Blog Bashing

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!

Magazine Bashing - EDITED

Someone told me this week that Glamour 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!

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 Marie Claire...it's still rubbish, but is trying not to be).

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!)

There is also a faux thoughtful article about domestic violence, with the now uncomfortably familiar photo of popstar Rihanna's 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.

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 Glamour seriously shouldn't have bothered trying. The Times magazine actually published a far superior investigation on the subject back in March...actually worth reading. What I learned from Glamour 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.


The rest of this post has been removed. So much for freedom of speech.

Fashion and Feminism

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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 Style Bubble so you have an interest in all things a la mode anyway and Jane Molloy at Get Clobbered's 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...have a peek!

The World's Biggest Dickheads and Me

So what have I watched on TV this week?

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.

A rather less hilarious documentary called The World's Biggest Family and Me. 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.

The last episode I watched, The World's Most Enhanced Woman and Me, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Jessica's gone all normal - and we don't like it

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!

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 Two Ton Son 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.

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)

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.

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.

Lastly – don’t buy Heat. It’s crap

Tilda, annoying? Whatever!

Cruisin' through the Christmas TV schedule and finding zip, I settled on a rundown of The Most Annoying People of 2008. 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.

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.

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.

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.

Blues Brother

After missing a turn on the board game of reality TV, Celebrity Big Brother is back - cue old fashioned horror film shock music "DA DA DAAAAAAH". 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?

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 nasties for a month, this might have been a different blog entry. As it is, I've had ample time to faux casually browse the channels once Masterchef has finished...and what do you know? Celebrity Big Brother is ALWAYS on.

CBB 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 pretension of the contestants is what people want to see. This does happen to a certain extent.

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.

When Jade Goody, Jo O'Meara and Danielle Lloyd ganged up against Shilpa Shetty, 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.


This year, we are faced with the same behaviour. Ulrika Johnsson - who 50% of Daily Mail 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 Brookside and Shameless. Its fascinating to watch the hierarchy of women develop in the house...and there always is one.

My take on this follows. I have named the tiers after the groups of women in my favourite book, Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale. 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!

WIFE

La Toya Jackson - 52 year old pop royalty...therefore untouchable. Is also incredibly sweet- natured. Likes observing.

AUNTS

Ulrika Jonsson - 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.

Tina Malone - apparently an actress, with OCD, 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 OCD who bites their own toenails off on national telly.



HANDMAIDS




Mutya Buena - ex-Sugababe. Much quieter than expected. Early twenties.





Lucy Pinder - 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.

Michelle Heaton - ex-Liberty X pop singer. Mid twenties. Nicknamed by the press of late as "Cheatin' Heaton" due to reported indiscretions during her marriage, which was sold to OK and documented on ITV2. Emotional and intimidated. First to cry.

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.

When Shilpa Shetty 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.

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.

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.