tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-39148580413334199642024-03-05T09:50:16.802-08:00Adjust the SailsFeminism isn't a dirty wordUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3914858041333419964.post-86386234662171135792010-09-13T13:47:00.000-07:002010-09-13T13:49:33.144-07:00Get Clobbered - Ethical Clothing and Accessories<script type="text/javascript">var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www.");document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));</script><script type="text/javascript">try {var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-9991717-1");pageTracker._trackPageview();} catch(err) {}</script>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3914858041333419964.post-41582447800460719702010-07-23T02:58:00.000-07:002010-09-13T13:51:45.304-07:00A Site to Help Save Money<script type="text/javascript">var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www.");document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));</script><script type="text/javascript">try {var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-9991717-1");pageTracker._trackPageview();} catch(err) {}</script>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3914858041333419964.post-18788758705144367942009-09-23T17:52:00.000-07:002009-09-23T17:57:10.015-07:00Katie Price 2I've recieved a massive response to my first post about Katie Price. And I am not backing down<br /><script type="text/javascript"><br />try {<br />var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-9991717-1");<br />pageTracker._trackPageview();<br />} catch(err) {}</script><br />...so extended version of rant (which is actually a response to a commenter who called me "disgusting"):<br /><br />The fact that Katie Price’s rape has become a daily tea time gossip topic – perpetuated by the tabloid media and fuelled by her own PR – is not only making light of the topic in my opinion: it’s extremely dangerous for women and insulting to other rape victims. The difference between Ms Price and other rape victims – which some people fail to recognise – is that Katie Price opened this dialogue herself by writing about it in a trashy magazine in order to advocate Alex Reid’s appearance in a porn film which feature scenes of violent rape. To young girls and victims of sexual assault, to see a media personality and supposed role model speaking out about her “horrendous” rape in the public domain, then flaunting her relationship with a violent porn actor using the same platforms is confusing to say the least. I agree that some of her testimonies following the disclosure of the alleged rape are somewhat typical of a rape victim’s but only in that she is supposedly and/or conveniently too scared to report the crime. What makes her decidedly atypical is her behaviour in disclosing the story, baiting the media almost daily in order to profit from it, and then asking for the public to “forget about it” when the press attention was less than sympathetic. How on earth is this not damaging to other women who have gone through rape and find themselves unable to “just get over it and get on with [their] lives” and aren’t popular enough to make a few bucks on the side?<br /><br />The pseudo feminist rants like Barbara Ellen's in this week's Observer aren’t feminist at all because they don’t accept Price as an individual and evaluate her behaviour objectively. Not all women are homogenous victims of rape and other sexual discriminations and sticking up for anyone who claims they’ve been raped isn’t a feminist argument; it’s actually sexist. Women get raped, yes, and the law is weighted out of their favour. But women also lie about rape as well. Who’s to say which is which in this case…I actually haven’t – but the supposedly typical “feminist” argument here has already made a decision on who’s the victim.<br /><br />Regardless of gender our laws still maintain the “innocent before guilty” idea. Don’t you think that immediately assuming Price is the victim of the situation – particularly with the lack of evidence, forensic or otherwise – is actually a little anti-feminist?<br /><br />Finally, the difference between Price discussing *gasp* her own life and other people having a discrete chat over a cuppa is this (and this is hypothetically imagining Price is a rape victim): not all other rape victims have the world press on tenterhooks for their next “revelation”. Not all other rape victims choose to talk about their rape as a means to endorse rape-based pornography. Not all other rape victims reveal purposefully tantalising details about their attacker to everyone other than the police, and maybe help stop the same thing happening to someone else.<br /><br /> I simply don't believe other rape stories are alike to what has happened to Katie Price - that's not a crime is it? Not all women are the same, neither are all rape victims - it's insulting to women and to rape victims to think they will all prescribe to the same coping strategies and assume because "I did, she must".Unknownnoreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3914858041333419964.post-74507366299280744132009-09-19T19:42:00.000-07:002009-09-19T19:56:31.642-07:00Katie PriceI wish I didn't have to post this but I feel I have to. When I go into my office, the girls are all talking about Katie Price. What she's saying and doing actually seems to mean something to the general public. And is not that the point? Doesn't she make money from the general public? I'm not sure that this hasn't gone a little bit too far. This woman is - clearly - far from stable. But she has three children. Those three children one day are going to research their mum and dad. And it will be a whole lot more interesting than my Google search on my dad (I <em>wish</em> he was a neuro astronaut!) but the thing is, they aren't going to like their mother slagging off their dad and claiming they were raped to get press. And that's the thing - the police have had to drop Katie Price's rape claim as they have no substantial evidence. Hmmm. Is that because there is none? There is nothing I hate more than people making light of rape. Those that sling the accusation around make it harder for genuine victims to get justice, as if it is not hard enough. Katie Price dropping the accusation in the press and then hiding the accusation is terrible for victims. It's saying that she is either too scared to disclose it - just what the rapist wants; or that she's making it up; making it 10 times worse for genuine rape victims.<br /><script type="text/javascript"><br />try {<br />var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-9991717-1");<br />pageTracker._trackPageview();<br />} catch(err) {}</script>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3914858041333419964.post-7700811809905534902009-07-06T12:39:00.000-07:002009-07-06T14:08:56.472-07:00Enlightenment on the no.19To any liberal or sane person (or those I know anyway), the Daily Mail is an <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">unequivocal</span> symbol of all that is wrong with British society. <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Fascist</span> and overly obsessed with Diana and/or illegal immigrants, I have always avoided it for reasons I hope you can identify with. However, it struck me today that I haven't ever read it from front to back, as I would have done a set text at university. Having an allegation thrown at me from a disgruntled subject of one of my more vitriolic posts has perhaps made me more considerate of my outpouring. So, when I by <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">happenstance</span> found a copy of the Mail shoved between two bus seats this evening, I picked it up and started the flick-through. Yes, the readership of the London Paper reduced by one (or two because I used one to shield myself from the rain earlier) as I delved into the unknown, into the pages of the newspaper equivalent of a young girl dressing in her mother's clothing, calling herself a woman when she is an ignorant slip of a girl; a tabloid in a broadsheet's ill-<span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">fitting</span> clothing. <br /><br />I have to say I was surprised. And pleasantly at first. Shock horror. They lead with an article about Gary <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">McKinnon</span>, who is the subject of an extradition order due to his hacking into Pentagon computers to research his theories on extra-terrestrial life. The US are apparently trying to get him sent over so they can incarcerate him for 60 years (10 per crime). The UK want him here for what may be only five. The crux is that this guy has been diagnosed with <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Aspergers</span> Syndrome. Anyone who has an autistic family member will know what this means - basically that Gary has brilliant <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">capabilities</span> and a phenomenal <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">intelligence</span>, which is the good side of autism. But Gary also finds it difficult to get on socially. He probably can't look people in the eye when he talks to them, and finds interaction <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">uncomfortable</span>; he doesn't have any ulterior motive but to satisfy his own curiosity - using his own means to do so, which just so happen to be that little bit more advanced than the rest of ours. The US are using a law designed to impede terrorists to extradite this man, in order to enforce a sentence that is longer than that endured by rapists or some murderers. The Mail have launched a massive campaign towards disabling the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">extradition</span> order - no doubt motivated by their incumbent opposition to the liberal US environment - but nonetheless, the have struck a good chord. I'm <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">thus far</span> convinced.<br /><br />The next article I read was regarding Harriet Harman, the Labour minister for women and equality and her views on the recent "pink" war between Tories and Labour. Harman is not without fault, but I don't really want to bother commenting on the expenses furore, it's been done. Regardless of that, Harman has made a few brilliant points recently. Both Labour and <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">Conservative</span> have been vying for the "pink" vote. This means gay. Both have been actively badmouthing those who make judgement on same sex marriage, both suggesting that equality is the ideal state of human interaction. We all know that's the way forward, don't we, but does either party mean it?<br /><br />Sarah Brown appeared at the London Pride march. David Cameron - of late - has been sitting in on plans to financially reward the married <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">heterosexual</span> couple and bandies about statistics suggesting children in a <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">separated</span> or non-traditional <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">heterosexual</span> mother/father unit will be <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">significantly</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">disadvantaged</span>. I am willing to listen to attitudes that suggest an orthodox family unit spawns happy and adjusted children, but I have dozens of examples and personal experience that informs otherwise.<br /><br />So, the main statistics are:<br /><br />1. One in eleven married new parents split up, as opposed to 1/3 unmarried new parents<br />2. Children do best when brought up by two parents who are committed to each other, long term<br />3. Children of <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">separated</span> parents are 50% more likely to do badly at school<br /><br />Fair enough? Not really. The Tories haven't bothered to look at statistics on marriage. Marriages in 2008 were actually at the lowest they have been for 150 years, which means that the people getting married - for the most part - are thinking about it <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">considerably</span> more, and making the decision sensibly. The financial <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">implications</span> for divorces are also a factor.<br /><br />However, as a child of divorce, I have quite strong feelings on the matter. My response to the statistics are this:<br /><br />1. Once you're married it is more difficult to <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20">separate</span>. Financially and socially. Parents of newborn children are equally stressed whether they're married, co-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21">habiting</span> or otherwise. It's just more difficult to <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_22">separate</span> when you're married.<br />2. Children probably do do better when they're brought up by two parents who are committed to one another. They also so pretty terribly when they are brought up by parents who are together for the sake and appearance of marriage but aren't committed to each other.<br />3. Children of <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_23">separation</span> or divorce are 50% more likely to do badly at school? I refute this. My parents <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_24">separated</span> when I was in the middle of my <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_25">GSCEs</span> and I had more friends whose parents were apart than were together. Yes, single parents are at a <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_26">disadvantage</span>, and they must spread themselves more thinly. Rewarding married couples and doing nothing to help them - a la Torie - will not resolve anything. Children should not be penalised or influenced by their parents' decisions and feelings.<br /><br />So, on to the main rant.<br /><br />Of course, the true colours of the Mail come out in the Comments section. It's so much easier to let a columnist wax lyrical about her disgust with equality than admit to it in black and white, isn't it?<br /><br />I'm not sure who Melanie Phillips is, but she is undoubtedly <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_27">characterised</span> by the subtitles to her own article: "Abuse", "Bigotry", "Bullying". All <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_28">pre</span>-<span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_29">requisites</span> to working for the Mail it seems. In a completely <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_30">weird</span> and misguided column, Phillips outlines her support for the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_31">Conservatives</span>' line on marriage, but states it is in <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_32">contradiction</span> to their stance on gays - in that they should be equal. I agree, actually. The Tories' behaviour smacks of approval seeking with no preference of how its gained. Gays: yes. Married: yes? Gay Marrieds? NO! This is clearly ridiculous.<br /><br />What infuriates me is that the objection Phillips has it towards the gay aspect of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_33">Conservative</span> policy. She isn't actually critiquing their stance on marriage, she's refuting <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_34">their</span> Gay policy. Admittedly, its well dressed-up as a <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_35">debate</span> on <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_36">Conservative</span> consistency, but statements like this give her away: "...<span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_37">marriage</span> is a not a '<span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_38">relationship'</span> but a unique institution for <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_39">safe-guarding</span> the upbringing of children. It has to be protected in turn by a web of law and custom, tradition and attitudes. That web has been destroyed by the 'all is equal' doctrine". What?!<br /><br />If you want to take that tact...Fred and Rose West were married and brought up their children together. Quite a lot of other things have also been destoyed by the "all is equal" doctrine - like inequal pay, only men being able to vote, apartheid being outlawed...<br /><br />Unfortunately the Mail has not quite redeemed itself!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3914858041333419964.post-8173628733470631602009-06-23T05:56:00.000-07:002009-06-23T06:13:49.161-07:00Blog Bashing<img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5350509683042662402" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 335px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 364px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2_bF_u4kqi6PdFHFshRMLWRk4S7xzUvoxLUoNqmaTLtTMAW2lifaZrAjJqCxUJT51gY8bjZajZY_3M-OeXb6vLmuy_bUswOZsbHgEDhST87mOq3IeKI2a0YiOCdaBgtU2zHAzFPGLUUV4/s400/GAG.bmp" border="0" /><br /><div><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Just a note about my last post. Thanks a lot to all those who got in touch to say they liked it and agreed with me. Unfortunately, I have been threatened with some pseudo-legal action, so have decided to remove much of the content. This pains me massively, as I am a firm believer in freedom of speech and the right to publish opinion. It's something women have had to fight for...so believe, the irony of this particular situation isn't lost on me. I'd also like to stress that I have looked into the implications of the accusation against me, and they are limited. My papa dearest is a lawyer, luckily I'm told I'm largely innocent in the eyes of the law. My blog may be in the gaol, but at least I'm a free woman for now!</span><br /><br /><br /><br /><div></div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3914858041333419964.post-17266020390465750632009-05-22T20:47:00.000-07:002009-06-23T05:55:51.195-07:00Magazine Bashing - EDITED<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Someone told me this week that <em>Glamour</em> magazine had published a list of the 50 best employers for women in the UK. So I bought it for the first time in ages. I really wish I hadn't!<br /><br />I have to admit, I have bought it before - it's very little, so it's relatively convenient for train journeys and stuff like that. Unfortunately it appears that in creating a pint sized mag, Conde Nast have succeeded in doing away with any kind of intelligence or depth along with the excess pulp (if you absolutely have to read a mainstream fashion mag, make it <em>Marie Claire</em>...it's still rubbish, but is trying not to be).<br /><br />I really shouldn't knock the "Best Bosses" feature, as it is well-intentioned, but I have to: because it is terribly researched. For example, it states that Enterprise Rent-a-Car's board of directors is 56% women. Great...except I happen to know that those women are all the daughters of the chairman of the company. I can't comment on their ability, but it's irrelevant because it didn't get them the gig. Furthermore, this is a company that employs graduates to the seemingly business-orientated management programme and requires them to clean out cars, and graft till 9pm. (Insider info!)<br /><br />There is also a faux thoughtful article about domestic violence, with the now uncomfortably familiar photo of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">popstar</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Rihanna's</span> bruised face making up most of the content. Much of this article states the obvious, and turns into cliche: women stay with their abusive partners too long, they have no self-confidence, they think things are going to get better. "Experts" back this up - yeah, so? We know all this already, don't we? The ground isn't breaking here. The article ends pretty prematurely with a rather impotent word of warning: once a hitter, always a hitter...but hey, those "real" people that we interviewed escaped and are now amazingly happy, so you can be too! No mention of where women can go to get help, no real and non-idealistic statistics, and absolutely no understanding of the realities of the situation. Just waffle about a topic that I suspect they don't have the confidence to get stuck into, so just skim the surface instead which is frankly insulting to victims of domestic abuse and valueless to all others.<br /><br />Turn to page 121 (irony!) and there's another serious and investigative piece on the topic of female teachers sexually abusing their pupils. This isn't an easy issue to tackle, I admit, and <em>Glamour</em> seriously shouldn't have bothered trying. </span><a href="http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/relationships/article5853314.ece"><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">The Times </span></a><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">magazine actually published a far superior investigation on the subject back in March...actually worth reading. What I learned from <em>Glamour</em> was that a) not only attractive women commit these crimes, contrary to popular belief , ugly ones do it too, and b) that women receive less harsh sentences for the crimes than their male counterparts. Oh, and the boys don't actually benefit from the abuse long term, just in case we thought they did. Again, I don't think we'll be stopping the press...although I wish someone at Conde Nast had.<br /><br /><br />The rest of this post has been removed. So much for freedom of speech. </span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3914858041333419964.post-77422911432987691752009-05-05T12:55:00.000-07:002009-05-05T13:34:58.718-07:00Fashion and Feminism<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">People often ask me - as a feminist - what my feelings on the fickle world of fashion are, probably expecting me to wax lyrical about consumerism and the skinny model debate. Don't get me wrong, I do think there's a murky side to the fashion industry and the impact it has had on global attitudes towards body image is something to be debated. However, like any successful industry the murky is paired with the positive. </span><div><br /><div><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">I don't think its a bad thing for women to care about what they put on their bodies - in many ways dressing can prove a rewarding exercise in self expression. Women in the 80's adorned themselves in vivid colour and clad their shoulders in armour-like padding...the term "power dressing" was hence coined to describe women's clothing and fashion as a whole being significant of something other than attracting a man. </span></div><div><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;"></span><br /><br /> </div><br /><div><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;"></span></div><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5332440000903202418" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 392px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDSA8xaWC_asz-fy7ghOS-OjkOW9vO7mC9YCy2ROxs6JSX-pIHBovFI4lGPxJvDSWX9CkYuP7X6brvPwNDZ1LcikpoaYhexKFfaH85GN_BzpFhYAV2RJb7vAxGZcd9BjaOpQopK4HTTfMV/s400/gracejones.jpg" border="0" /><br /><br /><br /><div></div><div><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">It's often said that women dress for other women rather than men (your typical man tends to appreciate women taking their clothes off rather than putting them on) and I think that's true. I think its also wrong to assume that if a woman cares about her appearance, it means there is less inside the vessel than within it. Take the Suffragettes and in particular Emmeline Pankhurst. These women were constantly goaded by the press and charicatured as mannish and animalistic. Yet there is no evidence to suggest that the Suffragettes dressed any differently than the average woman of the day, in other words, in an extremely constrictingly feminine manner. Emmeline Pankhurst herself was said to have taken great pride in her appearance and dressed immaculately. And why not? </span></div><br /><br /><div><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Surely embracing femininity is about embracing everything about womanhood, outside and in? Michelle Obama's recent inception into the public eye proves that a woman can use her wardrobe to actually help endorse the image she wants and communicate a message. Obama has championed unknown and often mixed race designers as well as favouring low cost stores, solidifying the image of her as a responsible and intelligent human being. </span></div><br /><br /><div></div><br /><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5332440496608740658" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 250px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 313px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgweuI7pb7JhvNb-SIB5tHIyQ4_dwi5EIyDw_Oqvt4vpN0qfriTnV22CyEEjdF5p6yHTcJuxwSXNXgBKyhuMYlGyLHn5FND02eCRRjEYk0pU1utv9e5_fduYqjPwmftvzLAElqvEboQ6MXR/s400/michelle-obama-library.jpg" border="0" /><br /><br /><br /><div><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">So, I was pleasantly surprised to learn this week that Vivienne Westwood has named Nicola Roberts of Girls Aloud as the new "face" of her label. This pleased me because I have often been bemused at Roberts' treatment as the "ginger one" or - more offensively - the "ugly one" - it's nice to see someone who has grown up in the public eye from a teenager hell bent on caking herself in fake tan and dyeing her hair, begin to embrace her natural colouring and blossom with it. In the vein of my last piece on Tilda Swinton, I think we should be encouraging women to embrace their individuality and designers like Westwood - who has always pushed the envelope - should be commended for at least trying to move away from the fashion mould and we should all take note of these new fashion icons. </span></div><br /><div><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;"></span></div><br /><div><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;"></span></div></div><br /><div><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5332440234292405426" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 298px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 400px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4sxK270zlitBbEbkkJMaAjrEyIQXmCXy2R6EJXvrM3WYKazIYitgShMaXGwdzVQYn1kObrkinha6almk0iOvCAD3UvOV_YlSmxWmuLhp_sGdtu5gwnDLjrUY4NtKoA0O72muHWv3uW36P/s400/rex_766854g.jpg" border="0" /><br /><br /><div><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"></span></div><br /><div><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">To that end, I'd like to draw your attention to a friend of mine's new collection of bespoke pieces - a shameless plug if I may! I know that a number of you click through here from my friend Susie's fantastic <a href="http://www.stylebubble.co.uk/">Style Bubble</a> so you have an interest in all things a la mode anyway and Jane Molloy at <a href="http://www.getclobbered.co.uk/">Get Clobbered's </a>stuff has always reminded me of Westwood-esque quirk and individuality. Jane makes beautiful one off pieces that she sources the materials for from charity shops and thrift stores...<a href="http://www.getclobbered.co.uk/">have a peek</a>!</span></div><div> </div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3914858041333419964.post-81300599646979816602009-02-13T07:51:00.000-08:002009-02-13T09:13:54.235-08:00The World's Biggest Dickheads and Me<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">So what have I watched on TV this week? </span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Masterchef of course! By far the most amusing snippet of this week's "bring back last year's losers" round was John Torrode saying "Who's going to stay? But more importantly, who's going to leave?". Brilliant.</span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">A rather less hilarious documentary called <em><a href="http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-worlds-and-me/episode-guide/series-2/episode-4">The World's Biggest Family and Me</a>. </em>I'm not really a fan of Mark Dolan - the guy who does this series of shows, mainly because he has a far more brilliant, interesting and well paid job than me (imagine Googling something, saying to your boss "Give me some dough, and I'll go halfway round the world to chat to them" and they just happen to be really up for it). But more seriously, I also don't feel he takes enough advantage of the opportunity he's given to really lay into some of the people he comes across, because some of them are complete idiots.</span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">The last episode I watched, <em><a href="http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-worlds-and-me/episode-guide/series-2/episode-2">The World's Most Enhanced Woman and Me</a>, </em>was basically an expose - among others - of a despicably controlling man and his wife, whose mutilation of her own body through plastic surgery was entirely his doing. Dolan's awkward feet-shuffling around the uncomfortable truth behind this woman's ridiculously over-sized assets was rather frustrating for me. I was left hoping that the woman would be granted a bit of luck and inadvertently smother her husband in his sleep with her massive boobs.</span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Anyway, at the top of the programme, Dolan insightfully notes that the propensity to have a very large family was going to inextricably linked with religion. Hmm, kinda like every other thing on the planet deemed unreasonable, impractical or outdated. This is what gets me about religion - certain eshcelons will always use it to facilitate and justify what most of us consider to be extreme wrongs. Particularly among groups who - ironically - are most in need of a bit of the kind of support religion should be all about. </span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">But any good feeling about religion wanes in me when I come across something like this. Seeing absolutely knackered women, having spend 17 out of 24 years pregnant is a real peep into what life could be like if you allowed yourself to be governed by religion, or a particularly stoical man...and its truly horrifying. The women were largely silent, and looked like they were scared of saying this wasn't what they wanted. Or just couldn't be bothered. </span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">The blinkered belief and unwavering insistence of some evangelical groups is what makes it impossble to hear their argument objectively. Any assumption that we were dealing with a logical bunch of people was quickly quashed when one father of thirteen said - seriously - that there was more evidence to suggest the Bible's version of creation than there is to back up evolutionary theory. Not sure where he's getting his evidence, but certainly not from Darwin. </span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Why should it be that compassion for the mother and obeying religious instruction in procreation seemed to be mutually exclusive concepts. I was left wondering why they couldn't just stop having sex - it could only be a welcome break in the hectic mating schedule of the mothers. </span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3914858041333419964.post-25820932485520755082009-02-13T07:25:00.000-08:002009-02-13T07:42:41.659-08:00Jessica's gone all normal - and we don't like it<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxaXS7ykJlwC-w9Yp_TkRWiqdpJew4o_Ub82HDBXl_oK5iMJzeySnqu_R-sESII4yHdTogjcfzV8EoTTE02uFudEFZMvNozhLr0V4JmXjb9-4_KCQ6y1a0n_eMKjaRqr8i6BK7qNO6Dn3H/s1600-h/622-jessfat2_embedded_prod_affiliate_138.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5302307318293972178" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 313px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 400px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxaXS7ykJlwC-w9Yp_TkRWiqdpJew4o_Ub82HDBXl_oK5iMJzeySnqu_R-sESII4yHdTogjcfzV8EoTTE02uFudEFZMvNozhLr0V4JmXjb9-4_KCQ6y1a0n_eMKjaRqr8i6BK7qNO6Dn3H/s400/622-jessfat2_embedded_prod_affiliate_138.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Is this woman fat? The answer to that question above should be a resounding “ no”, of course. According to reports, Jessica Simpson’s recent weight gain has pushed her dress size to a positively mammoth UK size 10, and provided evidence that she might – once in a while – eat. Hold the phone!<br /><br />I went more than a little bit nuts when I heard a colleague of mine say “She’s got a bit fat, hasn’t she?”, my feminist high horse now resembling that wooden beast at Troy. But later I had to admit, with some amount of shame, that I’d thought along the same lines when I first saw the photos. It’s clearly wrong, as the woman is categorically NOT fat (anyone unfortunate enough to catch <em>Two Ton Son</em> on More4 recently can testify to this) that I personally or any other should think otherwise, but we do and if you’re really honest you will admit it too.<br /><br />This always happens when a woman in the public eye goes through any discernible physical alteration. I haven’t bought Heat magazine for years, but when I occasionally go beyond the cover I am always sickened by the levels of hypocrisy contained within. Insincere pleas to certain celebrities to gain weight are featured pages away from features consisting of pointing out sweat patches, ridiculing broken heels or laughing at tan lines. Criticising someone who’s skinny seems to be more acceptable, with intrusive photos under incredibly patronising headlines (“LINDSAY WE’RE WORRIED ABOUT YOU” etc)<br /><br />Disclaimers like “we think she looks great but…” or “we think she looks much healthier but…” are used by publications like Heat as carte blanche to slate women who aren’t Cheryl Tweedy (modern day slang for “perfect”). Also there is definite sourness to the amount they asset their love of curves and If they thought women looked great as they are, why draw attention to the reasons others might disagree? These kinds of magazines sell copies by drawing attention to flaws in women. The reasons why are complex and various. Naomi Woolf believed media’s treatment of women being a new kind of control with which to manipulate them, this being the natural system of existence for us gals. Navigating such a read is like travelling through a particularly nasty and thorny maze and the end point is a mess of confusion.<br /><br />So is it any wonder our idea of body image is so ridiculously perverted, with these mixed messages being bandied about by the magazines we have read since our teens? Is it any wonder I thought Jessica was looking a little plump when I am assaulted with more images of Victoria Beckham everyday than I’m presented with my own face in the mirror? The last time Jessica Simpson was featured significantly in the news was when she was flinging herself over a car bonnet in a bikini and heels, and that was presumably normal….Christ. In this topsy turvy world of body image, I’m not sure that we’ll ever be able – as women – to entirely disassociate ourselves from the image promoted in the media as normal. But realising its existence as something abnormal, unreasonable and more importantly – unreal – is surely the first step. </span></div><br /><div><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Lastly – don’t buy Heat. It’s crap</span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3914858041333419964.post-73526197597403260372009-01-14T15:04:00.000-08:002009-01-17T14:15:19.755-08:00Tilda, annoying? Whatever!<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHlxESEvu4JQznhNRGnWSjGXCAea36NzrBf7FQYiT_TlJEQ0pwdfdq_Thp04iDnGkNF5zxOOHZRpmXuGsFUO9IDk1tNdw9WtdAzWUcKAXIpCzxX3Kk3fvAG047ZuVw-8PqOpj2l320QCn3/s1600-h/tildaianwestpa2333.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5291292417410866226" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 300px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 350px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHlxESEvu4JQznhNRGnWSjGXCAea36NzrBf7FQYiT_TlJEQ0pwdfdq_Thp04iDnGkNF5zxOOHZRpmXuGsFUO9IDk1tNdw9WtdAzWUcKAXIpCzxX3Kk3fvAG047ZuVw-8PqOpj2l320QCn3/s400/tildaianwestpa2333.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Cruisin' through the Christmas TV schedule and finding zip, I settled on a rundown of <em>The Most Annoying People of 2008.</em> These list shows are ideal for falling asleep to - I like to think of them as televisual Diazepam, if Diazepam added painful Jimmy Carr asides to its list of possible side-effects. </span><br /></div><div><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"></span></div><br /><div><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Anyway, I was shocked and appalled when they named Tilda Swinton - brilliant actress and all round impressive human - as one of these such people. What the hell? Now, if Swinton doesn't immediately spring to mind as one of the more irritating slebs out there - thats because you haven't really thought about it in detail yet. Clearly you must perservere past all the accolades that make her appear OK - great acting, vegetarian, stylish etc etc etc. You're forgetting one thing - and the thing that makes her annoying in the eyes of this completely crud TV show...SHE DOESN'T WEAR MAKE UP ON THE RED CARPET. </span><br /></div><div><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"></span></div><br /><div><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">I believe one unknown commentator actually stated "Who does she think she is that she can turn up to the Oscars without any make-up on?" Er...she probably thinks she's Tilda Swinton - who doesn't bother trying to conform to the ridiculous Hollywood prototypes expected of actresses. She should be commended for that, not ridiculed. Jeez.</span> </div><div></div><div><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Incidentally, that programme has been on about 20 times since its Christmas premiere. Next year, instead of criticising women who dare to rebel against type, maybe the show's creator could nominate themself...or at least Jimmy Carr.</span> </div><br /><div></div><br /><div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3914858041333419964.post-60885872468484774542009-01-13T13:49:00.000-08:002009-01-14T15:26:28.181-08:00Blues Brother<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXxCWEF7YCRejfy-FPTDunxiLK3qMkC6Xpk4LSMgDZUQE7Hyp8ugIWJXdt9ZmNphDdBJNtm-DvicQdxNPIlkB1V7Nixq4X_ibZHuY3ImQ9g_83q64V7pDucYo6RRnRPnx5LlWrKThmWMNT/s1600-h/CBB-eye-2006.gif"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5291279606152968194" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 241px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXxCWEF7YCRejfy-FPTDunxiLK3qMkC6Xpk4LSMgDZUQE7Hyp8ugIWJXdt9ZmNphDdBJNtm-DvicQdxNPIlkB1V7Nixq4X_ibZHuY3ImQ9g_83q64V7pDucYo6RRnRPnx5LlWrKThmWMNT/s400/CBB-eye-2006.gif" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">After missing a turn on the board game of reality TV, </span><a href="http://www.channel4.com/bigbrother/"><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Celebrity Big Brother</span></a><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"> is back - cue old fashioned horror film shock music "DA DA <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">DAAAAAAH</span>". Probably only because it's the only component of the tired franchise that people can be half bothered tuning into these days did the producers have the nerve to re-introduce it to an audience still recovering from the backlash of 2007's infamous "race row"/witch hunt/backlash. But there we are...and where to start?</span> <div><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Although I'm loathe to admit it, this year I am actually watching the show on a worryingly frequent basis. Not quite every night, but almost. Had I not made the somewhat overambitious resolution to lay off the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">nasties</span> for a month, this might have been a different blog entry. As it is, I've had ample time to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">faux</span> casually browse the channels once </span><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006t1k5"><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Masterchef</span></span></a><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"> has <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">finished</span>...and what do you know? Celebrity Big Brother is ALWAYS on. </span></div><div><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"></span></div><div><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">CBB</span> has always had a different appeal to its civilian sister. Our society's growing obsession with fame was always going to prefer the voyeuristic allure of a show designed to expose people we've already got an opinion on. To dismantle the ego and <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">pretension</span> of the contestants is what people want to see. This does happen to a certain extent. </span></div><div><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"></span></div><br /><div><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Big Brother (in all its guises) has lost sight of its original manifesto, which was to observe the actions of normal human beings in a totalitarian environment. Not much comment is made on the behavioural trends that the show provokes in groups of people and this is the aspect that most fascinates me. </span></div><br /><br /><div></div><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5291282372378350338" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 256px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjS74exwNzNqwRgIczm_aatGvq0sEfl-b1P15WuNkGzIjlSVCqRo5FvMhDuMwCY5hUGojSWTvGv0Og6V_5kIviP-BovsYUssT0Jpf1CZ_YXIJ2_51lHrsibRPafyLF_TSffhUXpyXOy4k9O/s400/jadeshilpaRKS_468x299.jpg" border="0" /><br /><div></div><div><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">When Jade Goody, Jo <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">O'Meara</span> and Danielle Lloyd ganged up against <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Shilpa</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Shetty</span>, the first thing that struck me was that it was unlike any altercation that ever occurs amongst the male participants. There's something about women's behaviour in an isolated group environment that shunts them back eons - or into the animal kingdom.<br /></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">This year, we are faced with the same behaviour. Ulrika <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">Johnsson</span> - who 50% of <em>Daily Mail </em>readers claim they wouldn't trust to left alone with their husband (and the rest) - has found an unlikely sidekick in Tina Malone, who apparently has been in <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">Brookside</span> and Shameless. Its fascinating to watch the hierarchy of women develop in the house...and there always is one. </span></div><br /><br /><div><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">My take on this follows. I have named the tiers after the groups of women in my favourite book, Margaret Atwood's <em>The Handmaid's Tale. </em>If you substitute the commodities in the book (ability to bear children) for the one on offer in Big Brother (fame and glamour) these types seem to transfer quite well...she knows what she's doing, does Atwood!</span><br /></div><br /><div><strong><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;color:#ffffcc;">WIFE</span></strong></div><div></div><br /><br /><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5291283177788203730" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 266px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 400px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPwq0pcQmAZWxHfYnhZRLJLwo7RQEUAwvr7tTAJmoxop4WqzLozg2NxuF_IjK5njK6ey7VADiTxkN0vvrZ1vWZZtWATvZU1Sp7y3IJfSoFhToCxuv5nqGge4HBleFNsl5Wb7kFf4pmR77v/s400/latoya-jackson.jpg" border="0" /><br /><br /><br /><div><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">La <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">Toya</span> Jackson - 52 year old pop royalty...therefore untouchable. Is also incredibly sweet- natured. Likes observing.</span></div><br /><div></div><div></div><div><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><strong><span style="color:#ffffcc;">AUNTS</span></strong> </span></div><br /><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5291283188579214914" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 250px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 350px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7GpLvIMCiknfi2KDkb72xaIJjZq30lyRrJkoyTOCISav7ZMIE-Uh3HkZEZoRmE2cWKSdt-J_ki_xj2uchePBfrwVKr5iOxU7UA0XQB6fL6GO_2kns32sW1t5ExGt6n2lFEI8pj4Y7CgXq/s400/Ulrika.jpg" border="0" /><br /><br /><div><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Ulrika <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">Jonsson</span> - presenter of TV. States that she is most famous for either a) shagging Sven or b) having 4 children by the same number of fathers. Lovely. </span></div><br /><br /><br /><br /><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5291283453568892722" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 210px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 300px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDd5zw1_2PnxiicMTy9BoTnIOovyWsi8H9vhtSJfpBJJTaU_MlPqt7mzjIpTUifFMHANvCysDm8PAsM05R9tIqRw5omo6iYbNF1HbG9t39KoRbQpejKA3JeYHFKibBIzWmm46MLlrlBLqT/s400/Tina.jpg" border="0" /><br /><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Tina Malone - apparently an actress, with <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">OCD</span>, but as far as I can tell the only thing she's obsessed about is talking about herself. I challenge anyone to show me a person with <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">OCD</span> who bites their own toenails off on national telly. </span><br /><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;"></span><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;color:#ffffcc;"><strong>HANDMAIDS</strong></span><br /><br /><br /><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5291283459119818194" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 296px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 400px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbbaCH6JR8KB7NuLRd56H-DtZ2nsPOxOlZM3TMeV0hpeICPtd6AxIVjDlReP5YnaYXycxJyCQUsi0Kqvv7YuiowG1revxPp7Z_FzGukbBPJ7Ke2r0tvhALOdYWzmUuKAzFYgmWjt8Znfhm/s400/blog2-mutya-buena.jpg" border="0" /><br /><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">Mutya</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">Buena</span> - ex-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">Sugababe</span>. Much quieter than expected. Early twenties. </span><br /><br /><br /><br /><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5291283460623053362" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 280px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 400px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-XN74XBPpNkz8Axf5gtE5iaAE2CwLzdqL0kY1pKDzjj0K5sg1BQ4OmHrsrbSnEDbaJndilk9Eh8lgEIcIigORAEE1jpVb2QzTnfoMT0gu9np0CKYlVw5azelCP0HQ0LhUxI6shIYtter4/s400/lucy_pinder_envy_5_big.jpg" border="0" /><br /><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Lucy <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">Pinder</span> - Right wing Page 3 girl with the most famous natural baps in the country...according to the daily star. Didn't cause too much of a stir. Twenties.</span><br /><br /><br /><br /><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5291283462149869346" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 257px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 400px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZBwQxdDhb-tvyTK2vZgQcGLOWiE03yAjlAK65z3Wl4d47RR0-v7YR_lC5XiBL1dBlA9R-UYr7E6DgDD7qpx8QdrFPdbnNC0Q0iOcYnE6xvGPzKqNDdOVWC_9qtCDBaLKe0z4Htl3CNEZa/s400/michelle_heaton_1944220.jpg" border="0" /><br /><br /><div><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Michelle <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20">Heaton</span> - ex-Liberty X pop singer. Mid twenties. Nicknamed by the press of late as "<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21">Cheatin</span>' <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_22">Heaton</span>" due to reported indiscretions during her marriage, which was sold to <em>OK</em> and <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_23">documented</span> on <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_24">ITV</span>2. Emotional and intimidated. First to cry.</span> </div><br /><br /><div><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Like in the book (if you haven't read it, do so immediately) females tend to turn against each other in situations of pressure, as opposed to turning against the situation itself or the individual or body that put them there. That's a common reaction in any inferior group, be that in the racial, physical or sexual sense. </span></div><br /><br /><div><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">When <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_25">Shilpa</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_26">Shetty</span> was victimised by Jade Goody and the gang, jealousy was a word bandied around as possible motive. Almost correct I think. More accurate a word is probably "competition". The line between cost and reward when appearing in a show like this is a thin one to tread, and for these individuals it is a case of "survival" - its the closest they'll ever get to defending their cubs from a predator anyway.</span></div><br /><br /><div><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">And the show encourages this behaviour. You may think the tasks set for housemates are unoriginal - but they fit a very clever prototype. They all involve splitting the larger group into packs of two or more, and one is always disadvantaged in some way. If the original idea was for there to be one autonomous being - that being Big Brother - and the rest an indistinguishable group of "proles", these sorts of tasks are the polar opposite of what the programme should be all about. </span></div><div><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;"></span> </div><div><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">However, left to their own devices the group will almost always split anyway and the people who display this the most will always be women. Privileged by fame or not, the idea that women are more socially disadvantaged is still a prevalent one and whether the women in question realise it or not their behaviour will always reveal it.</span> </div><div> </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3914858041333419964.post-80351691121030261802009-01-13T13:16:00.000-08:002009-01-13T13:26:50.431-08:00Happy New Header!<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Happy New Year to my as yet indecipherable number of readers - who I fear may have deserted me due to an unforeseen 2 month hiatus. Er...sorry about that.</span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">However, much like Celebrity Big Brother, there's no getting rid of me, however offensive and unpopular. Anyway, along with abstaining from alcohol in Janvier and watching every single episode of Saturday Kitchen, blogging more is defintely a resolution for 2009 that I should be able to stick to. </span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">So to start it with a bang...I've refurbished a little bit. Spot Offred in the very poorly designed header...I reckon a chimp could've done better. I have to admit I am still learning the ropes of blogging...forgive the sloppiness!</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3914858041333419964.post-5512257242377805922008-10-03T02:21:00.000-07:002008-10-03T02:50:17.074-07:00Manly Musings 2<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;color:#ffcc99;"><strong>The Bra-Burning issue - Teen Pregnancy</strong></span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">I think this topic was a bit near the knuckle for one of my male specimens...or he just forgot to get back to me...either way, I hope you'll agree that Male Specimen 1's answers more than tackle this most topical of topics. </span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;color:#ffccff;"><strong>Why do you think teenage pregnancy is more prevalent among lower socio-economic groups than with the middle classes?</strong></span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"> </span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><em>First and foremost, the term “lower socioeconomic groups” is a fairly pointless way of writing “financially poorer”! By saying someone is poorer, you aren’t implying they are in anyway a lesser person than a richer person but just to be sure, pop the word financially in front and - tah dah - you’ve got yourself a less pretentious way of writing it!</em></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><em>On to the meat (or otherwise if you are averse to the idea of meat) of the question sandwich: why are more poor teenage girls pregnant than rich teenage girls? That’s quite a complex question that I think you could write a 100,000 word essay on so to attempt to explain those issues in a short answer would be silly but…</em></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><em>I think more of them are pregnant because they buy cheaper condoms, sometimes they just use old plastic carriers tightly wrapped round the genitals and also there is a rumour on many estates that Tic-Tacs are the same as the pill so they think that eating Tic-Tacs is a good form of protection!</em></span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><strong><span style="color:#ffccff;">When you hear about a girl having one or more children who is between the ages of 12 and 17, what do you think? Be honest.</span></strong> </span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><em>For me, this question raises a few points. Firstly, grammatically I believe you meant to write "...children who ARE between the ages..."</em></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><em>Secondly, there is nothing wrong with having children close together for example when I was 12, my sister was 13 and my brothers were 14 and 17. That worked out fine for us and my mother didn’t have any problems, she said it was hard work but manageable!</em></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><em>If the mother were the young-un, I think it would be Paed-O’clock! That’s a bad time for all involved!</em></span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><em></em></span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><strong><span style="color:#ffccff;">Do you think the way the media presents motherhood and parenting in general (particularly in tabloid newspapers and gossip magazines a la Heat, OK, Now etc) is misleading girls about the realities of having children? Is this irresponsible?</span></strong> </span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><em>Mother of the Year awards were once won by Kerry Katona. This year the winner was Suzanne Shaw. That’s fine but the other nominees were Jordan and Heather Mills! The problem with the tabloid media is all of the crack they clearly smoke, no sensible sober person would let the filth that is Jordan, Kerry Katona or Heather Mills anywhere near their children.</em></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3914858041333419964.post-20117849462216105682008-09-18T01:55:00.000-07:002008-09-18T02:00:33.126-07:00Mini-Skirts cause car crashes. And in other news, the Pope's a Muslim<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7621823.stm">Mental news from Uganda </a>- the country's ethics and integrity minister is concerned about the detrimental effects of the mini-skirt on traffic safety, so much so he's seeking a ban on the item of clothing.<br /><br />My favourite quote: "If you find a naked person you begin to concentrate on the make-up of that person and yet you are driving."<br /><br />Honestly...Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3914858041333419964.post-9302696983912113422008-09-17T06:12:00.000-07:002008-09-17T07:08:40.050-07:00Hypocrisy Alert!<div></div><br /><div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsBCy8uhyFAXXwKXm9tJKPk-s_sUxdWgBXK3bg59Kmmf-p-RhDQ6Ab0-KN6MkYlrFsvZRPyPVgG19roc2sJ6BF0_sS0gdFIUH-jceN_cmRTVjC9yTAYu1QAdzhz9oVgcJW4yIrRiFJ2bYI/s1600-h/monkey.bmp"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5246991349373953298" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsBCy8uhyFAXXwKXm9tJKPk-s_sUxdWgBXK3bg59Kmmf-p-RhDQ6Ab0-KN6MkYlrFsvZRPyPVgG19roc2sJ6BF0_sS0gdFIUH-jceN_cmRTVjC9yTAYu1QAdzhz9oVgcJW4yIrRiFJ2bYI/s400/monkey.bmp" border="0" /></a><br /><div><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">How sick is this online game created by the online degredation device<em> Monkey Mag? </em><em>Paedogeddon </em>(see what they've done there?) players are invited to rid the world of those pesky "kiddy fiddlers". Afterwards they can "GAWP" at women in their "skimpies". Why not go the whole hog and put the women in "sexy schoolgirl" get-ups? Where do men stop being "Jack the lads" and start being perves...and does that line need a bit of reassertion? I think so. Wrong. </span></div><br /><div><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;"></span></div><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5246991769983243890" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgPDERLLJFVcEZxvqZpF2Gs8rFHgtOXZHqsey9EhuYaaNG7PZRl-kcwqjt_rX4Hi9EDJt23CJVFs2kF8nOOIBASqdzHHwo_NxegpBXQJQerqLCgmb1ej4jcJRnDW3VtubIVIY7785v-m6U/s400/untitled.bmp" border="0" /> <div></div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3914858041333419964.post-56287724397398255292008-09-17T05:32:00.000-07:002008-09-17T05:55:33.170-07:00Regular Feature #1!<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">I’m sure we’re all in agreement that one of the most commonly held opinions about feminists is that we’re a miserable bunch of moaning singletons with one or more cats. As ill-informed as this undoubtedly is, I concede that I find it a bit too easy sometimes to allow the injustices of the world get me down and I don't want my blog to turn into a negative diatribe. So, I have decided to introduce a bit of light relief to the blog in the form of (drum roll please)…Manly Musing which will appear weekly.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">The idea for this was borne of an impromptu mini-interview with two of my male work colleagues which I reported on the blog a while back. As well as a very interesting insight (ahem) into the consensus of feminism through a man’s eyes, their answers were undeniably humorous and elicited quite a response (proving indeed that humour and an interest in feminist issues aren’t mutually exclusive – wowzers!).<br /><br />So, Male Specimens # 1 & 2 are back and will be answering my questions on something that I feel is a suitable current affairsy topic.<br /><br />Please note that the views expressed are not my own but those of two men in their mid-twenties – proceed with caution and tongue firmly in cheek!<br /><br /><span style="color:#ffcc99;"><strong><em>Manly Musings, Wednesday 17th September</em></strong><br /><br /></span><strong><span style="color:#ffcc99;">The Bra-Burning Issue – Sarah Palin<br /></span></strong><br /><strong><u>Male Specimen # 1</u></strong><br /></span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"></span><br /><div align="left"><strong><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;color:#ffccff;">Do you think that Sarah Palin, the Republican running mate of John McCain </span></strong><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><strong><span style="color:#ffccff;">and potential Vice President of USA is a good role model for the modern woman?</span></strong><br /><em>I think that the work that Palin did with</em> Monty Python <em>was brilliant and changed</em> </span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><em>the face of comedy. Also, I loved the series</em> Around the World in 80 Days<em>, although I do </em></span><em><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">think the BBC are milking it by still showing it on BBC World! He made the series in </span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">1989, so I don’t think you can take his views or comments made in that programme as </span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">good for modern women as they are nearly 20-years-old. The fact that he talks about </span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">the USSR should not be taken as a slight against his knowledge on current affairs, he is </span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">very much modern and taking his 1980’s comments out of context would make him look </span></em><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><em>much worse in terms of being a role model for modern women!</em><br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#ffccff;">What do you think of her being pro-life but also pro death penalty? Is this a c</span></strong></span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><strong><span style="color:#ffccff;">ontradiction?</span></strong><br /><em>Pro life and pro death penalty? She sounds like the kind of woman that likes to give </em></span><em><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">things a try, you can’t say she’s backwards in coming forwards! I like to think she’s the </span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">kind of woman who likes a nice buffet. Would you like some chicken? Yes please. </span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Would you like some pork? Yes please. Would you like some salad? Yes please! Give </span></em><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><em>life a chance? Yep. Give death a chance? Deffo!</em><br /></span><br /><em><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Realistically, she obviously is a Christian and thinks babies deserve to live and killers d</span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">eserve to go to hell for some Devil-prodding, obviously mis-trial is not an option to</span> <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">her! I guess I can understand her point of view but I’m afraid nothing’s as straight</span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">forward as she might like to believe. Forcing a rape victim to give birth to the child is </span></em><em><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">absurd, killing someone who turns out to be innocent is also disgusting!<br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">That seems like a pretty good way of doing things to me, always up for it, whatever the </span></em><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><em>offer!</em><br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#ffccff;">If you were American who would you vote for and why?</span></strong><br /></span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><em>I would vote for Obama because I’m not an idiot!</em> </span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><em>Invasion of Iraq – wrong!</em> <em>Creationism – wrong!</em> </span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><em>Give everyone as many guns as their chubby little hands can carry – wrong!</em><br /><br /><em>As a sensible, logical human being, you surely can’t vote for the Republicans. But, enough being sensible, if I were American I would vote for the Republicans </em></span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><em>because Arnie is a member and I loved</em> Conan the Barbarian <em>and </em>Twins<em>, and </em>Kindergarten </span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Cop<em> is my favourite film ever!<br /></em><br /><strong><u>Male Specimen # 2</u></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#ffccff;">Do you think that Sarah Palin, the Republican running mate of John McCain and potential</span></strong></span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><strong><span style="color:#ffccff;">Vice President of USA is a good role model for the modern woman?</span></strong><br /><em>She’s a tasty piece of ass and she has a kid called Trig. You have to love her and you </em></span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><em>definitely would!</em><br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#ffccff;">What do you think of her being pro-life but also pro death penalty? Is this a c</span></strong></span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><strong><span style="color:#ffccff;">ontradiction?</span></strong><br /><em>They are extreme life values but if you do good you deserve good. If you do bad then </em></span><em><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">you deserve bad. She feels the ultimate crime deserves the ultimate punishment. A </span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">woman should do what they see as fit when it comes to making the choice about their </span></em><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><em>future babies' lives.</em><br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#ffccff;">If you were American who would you vote for and why?</span></strong><br /><em>I am so, so glad I’m not American. I would probably go with the majority and go for </em></span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><em>Obama but I couldn’t tell you why!</em></span><br /><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">The Verdict: Heads seem to be screwed on...just.</span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3914858041333419964.post-44391507543738217542008-09-17T04:08:00.000-07:002008-09-17T05:29:59.400-07:00Teen Mums - from Celebrity to Reality<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgt-A2u-cpu25xWFzPxthXNfIO8NPn84ZZlpjIgDBBNvplFYrRRyyogWLx_k_4pfj5x01bGw8yY1u__zliRPqjKTu6ksIQGTfqixIKl6TEUp27YWG7-wjl_ELBehkD9St9eZ_YdkfzBQit9/s1600-h/JLS.bmp"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5246954388655566002" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgt-A2u-cpu25xWFzPxthXNfIO8NPn84ZZlpjIgDBBNvplFYrRRyyogWLx_k_4pfj5x01bGw8yY1u__zliRPqjKTu6ksIQGTfqixIKl6TEUp27YWG7-wjl_ELBehkD9St9eZ_YdkfzBQit9/s400/JLS.bmp" border="0" /></a><br /><div><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">An interesting piece in the <em><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/14/uselections2008.sarahpalin">Observer</a></em> this Sunday used the Bristol Palin pregnancy debate as an inroad to a discussion about media glorification of teen pregnancy and how this is juxtaposed by the simultaneous demonising of lower class teenage mothers. The small sea-port city of Gloucester, Massachusetts was recently subject to some unwarranted media attention when news emerged of a <a href="http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1815845,00.html">pregnancy pact </a>that saw 150 teenagers receive tests in the same month. Residents of the town had complained that their girls were being labelled as red necks, their babies a “shameful consequence of a regrettable mistake”, while Bristol Palin – in the public eye, supported by a middle class family - is being heralded as a brave and responsible role model for upstanding Christian teenagers (slightly tenuous considering that whole no sex before marriage thing, but that’s another can of worms). Something doesn’t sound quite right here does it?<br /><br />The furore surrounding teenage girls and their likeliness to have children early is almost always linked to their position in society and the debate inevitably becomes one of class. The anthropological (and the less so) theories as to why young girls end up having babies range from the simplistic to the tenous. Is this an evolutionary tactic of certain socio-economic groups to ensure survival/upward mobility? Is it more to do with education; or religion; or the media’s treatment of these girls and their own resignation in the face of it? Of course there can be no finite reason for the incline in teenage pregnancies in communities like Gloucester and all contributing factors should be looked at most carefully.<br /><br />There is definitely a palpable absence of objective sexual education and advice in the US. George Bush’s fondness for promoting abstinence as birth control and the increasingly evangelistic religious climate have impeded on the progress of sexual health initiatives in the US to the point where teenagers are unable to obtain contraception without parental consent – undoubtedly a factor in 41% of those teenagers interviewed in Gloucester admitting to having had unprotected sex at least once in their lives.</span></div><div><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;"></span></div><br /><div><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"></div></span><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5246957043202232450" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivCl6IZXkUVHV07DSWBakyTjDtjJEllZ58WsMGTbzDIRNbxYM3umWGohkbDrJ1ZnyqUkEX70njAAzRuApVbiuRdUUB5mPkSM3spfLoyZxhargaAzqYq73YK8KdrFySRAytWDKF8b8n4FLm/s400/juno_cp.jpg" border="0" /><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">And what of the other factor at play here? In a society dominated by media consumption and our easy access to it, what role models do teenage girls have? Increasingly, pop stars and actresses (getting younger by the minute thanks to Hollywood’s unabated thirst for nubile cash cows) represent what teenage girls think of success. Girls like Bristol Palin, Jamie Lynn Spears (sister of Britney, who isn’t exactly a beacon of hope for young mothes everywhere), Ashlee Simpson, Charlotte Church are worshipped by their fans and elevated by the media and they have all had (or are expecting) children at very young ages. Yet they have not been admonished, and instead are lauded for their achievements, paid to pose with their babies for all to see on the covers of the magazines that peddle gossip to the exact demographic most likely to fit the “teenage mum” mould – if there is such a thing. </span><br /><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;"></span><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5246954558661412226" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCwthydQtnEb6YDqAyVMNSzw3Fp1Z3WS3IiBxF_ZVC5dCw1Xlo_bG670qqHVcFgf3g0bB3llOsL5Z_ZCH7DjdGpk6BrPT58KQvGqp0LpEnFcbaUuooRg0tMctMn3zSDp8McRWEax__2XFf/s400/JLS.jpg" border="0" /> </span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><br /><div>The cult of celebrity asserts that the rich and famous can do no wrong, so having a child in pre-formative years and out of wedlock is portrayed as a blissful and welcome life choice. In the glossy world of the media (on both sides of the pond) parenting appears deceptively easy – a veritable carnival of designer baby-gros and celebrity god-parents. Sometimes you don’t even have to go to the trouble of pushing – just head for the nearest disadvantaged country and bring one home in your Louis Vuitton hand luggage. Exaggeration aside, the obvious concern is that babies are being conceived as the next designer accessory. Remember the absurdity of the famous <em>Harry Enfield and Chums</em> episode wherein Waynetta Slob bemoans her lack of “one of those black babies.” Not so funny when positioned alongside Madonna and her Malawian escapades. How long before Paris Hilton trades in Tinkerbell for a cuter and somewhat more Homosapien model?<br /><br />As much as I enjoy American-bashing, it is intrinsically wrong (or so I’m told) and although I am loathe to admit this, the situation is little better in the UK – as this terrifying article on the <em><a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-514542/Why-sterilise-teenage-girls---temporarily-least.html">Daily Mail</a></em> website inadvertently illustrates. Nothing outlines the hypocrisy that’s going on here better than this piece of crap brandishing teenage mums as “silly girls” after a council house and a way out of school exams placed alongside a link to a positively glowing report of the <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1056302/Pictured-The-Spears-family-reunited-years-public-feuding.html">happy stateside Spears family </a>(complete with 17-year-old Jamie Lynn and her 3 month old daughter). </div><div></div><div></div><br /><div></div><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5246957291675283202" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjiQqTjUek7mBjcCRu7XtO9zyUxbHlGSrrwjs9j5lwV_9uNyUCvKUcBh9-ofz3gBZAahiwe_hrUa0G5rjx7MwK7BR0oUg0MHHua7Cr09Ivc23-Qc7jEmut47RJ3b0uWIm6vltTl1-ujYpfR/s400/frontjpg.jpg" border="0" /></span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Fay Weldon, in the same vein as <a href="http://adjustthesails.blogspot.com/2008/07/rape-according-to-carole-malone.html">Carole Malone </a>and other middle class halfwits using the tabloids as misguided moral soapboxes, dismisses sex education as a solution to this teenage pregnancy “epidemic” because she thinks it will encourage children as young as eleven to want to turn theory into practice. Hopefully this is an attitude towards teaching that won’t make it mainstream – because what’s next? Stop teaching kids about World War II in case they all join the Nazi Youth? Outlaw French to prevent mass child emigration?<br /><br />Besides the fact that sterilising teenagers against their will – which is what this article seems to be seriously considering - would be a massive infringement on human rights (this point should be too obvious to warrant labouring) Weldon seems to think it’s a simple solution to this unsavoury condition; one which she says makes Britain a “disgrace among [other] nations”. Far simpler than say, providing the proper resources for children to make their own minds up armed with all the facts. To know that they had the support they needed might also be nice, but sadly what’s in store for teenage mothers in this country is a lifetime of being reminded about their mistake by hypocrites like Weldon, who think it’s acceptable to describe them as the producers of low “quality” children who are – more likely than not – destined to end up the recipient of an ASBO (if male) and another teen mum (if female).<br /><br />Had Weldon bothered to do any research, she might have been surprised to find that while the propensity to have children younger is more prevalent in lower socio-economic groups (in both the US and the UK), those that do often end up achieving more than their childless counterparts. <em><a href="http://www.subtextmagazine.co.uk/">Subtext</a></em> magazine published a fantastic expose of this media aggression towards teen pregnancy in which Heather Kennedy dispelled some of the myths about young mums. That teenage mothers are embarking on a downward spiral by having a child so young is a misconception (mainly of the middle classes who identify teen pregnancy with stigma and social deprivation far more than the working class do) – in actual fact many of these girls see the birth of their children as “an impetus to sort their lives out and focus on the future”. </span><br /><br /><br /><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5246957586134180834" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_dq-WYTqTQFVgeS9n1aQjdntiW1XRLcDc9LvUKcUQmZhvyC1Ud179Xq2aLNkgopa_2TqXOh6JYxk2gaCtRow9dtmEENQ9IR4r0W3Xy214YusI8DVULcA-bHGDSm1gX8s2iub_sh3NyPCK/s400/_44290792_kizzy2_416.jpg" border="0" /><br /><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">A documentary last year following <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7136196.stm">Kizzy Neal</a>, mother at 14 years old did an excellent job of portraying a teenage girl who was struggling with motherhood, but enjoying it and getting on with her life. If only it wasn't tucked away, post-watershed on BBC3, the controversial idea that teenagers are capable of making the right decisions wouldn't be so absent from social conscience.<br /></span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Similarly Elizabeth Day notes that according to Dr Mike Males, a sociologist and senior researcher at the Centre on Juvenile and Criminal Justice in San Francisco, teenage motherhood is seen by many as a viable social strategy. In fact, in a 2005 study, Males found that “former teenage mothers who are freed from child-raising duties by their late twenties or early thirties have, by the age of 35, 'earned more in income, paid more in taxes, were substantially less likely to live in poverty and collected less in public assistance than similarly poor women who waited until their twenties to have babies'”<br /><br />So Weldon’s theory of these girls being a drain on the tax-payer is slightly skewed, and who she might think is more deserving of housing and benefits than our own citizens (however old they are) remains a mystery. Seemingly giving these teens and their offspring the best start in family life is not a priority for Weldon, as apparently these children are doomed from their conception…ridiculous. Aside from being a terrible written argument (who publishes this woman’s books?) this utter tripe is exactly what’s wrong with the whole situation.<br /></span><br /><br /><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5246957780087347282" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijyE-7Czei_wADkjlwShdQU2DORBws0KXousTwyq1jxYODBOBA65XfreiatNb8qx7xYGjbU7MHdcOBS_DsF_Enja6E5l5X_hmeS8Adg6muZ2owjP9xOjdM14bnEGpZkSTfeS2upDT-67IT/s400/vicky_pollard_and_kids.jpg" border="0" /><br /><p><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"></span></p><p><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">To make generalizations that paint a picture of a young mother slapping her children in supermarkets and rubbing her hands together in glee when the two of them are shipped to a grotty bedsit to scrimp on government hand outs is seriously damaging the work that groups like the <a href="http://www.ywca.org/site/pp.asp?c=glLUJgP9H&b=67256">YWCA</a> is doing to a) prevent young girls having children too young and b) help those that do. Its also damaging the self esteem of the girls that end up in this predicament – its time people realised that Vicky Pollard is a very cleverly put together character spawned of a stereotype and nothing more. Headlines that draw upon this reference to justify dehumanizing vulnerable children are to be deplored.<br /><br />Of course class is the major deciding factor in whether a teenage mother is celebrated for her pro-life abiding, responsible family values or taunted for her sexual promiscuity and social inferiority – this has always been the way. The fact is – an easy one to overlook – that the mothers up for debate here are children themselves, surely that’s why this is such a mess?<br /><br />So, what do we do – teach our children the facts? Encourage them to aspire to great things but support them when those aspirations are interrupted by an unexpected pregnancy, and stand by them if those aspirations simply are to be a mother, as controversial as this may be? No, surely a better way of controlling the situation is to bombard teenage girls with images of their celebrity idols as the glamourous poster-children for modern motherhood, give them little information about the true facts, and – of course – carry on attacking them when they end up pregnant. But only if they’re not rich and famous – that would just be wrong. </span></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3914858041333419964.post-83533777541982242992008-09-12T04:10:00.000-07:002008-09-12T04:11:49.494-07:00After my own heart...<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Finally I have found the online manifestation of my own internal feelings on the simpering drivel that is the Observer Woman Monthly supplement in what is an otherwise excellent newspaper.<br /><br /><a href="http://spittingmadwoman.blogspot.com/">Observer Woman Monthly Makes Me Spit</a> (or OWMMS) is wickedly devoted to dissecting each horrendous issue of OWM with endless wit and bile.<br /><br />I have long harboured hatred for this ghastly excuse for a magazine so am positively thrilled there is an outlet for my spite – good work!</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3914858041333419964.post-80533783555641916192008-09-04T08:16:00.001-07:002008-09-04T09:13:19.475-07:00One small step for Palin, One giant step backwards for Womankind<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQnd4baLn70G5gGj_A-G3XeS1n9JbNNIXCqx7xexICwBUi0-ZOm2BHr2HKpKqULRv8n4Jw6XVv5LTcX9C0mJO2VFRmzKgATTKchiCKqFOz-PHlpK-IpwJ538fGnMv26MLbeaw9jVWbjL-I/s1600-h/palin_sarah.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5242194175761495794" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQnd4baLn70G5gGj_A-G3XeS1n9JbNNIXCqx7xexICwBUi0-ZOm2BHr2HKpKqULRv8n4Jw6XVv5LTcX9C0mJO2VFRmzKgATTKchiCKqFOz-PHlpK-IpwJ538fGnMv26MLbeaw9jVWbjL-I/s400/palin_sarah.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Interest seemed to have waned of late in the impending American election. After the initial hysteria that surrounded the Clinton/Obama battle, there was a brief intermission – but it seems the issue is at the forefront of the news again and in my opinion quite rightly. Who gets put in charge of the most powerful nation on earth is a bit of a big deal, isn’t it? At times I’m not quite sure that the citizens of America (most of them having never set foot outside of the ‘Land of the Free’) understand this as well as the rest of the world, particularly those most unlucky recipients of one of their ill-advised missions of liberation/protection. I still find it difficult to fathom that an intelligent western country could appoint George W as their figurehead even once, let alone twice. This is the same incredulousness I reserve for several political topics; the lack of interest America has taken in the Zimbabwe situation considering their “humanitarian” actions in removing other tyrannical dictators; the recent Beijing Olympics effectively smoke-screening the status-quo in Tibet; Russia and Georgia…the list could go on. </span></div><div></div><div><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">As much as I’d like to believe that it couldn’t happen, there is a very real possibility that the votes could go John McCain’s way. Which is a chilling thought, even for those of us who try to wriggle out of being tarred with the Guardian-reading, left-winger, women-libber brush. A right wing, anti-fundamental human rights septuagenarian – is this the free world or the Catholic church? Fnar. Forgive me for that, but the parallels that modern day America and its disjointed population are drawing with religious tyranny in order to control the masses can’t be ignored…can they? Apparently not. Worryingly though, the American public seem to identify with this kind of mentality and furthermore, favour it. The rigid religious views of the Bible Belt (where Bush could always rely on support) are unfortunately an incorrigible influence on the tally of votes that end up swaying towards the Christian right in the US. We’re told frequently by those Americans that are desperately aware of the political landscape that “not all” Americans feel this way, that there are Bush dissenters across the pond in equal number to those over here. The media circus engulfing their supposedly democratic political system of late must have them gawping disbelievingly at their Fox News bearing TV screens then. Because let’s face it, to the outsider, these American elections are structured mainly around the frenzied propaganda facilitated by the non-objective media institutions and the dialogue of false promises. Of course, we’re talking politics and the borderline between truth and lies will always be heavily marred, but America takes this to another level. While us “civilised” Europeans like to think that we’re aware of the corruption that goes on in modern politics, the average American (or so many of us are led to believe, due to a distinct lack of evidence to the contrary) believes these exaggerations of character and intent and their voting decision is influenced by the farcical nature of the preceding chaos. So, it’s into this confusing fray that Sarah Palin – running mate to the decrepit John McCain – is thrust. </span></div><div><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;"></span></div><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"></span><br /><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5242194771944845986" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWneAuB3Vm2ki5gKVzn87yk3eSexQVgrbCyqdDTacFSjJZR_uJX2oBvMNO49Nqm7vYwjcpWpay3pgP-wuSSGYrr31_LzaOwdErvqjYe_MuxZ_Oc6nm0UlI4t8QLUgttDbXfz6KsLrbNKAf/s400/large_MCCain%2520Veepstakes%2520Palin.jpg" border="0" /><br /><p><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"></span></p><p><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">The first question I have (and there are many) is why her? There is a theory that she’s been leveraged as a paradoxical anti-Hillary, in that her gender is being used as a tactic to ensnare those voters who were voting for Clinton based only (or mainly) on her gender. There are worrying reports that a number of angered Clinton supporters have allegedly vowed not to vote for Barack Obama on principal, and indeed 1 in 5 Clinton supporters are now backing McCain. That these formerly Democratic citizens are now either intending to vote for the opposition or not vote at all (which will effectively help the opposition) is a disturbing revelation, but indeed the demographic that John McCain has his sights set on converting is suburban white women, or “soccer moms” as they are being colloquially referred to. These women were an easy pull for Clinton, but McCain has now secured a 44% (to Obama’s 38%) majority stronghold among them. Worrying stuff. Palin certainly appears your typical middle American woman – mother to five ridiculously named children; former beauty queen turned self-confessed “hockey mom” - at first glance Palin seems positively wholesome and really rather harmless. Which makes it unfortunate that this is the closest many American’s will actually look. Look a little bit further though, and some of her interests and actions are verging on reprehensible. Of course there is no doubt a Spitting Image style assassination of Sarah Palin’s past and private life going on in UK and international press (and her interesting range of hobbies and eating habits help construct an excellent charicature) so it all must be taken with a pinch of salt. However, the emerging picture of Sarah “The Barracuda” Palin is inescapable when imagining what sort of an influence she may have on the political future of America. </span></p><br /><p><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5242195343748717826" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-m8nYKILm8-wWp7gtj-CQUesws562YhofyqEoKCATp1gnfZat4eP0SrASdEcfzfKLSwM_JEbzmTWJ4dqKOkRDHimsCZzbEGlq7Nzm5l0iyJE1EqxCS8OqO0QiwaAcF8cSkHLKQrwfY4Ji/s400/PalinFamily_Outside_web.jpg" border="0" /> </p><br /><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">The integrity of McCain’s vetting procedure has been thrown into question at her appointment and has already lost him a decent number of followers, although not as many as he stands to gain. For all her popularity her post as Governor of Alaska was relatively small-time in terms of political kudos and she had only met McCain once before he appointed her as running mate. Add to that the fact that she allegedly orchestrated the dismissal of Walter Monegan, Public Safety Commissoner, who had refused to sack her sister’s soon to be ex-husband and the cookie-baking housewife image is shot to…well, suffice it to say the average mother doesn’t normally find shooting Moose in the head a relaxing hobby. Then there’s the unsavoury revelations that have emerged since Palin became a very public contender to be Vice President of the United States, and the first woman to have a hope of doing so. That her daughter Bristol, seventeen and unmarried, is five months pregnant; and that her husband is a convicted drink driver are stories that have been newsreel fodder in the past week and some would say unfairly used as evidence that she’s unfit for her position. Personally I feel that politicians are as entitled to a personal life as the rest of us (no one <em>really</em> begrudged Bill Clinton’s <em>did</em> they?)but when there’s a clear discrepancy between what a potentially very powerful human being advocates in private and the image being sold to the public, things start to get a bit murky. The old adage “Do as I say, not as I do” springs uncomfortably to mind. </span><br /><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;"></span><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5242195582944853506" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkfwJzJHhTSvpSXniJSZvMaOspUHl8DyCL-DkcMesWuc9HmRHmvjtcgIYL52jvqdVQ6DINASp6h9M0LbHbfHx8uBAzEG-K5TRld6YE8qIPxD4H94ydIsdk1SLMHqjK34Ycgu-oYWuRM6Wu/s400/amd_sarahbristol.jpg" border="0" /><br /><p><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">As a feminist, it’s difficult to stomach Palin. We should be rejoicing at the fact that for the first time in American history, a woman is in with a chance of being a Vice President. Palin’s gung-ho career woman persona should also stand in her favour, but in my opinion its already damaging to women that this particular one is in the running. Should she end up as VP of the most powerful country in the world, the implications for women are nothing less than catastrophic. Yes, she is a woman – but as Gloria Steinhem has publically stated, she is the “wrong woman” with the “wrong message”. For a start, her political agenda is absurdly outdated. Seemingly not interested in progression of any kind, Palin – in her eagerly anticipated speech at the Republican party convention – mocked Obama for his “elitism” while positioning herself as the champion of small town USA (only 20% of which have ever travelled outside the US and have any idea about what goes on there). A news item on the BBC yesterday interviewed a few of her supporters, one of whom cited her “normality” as her most appealing quality. This “normality” has to be looked at in context – if “normal” means evangelical, pro-life, pro-hunting, rifle-toting, politically inexperienced and inept – then that’s certainly what Palin appears to be – clearly the ideal choice for the American public. Of course Palin is also a member of the National Rifle Association, and her biggest political achievement thus far has been to do with that all important American currency unit…oil. Fair enough, she was only the chair of the Alaskan Oil and Gas Conservation Commission – but still, I wonder how long this interest in gas will remain a domestic concern should she become more influential? Palin has already voiced her belief that the deployment of troops to Iraq was a “task set by God.” Rather paradoxically, she also said quite recently: "individual freedom and independence is extremely important to me and that's why I'm a Republican.” </span></p><p><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5242195834781461570" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7L7FpYKNi_ndbTUR9X5bJSrwp6pKfn3CUBiVpkku9H9sOW5cLipNbIB38058Pq50a_mq2fIa0sWN47hD4tilkKjixRpIZV_jI2cQp563G5zMihwT5Q6EXuCyYiWjhM52_Uh5e-oD4eDYr/s400/picture1.jpg" border="0" /><br />I wonder how free and independent her teenage daughter, Bristol is feeling at the moment, having been dragged into her mother’s quest for votes and paraded around as proof of her doting parent’s pro-life leanings? According to Palin, Bristol and her hockey player boyfriend had always intended to marry regardless of the pregnancy and they still intend to do so, but I can’t help wondering if Bristol’s decision would have been the same were her mother’s beliefs not being touted by the Republicans as the best thing to hit America since fried chicken. I don’t know the circumstances any further than the news reports, but if Sarah Palin – or her political manifesto – is forcing her daughter into a marriage of convenience, we have a situation that is basically defecating all over years of feminist progress – progress that has rather ironically afforded Palin the professional position she is now able and allowed to be in. Interestingly enough, Palin’s opposition to increased spend on sex education back in 2006 seems to have shifted – although technically she conveniently refuses to talk about it these days. Ultimately we’re not just talking about Pro-Choice in terms of abortion laws when the running of a country is at stake – we’re talking about the basic human right of the American people to choose what goes on in their country, in personal circumstance and public sphere. What concerns me most about the whole thing is the enduring inability of American governments to trust their citizens in making the right choice. Like Bush before her, Palin appeals to the most basic ideals of the small town citizens she claims to be one of, mollycoddling them into believing that intrinsic faults in the last administration were actually OK, or worse - some sort of religious destiny. John McCain’s election to President and the consequent appointment of Palin as his deputy – if it happens – can’t be looked at as anything other than at best misguided and at worst abhorrent.<br /><br />This is a topic that I feel I haven’t even scratched the surface of and as the unfortunate occupier of a day-job, not much research has been done. What I have read has all been fascinating, so I would advise you to learn more – from far more learned folk – here: </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2008/sep/04/uselections2008.republicans2008">Guardian Online</a></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;"><a href="http://menstrualpoetry.com/sarah-palin-feminist">Menstrual Poetry</a></span></p><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;"><a href="http://news.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view/2008_09_03_Bristol_Palin_gets_caught_in_blogs%E2%80%99_web/srvc=home&position=also">The Boston Herald</a></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;"><a href="http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h5V6UPINjUP1fphbDC1pXx4finGgD92UP0S81">Associated Press</a></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;"><a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4653971.ece">Times Online</a></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;"><a href="http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2008/09/rudy_giuliani_s">The F Word</a></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3914858041333419964.post-8046096248669050232008-08-21T07:00:00.000-07:002008-08-21T07:42:42.727-07:00All aboard the 19 bus to chaos!<img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5236980720054427522" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgj5BFdHutFTP5phGtyoYVGNZlUmZQG6tGivRsFMY1hDyVHle9N5PW7EIve5Nqw3Dt-i3PvQejHNzxwYor7yt2vyKgM5Dfk8tCm3rsWHU1Nk2rvB5vtgko0Y4J6FxSwNoynbs_J4_TirLvY/s400/gaysvfems.bmp" border="0" /><br /><div><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Whilst on my solitary bus journey home the other day I witnessed what was perhaps the single most funny event of my whole five years in London. Catching buses to and from the west end where I work gives me about two hours reading time, so I am usually to be found as near as I can get to the back, head down and shoulders hunched (hence my posture is more Quasimodo than Darcy Bussell). At the moment, my text of choice is Noam Chomsky’s Hegemony of Survival which isn’t exactly a walk in the park for the brain cells, so on this particular day I was planning on reaching states of concentration that would render me oblivious to the other goings on of the rush hour. Unfortunately this wasn’t to be.<br /><br />Around Piccadilly Circus a pair of friends sat down on the seats opposite me. Now, I’m no Nosy Parker and I truly do try to remain objective to strangers I come across in daily life but these two made it extremely difficult. I’m not the biggest fan of loud personal conversations on public transport, and I’m sure I’m not alone there. I find them intrusive and irritating, not to mention indecently difficult to tune out of. I’ve lost track of the amount of times I’ve heard some such gossip exchange about Mel and Ed’s impending divorce or Harry and Gary’s drunken argument and as much as it shouldn’t, oftentimes this makes for a welcome alternative to the iPod or book. However, the conversation going on this time was a little too unsavoury for my liking. My travelling companions were a woman, perhaps in her late twenties and an extremely camp middle aged gentleman who was somewhat flamboyantly dressed. Before I get complaints – recognising someone is gay is not discrimination. This guy was wearing an eye-poppingly tight T Shirt, had the same haircut as Luke Goss in the 80s and obviously favoured jewellery with a sado-masochistic inspiration. It’s safe enough to assume that the man was homosexual – and I only make mention of the fact so as to inform the debate that I’ve had with myself and will have later in this post. All will become clear. Anyway, I digress. In between Piccadilly - where this vocally insalubrious couple caught the bus - and Green Park I had already heard about the man’s struggle with BO – which he insisted was “unavoidable” in the heat (not sure whether or not he’d been informed of the merits of anti-perspirant), about a friend of his whose boyfriend had just left her – “serves her f*cking right for being a fat bitch” (seriously) and about his love of Dina Carroll’s work in the early 1990s (which he was listening to on a Walkman, tape style). There was a collective weariness among the other passengers on board – including myself – at the cacophony of cheesey 90s music and bitchy ranting that was by this points reaching unbearable levels of loud. If I was praying for something to interrupt the atmosphere, what followed was not exactly what I had in mind. </span></div><br /><div><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;"></span></div><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5236981044276489554" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhK9bNd5Y2QobKqjTTuRvPMLsBSfNB1qpBzBCTVkXXJD_22yPadQOHtXsN16A8fWd9XW1jgNqC4xv83OmnaijEHHKKVC_de5IJqqV7JHA02fAuPTbCOlLeCdIFGr3nK7AugPgSOs5THOhDN/s400/0000036147_350.jpg" border="0" /><br /><div></div><br /><div><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">At the front of the bus a rather large woman was struggling to make tracks towards the back. She was carrying some shopping and a small backpack. She finally reached where I was sitting and looked like she was heading for the back seat where there were few people. As she did so, she accidentally brushed the latterly discussed gay man's head with her rucksack and that was that - all hell broke loose. The man started hurling abuse at the her almost immediately, swearing and blinding: “she didn’t even f*cking say sorry, did you see that?”, “watch where you’re going you fat b*tch” (at this point the man’s hatred for the overweight had become a running theme, which was strange as his own body left much to be desired). Anyway, the barrage of rage continued until the last stop where the man’s friend had long ago alighted (presumably mortified) and myself, large lady and gay man shuffled off to our respective homes, or at least that was what I was intending to do. Inwardly fuming at the audacity and rudeness of the guy, my heart silently went out to the woman who, admirably, had remained completely silent and full of composure throughout. Apparently though, she was also harbouring a slight amount of rage because she suddenly lunged at the man (who was happily oblivious amongst his thoughts and Dina Carroll mixtape), pushed him with what I can only describe as superhuman strength, and said “YOU F*CKING C*NT”. Now, this is a word that shouldn’t be bandied about in civilized circles I’m sure, but by the looks of all witnesses, this was indeed the time and definitely the place. Not being a shrinking violet as I’m guessing you know is obvious by now, the man recollected himself from the force of the lunge and started up another ode to this woman’s weight and gender – to spell it out: “FAT WHORE” and “FAT C*NT” weren't two of many defamations present. </span></div><div><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"></span></div><br /><div><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Everything eventually died down and in disbelief and minor hysterics I hurried home to regale everyone I know with this torrid tale (this was, let’s face it, the most exciting piece of action the number 19 bus route has ever been the host to). Once I’d calmed down, and reduced my boyfriend to tears with my very witty (at least in my head) dramatic re-enactment of the scene I started thinking about it seriously. I suddenly wondered if the story would have been as funny had the man in question not been gay – it almost definitely would not, and I’m sure (in an optimism about London solidarity that I’m trying to keep hold of) that someone would have intervened. This led me to question why this man’s attack on a woman was any less offensive because of his sexual orientation, because of course it shouldn’t be. Gay men and feminists have always had an uneasy bond, one which is subject to tension and debate among both communities. </span></div><br /><div><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">In the most simplistic of senses, both gay men and women are representatives of oppressed groups in society – it is due to women’s perceived inferiority that effeminate characteristics in gay men are fixated upon and form the basis of homophobia; perceived sexual submission, sensitivity and general victim-status. “Fairy”, “Queen”, “Bitch”, “Mary” – all of these words are feminine in insinuation and are used to negatively imply homosexuality in men. Both women and gay men are positioned as a challenge the patriarchal norm so where’s the solidarity? Maybe the similar subculture status inspires a cart blanche mentality in some gay men – I am going to hazard a guess that had the perpetrator of the heinous crime (!) against this man had been a heterosexual male, the scenario would have been a lot less vicious. </span></div><br /><div><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">This all said, we need to be careful of sweeping generalizations: this is no easy issue to tie down – there is little narrative about how gay men and feminists interact, at least online. I wonder why this is. Are we to assume that the two groups see no need for each other? Someone once told me that some gay men are indifferent to women as they have no sexual use for them. Similarly as a group not immediately involved in feminist issues, gay men are perhaps on the periphery where we are concerned. I’m not sure. Surely as co-existing groups whose end goal is the same thing – liberation – feminists and gay men should be helping each other out. I can’t help feeling that the scene I witnessed was just another day in the life of that man who may or may not use his homosexuality as an excuse to perpetrate attacks on other people. I could stake my life on the fact that this man is no stranger to the taunts of others himself, and I guess that’s what makes it so hard to fathom – no one oppression is more or less wrong than another. The oppression of women will sustain the oppression of gay men as long as ideas about homosexuality and femininity are held on to – surely this is cause for collaboration, not in-fighting? </span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3914858041333419964.post-41519649152068130252008-08-20T06:56:00.000-07:002008-08-20T07:15:06.139-07:00Dangerous Jobs...Full Stop<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDD-ECHF7P33Oj80M2L4RD4TzWzhcQVZeSoeLJQKDRGbezWin2NyqcV4Q-uo2dKweMKdEYKAdLGlI1_CIfEdvew80GBLtNpPyv6VHyv9zPpSpbUFLFGS_lz1VGDmd4fnjc7XZR8gtcTs1U/s1600-h/secretary.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5236603144293550786" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDD-ECHF7P33Oj80M2L4RD4TzWzhcQVZeSoeLJQKDRGbezWin2NyqcV4Q-uo2dKweMKdEYKAdLGlI1_CIfEdvew80GBLtNpPyv6VHyv9zPpSpbUFLFGS_lz1VGDmd4fnjc7XZR8gtcTs1U/s400/secretary.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbKFAhVz00ssy4RwbHCJvfuqOj2Ge3Daq5dBZzPpLRUwjExUnib0sFxR05DdcTRjSUOvQmgFWeGBJMpZgKiRyacK6DyB2AuOs8OUr3Aj563-5XWuYmrdwk1yQ53HV9W-gi3b2FocWLNzHa/s1600-h/secretary.jpg"></a></div><div></div><div><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"></span> </div><div><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">I do feel that I am becoming more cynical the more media I consume (or perhaps the older I get) and I must admit I would like to start a post without the pre-emptive “I was concerned to find…” or “News has reached me…” but alas it’s as difficult as ever to find material in the mainstream that doesn’t facilitate stereotypical representations of women, and so I felt a certain sense of trepidation when I sat down to watch Channel 4’s <em><a href="http://www.channel4.com/video/dangerous-jobs-for-girls/">Dangerous Jobs for Girls</a></em>. Patronising/degrading title aside, one could be forgiven for thinking that this programme is about the empowerment of the 21st century woman; about women being just as capable as men of doing “dangerous jobs” (although I still don’t feel entirely sure that one’s ability to undergo risk should be the measure of gender equality). This is the insinuation that the makers of Dangerous Jobs.. seem to want to make. However, one would be – sadly – wrong.<br /><br />The premis of the show is not unlike a myriad that have gone before it, Faking It being the one that springs most aggressively to mind. A group of women who are considered “strong” – either in the emotional, academic, or physical sense – are set the task of mastering a “dangerous” (this normally means highly physically taxing) job, which apparently is so challenging, only men folk have previously been able to handle it, or have dared to try. So far the female participants have included (among others) a champion kite surfer, an kick-boxing engineering lecturer, and a self-confessed feminist (boo, hiss), and they have been tasked with some pretty heavy workloads: running a ranch as part of a troupe of cowboys, hitting the decks of a deep sea trawler and cutting it as lumberjacks partaking in the most dangerous job of all – felling a 60 foot pine tree. This is where the purpose of the show becomes a bit unclear. Anyone with nouse can see that these are “dangerous jobs” for anyone, regardless of their gender. This TV listing on the <em><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2008/aug/06/television1">Guardian</a></em> website says it all I think:<br /><br />“Technically, they're dangerous jobs for anyone without the proper training, since logging, the profession in question here, can be fatal irrespective of whether you're in possession or not of a penis. Of course, such an admission would render this thoroughly dumb programme even more redundant than it actually is, so roll your eyes, shake your head and sigh with irritation as businesswoman Tracy, soldier Anna and student Helen see if they've Got What It Takes to become lumberjills, while coping with the Canadian weather, killer trees - and sharing toilets with 30 men.”<br /><br />So, we’ve established quite early on that the point the show is trying to make is null and void – so why make the distinction here that the participants are women – or “girls” to use the preferred and presumably less (insert sarcasm here) offensive terminology? Surely to throw a group of “normal” men into the same fray would produce a similar result, correct? Of course the answer has to be no, if we are discussing entertainment television. Most of the show’s content (and what I presume is considered the real entertainment value) is actually made up of the cowboys/loggers/fishermen’s chauvinist asides and the predictable assumption that if a woman can’t fulfil the role she’s been challenged to do, it’s because of her gender and not because she’s been given a mere few hours in which to master it. The editing of the show has come under fire from one of the women participants, who comments on a debate about the programme on the <em><a href="http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2008/07/dangerous_jobs">F Word</a></em>. It confirms what I suspected to be the case – the programme isn’t about gender issues at all. In fact Laura, whose marital status was as noteworthy to the producers as her successful career which should say it all, states that while she actively spoke to women in the area in Mexico where filming took place about relevant gender topics these were wiped from the eventual broadcast.<br /><br />She makes another interesting point when she says that as well as succeeding in many of the tasks set, the women worked together to achieve them. Depressingly when the programme aired however, these successes had been left on the cutting room floor and the women seemed to be pitted against each other. The element of feminine competition in the show is one that I also noticed pretty quickly. The contestants chosen fit rather neatly into two clear ilks – those that are strong and up to the challenge, or those that are weak and aren’t. It doesn’t stop there though, because god forbid we allow an audience to accept the view that a woman is entirely capable and independent. Anna, an army captain who featured in the logging episode grabbed onto the challenge with both hands and refused to let go. She was positively fearless and couldn’t understand why there was so much uncertainty about her capability to learn and perform the tasks set. Anna is also rather pretty and blonde – which no doubt presented her logger co-workers with a bit of a dilemma as irrelevant as it may seem to myself and hopefully those reading this post. Anyway, surely this is the kind of woman the show’s makers were looking for when they came up with this enlightening idea for a reality TV show? Apparently not! Clearly we’re not yet quite enlightened enough to accept a woman can a) be in the army b) learn logging and c) be attractive all without the help of a man and so – painfully – her gumption was repackaged as hot-headedness, her fervour repackaged as haste and so instead of a woman unwilling to accept the possibility of her not being up to the challenge emerged an obnoxious, ignorant and silly “girl” trying to do a “real man”’s job whilst they tutted and scolded in the background. Rather insulting for a someone who is also training for the winter olympics, no doubt. Thankfully Anna did eventually fell a tree in triumph – although I have no doubt it was only included as something that was perhaps an edit too far for the makers to get away with.</span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"> </span><br /><br /></div><div><div><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><br /></div><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5236602009311873442" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj51MZM3U3ms_IEUsYrh86j7cu4xYVU_O8FkWhpxni5RX_PliCy62FMew80e9TOfkSL_Gq6NZ9ZvQuaFZJPTKQYeAFAvwjXikDU_pZ1Mkoyn5hYUlA7wFK-iXqI33DEOyd4CPnHMpbDDZjO/s400/Anna.jpg" border="0" /><br />On the other hand you have participants like Laura who I mentioned earlier, and a young business woman called Tracey who appeared alongside Anna. These women seemingly embody more feminine traits – physical weakness and apparently inextricably linked emotional frailty. Clips of these women in tears couldn’t possibly attributed to the harshness of their surroundings and the mental exhaustion that must come with the intense training they are undergoing, could they? Are we to seriously believe that placed under the same strain, men would behave differently? Doesn’t matter, this possibility isn’t even imagined. Throughout, we are told that what makes these women women are the exact qualities that make them unsuitable for the particular jobs they are attempting to master, when in actual fact the socio-historical nature of the industries involved are what has made them male-dominated just as nursing and secretarial roles are associated entirely with women. I’m not sure anyone would get away with saying that a man couldn’t do these jobs without severely offending, we just accept that women have always done them (mainly because they are meagrely paid and subservient in nature).<br /><br />This raises a question that I have oft been asked by feminist dissenters – do I recognise the inevitable discrepancies between male and female physicality? Do I accept that men are physically stronger than women? Yes, I do. But I’m not conceding anything by doing so and that is not what this programme proclaims to contest. We are supposed to be discussing occupational “danger”, not physical limitation. Head to head lifting weights, a man at his physical peak could surpass a woman at hers – but the jobs concerned are about more than just lifting weights, and what makes a man more suited to withstanding “danger” than a woman? In the constraints of this particular documentary series of course, this argument is as redundant as its artificial premise because we aren’t supposed to seriously believe that these women would or would want to do these jobs for a living, which begs the question “what’s the bloody point?”! Entertainment is the inescapable point – so as much as I would like to suggest that a more equal basis of debate would be to follow the proper apprenticeship of people of both genders in “dangerous jobs” that they actually wanted to pursue as a career – I won’t. The resulting experience for a man would probably be no different to that of their female colleagues – but, who would watch it and more to the point, would we accept it? </span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3914858041333419964.post-41758387481065784252008-08-14T06:45:00.000-07:002008-08-19T03:23:53.201-07:00The Olympics<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">I haven’t posted for a while, and while I would like to say I’ve been doing something productive like, say, keeping up with current affairs, I have sadly been snowed under with the “day job”, and so the furore surrounding what’s currently occurring in Beijing has gone completely unnoticed. Until a few days ago, when a British cyclist called Nicole Cooke started making headlines. Followed shortly by swimmers Rebecca Adlington and Joanne Jackson, Cooke was the first British sportsperson to win a medal in the 2008 summer games, and a gold to boot. Adlington’s admittedly awe-inspiring victory - made all the more heart-warming by her teammate scooping the bronze - added to the media frenzy that seems to have reached fever pitch already this year, and the athletics are still weeks away. These three previously unknown women have been catapulted from the obscure ranks of female sport and into the media fray – apparently. An interesting article by Kira Cochrane in the Guardian on Tuesday hoped this was a potential new dawn of sporting journalism. The headline read “Making a splash: Sportswomen finally getting the attention [note "attention" not "recognition" being the word of choice here] they deserve.” The sentiment is nice, but the suggestion that these women are winning medals in a jovial ‘girls showing the boys how it’s done’ way is something that doesn’t sit right. Yes, it’s true that these three are the only medal winners so far and so they are the only figureheads “Team GB” have right now. I can’t help thinking that had a male swimmer swiped a gold or 14-year-old Tom Daley had performed better in his synchronised diving event, these women’s successes would have been less lauded. That’s not to say that I don’t think Britain would have recognised their achievements, I still think that they would have been elevated from podium to pedestal had men achieved something alongside them. But I think we’d be naïve to think that this has that much to do with people recognising sportswomen as the equals of their male counterparts. As Cochrane makes heavy work of, women’s sports account for a dismal percentage of coverage in almost all sports events (the Olympics is actually unique in its almost equal devotion to men and women’s events) and by all but specialist media channels. One only has to look at the sports pages of our most widely read internet sites to discover the extent of our perceived disinterest in women’s sporting events and those who participate in them. She makes mention also of the disparate tennis coverage (“leg shots” for the women, panoramic court action for the men) and pitches this enduring and somewhat subconscious misogyny against the idealistic notion of the Olympic games as an arena for equality. This is dangerous ground because while there are equal amounts of events for men and women, and they are generally covered in the same way by the media/press - the glory associated with a man's medal is still elevated above the woman's. I’m not convinced we’re looking at TV coverage that is actively attempting to make a point about sportswomen. There is a bigger societal force at work here, that of the international competition. In precisely the same way as a Liverpool supporter will cheer on a Manchester United striker if it means winning the World Cup and socking one to the Germans, these three women have been shoved onto the world stage as they are the only ones who have – as yet – got what they came for, medals. Let’s not forget that the Olympics are really about politics and international power, and with this entails a hefty measure of fakery. Its emerged that a little girl who sang for the opening ceremony was considered “not pretty enough” by the organisers and replaced with a more attractive child who mimed along instead and there’ve been other reports of people being paid to fill up any sparse looking stands. All this so China can feel better about their image whilst completely brushing the Tibet situation under the beautifully embroidered rug. Are we seriously expecting any serious feminist progress within constraints such as these? Let’s face it, international sporting events – at least those that are widely followed – inevitably perpetuate an atmosphere at best patriotic and at worst nationalistic. It’s a romantic notion to think that we are all unified under a common cause: to represent our country and be proud of its achievements but I’m not sure that’s what motivates us. Perhaps it’s the legacy of our empirical history in this country that we just care so much about beating other countries that all other more minor disputes are set aside in the pursuit of this realisation. All internal battles are temporarily pacified because there’s nothing more important than our country beating another country. Maybe I’m being paranoid, but I do feel that the only time the media is (or at least attempts to be) uncharacteristically inclusive of all genders, races and religions is when we need to appear as a solidified, peaceful and above all powerful nation. This isn’t a case of survival of the fittest sportspeople – who incidentally, if the Olympic medal tally is anything to go by, are women – this is a contest between two co-existing desires to control. The desire to control women takes a backseat on this occasion, as it always will when the men are fighting it out on the global battlefield.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3914858041333419964.post-74837908789973220442008-07-24T07:26:00.000-07:002008-07-24T08:56:29.155-07:00I should have known better<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">I've had a couple of conversations with men recently that have been partly sparked by their finding out about this blog, and partly my none-so-subtle probes for material to add to said blog. What I've generally de-duced is that men in their twenties are ignorant of the relevance of most feminist issues and think feminists are in varying degrees: full of hot air, lesbians, killjoys. Men are lateral thinkers - we are told - and so is it very surprising that most of the ones I have consulted find it hard to grasp the links between various treatments of women in various arenas and subject areas? Perhaps not. Against my better judgement, I decided to send a quick interview round my office (6 women, 19 men - and I don't even work in banking) to see if I was selling them short. Hoping to be pleasantly surprised by some enlightened answers I asked three questions. 1) What do you think feminism is? 2) Who do you consider to be a prominent/good example of a feminst? 3) Do you identify with any feminist values (as you understand them)? </span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Maybe this was too much reality for a Wednesday afternoon marketing agency environment, or maybe I can't rely on my co-workers (who I sadly also consider friends) to give honest/serious answers. Despite this the responses I got were - aside from being rather creative and humourous - the best examples I could have asked for on males' perceptions of feminism and its champions. The transcripts below are the only two responses I received...perhaps their navigation away from the topic is proof of their ignorance of it? Or maybe they're just Neanderthals. Answers on a postcard. </span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><strong>Male Specimen 1</strong></span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Q: What do you think feminism is?</span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">A: Some sort of contraption, game or sex toy</span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Q: Who do you consider to be a prominent/good example of a feminst?</span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">A: As in personality or someone I know? Beckham is one. Stringfellow another. Me!</span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Q: Do you identify with any feminist values (as you understand them)?</span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">A: Some, yes. I have three sisters and a mother, and you so I don't have any other choice, do I?</span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><strong>Male Specimen 2</strong></span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Q: What do you think feminism is?</span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">A: Feminism is the belief that Cats are our all encompassing gods and they created man, then woman as an after thought! This was the belief system of the ancient Egyptians.</span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Q: Who do you consider to be a prominent/good example of a feminst?</span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">A: I have 2 cats but I don’t think they’re to be worshipped. Saying that, if one of my cats comes into the lounge, I let them have it and go up to my room, so I guess they are above me in social standing. </span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Q: Do you identify with any feminist values (as you understand them)?</span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">A: Like I said, I look up to cats, but that’s where I draw the line. The sphinx is amongst my favourite 5 ancient statues!</span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Words fail me. </span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3914858041333419964.post-17183340144749113112008-07-24T06:50:00.000-07:002008-12-11T22:37:18.221-08:00Download a Woman: The Sun's latest bright idea<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Until now I have suppressed the urge to discuss what I consider to be one of the biggest issues facing young feminists today, for fear of not being able to fully express without waffling what my problem is with it. This entity is all around us, omnipresent and all-encompassing in its reach and influence, which is why limiting myself to a few succinct paragraphs was never going to happen. It is of course...(drumroll please)...the media. Press, TV, film, music, advertising, marketing, PR – these are all components of this huge and monstrous being, one that didn't even exist not so long ago, and which is now an inextricable part of our lives, however subconsciously that may be. People I speak to about this issue are often offended at the suggestion that they are in any way controlled or influenced by the media – as if this is implying some sort of weakness or lack of intelligence on their part. This is not the case, the media is a powerful being - far be it from me to deny that. It's far more influential than any world leader: one only has to look back on George Bush’s election to the United States presidency and Fox News’ involvement in/orchestration of it to agree with me there. Similarly, when Bush wanted to whip up support for his war on Iraq, he didn’t take it upon himself to appeal to his people – the propaganda campaign incited by the media did a far more efficient job. It stands to reason therefore that if the media has enough clout to facilitate wars and elect presidents, it is capable of making mincemeat of ‘little’ issues like…oh I don’t know…body image or gender politics.<br /><br />The current and enduring media obsession with female celebrities’ (delete as applicable) weight/age/dress sense/relationship status/professional validity are symptoms of and perpetuating factors in the objectification of women. Simple as that. Of course we all buy into it, this constant cycle of adulation, titillation and criticism and we’ve reached the stage where its considered acceptable for men to pick up a newspaper and look at a naked female body, and for a woman to launch a scathing attack on another woman for gaining a couple of pounds. A male friend of mine, having being on the receiving end of a rant of this nature, said to me: “I thought you were more intelligent than that.” He simply couldn’t see that a Page 3 girl is more than just a pair of tits for a man to look at. His argument was this: its harmless, it’s not hurting anyone, the girl’s making good money, it’s only a pair of tits. So who’s the dummy here? Forgive me for being concerned about the wider implications for women when a naked female is not only plastered across a national newspaper as ‘entertainment’ for men, but is ridiculed to boot with the inclusion of <em>News in Briefs </em>a snippet of the model's thoughts on a serious news matter, which clearly she is meant to know nothing about. Apparently this is all too subtle for men to detect. The media represents women in various ways, but this tabloid representation is the one that worries me most as its strutting around under our noses every day, and people don’t seem to realise the seriousness of the message it promotes. Regardless of a woman’s choice in what she does for a living – I’m sure most Page 3 Girls aren’t forced into the job – this stereotype of buxom, promiscuous woman with no brain, subservient to men’s whims and fantasies is very dangerous, as well articulated on <em><a href="http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/2003/03/page_3_ban_it">The F Word</a></em>. It is the infant in a family of ideas that includes more serious manifestations of female subjugation. Now it’s just a pair of tits, but its consumption nonetheless – it’s still suggesting women’s bodies are there for the consuming, available to buy (now in a paper, maybe later on a street corner) and available to consume (look at for now, but how long before men start helping themselves). <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf">Naomi Wolf's </a>amazing <em>The Beauty Myth </em>best exposes this flagrant equation of women's looks with commercial worth - a woman's beauty is currency. The woman is therefore a commodity, the subject of ownership that could only be male. The natural bi-product of this kind of representation is for crimes like rape, prostitution/solicitation and general violence towards women to be perceived as less crimes because they involve women, who may be considered ‘fair game’ or ‘up for it’. I’m not sure anyone with a brain could dispute this much.</span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"> </span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><p><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5226585705646689682" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-OplmlloyTV977_gwhqCH9RnH1LmEgpwgbwbLeKeZ1jCdoY0df2gzXjQ6IoOPuNl5E1uNjcqsJMurKK_28oBj3uF-c6IaHdhc_GIVFuZAHMlz3oGPYbYedpLLCK4QxC8Jb-JpE_YU7QdB/s400/sun_page3_boxout_3.jpg" border="0" /><br />So what’s sparked this latest rant? Well, its not often I make visits to <em>The Sun</em> newspaper website, but something I read about yesterday compelled me. Not content with publishing images of women day after day in print, <em>The Sun</em> are rolling with the punches of the digital age and have come up with something that truly disturbs me: <a href="http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/desktopkeeley/article1377719.ece"><em>The Desktop Keeley</em></a>. Apparently Keeley Hazell is the paper’s most popular “Page 3 Stunna” and as such is now the basis for a web tool so utterly degrading it makes Page 3 look like the Yellow Pages. Instead of just gawping at Keeley’s nubile form in the paper every day (which I guess is a bit impractical if you have a job to do) those who download this application can now order her about and are actually invited to “Play with [her] whenever you want”. I feel sick. The misogyny on display here is blatant and unashamed and what’s more – its already proven <a href="http://www.nma.co.uk/Articles/38904/The+Sun+reports+over+10%2c000+downloads+for+its+desktop.html">extremely popular</a>. Great.This excerpt from the <em>The</em> <em>Sun</em>’s articulate sales pitch says it all really, in more than one sense of the phrase:<br /><br /><em>“Dressed</em> [or should that be undressed?] <em>in a stunning range of lingerie, Keeley will be at your beck and call 24/7 and comes armed with all the information you need, whether it’s celeb’s drunken antics, the latest football transfer news or the Page 3 girl of the day.”</em><br /><br />Excellent range of interests you’ve got there, boys. I can only assume that the intended audience for this product are young to middle aged professionals who have constant access to a computer (i.e. work for a living). This is also a damning indictment on them surely? Is this really what we’re interested in as a nation? I’m sure it’s not…and I do actually have some faith in mankind. I’m not saying that men are in on this on an individual level – what I’m saying is that these attitudes are so richly embedded in every aspect of society and paraded around as if they are an acceptable norm that people start to believe what they are told. This sort of thing is NOT harmless and for those that refuse to see the damage that it could cause, let’s put it another way: whatever way you look at it, having a half naked avatar running around on your computer screen spouting out unimportant titbits (excuse the pun) about other naked/drunken women is hardly conducive to a productive working day is it? Packaging this up as a cool gadget and tailoring it to the digital market is a clever ploy –passing it off as a bit of fun for the modern man is distracting from the point and lulling the public into thinking this is OK. Like women don’t already have enough trouble in the 21st century workplace. </span></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0