Discussing New "Class" Fluctuations aka 'Chavs'

Suzanne Moore, Guardian Columnist, writes an interesting piece on 'Chavs' in this week's Saturday Guardian on Chavs, that, while eloquent, entirely misses the point of the debate.

Moore's take is aggressive and snide, and fails to come to any conclusions other than Chavs exist and the other classes don't like them.

The Underclass

Using the ubiquitous Lauren from Catherine Tate as a point of reference, she turns the discussion about what constitutes a 'chav' into a discussion on class and aspiration. To me, this is like a GCSE dissertation that would be laughed out of University seminars.

The word 'chav', parethesis required, depicts what Marx referred to many decades ago as the underclass. It is a depiction, in the worst way, of the dregs, scum or plankton of society that fails to aspire, to contribute to society or to function within the wider scale of social class evolution and transition. Therefore the definition 'chav' is simply a new terminology for such a position in society.

This terminology simply refers to a section of society that, Moore rightly states, tend speak a patois of "black", an epitome of confused origins, confused futures and a lack of direction in any area of immensely complicated lives. Social policy is the tip of the iceberg in challenging structural ideologies when dealing with an underclass that creates it's own circular economy separate from any system the government can impose or remove.

While Moore neatly portions 'chavs' into a 'poor' bracket, she fails to observe this is not a new phenomenom. Marx says himself;

This scum of the depraved elements of all classes ... decayed roués, vagabonds, discharged soldiers, discharged jailbirds, escaped galley slaves, swindlers, mountebanks, lazzaroni, pickpockets, tricksters, gamblers, brothel keepers, tinkers, beggars, the dangerous class, the social scum, that passively rotting mass

This is much as Moore depicts the poor, those who gain no benefits from society, therefore embracing a passive inertia is the most logical conclusion. Why should a convicted criminal seek to be more than he is, when he is discriminated against at every turn; unable to get a bank account, rent other than a council house, locate a job or an education?

Battling Generalisations

Social policy is the real debate. If people are worked against, discriminated against and expected to fall at every turn, they will not develop aspirations that would embody other class structures, from hard-working classes (the new middle class) or the upper middle classes.

The concept of the 'chav' is subject to striking generalisation in an age of austerity (and that's another rhetoric I'm beginning to loathe) with a predominately centre right government who embrace middle class ideology in spite of all the whimperings of the Lib Dems about social mobility.

If social policy made more ways for people to join the social-evolutionary-cycle (I'm sure there's a better expression for that) then the issue of a side-show for "the rich slagging off the poor for being poor". The constant battle those who are raised by single parents, addicted persons, ex-offenders and other so-called scum, then the situation would not seem quite so disparate. But all the time there are such bitter distinctions, such as access to work, the situation will pertain, whether they wear tracksuits or not.

The future of classes

I wonder if Moore reads her own paper. Guy Standing's article on Wednesday discussed The Preclariat, the 'new' class of people whose lives are without stability, who thrive on emotional charge, drift between jobs, aspirations, and have little hope of securing property or security in their lives. This is currently what the underclass have to aspire to.

And on a gender note

Moore's article made me laugh initially, although I couldnt quite reconcile it with The Guardian and it's centre left ideology. However, in retrospect, I observed that every single comparison to the attack on 'Chavs' was based on female examples.

She berates "Lauren", she belittles Katie Price, Kerry Katona and Jade Goody, and she even cites a fear of women as a legitimate example of the middle classes loathing of the underclass representation.

Where are the thuggish footballers that would epitomise the same concepts? What about the satirical take on black patois by Ali G that is such an apt interpretation of the cumulative negative effects of the power of the media?

In spite of being a female author, she choses to belittle the female representation of the underclass in sleb life to demonstrate the worst of the underclass. Apparently it is far worse to be a single mum than a male homeless addict. The females are the ones who take the brunt of the assault of her opinion, her loathing linked directly to the structural ideologies that pertain no matter what generation or class you may belong to.

Were Iceland represented by Honor Blackman, she may have taken a different tact. But Moore choses to put the boot into female aspiration far heavier than she does to the concept of 'chavs' as an ideology. To be a chav is a dire existence, but to be a female one is tantamount to being a devil incarnate.

To further suggest that this is part of a right-wing mentality, thereby potentially seeking to appease her own guilt for processing a right-wing argument in a left wing paper, she is perpetuating the ideology that women should be the subhumans in all class genres.

The Wedding Dress: A Feminst Analogy

Watching Kate Middleton wander down the isle in the much awaited dress, I was struck by how curvy she looked.

I found this quite odd, given that she is normally the 21st century ideological stick insect. However, the figure she presented was reinforced by a dress designed to accentuate curves.

That's when it struck me, just how derogatory and insulting the modern wedding dress has become, even when we call women equal. We still seek to perpetuate the madonna/whore dichotomy in fashion.

The dress is white because that is representative of the Virgin. Yet the irony in this representation is huge, where people who marry in the 21st century have generally lived together prior to marriage, and often have children as well. It used to be that such "fallen women" dressed in an alternative colour, but the infiltration of white dresses has returned.

To represent the dichotomy, the dress is usually fitted to exaggerate the breasts and hips (nothing like a flared skirt for that) and minimise the waist. There is psychological research into the hip to waist ratio, which, although it differs across ethnicities, the meaning is clear. A defined waist and wide hips show child bearing potential.

Therefore, as a woman chooses to exaggerate her mammary glands and accentuate her child bearing potential, her dress is in fact screaming: I am justifiable by my physicality! I am valued only for my ability to breed! This ability has not been tested yet because I am PURE!

We may as well surrender to walking behind men in public and obeying their every wish.

Haven't women come further than to simply resign themselves to being regarded as baby factories? Haven't we intellectually evolved beyond the representation of a patriarchal ideology?

Ken Clarkes Comments Do Indict Victims of Rape But Not As You Thought

Ken Clarke's blusterings on rape this week have been a fixation of the liberal (sometimes) intelligentsia in the new media.

Ken Clarke's comments came under scrutiny because he allegedly stated that some offences of rape was less serious than others. In fact, my learned friend @neilmonnery put up a rather good blog article on the reactionary responses to headline news. In short, the reaction was an overreaction which failed to take into account the legal, legislative and sentencing details of the offence of rape and varying degrees in which it can occur.

I would like to point out that here I'm not in any way justifying rapists or mitigating situation that lead to such offences.

Wider Context

However, while we can examine the current legislative state for rape, the statistics appear to only tell a small amount of the story. As Baroness Stern's review of rape in February 2010 identified;

It is estimated that only 10% of rapes are actually reported.

Of these, a defendant enters a guilty plea at an early enough stage will result in a plea to bargain which reduces the offence to sexual assault.

Therefore, there is a significantly distressing wider context in which Ken Clarke's comments can be applied.

If indeed Clarke's comments seek to persuade people to plead guilty, then the offender has a significant chance of any charge of rape being reduced by the Crown Prosecution Service to a charge of sexual assault, a lesser offence which carries a subsequent lesser sentence and therefore would, in theory allow the offender to go out and commit the same offence again. This is of course whether he is raping a man or a woman.

This is a far more distressing issue for victims and potential victims of rape and one that should be taken into serious consideration when examining Ken Clarke's statements.

While, and as Neil Monnery states, a judge has the discretion to decide the length of sentence based on the merits of the case, therefore if the man pleads guilty committed aggravated rape with a weapon, he is still likely to receive a substantial punitive sentence; An offender that does not get before a judge prior to the offence being committed is unlikely to receive a similarly punitive sentence.

At what point did we warrant Crown Prosecution Service lawyers the right to decide whether or not someone should be tried for rape on the basis of meeting their targets systems?

Especially, when one takes into account that only 10% of rapes are ever reported. We are therefore in theory potentially allowing this public service body to reduce the amount of prosecutions and therefore reduce the amount of "reported" rapes to less than 7%.

Sociocultural Issues

As a final thought, there needs to be a significant shift in cultural and social approaches to rape. It was a bone of contention when studying feminism and law, and many people examine jury's responses, normally along the lines of a Melanie Phillips response to women that "asking for it", and the subsequent vindication of a victim by finding a defendant not guilty.

This is largely what the "Slut Walk" is attempting to combat, albeit in unconventional and inappropriate manner. One can only hope that as generations mature there will be a significant cultural shift in acceptability of female and male behaviour that does not concede victimisation.

Various Marches that Would Be Better for Feminism

Slut Walks. Nothing like inspiring a "marmite" response.

As Rosamund Urwin puts it in today's Evening Standard, do women, "in the name of protecting rape victims... attempt to turn a sexual slur into a badge of honour", really fully consider the implications of what they are doing?

As I commented previously, it seems rather like sticking a plaster on a broken leg. Calling women sluts will not change the perjorative implications of the word, and will simply fuel "full frontal feminism"; that exploits sex as a consumer asset and denies repression where it so clearly exists.

So what should feminists do instead?

Here are several walks I'd like to see;

Dyke Walk
Where women can claim back the right to have short hair, not wear makeup, wear trousers and flats and generally not flaunt their so-called-assets and not be called a dyke

Single and Happy Walk
Where women can shake off the Bridget Jones sydrome that has spread through generations like a wildfire out of control, contributing to more patronising and defaming remarks based on stereotypes.

Child-free walk
where women are not persecuted for having no maternal desire whatsoever, where they can avoid the pitying patronising looks and comments of "you'll change"; because they have seen through fallacies of motherhood and biological destiny

PMT Bitch Walk
Where women line up to prevent PMT and Hormones becoming synonymous with the repressive term "hysterical";, convoluted out of all sense to imply all women are effectively mentally unsound therefore nothing a man does is a problem, it's all them.

Got any more?
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

The Slut Walk : Some Thoughts

The Slut Walk has bounced into the world of the internet as the latest outrage at perceptions of guilty victims in rape cases.

The premise that women are "asking for it" is once again being challenged by a rising youth population in America, a genuine civil liberty protest movement challenging ubiquitous concepts around rape and responsibility.

I do not like the name. But the principle is sound.

The name is intending to present an interesting reverse psychology message in marketing, with banners proclaiming "I'm a slut, don't assault me" which, I imagine, are intended to continue allowing women to dress as they wish without the perjorative associations of becoming deserving victims.

The principle of the march is founded in these misconceptions around rape and sexual assault, but it seems to avoid one of the main issues in this misconception. That the female body is available for display and should be treated as an asset in the social exchange.

It is a reactionary movement that responds to one issue in a myriad of misconceptions and capitalistic understanding of female eroticism, and perhaps these challenges could take a lot from also seeking to prevent such exploitation of women in the first place, therefore challenging the status quo that women are objects for desire and assault.

Heterodoxical Sex Education (Just Another Nanny State Proposal from the Tories)

Nadine Dorries MP, she who is the devil incarnate to the Twitterazzi Liberal Intelligentsia, this week proposed a return to heterodoxical sex education.

In line with the standard conservative approach to hegemony, Nadine Dorries suggests that girls should be taught the right to say no as a core and integral part of their education.

The Feminist Perspective

As Jane Martinson observes in The Guardian, Dorries is not empowering women, but proposing "an atavistic move that in effect blames weak-willed, ill-educated teenage girls for many of society's ills".

The Conservative line seems to be that we should return to a pre-Germaine Greer society where Girls, instead of becoming women in control, should "adopt the proper feminine passivity" and return to a prerevolutionary concept of a female eunach, who cannot observe her own emotions, cannot challenge, express or enunciate sentiments, whether libidinal or less (allegedly) depraved.

The worst of this proposal is that the message is targeted specifically at girls, who are apparently the sole reason for sexual activity occuring, while men remain in angelic and patriarchial innocence, protected by a society that still considers it appropriate for women to strip and men to watch.

I am interested that Schools now refer to "Sex Ed" as SRE (Sex and Relationship Education). Perhaps the key to the lack of education in preventing girls from realising the potential harm upon their lives from inappropriate sexual behaviour is identified by this simple acronym.

Were the education geared towards relationships with sex only forming a minor part of a strong commitment, girls, and indeed, boys, would be looking at relationships in a completely different way, and such empowerment to say No would not be an isolated issue but part of a wider scale of personal development, self respect and without returning to an archaic concept of autonomy of female submission.

[I would add here, that to follow on from Greer, the development of sexual liberation has become a marketing tool so clearly defined and deplored by Nina Power's One Dimensional Woman and should be explored by anyone who is interested in the matter]

The Political Line

Removing from the argument, for a moment, the feminist issue so prevalent in this bill, let us examine the political impulse.

Once again we see a creeping nanny-state approach from Tory MPs as they dictate an education system that should be provided by the parent.

While I appreciate Conservatives desire to maintain a status quo, a heterodoxy focused on maintaining a social and political marginal change at best, I fail to see why the Conservative MPs, especially the female ones, are so intent on telling parents that their role is defunct and the state can fulfil that role.

First Jowell talking of imposing chastisement on teens who commit offences, such as removing their iPods, now we see Education being shaped to control and manipulate female sexual activity.

From a feminist perspective, I can only assume that Conservative MPs are actually attempting to create a catabolic effect on the pursuit of female emancipation, otherwise why would they so clearly condone the proposal that women are responsible for their own abstinence, and seek to reinstate full patriarchial control in Britain?

But, clearer than that, the Conservative ideology in the UK is one of extreme social divide, centred around Victorian principles of female passivity, acqueient children and, ideally, no welfare state, no left-wing idealism and an ongoing pursuit of an archaic morality that adheres to preservation of these ideals.

Rather than perpetuating entropic conservatism, the Conservatives wish to return to a previous age. But all the sex education and three straps with a birch won't change the progression of liberation, democracy and, above all, the advancement of technology which both fuels and hinders these.

I'd Wear A Burkha in France

The biggest issue with France's notorious 'banning the burkha' legislation is that is a futile and destructive knee jerk political reaction.

The law lacks the fundemental requirement of purposive legislation.

Were it a proclaimation on all face coverings in the name of public protection, it would be safer.

However, the reasons presented are that it prevents women from being oppressed.

What the law-makers fail to appreciate is that the burkha, the hijab and all range of other face coverings actually prevent women from becoming vaccuous, image obsessed stereotypes. The representation of a woman as something other than a sex object.

By this reckoning, I would wear a burkha. Why should I embrace makeup and the right shampoo to placate my fellow human beings? Surely my measure of attractiveness is only of interest to my husband?

While I am not denying the burkha can, and has, been used to repress women, and to retain their servitudinal role in society, banning a headcovering is no more effective than banning parking on double yellows. It will not prevent oppression, which is more rife in social representation of glamour models than muslim communities.

More so, the legislation seems targeted to muslims, and this does not only negate freedom of religious expression, but further ghettoises the muslim community as a whole.

My Submissions to BBC Radio 4 Any Questions

1. Is the news that the Daily and Sunday Sport are going into receivership an indirect win for gender equality in the UK?

I for one am delighted that my newsagents will not be adorning borderline pornography in the Newspaper aisles, now I can only hope for the same fate to become of Nuts, GQ etc.

2. When we impose democratic regime on other countries, does this include lack of tolerance of freedom of political expression?

As per the attacks on UN Workers in Afghanistan yesterday, we are imposing a democratic regime on Middle Eastern Countries but that should not contravene religious expression, and when such religious expression causes such dire human rights breaches, we must reexamine the social regulations we are thrusting upon countries.

I have concerns that History will look back on the Western imposition of democracy on Middle Eastern Nations rather like we now look back on the British Empire imposing Christianity on the Chinese.

Even though we consider that "democracy is not an ideal political system, but it's better than the alternatives".

The Perfect Advert and a Scathing Attack on Sally Bercow

It seems that Bill Hicks was something of a Nostradamus. Or a Cacye.

My husband introduced me to the joys of the humourous sociologist, Hicks, the man who said "The Human Race is a virus with boots". I think Hicks should be taught in Schools alongside Dirkheim, Giddens and Fauste.

Feminists all over the world have probably made this post already, but it was the link that caught my attention today.

Hicks said that the perfect advert would be acheived one day. This advert would be a naked woman, spreadeagled, with the slogan "drink coke".

The argument is clear, that pornography (any media that has no artistic credit and causes sexual thought) will ultimately drive the advertising industry, that people will subscribe endemically to one dimensional portrayal of the post modern pornography and therefore be coerced into purchasing any product thinkable.

And a huge exmaple of this in recent months is: Alicia Silverstone.



And so we have it. The perfect advert. By stripping a woman, you can sell anything.

Sex and Politics

Although, I am delighted to see that Sally Bercow, she who embodies the political Geri Halliwell (no talent, no skills and a grasping effort at celebrity), seems to have failed to sell the political world to the country in the main.

Hearing she was posing in a sheet for the Evening Standard, I was struck by her continuous, frenzied attempts to stay in media limelight.

To a politico, and to a feminist, she is saying to me she has completely subscribed to the structural ideologies of the modern world and demonstrating the perceived ability of a woman to be nothing more than an attention seeking, one dimensional, feckless lesser species.

The very pursuit of staying in the news, which she manages with the appaulingly obvious PR of a very fair weather politician, using sex, where, one can only deduce, she has no other talents to sell.

She may like to think she is the UK's answer to Carla Bruni, but in reality, she is simply politic's answer to Jordan.

Yet, to misrepresent Hicks's comments, she has failed to sell anything at all.

Perhaps, Sally, you may wish to try adding "drink coke" to your next news article.

Which I have no doubt will be about a car-key party, lesbianism or some similar attempt to recapture the public's shallow imagination.

Contribution Posts

For those of you who are interested in Feminism, I contribute to the blog Kent Feminista from time to time.

Posts you may be interested in;

KentFeminista: A Few Thoughts on Representation of the Female in Art

KentFeminista: Kent Feminista's Response to Ashford Borough Council's Consultation on Licencing and Regulation of Lap-Dancing Premises

The Footsteps of Feminism in 2011

The footsteps of feminism in 2011 seem to be based around the VSO Campaign to watch UN Women.

On this morning's Woman's Hour on BBC Radio 4, they had a usual "lacking in teeth" debate about the rebranding of UniFem and how women could be empowered by the new marketing of rights of women.

And I wanted to scream at the radio - FEMINISM IS NOT ABOUT MARKETING!

One thing that we discuss at great length at Kent Feminista is the book that the One Dimensional Woman by Nina Power.

"contemporary female achievement ...culminate[s] in the ownership of expensive handbags, a vibrator, a job, a flat and a man - probably in that order"

This sums up the great definition of feminism in the 21st century. And it is abhorrent.

While the 1980s presented feminism and female equality as women working to become men, embracing aggression, consumerism and the phallus; the 90s embrace the Playboy Bunny and Ann Summers.

It appears that VSO, alongside UN Women, is intending to combine the 90s representation with a great feminist stereotype I abhore, the "Eostre" or "Earth mother" image.

[Eostre refers to to female stereotypes of submissive, fertile, mumsy and other ubiquitous hegemonic femininity that helps sustain repression of women by demanding they adhere to these stereotypes as it is allegedly natural and desirable.]

The first thing that irritated me with their Godmother campaign is that firstly I am a humanist and secondly I am not, nor do I choose to be a, mother.

The second thing is that the website is in pink .

[Dear VSO; to fully empower women I would suggest that you initiated a campaign by removing all references to ubiquitous and hegemonic femininity, denominations of faith and myths around biological destiny]

The third thing is that the website talks about women "fulfilling their potential" without actually defining what that potential may be.

Some people would suggest that a woman fulfilling their potential is obeying the materialistic, sexually promiscuous and emasculated stereotype as referred to by Nina Power.

Others may suggest that because a woman has a womb she must therefore be fixated on and obsessed with reproducing at every opportunity; as the great Bridget Jones has led us to believe. Perhaps this is the potential that the VSO would like women to fulfil?

Or perhaps women should all take the form of Jordan a.k.a. Katie Price, an apparently ruthless businesswoman who owes all of her success to plastic surgery and the lust of men, and of course, undermining female sexuality, normalising pornification and the objectification of women.

Some may suggest that for a woman to fully fulfil her potential, she should refer to the relationships within her life that define her. Is she a mother? Is she a daughter? Is she a sister? Is she a lover? Is she a wife? These relationships provide a precursor for how women behave that they seem unable to escape from.

But at no point is there a classification of what a woman should be or could be.

There is much discussion of choice, of opportunity and of potential; but what all campaigns for equality for women seem to miss or failed to articulate is that equality for women should be about being equal to equality for men.

When I lambasted the Advertising Standards Association for the Dove advert on how wonderful it is be a man, I was angry over the definition between the sexes.

Men and women are still raised differently, no matter what part of the world they are in, and it appears to come down to the presence of the womb. Because a woman can bear children, she should bear children. This will therefore limit her potential in achieving in careers and in life unless she obeys the Superwoman mentality that is prevalent in Western society.

Therefore, a woman's right to have children is translated into an obligation. Any potential that UN women hope to empower is based around the presence of this organ, and the inability of women to fight for the right not to have children will continue to repress women and define them by their relationships with other people for years to come.

Religion plays a crucial and pivotal role in maintaining the metaphorical and symbiotic presence of the womb. Which ever religion presents in a developing country will control and influence that woman's potential and ability to achieve. If she is in the Muslim or Catholic country, she will be obliged to continue to have children to perpetuate the human race. If she is in a country that has a religion that condones the use of contraception, she will be made to feel guilty for not perpetuating the human race. That is, if she can get hold of that contraception in the first place.

I would suggest that religion is as detrimental to women's opportunities as their physiology, where persistent structural ideologies of "mother" persist.

The VSO and UN Women campaign would go far if they were to challenge hegemonic roles of women in society and provide them with the freedom to not adhere to tradition.

However, when working with developing countries, when condoning persecution of homosexuals and capital punishment, the VSO nor the UN can never hope to achieve this.

Therefore, I am at a loss as to how the VSO can truly empower women to reach their potential with the methodology of The Godmother.

The Great Internet and Feminism Diatribe

Second "I loathe" article of the week: Why I loathe articles based around ideological structures of gender identity.

Following a lot of Feminist News on Twitter, one gets a vast array of rubbish. This article proclaiming women to be the future of the internet is no exception.

First and foremost, it is not an article about the future of the Internet nor women's role in it. It is an article about women who currently exist in the Internet and do quite well for themselves.

It is also about women being the greatest users of the Internet rather than creators.

What is utterly abhorrent about this supposition, and indeed the entire gist of the article, is that women are nothing more than "bored housewives".

Farmville is apparently the Future of Women. And these women have reached their ultimate height in the existential setting of boredom and consumerism.

At what point, to paraphrase Nina Powers, did the peak of equality battles consists of doing nothing?

I am not criticising the role of the traditional housewife, a.k.a. a role that should be given as much value as full-time employment (Germaine Greer). I am criticising a structural ideology that implies firstly; housewifery involves sitting around playing on computers and watching television and secondly; people that sustain that belief by behaving in that way.

At some point in the 21st century, and feminist ideal is translated into being a lady who lunches, who owns design a good and has some form of small pet that can be dressed up in equally ludicrous designer goods, and the husband earns a fortune in order to supplement these activities.

And articles that presumed that targeting such clientele and endorsing such clientele's behaviour is an achievement of feminist kind, should be exposed immediately.

Why the Fawsett Society Challenge Actually Discriminates Against Women Further

The Fawcett Society has launched a major, high press challenge against the government's spending cuts to child benefit and benefit cuts in general.

Controversially, as a feminist, I disagree with this action.

Ultimately, I feel this hinders the gender equality debate, is a poor use of legislation and does not represent a true equality impact assessment of the spending cuts in line with other legislation.

Do the Spending Cuts Disproportionally Discriminate against Women?

Flexible Working and the Public Sector

The Fawcett Society states that "65% of public sector employees are women". It then goes on to illustrate why two thirds of civil servant employees are in fact female. Firstly, it is because the public sector has far more stringent flexible working schemes, equal opportunities governance and care related policies than the private sector.

By campaigning against the spending cuts to the public sector, all the Fawcett Society appears to be achieving, to me, is preserving the public sector as the best equal opportunities employer in the country. This immediately implies that these women would be unlikely to seek employment opportunities outside the public sector because practices are not as adequate.

Therefore, the debate is not about the cuts to the public sector, but in fact about how inadequate private corporations in the UK are at providing equal opportunities in employment for women, caregivers and those who seek flexible working schemes.

By enforcing major budget cuts on the public sector, this would significantly increase job seekers into the market who do not just seek flexible working, but insist upon flexible working. This would force companies into applying more suitable flexible working policies, and seek better ways of functioning with a level playing field of diversity strands.

The Fawcett Society may succeed in their legal challenge, but all this would do with secure a narrow field in which women can work and allow private companies to continue to discriminate against women and diversity strands.

Child Rearing

The Fawcett Society is responding to the sociological issue that women are, in the majority of cases, the main child rearers.

This is not a response to the amount of money these women receive, whether from benefits or employment, but in fact a response to the entrenched notion of discrimination within the family unit that the society has failed to address since the onset of second wave feminism in the 1960s.

Gender discrimination and patriarchy remain truly embedded within society through a variety of means. All the time we allow women to be considered as the "caring, mother figure" stereotype, we persist in the notion that women nest and men build.

Sexual liberation in the 1960s allowed women to have sex with a much lower risk of pregnancy thereby allowing them a far greater choice of partner prior to embracing family life.

However, the barriers still exist post commencing that relationship. Once she selected her partner, she is still expected to undertake certain roles within that relationship. This includes being the one to take leave for nine months to two years when a child enters the relationship. While a leave of absence is reasonable for women that have given birth, the assumptions of "biological destiny", "bonding" and the interdependent relationships indicated within society between mother and child ensure that the woman feels guilty for not taking for maternity leave, feels guilty when she is struggling with a variety of related child rearing issues, feels secondary to her child and is obligated by the sociopolitical landscape to fulfil these roles.

The Fawcett Society challenge to spending cuts perpetuates the concept of the woman of the child rearer, thereby inadvertently preventing the positions of women within society from changing to a more equal stance within the workplace.

The limiting of child benefit may in fact assist to reposition the role of the female as a potential to be an equal or main earner within the family; dependent on meritocracy and not upon negative and perceived social roles.

Legislative Tools

There is an entire range of gender equality legislation now available for use within the UK. But all the time that negative sociopolitical concepts of the roles of women within the home, the workplace, or career style, persists, all challengers are effectively moot.

Legislation from the EU indicates that you cannot discriminate against gender on the basis of goods and services. However, we still see gender stereotyping in marketing, advertising and merchandise as well as in the services surrounding capitalism in the UK.

The legislation should be strategic and proactive, enforcing companies and service providers to take into account equality impact on gender.

However, persistent messages such as "men are from Mars, women are from Venus" in advertising, education, and social media seem to be so entrenched, that no one even considered challenging them.

I recently submitted a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority with regards to an advert for Dove on the television. This is particularly targeted at men with a voice over detailing how fantastic it was to be male, including lifting the entitlements of the man within society and the role and gender rise masculinity that he should fulfil. I was informed by the Advertising Standard Authority that my complaint was not valid as I was the only person to complain.

What is the point of legislation if it does not exist to combat discrimination in these areas?

Instead, the Fawcett Society are using it as a reactive tool to discrimination. To combat discrimination against women based on these entrenched rules without both advising, consulting and instigating steps to erase such embedded notions from society, is what I consider to be a misuse of the legislation.

I'll go further, saying that it helps perpetuate negative connotations of "feminists" as angry, reactive, aggressive groups that do not put steps in place to rectify mistakes but simply battle against them when the impulse takes them.

Protecting the Stakeholders of the Sex Industry

I have a significant issue with the way women are represented in mainstream media as sexualised objects. Not only does it condone the sex industry, significantly harm gender relations and provide poor role models for young girls, but is also increases the risk of dehumanising women and increases the risk of sexual crimes and violence against women.

A number of Feminist not-for-profit organisations have conducted reviews into the objectification of women as sex objects which identify rising levels of pornographic poses, vacant expressions and harmful messages to society. In turn this also provides “hypermasculine” role models for men and advocates strong gender divide relationships which damaged society as a whole.

There is a significant rise in aspirations among young girls and young teams to be Glamour models with media stars endorsing sexualisation of women by posing in “lads mags” or simply being Jordan.

The presentation of the One Dimensional Woman has a cascade effect to younger generations, As OBJECT identifies with WH Smith selling pink Playboy pencil cases and Amazon sell pole dancing kits with paper money as toys. Alongside more negative gender stereotypes such as the Domestic Goddess and few female role models in Parliament and big business, Society is effectively rolling back decades in gender equality.

There is a significant separation between content and advertising and it is the portrayal of the content of advertising that is the issue. Advertising will continue to increase all the time there is a demand and nobody steps up to say the representation of women in this respect is wrong.

OBJECT runs a Feminists Friday campaign to promote the covering up of “lads mags” with anti-sexist slogans. The more attention that can be created through this, the more likely it is that the presentation of women as sexual objects in mainstream media will stop.

However, there is still a requirement for a socially responsible media in relation to the sexualisation of women. I would encourage you to lobby your Councillors, lobby your MP and lobby the national government to prevent further damage to gender relations.

The Sex Industry

The discreet patriarchal argument that working in the sex industry is the “choice” and the misrepresentation of careers from the globally successful Belle De Jour and Playboy Simply allow corroboration with the idea of “choice” and further degrade and dehumanise women. If you attempt to argue against it you are generally questioned as to whether you work in the sex industry and if not then your argument is not valid.

However, an independent study conducted by OBJECT reports that 75% of women working in the sex industry were drawn into it as children and the other Life events have a significant impact on on the so-called choice of sex industry workers.

There is a growing rise in violence against women at work in the sex industry where it is implicit that the right to buy sex also allows the right to perpetrate sexual crime.

And while the studies reported are not peer-reviewed, they identify serious concerns with the promotion of women sexualised objects within society.

The Netherlands provides what they call a failed legislative experiment whereby legislating on the sex industry has failed to ensure safety and actually promoted higher levels of sexual crime of violence towards women. It ultimately provides a market where the desire for the market grows with legitimisation and therefore the trafficking and abuse of women who work in this industry increases.

The issues in the sex industry are not limited to sexual crimes, but there are also issues around trafficking.

In order to prevent trafficking in the UK section 14 of the Police and Crime Act 2009 states that men who purchase sexual services where they are aware that the woman is traffic are liable to be charged. This is a strict liability offence. However, since the implementation of the section in April 2010 only three men have received cautions for such a crime. Men have telephoned crime reporting lines to report within being trafficked, but when questioned, in the majority of instances they have already slept with a woman who was trafficked and are simply reporting it as a consciousness issue afterwards. This further legitimises the market of trafficking in the work of women in the sex industry.

Local authorities are currently taking the lead and challenging qualification in their area. OBJECT is running a campaign to ensure that people can lobby their local councils to license sex industry venues appropriately, i.e. by going through a magistrates court to ensure the welfare of women and the crease the risks of harm, trafficking and destruction to gender balance relationships.

However, this essentially absolves central government of any responsibility to preventing a growing mainstream media concept of sexualisation of women.

It is up to people to act and stop the objectification of women in the media, in the sex industry and in society as a whole to prevent the cascading damage to young people.

Part Time MPs and Gender Equality

Much discussion has been had recently within the party about the potential for part time MPs to allow women between 30 and 50 to enter the proffession while raising children.

For more information see Lib Dem Voice's view on "Make politics fit women’s lives, not vice-versa".

However, while I applaud this debate happening, I have always felt that the issues with gender stereotypes are addressed reactively.

This therefore provides me with the perfect opportunity to undertake an entire discursive on gender stereotyping from birth to the grave.

Gender inequality may be entrenched but even this word does not synopsify the extent to which it infiltrates all areas of life. While parents may raise children to respect gender equality, the issues of femininity and masculinity are thrust upon children from the moment they can interact. Pink clothes and teddies verus blue teddies and dolls. Schools project the concepts of marriage and child-rearing, (and there is a different interwoven discursive here on relgion and class issues), children are stereotyped by the media that targets them and this embraced at large. Common issues are the merchandise aimed at children, from Barbies and Power Rangers to magazines and tv shows.

In order to unify a concept of gender equality all areas need to be tackled. Not just the concepts of the employment sector, but schooling, media, education at large, television etc. This will in turn take a generation (10 years) to filter through and if continued derrogative images of feminism (being shaved headed, braless lesbians, for example) are allowed to continue then the same negativity will prevail.

I also feel that the issue of "science" and media projected scientific fact ought to be regulated. We have reached a point in society where the word "hormonal" has become synonymous with "Hysterical" (overlaying from Freud's degredation of women) and as the media continues to publish ill founded reserach into the stereotypes of women, childrearing and breast feeding too, the idea of "Superwoman" (as "having it all" translates into, meaning woman are expected to have children, jobs and housework) will continue to pertain. For example the recent European studies on childcare stated that children benefit from staying at home until 3 years of age with their mother than going to a communal unit. This study failed to address single care givers such as fathers or nannies or au pairs, or the result may have been differently presented.

There are significant issues with gender inequality in employment. The reason that the paid divide maintains a wide gap is due to poor regulation of contracts of employment law. In a great deal of employment situations people with unequal wages have contracts stipulating they will be fired if they discuss their salaries with other employees. There should be greater regulation on this through the Tribunals to ensure wage discrimination can be addressed sensibly.

There is also a great deal of poor management which allows empoyees to blame part time and flexi workers. In a recent radio discussion on Radio 5 Live members of the public complained they had to "pick up slack" off of part time female employees. This is a management and regulation issue. While companies are encouraged to allow flexible working to encourage more women in the work place, they are not adotping a sensible approach to job shares and responsibilities. This is in turn caising resentment in those who work full time, and this is not just limited to men, but women without children too. this is clearly a result of European directives on equal opportunity in employment and gender discrimination being implemented too fast and without regulation in this country. This needs to be reviewed in depth and more care needs to be taken when implementing similar strategies in the future.

When looking at money, there is still the presumption of a single person dependent nuclear family, which are only in not viable in the current economic state, but also seeks to maintain the woman is the primary care giver and the man as the primary wage earner.

There are significant issues relating to legal status and women attempting to exit relationships. Not only charities such as the Citizens Advice Bureau not well marketed nor well identifiable as leaders in the advice in this area, but also there appears to be a lack of education at school level with regard to managing finances when exiting relationships. Considering the amount of media discussion on relationships in themselves, it's very strange that there are not more articles and motivation for this area.

In a patriarchal society, as unfortunately we still are, the idea that a man supports the woman and the ideal position for a woman is to be a wife who lunches prevails. Combined with sitcoms such as Sex in the City, the idea of feminist independence has become skewered and seems to be interpreted as being a WAG. an obvious discursive here is the female roles within the celebrity society are not particularly admirable nor provide good structures for women to aspire to.

There needs to be a reasonably thorough education policy implemented, not only to existing adults, but also to parents and children within schools identifying the positives in female independence, reversing the "Bridget Jones syndrome", identifying how to manage finances and reasonable aspirations in this area. it appears that fundamental to this idea is the concept that a woman cannot exist without a man, all exist outside of the partnership. There would, of course, the negative implications with regard to the welfare state. With the implementation of the new Well form Act, it is expected that there will be a baby boom as women who wish to remain on benefits continue to have children to ensure that they have a child under the age of seven is that they do not have to actively seek work. Therefore, along with the education policy on the ideas of monetary financing, independence and strong role models, the idea of supporting yourself should also be pushed to the overwhelming majority of schoolchildren to create a more stable society in the future.

As a final point, the concept of a civil partnership only being available to single sex/homosexual couples is abominable where we have legislation protecting people from discrimination. This is a form of discrimination in itself. If you combine this with the concept that there is legislation in place to protect us from religious discrimination, it is almost a parody that the only legitimate contract for a man and woman has bases under religious order! From my own perspective, I feel that civil partnerships ought to be available to heterosexual couples as well, but the civil partnership should also have the same recognizable rights as those in marriage, which is currently not true. Perhaps a more sensible way to go and would be to establish, as in America, prenuptial agreement style contracts between people that move in together. Currently assets are protected if you can prove ownership, deposits etc, but this is still a woefully weak area of law. rather than establishing prenuptial agreements in marriage, which under British law is completely futile, perhaps the system of contractual agreements the people cohabiting would allow people to feel more secure and at the same time benefit people when exiting relationships. Common areas of complaint included where one partner has the credit card and one partner has a car loan and when they separate the debts are not equally assigned. Rather than this being promoted as another way for lawyers to make money, there should be an acceptable pro forma pack, not unlike a tenancy contract or similar,but not complicated as the housing pack is locked by the current government. This would be completely enforceable within a fast track claims for financial recuperation. It will also protect rights with regards to when apartment becomes terminally ill, a partner dies, separation, children, assets, debts and future commitments.

Ultimately I feel very strongly about the gender equality in society in the UK.

National Women's Day Thoughts

I may a bit late in blogging on this, but another blog caught my attention on the phrase "I'm not a feminist but...".

The role of the Primary Care Giver

But feminism is also about the right to make your own intelligent choices: it's about saying that nurturing other people shouldn't be regarded as 'lesser' than paid work, just because it's women who more often do it.

The crux of the argument is that the role of a mother/housewife *should be valued as highly as* full time employment and warrant the same respect for that choice.

However, there should also be an awareness that it is not a compulsory role.

I will also say, the recession of the 1980s has had a significant blow for feminism in the UK because it is no longer possible for one person to support a family of 3 on one wage. This means that the primary care giver, male or female, turns to dependancy on the state.

This, of course, translates into the glass ceiling, Men are better paid so stay at work, and so the myths perpetuate.

Disparities Continue

Battles are still to be had over how the term "hormones" has replaced the term "hysteria" in female subjucation. With "science" promoted as the whole truth, people put too much faith in article that lack scientific warrant - one recent example http://bit.ly/9Ky1A0 details alleged reasons why women cannot park based on gender differences. When you look into the study you realise it was a study of 500 people, all of whom were white, middle class British and the study loses all substance.

Chuck disasterous fiction such as Bridget Jones and Sex in the City in to the mix and it becomes clear why people have coined the term "feminazi" and most people will avoid the subject.

And finally...

I am proud to be a feminist, refer everyone I meet who is unsure to Marilyn French and continue to fight oppression where I see it. And yes, some people think I am "dull" or lack a "sense of humour" when I take offence if referred to as "chick" or "girlie" but I continue regardless.

Tory Married Tax Benefit

Conservatives everywhere may be celebrating the announcement that Cameron intends to identify tax benefits and marriages.

However, this highly discriminating proposal will have a far more significantly negative effect on on society as a whole.

Gender Discrimination
Cameron does not intend to include these benefits to same-sex or gay marriages.

Financial Implications of Not Getting Married
Cameron clearly does not take into the financial savings of not getting married.
the average cost of getting married is the equivalent of putting a deposit on a house.
People who are not registered as couples gain individual benefits based on individual income; pensions, jobseekers, council tax benefit, among others.

Single Parent Families
Cameron also fails to take into account that people whose marriages or relationships break down through no fault of their own are therefore subject to discrimination financially when they try to support the families.

Faith Discrimination
Where we lived in secularised, multicultural society, the concept of marriage is entrenched within Christianity in this country. While this tax saving would benefit people who marry in any faith, it discriminates against people who do not marry because they do not support the religious connotations.
Why should people be entirely entitled to make up their own mind about their religious beliefs, yet be discriminated against for failing to fulfil a religious ceremony to cohabit with a member of the opposite sex?

Ultimately, there are more cohabiting couples in the UK than the married couples and this number is set to increase.

Creating benefits for married people will not increase the number of married couples in the UK when they lose out so much with other benefits and are discriminated against and is not truly reflective of a democratic country.

A Few Thoughts

The continuous political bickering and devastating snowstorms make for very little opinion when blogging.

The BBC is currently running as their top story Cameron's opinion on the alleged leadership coup.

Cameron must be delighted that something is taking the attention off his appalling display within Prime Minister's questions yesterday.

The BBC must be delighted that they can put something in a headline slot other than their most highly paid and infamous presenter resigning.

And Now for Something Completely Different

It is a delight to see that the United States of America are finally entertaining fair and just policies in relation to gender discrimination and employment legislation.

However, they should learn from the current legislation in Britain that you have to catch someone first.

In spite of legislation in the UK to combat discrimination in the last 10 years, gender discrimination in employment is still rife. I could launch into a diatribe about people that are persuaded to "have a sense of humour" all representations of gender stereotyping by the media and the damage it does to people's perceptions of how they should behave and how they should be treated, but I'm sure if you've read this far you know all this.

And, it appears that Murdoch may have to revise his ideas on charging people to view news content on the Internet followinga suggestion that the Independent may also become free newspaper

Insert Anti Feminism Attention Grabbing Headline Here

The assertion today that mothers damage their children by working is another blow to feminism and equality in this country.

Alongside ludicrous assertions of what does and does not cause cancer, attention grabbing headlines like this continuously undermine the hard work done in the last century.

There is a significant outcry about people misinterpreting reporting on health scares. But there is far less publicity about how the media translates to gender equality accross the nation. The obvious exception is the "plus size model" and anorexia debate, but very rarely are there comments on how studies into child rearing cause and effect detrimentalise women everywhere.

I could spend a day linking statistics that highlight how few people read an actual article, yet still respond to headlines. This will influence so many more women to return to some archaic misrepresntation of cave wife status; uneducated, lonely, socially enept and preoccupied with consumerism to project image and fallibility.

More and more young women are asserting that they have no significant role models outside of popular culture and modernity. Therefore the concept that women ideally want to shop, stay at home and gossip prevails.

Girls in secondary school planning careers have an nurture idea of acheivement followed by childbirth followed by some fairy tale concept of being a stay at home mother.

One thing that changed gender equality was the union battles in 1980s. By stepping down, unions prevented a person from demanding the right to be able to support a famiy on one wage. This means, whether you agree women should or should not work, they have to work in order to manage a family. But it is the WOMEN who get the short straw, as they are the ones made to feel guilty for "abandoning" their children.

Studies into this kind of childrearing debate never discuss whether a child with a saty at home DAD is healthier. Or whether children in nurseries and young education programmes are healthier. The onus is on the woman to fulfil her projected role as a care giver and home maker.

We need to get rid of this repressive and ludicrous ideology before we erase all of the social equality evolution steps.

Women suffer less in recessions

This is the sort of article I loathe from a feminist perspective.

The tone is derrogotary, the implications perjorative and there is the horrendous assumption that this is a good thing.

In a recent survey by the career portal and networking site, many of the female technologists questioned commented that their strong people skills set them apart from their male counterparts.

The implication is that women are more caring, sensitive and delicate. The truth is that a company is likely to keep women on above men as they get away with paying them less.

“Women bring a different set of skills to the table; skills that are vital in challenging times such as these” says Maggie Berry, Director of womenintechnology.co.uk.

Challenging times?! As opposed to times that are less challenging that render women useless?

Do women suffer less in recessions? No, they suffer more because they accept more sacrifices without challenge. And then get pushed to the back seat again when it comes to receiving honours.