From Carrie

Re: How many lesbians does it take to sell a t-shirt?: ..I think Joanna Whitehead's article is terrific. Please tell her I said so!

From maggie

Just wanted to say that the article 'How many lesbians does it take to sell a t-shirt?' by Joanna whitehead was fantastic. Its just so true and nice to know other people think it too.

From Tass

I am also an angry Womyn today, some market researcher called at my office ( I am a writer and work from home) and asked to speak to the man of the house, I should have said sorry I am a lesbian, but instead said "If thats the kind of questions you ask, go back to the Victorian age, leave, shoo, go OUT" am still annoyed

From hannah

this is the best piece of writing i have ever read. Im 17 and everything i think about men and the media had been written for me here.

Absolutley awesome thanks x

From bea valle

very intelligent article...

From Jessica

It isn't only two beautiful women who experience unwanted catcalls. All women receive unwanted attention in public. On a train, in a plane or on the street, most (if not all) women have been the center of ape behavior. Simply being a lesbian is not the reason...just being a woman (or two).

As to your idea that the general public expects you to look like man-wanna-be's, I apologize on behalf of every person whose first, second and third experience with a lesbian lead them to believe that all women who love women look like an over-grown Oshkoshbegosh ad. It happens. Alot.

Continue to be beautiful and in love.

From gracchi

Re: Is Tarantino really feminist?: This is a really good article- I think you have captured something about Tarentino. He is one of my least favourite film makers. I hadn't spotted the sexism before- but yeah I think its there. The thing that's so grim about Tarentino is that he never displays empathy for the victims of his character's crimes- its all just cool- violence is cool and so postmodern. I almost think of him as the cinematic equivalent of one of those ultra sophisticated lad's mags which are actually the Sun, that's especially true of this project. There is a reason that Grindhouse movies aren't done anymore- and its not that they are too egalitarian and interesting, its that they were sexist and boring. Quentin should grow up too.

From Sammie K

Thank you for this article. Glad to see that someone else sees Tarantino for the scum he is

From Diarmuid Casey

Oh dear. Feminism is sooo passe, hasn't this bird heard of girl power?!

Seriously though, she's missing the point. Tarantino hasn't made a decent movie since Pulp Fiction. Whether he's feminist or not is immaterial - his movies since then have been crap.

As for women's subconscious fear of "male" violence and the fact they are forced to live their lives accordingly: do get over yourself love. Do you not think men subconsciously organise their lives on exactly the same basis? As she pointed out violence is mostly done to young men. What does she suggest as a solution to "male" violence? The abolition of males perhaps? Well, with technological advances and the amount of oestrogen men are forced to drink due to the FEMALE contraceptive pill, that day's probably not too far off. Hope you feminists feel vindicated when it comes.

Tarantino tries to sell his rubbish movies by using shock tactics. To try and explain the badness of his work in "feminist" terms is, frankly, peurile. I don't watch so-called "torture porn" because its shite but I'd be willing to bet I could find at least an equal number of male/female deaths in the genre if I could be bothered. Grow up. We are all part of the same species. There is enough division already without half the human race aligning itself against the other half. As rasta say: "'Isms' is Schisms". Violent men are violent largely becuase of their upbringing not because they are men! Idiot.

By the way, if you think Uma "anorexia" Thurman looked good in her sacriligious pastiche of Bruce Lee in the Kill Bill films you must be an even more delusional "feminist" of the Ali-G variety than I had you down as. The fact that Quentin insists on using her in every film as if she were some sort of icon is merely evidence that he's just another Hollywood queer in thrall to the gays and "feminists" (of both types) that run the US film industry. Bun a fire pon dem. One Love.

From Beth Speake

Re: Feminism should not become the ‘peeved tiger’: I was unimpressed by this article. Zenobia attacks the idea of being the 'peeved tiger' and yet in this article she roars louder than anyone else against other feminists without backing up any of her brash statements. Apart from being obnoxious and badly written, this article is unhelpful and does not add to the debate over eroticised violence in any way.

From Emma Wood

Can I just comment on Zenobia's statment that 'there seems to be a feeling among the protesters that the films cause domestic violence' She seems to have misunderstood the point of the placards protesters carried. Protesters in Liverpool carried placards which had various statistics about rape or domestic violence 'Such as 5.6% conviction rate for rape' or '1 in 3 women experience domestic violence'. At the bottom of each of the 'rape' placards was the slogan 'rape is not a joke' and on the 'domestic violence' placards was the slogan 'violence against women is not entertainment'. The point of these placards was NOT that films cause rape or domestic violence but that Tarantino treated rape as a joke and violence against women as entertainment. As the statistics illustrate, they are not. The best bit of the Liverpool protest for me was when a (slightly drunk) man stopped and asked if the statistic of 5.6% conviction rate for rape was true. I said it was and he said 'That's really terrible'. And that was why I standing on a Liverpool pavement for 2 hours was worth it.

From Danielle

I beg to differ with the surmise made in the article about feminism and the "peeved tiger". While it may be true that one movie will not make a man want to beat his wife, I don't think it can be denied that the drip, drip, drip effect of violence in the media (which is just about everywhere, let's face it) desensitivises (?) us to violence.

I agree that it's not the sole cause of violence against women, violence has been part of human nature since forever, but it sure doesn't help matters!

From Susan Francis

Re: Built for women: I'd never heard of the WDS. Do planners ever pay attention to what they say?! I wish the ones here in Colchester would.

The comment about CCTV cameras reminded me that when I inherited a tenancy and the landlords wanted me to move to somewhere smaller, one of the places they sent me to look at had a thing on the door where you could see who was there before answering. First you get into the block, then up the stairs, then there's this more-like-an-outdoor-front-door with the spy-eye. I'm not moving anywhere you need one of those! (But the CCTV cameras in the street don't make me think the area is unsafe, more that too many people who should have something better to do are watching.)

From angela

Re: TV for men: I am writing a presentation on Feminism at the minute and I wasn't sure where to start. I used to really care about Feminism a lot but you kind of end up dismissing it all because of silly things like the 'Dave' chanel - Does it make you feel like bashing your head against a brick wall?! I wasn't aware of the Mike Newall stuff either- that is kind of shocking. I was having trouble thinking of something 'lighthearted' that I could talk about after reading that women in the 'United Arab Emirates' were only granted suffrage last year! but I think your article shows the permeance of ingrained stereotypical attitudes and it will make for an interesting conversation - The presentation is for five 'blokes', who told me last week that they don't understand why women are interested in football, and they are also annoyed that women have so much maternity leave because it is not good for companies! I asked them if it is because they feel men should have more paternity leave but I got the impression that it is just because maternity leave is so darn inconvienient! I want to really go to town on them this week but I don't want them to switch off.Wish me Luck!

From Connie

In response to 'TV for men' - As a big fan of the relaunched 'Dave', I whole-heartedly agree that witty banter, intelligent conversation and fast cars are not just for men. And whilst I have no doubt that Dave has men in it's target audience, I have seen little evidence that they market these programmes as being purely for men. Yes, there's a slight 'masculine' tone to their posters, but the idea that certain imagery is masculine merely perpetuates stereotypes. I have never felt like an intruder when watching Dave, nor felt like I have been excluded as a young woman. The fact that this article has immediately jumped on the idea that Dave is apparently for men serves to do

From Oisin Moore

Hello, my name is Oisin Moore and I am a PhD student at Queen's University Belfast, studying history. I would like to comment on your somewhat ignorant article on the TV "channel for men", Dave. There are many ways of pointing out your obvious flaws, but I think I will follow the (slightly) more diplomatic route, as you are obvously, a rather, let's say, touchy person. For a start, you will find girls who enjoy walking around in pretty dresses, high heels and ridiculous looking hats. This is what girls do, there is nothing wrong with aspiring to be beautiful. Second, to assume that ALL women/girls will be influenced by "fluffy tripe" is in itself extremely offensive to women. Third, is cooking not an extremely productive activity? I myself find solace in the activity, however would inevitably be mocked, mainly by female associates, for watching cookery programs. Why is it offensive to women when they are associated with shoes, clothes, cooking and of course, their hate of men, while on the other hand it is not offensive to men to like cars, gadgets, porn etc etc.? Maybe someday we can have a conversation about why my son can't wear a skirt to school, shall we? Get off your high horse missy and start doing something productive with you "academic life". You are not aiming for equality, you are aiming for the other extremity. Love and good luck.

From Emma Banton

The article about DaveTV was blinkin brilliant and so spot on I sent a link to UKTV aka DaveTV themselves.

Keep up the amazing work and thank you for helping my personal growth every day.

From Nina

Re: High heels with a pointe: The idea that a fashion article based on fetish imposes high heels as the natural choice for women is absurd. Does it also suggest that fetish is the natural choice for women? That all women must naturally choose sado-masochistic sex and clothes made of specific materials because they have noticed that the female body is viewed as attractive when presented in those ways? Of course not. Then arises the question what is the natural choice for women? Flat utilitarian sandals? Kitten heels? Boots with rubber soles? We choose footwear according to situation and our own aesthetic sense, not because it's the natural choice for women. We are not a demographic, yet the author has fallen into the trap of placing us as a group on a feminist website.

There is a distinct separation between femininity and female. You can't construct female, it's just a person's sex. The construction of femininity comes on top of being female, it's about expectation and it occurs constantly in articles about clothing. High heels are feminine but any person can wear high heels, any person can construct femininity and the article lacks this basic recognition. To conflate that construction, that passing S&M whim of a fashion designer and film director, two people who deal primarily with the facade of humanity, with the binding of women's feet in a culture with no opportunity for equality is extremely short-sighted and in fact it detracts from everything our parents and grandparents have done to get us to the point where we can be female with less expectation.

We don't need to complain about high heels because no one would notice if I never put on a pair in my life. No one would realise unless I pointed it out to them because there is no situation that expects me to wear high heels.

From Kate Walker

"images which present high-heeled footwear as the natural choice for women"

I am an obsessive wearer of high heels, and have been for as long as I can remember. Wandering around Oxford a few weeks ago, I was looking for shoe inspiration and keeping an eye on the feet of those around me. I'd walked nearly two miles before I saw another woman in heels, which surprised me. I now keep my eye on feet on a regular basis (on the street, not in clubs or bars), and rarely see women in heels.

The natural choice round these parts seems to be ballet flats and Uggs - regular heel-wearers are fast becoming a dying breed.

(Not fighting, just thought it was an interesting observation.)

From Jane Downey

Thankyou for the article. On a separate strand I am concerned about the lack of wearable footwear. Women are teetering round in ridiculous shoes and it is very difficult to get any that one could run for a bus in, or walk far. I see many young women solve the problem by going to work in trainers and then changing at work, but this does not challenge the ridiculousness of expecting women to walk in these things. I have searched in vain for a pair of shoes this year, and unless one wants those that would not be out of place in the men's department - no-one expects them to wear these things. Even Clarkes is disappointing, the one pair I liked without high heels would not stay on. If I come again, I'm going to be a shoe designer.

From Anna

oooohhh i love em! i wear them almost every day, 4-5 inches and no lower, but not to please men, indeed i despise getting attention from men when wearing heels! i like to to feel taller, better posture and a bit more glam! but looking at those extreme heels in the pic made me shiver! shoes are made for walking, not laying down! heels forever( although sensible walkable ones)!

From Amy

This article is fantastic it completely sums up what my art practice at uni is all about.

From Irina

Re: From ‘oy sexy’ to ‘frigid bitch’ in 30 seconds: Very good article! Although my baps are nice, they are not big enough to warrant them a voiced attention, which, conveniently, saves me from yelling back something along the line "shut your fucking gob, you ugly shit!" (Because that's what i normally do, it is almost a reflex now).

We all have that "attention". I dislike it because a) it is a fucking familiarity from a stranger to think HIS opinion is of interest to ME and b) it is an objectification. When i am more peacefully-minded, I'd simply say "keep your opinion to yourself" or "i don't need your attention". Or even when somebody who i don't consider a friend or acquaintance says something about my looks, i say (without foam at the mouth and blood-shot eyes rolling, though) "I don't like comments on my appearance". People get the point eventually. Even morons on streets get it, like the one to whom i shouted "get lost! i din't want to talk to you" - he simply ... pretended it wasn't for him, obviously was embarassed to be spurned so publicly, crossed the road and pretended to talk on his mobile! So, sisters, get your arses in gear, the devil is not so scary as he is painted!

Another thing, why i detest most of "attention": i must confess that i tend to think i am a fucking glamorous bitch, full of grace and poise, so when an ordinary looking or a plain ugly man dares offer me his opinion I am enraged: how dares he? If he was attractive AND voiced it nicely, i would be polite to him (like i do sometimes, when a builder says "good morning" instead of familiar "hello"). But I am pissed of by ugliness of those blokes who think they are in fact, good enough to draw my attention to themselves. Why am i so aesthetically wired i =n regard of this? I guess it is because i see that this fucking world sees me as a beauty first, and everything else second, so i am only playing according to the rules by putting myself above men whom i consider to plain to compliment me. I can get something better than that, and you - you shut up, that kind of reaction. And I am not ashamed of it, you just adjust your ways to the environment, don't you? And only after that, it is the objectification that i mind too.

From Sarah

The aricle From "oy sexy" to "frigid bitch" I thought was amazing. Recently I have been thinking about the double standard between men and women in society and I think this article deffenity shows that.

From Helena Wojtczak

It makes me really sad that, after all the effort women have made over 150 years to obtain equality with men in many fields of life, that women are still treated as fetishised sexual objects for men's use.

It saddens me even more that young women, who have never been a part of the long struggle, have been brainwashed into dressing and behaving and treating themselves as fetishised sex objects for the use of men.

Men's right to look at us, depict us and use us as fetishised sex objects seems never to be challenged these days, save on websites such as this one. I was looking at Peter Tatchell's website this morning and down the left side are links to all the essays he has written on the site, defending the rights of many secors of society. I scrolled down to "W" --- not one essay on women and the way they continue to be depicted, even in the national papers, as sex-hungry, cum-swallowing whores. Just take a look at those phone line adverts. It is nauseating.

Why are people so quick to stand up for the rights of ethnic or religious minorities and their right not to be offended, while ignoring women's right not to be so depicted?

We need a NEW suffragette movement to give women the dignity we deserve as human beings with human rights!

From Josephine

I think it's great that you're publishing an article on catcalling. It certainly reminds me why I hate it so much. However I'd like to draw the debate's attention to other areas which I don't feel the article adequately addressed.

Where is the line between catcalling and compliments? On one side, people say if the person is feeling offended than chances are its catcalling. What's wrong with objectification? Would it be the same if women objectify men? Are women not allowed to objectify men?

I see now sexual harassment more of an issue of coupling sexuality with violence. I don't mind objectification as long as we're both doing it on equal playing ground. What I do mind is if the objectification comes with a feeling of power. I've also come to question if this coupling of sexuality and violence is simply a culture issue or something that is address all around the world?

From Chloë Emmott

Great article, thanks for raising an issue that's not raised too often and if it is never taken seriosuly.

What annoys me most is the way so many men , and women, see it as acceptable.

The insults that get yelled at us if we don't respond to what is quite frankly insulting and demeaning behaviour in the favoured way (ie jump into bed with the bloke)

we are bomarded with a seriese of insult msot liekly calling us 'lesbians' or 'frigid' or taking it 'too seriously' because 'it's only a bit of fun' or even worse ' a compliment'

You are right to mention the threatening aspect too , sometimes these situations without obviously violent can be quite scary. I've lost count of the times I've walked away(as god knows saying the word NO doesn't do anything on it's own half the time) from men in response to some random leering/groping/catcalling and been followed. then walked away again and still been followed.

On a night out many women have had to step in and 'rescue' a friend form unwanted attention.

The tragic thing is most men seemingly see nothing wrong with this kind of behaviour at all and most women have been used to it they cease to protest anymore.

Feel I should start challenging men on it more , but then again I've been in enough 'could have turned sticky' situations I don't want to risk it a lot of the time. But gods knows I want to tell how utterly unacceptable and repulsive I find their behaviour.

From Ellie Stewart

I have just read Abi Millar's article on catcalling and found it to be extremely well written and important, not because of it's revelatory nature, but because it unapologetically puts into words the thoughts that are in the minds of most women but that most women are too afraid to say. In our culture women are meant to accept this everyday harrassment as just a bit of fun and something that comes with being a woman. Whenever I say to a man, 'how would you like it if...?' the ususal response is 'I'd find it flattering!' But the point is, women DON'T do this because women don't see men as pieces of meat and women aren't able to, and don't want to, play the power games men play with women. Women should have the right to walk down the street without a burkha and not be stared at and jeered at. It makes me feel astoundingly self-concious- it makes me want to retreat into myself and become invisible. And my only crime is being a young, blond female. I don't wear provocative clothing, but I don't feel I should have to cover myself up in order to be treated as a normal human being, minding her own business, walking down the street. I'd like to thank Abi Millar for raising this issue and confirming that I am not alone in my outrage and this unjust and reprehensible treatment of women.

From Jo Wheatley

Re: The problem with pink: Interesting article. 2 things: how is Michelle so sure that money raised by the pink campaigning is so directly related to reduced deaths? I would argue this is due to the rolling out of screening, better awareness & early intervention & treatments which all began long before the pink madness did. Also, much of the funded research on breast cancer focuses on genetic causes which account for only around 10% of breast cancers! Fundraising also helps pay for the very glossy campaigns (which cost mega bucks) in the first place. My 2nd point is, & Michelle refers to this, the need to focus on prevention, maybe even more than 'cure', I would argue. Environmental factors including diet must play a huge part in the high & increasing incidence of this disease in the developed world. Having had it myself, I'm very influenced by Prof Jane Plant's publications. Her theories seem to be spurned by the medical profession and certainly (not surprisingly) by the dairy industry. Breast cancer is rare in rural China where dairy foods are rare. Jane Plant makes a strong case for her arguments, as a scientist and someone recovered from the disease too.

From Jessica

A really interesting essay on the breast cancer campaign and its association with the colour pink. I would like to add that women's gynae cancers are RARELY mentioned (despite the new vaccines). Cervical cancer is the biggest cancer killer of young women on a global scale (screening drops it below breast cancer in the UK) but it is never mentioned. as a young woman who has suffered from this disease i am made to feel like it is something to be ashamed of (because of the sexually transmitted nature of the disease and the intimate part of the body it affects) and there are many many women who feel the same.

From Michael Tajfel

I don't think there is much emphasis on prevention in a lot of medical research today. Many conditions, like diabetes, are related to diet, and I believe that the influence of big food companies makes this difficult.

Breast cancer, however, is very strongly influenced by reproductive patterns in modern society Early puberty is probably mainly the result of the same diet which leads to many medical conditions like coronary heart disease. Breastfeeding can be encouraged, but an important factor is having a first child late, and having fewer children. Women who have no children have a considerably increased risk.

Perhaps research could look at the hormonal factors involved in this, but I have no knowledge of what is going on now.

From Sara Howland

Re: Failed femmes: pity and scorn in the Daily Mail: Your interpretation of the story about Heather and Andrew Howland (my brother) is so far of the mark - it is not funny.

You clearly know nothing about brain damage and hyper-sexuality. At no point in the article does it say that women have to become “sexless” when they become mothers (I am an unmarried “mother to be” with sexual desires! - I intend to keep my sex life vibrant when I become a mum).

This is not what the article is about. The purpose of this article is to gain awareness of an “illness” that is poorly understood by the medical community and has a profound impact on people’s lives. We are not just talking about someone who has decided to let her hair down and enjoy her sexuality. I wish it was the case. I am on open minded woman, and have no issues with people expressing their sexuality in any way they feel comfortable - neither does my brother. We are not judgmental about anyone’s life style choices.

What my brother has described is a painful journey of dealing with the near death of his sole mate, and the battle with mental illness for the last 2 years. He has shown incredible strength and endurance, at no point in your review, have you acknowledged that - which is a shame.

By raising awareness of this condition, my brother is hoping he can help others in a similar situation. It took them a long time to get the medical support and understanding they needed.

The heartache that my family has been through since Heather had her brain injury has been devastating. My brother has done everything he can to protect Heather and help her through her recovery. You have no clue about the danger that Heather has inadvertently put herself and her family in. This article is not about condemning the sexual desires of a married women. This article is about devastating brain damage.

You done exactly what you have accused the mail of doing - twisting the facts to suit your own propaganda. I would encourage you to do some research and perhaps reach out to people in Andrew’s situation and learn more before “casting your judgment”. Open your mind.

“a woman can either be a good mother or enjoy sex but not both” and that “somehow, women have to become sexless once they become mothers.” NOT TRUE AT ALL. This is not the jist of the article. This is about brain damage, and the devastating effect hyper sexuality can have (this is an illness, not another word for healthy sexual appetite - do your research. The part of Heathers brain that is “physically” damaged is the part that controls basic impulses, rational higher reasoning - nothing to do with morals).

“Her apparent shame about her condition makes it very easy for the Daily Mail to sympathise (she is reported to “look at the floor” when her husband Andy tries to work out how many men she has had “inappropriate relations” with in the past two years).” Did it ever occur to you that Heather’s embarrassment could because of the hurt she has caused her sole mate? Have you ever been in a meaningful relationship and let that person down? Do you think that feeling sorry for the hurt you have caused someone you love is somehow wrong? Again, you have twisted what was intended.

“Conveniently, we also learn that Heather was from a church-going family, disapproved of extra-marital affairs and hadn’t “as much as looked at another man” since her wedding day” AND? What is wrong with that? I am not sure what point you are trying to make - do you think that is wrong for people to live up to their vows and go to church? I am not religious or married, but I don’t see any harm in people living together and been honest with each other. I think the problem with the world today is people don't have tolerance for each others beliefs. There is nothing wrong with monogamy - or open relationships. Each to their own, don't judge.

“The possibility that Heather’s hyper sexuality might be her injured brain’s rather dramatic way of letting go of the binds that had previously suppressed her is, of course, not even considered.” My brother has spent 2 years researching and trying to understand Heather’s illness. He has traveled the country speaking to specialists in the field. Yes, I am sure he has considered every single possibility - since he has known Heather for the last 17 years, I think he is in a better position to answer why that is not the conclusion he has reached at this point.

“According to the mail, all is not lost for the couple because they are seeing a specialist who is reckons that Heather’s brain can be retrained to “recognise how it is appropriate to behave.” Also, Heather has agreed not to leave the house alone, to “ensure her own safety and Andy’s peace of mind.” Again, I suggest that you do some research on brain injury. This is not about trying to cure “immoral behavior”. Try and specifically research about damage to the limbic system, it might help you to understand the specialists involvement and their objectives with Heather’s treatment.

Regarding Heather leaving the house - she is not safe to be left on her own. Unfortunately, there are sexual predators out there (fact) - I guess my brother does not want Heather to be a dead body found in a park somewhere one day. Heather also has memory damage, so could easily forget how to get home again. Unfortunately, the illness has had a profound effect their financial situation. My brother is now the sole income generator, and he can not afford to take time off work (he is a social worker). He worries constantly about her safety.

From Helen G

Re: Please, please just stop!: Please will you explain to me exactly what you mean by this comment: "[...] the “Femail” section of The Daily Mail seems to be suffering from an unfortunate case of gender dysphoria syndrome."

I underwent SRS exactly 10 weeks ago today to ease my gender dysphoria, which had driven me to the point of suicide last year. You may be unaware that GD is a medical condition recognised by the NHS and supported by international Standards Of Care.

I hope you will understand why I find your use of the term in this context to be at best superficial and at worst downright offensive. I sincerely hope this is not yet another example of the oppression of trans people by feminists manifested in the written word. And as a metaphor, it is simply wrong and does not work: poor quality writing. Would you have used disability in such a way? Perhaps you should have researched the condition a little more thoroughly before you used it in such a way.

Please email me to explain your use of the term, better still, please amend your post and explain to your other readers why you have changed it.

From Jane Purcell

Re: What, no make-up?: I take Carol's point about women being made to feel less 'acceptable' if they choose not to wear it, but let's not forget that the simple act of a few artfully applied cosmetics can be a real boost to the self-esteem.

The English Red Cross has included cosmetology and make-up in hospital care programmes to improve patients' physical well being and boost their self-esteem. Make-up doesn't have to be seen as a burdensome mask; it can also boost the spirits.

From Roisin

Re: Should married women change their surnames?: Good for you Abby! We need more consciousness-raising articles such as this one. Every married woman I know (with only one exception) has changed her surname to her husband's, which is something I find truly terrifying. Independent, intelligent women who view themselves as their husbands' equals in every way are blindly submitting to this repellent practice because it's "only tradition" or "only convention". More articles like this one please - men and women need to be made aware of the message that is being sent to society by "traditions" such as these!

From The Huntress

I read the Comment is free article and am amazed (and disgusted) by the amount of nasty or offensive comments, especially accompanied by comments that the article is "fluff" or that the issue is trivial. If it's so trivial why are they so angry about it? I agree with you totally. It's obviously a sign of male possession of women, that's what marriage was initially about anyway, and if people don't realise that they're pretty ignorant. It's also obvious that it's still used that way and the problem is that so many women do it automatically without even thinking about it, because it's just what you're "supposed to do". The family unit argument is rubbish, because if that were true there would be large numbers of men taking their wives' names too. And the argument that it's "just a convention"? Well, so are many things, but it doesn't make them meaningless and doesn't make them OK. I wish people would realise that taking a man's surname is the big deal, instead of the other way round.

From Jennifer McMahon

Re: Wonder Woman gets first female writer: Um, sorry, but Gail Simone is not the first woman to write for Wonder Woman. Jodi Picoult was on it before her. I'd have to do some research to see if any other women wrote for Wonder Woman, but that is 70 odd years' of history to search through! And there have definitely always been female comic book artists and writers about (although in the minority) so it seems unlikely that Jodi and Gail are the only to women to have contributed to the WW legend! Gail Simone is fantastic though and has *really* raised the profile of female comic book writers and gender issues within comics. And her first issue of WW kicked absolute ass! Sorry, I'm a comic geek, and it just thought the post did a little diservice to the woman who came before Gail and all the other women who have worked in comics before her.

From Hazel

Re: The pen holder that you can 'rape': It is also for sale at amazon.co.uk. I have just written to them informing them I shall never shop at Amazon again until it is withdrawn. I'd like to think it's not a pointless "threat" because I have been buying from them since 1999.

From Ashleigh Bridges

My goodness, maybe they should advertise it as "a gift to exploit and rape women every single day, you can even do it whilst sat at your desk" or maybe " why not get in the festive spirit by making a woman say 'no, no, no'-makes a change from 'ho ho ho'!!"

From Sayem Rahman

The release of a "toy" (if I can even use such a term) like this belittles the victims of rape, which itself is used as a weapon in warzones all over the world. As for the sick f***ers posting in and telling those who've been put through this trauma to 'chill out'... why don't you go and get violated in whatever orifice, come back and tell us you don't feel like s*** in any way? Or maybe you have something to hide?

From Lindsey

Re: Sick of films that pair ugly men with beautiful women? Don't watch Superbad: So, the truth is that pairing pretty women with "ugly" men is a double standard, but I am taking offense to the simplicity of the argument. The boys in this particular film were juvinile but upstanding. One refused to sleep with a girl because he thought she was too drunk to make a responsible decision. Don't we want that lesson out there? Now, in no way am I going to defend this film as full of positive message, but what the hell do ugly and beautiful mean anyway? But it's true, where are the less than avarage girls?

From Rebecca Heller

Re: Our report on Reclaim the Night 2007: I loved the article: 'Reclaim the Night 2007' on London's Reclaim the Night march - I was there myself and it was a fantastic evening. However, it was just that - London's Reclaim the Night march. As the f word reports 'contemporary UK feminism', it is a shame that the London RTN is still 'the' RTN. One of the speeches at the London rally hoped for Reclaim the Night marches springing up all over the country. This will be much harder for feminists to motivate themselves and others about if London's Reclaim the Night remains 'Reclaim the Night 2007'.

From Mary Davidson

Re: If turning an orangutan into a sex slave is evil, what does it mean to do that to a human?: Thank you for being bold enough to post the sickness people will stoop to--for self gain. I wish--those who are able--would contribute to the poor--shipping food and clothes--at least. It may help a child not to be sold into slavery.

From Steve James

Re: The Page 3 'role model': Ms price is cashing in on a premise that the Victorians discovered when they first put the face of a pretty girl on a bar of soap; sex sells. It's simplistic to dismiss this as a male view of femininity; it's evidently a female one a s well. The real culprit is capitalism, in which all other considerations are submerged beneath the almighty dollar.

From Elisabeth Johnson

Re: Reclaim the Night tomorrow!: In response to article on the Reclaim the Night march - specifically the comments left by readers of Julie Bindel's online guardian column.

I totally agree that many of the comments left were patronising, I totally agree that violence against women on a daily basis is a real and serious problem, but Julie Bindel's column still seemed pretty ridiculous to me. I think Reclaim the Night is a fabulous idea and if I was living in the UK I would definitely be there, but at the same time it isn't useful to alienate those men that may support the concept and the cause by making wild generalisations. Yes most rapists are men (a huge huge majority - although I also know of women who have sexually abused their children for example) but not all men are rapists. I feel that Julie's column has given people an excuse to mock at a brilliant and important event.

From steve james

Can someone tell me what the demonstrations about violence against women has actually achieved?

From John A

The appropriate response to "Reclaim the Night" for men is to join us on our "London Pro-Feminist Men's Group" stall at ULU afterwards. No other response is acceptable! :-D

From justyna

Re: Un-spice your life: I watched said video with the sound off - which heightened just how ridiculous the undulating bodies and gratuitous writhing in bras is. Girl Power? Watching this video to the end was arduous!

As the blog post suggested, sex sells, so will aid in raking in the cash - conceivably drawing in a demographic not aware or interested in Children in Need. However unless the next flagship video contains an unsubtle and unrealistic sexual bias, it’s doubtful this will be a sustained interest. It’s a cheap shot, which decreases the integrity of the charity.

It pulls no surprises in terms of girl group videos - glamorous setting, heavily made up and spangly (lack of) clothing, so artistically it's not pushing any boundaries. It also manages to compound glossy stereotypes of media's misogyny.

I’m especially concerned that the most naked spice girls - posh and ginger - are both famed for eating disorders. An exaggerated and glamorized show of their bodies blatantly puts out some dark and unhealthy messages, as well as being quite creepy.

For charity? As flagged up in the blog post, it's unsettling that this video represents a kid’s charity with all it's patronising opulence and pointlessly sexualised posturing. It bears no relevance to the charity’s ethics just panders to the clichéd representation of women in mainstream pop music.

From LL

I had not seen the video before. I was shocked. These are supposedly empowered adult women! and they behaved no better than Britney when she dressed like a school girl. Children in Need is about family - so I\'m told - and this was not. This was soft porn. Self promotion ? Exploitation of a hunger for more money and more fame? I\'m not sure who I blame more the people who shot it or the women for stripping down in the first place. They are surely strong enough to say No. Certainly Sporty was.

The war for equality and respect will never be won while women do this to themselves.

From steve james

Can someone tell me what the demonstrations about violence against women has actually achieved?

From Sara Helen

Re: Will it soon be tougher to get an abortion in Scotland than in England?: I really liked this article - good to hear from a Scot on the F-Word! It's true, though - the Catholic church has far too much sway over the debate surrounding issues such as abortion. It would be nice to hear a scientific discussion about it, so that everyone could know the facts of the matter and make up their own minds. Abourtion should be a personal choice made by the woman concerned, not made for her by politicians or religious leaders.

From Lauren

Re: Girls prefer Bob the Builder to Barbie: I just wanted to comment on Carrie Dunn's piece about Barbie vs. Bob the Builder. I don't think your childhood experience of preferring cars to Barbies was that unusual at all. My sister and I had a few Barbies, and we occasionally dressed them up, but mainly we made our toy animals attack and eat them. And our parents are pretty conservative, so it wasn't as if we were being encouraged to defy gendered toy choices. I remember reading about that study where they "proved" that boys just naturally choose "boy toys" and girls do the same for "girl toys." I thought it was an enormous load of bullshit. Girls have been rejecting stereotypically girl toys for ages; it just hasn't been widely publicized.

Of course, there's a whole 'nother can of worms to be opened regarding the probably pretty widespread attitude that girls can play with both "boy toys" and "girl toys," but boys with dolls would be just wrong.

From Nenena

Re: Buffy actor disappoints even more...: I've been reading the F-word blog for a couple months now and really enjoying it. However, I did not so much enjoy the post about Sarah Michelle Gellar changing her name. It makes me uncomfortable whenever feminists *dissaprove* of other women for making choices like changing names, wearing heels, wearing makeup, or doing anything else that generally conforms to the patriarchy. I don't like the dissaproving finger-wagging, and the tone of the post was way too close to the "you're a bad feminist if..." rhetoric that doesn't help anybody. I think that it's possible to critique practices like name-changing without judging the women who choose (for whatever reason) to engage in the practice, or to judge them as "dissappointing" by our standards.

There are plenty of practical reasons for spouses to share a name. Maybe SMG considered these when she made her decision. Maybe she didn't, maybe it was a purely "romantic" gesture on her part. Who knows? I've personally made romantic gestures for my boyfriends that I realize happen to coincide with patriarchal expectations of women (i.e. cooking for them, etc) but I don't feel that any of that conflicts with my feminist ideals, because these are choices that I make and that I know I can opt out of any time. If I were married, I would feel the same way about changing my surname. It would be problematic if my theoretical husband simply expected me to change my name as a matter of course. But if he doesn't, and if he leaves the decision up to me, then I gotta admit I would probably change my surname purely for practical purposes. But I would feel comfortable with that decision as long as I knew that it was my choice, not his.

I also don't think that the comparison of a name change to a boob job was fair. I understand that for some people, a name is a fundamental part of their identity. But for others, like me, I really don't care. Maybe SMG doesn't feel like changing her name is fundamentally changing her identity, either. Women and men are all going to value their own surnames to varying degrees. To compare a name change (which may not be a big deal for some) to a fundamental body alteration is disingenous. For some, the comparison may be valid. For others, like me, and possibly like SMG, it's not.

From Ruth Moss

Re: Swedes fight for right to swim topless (...in November?): Anything that stops breasts being so sexualised and fetishised is just great with me...

From tom hulley

Re: Does Strictly Come Dancing play into the myth of catfighting women?: Strictly Come Dancing. "Bitchiness" is not a female trait but an aspect of human character. There is a myth about it though. Years ago I ran a hostel for young women aged between 14 and 18 and never once encountered the alleged 'bitchiness' found among women. The word is sexist, of course, while 'dogged' could be a term for male determination both 'dog' and 'bitch' are used to insult women. Sorry, back to the dance show ... I record it then fast forward through the biased judging and only watch the dance. It is not very good this series. In my humble view only Louisa Lytton and Denise Lewis ever shone as dancers and both were short changed in the show. One was quite young, one was black -makes you wonder! Best wishes, Tom.

From John

My girlfriend Carole and I, and several of our female friends are enthusiastic watchers of SCD and are all appalled when a talented celeb loses out to a merely popular one. Looks don't come into it; nor does age, which you didn't mention. One of the women here commented that viewers who can't dance shouldn't be allowed to vote.

From Irina

Re: Just another way to alter our bodies: Despite how much some feminists try and bang on about "medicalisation" of female bodies by male doctors, I just don't buy it, especially when this accusation is levelled at the pill and contraception in general.

The notion, used by some, that contraception benefits men MORE than women, as they can shag as they please without price to pay, is sexist in some way. I insist that women also need sex without consequences. We also need to shag as we please without fear of pregnancy or disease. All humankind needs it.

The reason contraception is developed for women's use mostly, I think, is not because some evil doctors think that "it's down to birds to keep the ovulation mess in check", no. But because if it fails, it is women's bodies which will be paying by unwanted pregnacy and abortion, and therefore to leave it to a bloke is to take away control more, then by encouraging us to pop in pills.

I personally hate the fact that ovulation happens every bloody month and all the more thankful to those men who, by inventing the pill, tell mother nature where to shove it. I am definitely not one of those ovulation and womb worshiping feminists. As to condoms - they bloody break and are less effective than a pill. I'd think we all should cheer and salute the idea of something as effective as the pill but without side-effects like loss of libido or mood swings. My only dissapointment is that it will be too late for me to try it, coupled with concerns that it still might have some unexpected side-effects like any other medicine.

However i agree with the author of the post completely that long-term contraception (which doesn't depend on daily use and remembering to take it) like implants or injections absolutely MUST be invented for men as well, if only for the sake of egality. If it takes 2 to tango when it comes to sex, all the more it should when it comes to contraception.

From Matt Wardman

Re: I thought the personal was political: First of all thanks for the link and the thoughtful response.

You say: "We need them to be quite biased in favour of promoting equality and human rights for all."

I think that you are assuming a particular view of both "equality" and "human rights for all" a priori - whereas in reality these are decisions about (and between) competing rights, and need a conversation from a number of different points of view.

That is why I think it is the correct decision to have both Edwards and Ben Summerskill on the commission.

and a small brickbat - any chance of real comments, even if moderated?

From Ellen Allcoat

Re: Maplin - stereotypes galore for Xmas!: OMG I was wondering how long it was before someone noticed this! I have a Maplin right near my house and I literally stopped in the street to check what I was seeing was correct when I first saw their Xmas campaign. The fact that I am a techno freak and love most of what Maplin stock just makes it even more infuriating!!! xx

From Evie Wallace

Re: Trinny and Susannah: fuck right off: Calm down dear! Trinny and Susannah are not evil tools of the patriarchal fashion industry. If they were they would tell women to lose weight, or get nipped and tucked as in that awful Ten Years Younger programme. They are not body fascists. They send women of all shapes, sizes and ages to ordinary high street shops, not designer ones. They don't suck up to designers. Their advice is affordable and achievable. And every single woman comes out looking 100% better.

They even made Jeremy Clarkson look good. I rest my case. Now for heaven sake get those dungarees off and comb your hair. A bit of lippy wouldn't go amiss either.

From Evie Wallace

Re: Chuckle chuckle: I see that your response carefully edited my perfectly valid point that while you may not like T and S, their advice is reasonable, life enhancing and shows women how to make the most of themselves without dieting or resorting to plastic surgery. I put in the dungaree remark as a joke and no offence was meant. But of course that was the only part of my email you printed.

I bet that if the readers of this great site were offered the chance of a free makeover by T and S, 99% of them would jump at the chance. Oh yes they would! Making the most of yourself doesn't mean you're buying into the narrow patriarchal stereotype of the way women are 'meant' to look. Sometimes it just means that you want to make the most of yourself.

Incidentally, one of T and S's programmes was about dressing in your 70's and over. What other programme has ever looked at affordable style for older women? My granny was thrilled.

From Nina

Re: All women are unacceptable, but some women are more unacceptable than others: Samara says: "I always feel like screaming whenever I open a women’s magazine to be confronted with a series of tips on how to “dress to flatter your figure”

I think the problem with these magazines is not that they're telling people to dress to flatter their figures. I firmly believe that people should dress their bodies and not simply throw on clothes to cover themselves (notably I also have this attitude to kitchen appliances etc.) but the problem lies in the idea that bodies can be so generalised. As if a pear shape actually exists! It's an insult to humanity to believe that following a few rules will actually make you look better when in actual fact each body needs a different set of rules! No one should be generalised in that way, it's insulting to all of us and Trinny and Susannah's people always need individual advice because their bodies need individual attention not some half baked guidelines.

From icicle

Re: New female condom not set to take off: My partner and I are currently having major problems with contraception as I am allergic to spermicide, hormonal contraceptives seem to have a reasonably severe depressive/destabilizing affect on me and he is currently unable to put a condom on without loosing his erection (has been a problem for 3 months). I personally would be so pleased if femidoms were redesigned and made more widely available. The current model leaves a lot to be desired and is my only real contraceptive option.

From Helen

Re: Sexist jokes cause discrimination - study: So sexist jokes cause discrimination? - all the more reason to campaign against lads mags then!

From Rosie

Re: Merry-go-rounds and badge wearing coppers: I told my boyfriend about the pay gap - he didn't believe me. Where could I find proof from an impartial source? If I showed him the statistics on a webpage such as the Fawcett Society's, for example, he would say it was just propaganda. Where do the Fawcett Society get their information from?

From Maria Dixon

Re: Fatties more likely to get cancer: Samara Ginsberg misses the point when she objects to the article focusing on women. This study was specifically intended to look at women's health, and the effect of the menopause in particular. How could it possibly have included men?

If the effects of the menopause and other women specific health issues (such as endometrial cancer, mentioned in the article) weren't studied that would undoubtedly show that the health & science communities take no interest in women's health. We should be championing scientists who research the health issues that affect either sex, not damning them because one piece of media-friendly research happens to focus on women.

The fact that a similar report has not come out about men at the exact same time is pretty irrelevant. There is, and continues to be, research into health issues for both genders.

I love your blog, but some of the pieces are very poorly thought out. There's no point in objecting to something just for the sake of it!

From mia

Re: Powerful women: I find the the point the Gaurdian makes about Cristina Fernández de Kirchner being the most powerful woman in Latin America due to the fact that the only other country run by a woman has a smaller economy telling. When a man is regarded the most powerful of something, he is regarded so because he has more power than both men and women in his category.

Enough said.

From Wane

Re: Raise age of consent for porn to 21?: so fucking wot if they use college girls, its an idea, so wot.

shud the ide of MILF be stopped too for sume other reason.. this guys is just anti porn

From David Sorrill

Re: Reasons to be cheerful: I have been a lifelong male feminist and tried to promote at every opportunity the rights of women. In particular, I try to use inclusive language to the extent possible, humankind instead of mankind, etc. However, I am confused about the use of some nouns which traditionally have a male and female form, say, hero and heroine, manager and manageress or actor and actress. Is it still acceptable to use both of these in your view or is the fact that the female form identifies the person as a woman inappropriate? Many thanks

From D Tran

The biological clock ticks because the timer reminds you that your body is only capable of conceiving and carrying to term a child for a limited time in your lifespan. Good for you if you have decided that having a child is not for you for whatever reason, but you don't know what it's like or what you have missed out on until you have tried it. So tough luck if you change you mind later. Once you reached 45 years of age, Mother Nature has taken the decision is out your hands and you will never get to experience the joys of motherhood (unless you undergo expensive fertility treatment). I would rather prefer to try something once (while I still can), and speak from experience, rather than spout out the same old drivvle about 'not all women want children' from the ripe old age of 24, and then let time past and regret not doing so later on in life.

From Helen Rainey

Re: The new breastfeeding taboo: Wow! I cannot believe how hard it is to find an article that speaks the truth for many women. Finally, an article written about the "dark side" of breastfeeding and the MANY pitfalls and problems that thousands of women encounter! We woman who are "lactationally challenged" should not be made to feel like losers because we turn to formula to feed our infants. We are left with no other alternative. We could continue with excruciating pain, cracked and blistered nipples, the inevitable decline in milk production, and the soul destroying cries of misery from our less than contented newborns OR we could crack open a case of Emfamil. What is the crime here? Bravo to the writer!

From Charlotte (age 16)

Re: Teenagers and cosmetic surgery: Okay, I don't know how old this article is but it is exactly what I have been looking for! For a start all my friends are perfect- they are who they want to be they have the best personalities but ALL have hang-ups about their bodies! I can't see why, there is no such thing as "normal" or "fitting-in" and even if there was, who would want to be a part of it (that's my opinion). So I've shown this article to my friends and they're finally beginniging to believe me a little bit! Also, in my AS level sociology class I am studing gender roles so this article has also provided me with some fantastic facts. Thirdly, I am doing a speech on "The stupid thing women do to their bodies in order to look 'good'!" which is how I came across this peice of text when searching for a style modle.

Thank You
The article is great [=
Charlotte Sky Parker
Aged 16 (p.s. I apologise for any spelling mistakes)

From Ashley Cuffe

Re: No porn is good porn?: Abby O'Reillys 'no porn is good porn' is spot on. I am doing research on feminist views of pornography for a third year law course and I think this article is not only informative but also bloody hilarious! A girl after my own heart.

From Manny

Sadly i first though this website would be about facts how womens equality should be risen in the world. It seems not. I only see people cross talking, whining and instead of telling facts just overwatching them or ignoring them. I never seen anything good about other sex being better than other. If you would give me awnser why women are better than men i might actually considering joining feminism.

From Mae B

Re: Paper Dolls: Searching for Women within Kerrang Magazine: I couldn't agree more with this article - I'm a musician and have played in bands for 15 years and in that time sadly, not much has changed with regards to attitudes of women in music. If anything more recently it's actually got worse! Even for those magazines and 'zines who champion marginalized sections of culture and therefore have in theory a feminist aspect(which are commonly run by younger women in my experience) have overly sexualized images of female musicians pouting and for their self worth and approval in a softcore porn style.. The current generation appear to be so apathetic on the essential politically aware topics of sexual equality, it's alarming.

Here's the longer version of this debate that I contributed to which rages on the following pages. Not only about the diabolical representation of women in music but also the decline of music itself....

From x kitty x

Re: Whose slut?: I WAS begining to believe I am a feminist worst nightmare untill I read this article. I think it's great. I was a stripper and loved it. I loved being looked at. I felt I was sexy before and do not need men to meke me feel sexy but I loved them strarring at me it's a great feeling to know men want you but can't have you but they will pay money to look any way. It's great to wind them up and make them beleve they have the power when they don't. Although I feel this way I have had lap dances from women because women are beutiful to look at. When I have a dance I don't feel powerful I feel respectful. If all you think about is being sexy or a sex object how is any one ment to enjoy it. Women should stop worrying and take power over men and them selves.

From arkesh ajay

Re: ‘Who… me? I’m just a housewife’: Jen, first thing first. i am inspired. you have a fight at hand every single moment of your life, and it inspires to see how you rise upto it. nextly, the syndrome you talk about is visible throughout the movement, irrespective of cultures and countries. i am from india. and a guy. the feminist movement here is still not into its adulthood, its still not a major movement affecting many a lives, but mostly concentrated in big cities, with their 'elite' connections in place. apart from the few and far-between trips that are undertaken by these few student-groups, to the remote villages and small towns, there is no footprints of the movement visible in those places. the 'elite, rich, educated' tag is very much apparent; and being a 'hetero-sexual non-working' feminist is nearly unacceptable. however there are people (and those are the truer feminists) who know the basic aim of the movement, that of being inclusive understanding and non-alienating, but they need to shout out (as u put it)..

From Saki Hegarty

Jen Clayton does not have to reach out to those of us who live on 'council estates' - because, unlike those institutionalised and removed from wider society on psychiatric wards, and the like, we are already feminists. Many of us are single mothers, who are far too busy getting on with life, working, raising our daughters, to have the time to write thousands of words pathetically begging acceptance into an 'ism. Believe it or not, many council tenants are already feminists. My mother stayed at home to raise us, and she taught me all about feminism in action. Feminism is what you do, not what you say. What do you do?

From Catyche

Hi! In her amazing article titled "‘Who… me? I’m just a housewife’" Jen Clayton mentioned that she wrote other articles about feminism for some other blogs and online zines. Would you happen to know which those are? Because her writing really helped me since I'm going through almost exactly what she experienced and I'd love to read more of her stuff. Thank you for your help.

From Guy Patching

Re: ‘Honey! Your vagina needs a mint’: This is response to your article on the vagina institute. Before you worry that this is going to be one of the doubtless many abusive e-mails you get it isn't (if you don't get them then I am glad). I only wanted to mention in response to your suggestion that penis worry for boys is not so much of a worry because they can view other penises. This is contrary to my experience where I did not see another penis for almost the entirety of my adolescence in part due to the incredibly homophobia of my surroundings. This lead me to have a terrible fear about my penis which lead to a lack of confidence with women. I don't think that this is a unique case either from occasional hints I get from friends; genital awareness is a problem, I would suggest, almost if not just as pressing for younger men as it is for younger women.

Regards and thanks for the blog which I find a worthwhile read.

From randy

Re: Every girl wants a stalker: i think the subject of stalking was very well discussed. there is a double standard regrading women initiating relationships.men are under terrible stress because of this belief that we have to do all the work. we try hard and when we are rebuffed by women, it makes some men so angry they end up stalking the woman unitentionally because they invested so much in her emotionally (ie liking her a LONG TIME before asking her out, to keep from being too forward). it's a really messed up game for some guys: a girl shows them attention, then when they respond, the girl realizes that she didn't really like him and runs away. the guy feels " why did she bother me? why couldn't she have just left me alone? i wouldn't feel this way if she hadn't done all that". i think all of us need to be serious about realtionships and not flirt for fun. we should show attention when we seriously think the other person is special.