Fear not the mythical Evil Twitter Feminist

In recent months people have been discussing the extent to which women who are new to feminism are potentially being "scared off" the movement by more seasoned feminists who are keen to tell them that they're doing it wrong and are, in fact, not feminists at all. The stereotype of the Evil Twitter Feminist has developed over the past year or so - you've probably heard of her. She's a better feminist than everyone else. She's a thought-policing bully who wants to dictate what words you use, is quick to jump to conclusions and quick to trample anyone who disagrees with her about the finer points of gender equality. She just loves declaring who is and who isn't a feminist, and she probably doesn't like you. Sounds a bit...exaggerated, right? That's because it is.

This stereotype has come about following a series of long, involved and drama-filled debates that have played out on blogs and on social media. In general, they've happened because well-known public figures who identify as feminists have said and done things that aren't so great. There have been arguments. There has been flouncing. And as a result, I've seen several people say they're feeling as if feminism's a secret society that they can't join.

All this is supposedly making women feel that they don't have a place in feminism and that if they don't say the right things and have the right knowledge, they'll never be part of some imaginary Special Feminist Club. This is really getting me down, and not for the reasons you'd think.

But as the myth of the Evil Twitter Feminist - henceforth to be known as ETFs - gets perpetuated, as articles are written saying "ETFs make me feel like I'm not part of their exclusive gang" or "ETFs are intimidating and they just seem to fight all the time", I think that people are beginning to believe it. They're beginning to see these feminist mean girls as exactly what's wrong with the movement and exactly why women don't want to get involved with gender equality activism.

I think a bit of perspective is needed here, so have put together some tips in an attempt to stop all these "ETFs don't want me in their crew" mutterings.

Try not to be put off by debate and disagreement

All philosophies and movements are the same. You'll find a range of opinions and from time to time there will be drama. People will argue. When I was a "baby feminist" and started reading feminist blogs, there was a lot of conflict surrounding the issues of porn and sex work - whether you were pro or anti. People were quitting and deleting their blogs; there was a lot of bad feeling. I thought I knew how I felt about the issue, but then I realised there was a lot I didn't know and a lot I didn't understand. I didn't try to wade into the arguments, but I didn't think "This feminism lark's not for me, thanks" either. I read the blog posts. I looked at sites that helped clear up my confusion and knowledge gaps. We are, after all, talking about the internet here - and the internet thrives on conflict. Different schools of thought within a movement are not just "infighting" or "a spat" - it's not a requirement that everyone comes to the same conclusions about every issue.

If you mess up, put things right

Unsurprisingly, a lot of people find this difficult. Particularly, it seems, high profile people. Everyone makes mistakes and often, we don't even realise what we've done. One of the main points to come out of the many feminist Twitterstorms of recent months is that a lot of people use words and phrases that are considered offensive by other groups of people. They get used because they're popular, they're slang, they're just what people say. And then someone calls you out on it and says "I'm not ok with that". When this happens, it's best to apologise, admit you messed up, and move on. Getting defensive and spending several days telling everyone that the racist/sexist/homophobic word you used was soooo not racist/sexist/homophobic and can't people just get off your case and stop trying to police your speech is not the best plan.

Be prepared to look at your heroes with a critical eye and accept that "big names" divide opinion

Let's say you're a big fan of a particular well-known woman. You think she's great and she's really influenced you. Maybe she's even helped ignite your passion for equality. Then you see some other women saying that they're not happy with something she's said or done. Actually, they think she's done something pretty bad. They think she's giving feminism a bad name. Fear not! This does not mean you are a bad feminist. You do not have to turn in your feminist card and slink off, shamed. It's possible to agree with some things a person has said, but realise that they've also said some pretty unfortunate things too. The key, again, is looking into what's going on and learning.

If you have a lot of privilege, listen to those who don't

Privilege. That old chestnut. If you're new to feminism you probably see it being discussed a lot. Where there is drama, there is usually an argument about privilege. This post has some great pointers for engaging with debates surrounding privilege - tips such as "learn to listen", "you aren't bad for having privilege", "it's ok to make mistakes" and "criticism is not hatred". Where a lot of people fall down is going on the defensive because someone has mentioned their opinion on something is coloured by privilege of some sort. It's easy for this to happen. You might think "This person appears to be hating on me for being white/middle-class/straight! I didn't CHOOSE to be this way! They obviously think I'm a bigot and I've done nothing wrong!"

Stop. Don't make it about you. Don't get huffy if they use words you aren't familiar with. Google is your friend. Part of the reason the stereotype of the ETF reacts with such anger to issues like this is because in general, feminists get a bit tired of people refusing to admit that someone might be better placed to talk about something than they are.

Remember why you're doing this

The answer is, of course, because you're passionate about gender equality and want to see it become a reality for everyone. You don't have to have the same areas of interest as all the feminists you know. You don't have to agree with them all or even get on with them all. You can align yourself with other movements and belief systems. You don't have to be out protesting every weekend and signing every petition and blogging about every outrage. Somewhere, you will find community and friendship and the things you feel most moved to act upon. And when you do, it will be awesome.

This post originally appeared on BitchBuzz, which sadly closed last week after four and a half years of great content and three and a half years of providing me with some wonderful opportunities.

The rise of the feMEnist, and why it must stop

Yesterday several newspapers were abuzz with the results of a survey claiming to show that just one in seven women identify with feminism, instead seeing it as "irrelevant", "too aggressive", and "not a positive label". The survey was carried out by parenting website Netmums, and 1300 of its members answered questions such as "Do you think there are any downsides to the successes of feminism?" and "Which of these activities is acceptable for feminists?", a list that included "baking cupcakes", "false nails", and "topless modelling".

Despite the fact that the survey seemed designed to highlight what people see as the negatives of the movement, and hardly representative ("women see motherhood as their top priority" - hardly unexpected of a survey carried out on a website for mums), the usual suspects in the national press were quick to jump on the results as representing all women. The Daily Mail's headline was "The death of feminism", while the Express plumped for "Feminism is over...say women". So far, so typical linkbait for the right-wing press, "radical feminist" stereotypes abound. Yawn.

And I have to admit that yes, right-wing linkbait and all, I did feel disappointed to read what the survey had to say, from "39% said they don't want to be equal" to "accept men and women are different and therefore need different rights", and that old classic, "feminism has gone too far". On the other hand, it was interesting to see respondents identifying which battles they believe feminists still have to fight, from affordable childcare to equal pay and bans on sexist advertising - and the fact that 70% of them held the view that "too much is expected of women".

One thing, however, stuck out to me the most: the way Netmums has branded the findings as "the rise of the feMEnist", so called because women today supposedly want the right to live their lives as they want without judgment, rather than "being dictated to by the 70s-style sisterhood", as the Telegraph put it. They want to "find their own path that works for them and their family". This is all very well and really important, but when you reduce the movement down to nothing more than choice feminism, you really miss the point.

A common criticism levelled at the feminist movement today is that we're just out to police women's lives and dictate their thoughts, either "forcing" them into one way of thinking or rejecting them as "not feminist enough". This couldn't be further from the truth, although it often doesn't seem like that when the media insists on pigeonholing us and painting us as obsessed with certain issues above all else. Women push back against the idea of "sisterhood" because they think it means having to love all women; they push back against the idea of solidarity because this one time, this one feminist said something they didn't agree with. They push back against equality because they think people will hate on them for wearing makeup.

The problem is, turning everything the other way and making gender equality all about personal choice and "me, me, me - whatever I think is good" conveniently forgets that there are a whole lot of women struggling with a whole lot of circumstances who do need - and want - collective effort, empathy, and action. Individualism is not the way forward.

It's an "every woman for herself" attitude that's heavy on "my personal choice to do x" and light on cohesion with a wider movement, and compassion for other women and their lives. It's the unfortunate state of affairs that means public debates about feminism get mired in waffle about the "choices" surrounding vajazzling and baking while serious issues go undiscussed.

The Netmums survey concluded: "While undoubtedly it's down to old-fashioned feminists for bringing society this far, now it's time for another radical change to let individual feMEnists find their own path..." We know everyone's over the idea of "having it all". We know that choices about family life are important and that every woman has the right to be respected for the choices she makes about work, motherhood, and interests.

But let's not turn feminism into nothing more than "doing whatever we want". The survey showed that women think there's a lot of work to be done by the movement, which is why it's important to work together, help each other, and genuinely want to improve the situation for women the world over. To dismiss this as old hat, the preserve of "old-fashioned" feminists, is sad - and I think, misrepresents the movement today. Yes, we have to be accessible, and yes, we have to be accepting of a wide range of views. But come on, we can do better than this.

This post originally appeared on BitchBuzz. Image via crl!'s Flickr

Further reading:

Salt and Caramel: Feminism is over...say women

My Elegant Gathering of White Snows: FeMEnism: Netmums re-invents "choice" feminism

Are women really "less ambitious" than men?

The results of an exclusive poll conducted for The Telegraph claim to show that women are less ambitious than men and that we're facing an "aspiration gap" between men and women in the business world.

The findings are the subject of a couple of stories published in the paper's newly-launched women's section called "Wonder Women", which is being billed as content that this generation of women will actually enjoy and identify with, rather than consisting of the usual "lipsticks, handbags or BMW - bitching, moaning and whining" (more on this later).

1,000 18-35 year olds were surveyed and it was found that just 16% of young women aspire to run their own business one day, and just 3% want to be the chief executive of a company - compared to 22% and 6% of men. It also looks like women aren't as concerned by earning a high salary, with 16% aspiring to take home £100,000 a year compared to 20% of men. 16% of those surveyed said they were happy to take home £30,000 a year, compared to 12% of men.

This, apparently, is indicative of the fact that women are less ambitious and less concerned with "climbing the corporate ladder" than their male contemporaries. But is this a bad thing? The article happily details the fact that a "surprising" percentage of both men and women have no desire to become a line manager or head of department - so is it a case of unambitious women, or both sexes being disillusioned with the traditional concept of "success"?

The idea that women are "less ambitious" than men is problematic from the outset, because it equates "ambition" with wanting to earn a high salary and become a chief executive. This leaves no room for the fact that there are many, many ways to be ambitious, and that money isn't the most important thing in plenty of people's lives. Andrew Hunter, co-founder of the company that conducted the survey, said he thought that young people "would have a little more aspiration than this". Surely it's not difficult to understand that the corporate world isn't everyone's thing?

More and more, it's being reported that people will take job satisfaction and a good work-life balance over pots of cash and an important-sounding job title any time. In my experience, the current economic climate coupled with 21st century workplace culture has made people reassess their priorities - and while everyone wants to make enough money, that's as far as it goes for a lot of people. We know that the job opportunities of years gone by aren't there any more, which is probably why so many of those surveyed were keen to work freelance or set up their own business.

It's also possible that people aren't interested in working their way up to management because they're unwilling to become part of a power structure they're not totally comfortable with. Leadership can be worked out in many other ways.

So is it cause for concern that women, in particular, don't seem so interested in that sort of life? No, not really. As someone who has plenty of ambition but has never aspired to corporate glory and a six figure salary, I can't see what all the fuss is about. It's suggested that we should be doing something about this supposed lack of drive in young women. By all means, we should be offering encouragement and resources if they need help realising such ambitions. But otherwise, I'm not so sure.

What the survey actually appears to suggest is that women are more interested in other career paths, and don't see business and cash as their route to "having it all", something I know is true for me and for many of my friends. It found that careers in the public sector and charity sector are the most desirable, followed by those in the IT and digital sector, and the media.

Speaking of which, you'd think that a so-called "sassy" new women's section would avoid going down the cliché-ridden route of stories about "Having It All". The same goes for illustrating said stories with stills from The Devil Wears Prada and pictures of Sarah Jessica Parker. It would be nice to see a move away from all that nonsense and towards a more up-to-date take on these issues, a take that doesn't see the woman who "has it all" as a woman with several children, a job in banking, the perfect relationship, and a house worthy of Elle Decoration. I'll be interested to see how Wonder Women pans out in the weeks to come.

One of the better points raised by The Telegraph's coverage is that childcare arrangements and attitudes towards mothers remain a major barrier to women achieving their career ambitions, and could explain the difference in aspiration between men and women. The cost of nurseries these days is the highest in Europe, which means it's not economically viable for many women to return to work, even if they're keen to do so. In my opinion that's worth addressing and something the government really needs to act upon, because it does affect the lives and careers of many, many women. Maybe then we'll see a change in the disparity between men's and women's ambitions.

This post originally appeared on BitchBuzz. Image via victor1558's Flickr.

Coalition plans to win back women voters

The coalition has finally wised up to the fact it's done nothing but annoy the fairer sex since the last election. It must be time for a patronizing strategy!

It emerged yesterday that the government is planning to win back female voters by implementing policies such as changing the way child benefit is distributed and developing a strategy to encourage more women into politics.

A leaked memo, circulated to government departments in the past few days, outlines possible actions and details the need to "assemble a first-rate team" to develop the most effective strategy possible, with the aim of bringing "good news for the next generation", recognising "what women do" and underlining that "women are key to British growth and success".

Sounds good, right? In the months leading up to the 2010 General Election, we heard over and over that women's votes were key and that the parties were going to do all they could to get us on board. Unfortunately, this seemed to play out as little more than a few soundbites on issues related to children - as if that's all we care about. The press responded in the same way, speaking to women voters about issues they were interested in, but making it all about nurseries and child benefit, keeping all other issues - the supposedly "big" issues, firmly as "men's issues".

Obviously childcare in the UK is a major issue, as the recent news stories about the fact it's the most expensive in Europe and extent to which it is forcing families into debt show. But plenty of women I know felt sidelined and patronized back in 2010 - and they feel much more strongly about it now, with the government cuts having disproportionately impacted women.

Cameron and co. seem to have finally worked this out - and it's no surprise, seeing as recent polls show that just 18% of 18-24 year-old women support the Tories, compared to 30% in 2010, with support for the Lib Dems having fallen from 34% to just 8%. And so they're concocting a plan to encourage us to put our faith in them again.

Says the memo: "We know from a range of polls that women are significantly more negative about the government than men". It goes on to say that there are many coalition policies that "are seen as having affected women, or their interests, disproportionately". It goes on to say that they've recognised they haven't really lived up to their promise to be the "most family-friendly government ever".

I have to say, it's nice that those in charge finally seem to be catching on, 18 months after women's groups and some politicians started saying that the cuts would hit women the hardest - because at the time there was precious little concern from Dave et al. And so a list of ideas - from banning advertising aimed at children to promoting women in business and reconsidering the decision not to criminalize forced marriage - has been drawn up.

There's just one little thing. Does the memo point to a genuine concern for the issues women care about and the damage the coalition is currently doing with its cuts and its dismissal of gender issues? Or is it simply a cynical ploy to turn around falling approval ratings and claw back the support that women have withdrawn over the last 18 months?

I'd say it's the latter. Why? For a start, Cameron needs to look at the way he and his colleagues are treating the women they work with, not just the electorate. There was Cameron's "calm down, dear" riposte to Angela Eagle back in April. Last week, we watched aghast as he quipped that Nadine Dorries was "frustrated" during Prime Minister's Question Time, then sat back as his cronies sniggered like 15-year-old boys. I have no love for the thoroughly unpleasant Dorries, but she didn't deserve to be treated like that.

Secondly, the fact the content of the memo clearly comes as a response to lack of support and the fact the coalition has gained a terrible reputation among most women speaks for itself. It's all about approval ratings, gaining power and preserving their reputation. It's a bit insulting, to be honest. So the women are revolting? Throw them a bone! Big up women in business and chuck in a few platitudes about women being "the future". That'll make 'em vote for us come the next polling day!

I'd like to see lots of the ideas in the memo become reality. It's just sad that they have to be dreamt up as a "tactic" by politicians who have realised just how angry women are with them, rather than politicians who thought this stuff up in the first place because they really do see women as "the future".

I didn't vote Conservative in 2010, and I'm pretty sure the plan to "up the game" on communications, using these ideas as a "hook" to draw us in, isn't going to change who I give my vote to next time. And I know I'm not the only one. Sadly for the coalition, I don't think the majority of women will be as easily placated as they think.

  

This post originally appeared at BitchBuzz. Image via The Prime Minister's Office on Flickr.

Man attempts to sue LSE over "sexist" gender studies course

The Evening Standard reported on Monday that a man is taking legal action against the London School of Economics, claiming that its gender studies courses are discriminatory against men.

Tom Martin quit the Gender, Media and Culture Masters course after six weeks and is hoping to sue the university for breach of contract, misleading advertising, misrepresentation and breach of the "Gender Equality Duty Act" which, weirdly, doesn't actually exist. He claims that the course had a "sexist agenda" and that he was required to read "anti-male" texts.

Ho ho ho, "what about teh menz", right? It's all faintly ridiculous and seems like a bit of an attention-seeking stunt by a guy who didn't like his course and is bearing a bit of a grudge. "Man objects to learning about things from the perspective of women".

The first thing I'm wondering is that surely he read about the content of the course and knew at least some of what to expect before he applied for it? Having looked at details of its content, areas of focus and recommended reading areas on the LSE website, I know that such information is out there. It's also pretty clear that the recommended reading isn't exactly a catalogue of man-hating extremism - focusing, in fact, on a wide range of topics and the intersection of gender, race, sexuality, class and economics. This particular course is called "Gender studies" rather than "Women's studies" for a reason.

Secondly, I'm wondering whether it was less a case of "anti-male" teachings and bias, more a case of actually having to study oppression and discrimination in detail and feeling uncomfortable that men seemed to be playing a pretty big part in it all?

It's a common argument you see when someone writes an article about rape statistics, or atrocities committed during wartime, or to be honest, most areas of discrimination and attack by men, aimed at women. Men get upset that simply by mentioning that some men have done bad things, the newspaper or the blogger in question is "anti-male", or "tarring all men with the same brush". Sometimes these comments are mild-mannered and jokey, but often they're vitriolic and on blogs in particular they seem to have a habit of turning into threatening diatribes.

The thing is, analysing experiences as they relate to women isn't anti-male. Addressing issues which only affect women isn't anti-male. It seems like Tom Martin could be suffering from a particularly belligerent case of unchecked privilege. And he's not just making a snarky comment on a blog in retaliation - he wants £50,000.

And as we all know, when privilege goes unchecked, when people don't acknowledge that they are at a significant advantage, any challenge to the status in society it gives the most privileged is often seen as "discrimination" or "unreasonable". We see this when measures to ensure greater racial or gender equality are implemented somewhere and as a result, white people or men start claiming that it's SO UNFAIR because having a problem with patriarchy is totally the same as hating all men.

These complaints against universities aren't new. Over the years there have been several cases, in various countries, where students have attempted to claim that having a university Women's Officer is discriminatory - and in 2009, London's School of African and Oriental Studies debated whether it would be a good idea to appoint a "Straight, White, Men's Officer". As many people pointed out at the time, the point of having officers to represent non-white students, or women students, or gay students, is because there are particular issues affecting them and it's important to have space to discuss it all, as well as the opportunity to organise campaigns.

An investigation carried out by the LSE following Martin's comments has apparently found "no evidence" to support his claims and the university's legal team has claimed that any "discriminatory effect" was "justifiable", which I have no doubt it was. For the time being, I'm wondering how long it'll be before the right-wing press picks up on this and starts analysing the nefarious impact of gender studies courses on the nation's men.

This post originally appeared at BitchBuzz. Image, showing an image and slogan that was actually campaigned against by men's groups in 2003, via Phil Wiffen's Flickr.

Edit: Jonathan Dean now has a post up at CiF attempting to dismantle some of the myths about gender studies courses and critiquing Martin's opinions. As usual, people commenting haven't bothered to read what he's saying, nor do they seem to understand what gender studies courses entail. There are over 600 comments and I wouldn't advise reading most of them.

Esquire gets it wrong with rape joke

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Royal Baby Bump Watch Begins

It's official - Royal Wombwatch is ON. As Kate and Wills prepared to tie the knot in April, I predicted that it wouldn't be long before the speculation over their potential offspring began. And I was right.

This week, the media rumour-mill has gone into overdrive - becoming the journalistic equivalent of the annoying relatives who drop pointed little hints and quiz you about the 'pitter-patter of tiny feet' every time they see you and your partner. And it's all thanks to just four little words uttered by Kate as she chatted with a well-wisher while visiting Quebec on Saturday.

British ex-pat David Cheater wished the Duchess well in her efforts to start a family - and Kate replied, not as you might think from all the fuss being made about it, with "Yes, we're trying already!" but with "Yes, I hope to."

And just like that, the press and the blogs have gone for it with gusto:

“Kate Middleton & Prince William’s Baby Plans – Kate’s Ready To Be A Mom!”

“Broody Kate Middleton Reveals Baby Hopes”

“I'm a mummy in waiting, admits Kate”

All off the back of "Yes, I hope to," which is the sort of thing you might say when you plan to have a baby some day, in a few years' time, or, yes, soon. But it's hardly an admission of broodiness - and it's not as if it hasn't been mentioned before. While being interviewed around the time of their engagement, William stated that they both wanted children.

But now Kate has officially been classified as 'broody', the media will be watching her clothing choices, her waistline and her activities in a more obsessive way than ever, much in the same way that they hover like vultures over Jennifer Aniston, waiting for the merest signs pointing to babies or marriage.

If broody's the same as 'I hope to have children one day' then I'm sure many of you are now looking at your opinions about starting a family in a different light. Go forth and start charting your body temperature, ladies!

Getting in on the action, The Telegraph obliged with a nice run-down of some the royal women who have gone before Kate, detailing how long it took them to produce the heir after they'd got the ring on. Princess Diana gave birth to William 11 months after her marriage, whereas the Queen waited just short of a year before popping out Charles, don't you know. Of course no-one would dare to suggest that the couple should be getting a move-on, but in these Kate-obsessed times it would seem like the thing they should be seeing to next.

Otherwise I'm not sure if I can take much more of this overblown analysis of the couple's every move, typified by this month's tour of Canada. The eight-day visit has been chronicled with daily picture roundups and dissection of everything from Wills and Kate's body language and jokes to their clothing choices.

They take cookery classes! They compete in dragon boat races! They do a whole lot of walking about and smiling! And Kate looks radiant in a succession of "classic yet contemporary" outfits, destined to sell out the minute the papers reveal she's bought her dress from Reiss or Whistles.

I'm not sure whether the nation's women believe that by owning the Shola dress or the Natalie clutch, they'll exude a little bit of Kate-style poise and elegance, but the instant rush on items she wears is being touted as 'The Kate Effect' and it's currently big news. At the weekend I turned on the television to find Kate's hats and shoes being discussed at length on BBC News.

I have to say I'm hoping that the frenzy around the tour of Canada is more because it's their first tour as a married couple than anything else. That or the papers have realised that they can't create news based around who Pippa Middleton may or may not be dating every single day.

For now, I await with dread the first time Kate wears a flowing top or slouches slightly and the gossip pages explode with 'COULD THIS BE A BUMP?!' I'm sure she's thinking the same thing and I hope she can rise above it.

At the moment it's looking like her life is a choice between being tediously portrayed as either a Womb or a Fashion Plate (not forgetting, of course, her lovely glossy hair). So much for 'a very modern marriage', as far as the media is concerned. Times may have moved on - and I'm sure they have for Wills and Kate behind closed doors, but for the press it's still all about clothes and motherhood.

This post originally appeared at BitchBuzz. Image via Brian Gratwicke's Flickr.

Poll reveals Americans apparently prefer boys over girls

When we think of countries with a culture of bias towards baby boys, we tend to think of places like India and China. But as the results of a recent Gallup poll show, this mindset is also prevalent in the USA - and has been for the last 70 years.

Gallup has asked Americans about their preferences for boy or girl children 10 times since 1941, using slightly different wording each time but always asking whether, if they were to have a child, they would prefer a boy or a girl - or have no opinion. And what's surprising is that the answers haven't changed an awful lot over the years, despite massive changes in society,

In 1941 38% of those surveyed would have preferred a son with 24% preferring a daughter and 23% saying they weren't sure or it didn't matter. This year, the percentages stand at 40% for a son and 28% for a daughter with 26% of respondents saying that it didn't matter, when asked which gender they would prefer if they could only have one child.

What's more noticeable are the differences when you break the responses down by gender, political leanings, age and level of education. Conservatives showed a bias towards sons, as did those educated to high school level, compared to liberals and those with a university education, who seemed to value sons and daughters more equally.

For some reason I would have assumed that the older generation would show greater preference for boys, due to generational differences regarding opinions of men and women and their roles in society - yet this wasn't so. It was interesting to see that as the age of those surveyed increased, their bias towards sons actually decreased, with 54% of 18-29 year-olds preferring a son and 22% preferring a daughter, while the figures for the 65+ age group were 31% for a son and 29% for a daughter, with 40% stating they had no preference.

The more noticeable difference is between men and women. 49% of men would prefer a son as opposed to 22% wanting a daughter, while out of the women surveyed, 31% plumped for a son and 33% for a daughter. In men of all ages, the bias towards boys remained pronounced - particularly in the 18-49 age group (54%), while there was very little difference in the gender preference of women in general.

In recent months we've seen a lot of coverage of the favouring of sons and its shocking effects, particularly as it relates to India, where the 2011 census has revealed a serious decline in the number of young girls in the past decade. In one district in the north of the country, the ratio of girls per 1,000 boys under seven now stands at just 774.

The preference for sons has meant that girls are neglected as children, abandoned and left to die, or aborted once their parents find out the sex of their baby - a practice increasingly common among middle class couples who have access to good healthcare. It's estimated that there are 15 million 'missing girls' in India - and 25 million in China.

Everyone is agreed about just how horrific these statistics are and that it's shocking that things are getting worse - so it's intriguing to see how, despite the usual protestation that "Of course we don't mind!", plenty of people clearly do care whether they end up with a son or a daughter - even though it's not particularly socially acceptable to admit it.

While reading some articles about the poll, it was interesting to read the reasoning people gave 'below the line'. As I suspected, a few of the reasons I've heard real-life acquaintances use when discussing babies popped up.

You know the ones - that girls are "little drama queens" and "too hard to handle", that you have to worry about what they'll get up to with boys, about teen pregnancies and paying for weddings and catfights in the playground. Boys are, apparently, "less trouble". Maybe the fact you tend to hear this from younger adults accounts for the difference of opinion which comes with age.

I do wonder whether these are things that people actually do think about - or whether they're just things that people say because everyone says them, much like the oft-repeated criticism of women in general being 'catty' or 'bitchy' or 'high maintenance'. Not being a mother, I haven't yet had to seriously consider it, but I find it hard to believe that so many people really have their potential daughter's potential sexual exploits on the brain while pregnant.

Maybe marked preference of sons as far as men are concerned has some roots in all the old clichés some men trot out about wanting a son to take fishing or to play football with, forgetting, of course, that girls can do that stuff too (I know, right, controversial stuff). Maybe it's about 'carrying on the family name'.

Or is it a sign that deep down, societies still value sons more than they would care to admit - even the ones which would consider themselves far more progressive than countries where the neglect and murder of girl children is a problem? Let's not get too hung up on the results of one small poll, but it definitely makes you wonder.

This post originally appeared at BitchBuzz. Image via Micah Taylor's Flickr.

Book review: How To Be A Woman by Caitlin Moran

Journalist Caitlin Moran's much-anticipated memoir-cum-feminist rant, entitled How To Be A Woman, was published less than a week ago, but the buzz surrounding it has been incredible. I'm calling it "buzz", but some would regard it as controversy because for the feminist camp, it's turning out to be a little bit like Marmite.

I knew it was coming, from the moment I read that little blurb, reminding us of Emily Davidson throwing herself under the King's horse and feminists protesting the Miss World pageant, telling us that this is 2011, sisters - this is the year that "Caitlin Moran rewrites The Female Eunuch from a bar stool". For months now, a lot of people have been reading Caitlin's tweets with excitement and gearing themselves up for the big event.

As a result, many of the comments I've seen online - often from people who haven't actually read the book, choosing instead to pass judgement after reading a newspaper article or two - aren't too positive. Moran's talking about bras and shoes and sex! About what it's like to be a woman today, with her trademark wit and turn of phrase! What a bandwagon-jumper. What a "fun feminist".

Now I'm a fairly humourless, strident wimmin's libber. What's become known as "fun feminism", the sort of dubious twaddle about pretty much everything - heels, strip clubs, capitalism - being great for women and "empowering" and awesome because these days feminism isn't about being a hairy man-hating lesbian, it's about CHOICE - and BEING SEXY, girls, doesn't wash with me. The thing is, it does't wash with Moran, either.

Here, she's written a gloriously funny memoir, but also an exhortation to women to stop falling for the lies the world tells us about what it is to be a woman - and as a result, start having a good time. And because it's a memoir, it's not a book about global women. Or intersectionality. But there's much to be gleaned from reading it all the same - much about the ordinary lives of women who aren't quite feeling the thick academic tomes and wading through theory, but will probably find a hell of a lot of food for thought in this book.

Moran talks us through her adolescence and the milestones we all remember so well - body hair, bras, crushes, bad fashion choices - weaving in her memories of how she found feminism and what it came to mean to her, at the same time encouraging readers to use the term to describe themselves. Let's not see the adjective "strident" as a bad thing, she tells us.

"Feminism has had the same problem that 'political correctness' has had: people keep using the phrase without really knowing what it means."

She looks back on her teens as a time when women were much less visible in the music industry and when she had to put up with appalling sexism in the office - but also remembers the joys of being a young woman in the era of riot grrrl and then Britpop - minimal makeup, clumpy boots and drinking lager as standard, a time when no-one could have predicted what the "Noughties" would bring - the rise of the Pussycat Dolls and Katie Price, the 'WAG' and the return of lapdancing clubs as an acceptable place to be seen on a night out.

If you were thinking that How To Be A Woman is all about the hilarity, it certainly isn't. Moran devotes entire chapters to her experiences of being in an abusive relationship, going through one horrendous experience of childbirth (and another one which was much easier), experiencing a miscarriage and having an abortion.

I don't agree with everything she says. We're agreed that the porn industry represents an enormous and thoroughly unpleasant problem and that a lot of men have simply been conditioned to see us as second-class citizens but I don't think I'm with her as far as pole dancing goes. Or the role of women in history. I don't think it's necessary to always 'be polite' in order to further the strident feminist cause.

What I really do love about this book, though, is the way Moran pulls no punches in identifying exactly what is toxic about our society's treatment of women - and telling us that we should just stop taking notice of it all, laugh at how pathetic it is and refuse to get involved.

Wearing shoes you can't walk in, which leave you in excruciating pain? Saving up hundreds of pounds for that "investment handbag" that the glossies say every woman needs? Wasting time and money removing every last strand of your pubic hair? Obsessing over finding "the one" and judging women's decisions about having children? Buying magazines which make you feel uncomfortable, with their relentless speculation about celebrity women, weight and cosmetic surgery? None of it's necessary. It's poisonous - and I think too many people in Moran's position are afraid to say this.

As she says, we're conditioned to believe that being content and comfortable in our own skin is not quite right - we're supposed to be that little bit neurotic, worrying about dating and weight loss and wrinkles and aspiring to be princesses or someone's muse or indeed, anything but ordinary. But isn't being an ordinary woman who's happy with herself, in control of her mind, her body and her destiny more important than all that? I'd say so.

"Because if all of the stories in this book add up to one single revelation, it is this: to just...not really give a shit about all that stuff. To not care about all those supposed 'problems' of being a woman. To refuse to see them as problems at all. Yes - when I had my massive feminist awakening, the action it provoked in me was...a big shrug," says Moran.

And it's here that I really identify with her, because as the saying goes, the truth will set you free.

This post originally appeared on BitchBuzz.

The battle against 'sexualisation': what next?

So it's just over a week since the publication of the controversial Bailey Review, the independent review carried out in an attempt to address that buzzword of our times, 'sexualisation' - and how it affects children and teens.

The report, carried out by Reg Bailey, Chief Executive of the Mother's Union under the banner 'Letting Children Be Children', has issued a series of recommendations to businesses, advertisers and the media after finding that some parents are concerned about the way their children are exposed to 'inappropriate' messages and 'sexualised' imagery.

It comes after many months of discussion surrounding the concept of 'sexualisation', and the effect it may be having on young people, but how much of an impact is it going to have - and how useful are its findings?

One of the issues I've had with the outcry against 'sexualisation' is that a lot of it seems to be about expressing shock and disgust at high heels for little girls, or Rihanna's dance moves on primetime television, or Bratz dolls - but that's as far as it gets.

Every few days you'll come across an 'Ooh, isn't this awful! Think of the children!' story in a tabloid newspaper, or a programme like Channel 4's Stop Pimping Our Kids will feature a presenter showing passers-by on the street miniature miniskirts or thongs. The passers-by will look shocked, talk about how they wouldn't want their daughters wearing clothes like that and the presenter will nod triumphantly.

But what has it actually achieved? Very little, so far. What I see is a lot of people very happy to moralise about the state of the world today but far fewer people showing an interest in the issues behind the problems they see.

In the days following the report's publication I read some really insightful blog posts and articles from people talking about looking past 'sexualisation' - this word which is fast becoming meaningless - and at the expectations surrounding sex and relationships, commercialisation and obsession with money which is fueling the issues detailed in the Bailey Review.

"The problem is not the sexualisation of childhood, but the commercialisation of sexuality," wrote Symon Hill for Ekklesia.

Suzanne Moore, writing in the Guardian, accused the review of telling us nothing we already knew and providing no evidence to back up its claims.

"What is needed then is not some weird repression of sexuality or of young people, but of a rapacious capitalism that commodifies every desire and yes, will sell sex to children," she said.

There's also been criticism of the snobbery implicit in the furore, with some commenting that the government are only taking steps to placate middle-class parents and care little about anyone else.

My major problem with those clutching at their pearls about 'sexualisation' is that they often offer little in the way of criticism of what our culture expects of women in general.

They get upset at children being sold padded bras and heels or wanting to be 'sexy', but say nothing of the fact this is pretty much expected of adult women - the role models girls emulate. They talk of little girls looking and acting like 'tarts' and 'sluts' without a second thought at what that says about sexism in our society and gender stereotyping.

As Holly Dustin said, also in the Guardian, our culture:

"...reinforces stereotypes of women and girls as sexual objects who are sexually available to men and boys and sends strong messages about what it means to be a man or a woman."

The Bailey Review has recommended such solutions as getting retailers to sign up to a code of practice stating they will not sell 'inappropriate' clothes, covering up sexualised images on magazines and restricting the types of advertising which can be displayed near schools and playgrounds.

But these are recommendations and voluntary measures rather than new laws. One newspaper report last week suggested that the media industry is taking a 'relaxed' view of the review and that there is relief that measures will not be enforced.

There's been talk of tighter controls on what gets shown on television early in the evening, but all in all the media has reverted back to the usual outrage about children's beauty parlours and pole dancing classes for three-year-olds.

All at the same time, of course, as running the usual dearth of stories about celebrity starlets, models and hot royals 'showing off' their 'stunning' legs/curves/bikini bodies and posing for 'steamy' photoshoots. On the front pages of their newspapers or with large photos on their websites.

Want a comprehensive unpacking and discussion of the issues surrounding the Bailey Review and 'sexualisation', without the media spin? Sex educator Dr Petra Boynton has done a great job over at her blog.

Post originally appeared at BitchBuzz. Image via natalialove's Flickr.

Things worth paying attention to this week

Rachel Held Evans - The trouble with litmus tests

"I apply litmus tests to my fellow Christians because, for about five seconds, they make me feel better about my own decisions and beliefs. After those five seconds have passed, however, it becomes painfully obvious that my efforts at “fruit inspection” or “doctrinal correctness” are being seriously hampered by the massive log stuck in my eye."

From me on BitchBuzz - Help celebrate Emmeline Pankhurst's birthday

"This year, Manchester-based artist Charlotte Newson will be celebrating the birthday of the political activist, founder of the Women's Social and Political Union and feminist heroine with a special collaborative project."

National Geographic - Child Brides

"Child marriage spans continents, language, religion, caste. In India the girls will typically be attached to boys four or five years older; in Yemen, Afghanistan, and other countries with high early marriage rates, the husbands may be young men or middle-aged widowers or abductors who rape first and claim their victims as wives afterward, as is the practice in certain regions of Ethiopia."

Ekklesia - Britain's young people - sexualised, radicalised or patronised?

"Instead, consumerism promotes a narrow idea of what sexuality is all about. This is an image of sexuality that says a lot about money and little about love. Assumptions about what is acceptable have more to do with social convention than with compassion, consent or mutuality. The problem is not the sexualisation of childhood, but the commercialisation of sexuality."

Christian New Media Awards & Conference 2011 - Nominations are now open

Independent - How the right-wing press lost interest in Gabrielle Brown

"It’s a terrible thing to be cynical, but one could easily come away with the impression that these newspapers were only interested in Ms Browne’s opinions so long as they fitted with their own reactionary agenda on criminal justice."

Sarah Ditum for Comment is Free - To protect girls, women must have rights

"Sex-selection stories in the UK (when there isn't a urgent medical motive, like a hereditary sex-specific disease) tend to hinge on a parent's burning desire to have a child they can either kick a football at or cover in pink frills – reasoning that makes gender into a frivolous add-on in the quest to assemble a perfect family. But in the parts of the world that practise widespread sex-selective abortion, having a baby with the "wrong" genitals can be devastating."

Kathy Escobar - "Auntie Kathy, are you sure it’s not wrong for you to be a pastor?"

"You see, the 'we don’t really value your voice' message goes far beyond just whether or not women preach or teach. It’s the subtle ways women don’t have equal power, leadership, value, or voice, where entire generations of misogyny are built upon a few passages of scripture and the liberating message of Jesus gets lost."

Petition - Stop the deportation of Betty Tibakawa

"Betty Tibakawa has had her asylum application turned down and is facing deportation back to Uganda, where homosexuality is illegal. Gay women who are deported to Uganda risk being raped and assaulted whilst they are in custody. We are petitioning the Home Office to overrule this decision from the UK Border Agency, to give Betty the chance to live a life free from violence and fear. No one should be deported to country where they will be persecuted for their sexuality. We owe those seeking asylum in this country better than this."

One Off Productions - It began with name calling (scroll down for parts 1 through 5)

"I have a friend called Etta. She is a Holocaust survivor. It has taken her many years to be able to talk about her experiences. Now she does. She believes that she has to. To try and prevent Holocausts. She does it in memory of those she lost to the gas chambers and all those who she saw die. She does not want to let them down. Recently she learned of the EDL. She asked me if I would help her write this. This was her idea. It is the hardest thing that I have ever written. The bold is a simple version of horror that has happened. The rest are comments that have come from the Face Book pages of the EDL."

Gender Across Borders - "Boys will be boys" - and other language which rigidifies our conceptions of masculinity

"Unsurprisingly, women-centered idioms and expressions tend to be derogatory, as is the case with ‘run like a girl.’ This is, once again, an expression that is used to remind boys that in order to be real boys, they must at all costs avoid behavior that might be perceived as feminine."

More Than Toast - I am NOT a mumpreneur

"I don’t need to be congratulated or patronised. I thrive on juggling all my balls and I get so much more out of life and my daughter because of it. I understand my view is in the extreme and may touch a nerve with some, but to me the term ‘Mumpreneur’ is condescending, patronising and outdated."

Nigella and the feminist act of baking

So Nigella Lawson says that 'baking is a feminist act'. Speaking at the Hay Literary Festival on Sunday, the author, television presenter and go-to reference for the (not-so) 'new domesticity' told of the importance of celebrating the most traditionally feminine of culinary arts in an age where the blokey celebrity chef is king.

It's now over a decade since the publication of 'How to Be A Domestic Goddess', Nigella's book about baking and comfort food - and her first television show, Nigella Bites, which means that it's almost as long that journalists, social commentators and assorted navel-gazers have been musing on whether or not she symbolizes the 'ultimate woman' and whether we should aspire to have her body - and not forgetting, of course, the big question of how we 'should' be feeling about domesticity.

The beginning of Nigella's reign as queen of indulgent cooking saw cakes emerging as something fashionable as opposed to mere sustenance. Fast forward past the end of the Noughties and I don't think anyone, least of all me, wants to see another earnest feature using the phrases 'recessionista', 'cupcakes as a lifestyle choice' and '50s housewife nostalgia'. Which is why I'm going to shut up about that already.

I do, however, think that all this is part of the point that Nigella was trying to make when she said, of 'How To Be A Domestic Goddess':

"I think it's a very important feminist tract in its own right, and I'm not being entirely ironic. Baking is the less applauded of the cooking arts, whereas restaurants are a male province to be celebrated. There's something intrinsically misogynistic about decrying a tradition because it has always been female."

Nigella has had a great deal of success with her books and her broadcasting, but as she says, it's the more male-orientated areas of culinary skill which are seen as important and world-changing. Restaurants staffed by drama-loving men who cause scandal and tabloid intrigue. Foodie television shows and the careers, family life and social action projects of well-loved manly role-models like Jamie Oliver and Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall.

It may now be socially acceptable for men to be into cooking, but it's still more likely for them to exercise their culinary skill for special occasions, barbecues and big 'show-off' meals while women often solider on with 'day to day' cooking, family meals and the sort of stuff that foodies couldn't care less about. And, of course, baking. Coverage of baking in recent years has tended to focus on it as 'on-trend', a bourgeois 'lifestyle choice' or the way overprivileged 'yummy mummies' engage in one-upmanship at the school fete.

I think we're all familiar with the denigration of activities and attributes considered 'traditionally female' - hence the sneering tone when some people say 'women's work' and the ultimate insult of acting or being 'like a girl'. So Nigella's absolutely right when she talks about the misogyny of criticizing 'traditional' cooking. What she's saying is "Go on - reclaim baking - take it back from those who see you as a 'silly woman' for enjoying it".

This isn't a new concept and over the years it's been applied to not just baking, but also activities like knitting and pretty much every other form of crafting, sticking two fingers up not only at those who see them as of lesser importance than 'masculine' pursuits, but also at right-wingers who spend half their lives bemoaning the way us feminists hate traditionally feminine hobbies and attributes as well as men, children, bras and fun.

The ways we spend out lives, whether that's in the office or climbing the corporate ladder or cleaning or childrearing, absolutely should be equally valued. It's about respecting those things which in the past have been devalued and derided - yes, even in the 'golden age' before the 1960s. Remember all those adverts for appliances and products which were 'so simple - even a woman can use it'?

I think the last time I baked a cake was at the age of 13 when it was required of me for Home Ec class, so maybe I am the archetypal right-winger's nightmare (no babies yet, puts off doing the ironing as long as possible). But that's not to say I think it's a pointlessly silly exercise and I definitely agree with chef and chocolatier Lagusta Yearwood when she says that Nigella's right:

"The great gift feminism can give to the mainstream world is precisely this: that the qualities we associate almost exclusively with women will, if allowed to flourish and given adequate respect, vastly improve society across all levels."

This post originally appeared at BitchBuzz. Image via dklimke's Flickr.

Nadine Dorries, abstinence and abuse

She's known for being the politician who's teamed up with self-described religious fundamentalists and used fabricated statistics to push her completely anti-choice agenda. She's had very public fall-outs with bloggers and threatened journalists. She's the woman who admitted, when questioned about her expenses and second home, that:

"My blog is 70 per cent fiction and 30 per cent fact. I rely heavily on poetic licence and frequently replace one place name/event/fact with another."

No wonder it's been said that she's Britain's answer to Sarah Palin. I'm talking, of course, about the car crash that is Nadine Dorries, MP for Mid Bedfordshire, who's hitting the headlines afresh this month - not because of friendships with fundamentalists and bust-ups with bloggers, but because of her latest agenda: abstinence education.

Earlier this month Dorries proposed a bill which would mean girls - and only girls - between the ages of 13 and 16 would receive abstinence education. Somewhat worryingly, despite being founded on yet more fabricated information it passed its first reading.

As those of you well-versed in the major issues surrounding teaching of abstinence-only sex education in the US will know, the attitudes involved in this sort of 'education' need to be combated. I think we all agree that it did major damage in the years it was implemented Stateside and although Dorries isn't advocating an abstinence-only approach, the hallmarks are all there. Only teaching girls about it, for a start. Saying things like:

"Girls are taught to have safe sex, but not how to say no to a boyfriend who insists on sexual relations."

It's plain to see that her approach to young people and sex is incredibly one-sided, as well as that she seems to be ignoring the fact that teens are already most definitely taught that it's okay to 'say no' and that they definitely should if they have any doubts about the situation.

This week, however, Dorries has gone one step further. Appearing as a guest on Channel 5's The Vanessa Show on Monday, host Vanessa Feltz suggested that teaching children they can 'say no' already happens and that it already happens in an appropriate and sensitive way. The MP replied:

"Well do you know that’s really interesting because...if a stronger just say no message was given to children in school that there might be an impact on sex abuse."

Not content with putting the onus completely on girls to take responsibility for sexual activity, she now appears to be saying they should also be taking responsibility to prevent being abused.

Immediately and understandably, there was uproar. Supporting abstinence-based sex ed is one thing, blaming girls for being abused because they should have "just said no" is another. She moved on to linking the whole thing with high street shops selling bikinis to seven-year-olds and 11-year-olds learning the facts of life.

I don't really want people like Nadine Dorries dictating how things get done in this country. In addition to the list of embarrassments surrounding her, we now know she's the sort of person who holds these really quite damaging views about sexual abuse, its victims and its perpetrators. The idea that young people should be able to prevent sexual abuse from happening simply by saying "no" is ignorant. It's an attack on people who might already feel very much at fault for what happened to them and it lets abusers off the hook.

Since she made these comments I've seen tweets and posts from survivors of abuse, appalled at her insinuation that "saying no" could have stopped it from happening, that their abusers would have listened or that they were at fault for "letting" it happen. Posts like this one at Nightmares & Boners, entitled "Nadine Dorries Thinks I Was Asking For It", where Vanessa tells her own personal story and says:

"To say I am insulted that someone would insinuate that I caused my own abuse is an understatement. But this isn’t just about me, this is about everyone who isn’t able to live with the memory of what happened to them. It’s about children who even now are being abused and being blamed for their abuse: by their parents, by their abusers, by Nadine Dorries."

Vanessa ends by encouraging people to contact Dorries and express their feelings about her remarks and I think that's a good idea. It probably won't make her change her mind; she seems fairly set on promoting her unpleasant agenda no matter what. But maybe it'll give her food for thought.

At present, when she's criticised, she doesn't take it well. A recent interview in the Sunday Times had her ranting about those who don't agree with her, saying she "makes no apologies" for being sexist and lashing out at her critics on Twitter, calling the site a "sewer" full of "Trots" and the "socialist elite".

It's probably asking far too much to expect anything resembling an apology. But we can make more people aware that people like her are in government and they're out to cause nothing but damage.

This post originally appeared at BitchBuzz. Image via Juliette Culver's Flickr.

Looking at the arguments surrounding Slutwalk

Slutwalk: everyone's talking about it. And I'm not just saying that - every time I read my timeline on Twitter there's another news story, another planned march, another blog post debating the movement which has taken several nations by storm.

What started out as outrage at a remark made by a police officer back in January has resulted in over 3,000 marching on Toronto last month and around 2,000 marching on Boston last weekend. Upwards of 5,000 people currently plan to attend the London march, to be held on June 11th. And there are more marches planned - from Argentina to Australia, the Netherlands to New Zealand.

Toronto police constable Michael Sanguinetti got a lot more than he bargained for when he told a group of Osgoode Hall Law School students:

"I've been told I'm not supposed to say this - however, women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimised."

He later apologised, but the damage was done. United in anger at a persisting, damaging culture of victim-blaming and police forces refusing to take allegations seriously, thousands of women marched to Toronto's police headquarters on April 3rd. Their goal: to raise awareness about sexual violence and to shift police, media and public focus on to its perpetrators, not its victims.

Cue celebratory blog posts, excitement that thousands of women feel moved to march against deplorable attitudes and praise that the Slutwalkers are invoking the spirit of riot grrrl.

"...it harks back to the dawn of the 1990s when musician Kathleen Hanna, unwilling figurehead for the riot grrrl movement and lead singer for Bikini Kill, went on stage with the word "slut" scrawled across her body. In doing this, she made a visceral, powerful statement about her sexuality. Her message was not 'yes, I am a slut'. It was this: 'by reclaiming the derogatory terms that you use to silence my sexual expression, I dilute your power'," wrote Ray Filar in the Guardian this week.

But nothing is ever simple and the Slutwalk movement has found itself coming in for plenty of criticism too. Filar's column was a response to another Guardian comment piece by Gail Dines and Wendy J Murphy, in which they argued that a focus on reclaiming the word 'slut' is problematic.

"The term slut is so deeply rooted in the patriarchal "madonna/whore" view of women's sexuality that it is beyond redemption. The word is so saturated with the ideology that female sexual energy deserves punishment that trying to change its meaning is a waste of precious feminist resources," they wrote.

And they're not the only ones. Just today I've read several posts coming to the same conclusion: fighting against victim-blaming and rape culture: good. Using the word 'slut' to do so: bad. There's concern that it's going to be impossible to extricate the word from its unpleasant connotations and that this is going to be picked up on as yet another excuse for misogynists and victim-blamers alike to have a field day.

A BBC News piece discussing the power of the word, posted on Monday, has already attracted hundreds of comments and they range from the supportive to the predictable. Some people commented that any double standard surrounding men, women and sex is absolutely fine because 'that's just the way it is'.

It does make you wonder how effective any attempt at reclaiming the word is going to be if people refuse to look past its traditional use as a degrading insult and choose to hate on the Slutwalkers even more for the clothing choices many of them have made for the marches.

Some women participating have chosen to march wearing miniskirts, heels, bikinis and underwear in an attempt to get the message out that whatever they wear and whenever they wear it, it is not an invitation to sexual assault. This message is one which is crucial to Slutwalk, to Reclaim the Night, to all the charities out there working to change public perception of victims of harassment, assault and rape.

But it's becoming clear that some of Slutwalk's critics don't see it this way. One representative from a conservative group has spoken out to say that the marches have a 'negative connotation' and should be more 'family friendly'. Just yesterday some particularly winsome callers to a UK radio phone-in said that they believe women who dress in a certain way 'should face the consequences'.

"If you dressed as a pork-chop to feed lions, you'd get eaten," said one caller on the Jeremy Vine show.

There has been further criticism from the feminist camp at the way some people are treating and discussing the marches.

Meghan Murphy at Canadian website The F Word is happy that so many women are proclaiming they've 'had enough' of double standards and victim-blaming, but also has concerns about some of the sentiments expressed on the main Slutwalk Facebook group. by both men and women.

"...what I found, over and over again was, not only a refusal to align with feminism, but often, an outright aversion to it. I saw numerous attacks on radical feminism and radical feminists and I witnessed the reinforcement of negative and untrue stereotypes about feminism (you know the ones: man-hating, misandrist, no-fun, sex-negative, etc)," she said in a great post, published on Saturday.

One of Murphy's concerns is that she's seeing too much of the 'every choice I make is empowerful and has nothing to do with anyone else' school of thought surrounding discussions about women, equality and Slutwalk. It's certainly not good when debate starts going down this route and I would agree with her that we should be wary of it. The original aim and focus of the march shouldn't be diluted.

It's obvious that no-one's going to agree on the myriad issues surrounding Slutwalk. A good thing? A bad thing? Futile? Offensive? Revolutionary? You decide.

This post originally appeared at BitchBuzz. Image of Toronto Slutwalk via Anton Bielousov's Flickr.

Are we suffering from Royal Wedding Overkill?

As of today, there are just 16 days to go until the Royal Wedding. 16 days until we get to find out the answers to all the important questions we've been obsessing over for the past few months. What will the dress look like? How will Kate's hair be styled? Will she promise to 'obey' Wills and will Prince Harry get bladdered at the reception?

Before I go any further I feel I must confess that I'm severely ambivalent about both the event of the year and the Royal Family. I hope the couple will be very happy together and that they have a great day. I'm over the moon to be getting an extra day off work. It's the rest of it I can do without. Including getting in on all the twee souvenir-purchasing, bunting-hanging, flag-waving aspect of it all purely because it's the next logical step on the road to retro-patriotic materialistic heaven (see also 'make do and mend', reissues of 1950s lifestyle manuals).

Yes, you read that correctly. I've got Royal Wedding Fatigue. And with good reason.

Every day at least one of my friends from the blogging world tweets that they've had just about enough of tedious Royal Wedding-themed products and emails from PRs. You can't open a newspaper without seeing a story speculating about the big day (Kate wants to wear flowers in her hair! Camilla says "Hell to the no, you will wear a tiara and you will like it.") And poor Kate can't leave the house without someone comparing her to Princess Diana.

I can't help but feel that this is how it's going to be for the foreseeable future. Kate may be 'every inch the modern princess' but she's destined to have her every move photographed and displayed in a tabloid next to Diana doing or wearing something similar. I'm sure she's thrilled to have to live up to the example set by not only the nation's 'Queen of Hearts', but her future husband's deceased mother, who died during a somewhat dubious encounter with the press.

Okay, so it's kind of predictable that the media is going to compare the two, but let's stop it from bordering on the creepy, guys. As we were reminded last week, speculation over whether or not Diana was a virgin reached such a frenzy during her engagement that her uncle ended up publicly announcing her 'intact' status to the nation. Obviously, this prompted journalists to ask members of the public just how they feel about the fact that Kate is probably, you know, sexually active. And funnily enough, no-one seemed to care.

It's also obvious that Kate's going to have to put up with endless comments about not only her clothes, but her weight as well. The press already has knives out regarding her body shape due to the fact she may or may not have lost a few pounds in the run-up to the wedding. I'm sure the minute she gets caught on camera inclining her head downwards they'll be poking fun at the merest hint of a double chin.

I nearly spat my breakfast out the other day watching a lengthy debate - with special guests - on BBC Breakfast about the fact that William has decided not to wear a wedding ring.I'm fully aware that it's only in the past 50 years that men have started to wear them - and also that it'a particularly uncommon among upper-class men, apparently. But like many wedding-based dramas, some people are determined to make it all about 'tradition', keeping the spirit of those days when marriage was more about men possessing women alive.

"I am delighted by Prince William's decision. I have always regarded the practice of men wearing wedding rings as prissy and effeminate," wrote Harry Phibbs in (you guessed it) the Daily Mail.

He denounced what he sees as the absurb political correctness of people who expect men display their 'off-limits' status in the same way as their wives, going on to say that he hopes Kate will be promising to 'obey', so keeping the natural order of things intact.

Hopefully Kate won't let life in the limelight get to her - she's had a fair amount of practice now and luckily for her, she seems to be staying out of the sort of 'scandals' the tabloids love. It's just depressing to see that even though we never stop hearing about how times have changed since Charles and Diana got hitched, particularly in terms of press coverage, it's obvious that in many ways, things are very much the same.

This post originally appeared at BitchBuzz. Image via waldopepper's Flickr.