femmedium

Subtext Magazine

2010-02-17T12:31:00.000-08:00

Many a blog post over at Subtext Magazine

Feminist Webs National Launch

2010-01-24T10:06:00.000-08:00

Feminist Webs is an award winning national movement and network to promote working with girls and young women in youth work settings to break down sexism and and provide safe spaces for young women to learn to be assertive, to fulfil their potential, to break down the cycle of violence against women, and for women to be exposed to hundreds of experiences which will enhance their life and career opportunities.

Their national launch will be taking place Tuesday 2nd March 2010 at The Women's Library, London with the showcase of the body image animation 'More Than a Face' and North West regional body image banner, as well as 'What Young Women Want' book of postcards created by young woman across the country about their needs and wants today.

The official Launch will run 2-4pm with a show case and key note speaker in the first hour and a chance for the young women and professionals there to talk to each other about key issues in the second hour.

Contact them via their web-site if you wish to attend.

The Guardian: The Feminist Year Ahead

2010-01-08T11:20:00.000-08:00

Brace yourself girls...

The feminist year ahead - The Guardian

A run-down of the books, films, events, exhbitions and what-not that we'll be feasting our feminist eyes on during 2010.

30 Ideas for a Better Life - Women Take Note

2010-01-06T10:00:00.001-08:00

The Observer Magazine last Sunday (03/01/10) ran a piece entitled '30 Ideas for a Better Life', a resolution inspired list of things to do this year. The suggestions ranged from 'Get Philosophical' to 'Take Control of Your Spending Habits' but what caught my eye was the stark juxtaposition of two aimed at women. Firstly is a entry from Sarah Pennells on 'Sound Financial Advice for Women' - Sarah runs Savvywoman, a web-site aimed at giving comprehensive and relevant financial advice to women. As Sarah notes in The Observer article:

I concentrate on the financial concerns and priorities of females in a way that resonates with them. I report and advise on issues such as how state pension changes affect women, how they have lower debts than men but become more anxious over them, and how to make immediate and long-term financial plans when child-rearing. I ask, are you and your partner even financially compatible?

A worthwhile cause and perhaps a justified resolution for this year perhaps then? But what is this then juxtaposed with? Read a little further on in the piece and you will find the idea from clinical psychologist and sex therapist Bettina Arndt of 'revitalising your sex life'. And though it is not suggested in the title itself, this again focuses on women. Because Bettina is suggesting that a focal problem in long-term relationships is 'mismatched desire', that this desire is usually lacked by the female and that these females need to basically get over it (my words not hers):

Arndt advocates a "just do it" approach for couples in a rut. Women should ignore their lack of desire and just get on it with.

So women of Britain, take note. Two ideas for a better life:

1. Get some sound financial advice
2. Lie back and think of England.

Happy New Year!

Call for Papers: Presenting Research on Women Differently

2010-01-05T14:07:00.000-08:00

On behalf of Julia Carter and Rosemary Hill - Centre for Women’s Studies, University of York.

Call for Papers: Not PowerPoint Again! Presenting research on women in popular culture differently.

University of York, 23rd April 2010

Are you bored of the traditional conference paper? Tired of watching a presenter stand and read off a script while pointing to an ill thought-out PowerPoint display? Nervous of presenting in a way that feels alien or doesn’t support your research?

Then come along to our Day School where we are experimenting with different and alternative ways of presenting research.

Our aim for the day is to encourage participants from all disciplines to deliver research in inspiring ways. By thinking of different ways to present our research we can spark new perspectives, imagining different angles and approaches that we may never have considered before. We hope to attract presenters from a range of disciplines and thus intend to question the rigid lines of disciplinary thought that we so often become constrained by. The day school will facilitate this interdisciplinary integration by providing an atmosphere of experimentation and questioning.

We want to encompass presentations from as many disciplines as possible; the topics may include, but are not limited to:

* Music
* Sporting women
* Representations of weddings, marriage and divorce
* Women on film and TV
* Magazine culture
* Books
* Gardening
* Representations of religion
* The Internet

We hope to encourage discussions around how presenting differently may lead to thinking differently about research in academia; how presenting differently helps the researcher and the audience to engage with ‘papers’; and whether experimental presentations really can have a place in traditional academic circles.

As the day is geared to presenting in innovative and engaging ways you may wish to present your paper using, for example: performance art, workshops, short films, live experiments, music, dance or other interactive methods. The design is entirely up to you.

To take part in this Day School please submit a summary of your presentation or a Storyboard (both of which must outline your proposed topic, the mode of your presentation, how long it will take, and what equipment you will need) to: notpowerpointagain@yahoo.co.uk by 14th February 2010.

For more information see http://notpowerpointagain.blogspot.com/

Subtext Magazine Issue 8 - Get Your Orders IN!

2009-12-09T12:47:00.000-08:00

Looking for a xmas present for friends (or yourself?)

Order the latest issue of Subtext Magazine - full of feminist cheer!

Issue 8 pre-order now, chockbang full of the following:

Lucky Lips
Songs about vaginas, denounced by the Catholic League, banned from YouTube – she must be good. Holly Warren speaks to singer/song-writer and comedian, Jessica Delfino

Frugal Feminism
Lucy Ingham looks at the crossover of the new green movement, the blossoming of the social conscience and the possibilities of a fairer work life balance with the heart of feminism

Shape Shifters
Our love/hate relationship with food is an old old story, well worn and much debated. But to what end? Suzie Grogan explores concerns close to home with her look back on her and her daughter’s battle with weight and health.

A Habit Not Worth Breaking: Interview with Cristy C Road
Laura Manicom picks up Cristy C Road’s Bad Habits, a novel she also illustrated, and finds out a little more about the zine maker and illustrator.

Women in Film Special

Shifting the View
Sarah Barnes tests the waters of women’s networking on the fringes of the Birds Eye View film festival in London and finds out what Rachel Millward, director of Birds Eye View sees for the future of women film makers in the UK.

Films by Women, but Films About Women?
Jess McCabe sees the benefits of films emerging by women, but what’s the wider social context?

The Documentary Maker: June Cross
June Cross has been making documentaries for much of her life, casting light on the aftermath of Katrina, riots in Haiti and welfare reform in the USA, not to mention her Emmy award winning documentary Secret Daughter.

Getting Reel
Elena Rossini, an Italian documentary maker talks about the “aha” moment which led to her feminist revolution behind the camera

Making Moves in Afghanistan
Jess McCabe reviews the documentary films from Afghanistan shown as part of the Birds Eye View Film festival in London, which talk of liberation and reveal the hidden stories of women.

~

Cissexuality
Lonergrrl wrestles with the previous and current struggles between cissexuality and transgender women in Feminism

Holly Golightly and the Brokeoffs
Jess Smith and Subtext editor Gill Court met with Holly Golightly and Lawyer Dave, her partner in the Brokeoffs, to find out what makes this woman in music tick.

The Digital Ceiling
Hannah Nicklin calls for revolution to short circuit the sexism in tech

Michelle Obama The Non-Traditional First Lady
Barack Obama made waves in the US presidential election, finally becoming the first black president of the United States in 2008. Melanie Pollack looks at Michelle Obama, his wife, who’s breaking the stereotypes for the role of the first lady, for black women across America and for women worldwide.

Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About the Pornification of Society But Couldn’t Ask
Rebecca Whisnant’s condensed lecture takes eager ears through everything the anti-porn activist needs to know and how to get your point across in 90 minutes or less. Charlotte Cooper attempts to recreate the informative talk in 900 words

Ignorance for Bliss The Menstrual Cycle or Women and the Bikes they Love
We like to take a regular break from the burden of constant theoretical thinking and find something frivolous to busy our minds and bodies with. This issue Amy Louth gives us a 101 on bike buying and know-how, a good checklist for those already on the road or a get going guide for cycling starters.

Plus all our regular features:

Old and News – News and campaign updates
Wonders of the World – Good things we’ve heard about
The Book Stop – Book reviews

Subscribers & pre-orders will be shipped before Christmas (as long as our printer gets the mag too us in time!)

In which I lose faith (which arguably never existed) in the GSA

2009-11-23T08:03:00.000-08:00

Jill Berry, president of the Girls' School Association (GSA), has been popping up in the press recently with some quite alarming, and sometimes contradictory, notions.

Commenting on feminism and fashion and the recent story about Cambridge female undergrads' scantily clad photos, Berry commented that:

"Girls can be highly intelligent and interested in being seen to be attractive – the two aren't mutually exclusive"

For starters, not really a problem. Perhaps the idea of 'being seen to be attractive' is problematic (to me this suggest pampering to the rest of society's/men's version of what this means) but I do support the move away from the 'blonde-bimbo' vs 'ugly geek' dichotomy.

And then Berry claims:

"We must resist the impulse to judge women, to judge them harshly and judge them narrowly"

Lovely. Again, an idea I can get my head around.

But then when an article in The Guardian titled Girls should be 'realistic' about careers and motherhood – schools group head appears, the plot thickens...

Teenage girls need to be taught a heavy dose of realism – that it may not be possible to be a perfect mother and a career woman, the president of the Girls' Schools Association (GSA) will say next week.

Berry is now implying that girls need to be realistic about their futures. That there is 'nothing wrong' with mothers not working once they have children. Firstly, what kind of empowering message is that to young women? That they can be all they want to be but will have to re-think all that once they think about starting a family? Why are we telling girls to be 'realistic'? Why are we accepting that as the reality that women are often placed into positions in which they are pushed back into the private sphere once they give birth? Instead of telling the generation of tomorrow to wise-up about the way the world is, how about educating them on how to change that world?

And you know that what lies beneath this is a discourse of 'bad working mothers'. Considering we weren't meant to be judging women for their choices Berry...

Links to the two articles:

Fashion not a betrayal of feminist ideals
Girls should be realistic about motherhood and careers

The Observer's Woman Magazine: A sad goodbye or good riddance to bad rubbish?

2009-11-15T02:05:00.000-08:00

Myself and Charlotte weigh up the two sides of the argument over at the Subtext Magazine blog.

Go read my tearful goodbye to the Woman's monthly supplement and Charlotte's rejoice that it's gone.

Fifites Women - The Daily Mail

2009-11-06T13:11:00.000-08:00

The Daily Mail this week has been featuring extracts from a new book on fifties family life. This particular extract caught my eye. Though the piece is probably meant to draw attention to the changes in women's position and highlight how things have 'got better', the whole thing stinks of misplaced nostalgia. The scene is set in the opening paragaph when we are told about Britain in the fifties being a "country where doors were left unlocked, children played in the street and crime levels were low and falling - in fact, a Britain that has long since disappeared". The fact this is then followed by a look at women's position is perhaps now coincidence. Aren't the New Right guilty of looking back to a golden age which never existed, eager to claim a correlation between single/working mothers and juvenile deliquency?

Derek from Kent in the comments seems to have also picked up on the underlining messages promoted in this piece...

This article proves yet again that women should be AT HOME, not at work. It would solve the unemployment crisis instantly. Also a man will be happier at work knowing that there is a nice hot meal waiting for him when he gets home.

...and to think all we need to do to solve unemployment is to get women back into the home. Now why didn't we think of that?

Only in The Daily Mail.

Age 8 and Wanting a Sex Change

2009-10-20T02:01:00.000-07:00

Last night I sat down to watch Age 8 and Wanting a Sex Change, the latest documentary as part of Channel 4's Bodyshock series. The programme followed Josie and Kyla, two eight year old girls who had both been born boys, and discussed their stories surrounding the gender dysphoria they had both been diagnosed as having and what the future held for them both. The programme also featured Chris, a sixteen year old boy who had been born a girl and started testosterone treatment aged 14.

Whilst watching the programme several issues arose for me. Firstly is the continued stress on the gender binary of female and male. During my Women's Studies course I lept on material which discussed the possibility of a third gender, even a third sex. Discussion of this still seems firmly cemented in academic discourse as I felt the programme further promoted the idea that you can either be female or male and this is what it means to be female and this is what it means to be male. A lot of emphasis was placed on the toys the children were playing with - they were either "boys' toys" or "girls' toys", no allowances were made for gender neutral material which could perhaps avoid placing such an importance of such gender stereotypes. And what was the real issue at hand? Throughout the programme the link between sex and gender was explicitly expressed as well as an array of traditional roles. In the case of Josie, it seemed pretty clear that having male genitals was a major concern for her - but why then take this as an opporuntity to reinforce female qualities with her as she clearly retained "boy things" such as stereotypical boy hobbies and interests. Is there no room in medical discourse for the concept of sex dysphoria* - why the need to have 'gender dysphoria' when gender arguably is a social construct?
Overall I did really appreciate the attitude of the families concerning their children's feelings but one worry was the language Josie's mother used with her. Her mother referred to Josie's penis as a 'birth defect', a suggestion which I felt reinforced further Josie's negative feelings towards her genitals (was that really necessary?) as well as raising concepts that perhaps a child of eight would not, and perhaps should not have to, understand. During Feminism in London I attended a workshop about raising children in the age of porn, hoping to glean what we should be informing our children about - how do you address an issue like porn with them? What language do you use? What concepts would they understand? This is relevant here as how do we raise our children to be aware of identities such as transgender, transsexual, or even hermaphrodite?

My last comment is briefly on ethics. Another child featured in the programme (whose name completely escapes me, I am sorry) who was born a girl but living as a boy talked of having girlfriends. His mother acknowledged that yes, he did have girlfriends but at this point (still fairly young) they were not telling his girlfriends about him being born a girl. For me that posed moral issues - should you really be withholding such detail? Is this almost like deceit? Is it right only to disclose such information when those involved are odler and such relationships hint at becoming physical?

Comments, as always, are welcomed.

*If there is literature on this please let me know, I would be most interested!

Feminism in London 09

2009-10-13T12:26:00.000-07:00

Saturday 10th October saw Feminism in London 2009 take place at Conway Hall. Though I cannot speak for the range of panels and workshops on the day, I just wanted to discuss my own experience of the day and welcome discussion/further insights.

Opening speakers this year were Beatrice Campbell and Susie Orbach ('Fat is a Feminist Issue'). This was my first encounter of Beatrice Campbell but I thought she was absolutely marvelous. A real character and what she spoke about really hit home with me. Beatrice spoke of 'neo-patriarchy' and the suggestion that whilst in society we now have knowledge (even acknowledgement) of gender issues, we have seen no change (for instance the gender pay gap still exists though we have increased awareness of this issue). Another example was of the working mother; the fact we can now be included in full-time employment but this is coupled with childcare. Beatrice spoke of the narrative of the 'work-life balance' in society which assigns this problem to us rather than tackling the problem. Beatrice talked also about the link between masculinity and violence which is never tackled as society masks the link under the disguise of youth violence and so forth. I found her talk really interesting and refreshing. It was intriguing that on my way out after, however, I overheard two women commenting that they disliked its complexity and academic nature so it didn't appear to be to everyone's taste.

When Susie Orbach spoke I really felt wanting more. It was a shame that it seemed time ran out, it would have been good to have heard more from her. But again, the issue of violence emerged and she linked the interalisation of women's oppression though body insecurities. I definitly want to read her latest book now to find out more.

During the day I went to a slide show/talk, a workshop and one panel. The slide-show was on anti-porn and namely the pornification of culture and the 'grooming' of young children by such culture. A lot of concepts were covered like the idea of the pseudo-child in pornography, the sexualisation of father-daughter incest, the model of normalization, sexualisation of disney and compliant victimization. It pretty much confirmed feelings I had already regarding the sexualisation of culture and how it targets children but I think it really made clear my thoughts on pornography as a whole. The workshop I attended after followed a similar theme "Raising Children in the Age of Porn". I hoped to come away from this with an idea of maybe strategies for dealing with such an issue but I don't think I got as much from it that I would have liked. One idea positioned by a fellow attendee did really get me thinking though and that was the stress now, it seems, in society on childrens' physical safety (worrying about kidnapping, pregnancy, perhaps even obesity) whilst other areas they aren't as protected (exposure to tv, internet and such).

The panel was 'Motherhood and Poverty' which was good and covered quite a bit of ground. After this was the closing speakers: Mawete vo Teka Sala, Hannana Siddiqui and Finn Mackay. I must admit that by this time my eyes were getting quite droppy (I had had to get up at 4am that morning for my train to London afterall!) so though I enjoyed the first two speakers I did not make any notes nor do I have any further comements. Finn Mackay's closing speech truly perked me back up again with the sheer emotion and enthuasiasm involved, it was such a shame it had to be cut short. But it was an excellent note to close on, especially the comments on the recession and women's part in this state in response to which I ranted to my friend later that evening - "No, we didn't make the decisions that got us where we are! But look at what cost we're paying for someone else's choices!" Food for thought indeed.

Because sports ruin your hair...

2009-09-17T12:27:00.000-07:00

Taken from the piece over at The Guardian:

A council spokeswoman said: "West Dunbartonshire Council has installed nine sets of hair straighteners within the changing facilities at each of the council's three new flagship schools...The falling rate of female participation in sport was a key issue discussed by pupils and improvements to changing and showering facilities, including the installation of hair straighteners, was considered important in reversing this trend. The installation amounts to a total expenditure of less than £1,000 to encourage more girls to participate in PE and support positive self-image."

So to support positive self-image in girls we are providing them with hair and beauty facilities to encourage them to participate in PE...surely this is merely reinforcing the message that it's all about how we look? How about promoting positive self-image through demonstrating that physical appearance isn't the be all and end all?

Of course we're to blame!

2009-09-17T12:26:00.001-07:00

This week's issue of Grazia magazine features an article entitled "So, is it our fault we get paid less than men?" in response to a report detailing gender pay gaps in 'the City'. In the 'YES' corner is writer and broadcaster Lowri Turner who asks "What is it about us that we accept this sort of discrimination?" (my emphasis). Turner claims that:

...like the battered wife who goes back to her abusive husband, so City women meekly trot back for more. Many even excuse the system that discriminates against them.

And that:

City women should be thumping their fists on the boardroom tables. Instead, they buy into a system that treats them shabbily. For that, they have themselves to blame.

Personally I'm confused. Am I meant to salute Turner for not falling fault to such behavior and for trying to remove the blinkers from these poor women's eyes? Or am I meant to boo in her direction for merely shifting the blame?

And the winner is...

2009-08-27T16:18:00.000-07:00

As reported here boys this year overtook girls in maths GCSE. Why? Because of the eradication of the coursework and it being purely assessed now by exams; which, we are told, boys do better at. We are told "Coursework will be scrapped from nearly all GCSEs next year". I'm sorry but should we be rejoicing at this removal of coursework in future GCSEs because it means boys can statistically get ahead?

In The Guardian write-up, Mary Bousted (general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers) is quoted as saying:

The problem has been that in the 1960s and 1970s boys were getting 12-13% more O-level passes than girls and no one really talked about it. When girls started to do better there were Panorama programmes and inquiries and a national debate. There's a national panic if girls and women start to be successful. Girls have been more successful at GCSE and A-levels but that hasn't closed the gender pay gap. Even if they do better they don't get paid as much.

This is exactly the points I have stressed again and again in any writing on the gender gap in education - firstly this completely unjustified panic over girls 'doing better' than the boys and secondly the fact that despite what the qualification statistics show, better attainment at GCSE/A-Level does not equate with the better pay. Why can't female students be seen as 'doing better'? And why this stress on the "gender gap"? What about differences according to ethnicity or socio-economic background? Because I'm sure as hell that it's not every girl 'doing better' - what about those who aren't?

Teacher training courses emphasis the importance of differentiation and using a variety of techniques for learning and assessment in our lessons because no-one learns the same. We are told that coursework is becoming a problem because of plagiarism but then is that really a reason to remove what is potentially an effective assessment method for a large number of female students (if indeed we take the slightly deterministic argument that coursework benefits girls, exams boys)? Isn't reliance of assessment through exams not differentiating?

A side thought (not properly investigated or backed): I think it's telling that coursework is being removed at the educational stages where firstly girls are 'doing better' and secondly where girls and boys are present in proportional figures to the population when, for instance, no-one would dare suggest the removal of essays (or even dissertations!) at undergraduate level. It would be interesting to see whether such gendered patterns are present at this educational stage and the ratio of female to male undergraduates.

x-posted over at Subtext

The personal vs the political

2009-08-24T04:10:00.001-07:00

...feminism should be focused on real change and helping women. I've seen so much written this year about the dilemma of being a feminist who wants to get married that I don't think I can take it any more From We Mixed Our Drinks

Reading this blog post over at We Mixed Our Drinks really hit a nerve with me. Primarily because I have written about such a dilemma in recent times in Subtext magazine and online. Secondly, because it does seem that some feminist thought is moving away from the personal being political. Of course I agree that feminism should be focused on real change and on helping women but it's not always conceivable to be involved in such grand gestures which may promote this. Yes, as feminists we should be involved in addressing what some may be stressing are the more 'serious' issues to hand but I believe that such 'smaller' issues are also of importance.

The fact I have discussed the implications of being a feminist wanting to get married was because of it traditionally being at odds with equality. I think entering discourse as to why and how we can label a marriage as feminist is an example of tackling a small piece of the bigger picture. Deciding to be part of an equal marriage, or keeping 'Ms' rather than 'Mrs' may not be deemed radical or indeed important steps in the big scheme of things, but I believe that it's not always about these grand gestures. What would be the point of my attending rallies, signing petitions or squashing gender stereotypes in my lessons, for instance, if I then didn't examine the things closer to heart and address the potentially gendered mechanisms at work there? I do perhaps agree with those that groan at feminists who are arguing the point that wearing make-up because it isn't deemed feminist. I applaud those like Jessica Valenti who delves deeper in saying that 'yes I wear make-up' but acknowledges the connotations and issues around doing so (see Full Frontal Feminism) because there is the element of critical engagement in her thought.

My basic point here is that I don't see why the stress needs to be consistently on such visible, bigger feminist actions. Why can't we do both? I write about being a feminist and getting married but at the same time I am completing research on gender in mentoring relationships. I believe that the personal can still be political. If there are those who say it cannot then I will merely continue to address both.

100 years of Girl Guides

2009-08-24T04:06:00.000-07:00

This year is the centenary of the Girl Guides. I was a Brownie but never made it as far as the Girl Guides (the association seemed at odds with my increasing desire to become a rock star). I did love being a Brownie though and I think part of this was because it challenged preconceptions of what it meant to be a 'little girl'. At times yes, we indulged in activities and chores deemed female but there was a balance as we also were encouraged to take part in things that perhaps in our homes, or at school, would be seen as boyish (such as orienteering, camping, climbing trees). Brownies went well with my Enid Blyton world I guess, my nostalgic side sighs at the moves to modernise the association.

Where you a Brownie or Girl Guide? What are your thoughts?

Laura

For more on the Girls Guides Centenary see here.

Recent newspaper coverage at:
The Daily Express
The Guardian
The Independent
The Telegraph

Less Airbrushing, more reality

2009-08-05T10:58:00.000-07:00

A short one...

Jo Swinson and the Liberal Democrat's proposals for improving the media's portrayl of women at Comment is Free.

x-posted over at Subext blog

Lessons on Forming Nonviolent Relationships Really As Easy As ABC?

2009-08-05T07:29:00.000-07:00

Today’s The Daily Mail reported on Harriet Harman’s initiative to tackle domestic violence through compulsory lessons on forming healthy relationships for children five and upwards. Before I explain my views on Harman’s proposals, I just want to comment briefly on the presentation of this news by The Daily Mail. The author of this piece seems to me intent on criticizing, and rallying criticism for, the initiative from the word go – the headline line alone begins Lessons about wife-beating at five which to me would suggest the article is going to be about something advocating wife-beating to children, immediately conjuring your distaste, instead of action to combat domestic violence. Secondly, again featured in the headline before even getting to the report, is the use of the expression yet another feminist initiative. ‘Yet another’ suggests disdain at the proposals from Harman and indeed any action in initiated by feminist beliefs. To actually label an initiative as ‘feminist’ suggests to me that people straight away are going to look disapprovingly on the idea because of the negative connotations of feminist/feminism. And the majority of the comments on the web-site with regards to this piece follow suit. So congratulations TDM firstly on the sensitive presentation of such a piece…

Onto Harman’s initiative and the body of the article itself…I can immediately see benefits and problems to this. When TDM reports that

Pupils as young as five will be taught about the evils of 'wife beating' and the need to form healthy relationships. The lessons are part of a controversial drive, unveiled today, to reduce violence against women and young girls. They will include teaching boys that they must not beat their partners or any other female.

I think hey! This doesn’t sound so bad! What is there not to like about a) teaching children about forming healthy relationships and b) reducing violence against women and young girls. Slightly off-putting the way it is deemed a controversial drive (because the notion of combating violence against women/young girls is way out there with, I don’t know, outlawing McDonald’s…) but so far looking good.

Last night, critics warned that ministers are cramming the already over-stuffed National Curriculum with lessons that should be taught in the home or in the community.

This has been an ongoing battle with PSHE. A colleague of mine, when speaking of the subject, would call it “PSHE…or things your parents should be teaching you”. In all honesty, yes it is things you should be taught at home/in the community as an important part of your growing-up but the argument is that this isn’t always being done. PSHE evolved from the early notions that education should be producing ‘good’ citizens socialized into the shared norms and values of our society (so New Right) and so of course when it was deemed that the family was not doing their part (government would cite rising statistics of single mothers/offenders as their proof for this) then the education system should pick up where the parents left off (or even out). I acknowledge that, yes, PSHE is largely what you should be taught at home/in the community (and which a number of us still are taught there) but that until we can ensure this is being done, the education system does appear the only means of attempting to ensure such teaching.

Putting it into practice further, the idea becomes less appealing:

The lessons will be part of the National Curriculum and are likely to be taught in Personal, Social and Health Education classes, which are attended by children from the age of five. Teachers will also be given new guidance on tackling 'gender bullying'.

Now I am not particularly convinced that firstly this would work in practice and secondly that it would have the desired effect. My first concern comes from my experience of teaching PSHE in Key Stage 3 (ages 11-14 approximately) which has demonstrated that the learners, on the whole, dislike the subject. It is not deemed academic; it is not an option which they pick for GCSE; it is not formally assessed as such – all these things contribute to learners not seeing any potential value to the subject (again, on the whole, as there are always a handful who put in the effort/work regardless). So my concern is that this may work in practice for a small minority, but not for the larger majority. Factor into this the impact the introduction of such lessons/curriculum has on teachers, and the education establishment as a whole. An added concern here is how such a sensitive issue would be approached. A year or so ago OCR removed the topic of Child Abuse from their AS-level Sociology course because of the implications of teaching such a sensitive topic and possible impact on learners. Wouldn't this warrant similar concerns?

The most eye-catching proposal in the document is the one to force schools to introduce statutory lessons in 'educating children and young people about healthy, nonviolent relationships'.

I love the idea of children and young people learning about healthy, nonviolent relationships but here we come to how I don’t think such lessons would have the desired effect. Making children and young people aware of violence against women may have positive aspects but as these lessons will not cover violence against men then I believe such lessons will run the risk of further instilling gender differences in young girls and boys. By acknowledging only violence against women and valuing this above violence against men, I believe we would only be purporting that violence against women is justified. If as young children we are brought into a discourse of violence against women I think this could potentially be internalized and acknowledged as we grow older that such violence happens against women, and not men, because of something fundamentally different in them. And though I am not saying this will mean the next generation committing violence against women as a result, I think this will result in further justification of women’s inferior position and treatment.

They pointed out the new classes will not cover violence against men, who are far more likely to be the victims of violent crime. This is despite evidence showing that boys and young men are more than twice as likely to fall victim to violence, and that young women are becoming increasingly aggressive.

I do agree with the criticism of the initiative not covering violence against men. Not because they are far more likely to be the victims of violent crime but firstly because of the argument I have expressed above and secondly because I think the commonly held assumption of, say, domestic violence as violence against women by men needs to be addressed. This is not going to be addressed by navigating away from discussion of violence against men in lessons focusing on healthy, nonviolent relationships. This then suggests that such violence is not important. Not only is domestic violence underreported by women, it is underreported by men who have been victims. Surely keeping the discussion of violence against men behind closed doors is not helping to correct such misrepresentation?

End Note: I am aware that I have focused my line of thought predominantly on domestic violence and it is slightly presumptuous (and hypocritical) of myself to have done so when talking about an initiative combating ‘violence against women’ (which was not expressed as merely domestic violence) and criticizing others for their assumptions on the same issue.

x-posted to Subtext

More Levenson

2009-07-31T11:22:00.000-07:00

Further response to Ellie Levenson's book (Noughtie Girl's Guide to Feminism) on the Subtext Blog

And Levenson herself on Comment Is Free

Tidbits

2009-07-24T09:00:00.000-07:00

Pamflet Magazine give some love to issue 7 of Subtext Magazine over at their online blog. Always appreciated.

Also, further comments on the Levenson Noughties book at The Guardian which really picks up on this idea of 'infighting' being counterproductive for feminists. Very well wrote and one of the better comments on the book I've seen.

Feminst Book Group (Lincoln)

2009-07-18T08:58:00.001-07:00

We're starting a feminist book group in Lincoln so come join us! Monthly meetings, one book per month to read and discuss (chosen by members). Venue and first meeting date TBC once we rally some more interest. It would be wonderful to get this going - we need some communication between feminists in Lincoln!

Join the facebook group or email lauraannway@googlemail.com to express interest.

Lars von Trier's Antichrist

2009-07-16T13:03:00.001-07:00

I stumbled across this piece on The Guardian site earlier today whilst my year 8s were watching St.Trinians of all things and I was taking a breather. It concerns Lars von Trier's Antichrist which premiered at this year's Cannes and has generated quite some talk, particularly concerning the act of female genital mutilation involved in the film. Scroll down for a range of comments, including opinion from Julie Bindel. As woman who does not support genital mutilation in any form or context, and as an advocate for women's rights, I'm not sure how I feel about this film. My only feeling is that I could only truly pass judgement on it once I've watched it, but do I really want to watch it? We shall have to see.

The Noughtie Girl's Guide to Feminism

2009-07-07T14:04:00.000-07:00

I was eagerly anticipating the release of this book, so much so that I pre-ordered my copy off Amazon (though is it just me or is it a bit strange that under 'Customers who bought this item also bought...' there is only the Godfather trilogy listed? Anyway...) The book arrived in all its 'chick-lit style' glory (chosen to do so by Levenson) and the first thing I noticed was the straightforward nature of its layout with chapters divided up into: the sisterhood, language, sex, work, play, the body beautiful, how not to be a domestic goddess, love and marriage, children and forward feminism. And, alongside the witty comments that I welcomed also in Full Frontal Feminism by Jessica Valenti, this was the book's finest moment. Because past the giggles and the accessible layout I felt that Levenson really did live up to how she characterises a noughtie feminist: full of contradictions.

The book ends on the the chapter entitled 'Forward Feminism' which looks at what steps could be taken to further improve women's position in society. Suggestions include 'Women's History Month' or a 'feminist curriculum' in which it is ensured that history classes talk about women's role in history - Levenson stresses this as important yet at the beginning of the book these were things stated that she herself would not be covering in her writing. Surely if this is a guide then this is excluding readers who perhaps do not have any prior knowledge of the women's movement, and is indeed suggesting that this is in the past and not of such an importance? Aha! The first contradiction...

The chapter on Sex was a particularly difficult one for me to get my head around. Firstly Levenson focuses here, as she does in other capacities, on heterosexual relationships which I felt completely ignores the diversity of feminism today and misses a very important point. Whether or not you yourself are heterosexual or homosexual, it does not, in my eyes, mean you cannot discuss alternative sexualities or the importance of sexuality freedom. Secondly I want to raise what I felt was the distasteful handling of rape in her book. Levenson claims:

But is it (rape) as bad as being violently attacked by a stranger down a dark alley and not knowing whether you will live or die? No - page 65

Well, in some cases that is what exactly what rape involves and even when it does not, one's experience of being raped is completely subjective in that feelings regarding the experience can differ from one victim to another. To some rape indeed is as bad as the example above, if not worse, because of the felt violation of your own body. Something perhaps being attacked physically does not even compare to.

An additional comment on the layout then. Whilst the book itself, as I mentioned previously, is really accessible with clear themed chapters, these chapters are further subdivided. These snippets often felt under-developed and inconclusive as arguments in their own right, or indeed as contributions to a bigger ongoing debate. I was often left wanting more. Ellie Levenson talks about choice and contradictions characterising Noughtie Girl Feminism and she's certainly got the contradiction criteria fulfilled. And whilst I am all for this notion of choice it at times feels stretched too thin. Yes, we as women do have choices (and so we should) but we do need some common thread running through the feminist movement for it indeed to be a feminist movement. Being known as those without a coherent message or those full of contradictions, is not going to help our cause.

Amazon Item Description

x-posted to Subtext

Cervical Cancer Screening

2009-06-25T09:55:00.000-07:00

The government yesterday announced its decision not to lower the screening age for cervical cancer to 20 in England (which it is elsewhere) as it would do "more harm than good". Yes, you did read that right. More harm to who exactly? More harm for the women involved or more harm to the government's pockets?

Excerpts from the forthcoming 'Noughtie Girl's Guide to Feminism'

2009-06-21T03:13:00.000-07:00

The You Magazine today (supplement in the Sunday Mail) has snippets from the forthcoming The Noughtie Girl's Guide to Feminism by Ellie Levenson. The book itself is released 1st July but you can pre-order it from Amazon. Personally I wasn't sure what to expect but judging from the excerpts I saw today I have a horrible feeling I'm not going to be that impressed. Awful of me to say I know!

Song lyrics I'm currently hating...

2009-06-19T09:25:00.000-07:00

...and keep on having to hear on the radio

and the best is no one knows who you are
just another girl alone at the bar

don't trust a hoe never trust a hoe wont trust a hoe wont trust me

shush girl shut your lips do the Helen Keller and talk with your hips
i said shush girl shut your lips do the Helen Keller and talk with your hips

From 'Don't Trust Me' by 303

I know how I read into this and it's not good! What about you?

x-posted to Subtext

Edwina Currie on the pay gap...

2009-06-13T08:51:00.000-07:00

As evil as the lure of procrasination might be, it did mean I stumbled across a gem of an interview with Edwina Currie on The One Show concerning the continuing pay gap between women and men. Such discrepencies don't seem to cause any alarm in Currie; her responses implying that this is the way it is and even, this is the way it should be. The justification behind this? The matter of choice. Edwina Currie talks about the choices women make during their careers, choices involving children (think taking a 'break' in employment when you decide to start a family*). Of course, we women make such choices so it is only right that women's pay reflects such...la di da da. The point at which Currie starts throwing around this buzzword of choice I am reminded of Catherine Hakim and her Preference Theory (basically the notion that patterns in women's employment reflect the lifestyle preferences of women rather than patriarchal structures in society). Do we see the problem here? We can talk about 'choice' and 'preference' and doll this situation up as women being active decision makers of their life, their roles, their careers because that's the easiest option isn't? It's just merely an attempt to mask the fact that despite equal pay legislation and work by the women's movement, our society, to put it simply, still sucks on this. Why pretend that this is what women want because clearly it really isn't. And of course Edwina will talk about 'choice' because it can, to an extent, be a matter of choice for women like her because of their background affording them more opportunities than perhaps the rest of us.

And all of this from day-time tv.

Laura

*Feeling the sarcasm?...

Disclaimer: I don't particularly like The One Show and I feel the fact I found myself watching this episode on demand this morning was purely a reflection of my avoiding work...

(x-posted over at Subtext)

Lady GaGa..Postmodern Feminist?

2009-06-11T07:55:00.000-07:00

So yes, firstly I do find it strange that a new 'out-there' female singer enters the fold and we're clambering over their stance, if any, on feminism - but hey, I'm guilty as the rest of us. Lady GaGa...the epitome of post-modern feminism? Some articles suggest that LGG isn't a feminist (and in one she is quoted as saying this) yet she states her music is about "sexually empowering women" and:

I think it's great to be a sexy, beautiful woman who can f--- her man after she makes him dinner...There's a stigma around feminism that's a little bit man-hating. And I don't promote hatred, ever. That's not to say that I don't appreciate women who feel that way.

and

Young women equate feminism with man hating and not embracing any tradition as a woman, and I think it’s okay to embrace tradition. Look after your man and take care of your father; be good to your mom and dad; cook sometimes at home.

Perhaps LGG herself suffers from the "I'm not a feminist but..." syndrome or, on the other hand, this is all part of a post-modern identity creation - defying definitions of concepts such as 'feminist, feminism' or even 'woman' which the gender-bending aspects of some songs might suggest. Perhaps this is just all part of the performance.

Some bloggers' thoughts below:

Another Resolution: Lady GaGa is not a feminist
Rosemary Mac Cabe: this video makes me want to...
Feminist Music Geek: Lady Gaga - not buying it
We Are the Wave: Lady Gaga

x-posted at Subtext Magazine

Fay Weldon - The F Word

2009-06-03T05:45:00.000-07:00

The July issue of Easy Living Magazine features The F Word: an introduction by Fay Weldon. Whilst Weldon acknowledges a New Feminism which isn't anti-man or anti-sex; the fact our feminist actions need not focus merely on our experiences as Western women and the persisting negative connotation of the term 'feminism', there is one thing which troubled me very early in the piece:

"But then feminists committed the worst sin of all - they became boring. They will go on being seen as boring, I fear, until they acknowledge what everyone accepts except them - that men and women are different, physiologically and psychologically, and that sex is important. It's a Freud thing".

Coming from a sociology, rather than psychology, background I just can't get my head around this assertion. I also cannot envision that this is the key issue 'holding back feminism' or that it is what has made us "boring" (though I can't even imagine us being accused of being boring!). Why is sex important? What if sex itself is a construction? (and there are those who would argue just that!) How can we completely disregard the differences society creates of us in favor of such apparent innate ones*?

Aside from this niggling bit for me, the article was an enjoyable read; particularly Fay Weldon's brief charting of the feminist movement with tidbits from her own life. Has anyone else had the chance to see this? Or does anyone else have any thoughts on this?

*strangely enough I picked up a book from Waterstones today about gender and schooling/careers which actually speaks from a psychological, rather than sociological, perspective. Expect thoughts also on that to follow!

(x-posted at Subtext)

News Fix

2009-05-27T01:06:00.000-07:00

A selection from The Guardian over the last week:

Boys outperform girls at science in UK, gender stereotyping to blame?

Interview with a Shanghai professor of women and gender studies

Orbituary

Patricia Crawford, Australian feminist historian.

Betty Scharf, Academic (LSE, Fawcett Society).

first WI at a university

2009-03-18T12:20:00.001-07:00

new article

radio4 woman's hour feature

quite interesting. i find this whole 'making new of something old', adapting things, necessary in a way in today's society. and if any university i went to had set up a wi* i would have certainly joined.

*or i could have been pro-active and set up one myself(!), always the follower...

(link to news article as slacking right now with blogging...)

2009-02-23T13:31:00.000-08:00

News piece: Meet the women bringing feminism to a new generation

Thoughts?

Charlotte Roche - Wetlands

2009-01-17T02:37:00.001-08:00

I've already posted about recent articles re: this book over at Subtext Magazine blog but I just wanted to speak a little here about the dichotomy which always seems to be presented in cases like this.

Articles on this book are always presenting the debate - is it feminist literature or is it merely pornography? This debate is grounded in the argument that therefore feminism and pornography cannot mix; it's one or the other. I'm not going to venture at the moment into my thoughts on pornography (other posts on the blog may very well do/have done) but it's not such a clear-cut line. We cannot say that every feminist is anti-porn because it's just not the case and I think it's real shoddy writing when the author of the article is seeming to engage in feminist debate, yet has obviously not considered that this dichotomy is merely a stereotypical ideal and does not exist.

Anyway, Wetlands is released in the UK on 5th Feb. Ever one to form my own informed judgements, I have pre-ordered a copy from Amazon.

The plug's pulled on Bratz dolls

2008-12-07T07:08:00.000-08:00

Judge pulls Bratz from the toy shelves

O.K. so not the reasons for why I would like these dolls removed, but it's a means to an end I guess?!

Channel 4 Super Botox Me

2008-08-25T02:49:00.001-07:00

Last night I watched Super Botox Me, a Channel 4 documentary-type on botox. It followed journalist Kate Spicer on a botox quest; asking questions regarding vanity and the increasing cosmetic world we live in. I found it really interesting and disturbing at the same time. By the end Spicer, who from the start seemed quite aligned to feminist ideology, decided she would carry on with botox in the future because of the way it had made her feel. Changing the way she looked, albeit it not drastically, had really impacted the way she felt about herself. Fair enough I think and yes, I agree that often how you look on the outside does impact your feelings on the inside. But what I disagree with is the fact we are made to feel just that. I think it's fucking hard being a woman in contemporary society (no surprise there) and even harder to be a feminist woman in contemporary society. I am told how I should look, how I should dress, what is acceptable, what is deemed beautiful, and I know I shouldn't listen to all that but it's hard. When you've had such ideals drilled into you during your childhood, during your teenage years and during your early adulthood, it is really bloody hard to tune it out; to say you're not going to buy into it. I do worry about how I look, I do care about what people might think, I do buy nice clothes to make me feel good and I don't see this as a major problem for now because I recognise why I feel I need to do these things. I realise the hold society has on women with regards to appearance. And so, for the time being, I'm kind of happy to do as I do but to know inside why I do what I do. And I don't know if I had a point here or whether this was just a flow of consciousness but yeah, there you go. Thoughts?

Belle De Jour

2008-08-11T02:25:00.000-07:00

So recently I ended up reading Belle De Jour's The Intimate Adventures of a London Call Girl because a) I don't believe in commenting on a book/film/article until I've read/watched it and b) I had read all of the books I had with me and it was the lesser of many evils on my sister's/mum's bookshelves. Anyway, I can see what all the fuss was about when the TV adaptation came out. The book does completely glamourize prostitution. No acknowledgment of the dark side of the job is made or potential dangers (Belle De Jour is even happy to comment on how she never feels unsafe walking at night) - everything is fine, fine, fine.

Even more worrying is that there's apparently a second book been released now? I doubt that would fare any better.

Dr Jessica Rongrose - Feminism in Schools

2008-08-09T13:20:00.000-07:00

Girls should be taught feminism at school to stop them being disrespectful to each other, according to a leading academic.

I completely agree with this. We SHOULD be teaching feminism at school - not just to girls, but to boys and even to the teachers themselves. Feminism is relevant to everyone, no matter who they are, and we should stop seeing it as a 'bad word' which we can acknowledge, but which cannot actually promote. I would love to see this taken further in the future. I know how accessible teaching feminism is within my course (Sociology) but this subject is mainly taught at post-compulsory (i.e. sixth form and college level) and the subject itself is male-dominated (in terms of research, sociologists and so forth). But we could incorporate feminism into a wide variety of subjects, something which I am sure some teachers already do out of their commitment to the cause and not because of it being required.

Subtext Magazine - Issue 6

2008-08-06T03:58:00.000-07:00

Issue6 of subtext magazine is out now. Featuring the following:

Talking With Teens
Josephine Middleton talks to Bee, her 12 year old daughter, about feminism

The Middle Ground of Abortion
Sally Cosgrove negotiates the grey areas

Minding the Gap: The Chore War
Eden Carter Wood ives us some tips on how to tackle the chore war

Good Clean Fun
Jessica Ramthum has some advice on staying safe while having fun

No Big Deal, So Give Us All A Feel
Alfie Hughes discusses casual sex

Jo King; Queen of Burlesque
Season Butler talks to strip tease superstar Jo King

Candy Girl: Diablo Cody
Collette Teasdale on Cody's memoir and self-creatd persona

Branding the Bunny
Red Chidgey on reports on the Bin the Bunny campaign

Maternal Morbidity
Charlotte Cooper talks maternal mortailty worldwide

HerStory: suffragettes and third wavers
Michelle Wright encourages us to find some of that historical determination

Your Place or Mine
Orlanda Ward on public spaces

Crisis in Rape Crisis
Darlene Corey on the funding crisis faced by Rape Crisis centres

Cunt: The Last Taboo
Sarah Westlake tackles the last taboo

'But what if I don't want to do Business Studies?'
Laura Way on why Women's Studies is still a worthwhile and relevant degree

Brilliant Women
Virginia Newman reviews the Billiant Women exhibition

Feminist Flicks
Kate Townshend provides some recommended viewing

A WI Lady's Guide to Brothels

2008-08-04T04:18:00.000-07:00

Last night I watched A WI Lady's Guide to Brothels on Channel 4. The programme, I think, emphasised for me that despite disagreeing with prostitution, lap-dancing, strip clubs and so forth, I do agree that if such things are going to take place that legislation should be in place to protect those involved. I was speaking to my partner during the programme and he doesn't seem to have such a strong opinion as I do. I did try to put across to him though the fact that such things as lap-dancing clubs further emphasis the opressed position of women in society. It's saying it's ok for men to pay to ogle at women. It's ok to understand women as purely sexual objects which are a commodity. It's the same mentality of magazines such as Zoo and Nuts. Some people might argue that that's not the case, that it's just some fun and the women do it for themselves; it's not a reflection of women's position in society, nor is it derogatory. If that was the case then why is it that women are in the sexualised position and not men? Do we have women's magazines on the smale scale as lad's mags (well, ok, More sometimes verges on this but still not as bad...)? And why is it then where I live that there are strip bars/lap-dancing clubs featuring women but men are absent from this objectification?

you've got to love it when parents protest

2008-07-20T03:31:00.000-07:00

Breastfeeding mothers stage protest over ban at McDonald's

Abortion Rights

2008-05-22T05:48:00.000-07:00

proposal to reduce the abortion upper limit of 24 weeks is rejected

interesting blogs on this over at the f-word

Heather Mills' Settlement

2008-03-18T12:22:00.001-07:00

Taken from the BBC website:

Ms Mills made reference to the £35,000 a year their daughter would receive.

"Beatrice only gets £35,000 a year - so obviously she's meant to travel B class while her father travels A class, but obviously I will pay for that."

Let's just go over Heather Mills' choice of words here...Beatrice only gets £35,000 a year does she? Does she think perhaps her attitude towards the settlement might be deemed insulting by the countless of single mothers in the UK who are working their fucking asses off to make sure their children are clothed, bathed and feed?!

I'm sorry Heather Mills but you are just a money grabbing, heartless cow. Don't use your child as justification for your own greed.

Playboy's Mirror Advertising

2008-02-28T08:38:00.000-08:00

There was a post on Feministing about this - I found it so terrible I had to post it here.

What gives them the right?!

Rustlers' "Date" Advert

2008-02-17T13:26:00.000-08:00

In the continuing spirit of ranting over advertisements, Rustlers has now caught my attention. The advert is for a microwave burger and begins with a date ending at a house, the man goes into the next room to make a drink and the room the woman has remained in becomes a microwave, allowing the man to speed time from the woman sat on the sofa to the woman sprawled out in her underwear. The end idea is along the lines of "if only everything was as quick as Rustlers". Whilst searching for the video on Google I came across a piece in a local newspaper regarding views of the advert in question. The article quotes the senior brand manager at Rustlers as saying that:

"We believe that the advert is tongue in cheek and empowers women, as it is the woman in the ad who has decided to take her clothes off, not the man...The whole theme is that you can get a tasty Rustlers snack in just 70 seconds, there's no waiting round so you are fast forwarding to the best parts of life"

Just how are women empowered through this advert?! The argument that the advert empowers women because it is the woman 'deciding' to take her clothes off is completely defunct since prior to the microwave experience, when asked by the man if she'd like to remove her coat she declines. So instead he uses the microwave technique to get to the stage which perhaps she was not willing to do. And fast forwarding to the best bits of life? How about the courting of a woman, getting to know her, building up trust? Apparently none of that is important - it's just about getting the sexual pleasure by the looks of fines. And Rustlers wonder what's happened to our sense of humor?

Chocolate manufacturers gone mad...

2008-02-11T09:41:00.000-08:00

Seems Aero is the latest chocolate manufacturer to jump on stereotypical thoughts of women. Hunky man? Check. Chocolate? Check. Because we're so hormonal that the sight of a bare chested male does funny things to our brains and short-term memory.

Lad Mags Age Restrictions

2008-02-07T08:17:00.000-08:00

Whilst in Co-Op today I saw that some lad mags have now been given an age restriction with the buyer having to be over 15. I'm not sure whether this is an national move or just a move by Co-Op, but it's definitely a move in the right direction in my eyes. What concerns me, however, is the age they have chosen - why 15 or over? I'm not too up on laws in this area but isn't the age to watch hardcore porn/purchase porn from licensed sex shops 18 or over? I not implying that what features in some of these lad mags is close to hardcore porn, but they still feature the exploitation of women's bodies which is inherent within porn. As individual cases go, some people are maturer than others and so forth, but perhaps 15 should be raised to 18* - especially since to buy alcohol we have to be 18 and we now have to be to buy tobacco. At 15 we shouldn't be presenting the kind of values featured in lad mags to boys who are in the process of growing up and forming their own ideas about life.

*in an ideal world we wouldn't have lad mags but here I'm just stating that since they do exist, whilst they are circulation this is one way I see of combating certain problems with them.

SUBTEXT ISSUE 5

2008-02-07T04:30:00.000-08:00

it's that time of the year again, a new issue of subtext

treat yourself, treat your mum, treat your friends
(or leave copies round your school/college/uni/workplace)

Lynx Chocolate Man Advert

2008-01-31T07:07:00.000-08:00

So I've now had the luck to witness the latest Lynx Advert featuring the chocolate man (it can be seen here for those who haven't seen it). Well done Lynx! Your advertising team must be full of some very intelligent people. Who would of thought? Women and chocolate?! Never! Because the people behind the Lynx advert* obviously sense some inbuilt attraction to chocolate in women. Tad essentialist don't you think? Or even just general? There is nothing to say that all women find chocolate "irresistible", just as there's nothing which states men can't also share such an attraction. In fact, shouldn't of Lynx considered those male fans of chocolate out there? Perhaps in the interests of being completely non-discriminatory we should have also seen men throwing themselves at the chocolate man. No, because that wouldn't fit in with the stereotypes that

a) all women love chocolate
b) women are the weaker sex (throwing themselves at the chocolate man; disregarding the gym because at the sight of chocolate)

Top marks Lynx.

*Speaking of the people behind the Lynx advert, I'd like to know whether they are all men and if not, what the women's reactions to this idea was.

Gagging for a drink?

2008-01-24T14:39:00.000-08:00

Reading the latest post over at brand new feminist blog on such things as this poster from the Home Office. What is it with this relationship between being raped and being under the influence of alcohol? And why is it this relationship which the government/media jump on? It's obvious to me that it's yet another way of pointing the finger, moving the blame away from the real issue at hand. Let's bring attention to statistics regarding victims of rape (implying in the poster that these are predominantly female) who had been drinking but not address the issue of how these rapes were allowed to happen. Similar to - let's bring attention to the woman who was raped but was wearing a short skirt and was therefore 'asking for it'.

Why is it that as women we are expected to adapt or monitor our behaviour and actions for fear of becoming the victims of rape? We're scared into thinking that we're more likely to become a victim of rape for having that next drink, for wearing that particular outfit, for walking home in the dark...

How about directing the real issue here? That we live in a society in which individuals think that rape is acceptable and who would carry out such an activity. How about targeting them for a change?

Britney (Breakdown) Bashing

2008-01-05T13:42:00.000-08:00

Subject title says it all really. Now I don't like Britney Spears as a (ahem) musician and I was not particularly keen on the messages she was sending out to young fans BUT can't everyone take a step back from the Britney bashing? Please find below my points of reference which has resulted in a rather fed-up moi.

1. Britney has been bashed for certain lifestyle practices which have strayed from the perfect princess of pop picture (think smoking, partying, pictures of Brit with a burger and chips...) yet we're completely forgetting that she's a young woman in her early twenties who is not only capable of making her own choices, but is free to let her hair down. The minute a young starlet (Lohan I'm looking at you here too) is seen clubbing or hitting the town BAM! the media's all over it like a fucking rash - double standards somewhat? I'm sure there's not this much commotion with male stars.

2. Britney was slammed in the press for being a "bad" mother, mainly due to driving with one son on her lap and the infamous (near) baby dropping incident. I just saw a You've Been Framed this evening in which a bride dropped her baby down some stairs. Did the YBF screen the video and think 'Jesus Christ we have a bad mother on our hands...', course not! We merely got a joke about mistaking your baby for the bouquet.

3. In the same breath in which we comment on Amy Wino's skeletal drug-induced frame, put Nicole Ritchie on magazine front covers with headlines like "TOO SKINNY!" and applaud Beth Ditto for breaking the mould, we leap on Britney's comeback performance and her (apparent) tummy. Whilst the stomach may not have resembled the toned (result of workout after workout) tummy of Hit Me Baby Spears, it was your average, healthy looking belly (and using the word belly even seems wrong). So let's call it fat shall we? Really scrapping the barrel here for justified bitching people...

4. Lastly (and probably the most serious) Britney obviously has some issues (post-natal depression perhaps) which no-one seems that bothered to deal with as they're too happy reeling in the soap drama which her life has become. I might not be too proud of the fact I'm discussing Ms.Spears on my feminism blog* but I'm happy in the knowledge I'm voicing what I feel is the unjust treatment of a woman.

* also slightly perturbed by the amount of 'starlets' I've referenced

The Hysterical Woman

2007-11-28T04:32:00.000-08:00

Since the Doctor informed me that I'm showing symptoms of anxiety, I've been thinking a lot about how I feel being a woman with what I have been told is something 'psychological' rather than 'physical'.

My first problem is attitudes towards conditions such as anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress and so forth. Particularly when the sufferer is a woman. I've been told to take some time off work (as a student teacher) and my initial worry was how 'anxiety' would be viewed my by placement college. Would I be taken seriously? Or would I just be viewed as a woman who's taken on too much and got themselves emotionally worked up? Because this was my fear. That anything related to being stressed, emotional, run-down, tired and so forth, is also associated with being female. That all these feelings are consequences of being female. Just how, if I'm feeling a bit irritable or weepy I am immediately told I must be having my period. This is the idea that I call the hysterical woman. That woman are merely viewed by society as more prone to that which appeals to the emotions.

So this lead onto my second thought - the general history/treatment of women with conditions such as depression and so forth. I think of Girl, Interrupted and The Bell Jar - about times when women were admitted to mental hospitals and underwent shock treatment for symptoms which are now more accepted.

I really went to look further into this and I think I will research this for my next article. I really would welcome your thoughts and feelings on this (anonymously if you prefer).m

Spice Girls video

2007-11-16T05:46:00.000-08:00

Because curiosity always gets the better of me, I just watched the Spice Girls new video. I think I'm missing something...at what point in the video do they take their clothes off? One minute you've got Ginger with her head in Vicky B's lap having her hair stroked and the next BAM they're in their bras. Is there an adult version of this video? A sort of Spice Girls go crazy in lesbos? Seriously though (feminist cap on), why was it integral (it's clearly not!) to the video that they tops came off and the bras came out? And I also find it interesting that Baby Spice doesn't strip down. Was this out of choice or the fact that she was pre-pregnancy and there would be uproar if she let the bump loose, or was she post-pregnancy and therefore had not regained the washboard stomachs of the other mothers? Who knows but I find it kind of disturbing, especially when I think it's affiliated with Children In Need. Yeah, that's just what the children need..."Mummy, mummy...why are the Spice Girls in their underwear?"

2007-09-19T02:36:00.001-07:00

blogger has been on an extended leave, blogging will commence shortly :)

Raunch Culture

2006-06-28T01:59:00.000-07:00

There's been lots in the papers over the past few weeks regarding Ariel Levy's book Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture in for instance, The Guardian and The Daily Mail. So is raunch culture liberating women or actually destroying them? I'm favouring the latter position. In the Mail article the writer notes the grooming of young children, dressing them in clothes which imply a level of maturity which they don't possess. I think it's particuarly worrying when you look at some of the clothes now on sale in children's shops, clothes which are little imitations of what their 'yummy-mummys' are wearing. I remember the uproar in the papers about a year ago about thongs which were aimed at young girls. I think that kind of thing is disgusting. I don't believe in little girls wearing short skirts and high heels. Dress-up in the your home, fair enough, but to walk through the street in?!

Back to the notion that raunch culture is in fact destroying women, I think Levy is correct in implying so. I hate the current over abundance of women with huge fake tits, blonde extensions, all-year tan and such. I was thinking about the different waves of feminism the other day and I was thinking about the argument that the UK hasn't seen a third wave yet and I thought wouldn't it be lovely to have a third wave which centered around academia and such, but getting slightly off topic (perhaps I'll come back to that idea another post), I do think it's terrible the way these women feel a need to look a certain way and to be construed as sex objects for men. I really do think a women with brains is far sexier and I would love there to be a counter-revolution against this raunch culture where we reclaim the position as intelligent women and give younger generations worthy role-models. I'm getting slightly vague and confusing again I think. Should learn to argue coherently.

Tory Tax Breaks

2006-06-22T08:53:00.000-07:00

In the Daily Mail yesterday there was a piece on pg2 regarding David Cameron's pledge to reintroduce tax breaks for married couples and on reading through the piece there were a two things on my mind...

David Cameron last night pledged to reintroduce tax breaks for married couples as he gave his backing to mothers who choose to stay at home to look after their children.

At first I liked the sounds of a tax break but when it spoke about Cameron's backing of stay at home mums it really just sounded like a reinforcement of the male breadwinner ideology with the mother at home looking after the children and the housework and the father out earning a living.

Aides said the move, which will be examined by one of Mr Cameron's policy groups, would also apply to gay couples with young children who have entered into civil partnerships, but not to unmarried couples.

I thought it was excellent that gay couples were also being recognised by this policy but yet what actually constitutes here as 'gay'? What about those couples whose sexualitys don't fall into this neat little box? And, why the hell are unmarried couples exempt? I think it's terrible sometimes how unmarried couples are treated. Why, for example, should a cohabiting unmarried couple with two children who had been together for, say, fifteen years not be entitled to the same rights as a married couple? I myself am very wary of the institute that is marriage and deep down I don't really believe in getting married because it is predominantly a christian concept and I largely oppose christianity as a religion.

Banning of Purity Rings at Girls' School

2006-06-19T02:34:00.000-07:00

Reading this earlier was slightly worrying. Fair enough there is the whole issue that the school could be seen as discriminating against those of a Christian faith, but that aside I think there's the bigger picture to think about. The number of teenage pregnancies in the UK is quite disturbing and even more worryingly we have girls as young as 12 giving birth. Society should really be focusing on tackling this issue and I think a lot of that should be going on in schools. What message is a school sending out to its pupils if it is banning abstinence rings? Shouldn't perhaps these girls be congratulated on choosing not to become another statistic? (Noteably I would add that perhaps they are not so much choosing as having been indoctrinated by their faith, and that they are not so much choosing for moral and informed reasons as so much that it is merely a requirement of their religion but regardless they're hopefully not going to contribute to our rising teenage pregnancy rates).

Does a Problem of Failing Boys Really Exist?

2006-06-16T03:00:00.000-07:00

With regards to this issue it might be wise to consider statistics on GCSE attainment which suggest that perhaps it is more the case that girls are merely continuing to improve, rather than boys failing. In 1993/94, 48.2 per cent of females achieved 5 or more GCSE grade A*-C compared to 39.2 per cent of males. This pattern persisted in 2003/4 with 59.3 per cent of females and 49.2 per cent of males (National Statistics). I use these statistics to reflect how boys are not so much failing at school, having indeed improved on previous attainment levels, as they are failing to catch-up with their female counterparts. Why should this be such a problem? As Chris Keates (NASUWT) notes (The Guardian, 14/06/06) there is perhaps now an overemphasis on the failing of boys with men trying to “fight their corner”. I believe that this overemphasis is somewhat unnecessary. The gender gap in performance in schools does not appear to have a detrimental effect on males as a whole giving the gender pay gap and occupational segregation that exists. Much research shows that despite females generally outperforming males in education they tend to still be concentrated in less skilled, lower paid employment. Tony Selwell’s argument that males are failing now in the jobs market as well as in education is somewhat laughable.

Selwell argues that the curriculum has become feminised, with an overemphasis on coursework and a lack of nurturing of male traits (The Guardian, 13/06/06). Selwell could be criticised for assuming a position of biological determinism, a position which is highly contested by many feminists, and of homogenization. It is perhaps dangerous to accept the view that all boys thrive on competition and leadership or need to participate in physical activity, just as it is to accept the idea that all girls are outperforming the boys - what about those who are not? In terms of assessment, not all boys excel in exam conditions as opposed to coursework and this varies from student to student, male to female. Maybe we should now concentrate on addressing the way individual students learn and focus on training them in the various modes of assessment, rather than blame the failing of boys, or indeed the achievement of girls, on their supposed inherent traits.