Reader responses sent in during the month of May
From Irina Lester
I fully support the author on her and her husband decision for her not
to change her name, but for husband to do it. That’s what I want to
see more often! I am also annoyed that it is easy for a woman to
change her name during wedding but a man needs deed poll. So, i
salute all brides sticking to their names and all grooms who adopt
female ones.
However, all Eleanor’s musings on the importance of name are totally
lost on me. I think a name is nothing to be proud about, no more than
blue eyes or height. It’s just a name, for god’s sake! It’s arbitrary,
it doesn’t say anything about you, but a bit about pretentions (and
silliness sometimes) of your parents.
I changed my surname by a deed poll when i came to live in UK. I
always hated mine, and i dislike an idea of having a man’s surname.
Just to think, women NEVER have their own surnames. Your mother’s
surname is actually your maternal granddad’s one.
So I had purely my own surname, out of blue, it’s well pronounsable
and not confusing to any English person. And also not too common
(that would be too dull for my liking).
My husband reacted stupidly on it – he wondered if people are going
to wonder and ask questions. They do, yes, and often are impressed by
my unusual nonconformist attitude. Yes, you can change your name if
you don’t like it, just like hair colour, no big deal, just stick
with the one you really like in order not to create too much hustle
for yourself. I simply hate an idea that you “have” to live with
something so arbitrary as name even if you don’t like it.
However my husband wouldn’t like it either if i wanted to have his
surname for the reasons we as feminists understand well.
From Pam
I am so glad that women of Eleanor Turner’s generation are thinking
more deeply about such out-moded traditions as taking the man’s name
on marriage. I did not think of doing that when I married nearly
forty years ago, and felt a sense of loss about my family name that I
wasn’t brave enough to confront. I am delighted that my son and his
wife each retain their own surname. But what’s the answer to the
surname question for their children? Lots of hyphenated names ad
infinitum? Oh, and Eleanor – you’re thinking about your ‘master’s’
degree???
From Lynne McLean-Brown
Fantastic article, Having recently got married and adopting a double
barrled name (my husbands and my own) I have also received similar
reactions. What about personal choice and what is right for both
people entering the marriage? well done on a brilliant article!
From Peta Chow
Nice article Eleanor Turner (A Bride By Any Other Name), except is
marriage really about “becoming one unit with one surname”? I don’t
intend to take my fiance’s surname and he won’t be taking mine. I
don’t see it as contradicting the “becoming one unit” part in any
way. My name is my name and his name is his, part of our individual
identities and nothing to do with our relationship.
From Sandra
When I got married a few years ago, I kept my surname and was
surprised by the negative feedback. I’d assumed that nobody would
really care one way or another – it was 2003 after all. I found,
interestingly, that men seemed to accept it without a problem but
older women felt the need to challenge me. One woman who had always
called me by my first name suddenly started calling me Mrs C just to
make a point. I still find it strange that a woman keeping her name
is an issue. I thought we had moved on a long time ago.
From Girish Sethna
I agree with Eleanor Turner, but there
are two issues it seems to me.
Firstly, her surname must inevitably have come from her father’s side
of the family, so how far back do we go?
Mother, grandmother, great-grandmother…???
Of course there is the double-barrelled option, but while that works
for you, what of your daughter or son?
Secondly, in the current age where, as Eleanor says women now own
property and land, surely the idea of ‘ownership’ is out of date.
Perhaps a mutual decision between the couple is best.
As a man, if I were to marry, out of love, I would take my spouse’s
surname. She may want, for the same reason to take mine. But then it
is about love, mutual decision rather than about the old reasons.
Eleanor Turner, author of the article, replies
I appreciate your feedback and I’d like to make a response to the points you
raise.
Firstly, what I am proposing about women keeping their own name does not
mean the same as women choosing their mother’s, grandmother’s or
great-grandmother’s names. I propose that women merely have the option to
keep their birth name, same as their male spouses. In a perfect world this
would mean that the name a woman is born with could have been either her
mother’s or her father’s, as her parents would have made the same decision
as she is about to when they themselves got married. I bear no resentment
towards my husband’s previous name, or to my own father’s, grandfather’s or
great-grandfather’s. To me, my name is my name, and if it had come from my
mother or my father, it doesn’t matter. It’s mine and I wouldn’t want to
give it up for the sake of an outdated tradition.
Secondly, it seems that you are in fact agreeing with me on your last point. You say marriage and relationships are about love and mutual
decision-making, which is exactly the point I was making in my article. My
husband and I came to our decision together, and I would want men and women
the world over to adopt this practice. I don’t believe ownership is
relevant either, so while I still appreciate heritage and family lines, I
don’t see why the male line is more important socially than the female. Why
can’t we have either? Both? A mix of the two? In an age so
technologically advanced as ours where tracing family trees can be done at
the click of a button, the argument that keeping the male line going for the
sake of future generations is both absurd and a bit pointless.
I’m glad you would discuss your future name with your spouse and reach a
mutual decision. I wish there were more men and women who felt the same as
we do.
Thank you again for your comments.
From eden smith
I just wanted to congratulate Ms Eleanor Turner on her article. I
personally have no need to make the decision. however I strongly
support any couple who at the very least think about what name they
go by and even more those who challenge the assumption that a males
name should be carried on. I read somewhere that in spain everyone
has two legal last names: one from their father (his father’s
father’s name etc) and one from their mother (her mother’s mother’s
name etc). That way a person is able to trace their family back on
their father’s paternal side and also on their mother’s maternal one.
It makes a lot more sense then our system.
From Mark Kuramoto-Headey
Ah Ms Turner. I congratulate you both. To say it’s a path less trod
is the understatement of the century. Despite so many people
complaining of the vast hoards of women keeping their own name, I
don’t see it. Even the non-romantic women in my office have eagerly
changed their surnames on marriage.
As you can see, when we got married, my wife and I hyphenated our
names. Actually, I wanted my wife to keep her own name, but she
wasn’t that keen; she wanted to take my name. The joint name was a
compromise. I confess, I haven’t got my passport changed, but we
have a bank account and bills in the joint name without the need for
a Deed Poll. I’ll be interested to see what the passport office will
make of my request when it comes.
I think perhaps women do often object more strongly than men when
meeting a woman who’s kept her birth name. My own theory is that
they think you’re passing a critical judgment on their choice and
react to justify it. In fact, I don’t think very many women DO think
seriously about it when they get married. There are still to many
silly romantic notions floating around.
From LL
Not a new but a well written piece on the subject. I did not change my
name r adopt the Mrs. prefix. Yet people do have problem and cards
constantly arrive addressed to Mr and Mrs. I think it does challenge
people’s preconceived ideas of how it is. But more importantly it
bucks the status quo and takes away people’s safety structures. I
think that provokes a bit of fear in them. They don’t see that it is
actually and insult to continue to call you by something you’ve
rejected.
I wonder if the author would have kept her name if the concept of the
name dying out had not arisen ?
Interesting point thought re the need to alter maiden name to
previous name.
From Ida
In response to the article about changing a name on marriage:
I recently got married and my husband and I have discussed at length
what our family name shall be. Neither of us feel the need to change
our names until children come along and then it looks now like we
will have a double-barrelled name. We would make up a new name but
are reticent to lose the history. I empathise with the author of the
article as I too have had (and will continue to have, no doubt)
varied and often negative reactions to our decision – not my
decision, our decision. People really do seem to find it hard to
believe that husbands may also feel the way some wives feel about the
name-change.
The whole wedding setup is shockingly steered towards the
disempowerment of women and the empowerment of men. When I was
researching traditions for our wedding, the most shocking of all was
that should the engagement be broken, that the implication should be
made that it was the woman who called it off, not the man. Amazing,
just amazing. I wore no engagement ring, I was not given away from
one man to another, I did not cover myself in a veil… my husband
and I walked up the aisle together, symbolising our arrival at this
point in our lives together.
Weddings, marriage and family commitments appear to still have a some
way to go before they are equally respectful of both sexes.
From Emma Hadfield
In response to the article ‘A Bride by Any Other Name’. I have very
similar views on this area. I come from a very close family and my
name is therefore very important to me. I have had countless
discussions/arguments with friends and family regarding the fact that
should I choose to marry in the future I will be keeping my name as to
lose it would, to me, feel like losing my strong identity and being
forced to take on another. One friend’s argument in response to mine
was that it was tradition and therefore the woman should take on the
man’s name and I just couldn’t make her understand that this was the
same tradition where women don’t work, have babies and are submissive
to their husbands. However, I have a male friend who is due to get
married in June and he is taking on his partner’s name. He agrees
with me in that his girlfriend comes from a close family and he on
the otherhand does not get along with most of his family. He
therefore feels no loyalty to his own name and understands how she
would want to keep her family name going. Highly commended I thought
as not many men think the same. I found it also interesting to read
in your article the difficulty involved in a man changing his name.
I was not aware this was the case and this angers me, highlighting
just another case of inequality in our society today.
From Bea Valle
Re: Rape – is it our fault?: This article is spot-on, a very clever and accurate analysis of the
assumptions on the thorny issue of rape in British society today.
More and more misinformation about rape is being made available in
the last couple of years on TV, radio and papers, however the focus
always seems to be the wrong one. It is depressing that people only
pay attention to things like men who are wrongly convicted for rape,
a number which is statistically insignificant. But issues like the
low conviction rate and this ill-advised campaigns are sidestepped.
From Violet Greaves
Exactly right. Women are being denied the right to live lives without
fear and men are being portrayed as potential
rapists/abusers/murderers unless women handle them by behaving
appropriately. Men and women need to work together to address these
attitudes that constrain both genders.
From Jaq Halogen
In response to your: “Rape – is it our fault?” feature, i’d have to
say that in most of your points, i’m in complete agreement. however,
when you mentioned domestic abuse i was a bit confused as to its
relevance to the rest of the piece.
the issue with many cases of
domestic abuse, as i understand it, is that many women are either
afraid or unwilling to report/press charges against the offenders for
a variety of reasons. that, as i understand it, is why there is so
much information on how to protect yourself if you’re a victim of
domestic abuse.
i’d also like to add that while advice to women on
how to protect themselves against rape, i.e. learning self-defense
and not leaving drinks unattended, is good i feel, as it can help
prevent some rapes, but i completely agree that all the blame should
be placed upon the perpetrators of the rape and not upon the victims.
this idea that women can somehow be held accountable for their own
rapes is such a ludicrous idea that it’s proponents can hardly be
taken seriously.
as a man myself, i’ve never believed that rape is
something that can be forgiven, no matter what substances have been
imbibed by either party. all my life i’ve had the belief that there
is no drug, recreational of otherwise, that makes someone do anything
they wouldn’t, if they knew there wouldn’t be consequences. all drugs
will do is cause you to disregard any longterm damage your actions
may cause. thus, a man who thinks rape is pretty okay, if only other
people would shut up about it, once drunk or otherwise, would still
be tha same man, and thus still completely responsible for his
actions. anyway, sorry for rambling at you, but i really liked it.
Dwysan Edwards, author of the article, replies
Thanks for your response and for taking the time to give your opinion, I certainly don’t look at it as rambling! Always good to hear a different side/point of view, keeps us all on our toes!
With reference to your point about domestic abuse, I take that on board in a minority of cases, however after working with survivors of domestic abuse for a number of years, I feel strongly that the onus for the woman to report the crime, leave the family house, change their whole life or to lock themselves in a room in their house is far from a solution.
Every three days a woman is killed by a partner or former partner in this country. I think it would be much more positive and beneficial to focus on perpetrators of domestic abuse, which is still heavily male-dominated. Some work is being done in schools now to educate girls and boys on gender issues, and I believe firmly that more money and work needs to be done in schools to enable boys and girls to grow up with a healthy respect for one another.
Boys are still growing up feeling superior and stronger to girls and it’s staggering that something like 75% of girls think its OK for a boy to hit them if they kissed someone else!
More work also still needs to be done with the legal system to enable women to report these crimes and to be taken seriously and also for some real consequences to these actions. Almost every woman I’ve supported, even the worst cases, I can count on one hand how many of the men have received a custodial sentence. Although jail may not solve the problems, the lack of consequence to treating people in this way can be no deterrent.
From Girish Sethna
Dwysan Edwards is right (Rape – is it our fault?) there seems to be a
widespread idea that if a woman is raped it’s something she could
have avoided. Rather than something the rapist could have avoided
doing.
Rape is bullying. If bullying is unacceptable behaviour, then so is
rape.
But there is still a distinct anti-women, sexist portrayal of women
in both advertising and in such tv programmes as CSI: This is not an
issue of women taking a stand tho’. It’s an issue of society as a
whole making the bullying and degradation of women BECAUSE of their
gender, unacceptable. An issue for both men and women universally.
The de-sexualisation of images/words around women in the media is
also necessary.
From Eighmie
I agree with you, women should be allowed to go anywhere, dressed
anyway they please, at whatever time of day or night. I think that
suggesting that a woman needs to keep her wits about her and
maintain presence of mind because there are bad people in this world
, and suggesting otherwise is foolish and simple-minded.
From varrie murray
It seems strange that so much emphasis is placed upon dress and
alchohol consumtion when realisticly the majority of rape victims are
just going around their day to day business,fully clothed and not
under the influence of drugs or alcohol? should we maby also stop
walking our dogs?
From Laura
Re: A hairy dilemma: I feel your pain, though not to your extent. I’ve written about the
same subject in my online diaries over the years. I let my leg hair
grow out for a few months this year, and then tried waxing for the
second time to see if it worked any better this time around. It
didn’t. I’m back to the old routine of shaving and plucking. It
really disturbs me that women are unsexy if they’re hairy, even
though hair is a sign of sexual maturity. It’s like men secretly
only want prepubescent girls, and women have all convinced themselves
that they like it much better looking like one. The response to Julia
Roberts hairy armpits was freakishly loud and critical. Even men, to
a much MUCH smaller extent, are starting to feel self-conscious if
they’re too hairy. It makes me want to shout to everyone, why are we
doing this to ourselves?! Why are we all as a society going mad over
such an inconsequential thing? As if we don’t have enough to worry
about already!
From Rebecca Meakin
I am hairy and proud! I get mocked. Mostly by women at clubs. But
truthfully my not shaving seems to actually be a male magnet in
Hartford, CT. I get so many “not shaving is hot” comments that I
really am not sure what the heck to think. I mean constantly being
told by the media that it’s gross but my real life experience
definitely speaks differently to me anecdotally any way.
From Kitty Chronic
I really enjoyed this article, and must admit i also found it
baffling.
Of course, like most other women, I started shaving leg and arm-pit
hair off during my early teens, plucking my eyebrows in my late
teens, and at one point became so obsessive (a general
obsessive-compulsive characteristic that still lingers in some forms)
I would even pluck the tiny invisible-to-all-but-me hairs out of the
backs of my fingers.
But for a good few years now i have completely stopped removing body
hair, using deodorant and hair products, and so on – and now can’t
for the life of me think why i ever bothered.
Ms Chaplin’s description of the lengths to which women go to remove
body hair, and the reaction of others to those who don’t, struck me
first as a funny joke; then i had a blimey-it’s-true-but-why moment;
and now i’ve remembered that, actually, i’m the odd one here and am
therefore trying to remember how and why i stopped in the first
place, not being a person of exceptional self-esteem or confidence.
From Adey
My Grrl fiend sent me a link to this ’cause she new i’d be interested.
She also told me that she’d posted a comment but i’ve not looked at it
yet. She is much hairier than me in various places and i don’t find it
in the least bit unattractive. She is mixed race, half Indian, so has
more hair on her face than a white woman may have and i think it’s
lovely, she also has way hairier armpits than i have. hairy women of
the world unite, not all us men need a hair fetish to know that hair
is fine. great article by the way.
From Irina
I honestly have no idea what I could say to the
author, I don’t think I am in the position to advise.
I detest the pressure to cause yourself pain by waxing and I never
waxed. I say to anybody in a conversation about beauty treatments
that I would never wax even if I was paid to go through it. Nobody
ever called me a witch for that, though. But i agree, the pressure is
there, but I still would urge you all to think: to which extent is it
the inner pressure? Maybe you are afraid of your hair more than the
rest of the world.
I may be hairless comparing to other women, true, but on several
occasions in winter, when i NEVER remove hair on legs, i went to
swimming pool and nobody said anything or sniggered. Or in the gym,
when i exercise in shorts. They have other things to notice and think
about, believe me. or try it yourself. And be prepared to say “none of
your fucking business, do mind your own beer gut!” – the world won’t
collapse.
In my own dealings with those lanky fluff that I have got i draw the
line at pain. Waxing is out, as I said. Depilatory cream is what i
use, but again only in summer and I don’t worry if there is some
stubble. If they stop producing depilatory cream and try forcing
“waxing virgins” into exciting world of pain and self-mutilation, I’d
be the first to go aggressively hairy.
I thought for a while: is getting rid of my hair leg making me less
of a feminist? I still don’t have a clear answer, it’s more like an
opportunistic compromise :)
From Jon Lawrence
Re: 300 Spartans and one strong broad: I thought Rosamund Urwin’s review of 300 was excellent. While I had
heard negativity directed towards the film, this review highlighted
this, and also some of the movies points more on the positive side.
Its hasn’t changed my mind entirely on the movie itself and whether
to watch it or not. However it was still very enjoyable to read what I
considered a very unbiased review. Good work.
From Nancy
Re: What women (don’t) want: You guys seem to have missed something very simple as to the style and
writing at Jezebel. It’s funny, it’s ironic and it is not meant to be
taken so seriously. You simply have over-looked the fact that women
should be able to laugh at the sterotypes as they prove them false.
If it wasn’t for humor and jest in this world life would not be worth
living. Perhaps you should consider taking things more lightly before
you blast a site that is at once entertaining and relevant in this day
and age.
From Doug Henwood
Just read your comments on Jezebel. Holy shit, some feminists really
don’t have a sense of humor. I always thought that was a cheap slur
appropriate to the likes of Katie Roiphe, but I might have to
reconsider now.
From Eliza Mulcahy
If Kate Smurthwaite had taken the time to read the “Jezebel
Manifesto,” she might not have taken such a ridiculous stance on the
new blog.
From the “Manifesto”:
“Jezebel is a blog for women that will attempt to take all the
essentially meaningless but sweet stuff directed our way and give it
a little more meaning, while taking more the serious stuff and making
it more fun, or more personal, or at the very least the subject of our
highly sophisticated brand of sex joke.”
They’re not interested in providing in-depth analysis on Ann Heche’s
divorce, and I don’t think readers are going to Jezebel to hear it.
Smurthwaite seems to assume that any feminism-inspired blog has to
stick to her own brand of feminism, one which not everyone may enjoy.
Celebrity gossip is a large part of our culture, and as such, we have
many blogs about it. We do not, however, have many humorous feminist
outlooks on the matter. I enjoy Jezebel because of it’s subtle sass.
I’m saddened that Smurthwaite cannot understand the humor in “We
thought feminism was supposed to be straightforward,” or “Guess those
fake breasts paid off!”
Her responses to the quotes (which are, of course, taken out of
context) are generally summaries of the ideas Jezebel was trying to
get across (“Since when was cosmetic surgery a business plan?”).
Smurthwaite’s final response, however, was the most hysterical. In
reference [ t o ] : “We thought feminism was supposed to be
straightforward,” she replied, “Who told you that? It’s as
diverse as, erm, the women who definitely WON’T be reading your
stupid website!” This one sentence is dripping with so much irony
and hypocrisy, I found myself laughing aloud. It’s apparent she
missed the sarcasm in Jezebel’s remark, but to angrily reply that
feminism is diverse – oh, that takes the cake. Your entire piece
was raving about how wrong Jezebel’s take on feminism is, yet you
decide to lecture them on the complexity of feminism.
I quite enjoy reading feminist analyses of the cultural affect
celebrity relationships have on society, but I get plenty of that. I
read Jezebel for the intelligent sarcasm and subtle humor. It’s too
bad that Jezebel is just too clever for Kate Smurthwaite.
From Katie
I just read the blog jezebel for the first time today after having
tracked gawker for several months. The article one of your writers
posted on jezebel fails to understand both blogs. The point of these
sites is to consistently and without exception put comedy first. They
sacrifice any and everything for a joke; every cause is subject to
“the funny”. That’s what makes them such great readers of culture.
Comedy may not show us what we like and it certainly may not show us
the world the way we would like it to be, but it shows us the truth
that had previously been left unsaid. Sure, it is politics job to
imagine or show us a possible and desirable world, but not all
writing need or should fulfill politic’s task (that’s ITS job).
Jezebel reveals through comedy the ugly truth about women, females
and femininity in American culture today. That said, it is not
written for readers who unproblematically identify with those roles.
I think your writer underestimates or is naive of the massive
subculture of Americans (of all genders, sexualities, races, classes,
etc.) that identify ironically and only ironically. This subculture
along with many of gawker and jezebel’s readers reside in
metropolitan areas where individualism, self-importance, literacy,
ironic detachment, performativity and that charming brand of youthful
irresponsibility that passes as “carefree”, are encouraged. Hence, the
Nebraska joke–“Nebraska (a state.)”–does not poke fun at stupidity
or geographic illiteracy as your writer implied, but at the ironic
“knowledge” of many middle class metropolitan Americans that the
world doesn’t exist between the Manhattan and Santa Monica (save some
oases like Las Vegas and Austin,TX etc.). If feminism is to survive
itself in an era increasingly and worryingly accepted to be
“post-feminist”, its champions will have to be able to distinguish
the nuances in these sorts of dialogue across cultural differences.
Your writer seemed to be reading a language s/he did not speak whilst
thinking her/himself to be fluent.
From Amanda
Are you entirely without a sense of humor? The excerpts from the blog
Jezebel were very clearly meant as ironic commentary. It strikes me
as absurd that anyone of reasonable intelligence who has actually
read the blog (or Gawker, for that matter) with any sort of care
would understand the comments in any sense other than this.
From maria
Why don’t you get a sense of humor, and then go back to the blog.
Maybe then you’ll realize it’s supposed to be satirical.
Feminists who can never see the sense of humor in anything give other
feminists a bad reputation. It’s OK to laugh!
From lizzie
Um, your author completely missed the sarcasm. The phrase, “Nebraska
(a state)” and a reference to “his vagina” and “where it is coming
from” where two fo the funniest things I have read ina while. The
whole website is a completely sarcastic and wonderfully twisted look
at celebrity culture for women who, like me, are way too interested,
realize the interest is unhealthy, indulge it anyway, but laugh at
the whole thing.
You missed the joke. Which is funny in itself, in a post-modern way.
Actually, the first time I read it, I thought you were doign some
sort of ironic commentary, especially given that you picked the best
quotes. But I have been assured that you were, in fact, serious. So,
in all seriousness, maybe give it another read, recognizing that the
entire thing is sarcasm. K’ bai ;) (see, see what I did there, more
sarcasm. It was funny, right? Right? You know you looove me :)
Kate Smurthwaite, guest blogger for The F-Word, replies
Interesting that we had so many comments on this one. And oddly I had several emails and comments on my own blog from people saying “I’m not an employee of Jezebel but…”. I am certain that at least a fair chunk of the comments are from one group of people who either work there or are friends of those who do.
That said – the two main points see to be:
1) Jezebel isn’t like other women’s magazines.
I agree, it’s not, but that doesn’t make it good does it. That’s like saying if OK magazine is awful because of its adoration of irrelevant celebrities then HEAT magazine, which focuses on bitching about the same celebrities, must be good. They can both be bad. Good for a women’s magazine, online or otherwise, would be coverage of women’s political issues, interviews with positive female role-models, etc.
2) It’s supposed to be funny.
This may be, but (a) it didn’t make me laugh much and (b) the only joke I can find on there seems to be “we should really know better but let’s play along with misogynist stereotypes anyway”.
If you want an online, lighter-reading blog for women, I recommend Dollymix.
From Tony
Re: Pass the bucket…: “Is it easier to “be a feminist” when you’re doing well
financially? Definitely. For starters there is a poverty line below
which idealism simply doesn’t exist, there’s a point where all a
person cares about or can care about is how to get enough food,
water, shelter and medicine to survive the next 24 hours. People
below that line may be feminists but they certainly can’t afford to
be activists. By the same token you’d need to be above that line to
be an activist for any cause — socialism, environmentalism or even
the anti-women’s movement. If you can’t afford pens and paper,
you can’t write your manifesto.”
Sounds as though “feminism” here is being defined in a middle class
way. But why should feminism be about idealism? Why can’t it be about
the pragmatic issues like “how to get enough food, water, shelter and
medicine to survive the next 24 hours”. Aren’t these feminist issues?
Or do you rule out the majority of women by suggesting that you have
to be a middle class idealist activist? And what here constitutes
“activism”? Writing a manifesto? Sounds again as though you’re
writing for a minority.
Kate Smurthwaite, guest blogger for The F-Word, replies
Being a feminist can only (as far as I can see) be about two things: what you believe and what you do. I’m not sure how it can be about how you feed your family other than in respect of those two things.
Now, as far as what you believe – there are two sides to the coin. On the one hand, access to better education may raise the likelihood that you understand the situation well enough to inform your beliefs. On the other hand, being close to grass-roots issues may give you a perspective on those issues that enables a deeper belief, because it has such a strong impact on your own life and those you care about. So in that sense you could argue that those closest to the harshest effects of global misogyny are “more feminist” than those of us cosseted in our nice middle class homes.
As far as what you do goes – I think action has to come from those further up the chain. We can’t sit here, in relative comfort, and expect those who have nothing to be prepared to throw away their next meal for the cause. When you’re right on the breadline you will do whatever it takes to get food on the table, whether that conforms to your ideals or not, you’ll just do it. Having the economic power to chose what you do is a pre-requisite for chosing to do something that furthers the cause of women. And the more free time and free resources you have, the more you are able to do for the cause. So in that sense the reverse is true, us middle-class types are capable of contributing more to the movement and thus being “more feminist”.
And, of course, it’s not really a competition to see who can be the most feminist. The idea actually is for us all to work together, so those who face the daily struggle for basic commodities and understand how important that is need those who don’t face that struggle to help them both practically and by raising awareness.
From Gloria
Re: Johnson goes ahead with books for boys plan: Many ‘typical’ boys books were
ones I loved as a child – Just William, Robinson Crusoe, Dahl’s ‘Boy’
featured in your blog article. But I am pretty shocked at the
inclusion of H Ridder Haggard – King Solomon’s Mines is not only
misogynist, it is also deeply problematic in racial terms. There’s
also a really terrible bit where the Explorer penetrates the heart of
the diamond country by going between two hills called ‘Sheba’s
Breasts’ and down to a cave…. *rants on in Freudian-inflected
English student way*….
From Emily
Re: An unlikely anti-depressant?: I found your response to the report into the link between low levels
of depression and exposure to semen, a little disingenuous. The
report was based on scientific findings it is not for Gallup to put a
social twist on them. I have read other similar reports and another
interpretation is that women are not a monogamous as they are often
portrayed to be . Alternatively that women in a happy and settled
exclusive relationship (in which they use a non-barrier method of
contraception) are less depressed? Neither of which is exactly
damming is it?
From Heather Corinna
Re: Scarleteen sex book: Just wanted to send Laura a thank you for the mention of S.E.X. today.
So, thanks!
I also thought I’d let her know that the section on pornography is a
good deal more involved in the book. Hanne Blank penned the article
at scarleteen.com, and while in general, our opinions are pretty
in-line, I draw a bit of a harder line when it comes to presenting
porn, and did give some airtime to discussion on the exploitation of
the industry, as well as how — particularly violent — porn can have
ill effects for people.
Again, though, just a thanks. It’s exceptionally nice when people
really start responding to the need for feminist sexual education, so
it was a day-maker.
From Amanda Chorley
Re: The best way to beat objectification – do it yourself…: I actually own the “petite salope” necklace and was wearing it while
reading your comment on the website. I knew the little slut part but
I actually prefer the translation as “little bitch” so I might use
that instead! While you may say I can’t be feminist by using these
terms about myself, I say I have reclaimed these terms and thus they
no longer have the power to hurt me. I stand up for myself, am not
afraid to give my opinion – however unpopular it may be-, and I’m
not worried about offending male sensibilites. Many people would
therefore consider me a bitch. Oh I also love fucking and I’m not
afraid to talk about it. Slut? A lot of people would say yes. Do I
care? Not really. And I am most definitely a feminist.
While I wouldn’t wear some of the items (“will fuck for shoes”, “i
love porn”) I do appreciate the asthetic. I absolutely love kitsch,
especially when it is mixed with “unfeminine” ideals. In my eyes this
is just the same as SubversiveCrossStitch.com (which I love). A lot of
traditionally feminine crafts are looked down upon, for no reason
other than they are what women have traditionally done. This is about
taking them back, and simultaneously rejecting what it means to be
feminine (sweet, chaste, pure etc).
From Jack Pandemian
I agree with your post about Locher’s, but in their defence they do
have a quite splendid t-shirt saying ‘I hate children’ which I covet
with all my heart.
From Padmalatha
My comment on the post – Israel’s segregated buses
I am from Bangalore, India. We have been fighting for our space in
public transports for ages! Even though the state governments had
allocated a certain number of seats for women they were always
occupied by men. I remember as a child my mother fighting with the
men for the seats. These days it is better because the authorities
are actually on your side in this. I personally find this very
relieving since this keeps the women away from groping and staring
men (well mostly atleast) These days we also have ladies’ special
buses too. We have long had separate compartments for women on
trains. I find the system in favour of women and not against.
Jess McCabe, editor of The F-Word, replies
Thank you for your comment – I would agree with you, there are circumstances where women’s compartments are a good thing.
But I don’t think this is one of those times. I think that the fact that a woman was viciously beaten up when she refused to sit in the women’s section of the bus illustrates that the system isn’t put in place as a choice for women who don’t want to be groped!
From Padmalatha
That I agree with. Here too we’ve had men shout at women for sitting in men’s seats. And he believes he is right by doing so since women did the same years ago!
While this segregation can be a good starting point it cannot be the solution since it will only lead to situations like you mentioned.
I just stumbled upon your website. And I must say it is very interesting and exciting to see feminist thoughts from across the world in one place.
From edi
Regarding mini-skirt ban. To clarify something: ‘Spiegel reports that
prostitution is actually legal in Poland’. It is simply a nonsense.
Prostitution in contrast to Germany is illegal i Poland. That’s the
case!
From Sarah
Re: Any lawyers out there?: I was delighted to see comment on today’s comments by the Scottish
Cardinal. As a Catholic woman I have serious issues with the church
on a number of matters relating to the treatment of women. I also
believe, as the author of this piece, that the church and the
government are separate and MPs ultimately represents the people who
elected them – on the messages they gave out at the time of
election.
I was disappointed however with the final paragraph of the item,
particularly the following:
“Why are we taking advice on morality issues from a man who eats
what he genuinely believes to be human flesh at least once a week?
And why are we giving any media coverage or prestige at all to a man
who dresses like an extra from Harry Potter World?”
The first sentence either shows a basic lack of understanding of
Catholic doctrine or the author does understand it and chooses to
ignore it – either way I find it insulting to my religion for this to
be quoted as a morality issue.
And the second comment I find frankly ridiculous – it smacks of ‘if
you can’t think of anything sensible to say then a cheap laugh will
do’. I believe it is comments like this which allow those against
the feminist movement to then disregard the rest of the piece which
was intelligent, well argued and relevant.
Kate Smurthwaite, guest blogger at The F-Word, replies
To me the threat of religion is that things are held to be “doctrine” rather than “opinion”. We are to accept “doctrine” blindly and unquestioningly. So next week, if a priest tells you “gay people should be burnt” – will you accept that too as “doctrine”? Personally I choose to question everything. To me the obvious question is “if this is human flesh, should i be eating it?”.
And my final point is a joke, yes, well spotted. I thought it was a rather good one what with the link and all. Those who are not too busy pointing out how jokes ruin all the good points feminism makes are usually occupied complaining that feminists take themselves too seriously and don’t have a laugh. As you will note from my blog and from my intro blurb when I started guest-posting on The F-Word – I am both a feminist and a stand-up comic, so I consider it my job to fill both roles.
From Sarah
I think that the role of women in religion is important and should be openly discussed more – many people are afraid to tackle this subject.
I just wanted to say that with regards to doctrine there is a clear difference between the ‘God / faith’ aspects of Catholicism – i.e. that which makes us Catholic, including the beliefs about communion – and the ‘Church’ aspects. Catholics do not have to accept anything that any priest says to them. I feel quite comfortable questioning many aspects of church teachings – including attitudes to women, homosexuality, family planning etc.
Over my life time I have been told what I believe more by non-Catholics than by the Catholic church. People can be very quick to say ‘because you’re a Catholic you think that….’. If I believed everything the church told me I would not be a feminist – but I am – and I choose to challenge the church and remain a Catholic. I believe women should be encouraged to embrace, question or reject any faith they choose to – and then be supported in addressing oppressive aspects of that faith.
And on your last point – you are very funny and I love reading your work – keep up the good work!!
Kate Smurthwaite, guest blogger at The F-Word, replies
I guess we shall have to agree to differ there. I think women (and even silly old men) should be encouraged to realise that we don’t all have an imaginary friend in the sky! I think the vast mountain of scientific evidence points to this and that once we’ve accepted it we have much more freedom to live our lives as we choose to. We don’t have to address the oppressive aspects of faiths, we can just rise above all that and get on with addressing the problems we face in our regular lives.
If you accept one part of a doctrine and not the rest – isn’t that like saying “I believe in an all-powerful being, but I think there are some typos in the book he made and/or he may not have chosen the best people to translate or interpret it”? Atheists moan a great deal about creationists, but I am always amused by religious people who say :I don’t believe in creationism”, but then do believe in other “miracles” like the existence of heaven, virgin birth, rising from the dead, lakes of sulphur, etc. If you’re going to accept one you might as well go the whole hog!
From sian
Re: Could Britney Spears be the feminist icon of our generation?i like this article. i agree with a lot of it. the same thing kind of
happened to kate moss, whre male stars are heroes for drug use, women
are vilified. and the haircut thing is totally true, there is nothing
crazy about short hair! but perhaps we should be careful in
suggesting that getting pissed with no pants on and sleeping around
is an empowering feminist experience. women should be able to do as
they choose, sleep with who they want to and not be shouted at as a
slut for it, if there is one thing i hate it is sexual double
standards, but perhaps sometimes that behaviour is self destructive.
it is a tricky balance.
From Eldridge cleaver
There is nothing the least bit empowering about cracking under the
strain of a career in which sleazy record execs make you into an
object.
From Jan Hunt
Britney is a product of LA advertising and marketing. It is hard to
know who “Britney” is as a human being. I am sure that she has her
issues like most human beings. Her issues, however, are distorted and
commercialised for her financial benefit as well as that of many
investers.
Don’t get too excited about trying to unravel, understand, decompose
or dissect “Britney”.
From Kavn
This is in response to the article Hair today, mad tomorrow by
Nichi Hodgson
Great work. Nice to see new perspectives on female baldness… In the
Indian context, a widow is supposed to shave her head (as one of her
many distinguishing marks) and this is to prevent her from seeming
attractive as traditions oppose widow remarriage here (but not for
widowers). Men (who are not naturally bald) are also to do the same
on the death of a parent…
From Omar Iturbe
I have met many women who feel offended by sin city, an i found your
article very interesting. However, i believe all that comes precisely
from all that “tit and ass” on display that you mention. It makes woen
very uncomfortable and keeps them from having a centered judgement. I
believe the whole movie is about tough guys who give everything they
have to help women, and the only characters with real power in the
movie (other than corrupt politicians) are specifically women. Two of
the most important characters get killed for helping a woman and the
most deadly killer is indeed a woman. The women in “old town” are so
organised that even cops fear them, so the only problem here is the
distinctive portrayal of sexual roles and of course the vast exposure
of the female body. That generates an emotional disgust in many
feminist oriented women, and keeps them from being able to watch the
movie from a centered, sensible point of view.
From Karen James
Re: Taboo for who?: Although I think Karen Allen’s article ‘Taboo For Who’ is very
intelligent and well-thought out – she actually hasn’t got the
original origins of the term ‘cunt’ quite right.
Cunt originally was the technical – and quite proper – term used for
the female genitalia since before the Romans invaded Britain. In
those times, the main religion in this country was paganism/wicca.
Since these religions were as much about worship of the female as the
male – the word cunt’s true meaning was in fact ‘goddess’ or ‘high
priestess’. These were the names used for women in the highest ranks
of the pagan/wiccian religions – they still are today.
This means that the only true meaning of the word ‘cunt’ is the
highest honour for a woman and I enjoy explaining this to women who
cringe at the word, in the hope that I will empower them. Women who
feel this word to be a slur clearly don’t know about their heritage
(in fact – where are the women’s heritage lessons on the national
curriculum?!).
The Romans at this time were mainly all Christians and patriarchal –
they actually invaded Britain and brought Christianity with them.
Since they were a male-oriented society they did not like the
‘free-thinking’ women of Britain and so began a campaign of extreme
force to ensure that Christianity took hold – and any dissenting men
or women were considered ‘witches’ – hence this beagn what later
became the witch hunts and the burning of witches.
They also downgraded anything female by demonising such terms as
‘cunt’ – and as the centuries have passed, patriarchy has taken over
to do the rest.
Please be assured that I do not wish to offend anyone who is a
Christian – I am merely trying to explain where the term cunt really
comes from.
And not to be simplistic about men (or women) who call women cunts in
a defamatory way – because I realize for many women that this is a
horrible experience – but every time a man tries to use this most
ultimate of “insults” on me, I now say “Wow! Good grief – THANKS”!!!
It’s very nice to be called a goddess!!!
From Jan Hunt
The impact of words depends upon the social context within which the
word is constructed. Whether Cunt, Fuck, Dick etc are taboo or passe
depends upon the iconography and the social context surrounding the
words. Cunt may have been a well accepted social descriptor 1500
years ago but may be a derogatory term in current times. The power
of the word is part personal choice and part historical context.
Perhaps in the future the word “nose” will be derogatory. It depends
upon how society, norms and language develops.
In the meantime, best wishes and best fun with the use or application
of your favoured word “fuck” which I understand derives from the Latin
“fukare”.
From Tanya Moir
Re: Dysfunctional, moi? The myth of female sexual dysfunction and its medicalisation: Jennifer Drew, THANK YOU. I have been waiting for someone to write
this article.
From Rebecca
Words of Encourgement and Praise:
Dear Author of ‘Dsyfunctional, Moi…?’
What a brave and wonderful article, I admire your strength and focus
on this incredibly important and relevant topic. I wonder though, how
‘modern life’ filled with stress and ‘time’ impacts upon your
argument?
From Anastasia Filippova
Re: Don’t cha wish pop was more empowering?: Hello! I’m a singer/songwriter, and I’m completely against this image
that women represent in music…and let’s be honest – most music
stars dress skanky!! But it’s always women – do you ever see men
running around in underwear in their music videos? Ok..maybe once!
Women act like they ‘love’ music, but really they are willing to do
anything for fame, and that’s what they love. I almost fell off my
chair when I found out there was a ‘Pussycat Doll Search” for member
#6 – one of my co-workers came up to me and asked me if I’d like to
participate in the competition. Of course I refused, and I had so
many people say: IT’s such a good opportunity, just go and get famous
with it….aaa…no thanks! So anyway:). Thanks for writing the
article – you’re only 21, and the article was sooo good!
From Guy List
Re: Hairy Women: Having just read the hairy women article commented by Lindsay i just
had to write in and say Bravo! You summed people’s attitudes towards
this subject up to a T and i fully endorse what you had to say.
I would consider myself a real mans man by most people’s standards
having been a Soldier,Doorman and now having been a Stuntman for the
last 15 yrs in the Film Industry. I feel todays obsession with body
hair removal for Women has just gone to far and is inherantly
un-healthy-my friends think im sick because i prefer the natural
look-how wrong is that!! Liking a Bald Vagina that looks like a 10
year old girl is ok though(not). What’s the world becoming when natural
is considered un-natural. Keep growing it ladys, you have my full
support and admiration and there are some REAL MEN out there that
actually like it.
From John Burridge
I’d like to applaud Abbey O’Reilly for her article Flicking the
bean. This was positive feminism, promoting women’s sexual needs
instead of condemning men’s. A breath of fresh air after all those
articles/comments moaning about ‘sexual objectification’ etc.
From God
My contribution to your insane male excluding forum is simply this;
today with pregnancy it is possible to determine the gender of your
child – please, for the sake of a male offspring and his life of
guilt and feminazi indoctrination DO NOT have a boy!
From Bloke
From what I can see feminism is a pathetic need for attention. Well
here\\\’s mine: you\\\’re all sad wenches with nothing better to do
with your time than attempt to belittle men and somehow define
yourselves as morally superior. You should be ashamed of your
right-wing hypocritical views on life and actually do something
constructive with your time than try and post the blame for all of
society\\\’s problems on the male populous.
Jess McCabe, editor of The F-Word, replies
Included because this is the first time I’ve heard feminism being derided for being too right wing, and it amused me. As did “Bloke’s” inability to master punctuation.
From Jillian Smith
I’m having real problems with the fact that there doesn’t seem to be
a UK based organisation like the US NOW.
Why is it that british feminists cannot seem to organise themsleves
to be a real political influence?
Am I missing something or are the Brits too comsumed by our
differences to stand together for what we all believe in?
From Tyrone
Re: The Pursuit of Happyness: read the book. I didn’t like the movie either, but not for the
reasons you suggest. You would get a lot more insight into the life
of Chris Gardner and the sruggles he faced growing up. The Movie is
grossly inacurate.
From Jay
How you seem to critisize the actual plot of the film, makes me think
how seriously you took that it was based on a true story. I just want
to remind you that it was, the only difference from the true
experience to the film is the time scale. Apparantly the real Chris
went through the hardships over a longer time period. So just dont
hate the film because of the story, because, well.. It’s true.
From Sam
Re: The mechanics of femininity: seriously, why get bothered by this? this guy is a car mechanic, a
manual form of employment rather than academic. Men only act this way
because really they have their own insecurities and wouldn’t want them
to be undermined by a woman, making them feel worse. Additionally, I
don’t know about the USA but in the UK where I am from, we have
insurance companies for women only because it is proven they are
safer drivers. Educated people do not judge others equally as
educated; ignorant men judge women and ignorant women allow
themselves to be judged. This is not meant to be judgmental I just
think its more important to rise above such ignorant people. If they
are narrow minded enough to say such things, then they will not have
the intelligence to be anywhere other than in the car garage… we
have many other opportunities on front of us.
From Julio Emprema
Re: Why men suck (and the women who have to): Men use (ostensibly young) prostitutes because they don’t want to have
sex with middle-aged or older women. There really is nothiing more to
it than that. Also, you don’t pay prostitutes for sex. You pay them
to go away.
From me, myself, I
Re: Men in feminism: I’m an American man. I make the distinction only because I’ve never
been abroad and have no idea what it’s like across the pond.
In my experience, men shy away from feminism because more often than
not we are not allowed to disagree on anything without being labeled
as threatened, dismissive, or chauvinistic and sent packing.
It seems that unless a man is submissive, he’s overbearing.
I’ve attempted to dialogue with feminists about this and only had my
questions and point of view evaded with the tactics previously
mentioned.
Both sides must be willing to listen and consider the other’s
argument as a starting point from which we move forward to
understanding, and eventually, hopefully, to consensus.
Peace, Love, Rock n’ Roll
From caitlin o’sullivan
Re: Fairy tales are Grimm: there are
a few points that i would like to make with regards to this.
She discusses the ‘prince charming’ effect of fairy tales though i
would like to point out that initially some of those well known fairy
tales (including cinderella) were written in france in the 17th
century in salons (high class womens living rooms) where women, and
men sympathetic to their cause, would meet and discuss the politics
of the day. The creation of these stories were a type of parlor game
where old folk tales were remastered. These were used as a way of
criticising the society they grew up in, where women were opressed
and forced into arranged marriages etc, and were commonly about
bright women becoming powerful etc.
(www.endicott.studio.com/rdrm/forconte.html)
She also discusses the use of step-mothers causeing children
psychological damage by making them see their own parents as evil. In
‘the uses of enchatment: the meaning and importance of fairy tales’
Bettelheim argues that the idea of step parents allows children to
hate see their parents as someone else while they are being told off,
for example. This means that they do not feel guilty for these
feelings, which would create more conflict within the child. So that
instead of creatng psychological damage the fairy tales in fact helps
to ease the damage done by such conflicts.
I would also like to point out that when fairy tales were first
published the stories were about the beauty underneath. There are
tales of princes falling in love with a princess who was disguished
as a bear. He falls in love with her because of her inteligence and
understanding not her looks. A good well known example would be
beauty and the beast, where she falls in love with the beast not the
prince.
I do not believe that fairy tales should be irradicated i strongly
belive that they have a possitive effect on children.
From ur-mums-boobs
Re: Page 3 – ban it!: i think they should nit ban it because it is good and it makes me
hard!:)
From Joe
In response to your article about banning page 3 girls, Why? This
country is becoming a laughing stock over these politically correct
issues. These girls pose voluntarily, the people buy the paper
voluntarily. Why do you have an issue over this? May I remind you
that God created humans naked, man created clothes. I can only assume
that you are questioning God’s judgement because you are unhappy with
what you have, and need to cover yourself up and therefore are
jealous of others? Am I right?
From Jenn
Re: ‘Feminists are sexist’: Another good response to men who claim that women should do the job of
fighting male stereotyping is to look confused and ask “are you asking
me to do it because you don’t think you’re capable of it? I think you
are – and I think that assuming women should do it is itself
stereotyped. Do you want me to do your ironing too?”
From Girish Sethna
Re: The farmer wants a wife, the wife wants a wife: JC Sutcliffe, (The farmer wants a wife, the wife wants a wife) leaves
out one solution. Why don’t more mums train boys to do the
housework?
When my mother came to Britain from India she got a shock. No
servants to do the housework for her. She decided that when she had
kids, they would learn how to do the housework so that they would be
able to be fully independent. As a result, I learned early on to do
the housework. I had to take my turn in doing the ironing, hoovering,
dusting and such as a kid. She always had us helping her in the
kitchen so that we would learn to cook as well.
There is a homo-paranoia, mainly among men, but also backed up by
some women that sees men as being ‘unmanly’ if they do housework.
It’s as if men are expected to be untidy scruffy vulgarians, because
somehow only women ‘worry’ about such things as housework.
But men who live alone have to think about housework at some point.
That many of them do it until they have a female partner when it’s
left to her is unacceptable. But how many women say that and demand
it be shared?
From Frances Downey
Re: A bride by any other name: I have just read your very interesting article about changing
surnames when getting married and wanted to write to you for a few
reasons.
I am getting married next year and will not be changing my name. My
name is my name, I have had it all my life and I see absolutely no
reason why I should change it. My boyfriend would prefer me to take
his name but whenever he brings it up I always say “well why don’t
you change your name?”, which generally shuts him up. His family are
a bit dodgy about it but can’t really say anything to me and I am not
particularly bothered about what they think anyway.
But the real thing that struck me when I read your article was that
you are obviously a young vocal woman and you have got married. When
I announced I was getting married my mum went into total shock (she
has never been married) and I think a lot of my other friends were
quite shocked that I have decided to do this at a relatively young
age (25). Also, the only other people who I know who have got/are
getting married are quite traditional in their ideas of women in
marriage.
So it was lovely to read your article about your husband and yourself
having a completely equal perminent partnership.