February 2008
All your comments from February
From JENNIFER DREW
Re: Crime and patriarchy: This is an excellent article which neatly debunks how once again women are not only portrayed as 'passive, vulnerable, frightened creatures' but also reinforces women's supposed need for male protection. In fact irrespective of any woman's age,ethnicity etc. if a man or boy decides to commit an act of violence against her he will. The Home Office refuses to listen feminist specialists but instead promotes idea that just telling women to restrict their movements male violence against women will be solved! But of course the Home Office refuses to go to the root of the problem - how men are socialised into believing it is their right to dominate and control women as a group.
Jo Legg, author of the article, replies
Thanks very much. The point you make about the Home Office ignoring the problem is what frustrated me most about the whole thing: here we had a chance to have some real dialogue around *why* it is that women are scared to be out alone at night, and all we see is some political mud-slinging on crime stats...
When formal political structures make policy in accordance with the pervasive patriarchal attitudes that place the onus on women to alter their behaviour as a 'cure' for the ill of violence, we can bet the situation isn't going to get any better. It's not a question of more protection for women, nor prevention by restricting our freedom of movement, but they're never going to come to that conclusion if we don't challenge the structures that tell us to lock ourselves away. Would that it were possible to give the Home Office a citizen's ASBO for its misogyny... Not helpful in the long-run I realise, but still...
From figleaf
Re: Why men should care about gender stereotypes: Thank you.
The "war of the sexes" wasn't invented by feminists. In fact, I finally realized, it's quite the opposite. You don't have to dig *too* far to find someone under a feminist label saying something harsh about men... but you *do* have to dig because such comments aren't that common. On the other hand you don't have to dig at all to find grievous, outrageous, heartbreaking, and sometimes tragic deprecation of men by *anti-feminists!*
You're right as well that it's extraordinarily difficult for men to attempt self-examination when all of tradition assumes we're the ground zero, the fixed point, the sea level, the "this" against which all else is "the other." For instance when one looks at the famous "85 cents on the dollar" disparity between what men and women earn from an androcentric perspective the only variable is what conditions affect women. If we can haul ourselves off that point for a moment, and reflect that perhaps instead men are paid a premium then men can begin to ask ourselves how much, exactly, we're giving up for those extra fifteen pennies. And since the answer is more stress, less exercise, less connection to our families, less time with our children, less control over our travel and relocation schedules, worse health, and often an early grave then... the real question stops being "how do we get that for women too" but "why are men subjecting ourselves or *anyone else* to that? Could it possibly be worth it?" My point, by the way, is not an invitation to rethink pay differences my way but that moving men out of the center of the universe permits such inquiries at all.
And finally, yes, it's staggering to imagine that the entirety of anti-feminism revolves around forcing women to sacrifice their own lives in order to "civilize" and "pacify" and "order" ours. The stereotypes of stupidity, helplessness, and sloth are bad enough, the stereotypes that we're bestial, thuggish, and in need of keeping is worse.
The bitter irony is that it's all so wasteful, not only of women's lives but of our own.
My one quibble would be that while yes, it's not *necessary* for feminism to address men (and in fact, see "women as men's keepers," above for why that would be expressly a bad idea) it might be in feminism's best interest to help. The disparity between men's and women's critical consciousness is wide enough that starting to close the gap ought to really catapult everyone along. Which might make it worth it.
Anyway, thanks once again, Alex.
Alex Gibson, author of the article, replies
Thank you for your comments, I think we agree on most of what you said. You raise an interesting point about wage differences, and I agree that giving up that extra bit of power in return for more time with friends and family, and considerably less stress, is a great bargain. I'm not, of course, a person motivated by the kind of high-power business job that your comments brought to mind so it's easy for me to make that choice. In accepting gender equality men don't really have much to lose: it's not like feminism is advocating female dominance. Sharing the responsibility is beneficial to both genders like you say.
I also agree with you totally on your last point: I believe very strongly that it's important that feminism reaches out to men because, perhaps naively, I think that most guys would find feminism quite agreeable once they realise that it isn't about male inferiority. I'm beginning to appreciate the irony that the stereotypes that have been produced from a male-dominated society have done just that in making us out to be brutish dullards, but it still makes me sad. Despite this, when I was writing the article I felt I should add the caveat that this isn't a necessary part of feminism: feminists who don't want to take on men's issues as well as their own are perfectly entitled to do that, but as a feminist myself I intend to do as much as is in my power to advertise these ideas to men. If we want to change our own image in society we have to do it ourselves, by fighting the stereotypes whenever we see them.
The culture of gender equality is achingly slow to change, but the more men you get on board then ideally the less "us vs. them" feminism appears to be, and that should definitely help. Here's hoping, anyway!
From Sniff
This is a good article, but I was disappointed that the author did not touch on how the current model of "stupid" masculinity relates to the present day phenomena of girls outperforming boys in school. Feminism, and the rewarding of the "feminine" trait of studiousness are usually blamed, when in fact studiousness reigned far more supreme in the classrooms of the past (when boys outperformed girls and nobody cared).
From William
I think it was my Santa Claus article that stimulated this? I agree with many of the points presented, but I having done quite a bit to promote men's welfare (health, education, family acess etc) I think the channeling of men's interests to moronic pusuits is deliberate. I refer for example to George Galloway MP, who when asked why there are no man's pages in newspapers equivalent to the ubiquitous Women's Pages, replied that the only page men need is the back page ie the sports section.
From Amity
How refreshing to read a male perspective on gender stereotypes! Well written and intelligent with many good points, I commend Mr Gibson for his forthright and insightful article. I'll be forwarding this to the men in my life and hope that they either already agree or will be challenged in their assumptions.
From Sreelekha Nair
congratulations Alex for this thoguht provoking piece. I rarely find a man who thinks of these things!
From The Beautiful Kind
Re: How the word 'slut' oppresses women: First of all, I'm a huge feminist and thank you for addressing the issue. I'm a sex blogger who uses words like "slut" "whore" "pervert" and "cunt" liberally because I am taking ownership of the words and want to get it to the point where people hear those words and don't flinch or have horrid visceral reactions. I want to neutralize them, turn them into ordinary words. I don't consider them derogatory - I am a slut, whore and bitch, sure. A slut = a woman with the morals of a man :) They are just words, and describe things that to me are not bad. I'm proud to be a slut. Instead of getting angry, I'm laughing at the words.
From dan
what a load of junk. Its easy for women to get sex so thats why they are slags if theyre after it all the time, i.e. because any women could do that.
Its hard for men to do it, so if they can it proves they are superior.
Jennifer Drew, author of the article, replies
It appears you have not read my article correctly. My article was aimed at men who believe in the sexual double standard. Myths such as your claim "it is easy for women to get sex so that's why they are slags if they're after it all the time etc". This comment clearly shows you believe certain women are slags whereas men who are obsessed with sex are supposedly not slags. Another example of the male sexual double standard.
An ability for men to engage in sexual activity is not a designation of superiority since animals and birds engage in mating activity but that does not prove they are superior. Intelligence is the deciding factor not sexual activity but unfortunately superiority has been defined on one's biological sex and this has been accorded to men as a group. Yet another example of rampant misogynistic myths.
From Jaymi Wilkes
How do you figure that women dressing in an hyper-sexualized way is empowering to them? I would think that it would only fuel the man's mindset that women are asking for it. I mean if they didn't want to attract men sexually, than why are they attracting men sexually? By purposely flaunting themselves? Women need to find other ways to empower themselves. I don't see how our society can change the way men think. I mean, they are what they are. Dicks with legs.
From Julie B
Excellent article, like everything Jennifer writes. The whole sexual double standard also acts to inhibit female sexuality, to make women more cautious than men about having sex. Thus it becomes "true" that men persue sex more than women. Job done!
From Catherine
I just read the article about the word "slut" and why it is offensive to women. For years I have cringed at the sound of that word (and others like slapper, slag, whore, hooker), even when uttered in jest. I cannot even say it aloud I find it so offensive. Thank you for so neatly articulating why! I would send this to all my friends but I'm afraid they have been de-sensitised by my ranting and would not even bother to read it! But thank you anyway :)
Jennifer Drew, author of the article, replies
Many thanks for taking the time to comment on my article in The F-Word. Yes, I know the sexually insulting terms such as 'slut, whore etc.' are common and designed to keep women firmly in their subordinated place.
I have a suggestion, the next time you hear a friend/acquaintance call a woman a 'slut,whore etc.' you might just want to say something like 'oh yes and men who are sexually active or have had more than one sexual partner are also sluts in my view.' No need to explain just say those very highly charged words. Men as a group do not want any sexual slur against their names. It is acceptable for women to be judged solely from their presumed promiscuity but men - no it is their supposed right to be 'players or studs.'
I do know this has worked very well when challenging such misogynstic views and it does make men stop and think. At the very least it makes them uncomfortable.
From Mickey
Excellent article. However, you forget about the fact that women often enthusiastically leap onto the "slut-shaming" bandwagon, as well. I don't know if it's as widespread in the UK as it is in America, but Leora Tannenbaum has a great book on the subject, "Slut! Growing up Female with a Bad Reputation." But I agree overall with the article, we definitely need to redefine the "norm" for male and female sexuality. I remember how horrified some of my male friends were, when I started calling THEM sluts for sleeping around. They didn't like it one bit, however, it did get them to think about how it must feel for the women they so labelled, and most of them stopped.
Jennifer Drew, author of the article, replies
Thank you for your comments concerning my most recent article. Actually I did touch on the fact women do sexually insult other women by calling them 'sluts etc' but of course this is still from the male-defined aspect. It also serves to divide women into either 'good' or 'bad' women, with the result male sexual behaviour is invisibilised. The result is that women are constantly having to be aware of their 'sexual reputations' because once they have supposedly transgressed they are 'bad.' Female sexuality supposes define women's character whereas men's sexuality does not because men not women are individuals.
Yes, I have read Leora Tannenbaum's book 'Slut: Growing Up Female With A Bad Reputation.' I read it when it was first published and was horrified to see how young women were attacking each other egged on of course by young men.
Sadly the situation here in the UK is just as bad as in the US and it has been well documented that young women within our educational system continue to be called 'sluts, whores, ho's etc.' This situation has been occurring for decades.
Good that you too are challenging the routine sexual insults so many women irrespective of age, ethnicity etc. are being subjected to. Yes, when a man is called a slut it does make him think or rather react and it is a very effective way of challenging the male sexual double standard.
From sian
Re: UK feminists must address worldwide issues: yes, yes and yes. i have had this argument so many times, because sometimes it needs to be said, well, ok, certain equalities in the UK, but what about the rest of the world! and in response i so often get the "cultural imperialism" response - that surely we shouldn't tell other cultures how to behave. to which i then have to reply that human rights and the human condition is more important than cultural sensitivity, because it just has to be. to which i then get asked why im a feminsit and not a "humanist"...and you see how it goes on. i've heard the global situation being referred to as genocide against women, and i have to find myself agreeing. when was the systematic rape and murder of women in the congo last on the news? the AIDS epidemic is another symptom. obviously these things effect men too, but the constant degradation and inequality that women face globally, and the lack of attention paid to it, is something that we all, feminists and not, should be fighting to end.
From Anne Bodman
I could not agree more with the article "UK feminists should address worldwide issues"
When I want to give money to charity I always choose "Womankind" which has the express objectives of improving women's lives around the world.
I think the UK should pursue a foreign policy of promoting women's rights.
Also we need to guard against women losing their rights in the UK. I was incensed by Rowan Williams glibly talking about Sharia Law. Unfortuantely most religions are patriachal and we would revert back to the dark ages if we did not have a secular state.
Ruthie Samuel, author of the article, replies
I'm glad you liked the article and that you care about this stuff and want to help (gives me hope because so many people seem not to care enough to actually put empathy into action). I'm still figuring out what to do, but joining amnesty international and linking to their campaigns all over facebook is my current tactic. And of course letter-writing to responsible countries complaining, which seems to have worked in some cases in the past. Also, http://www.savedarfur.org is the website for a charity trying to help people in Darfur. In terms of encouraging coverage in the mainstream media, maybe contacting newspapers and tv channels would help? I'm so sick of news only covering things that are either sensational and rare to cater for the public's appetite for excitement (e.g. look, a pretty woman murdered a man), or things that help to fuel a political argument (e.g. women are oppressed in Iran, look how rubbish muslims are, maybe we should invade them). The prevalence of those articles partly originates from the existance of apathetic people who only read the news for entertainment or to confirm their existing opinions, rather than actually wanting to know what goes on in the world, so it's not entirely the fault of journalists, and maybe if they were made aware that some people want real news they'd cover it more.
From Elainna
I completely agree with all you've said. You have articulated what has been pressing on my conscience for some time. What can we do to help?
From Sue Margolis
Please print some more from this wonderful young woman-it gives me hope for the future.
From Valentina Cartei
To me the lack of awareness and knowledge on issues affecting women worldwide is only part of the problem. Even if people wish to make a contribution, they most likely feel at a loss about these problems. Awareness must be raised, but it would also be important to suggest possible courses of action.
From Claire
I agree with you completely. I was appalled when I finally woke up to how women are treated in many countries around the world. If they were some other kind of social group then sanctions and boycotts would be more likely. People just seem to accept it, as if that's just the way the world is.
From Carmen Seaby
I've just read the article UK Feminists must address worldwide issues by Ruthie Samuel and I felt like Ms Samuel has fallen for the common anti-feminist argument used in rich countries to discredit feminist issues: the argument that "Western" (for want of a better term) feminists are all selfish and only care about their own lives.
She asks where is the outrage to the terrible human rights abuses in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Papua New Guinea, Georgia and Sudan? The outrage is all around us - there are feminists and other activists the world over, doing their best to bring attention to human rights violations in its many guises, but they have to compete with a lot of other stories and they are up against editors and readers/viewers who might not be that interested.
It reminds me of a story I covered a while back in my blogabout people criticising US feminists for not supporting Muslim women. Katha Pollitt's response to these arguments gave many great examples of links between (American) feminist groups and Muslim feminist groups and the larger political picture within they work. These kinds of links exist in the UK, you just might have to go looking for them.
Also, I don't see debates about what women are wearing (or are allowed to or are expected to wear) and the hours we can or want to work here in the UK as distractions from the larger feminist mission of eradicating inequality, as Ms Samuel seems to. These issues are all related and I think a lot of feminists see this and work at raising people's awareness and changing the situation.
Feminists in the richer countries do care about women in poorer countries, women living under totalitarian regimes and religious fundamentalism and I do not see concentrating on the rights of women in this country (the UK) as selling out those women living in Saudi Arabia or any other country. Feminists and other activists can and do try to highlight human rights abuses the world over. Let's not beat up feminists for also caring about their own countries. And sometimes we can bring attention to these issues by highlighting things here (I recall the F Word having an article about the UK's queen giving a lavish reception the Saudi Arabian king).
One more point: Ruthie Samuel calls the sexism underlying British culture as subtle. There is nothing subtle about it. I was shocked to find you have a chocolate bar here with "Not for girls" written on it that is sold everywhere (legally?) and there is a television show called "No girls allowed"? These are very blatant examples of the entrenched sexism that surrounds us in this country. Could you imagine if someone tried to sell anything with "No Asians allowed" on it?
Ruthie Samuel, author of the article, replies
I definitely don't believe that feminists are selfish or that priorities of focus are misguided. Pushing on issues like equal pay and rape conviction rates is obviously important, and didn't mean to belittle those struggles. What annoys me though is when focus is pushed onto words and definitions when there are so many other struggles to fight. Sexism is alive and well but at least we've got a legal system in place that in theory supports us, and when it lets us down, this is the exception rather than the rule. In the case of Yorkie Chocolate bars with the slogan "not for girls"...I think that is subtlely offensive rather than actually an issue to fight over, in the sense that it's a just a boneheaded advertising gimmick that doesn't really affect people, it doesn't restrict anything I say or do. It was intended as joke along the same lines as the crisps marketed as "posh" (classist?). A much better reason not to buy Yorkie chocolate bars is that they're made by Nestle who are partly responsible for the deaths of millions of babies in developing countries who drink their dishonestly marketed babymilk formula against World Health Organisation guidelines.
I also agree that feminists give much more attention to women's rights abroad than the mainstream media. I thought that I put that point across in the article but I might not have as much as I intended. My main point was meant to be that if sexist attitudes are got rid of in the general population, the mainstream media might cover urgent women's issues that they currently ignore.
From Carmen Seaby
Thank you for taking the time to reply to me but I feel you are saying things in your reply that differ from what you said in the original, published article.
I disagree with the claim in your article that we "live in a relatively equal society" and the claim in your email response that when the legal system "lets us [women] down, this is the exception rather than the rule". This country's entrenched class system, sexism and racism impacts on millions of people everyday and their efforts to succeed in life and live a life free from fear and harassment. This country has appalling conviction rates for rape, the pay gaps between men and women are still significant, and treatment of domestic violence victims are inadequate (a woman victim of domestic violence has on average 11 contacts with agencies before getting the help she needs - this rises to 17 if she is Black). A recent report found that a child born in the UK today has the same chances of social mobility as one born thirty years ago. That is, if you are born rich you will probably die rich, if you are born poor, you will probably die poor. The vast majority of people in this country go to state schools. The vast majority of people in positions of power (the parliament, the judiciary) went to public schools.
In your email response you said that you were annoyed "when focus is pushed onto words and definitions when there are so many other struggles to fight" but in your original article you said "UK feminists can't afford to get distracted by debating what we should be wearing and whether or not it matters if we choose to work part-time". Pressures on women's freedom (over what they can and can't wear, where they can go) and economic pressures (where, when and how they work) have a huge impact on their quality of life, not just in the UK but in every country. I feel you're creating a false dichotomy, where feminists have to choose between fighting for the rights of women in their own countries versus fighting for the rights of women in other, more oppressive countries. I don't believe this dichotomy exists. I feel your argument is still running along the anti-feminist line of 'well honey you should be happy with what you've got, women in Afghanistan aren't even allowed to work.' I know this is not your intention but this is how your arguments in your article appear to me: The article is called "UK feminists must address worldwide issues", as if they don't already.
And I simply cannot agree that the Yorkie Bar's "not for girls" slogan is a subtle type of offensiveness. It's about as obvious an example as you can get of the entrenched "sex wars" discourse that permeates our culture, diminishing feminist attempts to publicise discrimination by making out that the sexes have always been and always will be "at war". I do not think the Yorkie Bar is specifically an issue to spend a lot of time on but it is a symptom of a larger problem of discrimination, denigration and sexism that women in this country live with everyday.
From Danielle
Re: Houston, we have a problem: I was just reading Kate's post about how she was harrassed and the police didn't seem to care, and I think it's sad that this seems to be the norm, rather than the exception.
I had a drink spiked on a night out about 6 months ago, I knew as soon as I woke up that something was wrong, because I remember being relatively sober, and then a total blackout.
So my mum took me to the police station, I took the clothes that I had been wearing in a carrier bag, and didn't shower in case they needed samples or whatever. Turns out this was pure wishful thinking.
I asked for a test to confirm my drink had been spiked. I was then asked "Do you think anything *untoward* has happened?" I replied that I didn't know, as I couldn't remember a thing, as generally happens when your drink is spiked.
I was then told that I would "know" if anything had happened (depsite the fact that if you've been drugged you wouldn't be capable of resistance, so there would be no bruising anyway. Clearly even if you're drugged you're expected to kick and scream for it to be considered rape). And then she said that the purpose of drink spiking was rape (although she skirted around the actual word), basically implying that my drink hadn't been spiked, as I hadn't been raped (her assumption, maybe because I wasn't sobbing hysterically?)
Then she actually had the cheek to ask me if I drunk often, and how often I drunk!
She refused to do anything after this, not even file a report for my missing jacket and phone, which I imagine she might have done if I hadn't come in to waste her time on some silly suspiscion.
She told me to go to the hospital if I "really thought" my drink had been spiked. Which I did, only to be told somewhat more sympathetically that it was against hospital policy to carry out the test, given the sheer number of requests (so clearly there is a problem, which the police seem determined to turn a blind eye to) and that they should have done a test there and then at the station.
Of course, by this time, my 12 hours were up, and it was pointless to go back a demand a test.
My mum later told me that after relating this story to some people she worked with, she was told of several personal experiences with drink spiking at the same nightclub, and apparently it happens on a weekly basis there. Something that you would assume would make the police more receptive to such complaints, rather than less.
I have since lost all trust and respect for our so called protecters of the law.
From Stephen Booth
Re: Feminist Philosophers neatly encapsulate equal pay story: Regarding your quote from Feminist Philosophers about Birmingham City council going about addressing equal pay the wrong way. Not only were many of those on the picket lines women who had gained under single status, many were women who had lost money.
Whilst, as groups, some of the biggest winners are in traditionally female roles, notably catering and caring, because those groups are so large the actual increases amounted to a few pounds a week per person, or less. The largest individual gainers, certainly that I am aware of, have been in management. Many of the biggest losers have been people in highly technical roles (IT, planning, transportation, skilled craft &c) or who recieved bonuses for unpleasent/unsafe working conditions, hours of work or productivity. Many of these people, especially in IT, have been women.
From Gregory Stafford
Re: Southall Black Sisters 'under threat': As an occasional reader of this blog and reviews etc I was shocked to come across this posting. I am afraid to say that it is deeply misleading and seems to imply that Ealing Council are not taking the issue of domestic violence seriously.
Let me assure you that this is not the case; in fact at a meeting of Full Council last year a number of Councillors including myself spoke up for more recognition of the problems of violence in the home against both men and women.
I agree that the work the Southall Black Sisters do is invaluable, but it is simply not true that we are "withdrawing its funding". This year, as with every year previously, the funding of around £100,000 is put out for tender and bid for by local groups who provide domestic violence support. Over the past years Southall Black Sisters have won this bidding process.
This year the process is EXACTLY the same. The only difference this year is that the Council wants to find a provider that will serve the entire Borough, all people regardless of their ethnic origin and both men and women. We have invited tenders to cover this expanded need. The Southall Black Sisters have been asked to bid for this money and I believe they have put in such a bid. All tenders are looked at by an independent panel so I have no idea whether Southall Black Sister will secure the funding or not.
As an aside, the greatest incidence of domestic violence is in the north of the Borough amongst white women, currently unsupported by the work of the Southall Black Sisters.
I am disappointed that you seem to have swallowed the propaganda put out by the Southall Black Sisters. It is not that we believe "that there is no need for specialist services for black and minority women" but in fact it is our belief that there is a serious shortfall in provision for non black and minority women and men that has influenced our thinking.
I would have thought that a progressive blog such as this would welcome the Council's desire to make available domestic violence support across the whole Borough and for a much wider range of women (and men) than is at the moment being provided for. I am sure that now you have all the facts, you will welcome this decision.
Yours sincerely,
Cllr. Gregory Stafford
Representing Cleveland Ward
London Borough of Ealing
Jess McCabe, editor of The F-Word, replies
I responded to this comment on the blog
From Sherry Mead
Re: Giant idiots!: Don't forget the implication that only the man has an income. The add tells the slimy male target audience that buying "the wife" a used car saves "his" money
From mickey
Re: Is it better to pee like a man?: how do yall pee standing up
From Cas
Re: Random Acts of Feminism: very much enjoy placing copies of Good Housekeeping in front of the Loaded, Nuts etc mags. Parenting Magazine works well too.
From Adrienne
Re: Insert preferred expletive here.: I read this blog regularly and when I came across this particular blog, I was appalled. I went to CNN myself and I found the video with the disgusting title.
I watched the video, and it did not seem as though the woman in the video was being sexually assaulted. I do not want to excuse the cops' behavior or say that the female was "asking for it", but how did you know that she had been assaulted?
Also, I do not mind if my comment is used, but I would prefer to not have my email address given away. Thank you!
From Alex
Re: Sorry Civitas, were you trying to be insulting or did it just happen?: Hang on, you're contradicting yourself here. If the thrust of what Dr Williams said (or appeared to say, he's bested his own brilliant record for being unclear) was that religious courts should have more binding legal powers and civitas then say this would be a bad thing - how is the fact that they currently don't have binding legal powers a counter-argument? The fact that they currently have a choice isn't an argument against it being a bad thing if that choice was reduced in the future.
From Leigh Woosey
Re: Clothing - forward thinking and retrograde: Is this really a fair comment on Karen Walker's work? Even a cursory sift through Google results reveal that her designs are a brake from the form hugging, skin baring garments that we expect from the catwalk, seeming designed to allow the wearer to control their outline and form with its emphasis on layering and loose fits. Her interviews reveal a much more critical mixed approach to her source material than is implied by this entry. from Vogue.co.uk: ' "I was really inspired by Edwardian and Victorian childrenswear and doll's clothes, mixed in with some heavier elements and rock and roll references to get that contrast," Walker told us backstage before the show began. Set to the beat of Siouxsie and the Cure, Walker achieved her goal' . Walker seems to earn the approbation of Vogue for being so daring, which is enough to earn my respect at any rate.
From Jennifer McMahon
I'm not really sure what you are trying to say is bad about Karen Walker's collection - I'll admit that I only saw the two pictures on the article you linked (and I really loved that blue coat!) rather than the entire collection, but are clothes based on a certain style oppressing us now? Do I loose my feminist credentials if I like Karen Walker's collection? Is she *actually* asking women to force themselves back into a restrictive way of dressing? Looks to me that she has taken inspiration from Edwardian clothing and removed the discomfort. Is that so bad? Maybe I am missing the point...but you didn't really make it clear what, exactly, makes the Karen Walker collection anti-feminist.
From A
Re: Pill could be made available at pharmacies: On 1st January Laura Woodhouse wrote: 'And, by the way, if you wait until marriage to have sex because you think it's 'worth the wait', I'd start preparing yourself now for a biiiiiiiiig disappointment. (Hint: good sex takes practice, that's why the rest of us are all getting busy with the condoms. Aww, don't look like that, it's only so we'll have more fulfilled marital relations.)'
Laura, when people choose to have sex is entirely up to them. Apart from anything, since condoms do fail from time to time (as you yourself have noted in support of abortion rights), the only safe sex is no sex. How can people's choice to abstain be doing anyone any harm, anywhere? I'm not an advocate of abstinence, far from it, but I fully repsect the rights and views of those who are. Since you haven't practised abstinence yourself, how can you tell anyone else that they're in for a disappointment? How would you know? Neither you nor I would tolerate such vitriolic criticism of our choice to have sex before getting married, so nor should those who have chosen not to.
And as for the anti-Christian overtones, please FWord in general, give it a rest. Many Christians are good people, who practise and preach tolerance (as perhaps I have done here...?). If the Christian-bashing continues, I might have to stop reading the articles on this site.
From Ruthie Samuel
Re: University of York Students' Union opens Women's Committee to men.: Response to article about the decision to allow men on the the york uni women's committee... Surely it's important to welcome feminist men rather than alienate them? Every single feminist man that I've met has been completely respectful and supportive of the feminist cause. I also think it's very unlikely that a rapist would attend a women's group meeting, and if they did, they'd be kicked out very promptly after a kick in the balls.
Laura Woodhouse, author of the blog post, replies
I do agree that there is room for feminist men in feminist groups, if that is what that particular group wants. However, I firmly believe that it is more important to make women feel welcome than men, and some women have categorically stated that they will no longer be a part of women's committee because they do not feel comfortable with the group being mixed, for all the reasons I stated. These women should come before men, every time.
And I think if a rapist turned up he'd get more than a kick in the balls!
From tom hulley
to laura woodhouse on york women's committee piece beautifully concise and admirable clarity of thought -i really appreciate reading your contributions i hope you don't mind me passing on your observations to students as you explain patriarchy and its implications far better than i could - but then that seems precisely your point on the need for women to define causes and solutions. i went to york in the 1970s when some of the women's groups were just starting -i found them vibrant and helpful when doing my research: clear about their own priorities but still responsive to male interest (not definable as either inclusion or exclusion really) so it is sad day that some of the present group seem to be selling out why on earth did they put the vote to men on whether to let them in -what did they expect? perhaps an all female vote for male inclusion would have actually meant something although i am not sure of this even
From Rachael Halemor
Re: Property is theft!: Excellent post Helen but I would like to make a side-point about the fact that it was just theft - it was harrassment. This is a point I would like to make to all women on this site.
I have had various gormless fools shout "Are you a man or a woman anyway" when I have answered back their insulthing comments. They are not saying it because of who you are - they are saying it because in their minds " a real lady doesn't answer a man back"!!! My solution - BY GOD ANSWER BACK!!! Focus back on them and thier obvious shortcomings (never let the comments focus on you) and if it carrys on just keep going on and on until they give in - and they will get bored! It's a pathetic school-boy bullying - "I WILL have the last word mentality"
And the last point (even if you are) NEVER show fear - because that is what they are doing it for in the first place - they love it. And if you really are fearful learn a martial art. I am so tired of hearing about "female helplessness". We are NOT - and truly being able to defend yourself physically terrifies abusers. It has helped me in many of these situations.
Helen G, author of the blog post, replies
Thank you for your message, and my apologies for the delay in replying.
I agree with you that, because the theft of my cellphone was accompanied by transphobic comments, this modified it from 'simple' theft to include a hate crime and I also agree with you that harassment is not acceptable.
But the theft was also an opportunistic crime and, although the two men obviously had a very well choreographed routine, that routine was based on distracting their target to the point where the theft goes unnoticed, at least for long enough for them to make their escape. So the hate crime was a component of the theft, not vice versa. And I was very much distracted. I certainly wasn't thinking about being helpless, or answering back, or resorting to physical violence. I'm not very good at thinking on my feet and if I was thinking anything at all, it would have been something cowardly along the lines of "I just hope I get out of this in one piece" - but the truth is that it all happened so fast, in a dark and confined public space on a London bus, that I would defy anyone to react like Charles Bronson in 'Death Wish'.
Subsequently, I have had several discussions with friends and colleagues and the general reaction has been how lucky I was that the phone was all that the thieves took. Your message has been on my mind a lot since I received it and I've carried out a very limited straw poll amongst my friends and colleagues about defending oneself in such a situation. The overwhelming response was that if I had, I'd most likely have been knifed.
Also, and I'm sorry to keep on about it, I am a trans woman and consequently I am subject to many hurtful and upsetting comments like this, pretty much every time I stick my nose outside the door. Whatever one's views on transitioning and the gender binary, my situation is that, although I identify as a woman, I do not 'pass' particularly well - hence the endless comments I receive. I am slowly - very slowly - learning not to let it hurt and upset me, but it's not easy (and yes, I know - no-one said it would be!)
I have this irrational sense of somehow 'letting the side down' with what may seem like passive acceptance of a potentially violent situation in which I felt completely out of my depth, and that perhaps I should have done the Wonder Woman twirl instead of just standing there like a lemon, but please remember that transitioning is not a matter of choice for me. It's a matter of survival, and I do what I have to do to survive. If part of that price is transphobic harassment, well then so be it. At least I'm still here to tell the tale. As I said in the blog post, "I'd rather be a live dog than a dead lion".
From Denise
Re: Sally Anne Bowman murder trial continues: What also enraged me about this case was that on last night's BBC news Sally Anne was described as "single-minded and opinionated BUT DESPITE THAT (my capitals) a very nice person". !!!
From Kirsten Turner
Re: Men resent 'quality time' breastfeeding: As breastfeeding is the norm, there are no health 'benefits' to breastfeeding; only serious health risks to not breastfeeding. Women deserve to know the facts. Perhaps then they'd get angry about how they've been misled and the lack of support they've received, rather than whining that they're being 'made to feel bad' It's not about making women feel guilty, but facts and facts. Most women give up because of a lack of support and because they don't understand quite how big a deal it is. I am sure that fewer woman would make a 'lifestyle choice' to feed artifically after reading this. This is a great article about not the language we use. Maybe if men were made more aware about the risks of not breastfeeding they would do more to support their partners.
Charlotte Cooper, author of the blog post, replies
I think that in the context of an argument for and against breastfeeding - and that is what I'm discussing - that using the term health benefits rather than the norm is acceptable. I do see your argument for phrasing entirely, and enjoyed the links so I will probably consider this if I ever write about breastmilk again.
Personally I couldn't be more for raising children au natural but I find the amount of press aimed at mothers/women of a certain age disturbing in its conflicting information and insistence that women are somehow bad if they cannot perform as is expected. Not all women see it as a lifestyle choice, for various reasons as I'm sure you know, women can feel inadequate post birth and if they have trouble initially getting the child to feed from the breast they will stop there and then, there is very little consistent support to help women to try again or inform them that even natural processes can take time. And I think that while the constant barrage of information trying to prove to women that this is the healthiest way to raise there child I think it has a debilitating affect of making women feel even more isolated and less of a mother because they cannot 'perform'.
Points in the article I read further emphasized for me the pressure on women surrounding their bodies and child birth, something that increasingly is defined by people around us rather than our own experience. My article was a reaction to that.
From Fiona
Re: "All heterosexual women are rape victims": Regarding the "all women are rape victims" quote; I agree with what was said in the blog, but also the comment is quite true, in another way. Women are expected to modify their behaviour and the way they live their lives in order to reduce the risk of being raped. We're getting it from the goverment, every magazine in WHSmith you care to name, and more importantly, from juries in the courts. When the legal system fails one woman, it fails all women. So, yes, we are all victims of rape, but not in a physical way.
From Cara
Just wanted to say thanks for this post. How ridiculous that we even have to have this conversation.
From Maria Dixon
Re: Trail Magazine - Have a Gold Star!: Like you, I enjoy Trail magazine. However, there is one part of Trail that I find supremely sexist - the gear reviews.
Unless they're reviewing sports bras, Trail do not use female gear testers, and therefore never offer any opinion on how well cut women's gear is.
In a typical Trail gear review a certain percentage of the gear will not be available in a female fit. The higher up the spectrum of technical difficulty/seriousness you go, the worse this gets - a review of winter jackets or winter climbing boots may only have 1 or 2 items that come in a female-specific fit. Items that are only available for women are never tested (unless, as above, they're sports bras), but items that are only available for men are routinely tested.
Compare this to TGO. TGO usually has 2 gear review sections - one male, one female, each covering roughly the same number of items. They actually employ a female reviewer to test women's gear and if the standard items don't come in a female specific fit, she reviews alternatives, ensuring that a decent range for women gets covered.
As a mountaineer, it drives me absolutely mad that gear manufacturers and reviewers still start from the premise that only men buy high-spec gear. You can find lots of walking jackets & hiking boots for women, but try finding a decent range of high-end mountaineering gear and you'll see what I mean - women are routinely not catered for and have far fewer options to choose from than their male counterparts. Ok, so there are less women going winter climbing in the UK than men (something I'd like to see change), but that doesn't mean we don't need decent gear!
(A mountaineer, climber, scrambler, walker, fell-runner and adventure racer whose boyfriend has a hard time keeping up with her!)
From anna
Study links high heels with better sex. But...: in response to the high heels are good for sex article, what a load of rubbish! i wear high heels most days, they no doubt exercises my calf muscles but never the pelvic floor ones, what a wierd thing to say!
From Cara Grayling
"I don't know much about pelvic muscles, but doesn't this stuff about "electrical activity" sound a bit weird? I don't remember hearing much about getting your calf muscle, or your bicep in the correct position to exercise it based on electrical activity. I'm no scientist of course, but does this seem wacky to anyone else?" What she is describing is measuring the electrical activity of the muscles; a legitimate scientific technique indicating how hard the muscles are working (as you say, i.e. the muscles were in the optimum position).
However, you are correct that "in the optimum position" is not the same thing as toning. According to this guy: "Matt Roberts, a personal trainer whose clients have included Madonna, Naomi Campbell, Natalie Imbruglia, Mel C and John Galliano, was more cautious. "A woman wearing high heels will hold the muscles tight to compensate," Roberts said. "When you are standing on tiptoes you have to clench the buttocks, the inner thighs and the pelvic floor muscles. It would potentially give them a short-term tension and toning. But the negative effects can outweigh the positive. "The knees and metatarsals are put under strain, the hips are out of position. It can lead to long-term health risks.""
Cerruto had set out as a high heel enthusiast to prove a hypothesis, and surprise, surprise, "proved" it. Unbiased research, then! That is not how science is done.
""I adore high-heeled shoes and I wanted to find something positive about them," said Dr Cerruto, of the University of Verona. "In the end I achieved my goal." Exactly.
Just 66 women is *not* a large enough sample size to produce reliable results.
Further, she did not actually get the participants to walk around in high heels! She had them hold their foot at an angle of 15 degrees to the ground (the "equivalent" of a 2 inch heel) for a short time. Hardly the same as walking around all day in heels (and a 2-inch heel is relatively low).
You are quite correct that this was a letter, not a peer-reviewed article. Unsurprising, given the above flaws in the study. As for the emphasis on pelvic floor muscles...this smacks of yet more patronising "advice" to women.
"The pelvic floor muscles are an essential component of the female body. As well as assisting sexual performance and satisfaction, they provide vital support to the pelvic organs, which include the bladder, bowels and uterus.
But they often weaken after pregnancy and childbirth, and as the woman gets older. There are exercises to strengthen them, but Dr Cerruto hopes her findings may eliminate the need for these."
"Performance"? Well, exactly. No study has ever proved that "tight" pelvic floor muscles improve enjoyment of sex for the female. This is all about men's pleasure. Yet another way to show the female body as not good enough; how dare we have kids or get old? Have they not heard that most women do not orgasm through penetrative sex? Have they not heard of the clitoris? I cannot believe this rubbish is being published in 2008. You are right; the agenda is simply to "prove" that high heels are good for women. Ignore the fact that they are often uncomfortable and painful, and have been shown to result in poor posture. Tell us silly creatures that they are good for us, what are we complaining about? It's not about women liking heels (which I do, in their place, i.e. when I don't have to walk or stand for long), but about the fact that men like them. These "findings" have been so feted by the media because they give ammunition to the anti-feminists; portraying feminists as ugly, in their flat sensible shoes, and of course, "anti-sex".
From Rose
This article has very poor methodology. For starters, the whole paragraph about electrical activity sounding 'weird' should be deleted; it just makes the author sound wilfully ignorant. Again, why is such an emphasis given to the fact that the doctor is a urologist if you're then going to say her urology-related points are wrong because they sound 'wacky' to a journalist? The only valid point in the article is that she submitted it to a urology journal as a letter, with no peer review. You don't address the point that the women who wore 2" heels had as good posture as those who didn't, because that would contradict your argument. I get the impression that someone saw the headline and said, 'I want an article on this by lunchtime,' before reading through the story, and was determined to disagree. Sorry to go on about this, but I'm just surprised that the f-word would publish such a poorly-thought out article.
From Kat
Re: More on those pink toy irons...: You're the one stereotyping implying that pink is only a girl colour
Jess McCabe, editor of The F-Word, replies
I refer you to the blurb we quoted from the M&S website: "And with the hangers included she can keep them neat and tidy too"
From Mimi
Against censorship:The innocence and naïveté demonstrated in this article is almost touching and the equation of pornography with sex would be laughable were it not so tragic.
While I acknowledge that the author finds the type of pornography that's saturating our culture "harmful" I find it kind of ironic that she believes that the kind of pornography that *she* approves of should be subsidised by the state - i.e. all of us taxpayers - and shown to children in school because it's that good! It's interesting that she even refers to it as "my porn" - echoing the tired justification of all porn-apologists that; yeah, porn is mostly revolting - but not the stuff I happen to like.
It seems to me that the author has overlooked the driving force behind adult "entertainment" - patriarchal capitalism. One has to wonder why such an abjectly hateful and misogynistic 'industry' makes so much money. Oh. It's because the 'people' (men and boys) for whom it's made buy the product. They buy it because they like it. It neatly frames unequal gender power dynamics and reinforces them with orgasm. Misogyny in action.
"...widely available, quality, joyfully explicit plot- and character-driven, sexually equal pornography" - fluffy porn - will never sell while patriarchal capitalism underpins current gender power relations and probably won't be required if/when our sexual narrative regains it's health. After all, when that happens, sexual arousal and/or relief will then have become genuine again and no longer reliant on a manufactured product. I find it kind of sad that the writer associates a caveperson's artistic legacy with pornography - who's to say they weren't creating a lasting image of a real person who was significant in their life by the only means they had? Patriarchial capitalism created pornography and there is no evidence that cave-dweller's society was patriarchal; quite the reverse, actually.
Tinkering about with 'this porn's ok - that porn isn't' in the current climate doesn't help our sexual narrative achieve healthy status nor is it going to make women any safer. I agree that a radical rethink of attitudes to pornography is needed but I think it needs to be far more radical than the author has suggested. She states that "there is not a shred of evidence to support a direct link between violent sexual crime and 'extreme' pornography" without acknowledging that, in the U.S., the 1986 Attorney General Commission (known as the Meese Commission) found a causal relationship between exposure to violent pornography and acts of sexualised violence against women, that the transcripts of the public hearings on Ordinances to add Pornography as Discrimination Against Women in Minneapolis (1983) contain evidence from a range of expert witnesses and survivors of abuse about the links with sexual violence and the socialisation processes for men that pornography creates or Zillman and Bryant's research (1988) experimental work that demonstrated that exposure to 'non-violent' pornography led to men developing 'callousness' towards women and a trivialisation of rape or Malamuth et al's research (1984) that demonstrated that men who watched pornography indicated a subsequent willingness to force women into sexual acts if they thought that such actions would not be punished or that in a summary of research in 2000, Neil Malamuth concluded that "Meta-analyses of the experimental literature show that exposure to both non-violent and violent pornography affects both aggressive attitudes and behaviours, and that violent pornography does so to a greater degree". The evidence is there if you care to look for it.
I'm against censorship too. I'm also a radical feminist therefore I locate pornography as a tool of oppression within patriarchy - any pornography; the misogynistic and the fluffy. Dreams of a pornutopia won't change anything because there's no money in it (sorry, the great British taxpayer won't cough up to subsidise your particular jollies). I agree that censorship is dangerous - but so is pornography and, currently, more women are being harmed by the manufacture and consumption of pornography than by censorship.
From jay
Porn rather than erotic imagery was used initially by the army. It was shown to men to get their blood pounding as an aid for warfare. Porn and I mean hard core violent imagery is still used by armies today for this purpose. There is a huge (documented) link between the acting out of violence and hard core porn. Banning porn will not stop violence. The desire to act out violence is already but hard core pornographic material normalises it, feeds it and can trigger the desire to act it out. Pornography is addictive it hard wires the brain. Images stay and are repeated years after viewing. Trafficking, paedophilia and other forms of abuse are a big part of pornography. As for the average ?25 year old pretty woman who smiles, looks like she is totally comfortable with spreading her legs, she is an adult after all, a free women with a mind of her own.. I wonder...
From jakka
There has been plenty of research which demonstrates that repeated exposure to certain types of pornography does 2 things: it normalises images we are intitially uncomfortable with, and in consumers of porn it creates a desire for 'harder' stuff'. One piece of research demonstrated that repeated exposure to rape imagery made people less able to recognise rape as rape. I leave you to ponder the consequences, bearing in mind that the utimate consequence of objectification is murder.
From Bernadette
Re: Feeling a bit uncomfortable?: If you wish to criticise the medical profession, you dramatically undermine your case by using examples that are decades out of date. The term 'hysteria' vanished from the psychiatric lexicon many moons ago, as did hysterectomy as psychotherapy.
Rather than an argument for compassion in obstetric services (which I *think* was the gist) this instead comes off as a rather paranoid reading of the text.
From Evie
Feeling a Bit Uncomfortable made me laugh so hard I nearly burst my stitches. It struck me what a pompous lot (some) doctors can be, and how casually they can dismiss the pain and vulnerability women can feel during pregnancy and labour. I can clearly remember this bored doctor using the 'uncomfortable' word when I was screaming for an epidural!
Thanks Jane for giving the medical profession the right kicking it sometimes deserves.
From Michael
Re: Every girl wants a stalker: Every individual - man or woman - has their own unique view of it all. Much of it obviously has similarities with the view others experience. When we pontificate - and we all do - we tend to view our opinions as some kind of truth, which we see as applicable to everyone else. It isn't!.
That said, as a male lacking in a sense of self worth and confidence with women for most of my life (I'm 71 and single) I've been very frustrated that while the female will respond with very clear signals to encourage a man, they definately stop short of asking. I'm English so this applies in the U.K. So, there is something in a female psyche that can inhibit verbal admission of desire or attraction.. I really wonder if it is conditioning?. The odd thing is if a woman is too overt with me, I usually find it off-putting. It's a double-bind for me. I'm too slow, but don't like them too fast.
I also think it may have something to do with the fact that the woman has the pregnancy. If this was reversed I reckon it would be a reversal of roles. Males are generally the hunter and women are the attractors, whatever the reasons, we've got along quite well for millenia.
From dean whittington
Re: Deconstructing masculinity: I have done some work around this issue in the book "Beaten into Violence". This is about the social construction of white masculinitiy.
From Lavinia Younger
Re: Perfume: the Story of a Murderer: In response to the review of Perfume, I think that the writer has concentrated too much on the feministic side of the book. For me, Perfume has little to do with the treatment of women, but more the fascinating search for Grenouille's identity and concern he has for being loved by others. However, he then realizes that the aura of identity created by his magic perfume is an illusion and that it has been hate rather than love that drove him to become a genius of perfuming. To the question of feminism, we know that Greouille murders merely to aquire the materials necessary for his art, and guilt is not an aspect of his consciousness. It is clear to me however, that women are portrayed as symbols of sex in the novel, and their virginity is the main source of attention which Suskind attributes to their discussion. The way virginity and innocence is linked is somewhat old fashioned in this day and age. It is clear that Greouille is devoid of morals and the murder of all these women does not affect him in the way it should. He is not doing it for the stereotypical reasons which the rest of society are pointing towards, of sexual abuse. In fact it is quite offensive that they should jump to these conclusions, as it seems this was all women were good for in those days. It annoys me therefore that there is so much emphasis on the unfair treatment of women in this article, as it is certainly not what the book is trying to achieve in terms of ideas and thoughts.
From Ida
Re: The F Word Podcast - episode three!: Podcasts - Hi - Thanks for doing podcasts, they're another medium we can use to spread the message and promote feminism. I'm currently trying to find different ways of getting the message across as I put together events for International Women's Day in work. We want to have something staff can see/do/read/hear so it's great that I can send around links to the podcasts as something people can do at their desk.
Also, well done on the whole site. It's really well laid out and I can never come in here without wanting to read almost every article you link to - the titles are very enticing.
Thanks for being such a great resource. Hopefully I'll be able to help you out in the future.
From Jay
Re: How to Look Good Naked: How to look good naked and those other make over programmes.. I feel the emphasis is not on allowing women to love and accept their bodies... more about how to disguise and deny the realities of their bodies. Breast must be hoisted, waists must be squeezed, hair coloured etc etc. Women are viewed and view themselves from the outside. These programmes reinforce the message that how we are naturally is not ok and not acceptable to society. As for those photo sessions ..note the huge white cloths drapped over those non acceptable bellies or round thighs. The day they photograph and CELEBRATE the realities of many women's bodies that include rolls of fat stretch marks, wrinkles etc etc will be for me a good day!
From Andrew Schofield
Re: Suffering in silence: I don't disagree with much that George Mason says but here's the key difference: collective guilt. I'm also shocked and dismayed at boorish and intimidating behaviour by lagered-up lads towards women minding their own business but I don't see why MY freedoms should be curtailed or I should be stigmatised because of it. Naturally I could try and intervene but then I'd be accused of being some kind of chivalrous bastard...
From Grace
Re: Glamour models made me sick: i completely agree with eveything you said about glamour models giving the wrong message out to girls and women. i'm going through exactly the same thing as you talked about. My boyfriend often makes comments about glamour models, nuts magazines, big boobs etc. even though they aren't intended to hurt me they stick in my mind and make me feel like complete and utter crap. Ever since the first comment was passed i've become obsessed with looking like the girls off page 3. Even though im size 6 and have a fairly toned body i want bigger boobs and every time i look in the mirror i just feel like i look a mess. Until i read your article i felt like i was completely alone and no one else would understand why i feel like i have to look perfect 24/7 so i want to thankyou for writing this because it's really helped me and now im going to try and get some help and stop seeking perfection all the time. i really respect everything you said as you obviously have your head firmly on your shoulders, i just hope that i can get through it and come out the otherside as well as you have. well done for making a stand. you've been a real inspiration. thankyou. xxx
From sam
Re: Are you married? If not, why not?: I am pleased that you are happily cohabiting. It works for some people and you appear to be one of the fortunate few (although I firmly believe that it does not work for the majority). It did not work for me. I lived with a man for 5 years (from 20-25) and it was the worst thing I ever did. I am an atheist thus my argument is not based on religious grounds. So why do I hate cohabitation so much? I have thought long and hard about this and I have reached the following conclusion: it damaged me psychologically. You see, rightly or wrongly, I believe that if you are truly committed to someone you will want to marry them as they are far better protected legally (believe me legal protection DOES matter) Besides, If you are truly committed, why wouldn't you want to be married? What harm could it do? Absolutely none. Thus I was stuck in a situation whereby I was neither married nor was I single. I was, if you like, stuck in a rut, a psychological halfway-house. In a state of limbo that nearly ruined my mental health. You see, people need to have boundaries -they need to know where they stand . A man who is about to be executed is strangely happy because he knows what's ahead of him. As for marriage disempowering women? No way. Utter drivel. It EMPOWERS them. It gives them the backing of the law and, you know what, that's security. My advice to others? Get married or be single- never, ever cohabit. If you are doing it to rebel against your nice middle-class backgrounds be aware of the fact that you are cutting off your nose to spite your face. Cohabitation offers all the worst parts of married life with absolutely none of the advantages. A close friend of mine lived with her partner for 15 years, they took out a mortgage together and brought up her child, when he died unexpectedly she had to ask his brother permission to organise the funeral. No spouse has to do that. I admit my friend and her late partner were pretty ignorant about such matters and believed in that old mythical beast the "common law wife/husband", but what excuse has an educated person got? Isn't it just easier to be married? Wouldn't you be saving yourself hassle by doing so?
From t
Re: Girls Aloud, beauty secrets and lies: I think that the beauty of the female form lies in the vast variety that women come in, whether your naturaly slim or naturaly curvy you are beautiful, we shouldn't be conditioned to be competitve with other women because of a unnatainable standard set by society, perfect does not exist and it never will, we should learn to love ourselves and rejoyce in the fact that we dont look like we're made of plastic.
From Jack Briant
Re: Taboo for who?: A great little treatise on the word cunt. It hapens to be my favorite word in the bedroom when I am talking to my wife and we are having intercourse. And it is true if we call someone a dick or a cunt to describe their personality thats when some can be insulted. However if a man is described as a dick it carries more weight than if a woman is referred to as a cunt Thank you for your article.
From DOROTHY KELLY
Re: Loose Women: Read your comments on Loose Women and I have to say you have your opinion,but they did receive an award so you are in the minority. Must say that you sound a bundle of fun and a gas to be around. Keep smiling won\'t you.From a very HAPPY LOOSE WOMAN.
From karen
thought your reader was really rude about loose women.......its a bit of light hearted entertainment with real women presenters so get lost basically
From Matt
Re: Mind your language: I've just read Sarah Louisa Phythian-Adams's Article "Mind Your Language" - I've only recently discovered the site- and I feel that many good points have been made. I really don't understand how in this day and age Nestle can get away with selling Yorkie bars saying "it's not for girls" on every label. Talk about going back in time! I think sexism in Language is still an important issue. I can't understand either the use of the terms "lady" and "ladies" in many contexts nowadays either and how many people are afraid to use "woman" and women". I've noticed that many women's football teams are still referred to as "ladies" teams, to me this sounds really patronising as well as trivialising.
I also dislike terms such as "male nurse" and can't see why the gender of a nurse matters any more. Stereotypes in language still seem to dominate so much - one example I saw last year were Mothers' Day Cards for young children to send - there was a pink one that said on the front "from your little girl", but a blue one said "from your little man". Why couldn't the card have said "from your little boy"? It seems people are reluctant to use the word "boy" even to describe boys because they don't think it sounds "manly" enough, like the way boys (as well as young men) are often called "lads" - something I personally can't stand.
From sumac celeste
Re: Of corset matters: i love this article; i was previously ademant about corsets anyway, but after this weekend when i was squeezed into one by my friends for my 17th birthday, i have come to realise they are one of the bains of womankind! thanks for opening my eyes a little wider :)