Comments from April 2008
Your comments, the April edition
Jennifer Drew, author of the article, replies
I'm glad my piece has helped you especially when reading about Lisa Smith, the Haitian woman and now another husband who thought he had the right to murder his wife. Yes, I know about Lisa Smith and how she suffered at the hands of men working for KBR and subsequently the US legal system, which sought to deny Ms. Smith any justice.
I also know about the Haitian woman who, together with her son was group raped by a number of men who live within her community. The attitude of a non-white male organisation wherein they have deliberately attempted to justify these male rapists' actions is inexcusable.
Male violence against women is not about race or ethnicity - that is a cover used by men to excuse and justify their acts of femicide (violence against women).
I'm glad that for once justice was done here in the UK but I am under no illusion because sadly, the UK like the US all too often excuses, justifies or simply blames women for men's sexual and physical violence.
I just want to say there are many women and a number of men too, who do not believe male violence against women is because men are programmed to commit violence or men have a gene which disposes them to commit violence. Truth is it is all about power - men's power over women. I always try to keep in mind not all men condone violence against women. I know there are women and men who continue to challenge society's belief nothing will change.
From David
Jennifer Drew says its a myth that woman become prostitutes to get money for drugs. Yet feminists such as charlie girl and Laurelin in the rain say that women become prostitutes because they need money for drugs. I cant understand it.?
Jennifer Drew, author of the article, replies
I agree it is very confusing when you read my article and then read/hear other feminists claim that women enter prostitution because of drugs.
The reality is it is much more complex than what society promotes - which is that women enter prostitution because they have a drug habit.
In fact, majority of women and girls enter prostitution not because they have a drug habit but for other reasons. Researcher Roger Matthews who is an expert on prostitution writes in his book 'Prostitution, Politics and Policy' that 'various studies have shown that while a considerable percentage of (women) those who end up working on the streets have been involved in some form of drug use from an early age, many of these studies do not distinguish clearly between experimental, recreational, habitual and problematic drug use.' 'There is a danger, however of giving too much priority to drug use as an independent process and to overlook its links with the personal histories and lifestyles of those (women and girls) involved in prostitution.'
Melissa Farley, an expert on prostitution and women's experiences of the traumatic effects, plus The Women's National Commission and Roger Matthews, to name just a few all state that research consistently shows women's and girls' entry into prostitution are due to a variety of factors. Some of which are: 'have backgrounds of abuse. Sexual and physical abuse in childhood and adolescence, family breakdown, running away, homelessness and poverty are all known factors that precede entry into prostituton. Where there is poverty, abuse, lack of opportunity and gender discrimination, women's real choices or options to earn a living are very limited.'
This does not mean a woman or girl enters prostitution solely because she has experienced male sexual/physical violence, or her family is poor. Rather these are some of factors, since not all women in prostitution have experienced homelessness, but many women and girls have experienced male sexual violence and/or child sexual abuse.
We must not forget society prefers simplistic answers to very complex issues and the latest one is 'women enter prostitution because they are drug addicts'. We must see how society is organised wherein opportunities for women and girls are still very limited if they are marginalised due to poverty, male abuse, homelessness etc. Also, society still accepts and largely excuses and justifies many men's beliefs it is their right to buy women's and girls' bodies for sexual exploitation.
The global sex industry which is interrelated with the mainstreaming of pornography is another very important factor in the increasing numbers of women and girls being involved in prostitution. Prostitution is increasingly being portrayed as a 'free choice' but we must ask 'who benefits from women and girls being made available for men to sexually exploit and abuse.' It most certainly is not the women and girls who enter prostitution because the profits from prostitution, the sex industry and pornography go to the brothel owners, pimps, hotels, taxi drivers, owners of lap dancing and table clubs and those who produce pornography. Of which the vast majority are men.
One of the main factors which ensures prostitution continues unabated is male demand. If men did not demand or expect women and girls to be made available, prostitution would not exist. When a woman or girl sees no other options apart from her sexuality, then in her view it is logical to use what little she has in order to survive. This is not a 'free choice.'
Melissa Farley has written extensively on the issue of prostitution, sex industry and pornography all of which are inter-related. Other authors include Kathryn Farr whose book 'Sex Trafficking: The Global Market in Women and Children' is an excellent book which analyses and discusses complex issues such as economics, globalisation and the sex industry. Sheila Jeffreys too has written a book 'The Idea of Prostitution' which focuses on the history of prostitution and why it is increasing not decreasing despite beliefs that western society is now supposedly civilised. But still women and girls enter prostitution and become effectively men's sexual slaves.
This website provides more details of Women's National Commission Questions and Answers in respect of Prostitution.From Rebecca
Re: Stopping violence against women at its primary root: I thoroughly agree with the above. How often is physical and verbal bullying in schools (and, to be fair, outside as well) looked at as flirtation? A pull of a young girls bunches, a push to the ground, a flick here or a pinch there. As a young girl, I was often told that if a boy bullied me it was due to his having an interest in me. And this continued all the way into high school; but this time it was me who was saying to an upset friend "he's only picking on you because he likes you". Is this how we should be conditioned? Boys, that it's ok to bully as a sign of affection. And girls, that if we are bullied it IS a sign of affection? Obviously there are far more complex issues outside of the school system that contributes to violence against women, and it would be interesting to see how this kind of young bullying does contribute to abuse received/given at a later age. Regarding the sexual side, with games such as 'kiss chase' being played in the playground, it is hard to see how that wouldn't continue into the classroom. The question is whether we teach our children to be sexually aware from that young age? I'm sure if questioned a vast percentage of the population would say they had been touched in a 'private' area by a fellow classmate at some point during their early schooling, and thinking back, wouldn't classify it as abuse or harrasment. When you're young experimentation is likely to occur until that experimentation is finally realised as 'sexual' at a later age. Regarding sexuality or sexual interests, at what point should adults intervene?
From Grainne Tobin
I liked Matthew Provost's attention to what happens when girls are bullied by boys at school. (I am a teacher.) However, I think the article is too simple - its one point is good but the treatment of bullying in the media generally is far too crude to allow for the range of situations faced by school children who are being picked on and tormented. I agree with Matthew Provost that because bullying of girls by boys is not a separate category of problem, with its own name, it may not even be properly acknowledged. Homophobic bullying began to be addressed more easily when labelled as such.
From Amy
Re: Ask a feminist - The F Word problem page: I'd like to comment on the article 'Ask A Feminist'; in particular, the first problem from 'Anon' who is involved with a boy she feels is sexist and homophobic.
I feel very strongly about this issue because a few years ago I was in an identical situation. I have been a feminist all my life and yet I found myself in a relationship with a man who made sexist comments, was homophobic and who criticised me angrily for drawing attention to his prejudices. I ended up keeping my mouth shut on various issues and it became very stressful for me - at the end of the day, we live in a patriarchal world, and just by watching television, reading newspapers etc, issues came up which we disagreed about. When it didn't cause an argument, it just caused me to feel depressed because I felt that by being quiet I was 'toning myself down' and not being true to myself.
We were together for a while because I felt like maybe he would change, learn from me perhaps, and because I had feelings for him I continued to be optimistic despite all the evidence to the contrary.
I can honestly say that this was a complete waste of time. A man in a heterosexual relationship who believes women are inferior necessarily believes that his partner is inferior to him. This isn't a relationship, and it will only lead to heartache. My ex was so threatened by my beliefs that men and women should be equal that I wonder why I ever thought that our relationship would work. It was miserable and when we finally split up I felt depressed and had very little self esteem - basically because I had spent years being criticised for being myself!
For a while I thought that I would be single forever because there were so few men out there who *weren't* like my ex. Happily, I can say that this hasn't happened. I'm with a fantastic partner now who loves me for myself and is proud of the fact I'm a feminist (he is one too!). I can completely understand Anon's confusion and tendency to hope for the best with this man, but I would say based on my own experience that she should move on before she gets more emotionally involved... there are men out there who will not only treat you as an equal, but who will also think the notion of male superiority completely ridiculous. Which of course it is.
I have learned the hard way that the issue of male/female equality is basically a deal breaker in relationships. I feel that a mistake that a lot of women make is that feminism is 'unsexy' or unattractive and being a feminist will lead you to be an old spinster. It's certainly a view in popular culture, and I think the danger is that women like Anon will believe that they have to dilute their views in order to have a relationship. This is a myth and it's important that we challenge it. Having a truly equal relationship is a wonderful thing, and women should not settle for less.
Irina Lester, contributor to 'Ask a Feminist', replies
Dear Amy, thank you very much for your letter. The reason why I wanted to join the panel on "Ask a feminist" was actually that letter from Anon you refer to, that question about a sexist boyfriend. It made me so uneasy and also it moved me.
You are absolutely right in all you have said, and I am glad you took time to write. When I read that letter from Anon I thought: sexist attitudes usually mean sexist behaviour. What sort of a partner such man can be? Even if you are not thinking about relationship at all, not to mention with him, just a mere though that he'll be a shit boyfriend [to any woman] is a big turn-off. The point of any relationship is to have a better, more fun and enjoyable life than you can have on your own, not to tackle some arsehole on a daily basis.
I take an issue with the notion of "charm" women sometimes find in unpleasant, sexist guys. Sexist views are not charming. I'd say it ruins any good impression as it shows that a man is unsophisticated, narrow-minded and insensitive. This should be a litmus test, and a way to tell if you shouldn't touch him with a barge-poll. Even if you have a fling with him, I doubt he will be good in bed as he must assume you are here just to please him. Long term relationship with such an arsehole is just another type of self-harm.
If these men are incapable of seeing a woman as an equal, then they should live alone.
From Josephine
This is in response to the "Ask a Feminist 2!" Specifically the last question where Louise makes the excellent comments about men and objectification. However I would like more detail about her example as I"m not sure it's the best one, but can't think of something better. She talks about how WMF fantasizes about a sexual thank you is compared to taking a woman without consent. I"m not sure if that's parallel because as much as I agree we should never have sexual encounters with someone without their consent, his example doesn't leave room for whether he asked the friend for consent or not.
I don't think it's bad for men to fantasize about other women, i think it's absolutely necessary that while they are fantasizing that the partner in question was consenting to the sexual act. While using the sexual act as a thank you as a fantasy, I"m not exactly sure where the misogyny comes in?
Jennifer Drew, contributor to 'Ask a Feminist', replies
Josephine, the difference between men looking at women and women looking at men is that men - according to society - have the right not only of looking at what they consider to be an attractive woman, but also, without her permission, to comment on her appearance, body or sexuality. Now women too can look at men and think to themselves 'ah he's attractive' or 'I like that this man's tight jeans are emphasising the man's genital area.' But most women would not consider approaching the man and saying to him 'I think you are attractive/sexy in those tight jeans.'
Most women do not want or like strange men, or even men who are their acquaintances or work colleagues, presuming it is male entitlement to make personal comments about a woman's body or perceived sexuality. Do many women make sexualised comments to their male work colleagues? No, they don't, because women rightly fear the man will misinterpret their comment as a sexual invitation to engage in whatever sexual activity the man thinks is his right.
So, as Louise rightly said, the difference is men can look at a woman and think to themselves: 'Ah I'd like to give her one.' A sexually crude expression, but effectively means 'ah the woman is sexy I'd like to penetrate her body and show her how virile and sexually desirable I am.' It is the male presumption that it is a man's right to consider all women he considers sexually attractive as available to him and his right to presume sexual ownership of a woman's body. This is what Louise meant by male sexual objectification.
Women however, do not routinely look at a man and then tell the man they would like to bend him over a table, chair or whatever and then penetrate his body with an object because they find it sexually exciting or stimulating to them. Instead they might often think internally 'that's a handsome hunk I wonder if he is any good sexually.' But they will not tell the man what their thoughts are.
As Louise said, there is nothing with either women's or men's sexual feelings because they are part of our humanity. What is wrong is the belief men are entitled to act on their sexual feelings and assume all women are sexually available to them.
Take, for example, when a woman is subjected to male sexual harassment wherein a man walks by, turns round and stares at the woman then he calls out to her "get your breasts out for me". The woman turns around furious and tells the man to "get ******". The man then becomes angry and very often calls the woman misogynstic and sexually degrading insults. After all, in his view he has only told her he liked her breasts (only he wouldn't say that, but call her body parts a derogatory and insulting term). In other words, many men presume women's bodies and sexualities belong to men, to be looked at, acted on because the male presumption is that men own women's bodies and sexualities - not women.
So, what can be done, well as I say both women and men have sexual feelings and yes it is pleasurable feeling the sexual feelings but there is a difference between feeling it and acting on one's sexual feelings. This is what feminists are demanding from men - that men can have sexual feelings with regards to women but do not presume any woman walking down the public street, in a workplace, or other societal venue is there specifically for men's sexual entertainment or she exists solely to sexually satisfy a man's sexual desires.
So, to end with a reaffirmation of Louise's excellent analysis - men who enact sexual objectification of women are in effect demonstrating their male power and privilege over women. This is what Louise was explaining to WMF. And of course, human sexual feelings are not uncontrollable once aroused and no woman is responsible for supposedly arousing a male's sexual desire. That feeling emanates from the male and cannot be separated out from the way in which he learned to sexually objectify women and reduce them to body parts. Ever heard men say "I'm a breast man" or "I'm a legs man"? This means the man in question reduces women to particular body parts not their total human person and character. Irrespective of a woman's intelligence, personality, etc. it is her breasts, legs or other parts which arouse the man's sexual feelings.
Men who are pro-feminist or at least are trying to disentangle themselves from male sexual privilege often cannot understand why it is misogynstic or male sexual objectification, when they think to themselves "that's a nice piece of arse". In a nutshell, such thinking reduces women to sexualised commodities, not women who - like men - want to be treated with respect and equality. Telling a man he has a "nice arse" does not have the same effect, because men would just laugh it off since there is no risk of a woman raping or sexually assaulting the man. However, behind men's sexualised comments is the very real threat a man will act on his comments and subject the woman to either rape or sexual assault.
This is how male power operates because society condones, justifies and excuses male sexual harassment as just a 'joke' and refuses to accept that women too have the right not to be subjected to unwanted male sexual intrusion.'
Jess McCabe, contributor to 'Ask a Feminist', replies
I would just add, Josephine, that I disagree with the idea that non-consensual fantasies are a total no-go. What goes on inside our own heads, in our erotic imaginations, comes from a complicated place, and any effort to censor or strip out darker fantasies is unlikely to succeed.
It's worth thinking about, and challenging, what's behind these fantasies perhaps, but they are not the same as, or an indication of, sexual assault/rape, by a long, yawning stretch.
From Irina Lester
Re: Abortion and disability - whose voices are heard?: Reading Clare Laxton's article made me a bit uneasy. I am relieved that she states she is pro-choice and will defend abortion rights, but her somehow uncertain position on so called "discussion" about abortion and disabled people's rights makes me remind all people here:
this (attempts to reduce access to abortion on the grounds of disability of a foetus) is not about disabled people in the same way as attempts to limit upper time is not about caring about prematurely born children who survive, just like banging on about how some women are depressed after abortion is not about women's mental health. ALL THESE ARE ATTEMPTS TO LIMIT OUR RIGHT OVER OUR BODY. If one of these attempts doesn't achieve the goal, then they will try another.
Remember when attempts to limit upper time for abortion failed, what did they do next? Someone was already yapping in the Parliament about how abortion causes depression!
When this person lost, what is the next step? If you are observant enough - yep, you've noticed it is a disability issue this time.
Only in this context we, abled or disabled, should see abortion and attempts to limit access. If these MPs cared about disabled people, they would be tabling motions and passing laws making it difficult for organizations, buildings etc. not to provide disabled access, making it compulsory for businesses to accommodate disabled people, for cultural organizations and exhibitions - to held special days for free and easy access for disabled people.
Have you ever seen how a wheelchaired person (sorry for such stereotypical example but it is the most visible one) tries to see a major exhibition in say, Royal Academy of Art, trying to find space around crowds? Does it bother Baroness Marsham? I bet she couldn't give a toss! All she cares is that there are women who don't want to be mothers when they are already pregnant, how dare they? They should be forced. And if some of them find a way out because of disability, then this loophole must be closed - that's how these people like think.
It exasperates me when others don't see it, when they buy into having a "discussion" with such opponents. Do you think our opponents are stupid? No, they know that they cannot ban all abortion at once altogether, and they are also well funded, unlike the campaign Abortion Rights.
They try to appear caring, and suck up to those they see as the weakest, in this instance, disabled. They hijack disabled rights into their own anti-abortion agenda, how can you not understand it??
But i don't see how a disabled person can think "if they terminate pregnancies in order not to have children who would grow up to be like me, what does it say about my worth in this society?" with any more validity then me thinking "if they terminate unplanned pregnancies, how does it make unplanned children like me feel?"
I, abled person, actually had more chances to be aborted than a disabled person, because most abortions are carried out on social grounds, i.e. because these foetuses are unwanted, rather than on medical ones. Does it make me into anti-choicer? No, it is the opposite.
What is revolting is not the fact that as a society we allow women not to have disabled children but that as a society we don't give ALREADY EXISTING disabled people better life.
Even if we lived in an ideal world where all children are looked after and loved, and all disabled people have satisfying lives, even then it must remain a right of any woman not to go through pain of pregnancy and birth if she doesn't want to, regardless of ability/disability of a foetus.
I think disabled people should understand this issue not as a personal blow against them as a social group, but as an issue of control for each individual woman over her body and fate, and a right that is currently under attack from those who use disabled for their propaganda. It is great that many, like Alex Kemp from NUS Disabled Students' Campaign, see it.
Clare asks "what if disabled people were not offering their support, would their voices be silenced?" - well, if they were not offering support, and not saying anything, then there is nothing to "silence", nothing to respond to. What if they were against abortion on disability ground? - Then we would need to argue with them, underlying the above point: i.e. before considering it at all, looking where from the opponets do come and what they really are after. Letting them see how they, disabled, are being used by others in setting them against pro-choicers.
But I don't think that if some disabled were against this right, they could be part of what Clare calls "constructive debate". The right is under attack. There is no time really for conversations over a cup of tea and cakes like "I think this and that" - "Oh, I tend to disagree" - "OK , then, your point is valid".
All i am saying: giving any credit to the idea that disabled might be against AND pussyfooting around it like "ok, that's what they think" is stupid. If they are, we will need to convince them, and move on. Seriously thinking "Baroness Marsham has a point" is giving in to the worst sensationalist crap similar to "Silent Scream". It means not seeing the point and being tricked into thinking what anti-choicers exactly want you to think. With the benefit that you appear to yourself as a considerate person who understands complexity and wants to see pros and cons etc. and can pat yourself on a back.
Clare says "Disabled women are isolated by the feminist movement who want a woman to support right to choose no matter what". For me it means a weakness and a flaw of the feminist movement, but not that "right to abortion no matter what" itself is flawed. Ideally all the movements, women, disabled, gay, anti-racist, should support each other case and not see each other as competitors in gaining here and there at each other's expense.
Please let's not be swayed by anti-choice propaganda and start seeing ambiguity towards abortion on disability grounds as our own views. And please remember: some people can be argued with, but some must be shut up by loud majority, just like we did on 6th February to Anne Widdecombe's anti-choice rally in London. You cannot just "talk" to anybody hoping to win by appearing "civilized". You can talk to disabled people, showing them thatsome of them are wrong when they oppose abortion for disability, but you need to shut up those who use them for ther own purposes. (And don't tell me that assuming disabled are being used is patronising towards them)
From Tom Hulley
You have written what I consider a sensitive and very important article, Clare.
Isn't a woman's right to choose primarily about not having a baby at this point rather than choosing which baby?
Choice is dependent on sound information and there is still a lot of discriminatory and misleading information about disabled people. What if women were choosing to keep male babies and terminate female ones? Technology makes this possible and isn't it also a feminist issue?
From Penny Halliday
Re: A modern maiden?: Way to go Louise, will definitely NOT be adding this book ( I use the term loosely) to my Women's Studies reading list...
From Dianne Murphy-Rodgers
A very interesting, thoughtful and thought-provoking review, Louise, thank you! (And thank you, fword, for publishing it.)
Is this really what feminism has come to? (Will post a longer rant on my blog rather than use up all your comment space!)
Thank you for pointing out some of the real problems women have around the world, especially women who are not white, middle class and straight.
From Clare
Re: Do It Yourself? How about Do It Ourselves: I generally try to support small businesses, but when it comes to household repairs, I've given up.
It was just impossible to purchase drill bits or a crowbar from the local shop without a barrage of questions about what I was using it for and whether I knew what I was doing.
These days I just shop at Homebase. Sure, it's a soulless chain store, but at least the shop assistants are ocassionally female and the only question I'm ever asked is whether I have a loyalty card.
I'd also like to give a shout-out to Liverpool's Blackburne House, which provides subsidised construction industry training for women.
From Alison campbell
Re: Tales of low-paid work: I really enjoyed One pair of Hands and One Pair of Feet. I found Monica Dicken's narrative entirely relevant and uptodate, over seventy years on. For me the joy of her books is the description and level of detail she brings to the situations she finds herself in, and most of all her humour in these biographies. Your article has inspired me to seek out more of her books. The only other one I read was "An Angel in the Corner" which was much more sombre and tragic at times. It centres on domestic violence, highlighting the fact that violence crosses all classes. A great, though not always easy read. I have raved to friends for years about how good Monica Dickens is, often with blank looks in return, so it was encouraging to see my enthusiasm shared by someone else. thanks.
From Anna Mills
At last, some recognition for Monica Dickens! I have long been an admirer - as you note, she is not explicitly political, let alone feminist, but her writing leaves you in no doubt about the conditions of the time. My favourite is The Fancy, grimly understated and utterly compelling.
From ryochus
Re: Tracey, Tomma and the Turner conspiracy: 'they dont like our art, so they must be sexist'
From Alex Brew
I'd love to see this when it gets performed. Thanks for bringing her to my attention!
From Michelle
Re: Bend over girls - he's in freak mode: I live in the US. My domestic partner is from Taiwan. He has lived in the US for over 7 years. In his view he tries so hard to be 'open minded' and 'for womens rights', etc, but he still uses the 'f' word as if it belonged to the devil. Calling me a feminist is like me calling him a baboon. I realize the 'mate' I've chosen is on the brighter end of the spectrum of male 'dumbinance', yet I can't help but notice how much his cultural background/heritage has such a negative influence on our relationship (me being one of those free spirited, 'stubborn' American girls). ... I'm just venting. Luv your website.
From Irina Lester
Re: It's So You: The book Jess reviewed, "It's so you", sounds interesting and i will get it to have a look. I am interested in other women's personal attitudes to clothes, as i know only 2 : one from the mags, were clothes are glamorized and aesthetisized, and another - what i see most women have in reality, "just buying stuff" attitude which results look totally different from fashion media prescriptions.
Equally I am extremely uncomfortable and impatient with the idea that clothes should, or are, saying who you are and what your personality is. I would describe myself as atheist, feminist, hedonist, kind, lazy, intelligent, geeky, a bookworm, with very childish sense of humour, assertive, supportive to those who feel vulnerable and arrogant to those who assume their superiority over others. I just don't see how the way i look - long hair always done up, no make-up, gold jewellery, perfume, silk blouses and trousers, lacy tights and heeled shoes - can whatsoever have anyhting to do with the above!
Another question is - should it? I don't think one can reduce a complexity of somebody's personality to their clothes, all they tell you is income (at its' best). So I'd be interested in other women thoughts about why they choose particular clothes and whether they think what they wear should be their social portrait.
From Hazel
Re: Feminists are sexist?: I'm writing about your article 'Feminists are Sexist'. I want to say that I used to believe all that tripe about feminists being rabid man-haters, and for a long while I didn't want to be identified with feminists. This was, of course, until I began to read feminist ideas, feminist blogs, and simply educate myself about feminism. (This was brought on by reading Angela Carter's novel 'The Passion of New Eve' and thinking, 'surely this can't be feminist!' I was so wrong, and really needed to rethink my idea of feminism!)
Your article was incredibly informative and gave me a new grip on why I love this movement. It also made me rethink my actions just from earlier today; a few male friends of mine were arguing against feminism, saying exactly what you were arguing against--feminists are sexist, hypocritical women trying to emasculate men. I didn't say anything because I didn't want to argue. I should have argued, to my last breath, and I wish I had read this article sooner.
Thank you for writing this!
From Sam
Re: Glamour models made me sick: I think Hannah needs to get a life and stop at girls who are prettier than her, just because they are better looking. I agree, airbrushing is a fact when it comes to the photos in the lads mags, but these girls exercise and really look after themselves. Maybe if you did the same, there wouldn't be a problem. You just sound very jealous to me, I'm sure if you had it you would flaunt it!!
Jess McCabe, editor of The F-Word, replies
Oh, Sam. Someone didn't read the article before commenting, eh? It's not about jealousy; it's about the expectation that girls and women have to fit one particular (impossible) standard, and one particular way of looking, in order to be valued in our society.
From Sophie Bastable
I live with a bunch of feminists. We don´t shave our legs, we enjoy the food we eat, and we appreciate beauty on levels other than those presented by the main stream media. Yet every time I walk into a shop I find myself confronted with the harsh reality of British patriarchy in one of it´s most potent and soul destroying forms: the visual. Torn between a nihilistic desire to read them and desperate need to burn the whole lot, I immediately feel overwhelmed and dis empowered by the magazines on the shelves. I´m not surprised these images affected you in this way as a teenager. I wish there was a safe space for women and young girls to get away from these images. I wish somehow the whole lot could be put on a massive bonfire. I feel so lucky that at least my home is that for me.
From Alison
I've just read "Glamour Models Made Me Sick" and I feel exactly the same, I became anorexic aboout 10 years ago, what I used to help me not eat was looking at pictured of waif like models in fashion magazines. I recovered a few years ago but since then there seems to be so many more air-brushed lads mags around, I feel insecure every time I look at them, they're not only protraying women in air-brushed, digitally enhanced "perfection" but also encouraging the belief that women are nothing more than sex objects and encouraging women to feel insecure about their sexuality and their relationships as well.
From Trent
Re: First episode of Star Trek: Enterprise: It's hard to imagine anyone, male or female, attacking the progressive nature of "Star Trek." But, lo and behold...
Star Trek may be set in the 22nd-24th century, but the television audience is what it is. The simple fact of the matter is Star Trek has a dominant male audience. Even a majority-female cast clad in Jerri Ryan-like attire would not last a full season.
My, my...such a petty thing to notice in a show riddled with social breakthroughs.
I suggest focusing less on gender and a bit more on the bigger picture.
From Michela lynch
Re: The media has failed women's football: I think this article is brilliant, it is correct from every point. in my opinion i think men are just not used to us women being better at them in so many things, if there was a womens team against a mens team, i think the women would win straight up, and the men know this.
From Vidya Bhushan Rawat
Re: How to get an activist movement to keep women in prostitution: Excellent write up. while the moralists would always question the legality of the prostitution terming it the oldest profession in the world, the new avatar of the human rights want to glamorise it as if there is no alternative. We are between the devil and dead sea here. think, the author has remarkably put both the arguments in her/his write up and the faminist movement has to look beyond a mere glorification or legalisation of this. ofcourse, to save them from the police, one must legalise it but if there is no protection from the law then there is danger of legalisation of human trafikking.
From Jamie Albers
Re: Frank - Amy Winehouse: This article was wicked. The way it was written and how you described the artist, who which I think is absolutely fantastic, was such a great charater analysis.
From Helena Wojtczak
Re: How the word 'slut' oppresses women: There was a related discussion on the Woman's Hour noticeboard, regarding whether a woman should admit to having a lot of sexual partners in her life, with some interesting comments coming from women, such as you ought to tell your new partner how many men you have slept with because it tells him "what sort of person you are". Hmph!
From Hairy Lisa
Re: Hairy Women: Having just watched "Hairy Women" and been totally infuriated by its one-sidedness I felt like I had to rant about it. Having Googled "Channel 4 Hairy Women discussion" I found the fword article by Lindsay. So I already subscribe to the fword through Facebook and I love the discussions and articles, so I knew I was into some serious talking when I read thew article.
So the programme spoke to several women who hate their facial hair... I found myself screaming at the TV "what about the women who kind of like their body hair?!" Okay, so its not the greatest thing in the world, but if I had to choose between going through all the palava shown in the film or being hairy... I'll take hairy thanks!
I think Channel 4 should make a show about women who love their body hair... Don't suppose it would do much for their ratings though!
PS Peta, the netball playing lady, whould get better friends!
From Mark headey
Re: "All heterosexual women are rape victims": An odd assertion. If one believes the suggestion that women's behaviour is modified by the fear of rape, then surely that would apply to both heterosexuals as well as lesbians. A rapist is unlikely to be particularly bothered about the sexuality of his potential victim.
From Allen Lambert
Re: The personal is (or) isn't political (or is it?): I did a google on "personal is political" and found several things, including one long discussion which cannot be added to now. But the phrase, and its reciprocal, "the political is personal", were in use by student radicals in the mid 1960s (without any connection to feminism). I know that we used and discussed it at Washington Univ. One source was Irving Louis Horowitz who discussed it explicitly. He could have gotten it from C. W. Mills, whom he admired, but I don't know. I do know that ILH made use of the phrase as part of sociological analysis, not as part of a particular movement, e.g., feminist.
From Marilyn Masiker
Re: The experiences of young women in science: I have my PhD in Physical Chemistry. I have crossed from NMR (chemistry) to MRI (physics). I raised children through undergrad and during grad school. I worked as a secretary after graduation for a year to wait for my partner. I have been through 2 post docs. The second postdoctoral position exposed me to the most unethical supervisor that I have ever had in my entire life. You have described the situation that faces women in physics better than I have ever seen it described before. And yet it seems, that the agencies responsible for oversight and change continue year after year to confound the situation with yet another suggestion for an increase in funding for high school science fairs and a call to encourage more girls to participate in them. Ritualistic washing of hands. There is not a thing you have said that they are unaware of. But you have said it very well.
From Jacalyn Schultz
Re: Natural deodorants: Thanks for the article. But please consider removing your recomendation for using Talc. It contains varying amounts of Asbestos which is very toxic to lungs. You also might be interested in another site I found with good information.
From [name not given]
Re: How to look good naked: this programme is a farce. For a start, the women on the show haven\'t done any exercise since they were at school, they eat junk food and chocolate and then they wonder why they look like an obese dog??? Then gok wan comes along and finds a dozen women who are even more obese than her, and he asks her where she thinks is size wise compared to these obese fatties in the line up. And of course, this is just a confidence trick as gok has deliberately picked women who are even more obese than her, so he says \"no, you\'re actually the thinnest!\" So she thinks to herself oh wow, i\'m actually thin! yes dear but everyone is thin compared to morbidly obese women. Now once hes manipulated them and gained their confidence he forces them to strip naked in front of the public or on a catwalk in front of their kid and husband, yes tasteful isn\'t it? even pornstars wouldn\'t stoop that low. Why would he need them to strip naked full frontal ...to boost the programmes ratings of course, to get another series. And then he finds members of the public and says to them do you think this (obese) woman is sexy? And of course all the negative comments .ie \"No, shes fat\" end up on the cutting room floor and only positive comments are shown on the programme. Gok wan is part of the problem not the solution, He thinks that you should just accept your body the way it is ...as if to say its natural and its no big deal, (excuse the pun), if youre big. What he should be doing of course is getting them to change their diet and getting them to do some exercise. A size 16 for women is average in the UK apparently, yes why do you think its the average, because these women dont do any exercise and eat junk food, its average, but it isnt natural, its the result of laziness, you dont see asians for example with size 16 bodies, diet plays a huge part. For gok wan to impy that a size 16 is natural and is something to be proud of....is misleading and wreckless. Gok wan\'s made them think they\'re proud of their flab and think they\'re sexy and don\'t need to change their eating habits or body shape, hate to think how much this is going to cost the NHS when these women become morbidly obese in 10 yrs time.
Jess McCabe, editor of The F-Word, replies
Really, writing into a feminist website with a hateful anti-fat rant? It's like shooting fish in a barrel...
From Anji
Regarding the article about Gok Wan, raving about how wonderful he is... he's also a total misogynist.
From Ruth Moss
Re: Not a happy birthday: Thanks so much for writing this feature and articulating what I am sure many women feel. And thanks for being open and honest about home birth as an often far safer option.
If I ever have a second child I am opting for a home birth; not because I am some "lentil-weaving hippie who is being selfish" (which is what home birthers are if you believe the mass media) but because I truly believe I cannot get the safe birth of my choice at a hospital.
My child's birth was not as horrific as those you describe in the article and I would not describe it as a rape as I did consent.
However I was pressured into induction simply because he was overdue according to the hospital's EDD (with which I did not agree) and agreed under the pressure; I did not know to stand up for myself and say no and was given no support by my birth partners who sided with the medical establishment (and who doesn't?)
The risks of diamorphine were not fully explained to me, especially not the impact it would have on early breastfeeding. My baby was distressed and I was very close to being wheeled to theatre for a crash c-section. I begged for an episiotomy as I could not push him out. Then my baby was taken away from me to Special Care as a result of his distress and the fact he was born blue. He was not roomed in with me for two days despite all initial observations coming back clear. And so often I'm given the "all that matters is that he's fine" message; it was a year ago nearly and I ought to be over it. I don't talk about it with family now.
He is nearly a year old and still I get flashbacks sometimes. To a midwife - who was so very pleasant (and therefore I feel I cannot complain at all) - and my birth partners! - telling me to push and that I *could* push, of *course* I could push - even though I *couldn't* push him out. To him being taken off and me not knowing where, drugged up on diamorphine. I still cry sometimes and sometimes I feel I failed my child - even though logically I know it was not my fault really - by not standing up for his and my right to as natural a birth as possible (i.e. not being induced without a medical reason).
Thanks again for writing the article. It is good to know that safe birth / home birth and birth trauma *are* on the feminist agenda still.
From Sarah
Amen. It is about time we all stand up and say that what is happening to women is about patriarchy and WRONG. ~sincerely, a victim of birth rape and birth activist
From your reader
Re: Fairy tales are Grimm: You sound like you have seen or been through allot to make you think such things, and have such strong feelings about the effects of fairy tales. These endings you speak of have been processed through years of Walt Disney Americanization crap; but stories from the Grimm's brothers, Original stories really have valuable morals. What are your opinions about Grimm's stories? The true stories?
From Dana Corfield
Re: The ethics of sex toys - part two: For what it's worth, I wholeheartedly agree with much of what you have said in your ethics of sex toys article. As a fortysomething woman, I found the whole low quality, high price male designed, sold and even purchased sex toy industry so unacceptable, I resolved to launch a website which would bring together the best collection of products under one roof. Above all else we are a clothing company (corsets, hosiery, lingerie etc)but want to be able to offer our customers a truly complete offering (we are even sourcing feminine health items and already have a successful track record in selling massagers. The toy industry is changing, and we plan to be at the forefront of this change, by sourcing high quality female-friendly products which are beautiful to look at, work really well, and are attractively packaged too. Perhaps more importantly, we also stick to a fair pricing policy (the vast majority of our products are sold at 100% margin and many are sold at much less. We only wish to sell phthalate free products, with high quality Japanese motors (quiet and powerful) many of which are rechargable. We have only just launched our new site, so there are many many more items to be added, but we would love you to take a look and, if you like what you see, inform others that not all sites in this sector are equal(ly shabby). We aspire to be the UK's first department store of high quality, sophisticated clothing, toys and accessories for today's woman.
From Natasha Jade
Re: Why Irma Kurtz is wrong about rape: I was just reading a response to Cosmopolitan. Was just wondering... At the end, the writer said that she was going to send the article in to Cosmopolitan. Did they ever reply?
Catherine Redfern, author of the article, replies
It was a long time ago now, but, no, they never replied
From Vanessa
Re: How many lesbians does it take to sell a t-shirt?: Me personally I am not a lesbian but everything you said is 100 per cent spot on! I was feeling a little low today and a little unimpowered you made me feel strong again. It is so bloody good to know there are other people out there that think like me and want to put an end to the objectfication of women. But sometimes you see all the shit on t.v and you just think "wow maybe I am the only person in the world that see's the double standrds" Thanks a bunch!
From Northe SLack
Re: 'I'm no sad victim. I've seen and survived the darkest side of life': I'm 30 and recovering from childhood sexual abuse and abusive relationships as an adult. Counselling on and off for years has helped, but for years also kept me in the past as a victim of what was done to me and I've not felt I've had any control for most of my life. Finally starting to grow up, in the positive sense of the idea, I'm discovering that I enjoy being a woman and understand and enjoy politics. This article struck a deep chord with me as does most things I read involving sexual assault. By exploring the issues now as an adult I'm learning to accept what happened and that I have survived. My family may well have screwed me over entirely, but I survived. All sounds a bit dramatic, but it's my life. I'm disabled - bi-p;olar disorder and post traumatic stress amongst a long list of side effect of abuse. I live on benefits, which is enough to drive anyone round the bend, but I'm starting to take control by taking responsibility to how I react when I am bullied, put down, oppressed or insulted. The more I learn the more potential for despair, but I get such pleasure out of educating myself by recognising what I can say no to. At long last. Thank you. This will stay with me for the rest of my life, but I can say no.
From Eve
Re: From 'oy sexy' to 'frigid bitch' in 30 seconds: Interesting article. I have been pondering upon sexual harrassment getting a sex change, and fear that if I were to wolf-whistle at some bloke down the high street it would be perceived to be an invitation for a quickie or a reason for rape being ok. It seems that some men will take anything they can get, whereas a woman doesn't necessarily feel flattered by some fat codger pretending he's a good builder.
From Matthew Wilkin
I am a Sociology teacher in Sussex and have come across a common trend recently and was interested to gain some ideas from yourselves as to why this could be occuring.
Recently I have had many female Sociology students dropping the subject late in the course due to either a lack of personal confidence or to transfer to a more 'feminine' vocational course such as hair and beauty or tourism. These girls are not all close friends but in a range of different groups.
What is intriguing is ALL of these girls are 'A' grade students and have actually already obtained an 'A' grade in earlier exams. It is really frustrating to lose these students and try to explain to them that they have huge amounts of ability.
The girls are taught by both male and female teachers but seem to feel very under confident in their own ability and are seeking comfort in taking a course such as hair and beauty as opposed to the more academically challenging A level criteria.
I would be really keen to hear ideas from yourselves as to what could be driving this trend.
From Holly Campbell
The F-Word article was amazing. I completely and fully agree. We should have control over what we do. I support you.
Jess McCabe, editor of The F-Word, replies
We're not sure which article Holly was referring to, what thank you anyway!
From lauren
Re: The epidemic of male violence against women: Thank you for this brilliant piece. It is especially healing to read it today, when Lisa Smith is testifying about the men who raped and sodomized her in a disgusting and brutal way and the company she works for, KBR, who is screwing her as well.
I love your blog, and it often keeps me more informed than anything I can find in the US.
There was another horrendous rape and sodomizing of a Haitian woman and her small son in Florida just weeks ago. A man is on trial in my town today for killing his wife. And nobody says the obvious: there is a war on women.
I am impressed that the UK murderers have been convicted. In the US I think they'd go free, or get short sentences.