Gertsamtkunstwerk

Men in women's loos

There's been a lot of talk recently on the internet, much of rooted in the USA, about allowing 'transgender' men into women's loos and changing rooms (and prisons and so on). If someone had asked me the question a year ago, I would have replied along the lines of 'if someone's gone to all the trouble of having hormone treatment and surgery, to my mind there is no question that, as far as it could possibly affect me, they have changed their sex'. (There are some biological difficulties with this statement, but I use the caveat for that reason).

It turns out that 'transgender' doesn't mean what I thought it has meant for decades. It actually means someone who doesn't conform 100% with the gender roles imposed on their biological sex by society. Well, lah-di-dah. Who does? I mean, some Neanderthal type blokes or bimbo chicks might, more or less, but most of us don't. Apparently, transgender means that you 'feel' in the same way as someone of the opposite sex feels. Dig a little deeper, and nine times out of ten, this is explained as wanting the clothes, hairstyle, toys or colour of toys more 'traditionally' ascribed to the opposite sex. I grew up in the 70s when girls with short hair wore trousers, and played with construction toys or cars in bold primary colours. Turns out we were all transgender! I was a teen in the 80s when the coolest male pop stars wore visible make up, including nail varnish.

I can't abide the thought of someone being discriminated against in employment or bullied in the street because of their personal choice - a very difficult choice - to transition, or to present in a way that confronts neat categories. 

But it turns out that 'transgender' doesn't mean this at all. Apparently, if you're a woman who is lesbian, and presents as butch, you're no longer a woman, but a 'transman'. If you have polycystic ovary syndrome, as 10% of women do - it's an endocrine condition which leads to the production of more testosterone than is normally produced by women without the syndrome. Well, if you have that, you're not a woman, you're a transman. If you want to debate abortion or FGM, you're not allowed to say that they're women's issues. Doctors are accused of discriminating against self-styled women for not calling them for cervical smears, even though they don't have cervixes. 'Pregnant woman' is no longer a valid term, because, apparently, men can get pregnant too. So, any man who wants to call himself a woman is entitled to, even a grotesque circus act like Brice Jenner who gets kicks out of wearing his then pre-teen daughters underwear, whereas women who are pregnant, lesbian or have a treatable endocrine disorder are no longer allowed to call themselves women - because men said so. Once again, men get to define women in terms of 'otherness'.

Incidentally, I have a mortgage, and I vote. I went to University have a professional qualification and have held public office. These were not considered 'female' activities - even in my lifetime a woman couldn't get a mortgage without a husband or father to guarantee it. I have sometimes wanted the opportunities that are open to men but not to women. I have sometimes cursed aspects of my body - some aspects are distinctly female and some are largely gender neutral. None of these things make me male, or a transman, they just make me a woman who dwells within the range of attributes and behaviours common to most, many or some women. 

In the USA it seems, there are strict laws governing sex segregation in what they call 'bathrooms'. I'm not aware of any similar law in the UK, although there is convention, and context. 

Three anecdotes. 

• When I was a teenager, as a family we were travelling on the motorway and stopped at Services. My mother, sister and I came out of the Ladies to meet my father and brother. My mother was approached by a man and woman. The woman carried a white stick, and the man asked my mother if she'd mind escorting her into the Ladies. Cleverly picking a respectable family woman, even though she wasn't wearing her 'Trust Me, I'm a Social Worker' t-shirt. My father, an engineer, later remarked in jest that, actually, as the woman was blind, it wouldn't be a problem for her going into the Gents. But this was a new experience for us, and one often-rehearsed for them.
• A few years ago, at the theatre, my friend was audibly grumbling about the long queues outside the women's loos, compared to none outside the men's. A man overheard her, he was stood guard outside the men's, and confessed to my friend that his wife was in the men's. This problem can be seen at most theatres and venues up and down the land. (Always fun at the ROH for Wagner, when the men's queue unusually exceeds the women's. A kd lang concert, on the other hand...)
• Last year, we parked up in Hertford and I declared I wanted a wee before setting off on a several mile walk. I went in the public conveniences and met Jimmy outside. He said the men's were locked. I said there was no one in the Ladies, I'd stand guard, as he went in. As it happened, no woman approached the loos, but I'm sure that if they had, they would have understood my 'standing guard'.

These three anecdotes are mere illustrations as to the sometimes difficulties in sex-differentiated loos.

There is a really strong argument for having gender neutral loos in addition to single sex loos. More and more places do. They're often called 'Disabled' loos, but perhaps should be called 'accessible'. Accessible for people without visible mobility problems but needing an integrated bathroom eg mooncup users. Or parents supervising small children of the opposite sex - particularly fathers supervising small daughters. Or carers of opposite sex adults. But  opening up 'disabled' loos, can in some contexts, lead to them not being accessible to people who absolutely have no other options.

I haven't encountered intimidating behaviour by men in women's loos. I have only really encountered them in drunken situations - being in a local pub and collapsing laughing with the woman on the next table as her very very very drunk soldier husband (on his last night of leave) headed straight for the women's. But other women have experienced threatening behaviour and sexual assault by men in women's loos. And I was followed into 'gender neutral' loos by a predatory male (who, it turned out, had been sacked by the restaurant I was visiting and had sneaked in on the manager's day off). 

I hate pubescent boys being in women's changing rooms. I'm happy to go from shower to locker with a towel wrapped precariously around me in an all-woman changing rooms. I certainly don't want to be stared at by a man, or, frankly, to see penises on display (I'm not offended or scared, I just don't want). I certainly don't want men who state that they are transgender to be allowed into changing rooms, alongside self-conscious adolescent girls and post-menopausal women. Maybe they do genuinely feel that they are women (whatever that means...!), but how we can possibly know that they're not voyeurs or opportunist sexual predators?

There are enough barriers in society already to girls and women being physically active. I don't see how allowing physically intact males to share their changing space will improve the situation. And you only have to see the queues in public places to see how poorly women are already served by toilets, relative to men. (On average women take longer, because of cubicles vs urinals, let alone when menstruating). I wonder how many women would feel comfortable washing out reusable sanitary protection in a room where men can enter freely, unconstrained by long-standing convention.

As I said above, I strongly feel that people who have made the difficult decision to transition from one sex to another should be free from discrimination, and I would wish to support and show solidarity.

But it seems that any man who wants to jump on a bandwagon or prove his 'right on' credentials, can claim to be female, perhaps only at weekends (where it doesn't reduce his inbuilt advantage in a patriarchal society/career structure). I can't accept this. It's yet another example of Men's Rights Activists claiming special status based on their perceived lack of privilege. They have decided, as men (who pretend that they feel like women), they should be allowed in to women's facilities, irrespective of what women want. And one man's desire is considered more important than the needs, not just of one woman but of many. Sounds a lot like unreconstructed misogyny to me.

Frankly, if you're a man who pretends to 'feel' like a woman, and can't feel the inherent problem, you've just demonstrated that you have no idea how it feels to be an awkward body-conscious teenage girl or an older woman dismayed at her failure to meet society's standards. 

And when you see privileged males, such as rock stars whom I normally respect, arguing for the right for men to enter women's loos, I'm tempted to ask, do they want this right for themselves, and if so, is this because they are predatory? Or, more likely, are they decent blokes, who wouldn't go in a women's loos - except in unusual circumstances, with a 'stand guard' - and don't understand the reasons for their reticence - ie, that being decent and non-predatory, they can't see a reason to encroach on a space they don't belong in? I'm fairly sure that if women were to wander regularly into men's loos, where men get their willies out in full view of other users, most men would be at least non-plussed, if not perplexed and possibly downright angry. Because this isn't about women wanting to encroach on men's space but men demanding access to women-only space. 

This Girl Can...or can she?

It's bugged me for a few months, now., and I should have blogged it back then. Sport England launched a campaign to encourage more women to get active, and thus fit and healthy. Some fun posters and videos, and a catchphrase/hashtag This Girl Can.

I tweeted at them asking why they used the word 'girl' and only included images of young women. Were they implying that exercise wasn't for the vast majority of women who are middle-aged or elderly, or younger than that, but not 'girls' Their answer was that the gap between male and female participation is narrower in older age groups.

Oh that's alright, then, that must be because of the hordes of perimenopausal women suddenly taking up jogging after a lifetime of inactivity.

Of course it's not. It just means that a great number of men give up organised sports - such as football for the pub or works team - as they get older.

It doesn't mean that women who've been inactive for decades suddenly take up physical activity. Some do, but statistically, it's a lie. It doesn't even mean that older women are proportionately more active than young women. They're not.

Look around you at the park joggers, the swimming pool, any gym you may be a member of or spot from the swimming pool. The women in there aren't middle aged and older, on the whole.

It was a stupid answer. A better answer might have been -  we have limited resources so decided that this campaign was aimed specifically at young women, using language and images they can identify with. We chose this age group because we want to get them into a lifelong habit of activity, which will reap benefits for them as individuals and for the health budgets for many decades.

At least it would be realistic and honest.

But no, they didn't say that. They pretended, using statistics in a spectacularly asinine way, that the 'problem' is with young women. They implied that there isn't a problem with older women, or if there is, they're not bothered.

Cool, let's take the sexism out of activity. That's a positive. But let's make absolutely sure that we retain ageism, and we ignore the long lasting effects of the sexism they are now, belatedly, wanting to tackle.

My generation thought we had invented 'The Gym', but only a minority of my contemporaries took them seriously. I don't remember Gym Membership being a desired lifestyle accoutrement when I was in my 20s, although that changed slightly with the installation of a workplace gym. This was cheaper than a commercial equivalent, and, being in the office building, meant that many of the office rules about harassment and intimidation applied just as in the other communal/social areas.

A few people swam, others occasionally went to aerobics or step classes, until the novelty wore off, but I don't recall any sense of exercise being something you incorporated into your everyday life. I knew someone who rowed competitively, and there must have been people competing at high amateur levels in various sports, but they were unusual.

I don't recall my school friends' mothers doing exercise. A few attended yoga classes for a short period when it was briefly fashionable, similarly aerobics - remember Jane Fonda and the Green Goddess? Some girls at school and my next door neighbour were members of Sale Harriers, but that was the equivalent of Stockport Youth Orchestra, only for those who were talented and ambitious. People's Mums and older sisters didn't enter 5ks or 10ks, let alone marathons.

My age group, with a few exceptions, are past childbearing age; our mothers are of the age of being actively involved in community volunteering, teetering into dementia, or onerous caring; some, of course, have passed away. Both these generations have been discouraged from being active - even school sports* was largely aimed at those willing and able to play team ballgames rather than the majority who could have benefitted from aerobic and strength building work outs.

But no, Sports England blows its advertising budget on the group of women who least need encouragement to exercise, and in doing, risks further stigmatising the older women who fit into these media images of what an active woman...sorry "GIRL"...looks like.

This is a classic example of intersectionality - where sexism is exacerbated by ageism. And you wonder whether a well meaning campaign with cool images is actually counterproductive and damaging to those it has deliberately excluded.

* we did some Jane Fonda and Scottish dancing for a while, which was popular and fun, but that was put a stop to by parents - no doubt just one or two, possibly male, and definitely evil - who didn't consider it 'proper' PE

 

Women candidates and a male cleansweep

I drafted this following the announcement of Labour's London Mayoral candidate and I'm editing it after announcement of Labour Leadership & Deputy results. In response to many tweets bemoaning the male clean sweep of the posts.

Women make up just over 50% of the population, are underrepresented in most spheres of influence and are overrepresented in most disadvantaged groups. I read an article based on research that suggested that when people see a TV programme or a conference where 17% of the participants are women, they perceive this as equal numbers of men and women. When women comprise 34%, this is perceived to be female domination.

These perceptions are backed up by numerous comments I have observed over the years eg someone declaring in 1997 that, right, there are enough women MPs, we don't need any more, when there were barely a hundred out of a total 650. Even now, there are more current women MPs than there are women former MPs going back a hundred years or more.

In the 2015 General Election the Conservative and Liberal Democrat candidates in my constituency were both women, and the Labour candidate was male. I voted Labour, for political and ideological reasons, and no one suggested  I should choose either Tory/Lib Dem on gender grounds.

I apply a similar logic to posts at the top of the party. In the Mayoral contest I voted for Christian Wolmar, then Diane Abbott, knowing they would be eliminated early and the contest would be a two horse race between Sadiq Khan and Tessa Jowell. I picked Sadiq, because on balance, he is closer to me on policy grounds than Tessa, and Tessa was supported by people with a very different vision for the Labour Party than mine. In the end I voted with my head for Yvette Cooper despite serious reservations (eg a reluctance to oppose austerity) rather than my heart for Jeremy Corbyn (I'm very pro-EU, and I worry that Jeremy is too influenced by what feels right rather than what is evidenced - his support for homeopathy is a tiny example but a huge symbol of this). I didn't vote for Yvette because she is a woman, but I have followed her career closely partly because of that.

There are still too few women MPs, and, despite some all women shortlists, too few women are selected for 'safe' seats where the incumbent (usually male) is retiring. All women shortlists are a decent attempt to tackle this, but not enough. 

To have more women vying for the top offices needs a greater supply of women at all levels. There's been some talk of north vs south of England, and much debate about the over-concentration of candidates who are graduates of just one or two universities. And, as it happens, there were equal numbers of men and women in the leadership race, and the Mayoral front runners were one of each.

Now people are talking about Keir Starmer as the favourite for the next Labour Leader, based upon his ability to bring his experience of being a former Director of Public Prosecutions, and his lawyer's ability to speak clearly. I was about to write, but there aren't women with equivalent experience - except of course that his successor as DPP is a woman. but I think my point stands. 

Many MPs, male and female, start off as councillors but local government is still male dominated, even though active users of council services are disproportionately female. That women remain statistically the prime carer of children explains to some extent why there are fewer women, but many councillors are retired or semi-retired from their day job (and thus presumably their children, if they have some, are grown up), and roughly half of women of child bearing age don't have children. When I was a woman councillor in my 20s I was a statistical freak. Not unique, but rare outside trendy politicised metropolitan areas - and I found myself subject to unwanted sexual advances from male Labour councillors at gatherings such as Local Government conference. 

The process for selecting council candidates favours people with skills that are categorised as male - standing up and speaking confidently in front of a room of people and being seen to be an active campaigner in visible settings - and downplays the characteristics categorised as female, such as building and nurturing relationships, listening and empathising. Of course, these skills are not actually exclusive to either one or the other gender, but we are socialised in a society that tries to genderise such attributes.

I can't target individuals on Twitter and ask them what they have done to encourage women into politics: knowing my luck I'd target someone with good credentials. And I have done very little in recent years.

But it's like the board of a company or a government department. You can shout loudly about encouraging more women to be directors, even imposing quotas, but it misses the point. If there were equal numbers at the next level down, and the level below that, the law of averages means that the best person for the job is just as likely to be a woman as a man, and proportionately likely to be BAME. But when there are obstacles that deter women from getting onto the lowest rung, you're losing a lot of potential. And, often the women that do rise above that level have all the same faults as too many men - ambitious, and determined to be in position, but not necessarily with the right skills and experience to do the job.

It's better than 20 years ago, in politics and in workplaces. Prior to 97, young women MPs (and especially BAME ones) stood out for their rarity. I'm getting older, so 'young' is a relative concept, but every few weeks I come across some young woman MP I hadn't been aware of, and older women too. I  sense there are more women councillors, including relatively young ones at least in areas I notice.

But it's not enough just to encourage or role model and mentor. There are artificial obstacles -  the criteria for selecting councillors aren't those that make a good councillor - and it's a truism that women are hesitant to brag and project themselves. The political ambitions that drive politicos - and I include my former self, because it's not a gender split - do not make a good councillor or MP . These require relationship building and insight at the casework and 'pothole' level, and analysis and scrutiny at the strategic level. I was fairly good at the latter back then, and would be even better now, but I was hopeless at the former and probably worse now. You rarely see prominent politicians praised for their relationship building (unless it's tactical, building up favours and loyalty) or their skills at challenge, and perhaps if more excelled in these area, politics would be different.

The skills that make a good politician aren't the skills that win votes. Policy areas with big challenges,  such as Social Services don't win votes, and doing the right thing is often an unpopular vote loser.

And I don't know what the answer is, other than a gradualist increase in women participating at all levels.

How to be a Woman - Caitlin Moran

Before I went on holiday last year, I asked for book recommendations. More than one person suggested this book, but I was unsure. I had seen reviews that either said 'This book is utterly brilliant' or 'This has told me nothing I didn't know before'. I had started to form strong opinions myself, so decided it was perhaps unfair to do so without reading it.

It sat on my Kindle for months, until the sun came out. I read 91% on beaches and 9% on the Sun Terrace at a spa hotel. In the end, I concluded that both points of view were valid!

I know that Caitlin Moran arouses strong opinions. I used to follow her on Twitter. she was fun, but only in small doses. I saw her as part of a clique of women who had it all and looked down on lesser mortals with disdain. I assumed that hse was some trustafarian, gliding effortlessly into a high-paid column. In actual fact she grew up in extreme poverty, and was barely educated, and she writes about this interestingly.

She says some sensible things in the book. Two examples which may seem trivial but are actually quite important. One is to wear flat shoes, or at least shoes you can run away in. And big comfy knickers, that don't dig in, are not only more comfortable but look better than silly briefs that give a VPL slicing each bum cheek diagonally in half. Falls into 'stuff I wish I'd known at 15. Or 25'.

To be honest, and fair, I don't think this book is aimed at my age group. And that makes the reading quite infuriating. Much of what she writes isn't novel or contentious, yet she seems to lack the insight that most sensible or intelligent women eventually reach these conclusions in time. But if it helps 15 or 25-year-old women, so be it.

There are a host of people who criticise CM for what amounts to her lack of academic grounding. I think a great deal of what masquerades as academic feminism is sham and irrelevant. Sham because it seems largely to consist of the churn of mantras and dictums, and irrelevant because its more interested in adopting the correct posture rather than critically examining the forces that lead to women's disadvantage and oppression.

Caitlin got be a hugely successful writer by a mixture of hard work and determining to be different, as well as being frankly, at times, quite brilliant. And yet she embraces a popular culture - epitomised by X-Factor style TV shows that don't especially or noticeably oppress women, but perpetuate a myth of what it takes to be successful - far too often, a body type which this popular culture has deemed to be the only one that matters. Caitlin's book is all about her personal experience; the title is hugely inaccurate.But she never stops to think whether some other woman may have a different experience or circumstances, and she reveals a lack of curiosity about anything outside her small, and I have to say, pretty shallow world. 

It was quite an interesting book to read, but it's only a week since I finished it, and I've already forgotten most of it

Dear Zari by Zarghuna Kargar

Hidden Stories from Women of Afghanistan

This is not a book to read on a lazy beach holiday. It is quite possibly one of the most harrowing books I have ever read, and even though a tremendous amount of hope shines out from the despair, I felt reluctant to follow on with any of the books I had lined up. To read something light-hearted would have seemed an insult to the women in this book; I wasn't sure if I was emotionally strong enough to read another serious book.

Zari is an Afghan woman living in London and was a presenter of Afghan's Woman Hour on BBC World Service. This book is a compilation of some of the stories she was sent by women living in utter oppression in Afghanistan. There are as many different stories as there are women but there are common themes linking them: ignorance and superstition,  a miserable combination of ancient tribal customs and unenlightened repressive religion. Women are sold and forced into marriage, often before they become women, ignorant of sex, punished for not bleeding on their wedding night, held responsible if their husband dies fighting, beaten by husbands and in-laws, denied access to their children, and treated as slaves. In this century, in a country where some Western nations have been involved for too long for no clear purpose.

I read story after story, and I defy anyone to read it and not be depressed. Although, towards the end, the mood lightens and one senses that there is hope. Especially as long as people speak out.

The book is well-written, and easy to read, at least in terms of following the prose. The contents are uncomfortable, and one can only feel sorry for the victims. And, in most cases, for their perpetrators too. Those that beat and bully these women are the product of the same society, trapped in horrific marriages themselves. What struck me repeatedly was how often a woman - widowed or abandoned - was insulted by other women as being a sex-mad whore, desperate for a man. And how can one blame a husband for being cruel when this is the only behaviour he knows, when society tells him to be like this, or when his homosexuality is so taboo. 

I know one is supposed to be tolerantly multi-cultural, and, repeatedly, Zari tells us that these tribal societies confuse ancient tribal customs with Islam, in an attempt to defend Islam. But I cannot accept this. Whoever seeks to impose Islam on these people is equally happy to impose the 'tribal traditions'. I can see no justification whatsoever for the violence and abuse these women endure. It perpetuates the power of certain men, and of 'tribal elders', and it is pure evil. No amount of hand-wringing or weasel words form the religious apologists can persuade me that there is some societal benefit in treating women - and girls -  like slaves and worse than animals, and of institutionalising and normalising rape. It is barbaric and intolerable. And this oppression can't stop unless people stop defending the religions that encourage it.

I do realise that me reading the book and writing this blog post does nothing to address the problem; all I'm doing is wringing my hands and wailing "Something must be done". But do please read the book.

More on Zarghuna Kargar in the Guardian My arranged marriage disaster

Cultural norms

Obviously, and I want to say this right at the outset: I have absolutely no qualifications in anything that relates to medicine or psychology, nor have I ever been, in any practical sense and to my knowledge, in close observation of anyone with any marked mental illness, other than depression and various addictions.

There's been a lot of kerfuffle about some sociopath plugging some so-called 'managed anorexia' pill. Best source to read about it is in this interview by the excellent Johan Hari

I've felt very uneasy about quite a lot of the kerfuffle. For a start, I feel slightly queasy about the general assumption that as anorexia is classified as a mental illness, that is a fixed and incontrovertible fact. Yet, homosexuality was classified by the World Health Organisation as a mental illness as recently as 1990. In some contexts addictions are treated thus, even when it can be clearly demonstrated that they are not - or not even addictions: such as a 19-year old male from a conservative Christian background labelled a sex addict for wishing to masturbate five times a day and being aroused by the sight of his half-naked cousin.  Or women labelled and treated at considerable cost for 'sex-addiction' when the destructive behaviour is actually a manifestation of something different, more complex and much more profound. Drug addicts are regarded negatively as being agents of their own downfall and their parents blamed for poor parenting, not least by themselves.

I am also, on the whole, not one for using extremes as an excuse for banning moderation. For example, I wouldn't ban the sale of alcohol in shops and bars, despite what I have observed of the dangers of alcohol abuse and the destruction of alcoholism, but nor would I wave a bottle of whisky under their nose to taunt an alcoholic.

I want to avoid accusing 'the media' or 'people' of hypocrisy because the media is very diverse: those speaking out against something generally aren't those encouraging it in a different way, and even if individual people do happen to display double-standards, it may be because they're confused or torn, and probably not because they're malicious or hypocrites.

Given that anorexia is accepted as a mental illness, I don't think that marketing a particular pill is particularly significant. I know that people do seek out miracle pills for weight-loss (I know at least two who were given amphetamines from clinics, both in Clapham, coincidentally or not). It's almost like saying that because people get depressed, one mustn't have bad news, factual or fictional, on TV. Hmm, Eastenders, cot death. Don't go there: didn't see it.

I suppose what worries me is that while that vile little creature was getting his kicks and trying to make even more money from selling some pill from a website that people had to seek out, there is an awful lot more going on in all media which in my view is far more harmful. Terrestrial TV has run programmes - for sheer entertainment - of The World's Fattest Man and some competitive weight loss programme for morbidly obese people.

I suppose my instinct told me to despise the vile little man because of the absence of logic in his argument: basically, get thin and he'll pay you to shag him. It's part of a patriarchal view that women have to fulfil certain specific criteria in order earn the privilege of shagging a rather ordinary, nay unattractive man, whereas - gross generalisation coming up - ultimately, men aren't that fussy and it's women who get to do the choosing, except when men do the paying, which is an irrelevant point to most women. So, it's actually men who should shape up in order to be 'chosen' by discerning women.

I couldn't start to count the magazines that target women and girls in a constant message about dieting, get thin and so on. Celebrity magazines, Take A Break-style, magazines that aim to be a least partly cerebral, magazines about 'the home' and, of course, the fashion magazines. Echoed in the national newspapers and on the TV, in features as well as adverts. Get thin.

Stay thin.

Get thin.

Be obsessed by thinness.

Buy clothes for thin people.

Be thin.

Stay thin.

Don't enjoy your food.

Diet.

By this faddy diet book, this expensive food 'replacement'.

Be self-absorbed. Judge yourself by your appearance. Judge others by their appearance.

Be thin.

The body is everything. Neglect the brain. Be ignorant.  Let your critical judgement decay. Be thin.

It is so mainstream, so embedded in the way we live our lives, it's almost impossible not to be affected by this. I've seen it written that younger and younger girls are becoming more and more obsessed by their body image and by a media-driven 'ideal' of a superthin woman.

Not that I'm advocating obesity. I am overweight. That is an indisputable fact. Not just because the scales say so. Not just because the tape-measure says so. Not just because it's obvious to anyone that looks at me. But for all of those reasons, and more. It is clearly in my own interests to start exercising again, having let it slip, and to re-assess what I'm eating. It is certainly not in my interests to embark on some crash diet 'rapid weight loss' eat only bananas for a week followed by lean chicken as long as you do it standing on one leg whilst incanting in tongues nonsense. I want to lose fat because of the health benefits in doing so, because I don't want to fork out for new clothes when my existing ones no longer fit me. And, to be honest, I want to look 'good', too.

But I just don't see how people can get all irate about one here-today gone-tomorrow tosser who may or may not be selling some pill which may further encourage vulnerable people into self-harm, and yet they stay quiet about the incessant brainwashing that your worth as a woman is measured only by how thin you are.

Johann describes him as a sociopath and from the little I know that would make sense. Yet, surely, sociopathy is also a mental illness, but one that we as a society, ironically, have no sympathy for. Arguably, a sociopath has as little control over and responsibility for their actions as does an anorexic. Maybe, as I say, I don't know. We must publicly display sympathy for someone who at least at some level and at some time has, like the addict, chosen to self-harm, yet many of us instinctively think of a sociopath as tantamount to evil.

New Statesman has a commentary which nicely dismiss claims to free speech based on illegality; someone being free to say something doesn't remove the right of others to criticise or condemn. I just find it unconvincing that selling a 'weight management pill' can cause someone to become anorexic, especially considering it is a mental illness. And regarding people with an existing condition, who should be avoiding 'triggers', shouldn't we focus more on the constant brainwashing by Big Business rather than the rather amateurish marketing attempted by one obviously very disturbed individual.

Perhaps if we confront the brainwashing of Big Business, we would also have to examine our won complicity in it and our own desire to be manipulated. Just because I understood and long ago accepted my curvaceous figure and my superior intellect, doesn't mean that just sometimes I'd like to buy that top and be satisfied with unchallenging pursuits.

 

 

Don't tell me how I feel!

Imagine a scenario where a well known white person gives an interview to a specialist magazine,which is reported in the national press, where they opine that there isn't any discrimination against or harassment of black or Asian people.

Imagine if hundreds of black and Asian people think: "Blimey!" and write on Twitter "I've been on the receiving end of racial discrimination more often than you can possibly know."

Imagine then if several white people take to the internet and declare "I've discussed this with several of my white friends and we can categorically reassure you that that white celebrity was right, there is no racial discrimination. Now, you uppity Ethnics, please remove the characteristic chip from your shoulder and know your place"

This is in effect what has happened since Saturday night. Except that, instead of it being about race, it's about gender, and it's men - not all men, just some men -  assuming to know about being a   woman , and to mediate the supposed views of women without  listening to women, unaware that women can express their own views and are doing so.

The celebrity in question is Stephen Fry and he has, at best, behaved foolishly and arrogantly. Not liking the uppity women contradicting him, he resorted to the standard Celebrity Pathetic Excuse 'I was quoted out of context' and went off in high dudgeon at being 'bullied'.

The parade of apologists for Fry is predictable. They discount one woman's personal testimonial because 'personal testimonial' is meaningless anecdote. In their world, the truth can only out when authoritative people make sweeping generalisations. The combined aggregate testimony of hundreds of women is bullying - the word 'hysterical' hangs there unsaid but implied. And yet the cumulative spontaneous testimony of hundreds of women was glorious!

I gave personal testimony because I cannot presume to speak for any other woman. I can guess what some other women think, at least partly. And I read other women giving similar personal testimony, not presuming to speak for me. Of course, there is always the one voice of a woman who says "Well, I've never had sex, therefore Stephen Fry is right", probably a woman with more psycho-sexual hang-ups than Fry himself - famously 'celibate' for, what, 15 years.

What does 'celibate' mean, anyway? An active choice, a vow to be broken when temptation becomes too great to resist, a public admissions of one's own inadequacies, or a prosaic acknowledgement of one's reality for the time being? Probably lots of people are, short-term or for most of their lives, but don't make a thing of it!

Fry does rather take on the persona of Renaissance Man, the person who knows about a great breadth of subjects. It's unclear what research is there, scholarly or otherwise, his own or that of unheralded lowly researchers,  to support his jack-of-all-trades dominance of the media; he is but a dilettante. I really can't imagine the arrogance that can drive someone like him to believe that he has anything whatsoever to contribute about female sexuality.

He seems to have made his career out of being a rebel against his background. How often do we hear how he was expelled from two public schools? Presumably not to hang round drear shopping parades sniffing glue, vulnerable to predators and drug dealers, allowed three hours a week at Pupil Referral Centre.

Emerging from Cambridge University in a blaze of glory, he displayed his rebellion by behaving as if he's been to a state grammar school and 'Russell Group' university. In the advanced stages of middle-age, he probably still thinks he is anti-Establishment as he floats through gilded palaces, frequently congratulating himself on his iconoclasm, oblivious that the world has moved on past him, and the internet is stuffed with people from comprehensives and Polytechnics, women and black people, who don't have to negotiate the Old Boys network to be published,  writers, many of whom write well, some of whom write brilliantly. And can bear witness to their own lives without needing Mr Establishment to mediate their opinions and translate them for an audience imagined to consist only of equally privileged men.

On being patronised

I have a major bugbear. I hate being patronised. It's mildly irritating when it's done by someone who genuinely knows more about the subject than I do. It is very irritating when it comes from someone who mistakes levity/humour for seriousness of intent (obviously, I do question whether my humour actually comes over as funny as I thought it did).

But what really annoys me is when somebody with very little experience where I have some experience and/or expertise takes it upon themself to tell me what to do.

And I really want to get something off my chest that has been bugging me since Election Day.

In the evening, I'm going round 'knocking up' people who have previously said they are Labour supporters. It's an age-old election day practice of all parties. The main purpose is to persuade people to actually go out and cast their vote. Like all doorstep activity, it's important not to waste arguing the toss or pushing against an immoveable object. On the other hand, it's my time freely given, and it's something I'm doing to my neighbours, people I have to live alongside on a daily basis perhaps for many years. And it's a common courtesy not to be rude.

So I knocked up a man who had actually voted whilst I was on Polling station duty in the morning. He said he had voted Labour and was by habit a Labour supporter, but he hadn't been entirely happy by some aspects of the Labour Government, for example the Iraq War. I commented that he wasn't alone. Suddenly a 'comrade', young and wet behind the ears, appeared alongside me and produced a spiel of campaigning spin, ignoring what the man had actually said, and then took me to task for expressing my personal opinions with an elector.

A bit later, we were working one road (so close to my house we're in the same Resident's Association) and some bloke - half-cut or half-deranged - starts yelling out of an upstairs window how we're bullying people to vote, we ought to be ashamed etc. This young man again tells me what to do - ignore him, which is exactly what I was doing, because, like, I have some life experience in dealing with random street ranters.

I quietly explained to the said young man that I was pretty experienced at campaigning, even though I had not been active in recent years, I had even served for eight years as a councillor, and I enjoy engaging with voters ie my neighbours person to person. To give the young chap his due, he listened and apologised, and I admire him for what he said.

But it's illustrative of a bigger point. I fully understand that teenagers know 'everything' and I make full allowance for that. But past teens, I expect people to be more circumspect and open-minded. I particularly dislike being dismissed or assumed to be ignorant.

Sometimes it happens benignly but more often it comes across as a sort of arrogance. I feel like I am being judged and diminished. It seems particularly to come from younger men. Certainly not all younger men, not by any means. I think it is a curious mixture of sexism, ageism and sizeism. I have this annoying, impossible-to-shift layer of fat and retained water round my stomach which makes me look very fat from front and side view. Particularly when tired, I show lines below my eyes and from the edge of my mouth. I'm female and not very tall, and find it difficult to wear heeled shoes for a long time.

And it annoys me like hell when young men talk to me assuming I am a complete ditz when it comes to politics and IT in particular, without having any evidence to support that. 

I know we all make snap judgements based on appearance, and if it's just on a passer-by, there's no harm done. But when people make lazy assumptions it's bloody annoying. It would be arch in the extreme to say "Don't you know I have qualifications in this and experience in that?" It's like a poster I saw when I used to attend KCH Rheumatology. A picture of an elderly woman saying 'My students used to call me Professor, please don't call me 'Dear'" or some such. I'm only 42 and it's already getting to me. Can't imagine how I'll feel in 20, 30 or 40 years time. 

I suppose it's an age-old cry that the young don't appreciate the wisdom of older people. No doubt I was guilty when I was younger and still am to almost half the population who are older than me. But it's incredibly important for young men to learn that 'middle-aged women' are often mentally acute, highly intelligent and very knowledgeable. When they show lack of interest in matters that are greatly important to you it might just be because they have 'been there and done it', or have different interests and priorities and are really not obliged to follow an agenda set by others.

Wedlock: How Georgian Britain's Worst Husband Met his Match

by Wendy Moore

Another book I picked up by mistake in my search for shallow chick-lit. Firmly in the genre of Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire and The Other Boleyn Girl, this makes shallow chick-lit look meaningless, and, surely, is crying out to be turned into a film.

I suspect this sort of book would be dismissed by the History Snobs as being about a lightweight unimportant subject. It would be ignored by the glossy mags and their airhead journalists as not being 'relevant'. It would also be dismissed by feminist academia for not containing sufficient long, made up words, interminable sentences with multiple sub clauses, and for not being hectoring enough.

It seems to be a well researched book relying heavily on primary and contemporary sources (with pages of end notes citing these sources). Unlike The Other Boleyn Girl, the author does not make any disclaimer about fictionalising, and, other than projecting thoughts and feelings, I regard it as straight account.

It is a biography of Mary Eleanor Bowes, a summary of which is available at Wikipedia. Not a new story, the 'worst husband' was the subject of Thackeray's The Luck of Barry Lyndon. Wendy Moore comments on how for three centuries, Mary Eleanor Bowes' story has been told and retold in a way to cast her in a poor light.

For example, only in 2006 a man published a book called The Trampled Wife: The Scandalous Life of Mary Eleanor Bowes; the publisher's blurb describes her as a 'termagant', a word whose meaning I had to look up.

I recognise that every good historian writes with a Point of View; nevertheless, I find this book to be revelatory and shocking historiographically. In other words, and in reference to the academic sisters, it's about time that history became herstory.

Twin and interlocking themes in the book: extreme domestic violence and the oppressive, tyrannical, thieving property and marriage laws  - not properly (if that) amended until my lifetime, that meant that the woman was the property of her husband. That was no abstract concept. This meant that a married woman had no legal personage, so could not take legal action in her own name, had no rights to any property inherited from her father, and, on separation, had no legal rights to access her children, let alone be their caregiver. Mary Eleanor Bowes was unusual in that she was able to be an exception to this. Eventually.

If you read my review of Daughters of Shame, you will recall I wrote:

I simply don't see that rape, child marriage and imprisonment are race issues. In any case, similar oppression was typical of white European Christian society until fairly recently.

I wrote that before I had even read the cover of this book, and this book appeared next in the pile serendipitously. I found the first few pages difficult because the writing style is so very different from Jasvinder Sanghera's, but I soon settled into it, and after a few slow short sessions, read most of it yesterday.

In a perfect world, I ought to be reading weighty academic tomes, but books like this are far more useful. It's 96 in the Amazon (UK) sales rank for books, perhaps assisted by it being part of the Channel 4 TV Book Club (whatever that is...). This shows there is a market for this kind of book, possibly an insatiable market.

This reaches more people than academic tomes; those who read it are by definition literate, and, probably, well educated and already aware of the issues. Being part of a book club and - eventually, I guess, - a film, will mean that the message reaches a wider audience.

No doubt, some of that wider audience will say 'Oh didn't Kiera Knightley (or whoever) look mint; fancy coming shopping; I don't see the point of feminism" but a lot more will realise that progress has to be won, is slow and is fragile. Conversely, the reader might consider "that's history, thank goodness the only thing we have to worry about now is the emo angst and body image obsessiveness of a modern Bridget Jones".

It's a generally well-written and edited* book. My main criticism of the style is repetition. You know when you watch a Channel 4 documentary and after every ad break, they recap what's gone before, tell you what they're going to say, say it, and then recap it, before telling you what they're going to tell you after the next break. It wasn't quite that bad, but it's a habit I detest on TV and I don't want it to become the norm in books.

Like Georgiana, this is a biography of an ancestor of a future monarch. I suppose there is little documented evidence of the lives of ordinary Georgian women, but it's sad that after three centuries that the same small group of people 'matter'. There is (probably) more interest in Royal Ancestors than in people whose line died out or descended into obscurity.

A couple of years back I went to both Hever Castle and Harewood House, both of them using their tenuous Royal Connections to attract paying customers to their (admittedly extensive) grounds, indifferent gardens and overpriced gift shops.

I used to wonder why so many people were monarchists despite the overwhelming logical arguments to support a republic. But I didn't understand - still don't - the quasi-feudal system which ensures so many people are dependent on the Royalist spin-offs. It would seem inimical to their interests to kill the golden goose, although I am sure many people are happy to visit homes and gardens with no obvious current royal connection, as long as they're worthwhile in themselves.

Perhaps this won't become a film - the beatings, rapes and imprisonments are so grisly that a a faithful account might not pass uncensored; a watered down version would risk trivialising a seminal legal case and its context.

* editing matters: 2 or 3 years ago I read several books that made me want to wield the red pen to eliminate padding - I read one which said something like 'I realised I found myself entering through the door into the room', an understandable first draft, or instant-publishing flaw, but in a book that costs real cash money?

Daughters of Shame

I don't fully remember buying this book; I think it was in an impulse bulk-buy of fluffy inconsequential chick-lit. It couldn't be further from that genre.

Jasvinder Sanghera ran away from the prospect of a forced marriage and set up Karma Nirvana to support women - and then men, too - in similar circumstances. This book tells the stories of several women and one man and their struggle to survive ostracism and estrangement from their families and communities, often the violent abuse they suffered, and in some cases, murder.

I thought I knew a little about the subject, just from newspapers and some stuff I have come across over the years through various jobs. But after reading this book I realise how naive and innocent I was (and still am), a situation which many police and social workers also find themselves in.

It's an extraordinarily well written and well-edited book. No superfluous prose, and its fluidity makes it impossible to put down. I read it in about three hours on Wednesday.

As a British Asian woman Jasvinder is in a position to criticise community cultural values from personal experience. Time and again she finds herself having to battle persuade the white and seemingly liberal public sector professionals she encounters to take this matter seriously.

Teachers, police, social services are - not surprisingly - wary of cultural sensitivities. Reading this, and in knowing the enormous progress that has happened in this area in just a few short years, I am tempted to be optimistic and celebrate that progress. But one police officer believes the problem will never go away; an academic likens this area to how child abuse was in the 1970s.

She describes women - and girls - held prisoner in their homes, or kidnapped and taken to Pakistan etc to be forcibly married. Running through is a tacit acknowledgement of the many more women who acquiesced in an 'arranged' marriage against their will. I suppose my major criticism is that after reading this, one is tempted to believe this behaviour is absolutely endemic throughout British Asian society, and, of course, it is not.

It troubles me that the families and communities that Jasvinder writes about are so hostile to white people in Britain. I accept that many may have migrated here as a result of the history of colonialism and repression, and that many have faced racism and hate crimes from white British people. I also think it's understandable to want to retain culture and community values, but only up to a point.some of the reported statements are racist, or would be considered so if expressed by white people about Asians; however, with this brand of racism, it is again the Asians who are the victims.

Asian schoolgirls attending overwhelmingly white schools are instructed not to talk to white girls, even at school - I dread to think what is happening to the girls at Islamic separatist schools. I just don't think it's realistic for a child to be born in a place and grow up there and not absorb some aspects of the local culture and ways of behaving. Indeed, just about every British Asian person I know considers themself both British and Asian, wanting and being the best of both.

It's not very far along the line to ask - why, if you abhor the British way of life so much do you nevertheless stay living here? Can you not see that so many aspects that make Britain an attractive place to migrate to are the aspects you detest the most - a liberal and open society where, at least in theory, women are free to do what they want with their lives? The prosperity would not be there without the liberalism, and nor would the safety net. If your daughter has the much-prized British Citizenship, she also has all the rights that go with that - or indeed, the rights that are afforded to all residents of Britain irrespective of status. It isn't a menu where you choose just the options that appeal to you and reject the rest.

I have never subscribed to the view that one should avoid offending cultural sensitivities. I am a feminist and a socialist, and as such, I also lend my support to other liberation struggles (as they were once called...). But I cannot compromise my belief in women's equality and freedom just so as not to appear racist. I simply don't see that rape, child marriage and imprisonment are race issues.In any case, similar oppression was typical of white European Christian society until fairly recently.

I am humbled reading about women like Jasvinder. It would have been so much easier for her to heave a sigh a relief and live a 'normal' life in private. Instead, she tours the country speaking at conferences and seminars, and appearing in the media, working tirelessly to persuade law-makers and the professionals that administer the law to understand what is happening, not to ignore the hidden abuse of thousands of women and children (and men, too, for that matter), as well as supporting the individuals who approach her organisation for help.

It's a very powerful book, made more so by its readability, where the personalities become real not just some 'case study'. I would highly recommend it; but beware that it contains some painful truths that won't simply go away when you put the book down.

Irresponsible headline

It shouldn't surprise to me find some so-called journalist distorting a story in order to get a sensationalist headline. It also shouldn't surprise me to find these journalists running a distorting headlines without a thought for the consequences of their actions.

I would like to say that it surprises me that this has happened on the BBC News web site, but I am afraid that the BBC News website is a watchword for poorly - hastily - written pieces. Normally, I just spot grammatical errors, paragraphs in the wrong order or references to something 'above' which has subsequently been edited out. Irritating, indicative of sloppy standards, but, ultimately inconsequential.

Then I see the headline

'Rape victims to blame' - survey.

I click to the story, headlined in  bold:

Women say some rape victims should take blame - survey

The opening paragraph says

A majority of women believe some rape victims should take responsibility for what happened, a survey suggests.

There is a massive difference between 'some...should take responsibility' to 'Rape victims to blame'

It's not just semantics to point out the massive difference between the initial headline on the front page and the actual substance of the story.

If you read the initial headline, you might subconsciously read it as ALL victims are to blame. 'Blame' is not 'responsibility'.

In reality most women - and men - take some responsibility for their own personal safety. Accepting our own personal responsibility can, I suppose, logically be transferred to criticising people who don't take that responsibility. But it's a very big leap of (illogic) to turn that into 'blame',  and a very very big leap to imply that all rape victims are therefore to blame.

When a crime is committed, the criminal is always to blame. We all have the opportunity from time-to-time to commit a crime against another; most of us don't.

There are many crimes of sexual violence where any detached observer can say "If she hadn't got into Situation A, Scenario B wouldn't have happened, and therefore Act C, the rape or assault wouldn't have occurred". Avoiding Situation A is about taking responsibility. Suggesting that the victim is to blame, because Act C is a direct and inevitable consequence of A, is downright irresponsible.

In any case, this only covers the fraction of rapes that are commonly known as 'date rapes'. If by writing that, I make it seem that a 'date rape' is trivial, I don't mean that. As long as it's properly defined.

Waking up in the morning regretting that drunken shag and calling it rape post-hoc is almost never justifiable, and that's where personal responsibility matters.

But to be on a date and to be violently assaulted, sexually or not, or to be violently assaulted within a long-term relationship. Well, we can all take a superior attitude, call it 'bad judgement', and so on, but to suggest that the victim is to 'blame' is generally unsustainable and unjustified. And, in any case, what we as individuals may say in private conversation, with the chance to discuss context for hours on end, is really quite different from writing a headline on the BBC News front page, especially when large numbers of the people who read the headline won't read the story.

Isn't it about the time that the BBC News online start taking responsibility or else I will blame them for reinforcing the widely-held belief that women are always to blame for being raped.

BBC NEWS | World | Americas | Vatican backs abortion row bishop

BBC NEWS | World | Americas | Vatican backs abortion row bishop.

This is just disgusting although wholly predictable

A senior Vatican cleric has defended the excommunication in Brazil of the mother and doctors of a young girl who had an abortion with their help.

The nine-year-old had conceived twins after alleged abuse by her stepfather.

No suggestion that the stepfather gets excommunicated for what by any standards is a vile action.

It seems obvious from this report that as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the rape of children is okay. And the Catholic church is so filled with their hatred of women - and young girls - they want a nine year old to go ahead with a pregnancy.

Nothing in this surprises me, and I thought I was beyond being shocked, and it's not unprecedented, but this is just beyond vile.

Not that their excommunication actually matters in reality, although it might to the poor stupid and brainwashed. If there is a god, a god of love and mercy,  he/she/it would surely show compassion to those who showed compassion to a brutalised little girl. Whereas those disgusting old men think this child should go through with her pregnancy, on the off-chance that the foetuses might have survived, irrespective of the fact that it might well have killed the child.

The Catholic Church - defending the right to life all the way up to birth...and no further.

Autonomy and fertility

A few weeks ago the Observer published a story UK baby shortage will cost £11 billion.

I wrote, but abandoned a blogpost about what a silly thing it was. I wrote

When newspapers report that women are delaying having children until, in some cases, it's too late, it conjures up to me an image of a twenty-four year old woman sitting down and writing a manifesto which reads something like "1) Achieve career goals; 2) find suitable sperm donor; 3) breed"

I abandoned the post because although I knew what I wanted to say, I was unable to express myself sufficiently eloquently and it was boring.

No doubt smug driven women - and men - do exist who are able to decide in their early Twenties exactly how their professional and private lives will unfold, and have the drive and the luck to meet that, and to fulfill a stereotype, most of us tend to take life as it comes, often the involuntary tools of happenstance. The existence of a stereotype doesn't mean that every relevant person fits into it.

I read into the Observer piece a berating and an attempt to induce guilt in people - or let's be straight here, women - who put off having children until they have sorted their career out and then find out they can't have children. The logical rejoinder would be a society that arranges a marriage for every sixteen year old and instructs her to abandon her education in order to breed. Or women who drop serial sprogs by random fathers and expect to be supported by taxpayers. Which are clearly ridiculous.

Not satisfied with scolding people - or, rather, women - who do not have children, it barely stops before it scolds those who do have some, but not enough. Apparently, most people end up having fewer children than they might have wished for in their childhood. Never mind practicality, wisdom, and common sense. Very few people can really cope with more than a few children unless very spread out in age. I think we can all find plenty of anecdotal evidence to find children from large families who suffered from a lack of parental attention even when there was no shortage of parental love.

I never posted but today appears another Observer article 'I never chose to be childless. I just never reached the let's-make-babies stage with anyone. Even when I was married' where the writer explains how, because she behaved in a sensible and responsible way she did not have children. Not because of some sinister arrogant plan as dishonestly caricatured in the same paper last month, but because she never felt it sensible to have a child with a father who was not interested or unwilling or unlikely to stick around. How terribly old fashioned.

Earlier this week we had the story of Natalie Evans A woman left infertile after cancer treatment cannot use frozen embryos to have a baby, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled.

A terribly sad story for her personally and for any woman who may be affected by any legal precedent that may be established. As far as I understand it, the case hinges on the refusal of her ex-boyfriend to give consent to the frozen embryos being used for fertility treatment.

My first reaction was that the man is a Selfish Bastard. He is quoted as saying "The key thing for me was just to be able to decide when, and if, I would start a family." How nice. He still has that choice and will continue to do so for another half a century or so. She does not have that choice. Except by unfreezing the embryos. He is denying her that choice.

Then being a balanced reasonable person, I thought, hold on, should this be forced upon him, without his consent, not least because he may be pursued for financial support.

But even when I see both sides of the story, I like to take the right, rather than wrong. That is the reality of life. Many men surrender the right to decide when to start a family and risk being pursued for child support when they take the decision to seduce a woman. The creation of embryos to be frozen must surely have been a decision taken with considerably more thought, discussion and research than the average decision to fall into bed. If he was not prepared to accept the consequences, he should never have committed himself in the first place. Most parents don't have the option to change their minds five years later. He insists on his rights yet he already exercised that right and made his decision when he contributed his part of the frozen embryos.

I was annoyed by the involvement of

Josephine Quintavalle of the pro-life group Comment on Reproductive Ethics, who said of the court's ruling: "It's an inevitable judgement, but a very sad one." She said Mr Johnston had "become a father" when the embryos were created, and should have compassion for Ms Evans.

In this particular instant our views happen to coincide, but she is also the person who a few years ago supported a legal bid by a man who was trying to prevent his ex-girlfriend from having an abortion. Quintavalle's argument at the time seemed to be that the man had rights over the women's fertility.

A few days ago for some inexplicable reason the BBC Radio Four Today programme covered attempts by some backwoods US state to outlaw abortion, attempts by the Right Wing Christian Misogynists to impose their agenda onto women.

Blue Witch covered this in a bit more detail a couple of weeks back. In the comments box, some anti-abortionist wrote:

...many girls are encouraged to have an abortion. Yet afterwards they can feel very disturbed mentally and may never completely get over it. And there are many people wanting to adopt who for one reason or another cannot have children. It seems to me encouraging the girls to have the baby and then put it up for adoption where they could continue to have some contact later in life would be a better solution all round. But I certainly agree that rape, incest and danger to the mother should always be included as valid reasons, I cannot see why that is not the case here.

I do not understand these anti-abortionists, or Pro-Lifers as they call themselves. If they believe in the right to life of the foetus, they cannot support any position that makes exceptions on the basis of their judgement that the foetus is inferior. Who are they to play god and decide that one foetus has the absolute right to life and the other should be condemned to 'death', just because its father happens to be a rapist or an incestist. And who is this "Debster" to determine what is 'danger' to the mother? Someone else suggested that the adoption argument is not as simple as this Debster made out.

I felt obliged to highlight the ludicrousness of allowing 'rape' as an exceptional circumstance for abortion, and I commented

How would you define rape? Is it when the woman claims she was raped? Or would it be allowed only after the perpetrator - alleged perpetrator, I should say - is arrested, charged, tried and convicted?

Do you know the (low) proportion of cases in which that happens? Do you know how long it takes to get the perpetrator to court, if at all? What about the numerous cases where the woman chooses not to pursue the case because of the trauma involved in the judicial process? What about cases where the woman genuinely and honestly believes she was raped, and the man equally genuinely and honestly believes the woman consented? How many women would claim they were raped in order to get an abortion, and how many innocent men would end up in jail and with a lifetime on the Sex Offenders register as a result?

In practical terms, it simply wouldn't work. And all policy-making and legislating should be concerned only with what is possible. The simple fact is that the anti-abortionists will try every tactic to abolish abortion. They know that they can't get away with outright abolition, so they try every tactic to erode availability of it. The fact is, and this is evidenced by what happened long before the 1967 Abortion Act, women will continue to abort regardless of legality. Except, when it's done legally, it's done safely.

If I were to leave this post as it stands I would probably get a comment saying "When I was x weeks pregnant I truly felt that my baby was a living being and therefore I cannot understand how anybody could abort a baby of that age..." to which I would reply - no one is suggesting that you should have aborted your baby, (which was either planned, a happy accident, or an initially unhappy accident that you were able to accept and welcome); in an ideal world most abortions would occur in the first twelve weeks of pregnancy, on demand.

Very many of the anti-abortionists also oppose wide availability of contraception and oppose the provision of adequate sex education in schools.

What all these articles and events suggest is that way too many people believe it is their right to control the fertility of individual women. The only person who can do that is the woman herself.

Mozart Marketing Rip Off

Nephew #2 look away...now

Baby Mozart. You've seen it advertised.  You've heard a track from it introduced on Classic FM as "Also suitable for adults..."

Before the infamous Baritone Stalking Night the other week, SOSSLED had a meet-up in the Royal Opera House shop, where mayhem was caused. Among the objects of derision were CDs that varied on the theme of Baby Mozart. We mocked, we derided.

Your intrepid blogger found herself in HMV today and discovered that the Best Mozart Album in the World contains just about all the tracks that Classic FM's Baby Mozart does, and in total has 45% more tracks, at 40% of the price. All those poor kids being given Baby Mozart will have to get rid of their CD packaging before they start school, let alone University. Meanwhile the child with the aunt who hates marketing exploitation can keep his until CDs are completely obsolete.

How utterly cynical are these marketing companies. And how suckerish are the people buying them.

You can also get Mozart for Mums. I was not sure whether Mum is supposed to play this when she is:

a) being tender with child(ren)
b) chauffering child(ren) to myriad activities including School Run
c) desperately trying to cook and clean in between said activities
d) supervising homework and reprimanding child(ren)
e) holding down a responsible job
f) collapsing wih the gin bottle at the end of the day
g) being her own person and appreciating music for its own sake

Or, indeed, whether it's also suitable for Mums of grown-ups.

A load of Mums are going to get this for Mother's Day when, secretly, they'll be thinking, I actually wanted the Horn Concertos. Or Arctic Monkeys.

Observer Monthly

Green Fairy brilliantly articulates my gut reaction Effulgence

The revamped newlook Observer, not content with having a Magazine called "Music Monthly" which covers a tiny, overtly commercial part of the music world, now has a Women's Magazine, which they lack the courage to call 'Monthly' - unlike their Sport and Food advertising features, and to quote GF

Mentions of politics, of any description: 0. Mention of the arts: 0. Mentions of business, money or jobs: 0. Mentions of science or technology, 0. Difference from any number of glossy women's magazines available that peddle emancipation and freedom because they can say 'blow job' while fetishing a level of forever unattainable perfect living that maybe, just maybe, next month's edition will have the secret to cracking: 0.

On holiday, sitting in a beach shack, I fell to reading the latest edition of Marie Claire, which has started a campaign against body-fascism, especially the pressure women feel under from advertising etc to maintain a so-called desirable figure, at the expense of actually living a rich and fulfilling life. I was not sure whether it constituted merely the end of irony or the most cynical piece of hypocrisy ever published in the name of profit-making.

Wearing the niqab

Interesting article on a tricky subject - The big cover-up

Yes, people can wear what they like, as long as it doesn't impact upon society. I have to say that I find such total covering to be wrong on both practical and conceptual grounds.

I find it deeply insulting to men to suggest that women should cover themselves to prevent them from being the target of inappropriate sexual advances. Nine out of ten unwelcome sexual advances I have received have been in situations where any reasonable person would agree that there is a heightened 'risk' - parties, pubs, clubs etc. I find, and even when I was younger, I found, that the overwhelming majority of men do not actively regard women as sexual objects as they go about mundane everyday business. And, I have to say, most of the inappropriate sexual advances I have received outside of those situations have been from men whose background I surmise to be where women cover themselves.

I deplore the instruction

'Do not engage in social conversation with persons of the opposite sex,' it instructed. 'This is simple, just don't do it. When a kaffir [infidel] of the opposite sex asks you, "Did you have a good weekend", look down and say nothing in return.'

and perhaps it explains why I was the casual victim of astonishing rudeness a few weeks ago. I was in a lift at work. Quite often it occurs that people who don't know each other, except as 'colleagues' have a light exchange of trivial banter, usually about the lifts themselves. I was in the lift with a man, and made some banal innocuous comment like "Oh these lifts, they have a mind of their own...". The man turned away from me and refused to respond, which shocked me, because such comment is usually met by a "Tell me about it!" or a knowing laugh, or a smile. I guessed what his problem was. Well, sorry, this is the workplace. We value diversity etc, but it works both ways.

I spent the past week in a local, rather than HQ, office, where I interviewed a variety of staff, mainly at middle-management grade. A mixture of men and women, some white, some Asian. Much of that interview process consists of me asking questions and them describing aspects of their work. Of course much of it is verbal, but the facial expressions are equally important. The facial expression can reveal whether they are trotting out the corporate line or they fervently evangelically believe it; the face can show that the person is concerned about their capacity to reach their target, even if they are reluctant to verbalise that concern. And this has always been the case throughout my professional life, regardless of employer, regardless of interviewee, regardless of subject matter.

About five years ago I was doing schools audit. I was at a girls' school, about this time of year, and I noticed the number of girls who had bare legs, in between the top of their socks and the hem of their skirts. I asked one of the staff whether any of the girls wear trousers; fiercely, she replied "No trousers, no headscarves". Just this week I saw many girls from some schools wearing trousers, and other schools where it was clear that trousers are banned. In my opinion, those in trousers looked smarter, and, crucially warmer. I have five suits. Four are trouser suits, the fifth is a light cotton skirt suit specifically for hot summer days.

As a consequence, she felt that it was inappropriate for boys and girls of seven or eight to play together.

To this we are coming? I think that is rank and disgusting. I think that most children of that age tend to gravitate naturally towards their own gender, except in specific circumstances, such as siblings, or best buddy, or whatever. But why force the issue? We have swathes of people working with teenagers, in particular, to build self-esteem, life skills, team-working, social cohesion, through music and drama, voluntary work, outdoor pursuits, (sports, particularly team sports are different, I'll concede), where girls and boys thrive by working together without the need for quasi-sexual contact.

It's a bit sick that everything is reduced to sex. Years ago, there was a sign on the Ladies at work "Men working within" and a male colleague, teasingly, said, "Now calm down..." To which I replied, "Would it surprise you to know that I work everyday with men all along this corridor, and I manage to stay calm on a daily basis..." All good natured teasing...

I'm not sure it's practical to ban niqabs, though. Go out tomorrow morning and observe how many people are covered up with hats, scarves, hoodies etc. When it gets really cold, I wrap my old University scarf round my face until all that shows is my eyes. But I remove it at work, and I remove it in shops etc. I also remove it on the Tube; on the Tube, in the rush hour, there is a tremendous use of facial communication as people indicate for another to go first, to express thanks, to share irritation or anxiety about a prolonged wait or stop, or indeed to enforce 'Let passengers off the train first". In most of those circumstances, verbal communication would be intrusive or time consuming, but the little smiles and twitches oil the wheels and create positive vibes. And I'm afraid that my overwhelming conclusion from years of observation is that women in niqabs are one of the groups least likely to co-operate in this unspoken accommodation.

But I still contend it should be socially acceptable for women to go topless in any circumstances where it's socially acceptable for men.

Gender differences in the brain

Your brain's sex can make you ill

All quite interesting, but one phrase leaped out at me:

She said that most of the drugs available today had been tested on men, which may mean they are not necessarily the best design for women.

Seriously?

Even in the 21st century we are still subject to discrimination based on paternalistically lazy science?

I know I shouldn't be shocked, but I am. We can argue until the cows come home about societal and cultural differences between women and men, but I don't think anyone would dispute that there are major inherent physical differences. Yet this has not been built into drugs trials?

Words fail me.

Emergency contraception

Very interesting article Waking up to the morning after pill

I used to have a postcard above my desk saying "I'll be post-feminist in post-patriarchy" and people used to ask me what it meant.

This article illustrates the answer: despite this being the twenty-first century there is a whole raft of men who believe they have the right to dictate sexuality to a woman.

I went on the record about this five years ago

If this helps cut down on unwanted pregnancies: brilliant. It can be incredibly difficult to get hold of emergency contraception in the necessary timeframe. And it isn't just for teenagers: I'm sure few people in stable relationships can honestly say they've never had a broken condom or got their dates wrong. Of course women and girls won't start taking it like sweeties. Do the critics know that it is taken along with anti-emetic (sickness) tablets? I do not know any women who take it out of choice. Let's not forget that there are still dinosaurs around who oppose all forms of artificial contraception and presumably believe a woman's place is banged up every year.

What Thatch did for women

Zoe Williams asks - Did Thatcher improve women's lives without meaning to?

Absolutely bang on the nail article.

About five years ago I was at a friend's house, along with about half a dozen other guests. Andrew and I, both broadly aligned with the Campaign Group, were the most right wing. I think two of the others were paid-up members of the SWP.

Conversation got onto the subject of Thatch, as it does, and we had this amazing male-female split. One of the Trot women commented that, growing up in the Eighties, much as one detested and condemned Thatcher's politics, nevertheless, she was an icon and role model.

Some of the men spoke of class betrayal. Some of the women, myself included, suggested that gender transcends class (my favourite way of baiting SWP-ers, who do not recognise gender politics and are probably the most patriarchal political party - well, except for UKIP).

All these women born in the second half of the Sixties knew that having Thatch as PM was a signal that women can do anything. The men came up with the litaniy of betrayals. We said we knew. We were not endorsing her policies. We never had done. But in the 1980s, it was no longer good enough for careers teachers (pah! I spit on your ignorance) to say "But women can't do that job" because hordes of teenagers would reply "If Margaret Thatcher can become Prime Minister..."

You youngsters probably never experienced that. The sad thing is that careers guidance, in many cases, is given by teachers who have gone from school to University to school and have less than no idea about life in any other environment.

Zoe Williams' last line is the clincher.

The Eternal Question

Why?

Or as I so delicately phrased it over at Green Fairy,

What is it about men and missing? Is it ingrained? I had a friend of a friend round to do some work and I don't think he even aimed...

Men, please, explain this mystery. The toilet bowl is relatively large compared to an average weeny.

How can you miss?

When I piss standing up, I never miss. and I'm a girl.

Pope as feminist?

Is the Pope a feminist?.

I long ago stopped being a fan of Germaine Greer, but, actually, this article is very much worth reading. I don't disagree with anything she says, and I find some of the evidence quoted to be quite reassuring.

However, the fact remains that whilst the Vatican retains its vile genocidal policy on contraception, it continues to destroy the attempts of many many people (including a vast number of nominal and devout Catholics) to fight the real immorality, Poverty.

Incidentally, someone of my acquaintance, who has spent the last ten years working as a Catholic lay chaplain, pointed out to me that the Vatican's policy on condoms to prevent AIDS is not only morally wrong, but is inconsistent with other teaching.

Many women are prescribed the contraceptive pill as a form of hormone treatment, for gynaecological or endrocrinological problems. The main purpose is to treat those conditions, in much the same way that anti-biotics are prescribed to kill bacteria. The fact is, by taking the Pill, the woman is thus also rendered infertile, is regarded doctrinally as an acceptable incidental consequence, and the woman is not deemed to be 'in sin'. Therefore, by that logic, using condoms to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS should also be doctrinally acceptable, because the contraceptive function is merely an incidental consequence.

Her mother, and my mother (who know each other) regard the contraception teaching as ridiculous and outdated, and what a couple do in their private life is of no concern to the priest in confessional. Another friend has a brother who is a Catholic priest and he has made it quite clear to this friend that effective contraception is an essential part of a sensible married life - just count the children and the bedrooms and do the sums.

Whilst unaccountable, exclusively (or predominantly) male organisations seek to impose their crackpot ideas on governments and wider society, I believe we have a moral duty to speak out against them.

The chaplain and the priest speak out from within. There again, they are exceptionally intelligent, well-educated people with a greater understanding of the world than your average dullard plonked into the parishes of the world.

Arsehole

UKIP MEP in row over working women

"I am here to represent Yorkshire women who always have dinner on the table when you get home. I am going to promote men's rights," he added.

One thing I find slightly frustrating is that rebuttal is always done in terms of 'Equal Opportunites' and 'Rights', which are all well and good, but really have no influence on the doltish thinking of the 'BNP-for-the-middle-classes'.

What is more to the point is that any business should employ the person most likely to bring 'added value'. There is a risk in taking on any employee. Sure, maternity leave is a cost to business. So is sick leave, for those dodgy hearts and alcohol-related stress problems that *all * middle-aged men suffer. And what can be more frustrating than training someone to do the job, only for them to leave for another position?

But bottom line, it is established that organisations that value diversity in their workforce tend to be the most innovative and flexible, and all other things being equal, therefore profitable.

Decriminalisation?

Very interesting article in the Observer about the growth of the sex industry. Over a decade ago a consultative exercise in Streatham with numerous 'respectable' community groups called for decriminalisation.

I supposed if prostitution was decriminalised or legalised, it would allow for regulation, including protection of minors, and free up resources to fighting the organised crime elements.

But the reported increase in demand and supply is really rather depressing.

The Silent holocaust

Woman's body discovered as suspect is found dead - just one more woman murdered for no apparent reason.

Although the facts in this case are sparse it seems that the prime suspect was known to her family. I'm speculating but I am convinced that it is yet again an example of a woman who spurned the sexual advances of a man who has been conditioned by the over-sexualisation of our society to assume that all women are up and gagging for it.

It's all very well the tabloids screaming about paedophiles but in their desperation to increase circulation they never stop to consider their culpability in other murders.

The not-so-fat slags

There are two women in Britain who make Victoria Beckham look the soul of discretion, refinement and good taste, and the Currant Bun brings them to youJordan and Titmus.

Now I put on my feminist hat. I notice Abi Titmuss is described as a 'slapper'. Katie Price escapes that but I promise that you really have to have a look at the outfit she is wearing.

Newspapers like the Sun, and conversations up-and-down the country have very clear views on women like these two. These are quite different from views on Pat Cash, who 'may or may not' have slept with David Beckham's Rebecca, but he had so many he can't remember. The subtext is 'ooh, Pat, you're such a lad', whereas Jordan, Abi, Rebecca and the rest are slappers.

I don't suppose that societal attitudes will ever change. Subconsciously, we judge 'it *okay* for Alpha Males to put it about, but not for women. Intellectually I baulk at the double-standards; however, I am as guilty as the next person. To me, they are slappers.

When it boils down to it what anybody does in the privacy of their own bedroom, or carpark, is their business, and I'm not going to pass judgement. Until they start talking about it. I'm fortunate in never having worked with anyone who talks at length about their sex life. People I know have had colleagues like that, and it is truly cringeworthy. You don't get a lot of it on blogs; at least not on the ones I read. The TD guest month was an exception. That worked, worked incredibly well. Otherwise, other than the odd oblique reference people don't blog their sex lives. Thankfully.

Last night we did it. This was the twenty-seventh time this year. It started with me doing [deleted] then he rolled over and did [deleted]. Eventually, we [deleted]. I stopped halfway through for a cigarette, then he did [deleted]. It lasted x minutes. We have marked in our diaries to do it again on Saturday afternoon. This time it will be on the kitchen table.

How utterly, utterly tedious.

Arts packaged for women

I totally agree with the thrust of this rant against the cynical packaging of third-rate songs, books and films as For Women. I am a woman, and if someone can come up with a package that includes Shawshank Redemption, The Sound of Music, The Unbearable Lightness of Being, and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade into a coherent "For Gert" package - these being my favourite all-time films - I would question their sanity.

Women are not homogenous. Unfortunately, although I want to agree with the rant, it has one fundamental flaw: the marketing people generally get it right - they would not be doing these packages if they didn't sell. I could be contemptuous of people who are susceptible to marketing packaging. but I only have to look at my over-large collection of compilation CDs, pop and classical, to realise that I, too, am susceptible to packaging.