From Jay

The f word website is undoubtedly an important and useful tool for women in the UK to put forward their views on social and sexual injustice and make their voices heard on real issues. This is vital in a society where it seems that even since Greer, Friedan and countless other voices the focus on women's achievements is still mainly on breasts, waistlines and sexual willingness than any kind of intellectual or self-affirming pursuit.

Reading Katharine Stanton's article on Jacqui Oatley however, has made me wonder whether what was a platform for rational and well-considered debate has not become an over-zealous and gauche caricature of itself. Apparently Ms Stanton is shocked that so many men are disgruntled with the fact that there is now a woman providing commentary on Match of the Day. So what?

From the very beginning the article is achingly predictable, choosing such witnesses for the defence as Dave Bassett (renowned for intelligent comment?), Steve Curry (Daily Mail, anyone?) and a Facebook group consisting mainly of adolescent, sex obsessed wankers whose primary contact with women is either through dubious web sites or the bra page ripped out of their Mums' Index catalogue.

The world of football is undoubtedly a male-dominated world, and not one of the most intellectually advanced areas of modern culture, and so can one express any genuine surprise at the displeasure so many men have shown at Jacqui Oatley's introduction to MotD? It is symptomatic of an over-done, contrived and unhelpful kind of feminism to attack such traditional areas of male bonding as football for their exclusion of females. I can say from personal experience that when men go to watch football they often do so in order to access an all male environment, in which typically male behaviours and ways of communicating are considered valid and beyond objection from women. I can also say from experience that women have their own versions of these single-sex environments where they find their own comfort zone and do not need to worry about being judged on their actions or methods of communication by men. Is that really so bad? Would four women chatting in a coffee bar really be able to express themselves in the way they wished if, say, the boyfriend of one of the women was to come and join them? Without doubt some of the intimacy of the occasion would be lost and the women would have to modify the way they were interacting.

The question that needs to be asked is, what is the point in Katharine's article? The author claims that it is not the complaints about Jacqui Oatley's presence on MotD that she is rallying against, but the way in which the situation has been used as a platform for misogynistic comment and behaviour. I cannot but see the irony here when a self proclaimed feminist has taken what is at base a fairly predictable and innocuous situation and turned it to the advantage of a rambling, pointless pseudo-feminist rhetoric.

Notice that in her 'about the author' section at the foot of the article, Ms. Stanton boasts of the fact that she will 'start a feminist-type argument whenever possible'. Surely 'refute a patriarchal or misogynist argument whenever possible', or 'start a discussion or advocation of feminist principles whenever relevant' would be a wiser course of action? By her own admission, the author of the article simply has an axe to grind and will look wherever and whenever possible for an opportunity to grind it.

This is not feminism; this is smug pedantry and is unjustified, immature and completely unnecessary. So men don't like women commentating on football. Are you really that surprised? Deep down, do you really care?

From Gavin

Women have reported on football for years, and have written books on football, and have commentated on radio. Likewise, Gabby Yorath is well admired by football fans for being vastly more knowledgeable than the pundits she works with.

So I think it is a shame that a ludicrous sexist minority have used the arrival of a female tv commentator as a chance to air their views.

Having said that - there always will be a stupid minority among millions - hence a Labour councillor in the North West was recently fired for shouting racist abuse at a Spurs player in a league match.

From Tom

Re: A feminist guide to ballet: Loved your article on ballet. It appealed partly because I am a committed fan of contemporary dance and partly because I fell in love with Angelina only last year. Can you imagine two ageing men falling off the settee in delight (not ridicule) watching an Angelina video? Have you come across The Place? It is my favourite venue. You will find feminist choreographers presented there and classes too.

Changing tack, did you know the young dancers at the Paris Opera in the time of Degas were called 'rats' -Angelina's forebears? Oh, yes, American art theorists claim Degas was misogynist but he supported both Mary Cassatt and Suzanne Valadon. Probably the only man of his time to recognise and promote women artists! So that's it - dance, art, feminism they interweave for me.

From Samara

Something of significance that you didn't mention in the ballet article is the extent to which ballet lessons can propagate an unhealthy body image from a very young age. I did gymnastics as a child, to which my stocky, muscular build was perfectly suited. It was when I did a year of ballet lessons at the age of eight to try and inject some grace into my floor routines that I started to hate my body. I was constantly being told to "tuck my bottom in", whilst taller, slimmer girls were lauded as the epitome of grace and perfection. It was always the long, lithe, leggy girls who were praised, never the short, fat ones. A short-legged, big-bottomed little beefcake such as myself had to be twice as competent as a delicate-looking waif to be regarded as half as good.

The phenomenon of professional and aspiring professional ballerinas being under immense pressure to be extremely thin is well publicised, but the damaging effect that ballet lessons can have on small children is often ignored. Having reminisced about childhood ballet experiences with many women, it seems that this is incredibly common. I have heard many, many women say that the first time they remember being unhappy with their body was directly related to ballet.

If you have nothing but good memories of your ballet lessons, if the worst thing about it was that it didn't seem cool enough any more, then you are very fortunate.

From Yurimasae

Re:Girls Aloud, beauty secrets and lies: Excellent article. It was high time someone addressed the issue. I fantasize about a nationwide campaign with T-shirts and stickers to educate young girls about the Beauty myth. Too many girls still suffer in silence.

From mags

excellent article - needs to get into the mainstream debate

From Irina

About "Girls Aloud, beauty secrets and lies" - yes, I also noticed that slim gorgeous celebrities admit to feeling not good enough with this annoying air of maty, friendly confession, as if they assume all of us feel the same. Suppose, I don't? Suppose I rate myself 9 out of 10, not 4? It would be great to have many women, regardless of their beauty or age, saying in press that they are good enough, thank you very much, go and shove your waxing kit you know where. Or if there were more women openly narcissic about their bodies, for the balance.

From littlejo

Although there are undeniably sinister forces making many women obsess about their bodies unhealthily there is still a need to 'watch what you eat'. Our society is also saturated with incredibly cheap available junk food. We have not evolved for this. Without attention to diet one can easily become overweight, which is a serious detriment to health. We may not like to admit it but a size 16 represents ill health for women of average height, and yes, they do need to loose weight. Of course this should be motivated by common sense and not vanity or insecurity. I'd hate to think women who are considering dieting are doing so because interviews with the likes of Girls Aloud made them feel worthless, but many women in Britain should be thinking about it nonetheless.

From Hugh

Firstly Cosmetic companies/surgeons are not in a huge conspiracy to bring back a 1952 patriarchal society let's just clear that up now. Secondly men have to do things like this too it's just that like women we try to keep it a secret from women because that lessens the effects of actions such as working out, getting our hair right, dieting, getting the right clothes and acting just right. You can't blame us for finding something attractive because there always will be an image of sex appeal and this applies for both sexes.

From Jessica Newton

I'm writing in response to the article by Dawn Kofie on Loose Women. I was very dissapointed by this programme, I've just finished three years of uni, and over the last two years i have become increasingly interested in feminism and gender issues. I first watched 'Loose Women' because I was told that it was a pro-women's programme, though all I was left feeling was at a "loose" end. I appreciated this article by Dawn, it expressed a lot of what I've been feeling about this programme, and I'm annoyed that there seems to be nothing else "pro-women" in the main stream to turn to. I have continued to watch the programme on occasion, for the simple reason that I find these women fascinating as gendered subjects in this patriarchal society. I have just recently discovered the F-word site, and although I have only read a few articles so far, I am exceptionally excited to read more.

From ana

You stop short of actually pointing out that it is the women who are the sexist ones on this show. So in this day of misandry perhaps an allegiance to the notion that feminism stands for equality would point out this fact that this show is nothing more than a platform for hypocritical male bashing.

From Linda hennessy

I think Loose Women is even more insidious than your commentator. I watched one day as the panel discussed whether they would kiss another woman as a way of exciting/attracting a male partner. One said she would, no problem, anything to keep her man happy. Another protested so much, and in such homophobic terms ('No, never, made her sick to think of it, unnatural, disgusting, oooh, vile, yuk!') that as soon as the show returned from an ad break she was forced to apologise to any lesbians who might have been watching. These are reactionary, conservative women who practically pass out at the prospect of anyone not wearing make-up, depilating or choosing not to marry and have kids. It's a shameful programme.

From Alice

Re:The circle of expectations: Really good article. I'd just like to point out a possible reason why this occurs, not only in improv comedy, but in everyday life.

Traits associated with masculinity are in general 'good,' positive traits: bravery, strength, activity. Traits associated with feminity are in general 'bad,' negative traits: weakness, irrationality, passivity.

A person trying to live up to 'good' traits is admirable and can admit it. We admire someone who wants to be braver. It makes sense to try and improve a positive trait like strength, because positive traits are also useful in ways besides conforming to gender expectations.

A person trying to live up to 'bad' traits is not admirable. It makes no sense to try and improve a 'negative' trait: who would want to admit that they are trying to appear less active, less strong? Negative traits have little use besides conforming to expectations: so a woman who admits she is trying to appear weak or docile is admiting more fully than a man in the equivalent position that she feels the need to live up to gender expectations.

So men can jokingly admit that it often takes an artifical effort to appear manly. But women can't admit that it often takes struggle to appear womanly. Thus we can have our attention drawn to the artificiality of masculinity in a way that we can't have it drawn to feminity.

Brilliant angle, George, it cuts right to the heart of this issue.

From Kate Smurthwaite

I agree that the stereotypes shown are horrid, but I disagree that good improv shows us what we expect to happen - and it sounds like you saw some pretty mediocre improv. I think good improv is about experimenting with people's expectations.

If you are ever in London, I recommend grand theft improv (thurs nights at black horse, rathbone place) or if you're in edinburgh in august i'll be doing some myself as part of comedy cocktail at the free festival.

From Seph

Re: Gap selling suggestive clothing for toddlers: unfortunatly this isn't that new, i've seen several clothing stalls in my town market advertising "Training thongs" for ages 6 and up. Given the recent news story about a peadophile being given a lighter sentance because the 10 year old victim was 'dressed like a 16 year old' how can anyone think encouraging children to wear this kind of stuff is a good idea?

From m

Re: Livejournal targets sexual violence: The claim that "there is no evidence of a single paedophile who has been prevented or dissuaded from" may be true, but I feel misses the point somewhat. There are plenty of cases where people write or read fictional child porn, who do not abuse children. Even if something doesn't prevent it, that isn't an argument to ban it...

"we know from general statistics that pornography plays a strong role in the fantasy lives of most sexually violent men before, during and after actual attacks."

Though we also know from general statistics that correlation does not imply causation. Obviously many sexually violent men are interested in porn, but then many sexually active men are interested in porn. This doesn't mean that anyone who is interested in porn is going to be sexually violent. (Also I see you jumped from "fictional child porn" to porn in general.)

But this isn't really the issue for LiveJournal. Sexual violence is already illegal, but it's not up to LiveJournal to try to track down potential sexual predators based on whether they write fictional porn or not.

*"(and for the record I am surprised any web provider allowed explicitly focussed incest sites to exist for as long as they did)."

- Web providers are "common carriers", meaning that posters are responsible for the content. As soon as they start policing content based on keywords, they risk losing the common carrier status, hence making themselves liable.

* The "gay marriage" comment is a relevant point - yes, they haven't targetted such communities, but saying people can't discuss illegal activities applies to things like murder, drugs, possibly consensual acts like BDSM just as much as child abuse or incest.

* Re: the rumour mill working overtime: Yes, survivor communities was a myth, but survivor journals _were_ deleted. In fact, LiveJournal have stated that approximately half were deleted in error - see http://news.livejournal.com/99515.html .

* "these sites contravened the Terms of Service for Livejournal" Might be true for some, but not true for all of them - there is nothing in the ToS about listing interests which are "illegal" acts.

From Kerry Wills

Re: New bra for augmented breasts: I was interested in your blog about breasts and the pressure many women feel to enlarge them. As the owner of a pair of painfully large, DD-size breasts, I can tell you that you're damned if you do have them as well.

I'm a feminist, a reporter, and the author of a recently published book on knitters as an American subculture. But when I meet people, male or female, my brain is rarely the first thing people notice.

People, male and female, typically stare with disgust or lurid fascination at my chest. This happens whether I'm wearing a business suit or a clingy t-shirt, and so I adamantly defend my right to wear whatever I want. I wish someone would establish a "myfreereduction.com" for me so that I could unload some of this burden, but, then, part of me feels that I shouldn't be shamed into mutilating my body through surgery. My breasts hurt me every day, both physically and mentally. My shoulders are stooped, and the straps on my bra typically dig into my flesh. But worse than the literal weight I carry is the agony over judgment I witness in the eyes of others all the time. I wish I knew the sources for the anecdotes that follow, to legitimize them. I don't. But I have read that a survey of men confirmed my long-held suspicion: Most men assume that women with large breasts lack intelligence. As a reporter, covering police and court beats for the most part, I admit that I've used this prejudice to my advantage. When a corrupt, sexist dolt thinks he doesn't have to be on guard around me, he is likely to find himself sorry the next morning, as he reads the paper. Even so, it's difficult when men and worse when women dismiss me or condescend to me before I speak a word. Of course, there's another myth to deal with: that women with large breasts are sluts. So many men and women seem to believe that breasts grow unusually large because of overstimulation. I can't tell you how insulting and hurtful it's been to me when some of my best female friends have urged me to get a breast reduction. An M.D. -- my former college roommate and a close friend -- is among the guilty. Rarely do they explain why they believe it's necessary. I don't think they're concerned about my shoulder pain. Sadly, I think my boobs embarrass them. They are gelatinous, cumbersome, almost amorphous. I know that for my friends, these breasts don't suit my strong, funny, smart, confident personality. And yet, for some reason, I feel protective of these breasts. It really, really pisses me off when a well-meaning, small-breasted woman proposes I might be happier without them. Must I reject these overtly feminine features to be respected? I almost never hear feminists ranting against oppression of the excessively endowed woman. Tell me it's not because you really think we have some advantage. I assure you, being drooled over by the lords of the patriarchy is no honor at all -- it's more predictable subjugation.

From Walter Lippmann

Re: Vilma Espin, Cuba's First Lady, dies: Thanks for the lovely photo and post about Vilma Espin, founder of the Cuban Women's Federation.

My father and his parents lived in Cuba during World War II when, as German Jewish refugees from Hitler, they couldn't get into the U.S. and had to wait for several years to get permission to go to the U.S. He met my mom in the U.S., so I was conceived, born and raised in the U.S.

My interest in Cuba originated with that history, and now I run a Yahoo news group focusing on that.

From Lyall

Re: PlayStation plays misogynist again: I just wanted to point out that while Sony's ads may offend you, Nintendo's adverts for (admittedly decade-old) Ocarina of Time were far more blatantly sexist. "Will you save the girl, or play like one" was the phrase I believe. Such an odd advert for a series which is so popular among women.

From Masatomo

I don't see this as being sexist.. as much as I wouldn't consider it offensive to guys if the subject was a boy talking to his girlfriend about football and cars and videogames and stuff..

I think it's quite a good campaign.. and there are a few girls that are really like that, as much as there are many guys who do the same with their partners with different subjects.

The point I'm trying to make is that whoever gets offended by this kind of thing must be probably deeply touched by a stereotype in which that person recognizes herself.

don't know if you have seen the recent Australian "Racing car" ad where girls are depicted showing the little finger up when guys race past them with their roaring cars, saying that "if you go fast, you have a small penis".. well.. I guess that someone might get offended because they might have some problem with their sexuality in the first place.

From Irina

Re: The Feminine Mistake: Not having read the book "The Feminine Mistake", I want to say that the author of the review, JC Sutcliffe, has written a brilliant review in which she asks important questions in regard working and motehrhood. The review is great because it distances a reader form the book and its' agenda. The social background of interviewed mothers is a very important issue. It is true, that love for work and having interesting work are usually a privilege of middle class women. They have something to loose when they quit workplace.

I often thought that my friends in Russia, working in the system which combines wild capitalism and no human rights and very weak trade unions, dream about leaving their jobs in order to stay at home with children. if I worked like them and there, I would want to quit myself too.

Even here, with mentioned above tradition of collective resistance to employers, I must say: I hate working, and I am not a poor uneducated lass. The idea of never going to work would appeal to me, had i also wanted to have a child, but I don't. So the argument that job fulfills is worthless for me. Reading a book that bangs on about goodness of work must be really annoying for women and men like me.

However, important argument should be financial security of women and economical and emotional balance in the relationship. It is bad for a man to posess more power in relationship. It is also debilitating for a grown up woman not to have her own money she can spend without consulting anybody. Even if in most normal relationship money belong to both partners, I doubt that non-earning partner can spend them with same ease as the one who actually earned it. I'd agree with the idea that work can be unavoidable evil but it is better for a woman to continue working if she doesn't want to be poor in old age, rather than naively hand herself over to hubby and to a chance.

One can only shake the reviewer's hand for suggesting that the problem should be adressed on governmental level, to allow both sexes to work less. Britain already has higher level of depression and sexual disfunctions than any other European country, binge drinking is another well-loved subject for newspapers. Do you think it has nothing to do with longer working hours British people have to work? I think the long-term solution is to make employer understand that today's children are tomorrow's workforce, so they must cough up decent working conditions for the parents and stop killing them with workloads, redundancies and re-dislocation of business into a cheaper countries. Basically, it all boils down to twisting capitalism's arm, I am afraid.

From frances phil-ebosie

Re: A bride by any other name: You probably don't even know the half of it. I just got married, and hadn't made up my mind about the name business, even though the truth is I don't like my surname, unfortunatly i think my husband's is worse as it's a hybrid of a western name and our tribal nigerian name. This of course ruled out my compromising by adding my surname to his. After we got married , he was transferred abroad and I was asked to make a new passport for visa purposes. I couldn't believe it when I was told to bring a letter of consent from my husband by the immigration guys. Apparently if you are underaged you bring a letter of consent from your parents (preferably daddy), and if you are married, he has to give his permission to getting a passport. I returned and got the passport with his name and without the letter, but only by claiming this time to be a miss when I realised that our passports show no titles. I have decided it really isn't a big deal, its basically about identification and more importantly knowing who you are. I can trace my fathers generation down six lines because their wives took their names and things are as they should be.

From nicholas

when my fiancee and i first got engaged, i suggested she either keep her surname and add mine to it or just keep hers. for whatever reason as a male i am not too into a female having to stop her blood name there. it just doesn't make sense to me. of course i also suggested i add her name to mine. i want to be a part of her family just as much she to mine. but even to her that came as a little shock not to mention to the rest of her italian family and anyone else i have mentioned it to. apprently something like that is "a little gay." anyway, she decided to add mine to hers and as for me, i think fear will inevitably guide the way. because as you probably know, dudes just don't do that shit. :P i live in america, but i'm sure in the uk or ole europa, something like this runs a little deeper.

i just found this website due to a google search for something and there are a slew of articles that look very interesting and i'll check them out soon! all the best!

From b stevens

Did you receive an engagement ring? A woman takes her husband's name as a sign of commitment and as part of a romantic tradition. In the same way as a man buys his fiance an engagement ring as a sign of commitment and as part of a romantic tradition. But of course a man paying for an engagement ring is just as 'sexist' in its own way as a woman taking her husbands name. Why should men pay for such things, a woman doesn't buy her husband an engagement ring. It is actually a dowry in all but name.

A woman who does not take her husbands name but who wears his engagement ring is a hypocrite.

Thats why the 'expectation' of women changing their names to a mans is not actually sexist at all - it is part of a tradition of a couple uniting, with the man giving her a gift as his sign of commitment, and the woman taking his name as her sign of commitment. But the man is expected to commit first.

From Daisy Case

I've just read A hairy dilemma, after having an argument with my boyfriend regarding his preference for me to remove not only all my body hair (I do the standard armpit/leg/bikini hair removal), but also all of my pubic hair because he prefers, and I quote 'a totally shaved minge'. I refused. And proceeded to google body hair and feminism in my own little anti-chauvanistic protest. I have pubic hair because I am a woman, not a girl, and never before has my pubic hair been a source of disgust to any man. I don't think he understands the issue, and, in fact, I think he thinks I'm only not removing it in order to piss him off, but no, the little amount of pubic hair that remains will stay firmly put, in a feminist protest against the disempowered pornographic ideas of immature womanhood.

From rose alberghini

It was refreshing to see that 21 year old Kerry-Lynne Doyle has not bought into the idea that being oversexualized is actually empowering for a female. Her article Don't cha wish pop was more empowering was right on! There is a huge difference between being sexy and attractive to a man and acting and dressing like a stripper or exotic dancer. It is sad that many girls don't realize that they don't have to act this part to be a modern "free" woman and that they are just playing into the hands of men who who are only too happy to watch the action.

I was horrified to see the Pussycat Doll show on TV! I only watched it once and then wrote to the TV station and told them that I thought it was disgusting to promote this as something to aspire to. The by-line should be "How to be a Sex Object". The thought that young, impressionable girls are watching this makes me sick. Women's Liberation? This is NOT it. Nor is Girls Gone Wild. What are these girls thinking?? It's too bad that in order to sell records that women are selling their souls, too.

From john billings

Re: Re-classifying rape: For over thirty years, I have heard "rape is not about sex...". This has always appeared stupid to me: obviously, I have thought, rape is sexual. Stealing is from greed, murder is from anger, and sexual assault is from lust.

If rape is not a sex crime, why not say that stealing is not a greed crime? et c. Clearly, I have thought, people who say "rape is not sexual" are in the grip of an ideology and cannot see the truth.

Moreover, aggression is an inseparable part of sex. This is true whether we like it or not, and women are also sexually aggressive sometimes.

The willingness of the victim is not the issue, only the motive of the perp. Basically, rapists are sex-thieves. So I have thought.

Please prove me wrong. I promise not to argue with you. Rather, since everyone seems to agree with "rape is not sexual", I want some evidence so I can learn.

From melissa

Re: The Spice Girls' Legacy: hi, after reading your response, it has triggered some very nostegic memories of the "good old days". i agree with you completely, the spice girls did accomplish a lot, they changed girls viewed themselves. its a pity the role models today are all tall skinny anorexic blonds with chihuahuas in their bags.

From David

Re: Why men suck (and the women who have to): You sound like e very angry person: you have every right to be angry: I live in Cambodia and can testify that (most of what) you have written is true.

You are obviously intelligent: I'd like you to channel your energies at the greater evils in the world - Darfur (and the US pretending it doesn't exist), Zimbabwe, and Palestine among the many.

Let's concentrate on keeping people alive firswt, then we can talk about improving their lifestyles.

From Hedgehog

This article is another great example of Moral Colonialism.

From amanda

Re: The food of love?: I have an issue with this too, but I find myself wanting the man to pay or at least offering each time. Most of the time I end up paying for both. It feels good sometimes and sometimes I get angry that I had to pay. I grew up in the south where women (at least in my area) were looked down upon and men were the ones who paid for everything. However, I don't think they really want to or wanted too. This created resentment towards the woman. Throughout my marriage I felt guilty for buying things for myself with his money. Now that I am single, I want to do everything on my own, but at the same time I need help sometimes and don't want to pay for everything. Is there are certain criteria that as a woman we should follow? My anger towards my brothers, dad, and ex spouse have made me want to prove that I can take care of myself without the help of anyone else.

From Marli

Re: The Pursuit of Happyness: I would like to point out that at no point in time did she critique plot line, casting, acting, character development, script, or any solid criteria related to the film itself. The critique is an emotionally charged yet intellectual sterile rant.

Her argument is this: Chris Gardener (the real man whose experiences were chronicled) suffered. However, there are women who also suffer. Therefore, a feminist should never sympathize with the suffering of anyone outisde her own gender. In psychoanalysis, the inability to empathize outside one's demographic is a sign of pathological hate.

The author dismisses the film as gross sickly patriarchal nonsense. In what way, exactly? At what point did the main character do anything abusive, oppressive, or misogynist?

I think the author despised this film because it undermined her world view, especially since it was a true story.

A true feminist who wants men to be noble and goog would love 'The Pursuit of Happyness' because it would be a realistic, positive example of a good role model- a man who takes care of his responsibilities, works hard, and makes sacrifices for his family.

From Matt Edwards

Re: Feminists are sexist: This is specifically in respect to your the paragraph:

"Yet sadly, this 'improving women's lives is sexist' attitude reflects part of the wider mainstream fear of feminism. It's why people say things like ';I'm not a feminist, I'm a humanist' or ';I'm not a feminist, I'm in favour of human rights'. It's because there is a stigma attached to any activism that unashamedly benefits women, as a social group. It's not seen as worthy enough, and fighting on behalf of women as a group is embarassing somehow. I'm just talking about plain, uncontroversial activism that improves the lives of women."

I think you address an important aspect of your movement in your article which has many people somewhat nervous about identifying themselves with it, but I disagree with your stance in the quoted paragraph. Although the feminist movement has made great advancements in promoting the equality of women, there is always been a danger in movements that support a specific group: promoting the rights of one can be to the detriment of another. The feeling of the article is your belief that your fight to bring up women as a group has and does help men, which is entirely true. But still, a focus on women with the positive effects on men as incidental side effects, I have a fear that similar negative side effects could be overlooked for the good of women.

Huey Newton, a founder of the Black Panther Party, once responded to a question asking what white people could do to aid the Black Panther's cause. He told them the best thing they could do is form a White Panther Party. Is that really what we need? Feminists, masculinists, Black Panthers, White Panthers, an advocacy group for every individual cause for equality? What's so wrong with something for universal equality? Why not say "I'm not a feminist, I'm in favor of human rights"?

From Kiesten McCauley

I just read Catherine's article on "the F Word" and I love it. I agree 100% with what she says and I feel relief that someone else feels the same way I do.

From bhogin

Re: Walking with cavemen: as someone who is not macho, im with you. however since its an article on "what women want in men" it seems strange and just jumping on other complaints to comment on the sexism of not saying anything about the same qualitys in women too.

From Seth

Re: Munich: As this review is probably two years old, I apologise for my tardy comment! However, I do think you are reading too much into the slaying of Jeanette by Avner and co.

She murdered one of their friends, one of their partners, one of their brothers. In response, they 'returned the favour'; this was a completely understandable response. Had it been a man who'd murdered one of their comrades, retribution would have been just as swift and brutal. There was no entertaining of the notion of 'sexual domination' or the like, merely boiling-blooded revenge for a fallen comrade.

Further, shouldn't Jeanette be held accountable and scrutinized--she does, after all, wield her sexuality as a weapon, luring one man to his death via the prospect of sex (after unsuccessfully attempting the same with Avner). Is her behaviour acceptable, while the team's supposed symbolic rape of her later is not?

From BrevisMus

I really have to take issue with the comments by Rachael Halemor on Roman Britain, most of which are entirely incorrect (I speak both as a Pagan and as a Classicist who specialises in ancient magic).

"Cunt originally was the technical - and quite proper - term used for the female genitalia since before the Romans invaded Britain."

My dictionary (Concise OED) says that 'cunt' itself is Middle English, from Germanic (and wikipedia tells me that 'cunt' did not appear until 1290 AD). I wonder if Rachael is mixing this up with the Latin (i.e., original Roman) term for vulva, which is 'cunnus'. This is from where we derive 'cunnilingus'.

"In those times, the main religion in this country was paganism/wicca."

This is marginally correct, in that paganism was practised in Britain in pre-Roman times. However, it was not any form of modern/ neo-Paganism, and was certainly not 'Wicca' in any sense of the word. Wicca was developed in the 1940s (see Ronald Hutton, 'The Triumph of the Moon').

The paganism of the ancient Britons would have been broadly similar to the paganism practised by the Romans themselves - a polytheistic society. Both the actual practicalities of this polytheistic society, and attitudes towards religion, would have been very different to the modern Pagan ideals.

"The Romans at this time were mainly all Christians and patriarchal - they actually invaded Britain and brought Christianity with them."

The Romans were indeed patriarchal (as were the native Britons). However, they were not Christian when Britain was first invaded. Britain was first invaded in about 55 BC - before Christ was even born, never mind the development of Christianity. The major Roman invasion came after 43 AD, and those Romans were still pagan (worshipping Jupiter and Juno, etc, with animal sacrifice) and Christianity had barely started. They may have brought the roads, and sanitation (and all those other things listed in The Life of Brian), but they certainly didn't bring Christianity at this point. It wasn't for over another 300 years that the Roman Empire became Christian, and conversion then slowly trickled down.

Christians were persecuted heavily in the Roman empire until at least 200-250 AD and were often executed for simply being Christian (something that I find is often forgotten by neo-Pagans talking about the alleged 'Wiccan hunts' during the witch trials). There was no way that the Roman invaders would have been Christian at all.

"Since these religions were as much about worship of the female as the male"

Just because a polytheistic society worships goddesses alongside gods, it does not imply that this worship was in any way equal.

"the word cunt's true meaning was in fact 'goddess' or 'high priestess'."

I have never ever heard this before, and find it highly unlikely, especially since, as above, I believe that the word 'cunt' was not in use. The Latin 'cunnus' - which was in use at this time - is only used to refer to the vulva, or used as slang to denote an unchaste woman. Since the only Roman priestesses were virgins, I find it hard to believe that they would use 'cunnus' to denote a goddess.

I have vaguely heard of a goddess called 'Kunti' or 'Kunda', but this is an Indian goddess, not a British or Roman one. Perhaps this is the source of the mix-up?

"Since they were a male-oriented society they did not like the 'free-thinking' women of Britain and so began a campaign of extreme force to ensure that Christianity took hold - and any dissenting men or women were considered 'witches' - hence this beagn what later became the witch hunts and the burning of witches."

This, again, is completely incorrect. For a start, the witch hunts were in the early modern period, over a millennium after the fall of Rome. To suggest that Roman invasion and society was responsible for witch hunts is like suggesting that the Viking invasion was responsible for the 7th of July bombings.

To suggest that the native Britons were not a 'male-oriented society' is also incorrect. The British Isles were just as patriarchal before the Roman invasion as they were after (the Romans, of course, also have goddesses in their pantheon).

The early modern witch hunts took place all over Europe. They were not restricted to Britain, and did not originate in Britain. Both men and women (and children) were executed as witches - this was not something restricted to women. And it was not restricted to 'free thinkers': most victims were simply the unpopular members of a society - see, for example, A Trial of Witches by Geis & Bunn, and The Witch in History: Early Modern and Twentieth-Century Representations by Purkiss.

And the biggest issue: the idea that there was a 'witch cult' across Britain/Europe, and that the witch trials were some sort of religious persecution is hugely incorrect. And please remember that I am speaking here as a Pagan and a Witch, as well as someone who studies ancient witchcraft. There is no evidence that the word 'witch' has ever been used as a positive title for a priestess prior to Gerald Gardner's development of Wicca in the mid-twentieth century.

I know that many women are trying to 'take back' words like cunt, and I applaud Rachael for her positive attitude. However, while she may be "trying to explain where the term cunt really comes from", she has mixed in so much pop-'history' with misunderstandings and blatant falsehoods (although as a member of the Pagan community I understand that it is hard to cut away all the misinformation about the witch trials) that her comment was entirely erroneous. Kate Allen was, in fact, correct about her history of the term.

In response to Jan Hunt, in the comment following Rachael's, I do not think that 'fuck' derived from Latin 'fukare'. 'K' is very rare in Latin; I have never heard of 'fukare' and it isn't in my dictionary (Lewis & Short Complete). There is 'fucare', which means 'to redden'. I think it is unlikely that 'fuck' derived from this. The Concise OED gives 'fuck' an unknown, 16th century origin. However, I do agree that whether a word is offensive or not is often dependent upon how language develops, for example, the fact that 'gay' is now often used pejoratively, as is 'special' (from 'special needs').

I was also offended by the comment above Rachael's, by Omar Iturbe re Sin City, that the only reason why feminists were so negative about the film was because they were too emotional about all the misogyny it in to think "sensibly". It is not an "uncentred judgement" to call sexism on a movie that shows "tough guys who give everything they have to help women". That's a standard patriarchal trope, cf. the standard 'damsel in distress awaiting a knight in shining armour' storyline. I sat through the whole of Sin City and have spent the months since desperately trying to forget it. I wasn't blinded by the T&A on show - it was more the characterisation of whores with guns who get slapped around *and enjoy it* that disgusted me.

I realised by the time that I got to the end of the comment stream that you were posting abusive comments unedited and unannotated, so Omar's was not the only one. However, whereas a lot of the later comments can obviously be dismissed, I felt that Omar's apparent 'call for reason', so often used to dismiss genuine feminist concerns, should not go unchallenged.

And to Jillian Smith re a feminist organisation in the UK - how about the Fawcett Society? Other than the odd mention in the f-word, I rarely hear about the Fawcett Society. Is there something we can all do to help promote them?

From will aitken

Re: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix: Beth Andersons article on feminism within a childrens book just goes to show why your movement is so often scorned and ridiculed within general society. This is a kids book for heavens sake and dare I say it a reflection of the world we live in today.

We could make a very politically correct book with strong female heroines and lots of indians, sihks and throw in a couple of the welsh aswell or we could just leave childrens fiction as it is. A reflection of modern day life with a magical twist to give children hope and excitement.

Women are not the leaders within this text because in real life society you are'nt. There has only ever been one female prime minister and that was because she had bigger balls then the rest of the cabinet. She displayed strong male characteristics, she behaved as a man does and that is why she took the leadership. The most famous villain of our century wore a tiny litte moustache and although he had some very girly habits behind closed doors I'm prity sure he was a man and therefore in literature villains and authority figures are most often men.

If you create a fantasy text such as Harry Potter with links to the present day enviroment you want the enphisis of the book to be on the magical secret life behind the facade of every day life. If J.K. Rowling had created a modern day world as a facade of politicaly correct ideals the children wouldnt relate to the text; if they couldnt see 'the normal day world' within the book as being possible how could they possibly see the secret magical side as being plausible? Children are smart and the best fantasy gives a text an anchor to the believable and then alows that one extra step into the suspension of disbelief.

There are becoming fewer and fewer strong male role models for the children of today and our society is suffering because of it. Does Beth realy believe this book would have become a bestseller if the hero was in fact a little teenage girl? She ridicules the giggling school girls within the text as if this was unatural and no school girls do this. I'm afraid to say that is exactly what teenage girls do they sit in the classroom and giggle and play with make up. Just like teenage boys are very steriotypical and play sports and look at nuddy magazines. Its not society which creates these steriotypes its hormones it is how we are because of genetics. Physically and mentally you already have equal rights but now you want to become seen as the leaders and villains in kids books aswell come on! Its never occured in history so why should it now become mainstream in literature just to be politically correct to your movement.

Beth in the future do feminism a favour and leave childrens literature alone. Rowlings blend of magic and mystery is what chidren need not to be taught the realities of feminism. If you want this right your own book. I have a tenner though that says it would'nt get published.

From Melanie

Re: Feminism and popular culture: wow! I'm only 15 years old but i was completely shocked by this article. It really opened my eyes to the sexism that is still around!

From Jennie

The article Keeping it real was great. I use the Diva Cup and it's the best thing ever - I will never go back to tampons. The best parts about the diva cup? Enviornmentally friendly, never leak, and totally comfy. Oh, and not to mention you no longer have to stuff a dry wad of cotton that\'s been treated with pesticides up your vagina.

(Tampax and other non-organic tampon companies use cotton that is heavily sprayed with dangerous pesticides). Keep that shit outta your vagina - keep her happy & clean with The Keeper or the Diva Cup!

Rock on FWord. I just found your site and I love it. Keep up the great work.

From Rosie

I am writing in response to the article on women and alcohol by Victoria Dutchman-Smith. I am aware it was written a while ago but my aim was not to necessarily address her directly. I just wanted to make some comments on the issue.

I think it is very sad that more and more women are drinking to excess (I am aware men are more likely to be involved in substance misuse but this is about women). I think that some women may choose to do this simply because they want to but we should not overlook the fact that a lot of women are doing this to fit into the 'norm'. Like it or not, most of this country's nightlife revolves around drinking alcohol. The media frequently portrays groups of of drunk women (however idiotic they appear) as 'fun loving' people.

There is also a lot of nonsense being peddled to women in the form of so called 'women's' magazines. Last year I looked at a copy of Cosmopolitan and there was an article which was supposedly talking about feminism.

In said article, there was a paragraph about how it is sexist that women's recommended alcohol limits are less than men's. The author proudly proclaimed that she ignores the limits and drinks as much as she likes. Nowhere in the article was there an explanation for why the safe drinking levels are different in males and females. The author just made it look like it was all down to sexism. In doing so, she was sexist herself - encouraging women to poison themselves with drink.

From megan

Re: Disfunctional, moi?: It is so refreshing and liberating to read about what society views as normal sex as becoming sexual with myself at 11 or 12 years old i was made to feel abnormal and that i must have been "abused" to be so interested in sex. i first had sex at 14 and all of the guys i have had sex with (i am 18 now) have been so considerate and i have had many sex sessions that have been just about my pleasure e.g guys playing with my body and accepting that i did not always want penetration or indeed to please them back). this has taught me that men CAN control their sexual desires as i have been able to and encouraged to end sex if i became tired etc and have never recieved negative consequences. maybe i have just been lucky or have been blessed by having a mother that has reinforced my right as a woman to enjoy sexaul activity in whatever form including having the right to end sex at ANY point. however, i have encountered men that have tried to belittle me and control me sexually (one man that i was sexually involved with, but men in the street or at work labelling, harassing me and degrading me because of my looks or confidence) but i always maintain that it is important to challenge these viewpoints, no matter how difficult it may seem or how alone you may feel. thank you for such an inspiring article.

From Mary Cypher

Re: The Incredibles: Isn't there enough overt sexism and racism out there without going looking for it in places where it doesn't exist? Even when you acknowledge the movie's good points it was as if you were slicing off your own flesh. The article, which I stopped reading, reminds me of the fundamentalists who see a demon in every teapot. You have been blinded by your own stereotypes and misconceptions as surely as you believe Brad Bird has by his.

P.S. my listed email address is for junk mail so if you feel the need to retaliate against me by selling off my address to spammers, please go right ahead (based on the tone of the movie review this sounds like something you'd do while telling yourself this is for the good of feminists everywhere). All mail goes into the trash can automatically.

From James

Re: Enough with the pendulum!: Um, I just was wondering why it's so important to you what men think? I mean, if you're striving for social equality or whatever isn't that in the realm of legal issues and liberal humanism? What's with all of the rhetoric and ranting? You complain about men who complain about the pendulum swinging the other way. But if you rant and use emotional tactics to push people into thinking like you aren't you inviting a backlash of rhetoric from others? Where's the sense in all of this? I don't see why women shouldn't be socially equal. I wonder why feminists are so eager to get what they want PERSONALLY from men; I have never once been able to get what I want from women! I've never kissed or held a girl's hand (of her own free will, outside of when it was required), so I've never gotten the approval I crave from any inside or outside my family. This is a crushing problem for me but I don't act by politically demanding that all women be more sensitive to my needs as a man. Whatever, that's my problem not any of yours. In any case, I guess I'm clumsily trying to make the point that emotional thinking isn't a good way of making progress on a societal level. So why does feminism always resort to such ineffectual forms of rhetoric? Have you ever wondered if society became more humane to women because everyone genuinely wanted a change and not because feminism itself is particularly effective? BTW the articles on this site are FRAUGHT with ad hominem attacks on those who disagree with feminist ideology. That's so puerile.