From Corinne

Just a quiick BRAVO for Nino who wrote the article on self harm. I think you're an amazing woman who has displayed wisdom and maturity far beyond your years....far beyond my years even and I'm a Granny ! I admire your insight and bravery and applaude your ability to communicate in a down to earth accessible way...Good on you, Lady !

From LOU

Nino's article on self harm is impressive for a young woman. I love the title that makes both points instantly. Not only the narrow way this 'social issue' is discussed and 'treated' but that indeed all women suffer the consequences of patriarcial exclusion.

From Anon

I really like Nino's articles and I hope she will be back to write more.

I can relate to the way she described abusive relationships as a form of self-harm from my own experience. The shame and guilt I felt after coming out of such a relationship was much deeper and long-lasting than any feelings I had for the man. I was embarassed at having been complicit in my own destruction, for blinding myself to what was happening to me simply because he was my boyfriend so I should love him, regardless of how he treated me.

Because of all the distress at how I felt I had made a fool of myself I hadn't really considered outside influences on my behaviour - the societal belief that I should want to hold on to an attractive and popular man and that surely if he wasn't a good person he wouldn't be in such high demand. Even when some of my friends spoke up against him I was still convinced that he was only a crap boyfriend because I wasn't a good enough girlfriend. During that time I pursued no other interests than those I thought would make myself more acceptable to him - I also completely changed my appearance.

Another factor of our society I think may be an influence is that it is acceptable for a man to do very little (clearly just having a penis is achievement enough) but women are seen as lazy if we're not constantly striving at the ideals of thinness, beauty, financial solvency (to fund beauty), an active social life, the pursuit of a mate and family life, and other possible things I haven't thought of. If we don't feel like it we become automatic underachievers and self-harm by abusive man has the multiple solution of providing a mate, punishing yourself for not doing anything else, and giving you a new set of standards to strive for. I think this is what happened to me as I was made to feel bad for not wanting to wear make-up and not caring that I wasn't thin. I punished myself via a nasty man for not being feminine enough, for having little interest in stereotypical female preoccupations, for being less than I should be.

Now a little older and a little wiser I am glad to know that my identity as a woman depends on no one else's approval but my own, and that if I would rather watch tv and eat biscuits instead of do my hair and makeup I am entitled to. My greatest joy is in being unrestricted in my own home, being able to indulge my habits without judgement and be comfortable with myself. In that sense the restriction of an abusive partner doesn't just stop you pursuing your dreams, it stops you being able to 'be' at all.

(sorry this is such a long meander, this article affected me a lot)

From Kayleigh

your post- was amazing, so honestly and powerfully written. I can so relate and you made me look at issues from a another perspective. excellent. I used to self harm as a teenager, usually because of how I was feeling due to guys treating me like shit, and my parents went berserk and said they would send me to a psychiatric if i didnt stop, ridiculous! anyway thank you for this post- it was very inspiring!

From Sam Jones

I just want to say a huge Thank You to Nino for her article on self harm. It brought back a lot of memories for me of when I used to self harm as a result of bullying at school. I was one of the girls who dared to stand up to a boys and was so different, refusing to cow-tow to their assumed superiority. As a result I was ostracized and mocked to the point where I was cutting myself everyday just to make the emotional pain more bearable. What helped me was the words of another girl who had been self harming for a lot longer and who showed me her scars. Seeing those wounds on another person brought it home to me just what I was doing to myself. I wasn't going to let the bastards win. That girl and I remained friends since we left school and have been like sisters ever since. It is the support of other women that was the true healer for me.

From Shea

I thought Nino's article on Self Harm was possibly the most brillant thing I have ever read online or in the mainstream media.

This phrase "Other than keep ourselves busy with pointless activities as we wait to die. Your soul never dies. But you can misplace it and, hell, you can lose it." really stands out for me.

It seems apt that you used Ophelia-- a while ago there was a book called Vanishing Ophelia or something similar, talking about the crisis among female adolescents, the rise of eating disorders and self harm. There really is an epidemic where women, especially young women feel guilty for existing. They try and literally disappear, carving away at their physical presence through self harm and eating disorders, its so tragic its unbearable.

We really need a strong reversal of this and "raunch culture" that women are worth far more than their looks, that they have an intrinsic worth not related to their appearance or intellectual capacity. Until we do we are going to keep seeing young women, the modern Ophelia who have become casualties of societies warped views.

Very relevant and very insightful, thank you Nino.

From Lori

I absolutely loved your article about female masturbation! As a female masturbator myself, I have had many awkward moments where the subject of sex comes up, and I plain tell them that sometimes, I just prefer masturbation. It just feels better some times. I work with all women, all of us over 20, and not one of them will even admit to masturbating. I think it's high time we taught females that masturbation is *good* and enjoyable, and that there is absolutely nothing to be ashamed of.

P.S. I agree with the phallic sex toy angle. While I don't mind using them, sometimes, when I'm not in the mood, it kind of weirds me out that one of the ways I get pleasure is through a fake penis. I wonder how many men really use fake vaginas to masturbate.

From Aimee

This is a brilliant article! At school, I was 'that girl' you mention who doesn't give a damn about talking about masturbation and will admit to it without shame, and I could never, ever understand why something which is considered 'natural' for boys was considered 'dirty' for girls. It seems to me that this idea is perpetuated because it implies that women are not for themselves; they are for men to use and for them to use themselves for pleasure is wrong. Like, if your Playstation turned itsself on and started playing itsself. Girls need to learn that they exist ONLY for themselves and NOT for the gratification of others.

Re; the issue of the university friend - I am incredulous as to why this girl stayed with this joker. Surely, anyone with any respect for themselves would have told him where to go immediately? Shocking.

From Jacqui

totally agree. Thought it was just me who thought like this. I didn't have an orgasm until I was 28 - and that was by going to the library as I'd read the word "clitoris" somewhere and went to find out what it meant. I know I was born in the 50s but this is ridiculous. I am still amazed by the responses of women much younger than me (I'm in my 50s) who believe they need a "good hard cock" to be satisfied sexually. I mainly keep my thoughts to myself as I also believe I shouldn't be joining in the sexual banter at my age - so ... we've a long way to go .. and we haven't come very far - but hopefully we'll all keep trying to push the boundaries no matter how old/young or experienced/inexperienced we are. But stuff like this makes me feel so depressed. I really thought most young women were getting it on like the boys - but I really don't think they are - they're still lapping up what the media and society tell them.

From josie

I am in my forties and started vigorously and frequently giving myself pleasure with some mind blowing orgasms since about the age of 12 although I didn\'t start puberty until 15, and still doing it despite being married for many years. I have NEVER discussed this with anyone! It would be sooo embarrasing. Men discuss their sex lives with their mates and probably some are keen to exaggerate their masturbating activity. Perhaps if women talked about this more would it empower us or would it reveal too much about ourselves and leave us open to criticism,and perhaps women are more competitive than we think.

From Jennifer Drew

Our society has for over a century denied that pubescent girls and adult women even experience sexual desire and sexual feelings let alone learning there is nothing wrong in self-stimulating oneself. But of course female sexuality has been declared to be for the use and pleasure of men NEVER WOMEN and most certainly no woman or girl was supposed to stimulate herself in order to learn what she likes or dislikes.

Which is why female sexuality is constantly promoted as one of performance and exhibitionism always with the invisible male person in mind. Female sexuality is never supposedly about a woman's own sexual pleasure or gratification.

So, excellent that this taboo subject has been challenged. As Deborah Tolman has said 'female sexual desire is the missing discourse.' Girls when experiencing puberty supposedly never experience sexual feelings or emotions instead their primary focus is supposedly always on reproductive issues.

There is a term for this social construction and it is called phallocentricism which is why so many vibrators are made and promoted as pseudo penises. Because according to male-centric notions of human sexuality the penis is the only object which can stimulate a woman's body.

The only reason why so many boys and men engage in self-stimulation is because their penis doubles both as an excretory organ as well as a sexually reproductive organ. Women's bodies however, have the clitoris, the purpose of which is solely sexual pleasure and not reproduction. Also, because all males regularly handle their penises this gives them ample opportunity to learn that touching and caressing this part gives them sexual pleasure. Since the clitoris is not located outside the body but just inside the vaginal area this partially explains why generation after generation women have to re-learn the clitoris actually exists. So, penises most definitely are not the be-all and end-all of human sexuality despite what phallocentricism claims.

From Mark Headey

Actually, this comment is off on a bit of a tangent; namely men sitting with their legs apart "taking up room". While I am not going to deny that this may sometimes be the reason, but I'd like to offer an alternative explanation.

You women may not believe this but, take it from one who actually owns a pair of testicles, sometimes sitting with your legs together can actually be painful if the said objects are inconveniently placed. True, in the comfort of one's own space, this is easily remedied. Unfortunately, rummaging around in ones trousers to put some order to the miscreants is generally frowned upon in public. So, I too have occasinally sat with my legs un-necessarily widely splayed until I could find the right occasion to "adjust" myself.

Just thought you should know. It may not always be because we me are being "macho" and demanding more space than reasonable.

From Moody

Fantastic article. Would be a great read for a lot of young girls whose only sex education is the right wing abstinence program. Thanks.

From julia

Reading this piece, I realize that some things have changed. I know women who never orgasamed or masturbated until their late twenties. Women who'd been through marriages before they found their own sexual pleasure. That said, it is still very sad that girls are taught to keep their bodies tucked away, in every sense. And that boys are not taught that their hands and tongues in the right spots can lead to fireworks for their partners.

From alison

I agree that we need to make our presence known to those who are scared of feminism or think it doesn\'t exist anymore. Some of us are using ironic flyers and \"This Insults Women\" stickers to put in/on offensive magazines and newspapers to raise awareness and provoke discussion amongst the general public. Obviously, the more people doing this the more impact it will have. I also really like the idea of the art/graffiti approach, it creates the impression of an underground movement and could be really powerful.

From Liz Ely

Hiya - great article on activism ! In Edinburgh someone has been stenciling little men signs about the place, to which I have been adding skirts and hair and writing yay feminism. Probably won't do much but sure is fun :)

From Janet Hunter

Totally accurate! We are less active and society apears to have gone back to the 1950's. Mostly due to marketing and the mass media projecting images of women's bodies as commodities. I've noticed that the girls I teach are much less well informed than I was about feminism in the early 1990's and much more eager to embrace steroetypes. Where do we go from here?

From Alice Tichborne

I think making and distributing feminist zines for school girls could be a very useful (and non-arrestable) way of spending activist energy. I know that if someone had left a stack of feminsit zines around in my classroom, I would have gobbled them up.

From Alice Dale

Deborah is absolutely right. We need to do more and we can't rely on just venting our feelings on the internet!

We need to expand on the bat-phone call out idea (the alert system to let other feminists know when comments on national websites are rude and offensive). We need to set up an email alert system for when there is a new petition to the Government, and don't ASK people to sign, TELL them to sign - and then TELL them to send it on. We need to get people turning 18 involved in the political process. If there's a problem out there that isn't political we need to work out how to address it (complain about an advert in the UK? Go to the Advertising Standards Authority!)

We need to build on the brand name of Active Feminism! So, any thoughts on how to go forward from here?

From Nino

Spot on. Activism is not active enough.

Movements don't move

And people just point and wonder.

The graffiti idea i quite like. Mind you, I did spend this afternoon cleaning the orange cock a lad called '2pac' (I kid you not) graffitied on my tree.

But I know the difference between art and vandalism and art is always a good start.

i think it is important people know that we care. For my anti BNP movement, I want to get poster put up in as many shops, businesses, cafes etc who will take them. So that, although my and my breakdance crew cannot smash the BNP - we can show them that we, and those people who let us put up poster, care. Our caring may kill some of thier confidence. Women need to use art and their individual talents and passions to decorate this country and show people that yes, we know we live in a patriachy, we're over it. But guess what, we care about how we're treated.

By the way, I'm chemically imbalance too, so yay! (we could also start a club. or a cult.)

From Val

"There's got to be a better way, any ideas?" I found myself asking the same question lately. I'm involved with women's groups and I really appreciate what they offer in terms of emotional support. However ,it seems to me the focus is more on helping women with their suffering rather than on what can be done to prevent it. I believe an option could be to promote local action. For example, having small social meetups that take an issue, discuss it and propose what can be done in practice to improve the situation. Then do it! As far as I am aware, there aren't any in my area (Brighton), but if there's anyone interested in such an idea, I'd be happy to develop it further.

From Jess

I certainly agree with you about sending out a high profile and unified message. My partner is a school citizenship teacher who is a bit of a wannabe feminist (but can't quite make that leap!). The kids in his classes are aware about campaigns like fathers for justice but NOTHING about feminist issues. Why is this? Personally, I think a lot of it is down to the feminist movement being so fractured due to differing opinions by feminists on issues like prostitution etc. I also think that there is a bit of intellectual snobbery within the movement with certain people deliberately seeking a more radical or alternative solution to a problem on the sole basis of wanting to be considered different and furthering their own agenda.

My view is that we need to have a campaign that we can ALL get behind, something that is not inaccessable to women who don't consider themselves feminist (i agree "feminist" is considered a dirty word by many). I don't think it should be an inflammatory issue like lapdancing clubs, something simple like "fathers for justice" (sorry to keep using that example). A loud single message that is accessable to as many people as possible.

From lindsey spilman

Before I write my comment I have to say I too have ADHD!

The last generation of feminists had the task of changing laws. As in the 1970's and 80's a lot of the laws in place were sexist. Today equality exists in theory, but there appears to still be some form of social structure in place that discourages women from fully taking up equality. The gender thing is still there, inequality is there as an unwritten law. Examples are women going to work in office jobs wearing extreme high heels and feeling as if they have to wear make up and heels to look smart. Men in the equivalent job get to wear shoes that do not restrict there mobility and do not have to wear make up. They have there cotton shirts which are a luxury for women as most women shirts have added stretch which can make you sweat. In law there is nothing to tell women that these things are needed to look the part. But something in the social order of things is doing this. Advertising is also getting more sexist, as it is becoming more expectable to have gender specific ads for anything. All these things get passed off as fashion. But fashion does not struggle to make stylish shoes without heels for men. It also does not struggle to make clothes for men that do not require the wearer to compromise for them. It appears that been a woman means that you are expected to compromise for your clothes and devote hours to your appearance. While men are done up with a bit of fragrance, a pressed shirt (pressed by?) and a smart pair of shoes that involve no compromise.

Being an activist starts from rejecting the things that you are expected to do just because you are female in everyday life. I refuse to wear make-up, skin tight clothes full of nylon in the summer, delicate shoes that are not made for walking in. I go to the gym and keep fit, I refuse to be bothered about sweating while I am there, I refuse to stick to lower body only, I refuse to be obsessed with handbags, and I refuse to wear impractical clothes. I refuse to diet; I also refuse to over eat. But at the same time I do not deny myself items, I have as much right to as many clothes as the average man has. I also have as much right as him to have the same standard as him. I refuse to do femininity, but at the same time I refuse to do masculinity. After all refusal to conform to femininity does not make me less of a woman.

Today's issues cannot be solved by demonstrating in the way the feminist of yesterdays did as there is no law to fight. The only way to get a new wave of feminism active today is to get feminism in a positive light in the media as much as possible. Challenge the way TV cameras are used. When the news cameras go to shopping centres, they always film women's feet if they are wearing heels. Or if a woman is in the news her feet will always be shown if she has heels on. When women are doing femininity cameras always focus on it as a way of reinforcing it. Even computer generated images always show these things.

The things that people see on a daily basis do affect them, images of gender stereotypes are every where and people are conforming to them without even been aware that they are doing it. Today's sexism is very indirect and covert. I went in to a D.I.Y shop for some working gloves for sanding the other day and the smallest size in glove was a 10. The average woman takes a 7, this is sexist because the store had just catered for men, and it had assumed that women do these types of house jobs. They instead wash up. This is why they make washing up gloves in smaller sizes. When a company makes something for women that is usually only made for men, like boxing gloves they have to make them pink, again the focus is appearance rather then function.

From Laura

We studied the amazing Liz Lochhead for advanced higher english (Mary Queen of Scots and Dracula from a feminist perspective!). Although that is only a voluntary part of the scottish syllabus in a subject that few people take but the 2 boys in my class benefitted from it :)

From Ruth Moss

Thanks so much for such an interesting and informative article. Certainly food for thought.

From Nino

Now here's an honest view the mainstream media would never give us! This is a geniusely crafted piece of work that is highly unquestionable...

As a youth worker, hip hop head and anti voilence activist I've been going back and forth with this shit for a long long time.

But the media's demonizing and isolating of young people is what is making things so terribly disfucntional right now.

The ideas we were having, the things we were doing that were having an affect on young people like myself, were literally crapped on by the media.

And not only are we back on square one. We're sliding below it.

The Channel 4 recent interpretations of my home town Bradford were totally inaccurate.

I know them lads, I know this city, I know those spots. And you know what, just how they made Bradford out to be hell in the Riots reception, its all rubbish. Yes, like Peckham,like Oldham, like many many cities in the UK. There are a few bad boys with a few bad toys. It is not general concern for the public, nor is it something we see as a huge threat. after that program was aired. Our weapon assisted crime went up. Cheers channel 4, my mate can no longer dance on his right arm.

Another thing the media have not pointed out is the increasing number of young women carrying knives - I stopped a girl on my train the other day who wielded a bread knife, clearly from her mums kitchen at me. There is also a prevalance of female gangs. who. trust me, should be feared way more than the male ones.

The rest of the country who are fearing what they are been fed by the media need to shut up, leave off and let those who know about this stuff, from the inside, deal with it in the ways we know work. Big ups again for the minting piece.

stay free and true x

From Lynsey

An insightful article, I thought the very same thing the other day: it is only boys stabbing each other, not girls. The Daily Mail are quick to point out that this many are black, or have single mothers, or absent fathers, but they don't point out what's staring straight at us: they are all boys. The idea that if it was girls commiting these crimes, it would be reported entirely differently is absolutely true: there would be absolute hysteria. So i think it's right that we shoudl stand up and point the finger and say, we are not doing this; they are.

From Kevin

I only have two points. Mothers are required to take responsibility for ensuring that their sons do not go around stabbing eachother because, unfortunately, it is often the case that there is no one else to do it. The other point is that the incidence of "girl gang" violence, although low, is on the increase.

From Lindsey Spilman

Gender rolls have changed in adult society over the past 20 or 30 years. Young children are still brought up in the same gender binary way they have always been. There is a conflict between child hood and adult hood. Boys toys are mostly built on aggression (guns war tanks, action figures). As are video games. All these behaviours are unacceptable in adult society. Girls toys are mostly based around mothering or looking pritty. This reinforces the old gender based ideas. A lot of the boy's mags and games show women who look like. Boys and girls are dressed differently; this encourages them to play differently. In adult life both genders have to mix together in the work place. All these issues could be solved if children were treating as children not as girls and boys. Many studies have shown that gender is inbuilt in the brain. So in theory there will be difference anyway. When children are brought up with there gender constantly reinforced it results in hyper masculinity or hyper femininity in adult hood for many. This is because the natural gender differences which start off small are magnified by up bringing. Gender is constructed to magnify biological sex differences.

What really needs to be done is to encourage children to play for fun, with unisex toys. Both genders need to build things, to help develop the problem solving part of there brain. Both genders need to go out side with nature and get dirty. Crystal growing, a telescope, making a volcano, chemistry kits are good for both genders to get into science. I do not see why girls need to play with dolls; the inbuilt maternal instinct will not be strengthened by this. Boys do not play at being fathers. As for toys that mimic doing the house work, these are silly, both genders need to help out with some of the real stuff. Blue for boys only? Evidence shows that blue and green help people to concentrate; pink can have the opposite effect. A blue or green room may be better for both genders.

Boys from a young age are encouraged to put there creativity if they have it, into building or constructing something i.e. there's there to last and they as well as everyone can see there achievement. Like making a model of a car or something. Girls are encouraged to put there creativity on there body for everyone else to look but them, they become the objects of there own creativity when they put on make-up or do there hair, or put glitter on there selves. There creativity is not there to last, is disposable and soon forgotten after it is all washed off. The boys model car is there being admired the next day. The girl is back to the start.

Then in adult life the same occurs with women putting there creativity into make-up and fashion all of which have no permanent effect on the world, instead they further undermine the confidence of women. Men are then putting there creativity into more permanent things. Architecture and building design.

From Jessie

The article on BDSM is fantastic. I & some of my friends are involved in 'the scene' but have never felt entirely comfortable with BDSM. This article is very well written, has a clear train of thought and tackling an issue I have found hard to get my head around. Well done on having the courage to tackle such a heavy subject. This is very topical given the change in laws regarding BDSM . It has also helped me to put words to how I was feeling and thinking. Thank-you

From Lauren O

I think the article "Kink 101" was a great take on the BDSM scene. I am not into that at all, but I think it is quite important to respect the preferences of those who are.

If you haven't read it already, I highly recommend the article Kinky Sex for Social Justice over at The 1585.

From m Andrea

"Hey, I know you don't like my choices, but shut up. You don't have the right to criticise. I am exempt from criticism. I claim criticism-exemption privilege."

Pleeeeeeze. Have you heard of this new thing? It's called "free speech".

There's also this other thing, it's called "let's pretend there are no limits on healthy human behavior". Let's pretend every new thing is "progressive" and "radical" and "pushing the boundaries" and everything that has limits is "bad" and so everything which crosses that line automatically, without thinking about it *at all*, becomes good.

No. Grow up. That crap doesn't work when two years try it, and it doesn't work when twelve year olds try it, either.

From Emma

Kit, this is a great article and I'm really pleased to see a feminist evaluation of bdsm written from a favourable perspective! I enjoy power play myself, and I do get *very* tired of being told it's unfeminist of me to enjoy submission - particularly when I've been given much more respect and found more importance was placed on my consent and enjoyment within the relationship. Your point about exploring one's sexuality being important rings particularly true - and for me, that exploration is a part of my own feminism and political stance; if I can accept it, and be aware of the politics ramifications, then surely it's ok - I don't expect everyone to enjoy the same sex as I do, but nor do I expect everyone to share the same preferences in books or opinions on politics; if I can respect them, then why must I be made to feel I'm not a "real" feminist. Thank you again for a great article!

From MobotI really appreciated this article - although I can't claim to have any real knowledge of the BDSM scene, I like the idea that it promotes frank and safe discussions about boundaries and consent. But mainly, I think it's vital that feminism in all its forms is respectful to individual sexualities - I've had too many heated debates with feminists who appear to have very fixed ideas of what is 'acceptable', which I believe can alienate other feminists and potential allies. It's a bit of a minefield though - I can see the point in being anti porn, for example, but can't quite bring myself to pass judgement on a whole concept as if it was a straight forward issue.

From Lemur

For your article on feminism and BDSM: thank you. Thank you, thank you. As a feminist sub, i try hard to reconcile my beliefs about the treatment of women and the need for change, and what I do in bed. Your article clarified a lot of ideas I had but couldn't articulate. If it's ok with you I'll be linking to this (with credit) on my blog. You've helped me understand myself, and feminism, better. So thank you!

From A different Helen

Kit Roskelly's article "Kink 101" seems to be using similar arguments to the sex and porn industry in trying to convince us that feminism should be supportive of BDSM. We are told that because the sex and porn industries provide employment for women and enable some to earn good money, being exploited in pornography or selling ourselves as prostitutes is empowering and feminist. To me however, this is missing the point. In my view, feminism is not about individuals, but about what benefits or disadvantages women as a group. When women are bought and sold as sexual commodities for male use, this lowers our status in society, and encourages attitudes amongst men that increase the likelihood of discrimination, harrassment and sexual violence. To me therefore, working or supporting these industries is not feminist, because in general, they do women more harm than good.

Similarly, just because some women have sufficient self confidence and assertiveness to get what they want from BDSM, this does not make it feminist. I am not familiar with any research in this area, but my gut feeling is that normalising BDSM would simply provide more opportunities for women to be coerced and abused, and consequently not something that feminists should support. Furthermore, I would like to think that feminism is about making the world a better place. Does getting off on other peoples' suffering and humiliation, even if they are consenting, make the world a better place? I'm afraid I am inclined to think not. Sorry.

From Polly Styrene

Kit Roskelly presents feminist objections to BDSM as simply objections to a 'sexuality' and therefore claims that feminists should not 'pass judgement'. Apart from the irony of someone writing an article telling women that they shouldn't tell other people what to do - since the author themselves is thereby telling people what to do - this is quite simply a false analogy.

The analogy is popularly used because everyone can see the injustice of - for example - male homosexuality being illegal, and BDSM practitioners therefore like to paint BDSM in the same terms. Which ignores the huge differences - BDSM is not a 'sexuality' in the same way as homosexuality but is a sexual practice that can be performed by heterosexuals, bisexuals and homosexuals. Objectors to homosexuality object to the fact that the participants are the same sex, not the act itself. Criticisms of BDSM are based on the idea that BDSM practices themselves are harmful in some way.

My personal objections to BDSM are:

1) BDSM echoes and reifies harmful power relations in the wider society

2) BDSM is based on 'consent' but consent is not an absolute concept and this ignores the extent to which coercion can be used to generate such consent, especially when pre existing power relations between the participants are unequal

3) Imagery used in BDSM is deeply offensive to many. It is frequently racist and often includes the eroticisation of childhood sexual abuse and rape.

4) BDSM can involve the infliction of actual bodily harm both psychological and physical to participants. Black American feminist Audre Lorde said in relation to Samois, the lesbian S/M group founded by Pat Califia and others "Without a rigorous and consistent evaluation of what kind of a future we wish to create, and a scrupulous examination of the expressions of power we choose to incorporate into all our relationships including our most private ones, we are not progressing, but merely re-casting our own characters in the same old weary drama...SM is not the sharing of power, it is merely a depressing replay of the old and destructive dominant/subordinate mode of human relating and one-sided power, which is even now grinding our earth and our human consciousness into dust" Lorde was saying quite simply that desires to wield power in BDSM cannot be separated from unequal and abusive power relations in the rest of life - as Lorde says "As a minority woman I know dominance and submission are not bedroom issues" Personally I find it difficult to imagine how a person could want to role play abusive practices in their sex life and not want to express those characteristics in the rest of their life - but even if they can, the highly sanitised version of BDSM that Kit Roskelly presents ignores the reality. The reality which includes themes of Nazi torture, images of slavery, 'rape fantasies' and the eroticisation of child abuse. Leading BDSM advocate Pat Califia advocated sex with underage children and even defends child porn.

Which leads us to the question of 'what is consent'. I personally know women who have been in BDSM relationships to which they consented but which afterwards they said were little more than self harm by proxy (ironically Kit Roskelly's piece follows Nino's excellent article on this very subject). 'Stockholm syndrome' is a well recognised syndrome in the field of domestic violence where an abuse victim will bond with their abuser as a survival technique. Those who have been subject to abuse in their past are particularly liable to recreate abusive relationships - many women I have met who have practised BDSM have past histories of self harm.

Kit Roskelly conveniently ignores what Nino's wonderful piece of writing so points out " It's so much easier to be hit by someone else than it is to hit yourself." She completely ignores the possibility that someone involved in BDSM may have pre existing vulnerabilities which render their ability to 'consent' hugely skewed.

Glenn Marcus claimed that Jodi as his 'slave' (Kit Roskelly in her piece also omits to mention that the collars she talks about are signs of collaring - agreeing to be someone's 'slave') had foregone any right to say no. In the Uk there are many women also being kept as 'slaves'. Remember the news story of the "Darlington Sex slave cult" Does Kit Roskelly really think this, or Glenn Marcus can be defended as 'feminist?' Is she aware of the existence of the 'UK Slave Register'?

The inevitable response of BDSM practitioners to these criticisms seems to be to claim that all these abusive practices are 'not BDSM'. Which sounds to me like saying that if you have a car accident you are not driving because you didn't do it properly. If it is represented as BDSM and we are told that BDSM is a practice that is merely a 'highly desirable exploration' of sex life, how are the unwary and vulnerable to resist exploitation? It is not only permissible for feminists to critique BDSM in my opinion, it is vital.

From blondegirl

I applaud the author of this article. She hit the nail on the head- when consent is given, there is nothing but respect between the two players. Many women who play a submissive role in the bedroom are anything but submissive out of it- it's all make believe- the role you play is for sexual gratification, and most of the time has nothing to do with who you are as a person. As the sex-advice columnist Dan Savage has said, "It's cops and robbers for grownups...with their pants off."

In my experience, there are few real misogynists in BDSM; it's easy to recognize them, and as a result, other players will reject them. As one woman famously put it, "He's not a dom...he's just an asshole." These people are not accepted by the community in general, by either men or women.

Finally, let's not forget- in actuality, it is the submissive who ultimately controls the dominant. Everything is, in the end, done to please him/her

The power balance is, in essence, equalized. Anyone with any real knowledge of BDSM will realize it is perfectly compatible with feminism. I personally count myself as both a feminist, and a member of the BDSM community.

From Sabre

Thank you for this. It brought to light an issue that I had never thought of, and it was well written. That donkey charity thing is infuriating. I do think that in our society people do still somehow blame disabled people for their situation, add that to the blame placed on women for domestic violence and it becomes even more difficult to find help when you need it.

From Torygirl

I found the feature on disability and domestic violence really thought provoking and enjoyed reading it very much. However, although I don't have the statistics at my fingertips, I have a feeling that those experiencing disability expands with age, and most disability occurs within the elderly. Given the fact that women tend to have longer life expectancies than men (and what a bed of roses those final few years turn out to be...) the issue of disability and domestic abuse surely overlaps strongly with the issue of elder abuse, yet that is not mentioned in the article. For this reason, I suspect that there is less than a complete picture here.

From Claudia Flores

"What happened to the women in The Diving-bell and the Butterfly in its transition from memoir to film, asks Melanie Newman?"

I watched the film last night, and being myself a sufferer of a chronic non-degenerative condition, the attitude of Bauby is totally encouraging. But that second scene you mention made me think about him in a totally different way - couldn't he be more respectful to the dutiful mother of his children, asking 'the mistress' to call again next day?? I asked myself. I was intrigued enough by the end of the film to find out 'other truths'.

I'd rather think that the answer to your question is: culture shapes gender relations to the point in which a successful and emancipated French businesswoman, de la Rochefoucauld needed a very elaborated revenge ten years later. That seems the case if besides of non-silenced Bauby's friends declarations in Beth Arnold's article, you read Caroline Iggulden's interview to de la Rochefoucauld on The Sun (not that I read it regularly, but it came up on my search)

Salon's article states "When Bauby died, his children, Théo and Céleste, were the inheritors of their father's rights and royalties, and, naturally, Sylvie de la Rochefoucauld acted as her minor children's representative in their business matters." She seems to have been very skillful to make Bauby's father talk on the saving scene "Having a mistress is no excuse for leaving the mother of your children". But more importantly, in real life Bauby's son's words "[I liked] the way Julian showed my mom strong and getting over my dad", echo a skillfully manipulated sense of her own version of the relationship.

Perhaps de la Rochefoucauld cannot come to terms of having accepted an arrangement with Bauby in which, deep down, she wanted him to have married her. Or perhaps she wanted the respect that she did not give herself allowing him to have "many mistresses. To learn what really happened to "the women", his girlfriend, Florence, should speak out.

From Ardella Jones

I'm really glad someone made these points about the movie and the libertie's taken with Bauby's autobiography. When are we going to see a film about an imobile, crippled woman with two devoted men by her side?

From leaf

I had many of the same responses to the film ; that it was more conventional and less daring than the series and a bit of a disappointment. But what really bugged me was that it encouraged the habit of believing that you can endlessley remedy your relationship. Let's face it, in real life a relationship of Carrie and Big would hardly be a happy one. On again off again is very emotionally straining and I feel this film encouraged it.too many women hang on to their boyfriends desperately and forgive them everything already.

And why didn't Samantha fuck Dante? Cannot forgive it, if she was going to leave Smith anyway, she should have taken advantage of the occasion! We were expecting it! There were hardly any decent sex scenes in the film!

And the implication that Miranda drove Steve away by not waxing was very sexist and very reactionary. I never liked Steve anyway she shoulda dumped him. Men who cannot handle pubic hair are not sexually mature. How credible is a lawyer marrying a bar-tender anyway? And if they wanted to make this one for fortysomethings they should have talked about second marriages.

From Susan

For the most part I agree with you. I thought Sex and the City (the series) was original and brought up social issues in a contemplative (and often caustic, but for good reason) way. The movie got all soapy and sloppy to me. The whole wedding hoopla was absurd. But what got me like a knife in the gut was this: last week I watched the last disc of season 4 with a friend. I thought I had seen all of the SATC episodes. Well, there was one I missed--A Vogue Idea. In this episode (as you may well know) Carrie reveals to a senior male editor at Vogue that her father abandoned her and her mother when Carrie was 5 years old, Carrie never knew why he left, never had seen or heard from him again. This is about the saddest thing that can happen to a child (in this way, in the sequence as described above.) In fact, it would be so traumatic that one would be totally screwed up in terms of the opposite sex, well, pretty much for life--and I saw this as a child and adolescent psychotherapist. The writers did nothing with this information other than have Carrie type "How much do father figures figure?" (we know the answer to this, do we not?) But Carrie doesn't (no wonder she is a poor lost soul in this world) and she talks with Miranda at the end of the episode about this, wondering if it was "significant" or not--Miranda blows it off as "nothing at all" and says "my father was home at 7 every night and I have no clue about men." So the viewer is left with the idea that, well, fathers aren't important, really (a horrible view) and that Carrie's early trauma wasn't really trauma at all. The writers by putting this material in the series and handling it as they did was pathetic. Never was anything else said. Carrie never gets help (real help) for her early trauma and actually the writers have Carrie tell us this information and then we are to watch her "act-out" in dysfunctional ways for two more seasons, then add the movie and it's all for "our enjoyment" and "our fun"...I think that's a terrible thing for writers to do to a character. They simply used her and led us to also. It sickened me. No wonder Carrie was drawn to "Mr. Big"....how does a father look to a 5 year old girl when she looks up at him? Big. The whole idea of not knowing his name is weird in this context (Big's that is.) All of Carrie's relationship problems can pretty well be connected to that one episode in season 4--yet, it is never developed. At all. It's as if father abandoning their families and never seeing them again....EVER...is well, just normative and fine. No wonder Carrie hit Big in the face with the flowers like a child. (But who would know this? I doubt the writers were even aware of their own unconcious stuff)...no wonder Carrie would be drawn to Big, no wonder she couldn't commit to Aidan. And while a happy-ever-ending was presented, Carrie has a huge hole in her heart from her past that has never ever been dealt with and it's a hole Mr. Big cannot fill. No way. It's no wonder the whole thing felt off-kilter. It was. The series was now that I look back on it in light of the episode I speak of. I was just appalled.

From stephen m

The first time I read an article like this one about men's participation in feminist matters it was definitely hard to take. Later after thinking about what was written, I had to admit it was very good advice and helped me to further understand general feminist attitudes toward men.

I would recommend interested men discuss feminist issues with close feminist friends (women and/or men). This puts the issues in very personal perspective... every day, these issues are affecting the lives of women, including the women you like/love.

From Kevin

There are some who argue that men and people who are white cannot be the victims of sexism or racism. That, instead, they are experiencing the effects of oppressed people reclaiming their rights. I must confess that I do not hold that position. I believe that discrimination is about people who have power (To grant access or to commit violence) abusing or misusing that power.

From hannah

I felt the part in this article about the writer's reaction to a scene in Eastenders was silly and beside the point. As a feminist woman, I would also say that shaking and feeling breathless while watching a woman get threatened on TV is a little over-sensitive. That's fine - some people are over-sensitive. I personally can't watch horror films at all because I hate seeing people in pain. But I dislike the idea that all women are fragile flowers who can't bear to watch other ickle girls in dangerous situations on TV. This kind of personal, all-pain-is-my-pain pontificating doesn't help anyone and is more likely to put men off than draw them in. But while we're on the subject of Eastenders - how about the evil baby-snatching doctor? That particular piece of character development is practically the living embodiment of anti-feminist backlash.

From Shael

Being a 21 year old black woman who has NEVER shaved her legs can be difficult. Make up. T-shirts with shoulder-cut sleeves. Hair less legs. No. No. No! I must admit that I'm hugely self-conscious of my hairy legs. I embrace your love for your own individuality. I just want to print out your article and paste it on my phone and my office desk. Weird, I know. You and other people who love different hairy parts on homo sapiens really represent the heart of this world. I love my shorts (especially in the South), and I wished that I would grow a pair of "nuts" and just wear them. It just pisses me off that there are some people on this earth that always have to give you their 2 cents when you have your own. This topic has been challenging for me. I love reading articles (like this) about women who love their unique body hair. So, maybe I am a feminist. If only I had the power to block out other people's 2 cents like the gov't will probably do to the actual 1 cent piece. Maybe I should become bilingual. Women like you give me a little courage to put on shorts. Hey, I said that I am hugely self-conscious of my legs. Maybe it will scare away dumbass men and stupid girls who wanted to be your friend post-hairy leg reveal. This world is cruel. Thank you! I have saved your article in my e-mail mailbox.

- Not responding to unsupporting advice from strangers is hair-raisingly priceless...

From Tracey Heynes

Regarding the review of the book on the history of rape,the last comment about "your granny's birthdaygift" - even though qualified - was shamefully ageist and stereotyping of older women....and unworthy of an article on a feminist website!!!!! It assumes all older women would somehow be uninterested(or offended)by the subject - how narrow-minded.

From James Walkling

I would just like to say please women keep up the feminist movement as a man I use to have a very limited view of feminism. But after I read an excellent review from g2 about the crisis women are now facing in the UK and the world. It's changed my view complete. For me to see a women as less of an equal is beyond my understanding I can see a women only as an equal except when it comes to multitasking. It makes me sick that old men or right wing religious people are trying to take the freedoms of women away. For example the argument in government about how long you can have a abortion what right as old narrowed mind men got to tell you what you can do with your bodies! In a very sexual culture I fear for women, the review on the 5% conviction rate on rape is beyond a joke. What I found more shocking that people put some of the blame on women if they are drunk or wear certain clothes as part responsible for getting raped. all I'd like to see what the results would be if a man who got raped because he was drunk or wearied the wrong clothes would people say part of it would be he's fault? I really doubt I would see the same results. I could go on and on but all I would say there are men that support the fight for women rights I am one of them so please keep fight on!

From Joshua Jackson

I support the work done by not only this organisation but by the feminist movement as a whole, and as a male feel that this struggle for equality is well faught and women deserve the equal rights of men in every respect. Thank you for making my world a more equal place in which i live. Thank you.

From Amy Blundell

this is a really good article and i really enjoyed reading it. I am doing some research for my dissertation which is about women being employed at football clubs and what jobs are available to them in comparison to men. this article provided some interseting thoughts about sexism in other areas of football. thanks

From Poppy M Cherry (Philippa)

Thank you for this fabulous article about burlesque. I have been performing at burlesque shows (mostly Bella's, actually!) for just over a year. I never feel that I am exploiting myself, rather celebrating myself! I'm not a size zero. I'm not a size 10 or 12. That doesn't mean my body isn't beautiful though and there is little more empowering to that thought than a room full of people cheering when I'm on stage. Given that most of the audience is women, there is really very little about the show that is actually sexual; it is rather a sensual, cheeky and fun experience. Please pass on my thanks to Chloe (or Inanna!) for being willing to open up her mind and give it a go. *hugs and sparkles*

From John

I'm a returning student in graphic design and really enjoyed your article on how to make a magazine in 5 mins. It is so true all the comments you made. Amazing how people fall for the same magazines month after month but never really get anything out of them. touche'

From Amanda

The review of "We need to talk about Kevin" was conventional to say the least. It was a novel that appalled me (mostly for the hideous writing style and artificial epistolary format), but also because of the representation of motherhood and parenthood, disability and mental illness. Your review did not go into any of these complex issues raised in this book - apparently Eva could have been doing more important things than raising her child, and she was degraded and humiliated by the act of motherhood. This is not the case. The character, wealthy and self-indulgent in the highest degree, chose motherhood (she was not forced into it in any way - in both instances, she did not inform her partner she was ending her contraception), and when she found pregnancy required self-sacrifice on her part, decided she no longer wanted her child. She chose to see her seven week old child as deliberately malicious, as somehow deliberately "refusing" her breast and "performing" for her husband even at that young age. Her account is unreliable and self-interested. Rather than finding this a novel which explores the experience of motherhood as a marginalising and degrading experience, I found it to be a novel which exposed the self-interested and self-indulgent nature of American culture, which creates children capable of mass-murdering other children. At the same time, questions of mental illness and social disorders are totally overlooked - I found that to be offensive.

From loggylogic

When are these men hating feminists going to stop all this propoganda and realise that men are also victims of abuse by vicious women.It really irks me that there is so much hatred towards a fellow human being.

From Michael Morgan

Men do have a hole inside them as well. Your assumption that it can be filled by a women is wrong. I have a hole and I have a marriage the is good, but the hole remains..

From Chris

This article seems a little bias. I appreciate that frequesntly describing women as vulnerable can be linked to an older way of thinking of them as "the weaker sex" (a phrase that implies more than it literally states) but I take issue with this article. For one thing many of the quotes of "vulnerable" have been taken from lawyers trying to secure convictions - of course they are going to use emotive terms like that to convince a jury, and if it helps get these criminals locked up that's a good thing.

Furthermore, on average, women are significantly less physically strong than men, so in the crude everyday sense of the word it is true that women are more 'vulnerable' - they find it (on average) harder to fight off an attack, and I fail to see how acknowledging this is in anyway pandering to the idea that it is not men's fault. This article also claims that women are told [ t o ] : "always believe male colleagues, male acquaintances and male family members are completely trustworthy". Now a commonly quoted statistic is that most women who are raped are raped by men they know well and trust. It is easy to find in mainstream media, so I would like to know who exactly is trying to brainwash women in to trusting all men, because it certainly isn't the mainstream establishment. I would also like to point out the conceptual difference between being a rapist and being a msyogynist. If I murder a man, even several men, it does not mean I hate men, or despise their gender. If someone rapes a woman, that does not show them to be a msyogynist; it shows them to be evil, selfish, vicious and probably sex obsessed. (not obsessed in a sense that makes them less responsible for their actions - being obsessed with money does not make you less responsible for fraud). The article raises a question as to why these men rape women, and seems to find the answer to be that it's because they are mysogynists. It is clear however that one can be a mysogynist without raping any women (a gay male mysogynist for example) and that a rapist need not be a mysogynist. I have no doubt that mysogny is a factor in some rape cases, but if Jennifer Drew is going to claim that it is the main explanation, and that it is a result of what children are taught by mainstream society, then she must cite evidence, for example psychological surverys and profiles of sex offenders. She cites no statistics, surverys or reliable empirical evidence, and yet is convinced that her radical answer is correct and the more obvious answer wrong. It looks as though she is basing her views on faith rather than reason. Please do not get me wrong, I consider myself a feminist and if there is empirical evidence such as psychological surveys that supports Drew's claim I will change my position on the subject. I hope this gets a response, I am open minded and will readily change my mind if given a rational reason to. For the record, I beleive (based on employment/income statistics and statistics of domestic violence) that there is a significant amount of sexism left in our society.

From Manuel Fernandez

A campaign to stop lap-dancing clubs? Is that really the most efficient use of your time? Instead of protesting the mis-education of children, the corrupt politicians, the massacres on the other side of the world. You come to the conclusion that women lap-dancing for men is worthy of a campaign? I think your campaign is delusional and I doubt it will succeed (in fact I hope it doesn't). If this is some sort of "feminist crusade" should you not find a worthier cause? What about all the women in the Middle East that can't even show their wrist. You have the right to do whatever you wish, but other women can't. I hope you rethink your "campaign" and find a worthier cause. I find this crusade oppressive and disgusting.

From David Harris

I guess I'm weird; I PREFER hairy vaginas over bald ones and size doesn't matter; what matters is the chemistry with the woman. On the other hand, I have heard from several sources that penis size DOES matter, so that shifts my opinion a bit to preferring vaginas small enough for me to give her a thrill, over and above foreplay, licking, massaging...whatever. Also, The Vagina Institute (which I have never heard and which doesn't interest me) is nothing but a porn site, run by people who can't make that much money any other way, so who cares what they say about it? Mostly people like them.

From Rachel

I came on your website while "googling" for articles on marriage in general. I am 28 year old, been in a relationship for less than a year with my 32 year old boyfriend. We are considering getting married.

I was opposed to marriage for a while and the reason is I found it was useless. My parents are divorced and I was once engaged to someone which also turned out to be going the wrong person.

Until I met the man of my life... he explained to me his perspective on marriage and I happened to agree with it. To us, marriage is a commitment to each other that we will spend the rest of our lives together and will do everything to make this relationship work. It doesnt matter who proposes, who wears the rings, what religion we are in, who will be at out wedding, or whether or not we decide to change our name.

In fact, I intend to propose to my boyfriend, and he already said he would say yes. I will propose because I want a stable relationship, I want a partner who will be there for me in good and bad days... its not about who wears the pants... its about being a team and facing life's future events together.

From Shev

I was really interested to read Matthew Provost's article on the link between misogyny and sexism and playground bullying. Social norms are often most fiercely enforced in a place like school, where fitting in is all-important, vicious power-struggles are the norm, and everyone is trying to work out who they are and where they fit in.

I recently read an article in a free gay community magazine (Istrongly recommend these, incidentally, even for straight men and women - a powerful source of news that you would not otherwise hear on mainstrem news outlets. G3, fyne times, pink paper and bent are all good, and free in local gay bars). A Stonewall survey found that out of the 10 most common insults in the playground, 8 of them referred specifically to homosexuals, and the other two... yep, you guessed it, to women, or in this case, girls. And yes, of course the insults were sexual in nature. If this is what children are learning as a form of social control (homos are bad, girls are bad, sexuality is really bad - and also entirely the fault of homos and girls), then it is of no surprise that these attitudes continue over to adult life, and cause so much pain and misery to all of us.

PS - I really hate Chris Moyles.

From Marge

As a woman I truly enjoyed reading your article because I have found many men easily accepting these brutish stereotypes from their teens. I am tired of the "sex-obsessed" and aloof versions of male reality we are presented in the media and after reading your article I found hope in the fact that there will one day rise an aggregate of men who stand up and say No! Also, what these stereotypes foster is a focus on male domination in relationships rather than clear communication between two humans. You can yell, scream, cry, and hug in the process and you will merely display human empathy rather than what would be defined as "sissy" behaviors. This clear communication strengthens bonds and helps in both party's quality of life, so I might be running out of space here to explain, but ultimately if we put aside gender stereotypes, and as you say see one another as human we will be much better off. Keep up the good work. Best wishes from California!

From Laura Bennett

I adore Jacky Fleming. I'd have been interested to see her response had your interviewer asked her about her decision to draw for "You", The Mail on Sunday's magazine?

From Mel

I agree with this article - although I am 12 years older than the writer and the decision to not have children becomes even more pressing. I long for improved contraception, I long for people to accept my and my partner's decision, I long for society to realise that not all women want to be mothers. Feminists have fought so hard for mother's rights, about time we started fighting for our right not to be a mother.