What to wear....

Just a very very quick blog post today, about a particular article that I came across this morning. It is a piece in the Daily Mail about women who dislike/are fed up with/want to change their partner's style or particular items of clothing. With the title of the piece being 'Can you make your slobby hubby sexy again?'.

I can't believe how shallow and patronising a piece this is. There are several issues that could be taken up about this particular piece:

• Image shouldn't be important if you care about and respect your partner
• They shouldn't have to dress a particular way to please you
• What you deem fashionable/acceptable/smart (delete as applicable) may be vastly different to what they think
• Respecting and caring for your partner, it must be quite hurtful to have someone telling you they don't like the way you look, particularly if you have been married/together a long time

I have nothing against people who take pride in their appearance, whatever manifestation that pride may be it is up to them. Just as I don't see the value in judging someone based on the type or brand of clothes that they are wearing. I am sure there are a great number of people who would walk past me and find a hundred ways in which they could 'improve' my look.

The phrase fashion-conscious has been mentioned and a criticism of a husband for buying and wearing the same type of clothes over the decades together. If something fits, works and you like it I can hardly see a problem or the need for a spouse to want you to change. The individuals all look well dressed after their 'make-overs' and seem relatively happy and polite about the changes that have been made. However, it doesn't change the fact that the whole focus of this was to get the men to change because their partners had deemed there was something not good enough about their look.

The reaction to this article will be interesting as there is a little bit of me that cannot help but wonder what it would have been/looked like had the article been reversed. At the point of writing this blog post the positive rated comments on the article identify that it is sexist and the reaction would be very negative if men had done this to their wives. This is perhaps a very fair point, as when we think of control and manipulation we often have a very set idea of what and who this looks like. With the negative rated comments being about how good the changes were and that men should take this on board. Although as the boards are realistically anonymous (despite screen names, you could be anybody) we cannot be certain of the genders posting the comments at the end. I do think this is worth raising because too many people assume that any individual who identifies as a feminist but want female superiority and dislikes men. When in fact feminism is about social and political equality with respect for both genders. This respect works both ways, and means that neither sex should be judging or dictating to the other.

Who needs Lads Mags?

So modesty covers and potentially restricting sales to the over 18s, have been in the press this week, with Tesco seeming to be at the front of this move. But this isn't good enough as Lose the Lads Mags campaign group point out.

A 'modesty cover' to conceal the nudity and breasts/sexual poses doesn't remove or stop this content from being made or existing. By covering the women up it does not really afford them any modesty, as soon as the covers are removed the women have been stripped of their modesty and in my opinion their dignity. Once the modesty cover has been removed the women are degraded to simply being pieces of meat for the stimulation of the buyer. By suggesting modesty covers the supermarkets seem to acknowledge that the content is inappropriate or not respectful. So why not do it properly? Why not ban the sale of these magazines?

I know there is far worse material online, and I know that those in favour of the ISP level porn opt-in will support blocking this, although perhaps without fully understanding or considering the power, restrictions and flaws that such a plan includes. I would like to make it clear I object to porn in all its forms, but I don't think this 'porn filter' as it has been termed will work. I also think the potential for blocking other material is too great a fear to ignore. However, this is not the blog post for such a debate. But, supermarkets need to properly consider their female and younger shoppers. I don't want to visit a supermarket that is selling lads mags, but I have little choice at the moment. I don't want to shop somewhere where crude and degrading images of women are sold, even if they are sealed in a paper/plastic bag. I'm sure parents of young children don't want to have answer awkward or inappropriate questions about the material shown on and in these magazines. Tweets from my followers and others indicate that this is a real problem and concern for many parents when shopping.

I also think that it is unfair on the shop workers to have to stack, handle and scan these items. For some it might cause embarrassment, for others it might distress or frustrate them. A fair question, that has been raised by many, is that is it discrimination against women to stock these sort of magazine? As it depicts women as sex objects. I don't know whether this is an argument that would hold in a court of law, but it is an interesting point.

Finally, the 'over 18' argument. At 18 you are legally an adult, but why as an adult is it suddenly ok to consume images of scantily clad women? At 18 is it suddenly ok to disrespect the opposite sex? No. So being an adult doesn't make it any better at all. It just seems another half-hearted attempt to show that you are bringing in some means of controlling who sees and buys the images. Without actually thinking about the impact of the images, because if you did then the logical step is to ban the magazines altogether. Anyway, as I mentioned earlier, Lose the Lads Mags is a fantastic campaign. See how you can get involved and make a difference towards creating a more equal and respectful society. Good luck!

Sexism in adverts?

I'm thinking of a particular advert when I'm grumbling today. I'm thinking of the new Diet Coke advert, I'm sure you know the one. It starts with a group of young women, who spy an attractive man and decide to roll a can towards him as he mows the grass. They motion to him to open the can. Due to the rolling action as he opens it it sprays all over him and he takes his top off. The women seem happy.

Now I know there are countless adverts using scantily clad women, or stereotypes or sex to sell products. I object to those as well. But, the reason I object to this Diet Coke advert is because I think it portrays women as vacant airheads who are only interested in the physical appearance of someone. I also don't think the majority of women would behave like this, and the advert seems silly. I also fear that when feminist groups rightly identify adverts that are sexist, stereotypical or derogatory about women then adverts like this one will be chucked back at them.

Here's a thought adland how about some smart or even funny adverts that don't feel the need to belittle either gender, stereotype or degrade anyone? In my opinion there is probably more sexism directed towards women, but we should not ignore sexism against men either. Instead we should be looking for true equality and removing this objectification and silliness. Anyway, only a short post about this for now as I want to gather a bank of examples (or a bank of poor examples) from adverts. So, longer post will follow!

When I grow up.....

I'd like to be

• a. A bear
• b. A truck driver
• c. Head of state

Sadly only one of those is possible here in England. I'll give you a clue, short of a lot of dressing-up or surgery I can't achieve a and because we have an unelected head of state and I'm not related to them I can never achieve c. I've long been a staunch supporter of Republic and the amazing work they do to raise the profile, reason and arguments behind the need for a truly democratic system. But, what has tipped my annoyance in recent days is the news that the Queen is to be given a 'pay-rise' that beats inflation and is probably considerably above that which any public sector worker can expect to receive. According to the Daily Mail The Queen is to receive a 5% pay-rise that will take the burden to the tax-payer up to £33.3 million. Yes £33.3 million a year. The cost to each citizen is 53p, this might not sound like a lot but it is the principle. With the article highlighting a phone bill of £200,000 and a food bill of £1.2 million I am astounded. I cannot believe that there are people who genuinely believe that the public should continue to foot the bill for what seems to be a privileged lifestyle that we will never enjoy. Whilst around us there are cuts to benefits and public sector services. For example; it is thought that there is a shortage of about 5,000 midwives according to the Huffington Post, could this money not be better spent here? Improving the lives of many ordinary citizens at a vulnerable time in their lives.

When it was revealed in the Daily Mail that Kate is expected to give birth in a private suite that could cost up to £10,000 it brings it home. To quote Disraeli in his novel Sybil, source: Sybil (novel) in Wikiquotes retrieved 29/06/13 from: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Sybil_%28novel%29,

Two nations; between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as ignorant of each other's habits, thoughts, and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planets; who are formed by a different breeding, are fed by a different food, are ordered by different manners, and are not governed by the same laws: the rich and the poor.

We are not the same, I am under no illusion. Republic ask 'shouldn't every child be #bornEqual a fair question but when we see 'ordinary' women facing midwife shortages and maternity closures whilst Kate enjoys a £10,000 birth it is difficult to see how every child is born equal. In the 21st century is it not time to call time on this outdated system and create true equality?

So, when I grow up I have decided I want option d, to be equal. Properly equal, I don't want to be ruled by someone who hasn't even been born yet. Stop and imagine if this was a job application, would you accept it? This is why I will continue to support #Republic and #bornEqual (the Born Equal campaign).

Where only the beautiful dare tread.....

I actually thought this was a joke at first. According to a piece on the Mail Online, and on their own website, the people who brought you 'beautiful dating' are now offering a service for employers and employees on the basis of looks! The Mail explores it from the angle of which countries are getting the most rejections. The UK apparently rates highly in terms of number of rejections.

So, I decided to check out the site. It is a microsite off of the main Beautiful People site that focuses on recruitment for members of Beautiful People. This presumably means you must be a member of the Beautiful People site before you can be considered for the listings/access to recruiters.

Now before anyone labels me a miserable unattractive spinster-esque figure who is only complaining because;

• they are not attractive enough to be on the site
• they have been rejected by the site

Let me assure you that I have never, and nor would I ever, apply/submit my details to something as shallow as this. And, I simply don't care whether anyone finds me attractive or not. I am sure I am some people's cup of tea/beverage of choice just as I am sure there are others that would not find me physically attractive. Now that we have got that out of the way, we can get to the serious issues!
1. This is not the way to encourage business, nor is it the way to get the best candidates. The tagline for the recruitment site is 'An attractive face is always a great first impression for any business', source: Beautiful People.com Recuitment. Now I don't know what readers think but I think that is rubbish! The best first impression for me is and has always been related to manners and professionalism. I don't judge people on their looks, nor do I think someone might be better at their job because of the way they look.
2. How patronising a message, if you consider what is being said. The best way to succeed in business and do well in life is to look good. What kind of message is that for young people, particularly at a time of high unemployment? It amounts to little more than suggesting education, experience and competence mean nothing when competing with a 'looker'.
3. Whatever happened to beauty is in the eye of the beholder? This has the potential to open up complaints of discrimination on many different levels. I appreciate the note on the Beautiful People dating site, that can be found at the bottom of the page in section titled How beautifulpeople.com works that states they are not defining the notion of beauty. They are merely representing what society thinks is beautiful through the voting system. However, only those who are members can vote, and presumably those who are members think they are beautiful (or why else would they be there?!) and have a definition of beauty that probably looks similar to them. Therefore could it be reasoned that people who do not conform to this identikit version of accepted beauty are less likely to be accepted by the current members? It is interesting when you consider it like that rather than seeing it as a democratic vote-in.
4. Professionalism? I also think that I would not want to do business with a company if I knew this was how they recruited their staff. I really hope this site is a spoof or a short lived venture.
5. Body image: this is such a negative and shallow focus. The idea of the body beautiful and that there is one definition of body beautiful is such a bizarre notion. Sadly it is one that seems to be accepted by many. Take our clothes for example; always modelled on tall, thin and often angular women. Anyone who dares be slightly larger is termed a plus-sized model and seen perhaps as niche rather than the norm.
6. The sad trend: this idea of body beautiful as being all important in the workplace is disgusting. There was a piece several years ago that suggested that employers did not want to employ overweight people because they would be lazy. This was covered by the Mail online and was discussing the result of a poll of 200 bosses. This is a disgraceful attitude to take and shows once again that sadly people in society seem to place important on looks over competence.

It is about time we started to challenge that and fight back. Body image is not a tool or means to judge people, there are no excepted rules about beauty and physical image should not be the most important aspect about someone.

Women in Politics: Part 2

The all female shortlist

The all female shortlist is something that is sometimes criticised for giving women an 'unfair' advantage. I don't think it is giving an advantage in a negative sense, I think it is helping to redress the balance and beginning to get more women into politics, if it also makes the fact that few women make their way into cabinet and government a focus then that is also not a bad thing. If it forces people to discuss the poor representation that women have, with a view to trying to change it, then that is also a positive step. The Guardian highlights today that Labour have decided to use all women shortlists for 52 parliamentary candidates. This is because the party found that men dominated the list for new candidates in target seats for the 2015 election, when the lists had been open to both genders. The open lists have seen 17 men selected from 18 contests. This suggests that women only lists are needed to ensure that those who have the power to select the next candidates for constituencies are ensuring there is equal representation. This has led to 22 women only shortlists being drawn up for target areas for the next election, which has resulted in 23 female candidates being selected so far. However, this is from a total of 40 seat contests, meaning when the lists have been open to men and women only one was won by a female candidate. The paper raises an interesting question about the lack of women selected when the list was open, they ask whether this is because the 'stronger' female candidates found themselves on female only shortlists to ensure they were selected. Or whether the 1 in 18 when the lists were open was a backlash in response to knowing their were women only lists elsewhere, and so they felt they did not 'need' to select a woman.

A spokesman for Labour is quoted in the paper as saying that this is the only way to ensure female candidates. This begins to feel quite patronising. I blogged at the start of March about women in power and discussed the often sexist 'boys' club' environment that seemed to have been created in politics. I think this is perhaps more influential in keeping women out of politics and needing to rely on women only lists. If women do not feel confident about their ability then they may not feel confident enough to put themselves forward. Women are just as capable as men, in every aspect of life. However, the use of women only shortlists ensure that women at least begin to get some representation and way in to what can be seen as a male dominated female-unfriendly environment.

Infertility, same-sex relationships and children

Anyone who follows me, casually or otherwise, on twitter (@NrthntsFeminist) will possibly have noticed some of my rants about the treatment of infertile couples, individuals and same-sex couples. My irritation (I seem to be very irritated this new year!) relates to a couple of key areas, and I am sure that anyone needing NHS/medical support in creating children in a same-sex relationship or struggling with infertility will be able to empathise with some of my feelings of irritation and anger,

• Why not just adopt?
• We should only fund children/people who already exist
• Children are a lifestyle choice/privilege not a right
• It costs too much to fund IVF etc
• Children need two parents/a dad etc etc
• Cancer treatment etc is underfunded so we should not 'waste' money on IVF/fertility treatment

Perhaps it is fair and ethical to state my position here, I am (and my husband) currently undergoing fertility treatment and so this is a raw and close issue for me. It is also an issue I have battled with in silence for many many months, but I no longer see that I should have to hide my feelings or discontent at the flaws in the system. I would like to systematically take the points I have raised and pick apart the flaws in them.

This post has been brought about following today's BBC The Big Question on BBC1. One topic being debated was the notion of using stem cells to create sperm, this would help infertile heterosexual couples in-light of the shortage of donor sperm as well as allowing same-sex female couples to both be the biological parents of any child born into their relationship. This would bring joy, happiness and new life for those desperate to have their own children. However, many of the commentators seemed disgusted by this notion of 'doing away with fathers'. They seemed to wilfully or stupidly (I will let the reader decide!) ignore the fact that this was talking about supporting and enabling same-sex couples in being able to create children that were biologically linked to both parents. The notion of simply adopting was raised at several points, as if this is an easy option, both emotionally and practically.

Before I begin to pick apart the points that I have identified further up in this post I would urge you to look at the Guardian's datablog about access to IVF, this came about as the result of a number of Freedom of Information requests to PCTs. Although it should be noted that the date of the piece is 2009 it is frightening to think that there are/were PCTs ignoring NICE guidelines with regards to access to healthcare and imposing requirements about the length of relationship or age for example. If we remove the emotion (and often religious arguments about morality of fertility treatment) we should see IVF and fertility treatment as doing just that, treating. IVF etc treats a medical need, infertile couples or some same-sex couples can not have children without assistance, this is a medical need. For example, some PCTs say that the woman in the couple needs to be between 30 and 35 to qualify for IVF, a woman aged 28 who is infertile will still be infertile at 30, forcing her to wait *another* two years will not alleviate her medical problems. Wolverhampton, Worcestershire, Newham, North Yorkshire and York, Oldham and Telford and Wrekin, for example, are all marked as responding to the FOI in 2009 saying no, they do not provide IVF for same-sex couples/individuals. Find out what your PCT offers or does not offer.

So to take the points made earlier: Adoption this is not the easy option that people seem to think. It is often suggested to couples as a way for them to have the family they want. It ignores the drives and desires that this couple or individual may have to have a biological child. In my experience people with biological children haven't liked the question being flipped and applied to them! Adoption is not easy, there are (rightly) numerous checks, panels and references. It is a challenging, rewarding if successful, process and should not be seen as a fall-back. To see it is as such is disrespectful to adoptive children and parents.
I will group a couple of points: 'We should only fund children/people who already exist', 'It costs too much to fund IVF etc' and 'Cancer treatment etc is underfunded so we should not 'waste' money on IVF/fertility treatment'. Fertility treatment is not something people enter into for the laughs it is to address a *medical* need. In the same way that any other person uses the NHS. To say we should only fund those that exists is in fact directly agreeing with the view that IVF/fertility treatment should be funded, as infertile people do already exist and are asking for help. The arguments that it costs too much and other areas are underfunded is a misnomer, drugs could be made cheaper if we looked at the profits made by large pharmaceutical companies. It is also a weak argument to say x lacks money so y should not happen. We should look at how the system can be balanced so that all needs can be met.
Children need two parents/a dad: this argument ignores the stability that a loving same-sex relationship can provide for a child. The nuclear family is perhaps an outdated model, as society moves forward and develops we should look at how we can support different models of family rather than applying our personal views.
The argument that children are a privilege is an interesting one. To some extent I do understand, children are not a commodity to be upgraded etc. However, I believe that everyone should have the ability to have a family, with medical support if needed. We should not be telling infertile people that their medical treatment constitutes a privilege.

As I mentioned I have come at this from a person point of view, as someone who is facing having to wait several years for the medical treatment I need, for no better reason than that is the arbitrary interpretation of NICE guidelines in the PCT near me. I believe that IVF/fertility treatment for infertile couples, individuals and same-sex couples addresses a medical and scientific need, the access to this should be open to all and free from moral judgements.