Comments on last month’s features and reviews
From Kim
I read the ‘Glamour models made me sick’ article and empathised with
Hannah, I’ve never had a real problem with food but what goes through
my mind when seeing these model was spot on. I’ve no desire to be like
them, I wouldn’t want to waste my life doing what they do or even look
like them but there are periods where i feel (and i believe most girls
feel) inadequate, I know in my own heart there’s nothing wrong with me
as Hannah stated these girls ‘don’t have the awareness…’ but when I
see them I begin to feel insecure and start thinking that I ‘should’
have a flat stomach or I ‘should’ be thinner, when I know in my own
mind that it’s not important because who I am is the most important
thing. I sometimes confide in my older brother about how I feel I’m
unattractive and his reply is usually along the lines of “why do you
want spend your time worrying about how you look for men when the men
that are bothered because you haven’t got a flat stomache aren’t worth
being with?”. It’s true but when overhearing some conversations
between other young men I get so annoyed with the way women are still
spoken about like we’re objects and the way sex is still discussed in
unequal terms, it’s usually ‘she LET me do this to her’, when the
reason she ‘let’ you was most likely because she wanted to do it just
as much as you. I don’t believe men are fully to blame for women’s
unhealthy relationship with their body, the competition between women
upsets me more, even when girls are friends they seem to be happy if
they’re mate puts on a bit of weight or doesn’t look as good as she
normally does on a night out (obviously this doesn’t apply to all
girls). I just think that women are quick to judge each other when we
should be sticking together to help each other with these kinds of
problems not competing in the pointless struggle.
From Linsey DesCourier
Having read your article,I have had a huge wieght lifted off my
shoulders. I always believed I was being petty, small minded, vain
and jealous when I had similar thoughts to yours. I believed that no
one else in the world seemed to mind. Your account reminds me greatly
of my own experience in my mid-teens, the feelings of insecurity and
that my boyfriend would think I was a second rate woman because I was
not ‘beautiful’ like the airbrushed models. At 24 years of age I have
grown out of these thoughts as I, like yourself, have become a clear
thinking female with self respect that came about from having a mind
of my own and intelligence, amongst other attributes. I am now a
pilot and before that I was an aircraft engineer but it could very
easily have went wrong as my self worth was almost non exsistant in
my late teens when I was constantly bombarded with lads mags, sexist
newspapers, music videos, billboards, adverts…etc.
It pains me to think how many other young women who, in their most
tender years, are being greatly harmed by the vision of what a women
should be rather than being shown what women can be. I wish the world
would listen to young females who have been damaged by false
projections of how a women should be and start appreciating the
female as the individual intelligent person that she is.
From Lucy Griffin
Hannah Whittaker shows great strength of character and emotional
maturity in her article “Glamour Models Make Me Sick.” I would like
her to know that she isn’t alone, other women are going through the
same thing and other women are fighting just as intensely as she is
to make this world a better place. One day we will win this war, one
day we will be free and women won’t be pressured into posing for
naked photographs/films or prostituting themseleves. Keep going
Hannah!!
From Claire George
Good for you. I couldn’t agree more.
From Eveliina S
I loved the article about Glamour-models contributing to eating
disorders. I myself have been that girl throwing up her dinner and
comparing herself to irrational ideals, thankfully I’ve kicked the
habit since. The question the author posed, “Do they know how many
times my meal was eaten only to be thrown up again?” really hit home
for me. Thank you for speaking up, keep the site up – this is the one
resort I turn to when I come across double standards or downright
misogyny in my daily life. Don’t know where I’d be without you
ladies! Many thanks.
From Zoe
It’s generally accepted at the moment that eating disorders are
something you have a predisposition to. Don’t blame your condition on
girls who happen to enjoy exhibitionism. It’s not their fault either.
Nothing was forcing you to look at them either, you tracked them
down!
Just focus on getting better…
From Zoe Bidgood
Re: Against censorship: The problem with the porn industry is that it’s totally unbalanced.
It’s assumed to be for men and so it’s made by men.
Women are ashamed to come out as a market, so they sneakily get their
hands on what they can, even though it wasn’t made with them in mind
as an audience, so it’s not what it could be.
What porn needs is more women running it, and consuming it, not just
starring in it or watching it in secret.
Create a demand for better porn, ladies!
From Heidi
This is in response to Laurie Penny’s article Against Censorship. I
found myself agreeing with her wholeheartedly, until I came to this
snippet,
“Pornography that includes, for example, violent BDSM games, rape and
abuse fantasy or necrophilia – to over 18s, who would hopefully be
adult enough to explore valid kinks in a mature way that would ensure
that they remain fantasy.”
I am curious to know why Ms. Penny equates BDSM with rape, abuse, and
necrophilia. The difference is glaring: rape, abuse and necrophila
are about non-consensual sexual practices, but BDSM is practiced
under the mantra, “safe, sane, and CONSENSUAL”. So yes, there IS
violence in BDSM, but what makes it different is that it is FANTASY
violence, and the real-life practiioners of BDSM do not, in reality,
aim to actually harm anyone.
As well, I would like to point out the irony of her critcizing the
government’s ban on homosexual porn as being judgmental, while she
seems eager to do the very same thing to BDSM porn.
But don’t get me wrong- as a practitioner of BDSM, I totally agree
with the premise that any pornography, and especially pornography
that depicts violence-even if it is consensual violence- be limited
to those over 18 who are hopefully mature enough to handle it.
As someone once pointed out to me, BDSM is like the the pro-level of
sex; just you have to walk before you can run, you have to work your
way up the ladder of sexual experience to be ready for BDSM.
From Ellie Stewart
I agree with her. She calls for a kind of pornography that is well
scripted, where the men and women are portrayed as equals, were sex
is joyful and playful and never demeaning or violent. In other words,
what women want from pornography. However, the disturbing fact is
that men don’t want this kind of pornography- men want pornography
where women are voiceless sex objects, where women are subjected to
degrading and violent acts. You only have to type in ‘rape porn’ on
Google to find thousands of websites dedicated to it. Imagine the
number of supposedly normal men who masturbate to this stuff.
Also, she claims there is no link to watching violent pornography and
sexual crime, where in fact there is. And in the cases where the link
is not direct, surely if a man is consistently watching violent
pornography, he will build up an idea that this is an acceptable way
to treat women. Maybe it goes some way to explaining why 45% of rapes
are not caused by some sicko who lurks round alley ways, but by
someone the victim knows. She may have said no, but much of porn
involves the violent domination of women. Women saying ‘no’ is a turn
on.
It’s all about supply and demand: if men get turned on by the
disturbing filth that saturates the internet, and pay for it, why is
anyone going to be motivated to change it? The kind of porn Laurie
Penny calls for is exactly what women want. But by far and away porn
is consumed voraciously by men and not women, and you have to give
the men what they want.
From Irina
I disagree with “Agaist censorship” article and its’ author that there
is no need to ban violent porn. It is all too good to say we need to
“re-think” porn, but who is going to do it? how long will it take? Is
it worth spending time on it, given that there are a lot of other
problems already? One needs to start somewhere and starting by
banning rape porn sounds good to me. You know, hate speech, death
threats, for example, are not addressed in such a way: like, let’s
rethink how we communicate to others, in non-aggressive way. They are
illegal. I think scenes of violence filmed for sexual gratification
should be treated in the same way.
Prostitutes is the category of women most likely of all others to be
murdered. It is not all down to their availability to strangers, why
necesserily a stranger would harm anybody? But it is their perceived
role as dirty subjects of humiliation derived straight from most
abhorent porn which makes them victims of men who are caught up in
the distorted sexual games. I think murders of prostitutes show what
can be done to women, but played out on those most easy targets.
Then, don’t forget the power to influence others which any human
fantasy has. Why, do you think, child porn is banned? Surely not only
because the idea is just so awful but also not to make it acceptable.
What is then different between sexual violence towards a woman and
sexual violence towards a child? Why one should be banned and the
other just rethoght of?
From Helen
I’m afraid Laurie Penny’s article “Against Censorship” did rather
annoy me, particularly her assertion that it is a “widely accepted
fact that there is not a shred of evidence to support a direct link
between violent sexual crime and ‘extreme’ pornography”. This is not
true, since there is plenty of scientific evidence to support such a
link. I have collected a number of references to a variety of
relevant articles and placed them on my website, together with
their abstracts if she would care to take a look. Apart from a couple,
all these articles have been collected from the scientific literature,
and as far as I am aware are from peer reviewed journals.
Laurie may well counter that there are also scientific studies that
purport to disprove the link between pornography and sexual violence,
and she would be correct in this. However, the findings of most of
these studies have been shown to be false by the the comprehensive
review conducted by Malamuth et al in 2000, and in any case, such
studies often use invalid measures of sexual violence, such as
arrests or convictions for rape, which as we are all well aware, bear
little relation to the actual amount of sexual violence that occurs.
Whilst Laurie is entitled to to disagree with the findings of studies
that show pornography results in sexual violence against women, she
should explain why she believes the studies are faulty, and not, like
the pornography industry, simply pretend they dont exist.
From Ella
“I would restrict so-called ‘extreme’ pornography – pornography
that includes, for example, violent BDSM games, rape and abuse
fantasy or necrophilia – to over 18s, who would hopefully be adult
enough to explore valid kinks in a mature way that would ensure that
they remain fantasy.”
What are “valid kinks”? Who is “validating” violent porn?
From Mike
I’d just like to commend your site and Laurie Penny for the excellent
article, “Against Censorship”. I thought it was incisive, thoughtful
and interesting, and made an excellent point: that reformation and
education are the best ways to eliminate misogynistic tendencies in
pornography and the media as a whole.
Bravo, and keep up the good work!
From Rachel Harris-Gardiner
I have to say that I did not agree with most of Laurie Penny’s
pro-pornography article, which failed to touch on the basic questions
surrounding porn and the supposed need for it. Just because some
people enjoy it, doesn’t make it right.
However, as an archaeologist specialising in the Neolithic period,
I’d like to know where the evidence for the “early porn” she refers
to comes from? I have seen this type of assumption many times and
have yet to come across any definite Palaeolithic or later porn!
There are many representations of nudity and of genitalia and
breasts, but these are not found in overt or explicit sexual scenes:
they normally occur singly as figurines, or as human depictions. None
of the figures are shown interacting and it is probably more valid to
look at them as simple markers of male/female imagery or devices to
ensure the viewer sees the sex of the figure or object, which was
presumably important to understanding it.
I am an unashamed porn opponent, but do take time to read other
arguments if they are decently constructed. Nevertheless, the
legitimisation of porn through giving it a largely imaginary ancient
history annoys me, as a feminist and as an archaeologist.
From mc
Re: Miss LSE or Miss-ogyny: excellent article – i took part in something similar in my own
college so well done.
From Tracey Heynes
As an British citizen who moved to Switzerland about 20 years ago,I
have always been critical of the “backwardness”of host country in
terms of gender issues.I have never understood how they could
continue to get enthusiastic about local and national beauty
contests,proudly telling people that,it my country,such things were
considered old-fashioned and beneath us,as we were far more advanced
in terms of how we view women.Imagine then my horror upon reading
this article! I cannot believe that universities,of all places,would
be associated with something that so belittles the status of
women.Well done to the author of this article and other young women
who stood up and expressed their oppostion.
From Zoe
I don’t understand what you’re objecting to at all.
There are beauty pageants for men, they just don’t compete directly
against women. Like tennis…
Who judges what is beautiful? Well, er, the judges or the public or
whoever it was voting for the winner. If you have a problem with
their opinions surely you should take it up with them personally?
Antonia Strachey, author of the article, replies
Zoe, indeed there are beauty pageants both for women and for men. You seemed to think that I was objecting to all beauty pageants – that was not my intention though, you are right, I do hold some reservations about them as I detailed. However my focus was on objecting to an academic institution allowing itself to be linked with a competition that judged its students in terms of their attractiveness. The LSE Student’s Union has a code that students should not be judged on their physical appearance. Though the event was outside of the jurisdiction of that code because the Student Union withdrew support, I think the sentiment is quite correct. The motivation of that statement, I surmise, was that it was felt inappropriate for students to feel that their university had a reaction, either positive or negative, to their appearance. I think that is very right and that is why I think holding a beauty pageant at a university is importantly different from, say, tennis.
I don’t object to individuals expressing their ideas of beauty, of course not, quite the reverse. But I do object to the view that there is one kind of beauty on which everyone agrees and it can be measured and judged in the same way as a sprint – I think this is wrongheaded.
I hope that clarified the position I was taking and answered any questions.
From Marie Manyard
Re: A period of transition: As a mother artist feminist feminine lesbian I work through my own struggles, change is slow.
My experience, struggle and survival created my vision for women.
I am trying to set up a women only group and have been confronted by women in support of trans gender who are very hostile towards me, demanding my definition of woman?
I welcome any individual to talk to me and yet I know I must draw the line?
It occured to me that we could incorporate a gender day to benefit all of us!
Helen G, author of the article, replies
It seems to me that Marie might find it useful to define her frames of reference a little more clearly. She uses a couple of words/phrases which are perhaps a little vague:
1. “Women only group”. This is a term which really makes me nervous! It seems inextricably linked to the phrase “womyn born womyn” which, as I have said elsewhere, I find worryingly biocentrist. It underlies most of my fears about “radical feminism” as it seems invariably to lead to a separatist viewpoint and consequently excludes trans women like me.
Most notably, the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival implemented a policy which ” has gained notoriety, as it officially requests that the attendees be ‘women-born-women’ (WBW) only. That is, those who were born and raised as girls, and currently identify as women.”
“In 1991 Nancy Burkholder, who had attended the festival the year before without incident, was expelled from MWMF when she disclosed her transsexual status to festival workers who, in turn, informed the festival office. Ms. Burkholder was asked to leave the festival and received a full refund of her ticket. Festival organizers continued to advocate their support of the women-born-women policy even as criticism from some segments of the queer community mounted in response to Ms. Burkholder’s departure. “
Even today, nearly 17 years later, the debate still rages on that subject. There have been many other instances of exclusion of trans women, in many areas, on the same grounds. I can only surmise, but I wonder if this may well be at the root of the apparent hostility that Marie has experienced from certain quarters. My belief is that any WBW policy is merely oppression of one group (trans women) by another (cis women). And in that context, it is no different, in my opinion, from the oppression of women by men.
I would also caution her against accusing “women in support of trans gender” of being “very hostile” since it may be that any such hostility (if that’s indeed what it is) may simply be a reflexive reaction to a perceived hostility from someone who sees the discrimination inherent in “women only” policies as acceptable.
If someone decides that I, as a trans woman, am not a woman, then what is that person saying about me, my bacground, my experience – my very existence?
This may be where the “demands” that she define ‘woman’ have come from.
2. “Transgender”. To me, this is an umbrella term and it refers to a whole spectrum of people who question their gender and how they express themselves. So it can refer not only to trans women like me, but it could be argued that it might also include intersex, queer, boi, butch/femme lesbians and cross-dressers, to name just a few – a whole range of people may fall under this category.
So it would be helpful if Marie could clarify who she’s including when she uses the phrase “women in support of trans gender”.
At the risk of being accused of shameless self-promotion, my piece for The F Word contains many hyperlinks which Marie may find useful sources of reference. In addition, the “Further Reading” section at the foot of the article contains links to other pieces directly on these subjects, most of which are pertinent to Marie’s experience and which she may find helpful to read.
From Hez
I applaud Helen for her article, as her point is one vital to the
feminist movement. To succeed, we need to accept everyone as equal,
and just as we can’t ignore women of age or colour we cannot ignore a
woman just because she was once a man.
I myself, sometimes at risk of appearing to be a “dungaree wearing
lesbian”, have short hair and wear androgynous clothing a lot of the
time. I too have experienced hostility and disbelief from people I
pass asking aloud “Is that a man or a woman?”
If we want to discard the principle of “typical femininity” our
culture will need to move itself away from the idea that one is
either female and thus is x, y and z, or is a man and is thus x, y
and z. And in this case “x, y and z” can cover genitals too.
Helen G, author of the article, replies
Thank you for your email which has been forwarded to me, and for your kind words.
Without wishing to appear ungrateful, there is just one point that I would like to mention: “…we cannot ignore a woman just because she was once a man.”
I’m afraid I’m a little uncomfortable with this description – I realise you didn’t mean anything disrespectful, but as far as I’m concerned I’ve always been a woman. I have never been a man; unfortunately I was born with certain male characteristics, and did spend many years in denial, but various treatments have eased the condition considerably for me.
I realise that may sound trite or glib, but believe me, it’s something I’ve lived with all my life and it’s something I do feel quite strongly about.
This gender dissonance is at the core of the medical condition of gender dysphoria. It must be a hard thing to grasp for those people lucky enough never to have experienced any discrepancy between their gender (what’s between their ears) and their biological sex (what’s between their legs) – perhaps you might consider this rhetorical question: If you, as a woman, had been born with a penis – how would you feel?
I’m sorry if I sound picky, especially after you sent such a good message, the general content of which I agree with whole-heartedly, I mean no offence, I just would like people to realise how deeply GD affects sufferers.
From Hez
I apologize for my ignorant use of terminology. I do understand now why my use of the word “man” was out of place and frankly quite offensive, and I will be careful not to make the same mistake in the future.
From Irina
I met a trans woman only once: I was smoking outside of a pub and she
asked me for a lighter. I think she called me “darling” and it is then
I felt confused because I noticed her appearance properly for a first
time and thought for a sec: is is a man trying to patronise me? or is
it a woman? what to say? I’d be more aggresive with a man in such a
situation and, to access the level of my assertiveness, i need to
know who it was i was talking to. Funny, you’d say.
Eventually i just politely remarked, more as an explanation than
affront, that i don’t like to be called darling, that usually men do
that so bloody often and it annoys me. I was frank with this person
and then she said: I am not a man. Also, nicely. So we talked a bit.
She said that she is undergoing hormonal treatment, that soon she
will have an operation. That people used to beat her up, and it
sickened me. I mean – for what? for not looking either one or
another? For looking something in between? One just despairs at
humankind sometimes.
She made some effort to feminise her appearance and talked how she’d
love her boobs and “being a woman”. I looked again at her face and
could see how the features would transform later, i could see an
attractive female face behind the stubble and manly brows and said to
her: I think you will be a beautiful woman, at the same time being
slightly ashamed of myself because what does being beautiful has to
do with being a woman? Wasn’t I patronising now? Sometimes you
symphataze with someone and want to say something kind and assume
that what you are saying pleases them. But she was really pleased.
I also think it is easy for those feminists who are born and look
women say to others: why don’t you be brave and do the dirty job for
all of us for the sake of equality, why don’t you suffer for our own
sake? don’t have operations, let’s teach the world that having male
genitals or no womb is totally acceptable for a woman. I also want to
live in aworld where these things don’t matter that much. But i also
don’t want individuals caught up between the anatomy and mind to
suffer. And if the operation and visual transformation is what it
takes to give them peace and enjoy life as we enjoy it – without
fear, harassement, abuse, akward glances, tactless questions – then
be it, and good luck with it. Hope they get the result they want.
First of all, it is not a feminist question, but a question of a
support for another human being in thie difficult personal journey.
From Emma
Helen G says she is a woman, but by this, if i have read her article
correctly,(apologies if I haven’t) she seems to be saying that her
biological sex is female. Which to me (and Judith Butler and Simone
de Beauvoir et al) isn’t the same as saying that a person’s ‘gender’
is woman. Personally I am a born biological female but I don’t
identify as a ‘woman’ – ie with the gender role woman – in the
expected societal sense at all. That doesn’t mean that I wish to
change my biological sex, merely that I don’t identify with the
expected behaviour patterns that this implies. And also because I
don’t go round behaving in a ‘feminine’ way I wouldn’t say that I
enjoy cisgender privilege either – I am frequently the target of
hostility because of my ‘masculine’ appearance despite the fact that
I’m hardly incredibly butch.
A question frequently posed by queer activists and theorists is ‘what
is the definition of a woman?’. The answer of course, as Humpty Dumpty
pointed out is that a word means anything you want it to. What the
average person in the street means when they say ‘woman’ is adult
biological female. Indeed up here in t’north to call someone a
‘woman’ to their face would be considered rude and faintly abusive –
the polite term is ‘lady’.
The reason why some feminists (including me) say ‘gender is a social
construct’ is that we consider ‘gender’ to be nothing more than the
reification of socially constructed gender roles. Biological sex is
of course a physical reality, and it is biological sex (or more
accurately percieved biological sex) that is the basis of
discrimination in society.
There are numerous examples of biological females (like trumpeter
Billy Tipton) who ‘passed’ as men and gained male privilege as a
result. Similarly people of black and minority ethnic origin who can
‘pass’ as white (or even just whiter) will be treated differently
from their peers – hence the massive popularity of harmful skin
lightening creams.
But just as the physical differences between someone with a ‘black’
or a ‘white’ skin are just that – physical differences and nothing
more, so the physical differences between ‘men’ and ‘women’ are just
that and nothing more – they’re only relevant if you want to have a
baby, when they are pretty darn vital! The problem is that in a
racist and sexist society people are discriminated against on the
basis of their ‘race’ or ‘gender’ – so these physical differences
have a very real impact. I recently came across this article which explains that contrary to popular belief, men and
women are really psychologically very similar. Biological sex is
undoubtedly a reality, discrimination against ‘women’ is undoubtedly
a reality, but that is because we live in a society in which the
gender ‘woman’ is constructed as inferior to the gender ‘man’ – not
because there is anything inherent about gender. As Simone de
Beauvoir pointed out, one is not born a ‘woman’, one becomes one.
Helen G, author of the article, replies
Unfortunately, I’m not sure I can compose a detailed reply to you because I’m convinced that you are simply trolling. Why? Look again at your opening words: “Helen G says she is a woman, but by this, if i have read her article correctly, (apologies if I haven’t) she seems to be saying that her biological sex is female. “
I state quite clearly in my third paragraph that I’m a trans woman, and I even link to Wikipedia’s definition – “A transwoman […] is a transsexual or transgender person who was naturally born or physically assigned as male at birth but feels that this is not an accurate or complete description of themselves and identifies as a woman. “
And in my fifth paragraph I state, equally clearly, that “in September […] I underwent Sex Reassignment Surgery in Bangkok” – and again I link to Wikipedia’s definition.
All of which leads me to think that you are being deliberately disingenuous, simply to pave the way for you to revisit several tired old, potentially transphobic assertions in an attempt to provoke me into some sort of knee-jerk reaction.
I have no interest in being drawn into the “trans women can’t be feminists because they’re not real women” argument, however you wish to dress it up – it has been dealt with too many times before, and all but one of the points you raise are covered in the links I provide in the Further Reading box-out at the foot of my piece.
The one point I haven’t covered is your playing of the race card but, quite simply, from where I’m standing it seems clear that women of colour are just as likely to be marginalised in feminism as trans women are. See also these links:
Look. All women have our own diverse experiences, we experience life differently and we’re oppressed in many ways because of race, disability, class, and sexual orientation. My experience as a white woman is not the same as a black woman’s, a black woman’s experiences are not the same as mine if she is cissexual and I am transsexual, and my experience as a trans woman is not the same as yours as a cis woman. We have intersections that stack up and multiply the social complications we face, and for women of colour it is as impossible to separate “race” from “gender” as it is for women with disabilities to separate “disability” from “gender”.
Instead of looking for a (non-existent) common thread that binds all women together, perhaps we should address the real experiences that real women live. And a form of feminism that excludes and/or scapegoats women who don’t share that mythical common thread isn’t a feminism I can relate to.
From Danielle
It didn’t occur to me until I’d finished reading the article on
trans-gender that the whole way through I’d been reading in a male
voice in my head (if that makes sense). I am left wondering what that
says about my attitude to trans women…
Helen G, author of the article, replies
Thank you for your comment – your brevity makes me wonder what you left unsaid, but, if I may, I’d just like to say a couple of things by way of a response.
“trans-gender”
I find that I am – irrationally, perhaps – becoming cautious about using that particular word. I think that it is useful as an umbrella term for referring to people who are, one way or another, either questioning their gender identities or simply in a different part of the gender continuum from the good old gender binary. So it can include trans women, trans men, intersex, and maybe even cross dressers, to mention a few. But I am a trans woman. I do not refer to myself as transgender(ed) as I do not find it specific enough.
“the whole way through I’d been reading in a male voice in my head (if that makes sense)”
This is a particularly telling remark. It’s known as ‘misgendering’, or ‘ungendering’, a person and my feelings about it range from sad to offended to upset to angry, depending on my own state of mind at the time. I believe it is, at best, discriminatory and at worst bigoted and transphobic – depending on the context in which it is used. In addition, it carries with it a biological essentialist subtext to which I have some very deep-seated objections.
Generally speaking, it reflects the received wisdom that it’s acceptable to say, for example, “That’s Helen – she used to be a man”. In a sense, that may be true – I don’t deny that I was born and raised male, but even in my most extreme moments of denial, it never felt right to call myself ‘male’, or ‘a man’ and so on, even if I couldn’t fully explain why. I have worked hard on this aspect of my condition – I was diagnosed gender dysphoric in October 2006 – with the help of my gender counsellor and the most direct way I can explain it is to ask you (I’m assuming you were born and raised female) – how would you feel if you had been born with a penis?
So I’m a woman. I refer to myself as a trans woman because ‘trans’ is a useful shorthand to indicate that my background and experience may be quite different from, for example, someone born and raised as a cisgendered woman. But that doesn’t make me any less of a woman than you or anybody else.
You may find it helpful to revisit some of the links I added in the ‘Further Reading’ box-out at the foot of my piece – they cover the subject quite comprehensively.
I hope you find this information useful in explaining why marginalising, tokenising and ‘othering’ trans women is counterproductive and contrary to the fundamental tenets of feminism.
From Amy
Re: What not to watch: Personally, I couldn’t watch the whole thing. It pissed me off way
too much (mind you, Trinny and Susannah annoy me anyway, especially
with their ridiculous floral fetish). It wound me up, the whole
premise of the episode, because of the impetus on looking attractive:
for fuck’s sake, when you’re at work, surely the important thing is
how well you do your job (no matter what it is) as opposed to how
frumpy or hot you’re looking?!
gah!
From Stephanie
I’m glad ‘Undress The Nation’ was written about here, I was apalled
at how ignorant Trinny and Susannah were – their assertion that women
who work in retail with bad uniforms must somehow have low self-esteem
really angered me. Trinny and Susannah seem to be in their own
ignorant, little bubble and didn’t realise how patronising and
demeaning they came across as – especially the dressing up of the
canteen workers in pink, with ‘princess’ labels and continually
refering to them as ‘dinner ladies’ despite the fact that the women
had told them that they didn’t like that title.
From Lizzie
Ah the bane of so many people. There are many examples of T and S’s
‘ignorant indifference fed by elitist solipsism’ to use Alexandra
M. Kokoli’s beautiful phrase, in this foolish exercise of a TV show.
Of course, one of Trinny’s main considerations in working anywhere
would probably be the uniform, however not everyone has their’s and
others’ appearance on their mind 24/7, otherwise we would have no
health and social care, no buildings, bridges, roads, children, etc,
etc.
Clothes. Are. Not. Just. About. Appearance. And even when we consider
the role clothes and warpaint play in how we are visually interpreted,
there is yet again a broader spectrum of issues than I have ever
noticed T and S address on tv and in their handy little book that my
mum bought herself. The main thing that T and S focus on is the way
that a person can hide/ ‘compensate’ for/ create an illusion of
not having undesirable aspects of their figure. Now, for me, I do
often select certain necklines etc that I feel ‘compliment’ me, but
there are many aspects that come into play when selecting an item of
clothing (price figuring very highly.). Some items on the list are the
colour, do I like it, does it suit my colouring? Warmth or
breathability, the way the fabric moves, or the cut allows me to
move, etc.
Not everybody cares about looking ‘frumpy’ or ‘dowdy’, and
although I often try to look lees scruffy and sleepy than I often
feel, sometimes it has really, really worked in my favour to look as
inconspicuous and unattractive as possible. Not everyone can take
taxis and drive everywhere, in fact most of the population cant,
swathes have to walk around and travel through or live in areas where
they feel under threat of various kinds of attack , often alone,
possibly going back to an empty house. When this has been the case
for me, personal experience has shown that I have felt safer looking
quite unattractive. This has also been the case in some work
environments, where I have dressed smartly but not in a way that
would be thought to flatter my figure, or colouring, partly due to
the practical nature of the work requiring specific clothes that I
can move easily in, with breathing fabrics, and also due to the
clientelle I was dealing with with very little/ very poor security
measures in place. Obviously dressing unattractively to limit hassle
isn’t foolproof, and there are other measures one can use, but it can
help me feel more secure in certain sitautions, just as dressing up
makes me feel safer from bitchy comments and being held in low regard
by people like Trinny and Sussanah in other situations. And the
instinct for self- preservation is arguably a clear form of self
esteem.
I’m not sure if the above is particularly ‘feminist’ in the views
expressed, but ther you go.
In addition, aside from ‘queer eye for the staright guy’, very few of
these shows target men, and even ‘queer eye for the straight guy’ did
not try and imply that it was ‘low self esteem’ that was causing these
unruly males to negelt aesthetics to the extent that they had. I am
also in complete ignorance of the existence of an episode of what not
to wear that has targeted a male. Even if one has been made, the
number of women dealt with would still grossly outnumber the amount
of males dealt with. One is to assume that on the whole, males have
innately better dress sense than women. That is the only
explaination.
From jo
Re: It’s So You: In response to your article about fashion and feminism I’d like to say
that it evoked memories for me. For years I have spent a lot of my
desposable income on clothes and shoes and all the other bits and
pieces, and that amounts to a lot of money. As a child we (my sister
and I) were very poor, and often teased for our poor clothing. I
hated shopping, mainly because it involved trawling discount stores
for clothes that never fit me. The love affair I now enjoy isn’t so
much with expensive clothes as it is with clothes that fit. Only the
better retailers sell clothes that fit the curvier lady (by which I
don’t mean overweight, I’m a size 8). Cheap clothes are always very
poorly tailored, it is impossible for a woman with a small waist, and
prominent bust and hips to find clothes. I spent my teens hidden in
big baggy clothes. Which I now lament. At 100lbs I was called fat –
because of the big clothes I wore. This is an issue that feminism
should address. Not my clothes, but the way that there is very
little ‘fit’ in womens clothes, especially the cheaper ones.
From Emma
I think it’s very true that however you dress someone will look down on
you for it, and that’s the main problem with clothes, but also why
they’re important. The point about clothes is not what they are (high
heels are hard to walk in, but frankly that doesn’t stop a lot of men
wanting to wear them) but what they symbolise. Black American activist
Angela Davis has complained that she is chiefly known for her hairdo,
but the truth is that Angela Davis’s hair was in itself a
revolutionary act. Allowing her hair to grow into its natural Afro
instead of straightening it to resemble white women’s hair was a
powerful expression of her real identity. And that’s why early
feminists were so keen to reject stereotypically ‘female’ clothing –
it said that they were also rejecting stereotypically female roles.
There’s nothing wrong with liking clothes, the problem I have is with
compulsion. There seems to have been a trend in women’s fashion
recently for clothes to get more and more hyper feminine, which makes
shopping for clothes difficult for anyone who doesn’t really want to
dress like a Trinny and Susannah clone. This has thankfully abated a
bit now thanks to the influence of all those Emo kids in baggy black,
but even casually dressed young women are still under pressure to wear
tight ‘sexy’ clothes that show off their body which only look good on
the very thin. I have no problem with people making a choice to wear
the clothes they want as long as it is choice and not made out of
fear or pressure. The ‘choice’ we get from clothes retailers seems to
be no choice at all most of the time.
Comments on blog posts
From Sarah
Re: Pill could be made available at pharmacies: I work in a London secondary school, and we recently received a box of
these hideous leaflets. It was only when my boss read one over lunch
that we realised what they were about. My boss, being an excellent
sensible lady, refused to hand them out, and dumped the lot in the
recycling. We’re a very large girls school, in a socially deprived
area, but our school has the lowest rate of teen pregnancy in the
borough, and it’s certainly not something we achieved by telling kids
to abstein!
From Joanne Parker
First off, I would like to say I am a huge huge fan of the website.
It\’s very refreshing to hear that other people have a problem with
what society calls the norm at the moment.
Anyway,just something which I found in passing earlier on today in
Sky magazine-more commercialisation (if that\’s a word) of the
wonderful Playboy brand. Hugh Hefner has done a \’guest blog\’ in
which he explains the \”impact I\’ve managed to have on changing
social sexual values and life itself\” Indeed he has changed them,but
not into anything worthwile. Just wanted to point this out to you. On
a positive note though, an interview with newsreader Dermot Murnaghan
asked him who his favourite hero/heroine is, in which he replied \”
The Pankhursts. Forget the Spice Girls-that was proper girl power\”
This little snippit managed to lift my spirits after I had read the
\’blog\’ from that horrid old man.
From Jane Purcell
Re: My fake baby: Regarding the piece about My Fake Baby, I too saw the programme and it
made me feel wretched. Because no matter how harmless their fixation,
it’s a fixation that keeps these women forever ‘stuck’. A woman who
has lost a baby whether because she’s a grandmother and her daughter
has moved away, or she’s a mother and the baby has died – by buying a
perfect ‘fake’ baby, she is never going to move on. Far better to
spend the money on as you say, a ticket to go and actually SEE her
living grandchild, or on therapy.
Also personally speaking, as a mother, one of the best bits is the
knowledge that ‘this too will change’ – that whatever stage the baby
is going through, good or bad, it will never always be like this.
That parenthood is never static.
From lisa kelly
brilliant piece, intelligent, measured and written with great care.
been really fed up today reading shoddy rushed sensational blog
entries. well done.
From BrevisMus
For the amount of work put in to each doll (we saw Jaime
inserting individual strands of hair, for instance), I think £350 is
actually a very reasonable price. After having watched the
documentary, I had assumed the dolls would be in the thousands. We
tend to devalue craftspeople nowadays (and they have to undersell
themselves in order to compete with mass-made), or feel price should
be based on the cost of the raw materials, without including the time
of the artisan. I’ve seen a lot of criticism that Jaime saying that
she is making money out of people, but once you take her labour costs
into account, I can’t imagine that she’s raking it in.
From Pam
I find your article very disturbing. What you have wrote about is
only 2 examples of the issue. What about the rest of it??
A lot of reborn artists see it as a work of art. A way to be
creative. Just because it isn’t on a canvas and is on a vinyl or
silicone doll makes no difference.
To be completely honest I would guess 90 percent of the women
population never outgrow their love for dolls. A lot of people see
them as just that, beautiful dolls to be looked at, whether it be on
a bed, in a crib, or in a glass case. WHAT does it matter how the
doll is displayed?
I’ve heard psychiatrists say having an animal is good therapy to
stroke it. I don’t see why holding a doll and touching it would be
any different. If it helps the person deal with their situation how
can that be bad? If it helps to ease the pain, why is that “bad for
them”?
I feel your article is not researched enough and uneducated. Maybe
the US is different but at least here they show both sides of the
story for the public to form their own opinion.
Am I a reborn artist? No but I hope to be. Do I own a reborn? Yes
2 of them that look like my real life twins when they were born.
Both my babies are 4 years old now. I bought my babies as a reminder
of what they used to look like when first born. My babies lay on my
bed as a reminder for me to look at and enjoy.
The term “fake baby” is way off. These are in no way intended to be
fake babies. They are dolls who are reborn. If you look up the term
reborn you will find it means from re- “back, again” + born, past
tense of birth. Which means these dolls are reconstructed with new
paints, details, eyes, and clothing. Much in the same way people are
bringing life back into old paintings. Cleaning them up, making them
appear better than before. Bringing life into something old. Just a
figure of speech, not meaning to make it come to actual life.
I also watched the broadcast. You either overlooked or just paid no
mind to the fact that she said “I know these are not actual babies
and are just dolls”.
Point being, if you want to inform the public, just don’t show one
persons point of view. Show the whole picture.
From jackie
No one is scathing at men who want to sit by a pond all day with a
stick in their hand (I believe they call it fishing) but if a woman
wants to collect dolls she seen as odd or a freak – why is this I
wonder? Dolls have been collected for generations and surely
reborns are just the next step in doll collecting in this techno age.
As for replacing a dead baby with a reborn well all people grieve
differently and if having something to hold helps some couple then
why not? Any one who hasn’t suffered a loss can’t possibly say how
they would or would not behave in those circumstances.
From Pamela Jooste
I am from South Africa. I currently have 4 reborn dolls which they
are only beautiful look alike baby dolls. I love them to bits dress
them beautifully and are admired and enveyed by my friends. I have
always had a passion for dolls being a only daughter with 3 brothers
and then having 3 boys i just love to buy a beautiful doll. The
ladies/artist that create these most precious possession – my Hat off
to you ladies !!! They bring so much joy and happiness and admiration
for doll lovers world wide. For those negative comments shame just
like a lot of us think golf is boring it is choices and our choice is
to have and own beautiful dolls.
Jess McCabe, editor of The F-Word, replies
Because of the large volume of emails we received about this post, we have not been able to publish every comment.
From marion cowden
Re: Oh those poor ‘post-abortive men’: my body my choice, what will this lead to forced gestations are men
going to look after these unwanted children, if past performance is a
guide, no they are not.This romantic ideal of children all tow haired
and big eyed is not the day to day reality its very hard boring work
with little to no mental stimulation. How can a man who happly paid
for one abortion and cannot remember the feelings of the then
girlfriend, would this morned for fetus have seen or heard from this
man again no because it did not suit him at the time to be a father
and now he has seen a scan with his wife and he is oh so sorry and
its all come flooding back oh boo hoo poor man.
From Fiona
Re: Get skinny!: Just reading the “testimonies” in the Pink Patch item, something
really doesn’t sit right with them. Why would a girl from Harrogate
refer to her “sophomore year”? It’s not a term I’ve heard much in the
UK, in fact I’m never very sure exactly which year they mean! I
suppose it’s not entirely impossible, but it strikes me as an
American company switching out place names to make it sound a bit
more credible.
From Bero
Re: Simone de Beauvoir’s centenary – and bottom: I think that Simone de Beauvoir wrote the most comprehensive study of
the situation of women in this society that has ever been written.
The publishing of her nude is just a sign of the times – money can be
made from anything and everything. Personally, it makes me angry.
Let’s have a photo of Bush nude or Benedict 16 – that would make us
sick rather than angry.
From Paul Brown
Re: ‘Iron my shirt’ as political commentary: I think it is absolutely right for feminist bloggers, including Jess,
to point out the sexism and misogyny being directed at Hilary
Clinton’s leadership campaign. However, feminists should also bear
in mind that Hilary did and said nothing about ther husband’s abusive
relationship with a young intern (Monica Lewinsky), or the fact that
Bill Clinton has been accused of rape by several women. In the best
biography of Clinton, No One Left to Lie To – the Values of the Worst
Family by Christopher Hitchens, Hitchens goes over the most convincing
rape allegations in detail, and makes a point of stating clearly that
he is convinced there was a rapist in the White House. No legal
action was taken by Clinton as a result. Furthermore, when a female
reporter pressed Al Gore on the question of whether he believed
Clinton was guilty of rape, rather than deny it, he avoided answering
directly and simply said that a president should be judged on his
political performance in office.
Hilary is one half of this most cynical, ruthless and ambitious
marriage of convenience. While I do not hold her responsible for her
husband’s abuse of women, I do think that feminists should expect her
to take a position on these issues, and should point out that she has
been happy to share a personal and political partnership, and the
surname, of an arch misogynist. Also, as Germaine Greer pointed out,
she is only a candidate because “she shared a bed with Bill Clinton –
sometimes”. The feminist blogosphere appears to have been strangely
quiet on this darker side of Hilary Clinton.
Jess McCabe, editor of The F-Word, replies
What has any of that got to do with the deluge of misogyny directed at Hillary Clinton? Nothing. There’s no excuse at all for it at all. Banners telling her to “iron my shirt” are a blunt, vile response to a woman with the presumption to think she could become president, not a nuanced critique of her policies or any blame she might share in the behaviour of her husband. It strikes me that the men holding those signs – and the people responsible for all the many, many sexist attacks on the senator – would be hard pressed to care much about anything Bill might have done.
In addition, I think it is totally inappropriate to try and palm off any of the blame for acts that Bill Clinton has been accused of committing. If those accusations are true, he alone is responsible.
From Roisin
Re: Sexual Harassment on CiF: Just wanted to say well done Abby! I thought your article was great
and starting the blog is a wonderful idea – we need to keep talking
about this issue and making it clear that women DO NOT appreciate
this kind of “attention”. I hope the offensive and really quite
ludicrous comments on the CiF page don’t get you down too much. Best
wishes x
From Helen G
Good post Abby, pity about the “Mens Rights” posters trying to turn it
into an oppression olympics.
From tom hulley
Re: VW paid for union leaders’ brothel visits: vw/ union staff and brothel visits: almost as sick as it gets but not
quite as bad as aerospace companies buying their senior management
underage girls in the far east – i live in an aerospace town and have
heard this more than once but nobody will name anyone
apart from this i find myself querying men (and sadly boys more so)
almost every day about their contempt for women expressed in many
forms
call me old-fashioned but I can see no alternative to cutting their
balls off if they can’t use them considerately …
From Cara
Re: On the Tube: Good article.
Why is it that we women do this? We think, I’m just being
paranoid…he doesn’t *mean* to intimidate me…we think it’s somehow
our fault, “sending out the wrong signals”.
Yet such behaviour is unacceptable.
From P Howard
Re: Feminism is not man-hating!: Abby, you seem quite fired up about Sarfraz’s article on CiF. Yet you
seem not to understand how he got the impression you were blaming all
men rather than particular abnormal individuals. I direct you to the
end of the article he referred [ t o ] :
“do we need to take a grassroots approach, providing greater
education at school level to permanently remove the need to grab,
grope and leer from the male psyche?”
If I suggested that we should school women in an attempt to remove
the need to overindulge on shoes ‘from the female psyche’, you would
be rightly offended. You imply there that ‘the need to grab, grope
and leer’ is universally a part of the psyche of all men.
If you meant of some men, or the abusive minority, then you have
missed the mark. If, on the other hand, you take it as read that the
generic male psyche tends to grab, to grope and to leer, then you are
displaying exactly the prejudiced view that Sarfraz is trying to
highlight and argue.
I suspect that Sarfraz is making a general point, sparked by what he
read in your article, but which has built up from many incidents in
which he has felt subject to prejudice, in much the same way as you
have generalised from your harassment on the tube to the issue of
harassment generally. I don’t think Sarfraz is in any way suggesting
that your subject matter is unworthy, and I for one support the cause
of combatting abusive or harassing behaviour.
But it is important that if you want to fight bias and prejudice
against women that you avoid it in what you write. As an occasional
journalist I understand the attraction of general statements,
particularly in the conclusions, but it is here that many of the
prejudices against women are perpetrated.
So keep writing on these issues, but be very careful when you are
tempted to generalise about men or the male psyche. It is these that
have probably been the cause of the background level of offense felt
by men like Sarfraz. Perhaps a dialogue with him, rather than an
argument, would be a constructive way through the minefield.
From Justyna
If it was a response to your piece on street harrassment – I certainly
couldn’t pick it up.
Other issues like women going to parties and sending topless photos
seemed to gently push the “asking for it” element. As much as I think
complying to male titilation mechanisms is pathetic – it sadly has a
lot to do with male dominated sexual pleasure in society as a whole –
and shouldn’t be lightly chucked in at the end.
His response lacked focus or basic research into gender politics.
From Yvonne
Re: Femail watch: Women Drivers
Commonly held misconceptions about male/female drivers.
1. Myth – Women cause more accidents between other vehicles by
driving over-cautiously.
Fact – The only way I know of to cause an accident and not be hit
yourself is to half pull out of a side road or from parked, causing
an approaching vehicle to swerve and hit someone else. If you did
this, you would still be found responsible for the accident, and
therefore it would show up in accident statistics.
2. Men have more accidents because there are more male drivers on
the roads.
Fact – For every 4 male drivers in the UK, there are 3 female
drivers, and this is rising. However, men have more than twice as
many accidents as women.
3. Gordon Ramsey can spit feathers all he likes, if women weren’t
safer drivers, insurance companies wouldn’t be targeting them with
discounted insurance. It’s as simple as that :-)
From Elena
Re: Abby Lee on the need for change: I love reading things like this, words that shake you to the bone.
Because, the words are honest truth.
From Janis Hindman
Re: Selling toy irons to girls: And of course….as I am pretty sure I’ve read on this website…gives
us the reason why men, no sorry, ‘men’ think it’ ok to shout out ‘Iron
my shirt!’ to Hillary Rodham Clinton.
From Lindsey M Sheehan
This reminds me of a couple of years back when me and a friend were
in Littlewoods and came across the charming “Domestic Servitude
Simulator” featuring kitchenette with oven, sink and a washing
machine now with free bonus of an ironing board and rotary washing
line. Personally I don’t mind the idea of children imitating their
parents but the fact that all these products are only available in
pink puts out the clear message that this is for girls and boys must
not touch.
Maybe when I have kids I will paint all the “girls” toys blue and the
“boys” toys pink and see who plays with what….
From Annika Spalding
Re: Blaming the man: I just wanted to say to Abby that I enjoy all her writing, and I
couldn’t believe the amount of stick she got for her article “Men who
stare”. Why do I feel that men are missing the point here? What Abby
described was an experience, one of which many woman go through on a
daily basis. Why are some people so pig-ignorant that they think that
just because it isn’t happening to them, or anybody that they know,
then it is just an exaggeration? It seems that some of the men are
more interested in saying that we are asking for it, than actually
putting their hands up and recognising the problem.
The biggest problem at the moment, I think, is that the men who have
responded to her article are not even willing to consider
street-harassment. They are not even willing to think about how it
can make a woman feel frightened, intimidated and on edge. Then you
get a journalist writing an article which, in my opinion, is
promoting misogynism. You know who I mean. Men already have a twisted
view of feminism without this fool fuelling further arguments.
If only men were able to experience life in a woman’s body for a
year, they would soon find out. Its so hard for them to believe that
women experience such vile harassment, that in their opinion it
couldn’t possibly be true. I wonder if any of them have even bothered
to ask a woman about street-harassment. Or does it suit them to stick
to their own narrow minded opinions?
From Rose Grant
Mr Manzoor asks: why is it that no man I know has ever behaved even
remotely like the men in these articles?
I answer with a question: How does Mr Manzoor know they haven’t?
Does he think that if he did not see it, it did not happen? Perhaps
he thinks that since the men he knows have not told him that they
commit violence against women it is safe to assume that they do not.
I’m sure that if he ever finds out that a man he knows has committed
violence against a woman he will be “so shocked”. Everyone always is.
From Jennifer McMahon
Re: In praise of pants: Regarding being interested in the underwear men wear, I think it is a
case of different strokes for different folks! I can totally see that
a lot of people couldn’t care less what underwear their sexual partner
is wearing, but I personally much prefer to see my boyfriend in tight
shorts rather than loose boxers. It’s all about the package…mmmm.
I certainly don’t spend more than £50 a year on underwear myself
tho!
From Mark Headey
Re: Get your free clitoridectomy here!: Having lived in Indonesia for over 5 years, I confess to being
surprised by the item about FGM there. However, as a bloke, I can
accept that perhaps I was not the right sex to overhear chat about
this topic. (However, I did hear of a pretty barbaric MALE
circumcision ritual that occurs in Timor.)
On the other hand, I do urge a little caution. There are a number of
“practices” carried out on girls that all get labelled as
“circumcision”; ranging from a symbolic drawing of blood, cutting the
tip of the clitoris to the “pharonic” circumcision. Clearly, any of
these done without the aid of an anaesthetic would be painful and, as
such, cannot be defended. However, a symbolic drawing of blood would
not have the same physical or psychological effects of the pharonic
FGM. Exactly what goes on in Indonesia needs to be determined before
we get too condemnatory.
From Jenna Willis
Re: Sugar and spice and all things nice: Thank God! Someone else has picked up on that horrible Strawberry
Shortcake Ad!! I first saw it about a week ago and have made a point
of mentioning it to all my friends and family. I am amazed that such
stereotypical reinforcement can still appear on our TVs. Who works
for these advertising agencies?
From Penny
I just wanted to say a “bravo!” to this post! Every time I see those
ads I start to seethe. I notice that the “just like Mum” line has
disappeared, but sadly that doesn’t change the message of the ad at
all. I am so surprised that ads like this are even allowed these
days!
From Vina Anderson
Re: Reclaim The Night Manchester, Saturday 1st March: Congratulations on your march to reclaim the night. We march in New
Zealand too. We can both do it for a better standard of safety on our
streets wherever we are in the world.
From Leanne Bibby
Re: More random acts of feminism…: Absolutely amazing. Made me smile and gave me loads of ideas! Thank
you!
From Yvonne
Got to be honest, I can’t advocate petty theft or lying to your
husband about what you spent joint money on. The point is, it’s not
about sneakily gaining economic recompense, it’s about openly gaining
it, with the associated due respect and status. It’s not about
claiming money for housework, it’s about gaining the hours lost to
doing more than your fair share of it.
As for my ideas on random acts of feminism –
1. Value the hard working females you work with by praise and good
reports to bosses.
2. Stick up for men when you see them getting the sexist treatment
too (be a man… men can’t do anything right… real men don’t
cry…)
From Emily Johnson
I know I’ve probably missed the boat on this post, but one of my new
favorite “acts” (admittedly, only one test run thus far) is to take a
cheap t-shirt and write “Menstruating” on it. Wear during period.
You’ll get some dirty looks, a few laughs, and a surprising amount of
support from your fellow feminists. Best side effect: those who claim
liberal attitudes towards women are exposed to their own discomfort,
and a great dialouge can begin.
From Lisa
Re: Feminist Coalition Against Prostitution launches February: I’d like to push the debate on the proposed legislation on
prostitution a bit further. I haven’t found (maybe I’m mistaken )
anyone here dealing with the Petition by the English Collective of
Prostitutes (and various blogs by sex workers) to decriminalise,
rather than ban prostitution as proposed or continue with the current
confused mix of legal/illegal activity which clearly isn’t helping sex
workers.
Given that female poverty is rife, given that a Marxist perspective
clearly reveals a strong class/economic cause for the activity (in
addition to the gender perspective) and given that from a
sociologocial/criminological perspective it is clear that prohibition
is not an effective deterrent, I want to retain my right to sell
sexual services as/when desparate measures may be called for.
Criminal offences already exist for murder, rape, sexual assault,
kidnapping, imprisonment, slavery, grevious bodily harm, actual
bodily harm, assault (threatening words and behaviour inducing fear),
drug dealing (although an example of the failure of prohibition) and
harassement – near enough all possible risks encountered by sex
workers.
Questions to raise – will arresting clients for buying sexual
services stop those clients wanting to buy sexual services ? stop
them seeking these services on the black market (as is the case now
with drugs)? stop them paying money to the providers of the service ?
shifting the money more to gangsters (moving the women more not less
into a position of a product) ? once the ban is in force where will
poor women in desperate circumstances looking for the next rent
cheque be able to get their hands on ready cash ? the government ?
charity ? the police ?
It’s all very well wishing for an ideal world where this market
didn’t exist but from the harsh reality of cash-strapped women it can
be literally a life-saver.
Why is it OK (and will continue to be so) for young, ambitious
professional women to sell sexual services in exchange for a job,
promotion, good freelance contract, project ? Why is it OK (and will
continue to be so ) for non-working wives to lunch, play tennis, get
manicures in exchange for sex and perhaps most importantly for them
to be paraded in public as trophy sex toys ? Is it because they’re
generally white, middle-class and discrete it’s OK ? Or is it the old
quip “Prostitutes charge by the hour, wives by the lifetime” attitude
returning ?
Will the whole issue become increasingly irrelevant given raunch
culture’s push for all women to be available to all men at all times
– men who pay may increasingly be seen as mugs ?
I apologise for the length of the proposal but I wanted you to see a
good overview.
From Claire George
Re: Sexist shorthand?: I’m on a journalism course and I noticed a similar thing in McNae’s
Essential Law for Journalists. It usually assumes that people are
men, unless of course they are the Queen.
From Amee Smart
Re: Super-sexist ad by Dutch optician…: I am completly disgusted by this form of comedy and quite frankly i am
not laughing. Personaly because i look like the one with glasses like
thats supposed to make me look more ‘intelligent’ or ‘classy other
then ithe fact is ‘m as blind a bat without them. How pathetic! yeah
i’m splittin my sides!
From sumac celeste
me and my mother thought it was offensive and degrading to women.
BLOOD BOILING is an understatement.
all we can ask is what age and sex THEIR advertising executives are?
rhetorical question?
hmmm…
From Edina
Hye, grettings from Croatia.
I love your page.
I’m a blonde with glases.
I don’t think the campain is sexsist.
It’s true… i know … it’s sad.
What are your arguments?
How many pictures does the seriess have ?
E.
P.S. Sorry about the spelling.
Jess McCabe, editor of The F-Word, replies
Dear Edina,
I am glad you love The F-Word, but I can’t agree with you that this ad isn’t sexist. The series presents a range of male characters, and just one woman. While the ads feature men with a range of possible interpretations of their jobs – butcher or artist? Truck driver or professor? The sole image of a woman identifies her in terms of how ‘easy’ she is – or how easy it would be for a presumed male viewer to get her into bed.
This viewpoint reduces women to sexual conquests for men, while denying women’s sexual agency – a view of sex which paints men as the ones who always want it and women as the ones who reluctantly (if they’re not ‘easy’) dole it out, does not leave much room for the idea that women want sex and pleasure for their own sakes.
In addition, the drawing of the supposedly ‘easy’ woman perpetuates the ridiculous stereotype that possessing blonde hair and breasts somehow reflects on a woman’s intelligence and sex life.
From Nina
Re: You know you’re living in a patriarchy when…: Laura, next time a group of men behave like they’re about to attack
you call the police. That should scare the shit out of them.
From tracey
Re: Pre-pubescent Brazilians (no not the country…..): Couldn’t agree with you more. my 14 year old asked me for a bikini wax
this week, becasue all her friends are “doing it” and it seems that I
am the only Mom who is horrified. Since when is having pubic hair
disguisting? All our ancestors did and they seemed to have coped just
find in finding mates!!
Comments on older features and reviews
From Chelsea
Not That Into You: I have read, he’s just not that into you and taken with a grain of
salt i found it helpfull. I dont think of myself as a sad and lonely
person but after reading this book I may become one. It is very
convincing and possibly true for some men. A few guys I have read it
to say “yep it true”. There is one thing I cling to, he’s not that
into me yet…
Not because I need to change or act all cute and coy but because
there are things going on in our paths. Like I a am a fat stupid
repulsive person and he just needs more time to know me.
I dont want this comment published I am not sure why I am writting
it. I just had a guy stop me mid head job and go get something to eat
no reason… I need to cling to the he’s just not into thingy or else
I have more issues. My high sex drive does drive alot of men away as
they all pretend to be macho blah blah but in reality I have met only
a few who are as preoccupied with it as I am. I understand men Like
women may be tierd bored ect but I have no patience and get angry
quiet easily. I am sure I have a stack of my own issues but I feel
that if he cant keep up the pace then there is really no need to be
in the kitchen. Needles to say I am not married. I was in a very
fulfilling relationship for 10 years and with that comes drought. Now
I am single or dating I dont feel the need to comprimise and wait
around for some one. I will find a suitable partner. As unfeminist as
it sounds I need a life partner. Some one to share the sunrises with
and to cook for me because I enjoy that and hope to get what i want.
I will be a survivor if I am alone.
Spinster as I might end up I am more comfotable alone then with Mr
not right now.
From Mickey Costoff
God damn. Word up sister.
From susanna
First i like to say this dating field keeps getting more confussing
with every day passing , there are more rule ( so it seem ) that ever
befor and its a miracle that ppl ever get together if you ask me ,am
dutch and i wonder if the same rules according to the book aply for
the dutch men lol , because over here it seems men want to be chased
en not the other way around , does that mean that all dutch guys just
arnt in to us ??? I do think that men are complicated just like women
, oh yes there are perhaps certain ‘rules’ and i think the book can
help in certain sitatuations but lets be honest , some men are shy ,
married , have some deep feeling of i cant be good enough for her
ect , there are so many reasons why a man wont ask a woman so in a
way the book hands out some simple rules that can aply to some but am
sure not to all . me i dont think i will sit and wait and than realize
that he isnt in to me by the phone , i would try first and if he isnt
responding the way i would think fits the situation i would move on
, maybe thats what the book is trying to say in a way , like in that
sex in the city episode , that other date of miranda had the runnings
?? not sure how to put it in english anyway she went flat on her face
saying that he prob wasnt in to her so a bit of filtering is
nessecery lady’s befor u thow out a perhaps nice guy . I like the
artical it was good .
From radhika oltikar
well, whether you like it or not..this book is practical and makes
complete sense. Irt’s essentially about not wasting your time and
emotions on someone who is just not interested. And it really
addresses ONLY romantic relationships..so ”passing the time of
day”, as you mention, is excluded. OF COURSE we all have and want
platonic relationships with men..but that is not what this book is
addressing, is it?
Holly Combe, author of the article, replies
I don’t take issue with this book because I somehow
dislike it for being “practical” or making “sense.” My
criticism is that it seems to be claiming its advice
is universally applicable when, actually, women and
men are far more complex than that. Sure, I can
imagine someone with fairly traditional values,
looking for someone who shares them, finding the
advice useful. Indeed, had the book been called “A
Dating Guide for Traditionalists” I’d have left it
alone. (Each to their own, after all.)
I also realise there is a certain kind of guy out
there who will actively chase a woman if he thinks
she’s The One but is generally repelled if a woman
decides he’s perfect for her and subsequently chases
*him.* However, I also think it would be unfair to say
all men follow this stereotype. Anyway, I know plenty
of women who would prefer to put the double-standard
lovers off fairly early on. Some of us just aren’t
that into them!
I’d also argue that “passing the time of day” is is
not necessarily excluded when it comes to finding
lovers and partners. In my experience, some of the
most successful relationships have been struck up when
the people involved just got talking (without any
agenda) and found that they had lots in common.
This book seems to be part of a current trend for
approaching relationships in a business-like way. I
don’t think there is anything wrong with encouraging
people to focus on their goals but I do think such
advice is rather convoluted and impractical if it
requires the reader to invert such a drive by
converting it into passivity.
From G
Re: Sick of celebrity: I think the empty headed shoe addicts on SATC are rather strange role
models. You should learn to cook not because you are a woman but
because everyone should be able to. I agree with much of what you
have said however knowing to buy property a financial genius does not
make. I think we should (men and women) be more discerning when it
comes to role models Madame Curie is an appropriate role model not a
silly women who plays a silly character. What do you think?
From Catherine
Re: Smug intentions: Richard and Judy on chivalry: A really interesting article; as a woman who positively enjoys a
late-night stroll alone through suburbia or the crowded city, having
fended off the anxious voices (which is not to say I don’t appreciate
a lift when it is raining, but that’s rather different) I was
particularly interested in the points you raised about this. There’s
also the ‘chivalrous’ bloke who walks a woman home ‘for her own
safety’ and then expects to be invited inside in recompense…
Really one can’t put it much better than Dorothy L. Sayers did:
“The desire to have all of the fun is nine tenths of the law of
chivalry.”
From Carol
Re: ‘Honey! Your vagina needs a mint’: I agree on several points author Samara Ginsberg makes.
However, I think that more than catering to men’s desires, having a
shaved vagina is in many cases a woman’s own choice. This choice may
not be influenced by men’s fantasy of a vagina. I personally remember
how bad I felt when, at 11 years old, I had this dark fuzz covering my
genitalia and obstructing its view. I could no longer look at my own
labia and when I had my periods it was so messy and the pubic hair
would get stuck on the sanitary pad. I would look at baby’s vaginas
with angst because mine no longer looked smooth, but rather covered
with coarse dark hair. I have talked to some of my girlfriends and
sister about this and they feel the same way too. So, I think it’s
more of a personal experience. Now, in the ideal world, I would like
to have some hair down there. I would like it to be soft (rather than
coarse) and sparse. I would like for my partner to feel that the fuzz
down there is a caress, not a scrub on his penis. I would like it to
grow in a particular way and in some areas only. That is why I have
opted to have Brazilian laser hair removal in my nether areas. I
have left a small triangle on top, so that I still look like a grown
woman. But I want my labia and everything down there to be smooth as
a baby. Since I can’t control hair growth and texture I rather have
none. Am I wrong for feeling this way? I don’t think so.
Samara Ginsberg, author of the article, replies
I wasn’t suggesting that hair removal was in any way wrong in itself, I just object to the idea that it’s an absolute prerequisite for attractiveness and that the merest hint of hair renders a vulva hideous and disgusting. I suspect that porn started off on this “shaved beaver” business simply because it means you get to see more of the beaver itself that way rather than because all men hate hair. However, it’s started a culture in which having a Brazilian is regarded as part of normal grooming, a lot of men expect it, and a lot of women don’t even question it. It’s the idea of obligation and the idea that women in their natural state are unattractive that’s the problem. For what it’s worth, I’m pretty hairy myself and remove most of it for practical as well as aesthetic reasons, so I’m certainly in no position to go round telling anyone that they’re not a proper feminist unless their bush is sprouting up to their ears. Your bush is nobody’s business but your own. The only other people who will ever see it are anyone you happen to sleep with, who I’m sure won’t kick you out of bed if your pubic topiary is not quite to their taste, and your gynaecologist, who has definitely seen it all before!
From Allison
Re: Could Britney Spears be the feminist icon of our generation?: Mrs. Jean, you are my idol. =)
From T
Re: Hairy Women: Interesting article. Being male and hating the fact I must shave my
face, I don’t know if I could endure having to shave everywhere else
to be accepted. But, on the other hand, I never complained at the
smooth skin after my girlfriends would shave their legs. I do prefer
a more natural growth “down there”. I would much rather pick a hair
off of my tongue than not. It looks much sexier than bald.
From Stephen Kenny
Re: Maid of the manor: It’s worth considering that merely because you want something done,
does not mean that someone should do it for you. It seems astonishing
to me, in the 21st century, that people should be complaining about
the environment that they create for themselves: You do not own your
husband, and he does not own you; You are two completely independent
individuals, with absolute freedom of choice, and freedom of action.
I’ve never met anyone, in any environment, who does not have some
characteristics that irritate me, to some extent.
With the marriage rate in merry free-fall, it is becoming apparant
that, increasingly, people are realising that they simply don’t have
to put up with what they perceive as the downsides of what they
believe that contract to be. Railing is only fun, or satisfying, or
even sensible, when there is someone, or something, to rail against.
It seems that In future, for an increasing majority, they will have
no reason to rail, and were they to do so, for a reason I cannot
fathom, it would be into the wind, or at an empty chair.
As for women chosing to stay at home, I can’t, frankly, think of
anything more sensible. It’s only the lack of a hard working,
wealthy, wife who is prepared to subsidise this that stops me
embracing such a fascinating and busy life, with open, not to say
yearning, arms. I’ve never understood this obsession with wanting a
job. With the rapid disappearance of any social status linked to
jobs, it leaves us with merely money, and who is obsessed with that?
Having lived alone much of my life, I find housework a breeze, and
cooking a pleasure, which would leave me the vast majority of my day
to do with as I wish, and I do so wish. I have spent three years
changing nappies, not on a baby you understand, but at the other end
of the three score years and ten, so know, to some extent, whereof I
speak. The fact that the development of the faculties tends to go in
the opposite direction to the norm, does add a certain grey
hopelessness, to an otherwise similar situation. Unfortunately,
wealthy women tend to marry men who are as wealthy, if not more so,
than themselves. There are, I regret, no such charming social or
cultural norms equivalent to those which enable a wealthy male
banker, to marry a female nursery nurse.
From Marie
Re: How to Look Good Naked: Great article about ‘How to Look Good Naked’. I agree, it’s a very
enjoyable watch. Gok’s great at celebrating the female form, no
matter how big/small/old/young it is. Hurrah!
The one thing that disturbs me about the series, however, is the
woman flinging off her bra at the end of the catwalk show. It seems a
tired way of showing female liberation – and I think that the
photoshoot is enough to fulfil the ‘looking good naked’ part of the
show’s premise. It just jars when I watch it and I wonder if anyone
else feels the same.
From mitzi gaynor
i dont believe in”lookin good naked” i dont believe a shoppin trip
,new clothes is the answer. I stand in front of the mirror i hate
my body. And havin someone tell me different would’nt change my mind.
There is no way that i look good the way i am. I so do not like my
body and the only way would be diet exercise or surgery probaly all
3. If thats all it takes for them theyre lucky!
From Alex Corwin
I love Gok Wan too!
I find the show fascinating to watch because of it’s premise of
showing women how they really look and how to get rid of their body
conflicts, especially in comparison with something like 10 Years
Younger. I’d wager that the women that get the Gok treatment are far
happier 5/10 years down the line then those that get all the surgery
because they have addressed their issues rather then covering them up
with £££ of surgery that they ordinarily couldn’t afford!
Not only that, but I firmly believe that shows like 10 Years Younger
or Extreme Makeover are having a damaging affect on viewers, who
rather then learning to love themselves as they are, are waiting for
some TV show to turn up and magically change their lives. This is not
a positive message to be sending out!
More Gok Wan I say!
From Flic
Re: From ‘oy sexy’ to ‘frigid bitch’ in 30 seconds: Great article.. Wolf whistling is just as much about making a woman
feel uncomfortable as it is about anything else!
When you mentioned how one woman dressed as a man one day and got
polite stares instead of, ‘you’re a walking pussy’, it really brings
it home how much of a power game these catcalls actually are.
From Nicola
Re: ‘Feminists are sexists’: A total pleasure to read your page. A definition of the male sex
which, to many a woman rings true. Thought at times it was maybe
just ‘me’ (my husbands words) that was the problem, housework was my
job, even though I’ve got 2 kids (well, he did contribute on that
score) and hold down a 30 hour a week ‘part time job’. When does a
woman’s day really end? When the day ends, you become an on-call to
your kids in the event of them falling ill. A man’s sleep is
seldomley broken!!
From JR
Re: The Great Big Glorious (Sexist) Book for Girls: I wonder how many little girls Paul knows? Every one that I know – my
own daughter ( 9 ) included, has loved this book and has used its
ideas to get them away from horrid girly websites and chatrooms and
go into the garden and get dirty and some fresh air. Wake up Paul and
come out of your ivory tower and into the real world. There will be
plenty of time for girls to learn about sexism and lesbians when
they’re old enough to.
Jess McCabe, editor of The F-Word, replies
I’m afraid that the point isn’t whether girls like the book, but what effect it has on them. Barbie may be popular, but that doesn’t mean she is healthy.
From mc
Re: Glamour models made me sick: this is a very insightful article and i agree with most of the
content. In a system defined and driven by men and theie ideas and
ways of thinking it is dfficult for women to be honest, even to
themselves, about how we feel regarding the constant pressure to look
certain ways. Indeed, to be a woman is defined by your looks whereas
for men it is strenght etc. Breaking down these gender demands is a
first stpe in empowering young women. My fear is for teh so many
young females that have grown up with the music and popular culture
of the 90’s onwards where women have been presented as nothing else
but objects – i fear for their self esteem or the falsity that it is
currently built upon. There needs to be debate and ocmment in
mainstream media about thsisissue.