Rape, Parenthood and Loneliness...(or why everyone should be a feminist)

Last week I attended a local 'Reclaim the Night March' and made a poster detailing some of the claims made about who/what is to blame for rape (e.g. alcohol, clothing...women generally) with the point made that it's not any of these things, rapists are obviously to blame. I got into a conversation about this poster after the march and the point was made that rape was not a feminist issue, men were also raped and that, more broadly, feminism was basically pointless. I'm no idiot. I know that rape victims can be men as well as women. But concerning rape there's two issues which, for me, demonstrate why we need feminism:

1) the disproportionate amount of women being raped or sexually assaulted suggests that something about societal views towards women needs to change. For example, according to the ONS (2009/10, 2010/11 and 2011/12 average) the percentage of males who were a victim once or more of a sexual offence in the last 12 months stood at 0.4% and for females 2.5%. Statistics such as these lend weight to arguments which suggest that we increasingly live in a rape culture, a society in which the sexualisation of women dominates.

2) the under-reporting of rape when men are the victim (demonstrated by the difference when comparing police-reported statistics and victim surveys). Again, we might trace this issue to the issue more broadly of societal attitudes concerning women/men. It could be that men do not wish to come forward due to societal views concerning how men should be/be seen, therefore suggesting societal views need to change.

So, feminism, for me, is the fight against gender inequality, which men can also be disadvantaged by. I thought of this again when listening to Radio 4's Women's Hour yesterday when they were discussing motherhood and loneliness. Someone raised the point about fathers often being side-lined in such discussions because women are still predominantly the primary carer of children in the first year or so. Again, we have evidence of why feminism continues to be relevant. We live in a society where, despite some acceptance of alternatives, women are generally still socialised and stereotyped into the position of the primary care giver (regardless of whether they work or not). But this may in turn impact on the experiences of men who are the primary carer. What we need then is a move away from this gendering of roles which is where feminism becomes important.

Finding Feminist Undertones in Children's Books no.1/2

Our now 20 month old has fully discovered books and loves us reading them to her. There are ones requested time and time again - currently The Gruffalo and The Gruffalo's Child. And as ever I like to read a little too much between the lines. The Gruffalo's Child, for example, could be seen as a positive example in challenging traditional gender stereotypes. We have the gruffalo who we now discover is a dad and, what's more, a single dad at that. There's our first gender stereotype challenged. Next is the gruffalo's child who goes out alone into the wild on the search for the 'big bad mouse' (apologies for the plot spoiler...) - this child (who is described as 'brave') is the gruffalo's daughter. Take that gender stereotyping of boys as brave and fearless! On an equally pleasing note was an extract from a Peppa Pig book in which someone makes a comment about women not being very good at archery - which Mummy Pig challenges and proves wrong. There is some good in Peppa Pig after all...

Damn those babyccino-swilling hordes! - In defence of children (and parents?)

A few days ago I was having a quick browse in a women's clothes shop when I heard a child having a full blown meltdown. Looking across the store I could see a woman with a boy, perhaps four years old or so, in a stroller and by the looks of things he wasn't too chuffed with the new season selections. Usually in situations like this I'll make a comment out loud to my little one to remind that that was her a few days/hours/minutes/who are we kidding even seconds ago (in fact, on this occasion the only reason she'd allowed me to step foot in this store was due to a bag of mini rice cakes being produced). I think I do so in order to a) make light of what for me at the time probably caused me to stress a bit and b) perhaps let the other mum overhear so on the off chance they too were stressing on the inside it might make them feel a bit better. An older woman and man walked by whilst said boy was still doing his best exorcist impression and the woman took it upon herself to make just loud enough comments about how the mum "didn't seem too bothered". She continued this train of thought out loud even once they'd left the store and walking behind me I could hear her repeating this over and over to the man as if the mum's no fucks given approach was wrong. Maybe the mum was meant to have exited the shop the minute her kid starting throwing a wobbly? Heck, she maybe should of just pre-empted the many tantrums which would ensue on a trip to town and just stayed at home. Because, in all honesty, what are your options when your kid is being (quite frankly) a little shit? Then today it was my turn for a public showdown. I went to grab some lunch for myself and the little 'un (not to mention some much needed coffee...for me) and decided to 'eat in'. Probably the minute I uttered those words Jekyll in her pram was brewing for her Hyde delivery. Cue tantrum getting into the highchair. Tantrum being in the highchair. Tantrum being on my lap. Tantrum being back in her pram. Tantrum because she wanted food. Tantrum because she then didn't want food (the food got launched). Tantrum because she wanted the bit of food on the floor. Tantrum because she wanted some juice. You get the idea. And what could I do? Not much apart from shoving the food into my face as fast as humanly possible and downing my coffee to make a hasty exit as I could feel the glares from behind laptops and my body temperature had rose to the point of feeling the need for fresh air. And then, home this evening, I read this by Julie Bindel. Yes Julie, children can be annoying. That can be the case even for those of us who have children ourselves but lets not assume parents generally 'let' their children act like this - sometimes, no matter what you do, that kid is gonna do a hissy and maybe you just grin and bear it cause you've got shit to do! And the assumption of areas or such which are 'child-free' tends to be that all children are unbearably loud and misbehaved. Well, many members of the public are also unbearably loud and misbehaved - can I get a separate train coach from them also? Children are children after all. This aside, I think the most valuable comment someone made on this piece was as follows:

I'm not sure people understand that what you're basically saying is "no mothers of young children" in public spaces. Julie, who is supposed to be a feminist, fails to realise is that there are many, many spaces we already can't access. Important, adult spaces like political meetings or reading groups because of a lack of childcare/creche/child friendliness. If you make society less child friendly you make it less woman friendly as a result - Laura Beattie.

Definitely food for thought.

Motherhood and Boredom

I read an article in Grazia last week from a woman who spoke of motherhood being boring. It seems a statement like this can create quite a stir when said out loud as the general consensus is that no mother should ever claim to be bored by motherhood. But why? Would the same feelings be generated had a father expressed such thoughts? It seems that by virtue of being a woman alone, motherhood should be something we find automatically fulfilling and gain a great deal of pleasure from. But I can sympathise with this woman's sentiments to an extent. We spent a year and a half trying for a child, and I really wanted to be a mum. And I love our daughter to the moon and back. However, there can be a degree of boredom to doing the same things day in, day out. Plus being at home looking after our daughter now means I feel it should be my responsibility to also do more around the house (read: housework rather than DIY). And I have never found domestic tasks enjoyable. Being inside the same four walls each day doing a repeat rendition of sleep, eat, play can at times get boring. Like with anything else that you do on repeat. It's that routine which can get boring, not the child themselves. So I can sympathise with this woman and I support her in voicing these thoughts. Perhaps there are more mothers thinking exactly the same but are just worried about being judged for speaking out.

Motherhood

So on the 10th May at 11:26AM we welcomed into the world Islay Rosa and here we are just over eight weeks later. It's been a bit of a blur with sleep deprivation, lots of learning curves and plenty of emotions going on. For the first few weeks I carried on tutoring and did some exam marking...PhD completely on hold. One of my supervisors when I said I could catch up on PhD work whilst on mat leave warned me that my brain would turn to mush and I didn't believe her at the time but I really get that now. Even typing this is a struggle but this is what I need to start doing, writing again. So for the meantime this blog can help me in doing so.

And here they are then, some initial thoughts on motherhood (and yet another angle for this blog to incorporate...)

Suffering from the Gender Blues (or Pinks)
Before Islay was born I was adamant that as far as possible we'd avoid overly stereotypical gendering with things like clothing and toys. This was helped by the fact we did not find out her sex whilst I was pregnant, meaning people were limited in terms of buying things to stuff that was neutral. And then wham! Islay was born, the pink clothing gifts streamed in and I was almost getting used to dressing her along these lines. But now she's getting bigger and I'm actually getting the time to buy/chose some of her clothing myself we're trying to get away from the pinks and 'girly girly' clothing. But then today, Islay was mistaken for a boy TWICE and I got kind of upset. Why would this upset me so much? In some twisted way do I associate girls with being 'pretty' and I was upset that my baby was seen as boyish, read: cute but not 'pretty' cute? Even saying it like that sounds kind of silly! But reality is, people look for cues when it comes to babies when determining if they're a girl or a boy and the biggest cue is clothing (especially since babies lack hair!) Typical I would get upset over people not immediately knowing Islay was a girl based on her clothing when in a weird way that was the very thing I was probably trying to achieve.

Identity Issues
The most difficult thing for me so far (aside from the lack of sleep) has definitely been regarding my identity. I've found it really difficult because in a way I've become 'Islay's mum' and lost other aspects of myself. I struggled with this loads but I'm starting to come to terms with the fact that these other aspects are not lost, just having to take a backseat for a while. And I'm trying to get little bits back here and there. I think it's been particularly hard as I've always been that person who took too much on and enjoyed being under pressure. It's a completely different change of pace which I've found really hard. But I'm starting to relax into this new life and keep reminding myself that I am 'doing' plenty even though it might not feel that way at the end of each day. Plus, whilst I don't want it to be my only identification, being 'Islay's mum' is by far the best one and my love for motherhood (and her) grows by the day. So here's to plenty more motherhood (+feminist +academic) blogging in the future! <3

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

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

Age 8 and Wanting a Sex Change

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

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...

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?

And the winner is...

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

Lessons on Forming Nonviolent Relationships Really As Easy As ABC?

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

Dr Jessica Rongrose - Feminism in Schools

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.

you've got to love it when parents protest

Breastfeeding mothers stage protest over ban at McDonald's

Heather Mills' Settlement

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.

Spice Girls video

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?"