Quiet Optimism and the card-carrying contingent

I’ve done it: after a couple of years with no fixed political membership (or, maybe, being affiliated for the first time – was I ever really a member of the other one? Lack of documentation makes me wonder whether my comrades pocketed the membership fee whilst I flittered on none-the-wiser.) I am now a paid-up member of the Labour Party.

I am a little surprised at myself really. I’ve always had a bit of a leaning towards Labour from my younger years, when I blithely assumed Labour meant Left and that was the way it was always going to be. Then, as we trooped further into the Blair years, that changed. New Labour felt corporate and earnest in the wrong way. It probably didn’t help that I was, at this point, introduced to some of Oxford’s finest (read: scary) Labour hacks which turned me off further. I grew increasingly apathetic, which is sad given how enthusiastic about UK politics I used to be.

Unlike many critics, I won’t blame this all on Blair – I may have been dissatisfied with the style of government that emerged under him, but I refuse to swallow all of that crap about the country getting worse under Labour – clearly, we are much better off than we used to be. Hence all of the whining – we can *afford* to whine now. Listening to people (including my own parents) whinge makes me want to bash my head against the wall. Certainly, things aren’t perfect but come on – under Thatcher my dad was unemployed – now they have a large, 4 bedroom house with a paid off mortgage and two new cars. Do not expect me to sympathise.

Now that Brown is in charge, things feel different again. They haven’t gone back to the Labour I thought I supported when I was younger (although I’m prepared to admit that that Labour probably didn’t exist at all, at least not in the form I’d imagined) but there is a sense of progress and competence. And, more importantly from my perspective, the sense that there is quite a lot of thought going in to making decisions. I’m all for sensible government; let’s have more of it. Hopefully, I won’t have Brown on a pedestal like many did with Blair in the early years. Still, I’m quietly optimistic.

Better late than never.

Why I am not a third-wave feminist - Part I. Personalising the Political

Although it is not true of all third wave feminists, I increasingly find that these feminisms revolve around the idea that feminism should only be concerned with cosmetic changes, rather than deeper social transformation. No doubt that this might be unfair on some feminists, who do not see their own contribution as purely cosmetic, but I do think it's an issue that needs to be raised. Much is made of the gains that can be achieved within society - for example, the halting of the lads-mag phenomenon, achievement of equal pay. As I will explain a little later, it's not that I don't think these issues are important (on the contrary, I believe they're incredibly important and hats off to all women out there fighting the fight) but that they limit the sphere of acceptable action for other feminists.

My point is this: most of our campaigning is done on things that are personal to women - lads mags, short skirts, empowerment, porn. I do not mean that we all stand on our own moral soapboxes and ignore the issues of others, but that we have taken these arguments out of the political sphere. We wish to change these aspects of society without modifying society itself. Undoubtedly, society would be better if these issues were addressed and everyone respected each other, but it seems completely naive to think that we can achieve our goals without changing basic social norms and institutions. To put it bluntly, how can one expect society to change (which is effectively what we're arguing for) if the underlying themes of acceptance are couched in the exact same fabric as the sexist principles?

I don't blame third wave feminist for this - in fact, it's perfectly understandable that feminism has made this move. It is, after all, a way of hitting back at critics. In order to appear "legitimate" and to avoid slurs of hairy-legged-man-hating-dyke-prudes, we have often had to separate ourselves off from "other" feminists. We are pro-sex, not prudish. We teach young women that "we can join in the joke if we want to" (with obvious emphasis on the choice) because otherwise, how would we appeal to them? Daily-Mail style, shrill outrage at feminism takes the exact same form - what if this was your daughter? Feminists are emasculating your sons, women are stealing jobs, there is a brick through your window because the mother of the child that threw it went to work and didn't stay at home. There is periodic worry over the amount women drink and the way they wear short skirts. This is so much easier than looking at the long run and saying that feminism challenges our misogynistic social practices and this can be a little worrying. No - instead, they have to personalise the political.

And so do we, in our turn. We talk about issues in terms of "how it affects me" or our communities. We eschew grand political movements in favour of grass roots action. We try to make our cosmetic changes because there is no room for us to talk about anything larger. We are too afraid of seeming unpopular and giving the media more to sieze upon. We see politicising the personal as too intrusive and intimate, ignoring the fact that it already *is* political (more of this in a later post). So we take what *should* be political and move it back into the personal sphere, out of context and, if I am honest, away from the best chance we have of making a real difference.

It's not about saying these battles are unimportant, because they *are* important. However, I would say that these are *battles* and not the war. There is little, if any, immovable and unshakeable progress that can be achieved on this battlefield alone because all victories are achieved within the patriarchal framework.

Row, row, row your boat...

Hasn't this week been exciting? Floods, surges, sandbags... Yes indeed, if it hadn't been terrifying it would have been rather exhilerating. Luckily, the waters did not reach the Heloise-stronghold, although we did at one point make an emergency dash to the sandbag pick-up point. Filling and lugging sandbags in the rain was not pleasant but being flooded is hardly a picnic either, so I can't really complain.

So. National disaster, tragedy all round, lots of nice "human suffering" features on the BBC etc.

Predictably, this is where I'm going to stop being uncontroversial and start being a little critical.

1) Not really a national disaster. Yes it was terrible for the people whose homes were flooded. Yes it is horrible that they will have to wait 18 months until it gets sorted. Being without water is almost unimaginable and I am exceedingly glad that it didn't happen to me. However: the emergency services coped, some disasters were averted, water is being flown in, insurance will be paid. It was hardly Hurricane Katrina though. People aren't going to return to their homes a year later and discover dead bodies in wrecked houses, or realise they will never be able to go back to their city...

2) Far be it from me to detract from the (considerable) suffering of the fairly wealthy south, but it seems to me that the flooding of Hull, some weeks before this, was actually more disasterous. All the more so for being almost completely ignored. 17,000 homes in Hull were flooded and uninhabitable. That's quite a lot. And all we heard were people blaming the north for not being insured. Hardly the sympathetic treatment given to, say Tewkesbury (which I happen to be rather fond of).

3) News coverage was a bit gratuitous. Or should I say *is*. Whilst away (in the north) we discovered that Oxford was flooded and were informed by a breathless reporter, that the site of the Heloise stronghold was flooded. You can imagine the doom and panic this inspired - far away from home, unable to defend property etc etc. So much so, a long-suffering colleague agreed to cycle down and check it out. Oh the humiliation when it turned out the river had not even burst its banks. There's also been a bit too much badgering by news reporters, who seem to be out to win prizes for making people cry. "Everyone's been very kind" says an old lady. "But aren't you upset that all of your possessions are gone - things that can't be replaced" urges the sincere-eyed news reporter. Leave the old lady alone! Don't compound her misery by making her cry on national TV.

In summary - yes it is horrible and some poor people are going to have to endure the consequences for a long time. Let's not blow this out of proportion though. We in the UK are lucky enough to live somewhere where extremes of weather and natural disasters happen extremely rarely. Moping around feeling sorry for ourselves is hardly going to endear us to anyone.

And the heat is on...

How long until I crack and read the online leaked Harry Potter final installment?

Must... wait for... book (claws at face) but its not out until *saturday*... (much wailing and gnashing of teeth - the SO is upstairs reading it RIGHT NOW)

teh internets are a bad, bad thing.

Like Smarties...

I know I said I was going to blog about third wave feminism but various work crises have put this on hold for the moment. Instead, I am going to briefly rant about medication.

Boringly, it seems as though everyone who has a blog is on some form of anti-depressants. This just brings home to me (a) how mediocre I am even in medication (b) there will be a lot of people suffering from adverse side effects *as I write this*.
Having recently switched back to my original happy-pills, I am enjoying the sensation of no longer being medically sedated (oops – shouldn’t have been driving for the past few months). This is a good thing, as before I was so zonked that I was too tired to do any work. Now I am similarly unable to work, but because I’m feeling the full force of the agitation the other pills blocked out. And I have numb fingertips – a weird and fascinating phenomenon.

I have come to the conclusion that chemical solutions are not optimal – it’s like sticking a duvet over a buzzing mobile phone; buzzing still going, only… muffled.

Just because I’m a masochist, I am also going to try changing contraceptive pills at the end of the month. Given the hormonal meltdown that occurred with the first ever pills I took, I am understandably dubious. Still, I am nothing if not insane (hah hah). Don’t even get me started on how the contraceptive pill side effects are part of a male conspiracy…

The SO, on hearing I was changing Ads expressed disappointment: “but you were so meek on these ones – like, like a… sheep.” I love you too. Luckily I know he’s only joking – who *wouldn’t* want a crazed belligerent girlfriend ranting about political correctness whilst he’s trying to watch the Simpsons?

Quick Post...

The chastity-ring-case has been lost (hurrah!). I previously posted about this and have to say the comments of the young woman in question have backed up my thoughts. If she really *is* as worried about sexual health and STIs as she claims, why didn't she spend the time campaigning for better and more comprehensive sex education? Focus on the oppression of Christians seems a little off-bat.

Why I'm not a third wave feminist and other, equally riveting, stories.

Having indulged in some explicitly feminist reading recently, I’ve been thinking more closely about what I believe *my* feminism to be. More particularly, I’ve been trying to process why I feel so uncomfortable identifying as “third wave”. You know what? Really I’m not third wave at all. Yes, yes – shock all round I’m sure.

I’m going to try, in my next few posts, to explain why this is. I don’t want it to sound offensive, or as though I am being disparaging of other feminists (many of whom are of my generation) who *do* choose to identify this way. Feminism needs support, from as many people as possible. However, I do want to make it clear that I do not think that one type of feminism is more “feminist” than others – feminism, like most schools of political thought, is made up of many variants and the most sensible thing to do (rather than dogmatically picking one theory and sticking to it) seems to be to pick up the bits that work, acknowledge the bits that don’t and think about why that is.

Sooo… that is the mammoth task I have set myself. We shall see how I manage. I’m a little rusty on the ole constructing-a-valid-argument type thing so you’ll have to cut me some slack/hound me mercilessly until I get better at it.

In other news, I’m completely flabbergasted by the whole Jacqui-Smith and her amazing cleave story. I have to say, in the blanket coverage of news I was subjected to over the terrorism-weekend (the perils of a politically aware SO), I completely failed to notice it. The cleavage that is. I certainly noticed the *story* in the papers over the next few weeks. Christ almighty – this is the Home Secretary being calm, unflappable and apparently competent, yet all some people seem to have noticed is her cleavage. She was wearing a suit, as far as I can remember. I think I admired her necklace (yes, charmingly *female* of me). Boobs? No.

The only conclusion I can come to: too many people are dangerously obsessed with breasts. Interesting as they can be – I should know, I have grown some – really, it’s time to seek help.

Daily constitutional

Have to admit that I am quite impressed by GB’s proposals to increase accountability to Parliament and other constitutional reforms. I wondered, when he said that tightening security due to threats of terrorism had to be balanced by greater and clearer accountability to parliament, whether this was just paying lip-service to a wonderful liberal ideal. It was certainly a more reassuring response than Tony Blair’s martyred rhetoric, or the bruiser approach favoured by John Reid (and who *didn’t* cheer when he left office?). Yet here it is, expanded in more detail.

Yes, it is lacking in some ways – no mention of electoral reform, but I can’t see the switch to AV+ or similar happening soon; I expect that Labour thinks it might damage their chances in the next election, where I suspect (if they win) it will be by a narrow margin. However, I wouldn’t give up hope of this altogether. Cameron bleating on about Scottish MPs blah-blah-blah, seems a weak kind of response, given people get worked up about this every so often, to no great result.

As for the clash this morning – slightly disappointing: thought GB might give it a bit more oomph. When I think back to that first budget when Cameron was leading the tories, I recall the glorious moment that Brown steam rollered over Cameron with great gusto, so I’m not that worried yet.

Interesting times.

Less of a bang, more of a whimper...

I’m currently reading “Full Frontal Feminism” (review to follow once I’ve finished it) and I was struck by one of the comments on the back of the book, which referred to it having the “sassiness” to keep people reading. I don’t quite know why I found that so troubling but I do (which is a lie really, as I’m about to tell you why).

The reason is this: the expectation that young feminists have to be sassy and full of “fuck you!” to have their opinions considered valid is unhelpful. It creates a stereotype which is, in some ways, just as damaging as the whole man-hating-hair-legged-bra-burning schtick. Sassiness can be just as alienating as it is inclusive and sassiness, whilst it may be enjoyable to read, does not close the wage gap or lead to greater rights in the work place. Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that sassiness does not *contribute* to any of these things – indeed, it may well give the kick start needed – I’m simply pointing out that it is not the be all and end all. And I think we might be in danger of dismissing the contributions of those people who do not express it in a recognised way, which would be detrimental to what we’re trying to achieve.

Perhaps I am only noticing this because I myself, at the current time, am not at all filled with sass. I’m exhausted, fed-up and completely shit-scared because work is a nightmare. However, I’m still a feminist – and I don’t think my opinions are in anyway less valid because of it. Well, relative to usual, given that they are of course *opinions*.

In Crisis

In the Guardian today, a sobering article described how the lack of funding for Rape Crisis centres means that many will have to close down, possibly within days. I found this information deeply disturbing – although I have never used the service myself, I wish that I had previously been aware of it and find the idea that it might disappear abhorrent.

After being raped, it is essential that women have a “safe” ground – someone to talk to that they don’t really know, but who can provide information and support about whatever they feel their next step should be. Often, rape survivors suffer in silence (as I did) because they are too afraid to discuss or confront what has happened to them with people that they know and love. They are too afraid that they will be judged negatively, or that they will be blamed for something that they ultimately could not control. In this sense, Rape Crisis does more good than anyone can ever estimate, simply by being there.

Perhaps the difficulty stems from the fact that Rape Crisis is not centralised like other organisations (e.g Refuge). Of course, centralisation would bring difficulties – how would the level of funding needed be judged? Also, the local groups themselves are often better placed to decide what kind of services are needed – are they in an area with a large ethnic community and require different training to understand cultural sensitivities, for example. However, a centralised base for Rape Crisis would be better placed to publicise and raise initial funds for the local organisations. A small policy/research unit could lobby more effectively than disparate groups. Recruitment to local centres may well become easier if there was a central core to promote issues and raise awareness of the service.

One day, I would love to take on this challenge. I would really like to give something back and make sure that people are aware of the importance of Rape Crisis and to make sure that all women had equal access to it. Sadly, it looks like it might be too little, too late.

Please, if you can – phone your local centre and find out what’s going on there and what you can do to help. Rape Crisis needs your support, just as we have needed it in the past.

Initial thoughts...

Not that excited by the new cabinet. I thought there might at least be a few (interesting) surprises. Alas, it was not too be. I spoke to a friend at the Home Office - they got hugely excited by the idea Jack Straw might be coming, then came to the thudding realisation that he was off to "the other bit" and they were left with an unknown. To be fair, nice to see that a woman has such a prominent position, but still. I think I would have prefered Jack Straw back in as Foreign Secretary - shown that Brown wasn't opposed to a dissenting voice. Justice seems a bit of a cop-out. I guess we shall see.

On another note, managed to hugely offend a (perhaps oversensitive) colleague by offering some constructive criticism of her recent work, meant to improve my workload. In fact, it added an extra two hours to it. Sometimes hard tactics work - the offending thing is now no more. However, the workmate is unlikely to ever speak to me again. Given that they annoy me, it's not too much of a problem. Still, I probably ought to work on being more constructive and less abrasive. It's just the last straw in a string of completely infuriating work-related issues. Argh. (Bangs head against desk.)

Too much fun

If you haven't already, you really need to check out the Obama ringtones - http://www.barackobama.com/mobile/. Sadly unavailable to those of us unable to vote in the US Presidential elections, these are just incredible.

A lot of American liberal commentators (including JS down at the Daily Show) are heaping scorn on the whole thing but you know what? - they are *just so cool*. I think they're all just trying a little bit too hard to prove how cool they are. Seems like that's shutting the door after the horse has bolted. How hip-and-with-it can you actually be when even your supposedly intelligent liberal comment show conflates Al-J. tv with Al-Quaida? Because you know what guys: that's seriously uncool. At least try.

In other news, I would like to extend a plea to all of the people that get on my train at the end of the day and look like they've been off having fun. First it was drunken idiots coming back from Ascot and sporting feathers/top hats etc. Yesterday it was muddy, stoned people on the way back from Glastonbury. Some of us actually have to *work* for a living and we are categorically not having fun. Stop rubbing it in our faces.

Do I sound bitter? Yeah, well - I am.

In other news...

I'm actually pretty chuffed that Harriet Harman got the deputy leadership position. I've been trying not to have too much of an opinion on this (bizarrely, given that this is UK politics and I live in the UK) but she seems like a good thing. Obviously, I say this relatively. I think I am now under the impression that good people don't want to be politicians, so those that do are in some way necessarily flawed, but given that, I quite like the Brown-Harman ticket. She seems unashamedly feminist, without feeling insecure enough to qualify it. Of course, she is not perfect (nor is her track record) but it would be politically naive to expect perfection.

I have always had a somewhat irrational affection for Brown over Blair (perhaps it's the Scottish Pre. thing - I can be unjustifiably morally righteous myself at times) and it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

In some regards, it's completely irrelevant - in terms of voting, let's just say that I will *not* be voting for Cameron (one of life's little certainties) and as much as I have flirted with the libdems, at the moment it just doesn't appear politically plausible. The LDs have squandered the opportunities for advantage they had and despite them being (de facto) the most left wing party around, I can't say that I'm committed enough to stick by them. Quite frankly, as long as Labour don't go completely barmy, it seems like the only responsible vote. Except that sounds horrid and isn't really what I want to say.

Yet another well thought out and completely coherent post then...

Ring of Fire

My first reaction to the recent news story regarding the “silver ring thing” (www.silverringthing.com) and whether the wearing of such a ring should be banned from schools, was: Yes, it bloody well should be banned. I suppose my main reasons for thinking this would be:
a) What does a *ring* have to do with being chaste? Surely, chastity is one of those decisions that you make and decide to keep – the presence of a piece of jewellery is not going to be a huge factor as to whether this is going to work.
b) Perhaps the ring is a symbol of how chaste you are and maybe, in times of real temptation, the sight of it will keep you strong. IME, there is not really much temptation at school. Or, more importantly, the opportunity to carry that temptation through. By all means, put it on when you get the school bus home, but frankly, if you need it at school, you have some deeper issues that ought to be confronted first.
c) Having (fairly recently, although it is receding into the distance) been a teenager at a mediocre state comp, I can safely assure you that allowing one sort of ring is going to be a slippery slope. Remembering accidents that were downright gory (although entertaining back then because we were sadistic), rings are just not a good idea.
d) I’m not religious and even if I was, I wouldn’t like the idea of chastity. By all means, young women and men should be encouraged to have sex with people they really like and there is nothing wrong with wanting it to be special. However, too often, chastity is used as an excuse to debase women and to discourage a comprehensive (and important) sexual education.
e) Not only am I not religious but (ashamedly I have to admit) religious motivation has me stumped. I just don’t get it. As I have been told in the past, I am spiritually impoverished. On the plus side, it makes things like this gloriously straight-forward.
I have to admit, I thought that this point of view would be shared by my nearest and dearest, so that we could pour scorn on the whole procedure together. However, it was not to be. He thought it should be allowed as a religious symbol (apparently that kind of thing is to some Christian Evangelists) and that, on the whole, schools shouldn’t be allowed to dictate about jewellery. He amended this point to allowing “one ring per pupil”.

We have hit an impasse – he becoming more libertarian and I, more stridently authoritarian (I can’t help it, it’s my aspirational lower-middle class background) as I embrace republicanism – of the political theory kind, not, god forbid, the American sort. He’s wrong, but I’m inclined to be nice about it…

Well *now* I wish I hadn't eaten that last cookie

Thrilling news in the fight to make sure rape allegations are taken seriously by all involved. Last week (yes yes, I'm behind) it emerged that the young girl gang raped by some youths in a park - who phoned her mother to tell her all about it - was, according to their defense lawyer, glad of the attention because she was fat.

Okay, I can take the point that at some point, the poor, slightly chubby girl, may have wished that boys fancied her. And perhaps, when the youths first approached, she felt flattered. One would assume that that feeling (if it ever existed at all) disappeared at some point, given they proceeded to assault her. Surely, if she had felt *grateful*, there wouldn't be a court case at all.

It seems completely inhuman to suggest that it wasn't rape because she was fat and no-one would ever really fancy her. I would love to indulge in a more complex discussion of this, but I can't because (a) I'm too cross and (b) work has made my brain atrophy. Where do we draw the line then? If a woman is not a beautiful, paragon of innocence, preferably wearing a habit or shapeless tunic, then she can't have been raped? We are not all beautiful and we are not all slim, that is true. However, I'd state with grim certainty that this does not make us *grateful* when we are raped.

Have mercy...

There I was, innocently browsing teh internets for work purposes (yes, I swear it's true) when all of a sudden - kapow. Apparently, the Times has discovered that a lot of its readers would vote BNP.

Okay, so this is not exactly surprising. The Times is hardly at the forefront of the class struggle (speaking of which, if I had not studied Marxism, a recent visit to Blenheim palace might have converted me), still, I had at least hoped there was *some* vestige of sanity left. Alas, it was not to be.

Rather than mocking this inbred, irrational, nutcase element of their readership, it seemed sympathetic. Commenters pointed out how brave the Times was to go against the tide of the "PC" etc etc. Admittedly, whenever I see this kind of comment, I do go a pleasant shade of magenta and splutter "what???!?" in an increasingly high pitched tone. Still.

WHAT ARE YOU ALL THINKING?

Obviously, you're not. So forget that question. I have a horrible feeling we're going to end up like France, having to choose between Chirac and LePen. Let me state categorically that this would be the *only time* that voting for Cameron would be acceptable. If the BNP keeps gaining support, I will have to emigrate to... okay, given the lack of acceptable alternatives, some sort of mental breakdown would probably be in order. The outcome of that event happening is, seriously, just to horrible to contemplate.

-------------

In more (directly) feminist news, bad news for women in the US regarding the Supreme Court and a certain method of abortion. BitchPhD has some good posts on this - so I suggest you go to her. I would link to her, but (in gross technical incompetence) have forgotten how. Google it; you'll all be fine.

You what?

Yesterday’s shock stories regarding more and more doctors refusing to give abortions were, just a tad, misleading. Turns out, if you actually bother reading the articles, that what is happening is that medical students etc are simply choosing *not to specialise* in this area, leading to a potential shortage of people qualified to perform the procedure. Presumably, there are shortages in other areas too as doctors choose to specialise in, say, neuroscience(?) rather than something a little more mundane. Sure, some people may be choosing not to go into this area because they don’t wish to perform abortions, but quite frankly, the evidence did not actually seem to lead to this conclusion.

Imagine my surprise then, when I was flicking through the TV channels this morning before leaving for work. There, on Sky sunrise, discussing the day’s papers, was some idiotic guest journo-hack who apparently *had not* actually read this article, but only the title. Sanctimoniously, he announced that *even pro-choicers* (because we are evil, child-killing demons from hell) had to question the 24 week limit and that it was great that doctors were saying no because “after all, abortion is murder”.

Pardon me?

Where did that come from? When did it become perfectly okay for a middle aged, middle class, smug man to go on a breakfast news programme to discuss papers and come out with something like that? I am okay with gentle sarcasm, a bit of light bitching. However, I will not be morally judged or hectored by *anyone* who goes on these programmes in the name of objective, impartial journalism. To be honest, I was absolutely outraged. If he is pro-life, fair enough. He can believe whatever he likes. At the same time, there is no way that I have to have his beliefs inflicted upon me, with no nod to reason, sanity or any justifiable argument behind his position. His comment was unnecessary and inflammatory and I am completely appalled that Sky news felt it was appropriate for the situation to let that go.

Long time, no see...

Gosh, has it really been that long since I last posted? Apparently so. It's not that I haven't been thinking turmoiled feminist thoughts, it's simply that I have been too tired to write them, or even formulate them in a coherent manner.

Today's rant of choice involves the 15 soldiers abducted by Iran. Obviously, a disturbing scenario in and of itself, not helped by the insane war mongering of certain US ex-ambassadors to the UN (yes John Bolton, I mean you). Leaving this inside, what really bothers me is the media treatment of Faye Turney. In case you've been living inside an isolation tank for the past week or so, she is one of the 15 naval personnel captured by Iranian forces. And she is a mother, with a distraught family at home.

There is uproar, to be frank, about the fact that they have captured a woman, and continue to hold her. As a result, we have heard absolutely bugger all about the men who are held with her, regardless of the fact that they also may have children, or families, or friends who are worried and miss them. Why is this?

I will not deny that, in terms of things that can happen in captivity, a woman may be seen as a more vulnerable prisoner. We all know of the terrible things that can be done (I don't think we need to list them all, more out of concerns for space than squeamishness) and there is no doubt that Iran is, to some extent, playing upon these fears by using her as a bargaining tool. Similarly, all of us may be guilty of internalising the old refrain "women and children first" and - for those of us who *are* women, finding this helpful when faced with dire circumstances - e.g. the sinking of the titanic. The fact is that the capture of a woman is, for many people, simply more horrific than the capture of men.

So we have this instinctive reaction. Not just to capture, but to murder or robbery, or attack and so on. Is it right? Are we really prepared to say that, all things considered, a woman is intrinsically worth more than a man (forgive me if I am wrong, but that seems to be what the logical conclusion is)? That she is a more valuable asset? Perhaps we would want to frame it as - the children will suffer the loss of their mother more than the loss of their father.

This, it seems to me, is dangerous. If we go down that route, then we give vital ammunition to those who wish to see women off the front lines, out of their jobs and back home with their children. If we have to work harder to protect women for the sake of their children, then it is only a matter of time that someone decides that to *protect* women, we should not put them in dangerous places at all. In fact, let's just lock them up in big, padded, breeding wards and let the child-bearing commence.

Okay, that was a little silly, but you get my point. Rather than a feminist concern for women, the media frenzy smacks more of the "precious doll-lady" attitude of old. I don't think it's "unsisterly" to point this out and in fact, in the name of solidarity, is deserves a proper debate. Even if, in the end, it is to the detriment of Faye Turner (who, let's face it, probably wishes she wasn't the centre of such scrutiny anyway).

Yes I'm crap but...

Oh the perils of being employed rather than a lay-about student. If I'd known what I was in for, I would certainly have revelled in my lay-about opportunities a lot more than I did.

Anyway, I was sitting on the tube the other day and I got so angry. I was reading the Metro (always a bad idea) and there was the tragic case of little Millie, whose dad got pissed off with her mum, and decided to kill his little girl as an act of revenge. Okay, obviously he's mentally ill - people have affairs all the time and having them exposed does not usually end in dead children. However, the fact that his poor wife was having a rather steamy affair does not IN THE SLIGHTEST justify somebody deciding to kill their child out of jealousy. Why does the media feel the need to shout about the woman's dubious sexual pleasures as though she had somehow invited him to do this? No real person believes that it's the case, so why oh why does it suddenly gain mythical and immense importance in the press? Because whilst it's okay for fathers to work long hours, have affairs, leave their families etc, when a woman happens to look for sexual gratification outside of her marriage she automatically invites her partner to kill her children, that whore?

Surely not. Surely not even the *Metro* is that right wing and backward...

Blogging Block

Alas, for the past couple of weeks, I've not been able to summon up the energy to write. Every subject feels a bit dry and repetitive - not that I'm competing to be original, but I would like to feel that I'm not spewing out complete crap every time I make an entry. So there've been no posts for a while.

I put it down to the end of exams - without them, I feel somewhat directionless. And jobless. The encroaching vision of overdrafts and high interest rates are a little scary, so I'm doing the grown up thing of doing absolutely nothing about it. Hah. I've also been robbed of the opportunity to read interesting feminist literature under the pretense of revision. And of writing long feminist rants about the comparitive merits of Marx and Mill as 19th Century (apparent) feminist thinkers.

As a feminist, I guess I'm more academic than activist (which will probably not come as a surprise to some) but I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing. I will, and do, protest and write angry emails etc, but the theorising keeps me sane. When the nitty-gritty gets too much and there are endless circles around something that is ultimately rather trivial(oh jesus, you know this is coming out wrong!), being able to think about what it would really *mean* to have the kind of society I want is a blessing. And after three years at Oxford, I'm rather good at the academic stuff.

It also keeps things in proportion. The oppression that middle class women in London suffer is different from that of women in China etc. It doesn't mean that middle class oppression is not worth fighting for (we have the means, after all), but that it needs to be remembered that it *is* different. We may all share the fact that we are women, but what it means to be a woman is different in all of these places, and within the same country, in different races, classes, status groups etc. No wonder feminism rarely seems like an united front. Admittedly, thinking too much about this will mean no-one can ever do anything, but it is important. I guess the point is that academia can feed into the activism without detracting from it, as many people seem to believe. I don't see that 'academic' always has to be a pejorative term within radical feminism.

On a lighter note, I really hate the new adverts for anti-wrinkle cream that are aimed at men. Really, women have enough trouble without men buying into this crap as well. For any men out there, we do not notice your wrinkles. At all. We don't think about them. We have more important things to think about, thanks. Christ. And this should show women that men think exactly the same thing about their wrinkles - i.e. they don't.