should concentrate their efforts on so much more than the latest anti-aging serum. Why preserve yourselves for those that do not appreciate your cognizant contributions? There is no minority that has been more abused than the female of the species.

From Genevieve

Re: Who to blame for sexist Xmas cards? Feminists, obviously!: n response to the 'sexist Christmas cards' article--I was once sent a card that showed a picture of Mary resting while Joseph held the baby Jesus. Even though I don't consider myself Christian anymore, I still think this was one of the most positive cards I've ever seen--portraying the 'Holy Family' as more like a normal family, and Mary as a normal person with normal human needs (such as taking a nap after having given birth) rather than some perfect saint-woman.

From Yvonne Douglas

Re: Testosterone causes humour? Oh, please: So if male competition for women is the reason the unicycling man gets laughed at, what is the reason that I, a short fat woman on my bike, also experience the same thing? Do they think that I am a lesbian who may be competing for female attention? And how a concern for other's feelings translates into a lack of humour is anyone's guess. How does the researcher know what funny remarks the women were thinking when they chose to be kind or encouraging instead? And why do negative male traits always seem to get justified away with evolutionary explanations that remove all personal responsibility for their behaviour? Female anti-social behaviour = the masculating tendancies of feminism. Male anti-social behaviour = necessary evil for the wonders of human reproduction.... yeah right.

From dnx-x1

''It’s sort of ridiculous how easily scientists leap to the conclusion that all observed results can be traced back to the womb and/or hormones and/or DNA.''

It's sort of ridiculous how easily feminists leap to the conclusion that all observed results can be traced to the patriarchy, and/or socialization.

I'm not going to say whether or not I agree with them, but I will say this: men are more varied than women.

From Faintly Puzzled in London

Are you spoofing the fact that the BBC got taken in by a joke article? Or has the BBC mislead you as well?

From Julie

Re: On the Tube: I completely sympathise. In the summer I spent some time in New York, and during one extremely crowded Subway journey, a man fondled my backside. I immediately started shouting and making a fuss; I was completely shocked and disgusted by this violation. A few weeks later, during another Subway ride, this time on a deserted carriage at night, a man approached myself and my female companion, making lewd comments and refusing to leave us alone. We were completely intimidated and struck dumb by the situation. We got off at the next station and got a taxi to our destination, chiding ourselves for making such a poor personal safety decision.

Why could I speak up about the first scenario and not the second? Perhaps I felt that I felt in some way that we had invited the latter; we were dressed up for a night out. In retrospect, however, I was outraged by the first man because he violated social norms not only by touching me, but by doing it in public. I felt almost as if I had invaded the second man's territory, by presenting myself to him in a 'private' context.

From Yvonne Douglas

Just a quick word - don't ever doubt yourself, if you are in a situation where a person is making you feel uncomfortable, there is almost certainly a very good reason for it - your testing of the situation by walking around to see if he followed you was absolutely correct - I would add, for what to do in a similar situation, don't be afraid to walk into a local shop or pub and ask the manager to call the police as you believe you are being followed - no reaction is an over-reaction where you may be in danger. For a fantastic book read The Gift of Fear by Gavin de Becker - the first chapter is absolutely harrowing and has put off many people I have loaned it to but it is one of the best books I have ever read and gave me great confidence in judging why a particular person or situation was making me feel nervous, and what to do about it. It also has some very good advice on how to deal with unwanted/threatening male attention both from strangers and people known to yourself and, refreshingly, recognises the phenomenon of male violence in relation to women. It's also important to remember that a good, non-violent man will almost never become violent due to your actions - no matter how crazy or paranoid he might think you were it you started screaming at him to stop following you - so if causing a confrontation or calling the police does then result in violence, you can be fairly sure it was a possibility all along and that your intuitions were correct. Best of luck xxx

From Helen

Re: A lesson from Monster.com on the application of gender stereotypes: There have been a number of articles of the F-word recently criticising the view that men and women think and behave differently, and the "Men are from Mars, women are from Venus" attitude. Whilst I can agree that gender stereotyping is a bad thing, I am not sure it is entirely in women's interests to promote the view that men and women are exactly the same in thoughts and behaviours. I went to a girls school for seven years and then went to University to study science in a very male dominated environment. It took quite a while to adjust to the change in culture, which was very different. Whether the differences are down to social conditioning or are innate I would not like to say, but I was immediately struck by the fact that men are (on average) very much more egotistical and aggressive than women. This is not a small difference, it is huge. It took me somewhat longer to realise that because of this, men and women also tend to judge themselves and each other very differently. Men tend to take other people very much at face value, and when judging themselves, tend to put themselves towards the top of the ability scale. Women on the other hand tend to be much more self critical, and rather more supportive and generous in their judgements of other people. I think this is because in female culture (at least at the school I went to) big-headed people tend to be disliked and disapproved of, and a degree of modesty and support for others is expected. In male culture however, being modest is often simply taken as an admission of being rubbish. The point I am trying to make here is, that if we do not understand and accept that these differences exist, whether down to social conditioning or not, women's abilities will always be underestimated. Because of this, I prefer the Fawcett Society's "equal but different" approach, which I think is more helpful in this respect.

From An Edinburgh Feminist

Re: Nativity shmativity: I am a feminist and a Christian. If Charlotte Cooper wants to provide a serious critique of the Nativity, that\'s fine. I am dismayed, however, that she saw fit to publish something that betrayed ignorance of the biblical passages that she dismisses. Ms Cooper states that \"God impregnates the young woman without her consent, or even her knowledge.\" If Ms Cooper had actually read the Gospel of St Luke, she would have found that the angel Gabriel appears to Mary *before* she becomes pregnant, to tell her what is going to happen. Mary discusses God\'s message with Gabriel, who leaves only after she has *consented* to what is proposed, with the words \"May it be to me as you have said.\" (Luke 1:38). You could argue that Mary just does as she is told, but so does Joseph when he plans to break off his engagement to Mary and is *commanded* by an angel to marry her as planned (Matthew 1)! You could also argue, as Ms Cooper does, that \"The Nativity reinforces ideas of the male heir \" but that is hardly surprising given that the story (whether you believe it or not) is set 2000 years ago in a patriarchal, patrilineal society, under the occupation of Rome, another patriarchal, patrilineal society. This makes it all the more astonishing that Jesus grows up to treat women as equals (Jewish or not), have female followers (Martha; Mary; Mary Magdalene; Joanna; Susanna and others) and actively intervene when women are being abused (e.g. when a woman is about to be stoned for a sexual transgression - John 8). Please do critique Christian beliefs on this site but please show some respect by: a) reading the biblical passages that you are discussing, and b) considering the historical context in which they were written. Thank you!

From Diarmuid

Re: Ronaldo named as footballer in rape case: Just read that article you wrote about how Christiano Ronaldo "raped" a woman in a london hotel last year. Its typical that a feminist site would condemn a man as soon as he is accused by a gold digging tramp who wants to fleece him for all he's worth. You took a woman at her word purely because she was a woman and condemned a man because he was a man, which surely you realise is most ironic from people who claim they want equal rights with men. The claim was proven to be a lie as i'm sure todays case against johnny eagles is which is why i felt the need to email ye before you condemn another innocent man, which im sure he is.

A little more responsible editing of your rag might be in order.