Feminist t-shirts, call-outs and commodification

At the beginning of the year I made a resolution of sorts, to distance myself from the sort of feminism that only actually mentions a feminist campaign or organisation when it's tearing it down. There's nothing wrong with critique and highlighting issues within reason, but by the end of last year I'd become thoroughly bored with performative call-outs as a primary form of engagement. This has had its plus points: for one thing I haven't had to spend most of my precious little free time telling everyone how I'm not here for this sort of feminism and not here for her brand of feminism, thanks very much. And one debate I haven't had to wade into recently has been the one surrounding ELLE's next step on its mission to bring a reinvigorated feminism to the readers of glossy magazines. 

It is definitely a good few years since I first wrote about my discomfort with the commodified 'trendy feminism' campaigns that women's magazines have run, with varying degrees of enthusiasm and commitment, in the last five years or so. Here's one disclaimer: I do appreciate ELLE's commitment to focusing on women's issues in recent years; they've managed to do it better than other women's magazines (putting aside that whole thing with the 'rebrand' of feminism. But I get it. I know they can't exactly take a crap on consumerism; I'm just not going to say I'm comfortable with it). But I haven't been able to force myself to care all that much about the magazine's new partnership with Whistles and the Fawcett Society and, it seems, various attractive famous men (another disclaimer: I own an original Fawcett Society 'This is what a feminist looks like' t-shirt, as I've supported its work for the last eight years). 

It's nothing we haven't been through before. Feminist merchandise at £45 a time (£85 if you want a sweatshirt), unavailable any bigger than a size 16. The publicity opportunities for politicians and celebrities and the 'outrage' that David Cameron wouldn't wear one. We know that there are some redeeming factors - well-known public figures at least claiming to support gender equality; exposure to people who might not otherwise think very much about feminism or think it's something they can be a part of. If it changes anyone's life and makes them a feminist or somewhere, somehow, improves a woman's life, then, I will concede, fair enough. In the spirit of the times, online news outlets have shown us image galleries of people wearing these t-shirts and proclaimed that Benedict Cumberbatch being our ally 'is everything'. So far, so predictable.

Things took an interesting turn on Saturday night, when Twitter got wind of the Mail on Sunday's front-page exposé of exploitative conditions in the factory where the t-shirts have been made. One worker is quoted as saying: ‘How can this T-shirt be a symbol of feminism? These politicians say that they support equality for all, but we are not equal.’ The Fawcett Society was absolutely on the ball with crisis management and quick to issue a statement saying it had been assured by Whistles that the factory producing the t-shirts complied with the highest ethical, sustainable and environmental standards possible. I don't doubt that this was a key consideration for Fawcett, and as we've seen, Whistles and ELLE have subsequently issued statements to the same effect. Ensuring standards are met isn't always easy and the garment industry is a minefield in this respect.

Much has been said about the credentials of all involved in the campaign and in the Mail on Sunday's exposé. Politicians taking part in publicity stunts - how much do they know about how their clothes are made? The investigative journalism tearing down a very public feminist campaign, published by a newspaper with absolutely no previous form for supporting gender equality or migrant workers. What I haven't been able to get behind, though, is the smug trashing of Fawcett, ELLE, and anyone who's supported their campaign and bought a t-shirt. It's a sad state of affairs when the first sign of interest in either ethical working conditions or marginalised women from the Mail comes at the expense of feminism, and the glee with which the whole thing has been reported needs nothing but contempt. What it doesn't need is to be held up, alongside the screengrabbed tweets of Fawcett supporters and well-known names, as 'everything that is wrong with feminism', a stick to beat the same old women about the same old things in the same tedious fashion. Nobody wins.

ELLE and Whistles have received a trashing, despite their best intentions. The Fawcett Society has, as far as I've seen, gained some support for its professional handling of the situation - yet has clearly still received a trashing. The Mail on Sunday has jumped at the opportunity to take part in the same tedious progressive/left/feminism-bashing they've been doing for years. And I'm betting it won't devote much time to covering exploitation of women and migrant workers overseas in the future, because clickbait misogyny and xenophobia will always be much higher on its agenda. Women working in factories in Mauritius are still working in the same conditions. The garment industry won't get an overhaul any time soon - and certainly not thanks to the sort of people on Twitter who, as ever, will keep on posting screenshots of Things Well-Known Feminist Campaigners Have Said and devoting hours at a time to sneering at them. Politicians will continue to display a dubious grasp of what 'improving women's lives' means. No-one will ever mistake David Cameron for a feminist.

So: no victories. Feminism got commodified, celebrities got column inches, activists got called out, and the majority of women in the UK remained completely untouched by whatever it was trying to achieve. Good job, everyone. I'm continuing to support the Fawcett Society because I believe it is a real force for good. I genuinely hope that this whole situation is resolved for the best and that all involved are able to make it clear that they did their utmost to ensure ethical production. But if awareness-raising initiatives can't make a break with consumerism and celebrity PR opportunities, then I can't help thinking that we'll see something similar happen again. The co-option of feminist activism into profits for t-shirt manufacturers has been much discussed in the wake of #YesAllWomen and more recently, FCKH8's 'Potty-mouthed princesses' video. Women in the movement can't prevent this sort of thing from happening, but campaigners can be smarter about how they hope to engage women with feminism.

Three concerns about Cameron's porn plans

The announcement today that the government is to take action on a number of issues surrounding pornography have, predictably, caused an enormous backlash. The news that internet providers will block UK households from accessing pornography (introducing an "opt-in" system), that possessing pornography that depicts rape will become a criminal offence in England and Wales (as is currently the case for that depicting bestiality, necrophilia, and life-threatening injury), and that search engines will return no results for certain terms associated with pornography depicting the abuse of children, has prompted more discussion about censorship, free speech, and morality.

I started my life as a feminist speaking out against porn. Very quickly, I found out that people don't like it when you do that. I know a lot more now than I did then, and those debates might pan out differently. It's actually something I don't write about much now, because it often prompts so much anger from both sides of the debate and that's more than I can be bothered to get involved in. What I've seen today, however, is a lot of really great discussion and engagement between people holding a variety of opinions - and that's quite heartening. That's not to say that I haven't found some of the backlash against the government's plans unpleasant and some opinions from both sides dismissive of the concerns of all involved. But considering that my last blog post was actually quite down on the state of internet feminism, it could have been worse.

Many people have highlighted many valid concerns about today's announcement. I want to write about three of mine.

Forgive the corporate-speak, but I'm not convinced that today's announcement constitutes "joined-up thinking". Cameron wants a Britain "where children are allowed to be children" and I'm not going to disagree with him (let that be noted) that children don't need to be seeing pornographic depictions of rape. Unfortunately, "children being allowed to be children" is all very well until you consider the wealth of ways in which they can also receive potentially harmful and also deeply misogynist messages about sex, relationships, and women in general. The Prime Minister has already received criticism for his refusal to support a ban on topless women appearing on Page 3 of the Sun. The screenshot below shows the story as reported by the Daily Mail today - a sight, as was noted by plenty of people, that is "beyond parody". Note three women in bikinis (one "barely-there", one "skimpy"), one mention of a sex tape, a story about one young woman's midriff, one about a "topless Instagram snap", and one Daily Mail Special - a story about a 16-year-old girl looking "Older than her years".

                   

Some criticisms of the No More Page 3 campaign have focused on the fact that the sort of media and messages it's speaking out against also appear in abundance in women's magazines and in the fashion industry. Why focus on Page 3 when it's just one page in a newspaper? Why not cast the net wider and take issue with it all? This is an important question and in the same way, you have to consider the fact that today's announcements focus only on one aspect of a range of unpleasant aspects of culture, media, and material that's available. Our culture may condemn content depicting child abuse, but the abuse of women, along with unhealthy attitudes about sex and relationships, are practically mainstream. And all this contributes to childhood being "corroded", as Cameron put it earlier today.

This brings me onto my second concern about today's announcements: if the government wants to take action to stop children seeing unhealthy and abusive depictions of sex and relationships, is it going to ensure that they receive more helpful messages through comprehensive sex and relationships education? Last month, MPs voted against an amendment to the Children and Families Bill proposing that SRE be made a compulsory part of the National Curriculum.

There is a need for young people to learn more about what constitutes a healthy relationship and how they can recognise - and deal with - an unhealthy one. There is a need for them to learn more about what constitutes sexual exploitation. Consent is such a huge issue and it is clearly one that, for many people, needs clarifying. But without fail, such proposals are usually met with noises about "protecting innocence" - or as I like to think of it, keeping young people in the dark and doing nothing to remedy the widespread problem of abuse in teenage relationships. In the same way, blocking people from accessing problematic material doesn't solve anything. It's not going to "get rid" of such content - it's going to brush it under the carpet. It's up to the consumer to decide whether they "opt in" to seeing it - which was incidentally Cameron's comment about why he does not support action against Page 3. There is also concern that educational material and sites completely unrelated to pornography could end up becoming inaccessible, stopping children and teenagers from finding important information.

Thirdly, although I do, in theory, support what Cameron's plans are hoping to achieve, I don't believe that his government truly have the interests of children, of women, and of the most vulnerable people in society at heart. This year, a report from the End Violence Against Women coalition gave the government "2.5 out of 10" for its preventative work against domestic violence and called current efforts to combat VAWG "virtually meaningless". To talk about all the ways in which the cuts and changes to benefits have affected women and children is another blog post (or perhaps a series of posts). Talking about "tackling the sexualisation of children" sounds good, and these plans to stop young people accessing explicit material may be helpful in some ways, but there's a long way to go before we make any headway with the issues that "sexualisation" is so intertwined with.

Further reading:

Salt and Caramel - Porn and posturing politicians

Sian and Crooked Rib - Sex education, young people and talking about, erm, porn

Close the Loophole - Why I support criminalising pornographic depictions of rape

Cartoon by Jacky Fleming, link here

Genuine debate or manufactured media drama?

They're the discussions that fuel debate on Woman's Hour, daytime television, and online. The hot topics of the moment - or sometimes a whole decade. But when does such a debate become less relevant to the lives of women and more like manufactured media controversy, doing nothing more than pitting us against each other and attempting to cause division? The answer is: usually after about five minutes - yet the discussion continues. Which so-called "debates" need to die a painful death for the good of all women?

The Size Zero Debate

Those three little words became a media sensation a few years back and people started to discuss the sizes of popular models, of 'worryingly thin' celebrities, and the existence of Size 0 clothing. Were they the cause of eating disorders in young women? What should be done about it? Week after week, magazines published the latest updates on the main celeb offenders, who seemed to hang out together, favour the same styles, and were often connected to Rachel Zoe. But what started out as concern over health and wellbeing soon became another stick to beat women with. Young women with eating disorders became stereotyped as silly girls trying to emulate sillier celebrities, thin women found themselves sneered at as "not what men want", and the appearance of women in the spotlight was picked over at every opportunity. In the meantime, nobody really cared about size 0 at all. Which leads us on to...

Real Women

They have curves, apparently. No man wants to have sex with someone who "looks like a 12 year old boy". But wait - "curvy" is so loaded that it can also be construed as a euphemism for "fat" and therefore might be offensive. How about magazines try to make us all feel better by interviewing men about what physical attributes they really want from women? That'll work. How about the nastier women journalists write columns sniping about thin women? In the end, it becomes apparent that what the media means when it talks about attractive curves is "larger than average breasts". And so the conclusion is reached. Real women look like Kelly Brook. Fast forward a few years and it's still happening (thanks to a rash of annoying Facebook groups and memes), but the papers talk about Christina Hendricks instead, and "curvy" means "size 10".

Having It All

This one rears its ugly head in the Daily Mail every couple of weeks as a way of berating women for daring to want children AND a job. But recently the "debate" has gone mainstream again, thanks to Anne-Marie Slaughter and a number of other well-known names weighing in on the supposedly failed dream. Thousands of women have collectively rolled their eyes and wondered why the way the media frames this issue doesn't actually apply to 90% of us, as if it's all about being the perfect mother as well as a banker or a politician. And of course anti-feminists and conservatives seize the opportunity to crow about how unhappy and unfulfilled these liberal times have made women feel. Meanwhile, most of us continue going out to work because we don't have any choice in the matter.

Feminism: compatible with makeup, shaving, and liking men?

In recent years, a popular feature idea to wheel out for International Women's Day, usually disguised as a missive about the state of modern feminism and illustrated with a picture of a burning bra. So repetitive is the format that you wonder what readers are left thinking about the fight for gender equality, and also what harm it would really do to discuss it in terms of things that aren't lipstick and sex. Patronising, short-sighted, and cliched, reducing gender equality to a list of things you can and can't do, and never failing to leave some people with the impression that feminists hate women who wear dresses and like baking, which in itself has become another tedious "debate".

Mommy wars

Currently taking the form of drama over how long it's appropriate to breastfeed for. Such has the animosity over which childbirth and parenting choices a woman makes increased that a mere mention of the way you do things is enough to make some people feel you're judging them for not doing the same. Some of the most weirdly drama-filled and vicious debates I've seen between women online have been about birth and parenting choices, and guilt-tripping or sensationalist news stories don't help matters, constantly painting some choices as bizarre and abnormal, some as neglectful, and others as "the latest trend". Motherhood is enough of a minefield of emotions without all this, thanks very much.

Image

Page 3, rape myths and bikini bodies: media misogyny at Leveson

Today saw representatives from several women's groups speak about media misogyny at the Leveson Inquiry. Speaking on behalf of Equality Now, Eaves, Object and End Violence Against Women, they called for changes in the way newspapers operate around a culture of sexist stereotypes and objectification, while perpetuating damaging myths and insinuations regarding violence against women and girls.

No-one can say this wasn't long overdue. One of the issues I have been most passionate about - since I first began writing gender-equality themed missives in my journal and before this blog existed - is the way the media rarely manages to portray women in a positive light. Whether it's the obvious grim sexism of Page 3 and the thankfully now-defunct Daily Sport, the misogyny masked as "women's interest" pieces on working mothers (boo! hiss!) and body image in the Daily Mail, or the frankly disturbing way some media outlets will do anything they can in an attempt to paint rape victims as "evil liars", there's often nothing for us to be encouraged about. Even positive coverage of all things woman-based is relegated to the "lifestyle" sections of the papers, with the fashion and the recipes and the dating ads.

I was angered afresh on seeing old stories mentioned as part of the evidence. The time the Daily Telegraph misrepresented research findings and completely made up others in order to run a story entitled "Women who dress provocatively more likely to be raped, claim scientists". The story was quietly pulled after several people had debunked it, but the intention was there. Then there was the time the Daily Mail, in one of the most unpleasant instances I've ever seen, took 12-year-old girls who had been gang-raped to task over their clothing, Facebook profiles and upbringings, describing what happened to them as an "orgy" and calling them "lolitas", while discussing how the allegations would probably have ruined the careers of the accused.

All this, of course, was punctuated by numerous tales of upskirt shots and headlines about celebrities' breasts - and what happens to those who speak out against this culture. Clare Short, lest we forget, was vilified by The Sun as "fat" and "jealous". A woman in the public eye who speaks out against media sexism is letting herself in for accusations of being humourless, bitter and "ugly" - just as we who blog about it expect these comments from trolls below the line.

Some people might dismiss all this. Why take notice of such trash? They're tabloids - what do you expect? But for many people, it's not a case of being to tune out and dismiss it all and look down their noses. We should care about media misogyny because it influences public opinion, particularly when it comes to issues surrounding VAWG. The tabloid rape and sexual assault narrative, that there are "good" (virginal, wealthy, attacked by a stranger in a dark alleyway) and "bad" (working class, dressed in a miniskirt, in a relationship with their attacker) rape victims - has become the narrative many members of the public ascribe to. The disproportionate coverage of "false accusation" cases and "women ruining men's lives" has led to these sort of things being the first thing people often mention if you bring up rape cases. It has been getting worse for several years now, as outlined in the 2008 report Just Representation? Press Reporting and the Reality of Rape. Victim-blaming is the norm.

So what effect does this have on women who have experienced rape and assault? The End Violence Against Women Coalition's submission to the inquiry states:

"Coalition members tell us that when the media reports stories in a way which implicitly or explicitly blames women for attacks on them, they receive a spike in calls from new and former service users who are ‘retraumatised’ by this continuing implication that what happened to them was in some way their fault."

One thing mentioned at the inquiry today was the way women being abused or even murdered by their partner or husband is reported in a decontextualised way, the actions of a "psycho" or a "monster", drawing attention away from the fact that violence within relationships is, in fact, incredibly common and often perpetuated by men who appear to their friends and colleagues as "normal", the "average family man". The insensitivity of journalists towards service users in their quest for sensationalism is also highlighted:

"They commonly ask for case studies who are willing to forego anonymity (with little thought to the consequences of this for some), and who, more sinisterly, fit a certain ‘type’ which they (or their editor) has calculated will suit their editorial line or their perceived readers’ prejudices (victim should be young, should be attractive, should be British, should have no criminal record etc). It is rare for the journalist to ask any question about, or make any provision for, the impact of giving an interview on the victim and any follow up afterwards."

It's easy to dismiss media sexism as the preserve of pathetic rags that aren't worth our time, but the impact of the damaging messages they use to shift copies hits women hard and affects the way people see VAWG. They're also unacceptable at a time when such material wouldn't be permitted on television before the watershed, and in some cases has actually been censored for content by the inquiry. All this and yet it's freely available in the daily papers for all to see.

The groups appearing today called on Lord Justice Leveson to consider regulation of the press to ensure more balanced and contextualised reporting of VAWG, with journalists receiving training on the myths surrounding the issues. It's so important that we see changes take place. Although I sadly can't see the tabloids changing their tune on objectification in the near future, will the inquiry be the start of something good?

Further reading
New Statesman - Helen, 28, has some thoughts on Page 3

Phrase du jour: "the new Tory feminism"

It started with the build-up to the release of The Iron Lady. In the past week, it's gained momentum with newspaper articles and magazine features about Tory women. And yesterday, Cristina Odone blogged on the "superior form" of "blue feminism". That's right - here in Britain we finally have our own version of the neverending debate that began across the pond when Sarah Palin claimed feminism for herself and heralded the emergence of a band of supposedly equality-minded conservative women.

Sure, our version doesn't carry the requirement to be in favour of limiting reproductive choice, the expectation that they'll be vocal Christians and that they'll champion those who choose to have many children. But in many other ways it's very similar - from the emphasis on personal achievement and success, the talk of the "potential" of women to the calls to "reclaim" gender equality from the left. And of course it's generating debate - for the simple reason that while the spokespeople for "blue feminism" are all about what a good thing it is, it doesn't actually have much to say about most aspects of most women's lives.

My disclaimer here is that as a left-wing woman, I often find it impossible to concede that the policies dreamt up and supported by the right can truly lead to any sort of equality. I think we need to be careful about being precious about left and right and whether a woman from the latter can truly be an advocate for gender equality - but at the same time there are some important points to make on the subject. I'm also really aware that in newspaper coverage of a subject like this, opinions and quotes are going to be cherrypicked to fit an agenda. So I'm not saying that these women have absolutely no interest in certain important issues. They're just not talking about them.

What we have are some glaringly obvious issues surrounding "the new Tory feminism", and while I may seem biased because I'd never vote for these women, this is my take on them.

1) You can talk about "merit" all you like but that doesn't mean you're good for women.

One of the main points to come out of all this is that apparently, your average Tory gender equality warrior has got her head screwed on properly because she doesn't believe in tokenism and quotas. Instead she believes in women getting to the top through hard work and merit and ambition. What that often translates as, of course, is celebrating the achievements of women "at the top" as empowering and inspirational. And much of the time, such women can be considered "inspirational". But at the same time, is there concern for tackling the entire spectrum of inequality so that women who aren't white and middle or upper class get to "rise to the top"?

Louise Mensch sees self-made women as the "essence of feminism" but I don't believe that an emphasis on personal success is the right way to go. It is, of course, very typically Tory - don't think I don't see that; don't say "well what do you expect?". Mensch told Gaby Hinsliff for the Guardian that she believes women should be encouraged to "chase money rather than career satisfaction at work". She speaks of "getting on" and "breaking the glass ceiling" as if it's the be all and end all of being a woman. People keep talking about "bootstraps" with reference to the way Margaret Thatcher saw everything. How realistic a focus is this for many women today? What hope for the disadvantaged and those who are discriminated against and those who actually, simply don't want to strive for buckets of cash and a seat in a boardroom? Making your interest in equality about profit and "getting ahead" doesn't exactly sit right with the current economic and societal situation, even if it does sit right with Tory thinking.

If, as Mensch believes, such success makes it easier for other women to achieve the same, why the complete refusal to admit that the cuts might be doing women a bit too much harm? Why the sneering from women on the right at feminists like Harriet Harman, or the refusal from women like Charlotte Vere to be lumped in with all those "extreme" man-haters on the left along with much talk about not wanting to upset or alienate men? I agree that this works both ways (we can probably be too quick to criticise those who are not on the left and assume that we can't work with them), but they're not exactly helping themselves. If we're talking about the "true blue sisterhood", I'm not feeling the "sisterhood" part all that much. It's not just about party politics and getting one over on the opposition.

2) Let's not pretend Margaret Thatcher was something she wasn't.

Namely, a feminist icon. Yes, she can be considered inspirational for the fact she was Britain's first (and so far, only) woman Prime Minister. It would be nice to think that in the near future, someone might follow in her footsteps. She showed that a woman can lead a country. But she had no time for "women's issues". She wasn't interested in solidarity and she certainly had no interest in equality of any kind. Michele Hanson summed it up last week when she said:

"The grocer's daughter who fought her way up to the top job. But what did she do to help other less fortunate women when she got up there? Even on the way up she'd taken their kiddies' milk away. Then she took away much of their affordable housing by egging everyone on to buy council houses. She privatised the utilities, and up went the household bills, and she crushed the unions. The miners' wives didn't have much to thank her for. And just to show that women can do anything men can do, she started a war, rode around on a tank in her headscarf, created loads more widows, thought herself terrifically grand and used the royal plural for her very own. What a wasted opportunity. From the great heights she looked down and thought not 'How can I raise up other women?' but only 'How can I poop on the poorer ones?' ".

Following this post on the Women's Blog, a woman wrote to the Guardian to tell of the time they'd written to Thatcher - in 1979 - to ask what she could do for victims of domestic violence. She had been running a refuge at the time. She received a response explaining that the Prime Minister was "not interested in women's issues". What would the Tory sisterhood have to say about such a letter today? We know they have concern about some of the same issues as left-wing feminists - porn, Page 3 and objectification are all mentioned in the Hinsliff interview. But what about areas where - unlike sex - feminists and the right might traditionally not overlap? And in the areas where we do overlap, how can we stop everything boiling down to a discussion about morality and actually achieve something?

3) A successful woman and a feminist are not the same thing.

Being a woman in a position of influence doesn't make you a friend to other women. It doesn't mean you have any interest in tackling misogyny, making things better for all women and changing attitudes in society. It might just mean that you're personally successful in your career. And if people think that's an indication of a gender equality heroine, they're confusing feminism with individualism. It's all very nice for the person in question, but for the most part, it has no bearing on the lives of other women or the global equality situation in general. To talk about getting more women from your own party in government, to crow about the fact you've set up a group for conservative women MPs - that's great. But what about the rest of us? Do we only matter when the government is worried that women voters are angry at them? Last year, when a leaked memo revealed the coalitions's plans to "win back" women voters, it came across as being about approval ratings and polls, about coming up with some plan to make us trust David Cameron again.

Fair enough, a successful and wealthy woman might be an inspiration to others who see themselves choosing the same path in life, but I'm not sure it goes much further. Hopefully, she can show men in her field that she's their equal. But we know that doesn't always happen. Cristina Odone's bizarre blog about the superiority of Tory feminism ticked all the boxes in assuming that power and feminism are the same thing - Thatcher as icon purely for being PM, an anti-quotas and tokenism stance meaning that Tory MPs know they're "the best for the job". And then there was the bit about "feminine wiles" being an asset to your average "blue feminist". Odone cited Louise Mensch's "gloss" as a prime example. This brings us on to the fact that...

4) Everyone is really confused about femininity. And it needs to stop.

The Guardian asked Louise Mensch about cosmetic surgery (and whether she has had any) in a recent interview. Certain newspapers gave her a telling-off (referring to her as "the twice-married mother of three") for posing for a photoshoot (for GQ magazine), to accompany a feature in which she talked about women in the public eye being trivialised over their appearance. Janet Street-Porter has gone for her this week too, attacking her for supposedly being interested in clothes and calling herself a feminist at the same time. I agree with JSP's concern about this new right-wing support for gender equality but really, Janet? Picking her up on her appearance?

Let's just stop talking about what women in politics wear. And what they look like. And their "feminine wiles". And what reflection it has on "the sisterhood" if they dye their hair. Because it has no bearing on their job. I often struggle with this apparent need from some quarters to wrangle over "femininity" so much - in relation to any women's issue, or whether or not people identify as feminists. If it's finding its way into a discussion about politics, it's just not relevant. Yes, I know that the media is compelled to talk about women's clothes and appearance as if it's all we should be thinking about, but I expect better, especially when the politicians themselves are criticising this approach.

"Thinspiration", as seen by the Daily Mail

Hey, Daily Mail!

I don't believe I've done this for a while, possibly because there's only so many times we can criticise abominations like the Sidebar of Judgment and the Mail's hypocrisy relating to the sorts of pictures and stories they feature there, but I felt I should point something out following Lorraine Candy's most recent column, published yesterday.

In this column, Candy talks about being amazed at the self-discipline and willpower Victoria Beckham must have to be appearing in public looking "back to normal" so soon after the birth of her fourth child. And so as one might expect, the Mail decided to illustrate this point of a picture of Beckham with baby Harper.

What I find particularly inappropriate, particularly "squicky", about this is the picture caption, which reads "Thinspiration: Victoria Beckham".
 

Let's get this straight: "thinspiration" isn't some casual descriptor you can insert into picture captions on the website of a national newspaper. It's a term that has long been used by pro-eating disorder websites and sufferers, as described in the Wikipedia entry for "Pro-Ana" (warning: triggers abound in the form of photos).

It has very particular connotations, none of which make it acceptable to use in a column about post-pregnancy weight loss. Given that the Mail has enjoyed, over the years, expressing outrage at the harmful influence of thin celebrities, Kate Moss's quote "Nothing tastes as good as thin feels" and "the size zero trend", you'd think it would be clued up on appropriate usage of the word "thinspiration".

Let's not see this become a regular occurrence.

Media favourites: the 'myth of having it all'

'Having It All'

1. Phrase coined by former editor-in-chief of Cosmopolitan magazine, Helen Gurley Brown - and the title of her book published in 1982.
2. A lifestyle which involves having a successful, demanding and well-paid career, a stable relationship and a happy, fulfilled experience of motherhood.
3. A concept popularized by feminists, ball-busting 'career girls', women's magazines and television shows.
4. The ultimate falsehood. Unattainable, unwise, leading only to depression, divorce, infertility, misandry, badly-brought up children and low self-esteem.

Common usage:

1. "The myth of - "
2. "The grave consequences of - "

"Of course women can have it all - they just don't want it"
"They have it all...so why is it so hard for some women to be happy?"
"Girls 'can't have it all': Bridget Jones author warns of the perils of mixing family and career"
"The truth is that modern women can't have it all. They may succeed in their careers and they may succeed as mothers, but to do both at the same time? No."

The rules of discussing 'having it all':

1. Context: must be mentioned that the 'pressure' was brought about by 1970s feminists, as opposed to capitalism, 1980s popular culture, the media and an emphasis that women must be perfect in everything they do (although even Gurley Brown's book was condemned by figureheads of the women's movement at the time).
2. Gender: on no account must the concept of men 'having it all' be discussed. The thought of a man combining a career, marriage and fatherhood is never considered impossible, a pressure or a lifestyle doomed to failure. It is expected, praised and seen as the norm.
3. Stock words/phrases: "making it in a man's world"; "comes at a price"; "superwoman"; "trade-off"; "Sex and the City"; "high-flying"; "juggling work and family".
4. Shifting the blame: on no account explore the idea that societal pressure on women to never trip up, falter, have a bad day or appear less than perfect might be partially at fault. Continue to promote fad diets, pushy parenting, unobtainable beauty standards and harsh criticism of women who don't 'measure up'.
5. Equality: refuse to explore idea that increased pressure on women may be due to men and businesses failing to adapt to a changing world. Stay-at-home fathers are 'emasculated', men doing housework is 'demeaning', and 'supposed' workplace inflexibility and sexism is a sign of women just not having what it takes to run with the big boys. Expecting things to change is 'laughable' and 'hopelessly outdated'.
6. Mental illness and unhappiness: a direct result of attempting to 'have it all'. Prevalence would be less great if society made a return to traditional gender roles and hierarchy (nb avoid all mention of 'mother's little helpers').
7. Public figures: bonus points incurred if person denouncing 'having it all' is a celebrity, politician or middle-aged figurehead of feminism. Double bonus points if the story is published in time for International Women's Day.
8. Furthering the debate: under no circumstances attempt to steer discussion of concept in a productive direction.

This post brought to you by a read through today's Daily Mail story, "Successful and childless: The career women from Generation X who have it all... except a family" and the articles a search for 'women+have it all' brings up (istyosty links).

This week's round-up

Judith Woods, writing in the Telegraph, was disgusted to learn that Nick Clegg, who feels that his children "come first", shoehorns the school run into his busy daily schedule. Apparently this is the worst kind of reflection on his "militantly ball-breaking missus", the "scary global law expert" Miriam, "who prefers to be known as Miriam Gonzalez Durante", (rather than "Miriam Clegg" - I know which I'd choose - and it's not the latter) and told Grazia magazine that she and her husband share parenting duties equally. Interestingly she doesn't see it as a plus side of Clegg's approach to fatherhood that he wants to continue to spend time with his children. Nope, it must be his wife, being all emasculating.

"As an Alpha female, she deliberately chose a Beta mate she could boss about. The masterplan, which she may or may not have outlined before the wedding, was that she would breed, then bread-win and he would be a house-husband, stocking the fridge with Petit Filous and managing the recycling bin in a blamelessly ineffectual Lib Dem sort of way. Now he has been inexplicably catapulted into government! That was not the deal. No wonder she’s so cross!"

Today we've learned that the deputy Prime Minister has hit back, saying:

“I love having the opportunity as often as I can to take my children on the school run. And much more seriously, look this is 2011. It's not 1911.

“The idea that fathers or mothers can't do a very good job in whatever walk of life but also remain as dedicated fathers and mothers is frankly an attitude which belongs in the last century or the one before that.”

How To Be A Retronaut - Suffragette Surveillance, 1913

In 1912, Scotland Yard detectives bought their first camera, to covertly photograph suffragettes. The pictures were compiled into ID sheets for officers on the ground.

Sian and Crooked Rib - Consent, statutory rape and the Daily Mail,

There’s a lesson here. Anyone out there who rapes a child, but who then can find a way that makes it look like the child was to blame has nothing to worry about. Just admit it frankly, show a bit of remorse and easy. You’ll be out of jail in less than a year.

Marina Hyde - Celebrity magazines must be scrutinised

I don't know if Lord Justice Leveson has a permanent mobile phone number – he's probably using burners – but if anyone has it can they give him a bell and ask if his inquiry into press behaviour will take in celebrity magazines?

I only ask because I'm looking at one of the cover headlines on this week's New! magazine – Broody Kate's Anorexia Nightmare – and the grim, confected "story" about the Duchess of Cambridge that lies therein, and wondering whether such titles will escape this opportunity to take a long hard look at what they do, before stabbing themselves in the eye with rusty knives?

Emerging Mummy - In which I am part of the insurgency

I will be the small underground movement, the insurgency, the one taking every opportunity, however small, to strike a blow for the Kingdom's way of womanhood.

It's in the small ops then. The monthly cheque sent off to Mercy. The determination to value my daughters and sons for their intrinsic worth, their mind and hearts as well as their appearance. To give respect and honour to the stories of women around the world - and in my neighbourhood. The raising of my tinies to follow the example of Christ first. It's in the refusal to ignore the stories - however much I want to stick my head in the sand and act like it's not happening.

Elaine Storkey for Christianity Today - A Liberating Woman: A Reflection on the Founder of Christians for Biblical Equality

With utmost meticulousness, Kroeger sought to reconcile the Pauline passages that restrained women with the clear directives calling women to proclaim Christ. Rather than offer a clumsy cultural relativism that glibly dismisses Paul as a "man of his time," she showed how better knowledge of Greek helps us to understand the kephale ("head") metaphor in Ephesians 5, the silence of women in churches in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, and head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11. Careful contextual work raises questions about traditional interpretations. (For example, if Paul's fellow-worker Priscilla was exercising a clear gift of teaching to correct the theology of Apollos [Acts 18:26], then the injunction on women not to teach [1 Tim. 2:12] must be a limited one.) The interplay of language, historical context, and archaeology excited Kroeger. This was particularly evident in "I Suffer Not a Woman", which, written with her husband in 1992, opened up new ways of understanding 1 Timothy 2:11-15.

The Frisky - How I learned about feminism and motherhood from Molly Weasley

It was a form of magic to see the same qualities play out between this made-up mother character in my favorite books and my real mom. My views on modern motherhood were inherently affected by witnessing both mothers nurture all children who need them, not just their own blood; manage to hold their families together under any and all circumstances; have unconditional love and support, even in the most frustrating moments; and partake in empowering, female-friendly movements that positively influence their daughters and sons alike.

Hopefully to come later this week (if I have time) - exploring deeper into the concept of gender as God-given and role-based vs gender as a social construct.

Daily Mail claims teachers' strike caused girls' death

Now this really is a piece of work. I spotted this story in my local daily, the Peterborough Evening Telegraph, which describes the death of Sophie Howard, killed by a falling tree branch at a park yesterday as a 'freak accident' and a 'tragedy', both of which are fairly accurate assessments.

Head on over to the Daily Mail (istyosty link) and we've got the same story reported not as a 'freak accident', but as a tragedy caused by the fact Sophie's teachers were on strike yesterday, meaning that her school was closed - hence her fatal trip to the park with friends. Yes, it's the teachers and the unions who are to blame for Sophie's death.

Said Charlie Brooker on Twitter: "Most despicable headline since The Sun's notorious Hillsborough insult?"

And for once, the commenters at Mail Online seem to be in agreement with the 'Twitterati', indicating that the Mail has truly gone beyond the bounds of acceptability this time.

"The single most appalling and vindictive piece of journalism I have had the misfortune to stumble across for many years. It shows a total lack of respect for the family and the teaching profession. An unambiguous apology to all sides is needed without any delay,'" writes 'Mike, Lincoln'.

I think we're all in agreement with that.

Edit: As word started to get round that even some DM journalists were disgusted by the story, the headline was swiftly changed to "Girl, 13, crushed to death by a falling branch as she sat on park bench on the day her teachers went out on strike" and the story moved further down the front page of Mail Online.

Street harassment on a sunny Saturday

Unless you've been living under a rock recently, you'll probably be aware that today was the day the Slutwalkers hit London with their anti-victim blaming message about sexual violence. I wasn't able to go. Here's what happened to me today instead:

It occured as I got off the bus on one of the busiest streets in Peterborough city centre. As I started to walk away from the bus stop, a man walked towards me. As he walked past, he barged up against me, moving his hand on my inner thigh. Then he carried on walking.

I turned and shouted; he turned round and looked me up and down, smirking. I stood as he walked off down the street - he looked back at me a couple of times as he went over to talk to another man. I realised my hands were shaking as I took my phone from my bag. I was enraged, but couldn't figure out what to do. In the end I left it too late - I walked in the direction he had gone, planning to confront him, but he was nowhere to be seen.

I decided to take a trip into town because it was a nice day and I had nothing to do this afternoon. It was supposed to be enjoyable. Now I don't like having my personal space invaded even in the most innocuous of ways. The city centre was packed and as a result I spent the next couple of hours feeling incredibly anxious and angry every time someone came near me. I was cross with myself for not going after him, for taking a photo of him, for doing something more.

I shouldn't have had to be made to feel like this, but this is what happens when some men think they have the right to harass other people in the street. When they feel entitled to touch people and intimidate them and afterwards, smirk and saunter off. When they feel fine about treating women with such little respect.

The message of today's march in London was that the way someone dresses is irrelevant to the way they are treated by those who rape, assault, harass and abuse. One woman carried a placard saying: "I was wearing jeans and a jumper". One marched in a wedding dress, raising awareness that abusers can be husbands too. The harassment today happened while I was wearing somewhat baggy trousers and a cardigan. This isn't the first time I've been a victim of street harassment and I'm sure it won't be the last. It has happened when I've been in heels and office attire, when I've been in gym gear.

As the website of anti-street harassment movement Hollaback states:

"Sexual harassment is a gateway crime that creates a cultural environment that makes gender-based violence OK."

It's not a compliment. It's not a 'fact of life'. It's not a case of 'boys will be boys'. It's beyond unacceptable and it disgusts me.

In somewhat related news, when I heard the news that Andrew Bridgen MP has been arrested on suspicion of sexual assault, the first thing I thought was "here we go again...". We don't know an awful lot about the details of what happened and so obviously no-one is in any position to pass judgement as yet. Whether or not the Daily Mail is in any position to pass judgement is, as usual, completely irrelevant to what it decides to do about stories like this.

Why did I think "here we go again..."? From the Mail today: Woman who says Tory MP assaulted her was 'drunkenly flirting with other men' (don't worry, it's an istyosty link). In the story, we learn that:

"The 29-year-old former political aide was seen chatting to a number of different men..."

"...onlookers told the Mail that his accuser was inebriated and in high spirits when she talked to Mr Bridgen..."

"After closing time, the pair and the second man went back to Mr Bridgen’s flat in Westminster to discuss politics..."

- by which we infer that the Mail is determined to discredit the woman's allegation, based on other aspects of her behaviour that night. I knew there was something slightly odd about the fact that they'd published a couple of weirdly supportive anti-victim blaming pieces related to Slutwalk recently. I knew it couldn't last. No mention of her clothes, but they felt it was important to publish a story talking about the accuser's 'flirting' with 'different men' and 'drinking' in a way which clearly shows this should make us doubt her claim. It's predictable fodder from one of the most misogynist newspapers around but disappointing nevertheless.

Links of interest:

- UK Anti Street Harassment Campaign
- Stop Street Harassment
- This Is Not An Invitation To Rape Me

Guest Post: Hey! Tabloids! Leave Those Kids Alone!

I’d like you to come with me for a moment and enter stage left on every Scout leader’s most disliked experience. It’s raining, your scouts are trying to strike camp. And somebody somewhere is having some kind of “issue”. Odds are a couple of the lads have had a “full and frank exchange of views” and are right now squaring up to each other. Or else somebody has dropped something heavy on a painful part of their body. Kids are great at picking their moments.

“What’s up?” I trot over to the site of the commotion.

“It’s R,” someone says. “She’s not well”.

R is slumped on the floor looking, for want of a better word, like death warmed up. Her worried looking patrol leader (a senior 13/14 year old scout for the uninitiated) and a couple of her friends are stood next to her. R looks pale and is pretty tearful. I deal with it, the gathering crowd are shooed away and I find out the story. In short she’s knackered. She’s knackered because she’s been on the go for the last 3 hours, but unlike the rest of them quietly went without breakfast (and that is to my discredit for not noticing). A mug of hot chocolate and a slab of kendal mint cake later and she is back up and running with her blood sugar back to where it should be. Spot of first aid on camp, not a big issue you might say.

Actually it is a big issue because R is 12 years old and scared of getting fat. And she’s not alone.

As it happens the above is fiction, it would not be appropriate to recount events about a real child, yet it isn't a total lie. It's based on several similar incidents that both I and fellow Scout and Guide leader friends have dealt with. Luckily I have never had to deal with any child with a full on eating disorder, although I know others that have. Yet from what I have seen I don't think it will be long before I do. It may end up being a boy (pressure on boys to be perfect is growing but that is another story for another day) but most likely it will be a girl.

How has it got to the point that I, a 32 year old man, am scraping 12 years girls up off the floor because they are not eating enough? I don’t think that there is a simple answer to that, the reasons are pretty complex, but one of those reasons is, I am convinced, the media obsession with female celebrities and what they look like.

Shortly before Christmas the Daily Mail published this article about Megan Fox. It seems she had the audacity to lose some weight and was a bit thin for the liking of the Mail. It wasn’t that long ago that another celeb was too fat for the Mail (complete with oh-so-subtle comment about curry and pint deal at her local). It doesn’t even have to be the fat/thin thing to get the tabloids (or indeed sometimes the broadsheets) going. It includes almost constant stories about how any woman in the public eye looks, how they dress, what surgery they’ve had, what they’ve done with their hair, ad nauseum, ad infinitum. It seems that what women look like has become the only topic in town.

At the time of writing, on the front page of the Mail website there are no less than 27 stories about what various women celebrities look like, and 3 about men (plus one about Romeo Beckham - don’t think he counts as a man just yet does he?).

And it is not just the tabloids, it’s women’s magazines, men’s magazines, TV shows, broad sheets, websites, you name the media source and it’s there (with the possible exception of radio). It seems like there is a never ending drip feed of the same message, “you have to look perfect, you have to look perfect, you have to look perfect”. And that drip feed hits home every where, from mature adults through teenagers and now to frighteningly young kids.

The result of that does not always result in kids keeling over from lack of food. It manifests itself in a number of other ways. It’s the girl that won’t go canoeing because the wet suit makes her look fat, or won’t use sunscreen because she has to have the perfect tan. And on each occasion you wonder where such a young girl is getting the impression that she has to look perfect, that it really would be a disaster to look anything other than perfect. And time again I come back to the media. Looking at the fronts of magazines in WH Smith, every one of the women’s magazines seems to be obsessed with the latest diet and the shape of whoever is the celeb of the moment. Doesn’t X look amazing for losing weight? Isn’t Y struggling to fight the pounds? And so on and so forth.

Of course the attitude of some boys doesn’t help either (and yes, in Scouts we do crack down on it), yet even some of the attitudes of teenage boys, treating girls simply as sexual objects which is appearing at an increasingly early age can be traced to the media and in particular the grossly irresponsible "lads' mags".

There are of course women who use their body image to make money, as is their right, but we are not talking here about the portrayal of professional models or those who deliberately court attention. It is those constant stories where celebs are snapped while on holiday or out shopping or in the park with their kids, the constant media intrusion that worries me. Those stories show that yes, the glamorous actress does sometimes walk to the corner shop for a pint of milk wearing a hoodie and no makeup, just like we all do. Yet rather than any hint that this is totally normal behaviour girls are told that this is weird, you can’t possibly do that! And so impressionable young girls get the impression that they have to look perfect (whatever that means) all the time and start to worry when they don’t.

I don’t write this pretending to have any answers, I don’t really know where you begin trying to change the whole sorry mess (although on a personal level I hope that organisations like scouts and guides provide an environment where kids can learn that there is far more to their self worth than what they look like). I don’t know what you try and change first or how. But until something does change I guess I’ll just carry on scraping 12 year old girls up off the floor.

This is a guest post by Akela. He's a left wing, enviromentalist, Christian, cheese-eating, football-following, real ale-drinking Scout Leader with a serious dislike of the tabloids. A wannabe children's writer, he used to blog regularly but now just surfaces on other people's blogs instead.

Daily Mail calls 12-year-old rape victims 'Lolitas'

When you cover a case which involves the gang rape of girls as young as 12, you leave us in no doubt what you think of the outcome when you publish a story containing the following:

"Reading Crown Court heard how the soccer players were encouraged by the schoolgirl 'Lolitas'"

Lolitas? Really? You think that's responsible reporting?

"The girls told the men they 16 years old and had sneaked away from a party to be with them after exchanging suggestive text messages..."

"The judge heard that the most active of the two girls, mentioned in five of the six charges, could not have been trusted by the prosecution as a witness.

"She was also being investigated over an unrelated false rape allegation and had a fake age on her Facebook page."

"She said one of the males kept asking her for sex. She was initially reluctant but eventually gave in to his persistence."

"They highlighted the lies of the young girl who took part in most of the sexual activity..."

"They added that the careers of the promising young footballers had been ruined by 'the biggest mistake [of their] lives'."

Is it any wonder that the comments on the story go down the very same route?

"I would say these wayward girls were more at fault than the lads..."

"The prisons are over-crowded as it is. Save the space for genuine criminals not misguided young men like these. It's the girl who instigated all of this who should be punished - not the lads."

"abslutely (sic) that's not rape. the girls were cooperative..."

"It's not rape. But it is slutty behaviour..."

"I think it is absolutely appalling that these boys have been jailed for this. I am female. They were led on and its the girls who should be charged."

"The girls were underage, yes, but claimed to be 16 (and we all know how tarty some young girls can look)..."

It seems that a lot of people haven't heard of statutory rape and that possibly, the Mail hasn't either, considering the story appears to be intent on hammering home just how much these girls are to blame for what happened to them and that it only outcome has been the ruination of men's lives. Whether the girls texted the men or not, whether they were out late at night or not, this state of affairs the Mail seems to have reached where anything is excusable is disgusting and unforgivable.

And there I was thinking that I hadn't seen a 'evil lying woman out to get men' story for a while. The Mail may not have that particular agenda to push at present (I'm sure they'd hoped that plans to grant anonymity to rape defendants wouldn't be scrapped) but you know they're sure as hell going to carry on promoting it anyway. Maybe, like me, they've read the studies and articles discussing the way the media has an incredible influence on public perception of sexual violence and victim blaming. And maybe that's why they do it, even going to the lengths of trying to justify men having sex with 12-year olds because at the end of the day, a rape allegation is usually nothing more than a woman trying to ruin a man's life.

EDIT: more posts worth reading

- sianandcrookedrib - Daily Mail Fail

- No Sleep 'Til Brooklands - On the Daily Mail and rape

The Daily Mail and the Sidebar of Judgement

Last week Penny Smith, writing for the Daily Mail, asked 'Why do we women hate our bodies?'. Several of my fellow tabloid-watching bloggers pointed out the hypocrisy of the Mail's obsession with asking this question (look back through the archives and you'll find several similar stories published over the past couple of years). I must admit I haven't been visiting Mail Online much recently. It's probably been good for my sanity. But following Smith's piece going up, I've been interested to see how the site does absolutely nothing to help the way women might be feeling about their bodies.

The famed Mail Online sidebar has always been the Sidebar of Judgement, the place to go if you want to laugh at women in 'unflattering' dresses or disapprove of average-sized people daring to wear bikinis while pursing your lips at Suri Cruise's lost childhood and Kerry Katona's Ultimate Bad Mother status.

But as the paper publishes columns lamenting poor body image among modern women, the Sidebar of Judgement, dare I say it, appears to be getting worse. There's no longer any variety in the women's interest-flavoured stories it features. It's a relentless rotation of judgemental pieces about cellulite, stomach flab and weight loss. Top story today features 'real women' creating Kate Moss's look in order to show that they have better backsides than she does. Give me strength. But there's more:

- 'I work out seven days a week... but I still have jiggly thighs and cellulite,' admits Kim Kardashian
- So that's why Cher Lloyd looks the picture of health - she lives on greasy portions of chips
- Teen Mom 2 star Jenelle Evans makes for an arresting sight (in a bikini... not at court, that is)
- What a knockout: Sucker Punch star Abbie Cornish does scantily-clad sultry shoot for GQ magazine
- What happened to Nicole's legs? Scherzinger goes for the wrinkly look in mismatched boots and dress

Yesterday the Women's Networking Hub tweeted:

Has disordered eating for women and girls become the norm, as entrenched behaviour patterns are now granted as acceptable?

This is a good question. The phenomenon is certainly being fuelled in part by the attitudes of media aimed at women, with the way it constantly judges the body, insinuates that our bodies, as they are naturally, are unaccpetable and encourages unhealthy and drastic diets as a means of achieving confidence and acceptance. As a result we categorize all food as either 'good' or 'bad'. We justify eating a chocolate bar by saying that it's okay, we'll go to the gym later, or we'll only have a small dinner. We gravitate immediately towards the 'low fat' or 'light' sections when we go to buy a sandwich for lunch whether we're overweight or not. We discuss it and we treat all this as totally normal, totally ordinary attitudes towards eating and sustaining our bodies.

There's a familiar series of events involving celebrity women and the media. Step One: the woman, who does not adhere strictly to the accepted 'thin but curvy' body type, is picked over and ridiculed by the papers, magazines or blogs. Step Two: she loses weight and said papers and magazines run triumphant features on her new found confidence and happiness. She'll be wearing a bikini or a corset and grinning. Step Three: she'll put a bit of weight back on. Step Four: she'll appear in one of these papers and magazines solemnly discussing how that weight loss was unhealthy for her, how she exercised far too much, how she made herself sick or took diet pills or barely ate. And people will shake their heads and tut about the negative influence of the media.

All this will be chronicled in the Sidebar of Judgement.

Religious Wednesday (sort of)

I never, ever do day-of-the-week themed posts. So don't expect Religious Wednesday to be a regular occurrence - it just so happens that I was saving up a few links to post.

- Check out Restored, an organisation set up to provide a faith-based response, working with churches, to violence against women. With links to Tearfund, Restored was set up because its founders saw what they believed to be a 'gap' in tackling VAW - that is, a need for an organisation which could help respond to the issue by emphasising a faith-based model of 'restored relationships' and also encourage men to take responsibility and play their part in standing up to attitudes about VAW. The website states:

"We are therefore establishing Restored; a global Christian alliance to transform relationships and end violence against women. We believe that Christian churches have huge potential to help prevent violence, but also need to change their own attitudes and practice. Our specific focus will be the prevention of domestic violence and sexual violence against women and girls. This will include a Christian men's initiative on preventing violence against women, which will come under the main alliance. Restored’s priority in its first year will be to develop a pack to help churches address violence against women in their communities."

Something Restored is keen to point out is the fact that domestic abuse can be a difficult area for Christians to discuss and a difficult problem for churches to address within their congregations. Nevertheless it is clearly an issue which affects women from all backgrounds and no matter what the church and the Bible might teach about relationships, it's a harrowing reality for plenty of Christian families.

The site contains a lot of really good resources, including the church pack mentioned above, which I emailed to my church as part of the 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence last year. You can also follow @rest0red on Twitter.

- After having attended and been incredibly impacted by Jo Saxton's workshops on women in leadership as a delegate at Soul Survivor Momentum I'm so excited to have found out that they're putting on a one-day conference called Equal later this year. The day will explore the theology and practice of women in church leadership and will be held at Soul Survivor Watford on June 18th. Soul Survivor as an organisation has shown such a positive attitude to empowering women in the last few years and I'm really pleased that they're tackling the issue. As it stands I plan to book a place and am hoping that nothing else will come up that day!

- Really interesting responses to this old but popular post on Anne Jackson's blog. Anne asks: 'What is something you feel you can’t say in church, or around other Christians?' I'm sure most of us have a long list.

- I have written about faith and feminism as a guest post for C Jane's blog. You can't read it just yet but I can tell you it'll be up fairly soon as part of her Sunday Guest Post series.

And finally, for some non-relgious links:

- You must read Juliet Shaw's guest post entitled A True Story of Daily Mail Lies over at Jonathan's blog, No Sleep 'Til Brooklands. Juliet tells the story of how she agreed to be interviewed by the Mail for what she thought was a feature on the benefits of moving from the city to the country. Instead, the newspaper fabricated quotes, details and in fact the majority of her 'story', making her life a misery when it was published. This blog posts tells the tale of what happened when Juliet fought back.

- Keep an eye on We Are Equals in the coming weeks. The site, which has recently launched, is part of a camapign centred on International Women's Day, organised by a coalition comprised of charities such as The Fawcett Society, Oxfam and Women's Aid. The Equals coaliition hopes to prompt a 'big debate' surrounding inequality this year, which marks the 100th anniversary of IWD.

Mail Fail of the Day: the blame game

"Why do mothers get the blame for everything?" asks Tanith Carey in today's Daily Mail. She laments the fact that men, celebrities and society as a whole heap blame on mothers for everything that goes wrong - whether that's for being a 'selfish' working mother and not getting the kids to bed on time to not being emotionally involved enough and causing all sorts of 'issues' for their children when they reach adulthood. She laments the fact that mothers put so much pressure on themselves to be 'perfect'.

She has a fair point, but i wonder why the Mail needs to ask such a question. After all, it's one of the biggest culprits when it comes to the culture of maternal blame we see so often in the media. Usually, it has to be said, the blame comes in the form of that old Mail favourite, the dubious 'study', but why bother reporting them? Looking back through the archives (I know, I know) it becomes obvious that there's not just a trend for blaming mothers for society's ills - but working mothers in particular. Not that we should be surprised, but it's kind of relentless:

- 'Working mothers are to blame if their children misbehave' says a leading psychologist
- Working mums beware: Why children of stay-at-home mothers have healthier lifestyles
- Working mothers 'put children at risk with low-quality childcare' says UN report
- How society 'suffers while mothers are out working'
- Working mothers risk damaging their child's prospects
- Children of working mothers lag behind
- Children of working mothers are telly tubbies: Obesity concerns for latchkey kids
- Mothers' smoking is to blame for up to 90% of cot deaths
- Glass ceiling? We've only ourselves to blame
- How hysterical mothers have driven men out of teaching
- I've made my daughter hate her body: They call it 'thin-heritance' - how mothers pass on their dieting obsessions
- Mothers' birth choices linked to rise in childhood diabetes
- It's liberal mothers who are the real dopes
- Children of part-time mothers 'less obese than those of stay-at-home mums'
- Mothers are raising a generation of wimps
- 'The modern disease of pushy mothers', by Kirsty Young
- 'Emma Thompson's right. And it's children who pay for the 'having it all' lie, says FAY WELDON
- 'Superwoman is a myth' say modern women because 'family life suffers with working mums'

Yet another instance where the newspaper could really do with taking a long hard look at itself as the cause of certain problems. It's no wonder mothers are anxious that they're 'to blame' for everything.

Who destroyed the 'gentle art of feminine food'?

In case you were in any doubt about the way feminism has destroyed society, the Daily Mail has decided to tell us this week that us women’s libbers are also responsible for the popularity of fast food, obesity in children and the death of home cooking.

In an article written by food writer and journalist Rose Prince, we’re told that as a result of the call for equality 50 years ago:

“Domestic cooking was chucked aside as an irrelevance, an icon of unfairness to women — which allowed a very eager food industry to leap forward with the convenience-food solution.

Yes, it’s feminism we have to thank for the spread of fast-food chains and an epidemic of childhood obesity.”

You know when you read something and that urge to repeatedly bring your head into contact with your desk immediately comes over you? This was one of those moments. Prince names a host of issues – children not exercising, consumption of convenience foods, less time spent eating – all tenuously linked to the fact that some decades ago, women wanted equality and better lives and therefore, apparently, stopped cooking nutritious meals.

Now Rose Prince has a new book out. Kitchenella is apparently a celebration of simple cooking on a budget which is “not about showing off and extravagance, but generosity and kindness; a subtle and intelligent way to nurture”.

This sounds good to me. I love cooking – yes, you read that correctly, a feminist who loves cooking – I have to cook on a budget and I also think that cooking for people is a really great way to show generosity and kindness. It’s a great mission statement for a cookery book – so why does it have to come alongside such ridiculous assumptions about societal problems?

Doubtless it has something to do with the newspaper Prince is writing for on this occasion. But to look no deeper into the reasons people aren’t getting adequate nutrition or living healthy lifestyles is naive.

For a start the effect of consumerism needs to be looked at – the way that labour-saving appliances and foods have been sold to us over the years as ‘essentials’. Then there’s ever-quickening pace of life and rising cost of living which leave people with not only less time to prepare food, but less money to spend on it.

We know it’s all right for those who have the time and the cash to source their produce at farm shops and trendy delicatessens, feeling happy that they’re buying organic and cooking out of the latest must-have tome from Hugh or Nigella.

For most of us, however, that’s not reality. And when the cheapest food in the supermarket and the quickest food to prepare is the unhealthiest, we end up with what’s known as food poverty. It’s estimated that food poverty affects four million people in the UK. If you can’t afford to travel to somewhere which sells fresh or healthy produce and don’t have the time to cook it because you’re holding down two jobs, convenience foods are going to win out.

There’s a rather large pair of rose-tinted spectacles being employed here: I don’t think most people are under any illusion that everyone cooked fabulous and nutritious meals in years gone by. People cooked with what was available to them. And today we have a lot more choice.

What’s also of concern is Prince’s allusions to the “gentle art of feminine food”. I agree with her when she says that lots of today’s TV chefs showcase recipes which are too expensive and complicated for a lot of time-poor people with limited funds to bother about.

But following this up with the statement that “being a feminist does not mean dropping femininity”? If I see one more newspaper or magazine article wheeling out that old chestnut as if it’s the most important thing women today need to know I’ll probably lose it.

Prince’s article contains a rather bizarre account of how she found the sight of Germaine Greer cooking “like a Fifties stay-at-home mum” on Celebrity Big Brother “touching”. Bizarre to me and just as bizarre to the rest of you kitchen-loving feminists out there, feeding your families and friends, dreaming up new dishes and selling your creations.

Thankfully her new book is aimed at “modern cooks, both men and women”. Because there I was wondering why men as nurturers, cooks and carers weren’t mentioned. Maybe the thought that some women just might not care about cooking is also too much to bear.

This article originally appeared at BitchBuzz. Image via twopinkpossums's Flickr.

Daily Mail Rape Chronicles: Trawling the Archives

This past weekend I spent some time trawling the archives on the Daily Mail website. Thankfully I only needed to do a couple of searches and it didn't take too long, but what I found most definitely proves the point I was making in my previous post - and that post I made back in January which was also featured in a piece entitled Media bias, courtroom misogyny and police incompetence: how rapists get away with it on The F Word.

What it's easy to see is that while coverage of 'cry rape' cases is not a new thing, the frequency with which they are covered and the venom reserved for the women involved has increased dramatically since the beginning of 2009. I'm not the only one who's noticed that the Mail gets more anti-woman with each month that passes and the disproportionate coverage of these cases combined with their sensationalist headlines and scores of misogynistic, victim-blaming comments are obviously a major factor in this.

Back in 2008 a report entitled Just Representation? Press Reporting and the Reality of Rape concluded that the way rape cases are reported is distorting public opinion and jurors' decisions. The report, commissioned by the Lilith Project, identified the media construct of rape, its propensity to victim-blame and the disproportionate coverage of 'cry rape' cases, attacks made by foreign men and attacks on very young girls. You can find it in PDF format here. The 'research' I undertook at the weekend showed that more than two years on, nothing has changed and that in fact, the situation is worse.

The 2008 report suggested that media depictions of what constitutes 'believeable' - and 'obviously made-up' rape scenarios mean that jurors are more likely to see less 'sensational' rape allegations as untrue or 'not rape'. If that was 2008 I can only imagine how perceptions might have changed.

The following stories have been published since the proposals to grant anonymity to rape defendants first received coverage in the Mail on May 21st, along with several stories on the debates over the proposal itself:

June 25th: Lying mother jailed after making up nightclub rape claim
June 18th: Wicked woman saw four innocent men arrested after slashing her own face and crying rape
June 18th: Innocent man jailed for three years over false rape claim - despite police knowing 'victim' was a fantasist
June 11th: Mother who falsely accused policeman of rape after he spurned her advances is jailed for two years
June 8th: Woman cried rape to escape driving ban after crashing boyfriend's car
June 2nd: One man killed himself, the other had his life destroyed. All because one girl falsely cried rape. So what does she have to say for herself?
May 25th: Jurors in tears as they clear student of rape - then discover another man falsely accused by same 'victim' had killed himself

Looking back before that date, I came across the following stories:
May 10th: Mother of three jailed after making false gang rape claims - to win back her former lover
5th March 2010: Mother of three who faked elaborate rape scenes 'for attention' jailed for two years
16th February 2010: Woman who cried rape after sex in public toilet walks free from court
19th January 2010: Cry rape businesswoman who falsely accused father of two is jailed for 18 months
5th December 2009: Cheating wife cried rape in text message to husband after fit of guilt over affair
7th November 2009: Nursery assistant who cried rape is jailed for four months because 'she made genuine sex attack victims looks like liars'
6th November 2009: Girl 'cried rape after living out fantasy of having sex with two strangers'
2nd November 2009: Student falsely accused of raping woman changed his identity to start new life abroad
1st November 2009: Woman who cried rape after sex with man she met online is jailed for nine months
14th August 2009: Cry-rape girl, 20, dragged man into toilets for sex to claim £7,500 compensation
22nd July 2009: Mother who cried rape after meeting man on dating website is jailed for two years
16th July 2009: Former magistrate cleared of rape sues his accuser for £300,000
3rd July 2009: Mother falsely accused husband of rape because 'she wanted him out of her life'
2nd July 2009: 'Cry rape woman stuffed tights in her mouth and tied herself up to fake attack'
30th June 2009: Policeman's daughter 'cried rape after night with ex-lover'
21st May 2009: Court rules taxi driver falsely accused of rape can receive compensation in legal first
2nd April 2009: Man cleared of rape after court shown phone footage of woman 'actively' taking part in sex
27th March 2009: Thank God I'm free, says chef cleared of raping woman who was too drunk to remember. But my name has been dragged through the mud
25th March 2009: Man accused of a rape that his lawyer victim 'was too drunk to remember'
25th January 2009: BBC personality made 40 false rape allegations against her ex-boyfriend whose life remains blighted by her lies
23rd December 2008: Fantasist 'cry rape mother' who wasted 7,000 police hours and cost taxpayers £300,000 is jailed
17th September 2008: My cry-rape hell': Wrongly accused man tells of his 11-month nightmare
29th August 2008: Jail for Wren who cried rape after seducing her former lover
25th August 2008: Binge-drinking mother jailed after crying rape against devout Muslim taxi driver
18th August 2008: Woman jailed for making false rape claim to get back at family after row during night out
29th July 2008: 'Wicked' woman who ruined a marriage by crying rape jailed for four months
8th April 2008: Schoolgirl escapes prosecution after false rape claim
7th March 2008: Woman who cried rape five times is spared jail for perverting the course of justice
12th February 2008: Jail for young mother who cried rape to cover up her secret one-night stand
13th November 2007: Woman who falsely cried rape EIGHT times is spared jail
14th June 2007: Lovesick lesbian cried rape to frame an innocent man
12th May 2007: Woman 'cried rape to justify lover's attack on ex-boyfriend'
23rd April 2007: Two months for girl whose rape lie ruined cabbie's life
24th March 2007: Lesbian accuses innocent stranger of rape to win back lover
16th March 2007: Jilted lover who lied about rape is jailed

As we move through 2009 and into 2010, it's easy to see how the coverage becomes more frequent and the headlines more sensationalist. I'm not even going to go there on the subject of rape allegations made by and against celebrities, because there's a common theme in the comments made by readers - that if the allegation is made by a female celebrity, she 'must be doing it for attention/to revive an ailing career' and if the allegation is made against a male celebrity, the woman 'must have made it up to cash in/become famous'.

Even the general coverage of rape as an issue has an overriding theme. Here's a Melanie Phillips special which highlights several 'false accusation' stories - and here are just some of the paper's news stories relating to rape:

15th March 2010: Harriet Harman's 'unreliable statistics on rape scare off victims'

14th March 2010: Misled by Harriet Harman over rape conviction rate
15th February 2010: Rape? It's the fault of the victims, say 50% of women
6th November 2009: Are date rape spiked drinks an urban myth?
30th October 2009: Women who cry rape will ALWAYS be sent to prison, appeal court warns
27th October 2009: Date-rape drug? No dear, you just had too much to drink
10th March 2009: More women than men believe rape victims should share the blame for being attacked if they wear 'sexy clothing'
16th February 2007: Drug rape myth exposed as study reveals binge drinking is to blame

Notice the way the headlines focus on what women think of rape victims - possibly an attempt to show that *everyone* (not just men) think that rape victims are attention-seeking liars. Notice too the patronising attitude of the stories concerning rape victims who had been drinking or claim to have date-raped. Other newspapers do it, but for the Mail, it's an obsession.

Unfortunately, we know that this coverage influences thinking. It influences decisions made by politicians. If people are reading an - at LEAST weekly - installment of the Mail's False Accusation Chronicles and victim-blaming diatribes and believing that this constitutes an accurate representation of most rape cases...well, we have a problem.

Further reading: Daily Mail & Rape, a post at Angry Mob.