Nice Men

I have just finished reading an article about rape.

Nice Guys


This article is very clear about the reasons behind rape, and how best to prevent it.

It seems that there is a LOT of research about the motivation and cause of rape, and absolutely none of it finds that women wearing short skirts or drinking alcohol are a factor.

Even in date rape or acquaintance rape, the rapist knows what he is doing, plans it, and carries out that plan. So all of the advice about staying with a friend, don't drink too much etc is pretty useless. Very few of us are constantly on the look-out to make sure that we're not being groomed for rape. Just as con-men rely on their victims trusting them and believing them, rapists rely on women being relaxed, trusting them, knowing them (or at least knowing the friend they are with) so that they can carry out their plan.

The article also makes it clear that supporting the myth that sometimes 'nice men' just get confused and accidentally rape a woman because they weren't sure, but thought that maybe she wanted it, increases the likelihood of rape. Clearly stating that any and all rape apologist arguments are false, and turning the discussion to the rapist and why he is in the wrong, can lower the amount of rapes that occur.

So, I would just like to re-word the argument that many people still believe. Nice men do NOT sometimes commit rape by mistake. Rapists pretend to be nice men, so that they can claim it was a mistake.

Be very clear about this. A rapist is neither nice nor mistaken. THAT thought should be foremost in society. 

Gotta Fight for the Right ...

I am, apparently 'professionally offended', or so I've been told.

Not just once, but a few times.

Which is odd, because I have a number of jobs, and none of them have 'being offended' in either the job title or description. All of my jobs are such a stereotype of a middle class woman, suffering from middle age spread, that it is almost impossible to believe that I could be offended. Sure, I might get a bit het up about whether my cupcakes have risen or not, or the use of a greengrocers' apostrophe, but generally I am pretty busy just living my own life and don't have the time or energy to get upset about other people's business.

By the time I've taken care of the child, the house, the garden, the car, the teaching, the cupcakes and the studying, I only have a smidgen of energy left over for The Cause. Often, truth be told, I'd rather have a cup of tea, put my slippered feet up, and watch some trash TV. I may have the inclination to go out and socialize, but even that is only a maybe as I find my daily life is sufficiently hectic (and fulfilling) to make me enjoy a night in just as much as a night out.

So it's fairly rarely that I read/watch/hear something and actually bother to voice my opinions, even online. There's also a healthy dash of the British modesty in there - who wants to hear my opinions, what are they worth? - which means that I'm less than forthcoming about my responses to certain situations. In real life, I am even less vocal about the injustices I see. In real life, I often flounder when attempting to put forward my argument. I don't recall facts and figures easily, so need time to check on research etc. Basically, I keep shtum. 

All of this means, that I'm really not some female warrior crusader. Tired from all the hullabaloo, I don't make much of a fuss. But I will raise my voice every so often. There are some issues where I will dig in my heels and kick up a fuss (even if I look ungainly as I do so). I'm not professionally offended, I'm just pointing out the bleeding obvious to those who don't want to be told what is right in front of their noses.

I'm not sure if that counts as fighting for my rights, but I like to think that I quietly, with surety, set up a good defense boundary. I may not be leading the charge, but neither am I letting in any of the people who would like to see me beaten. And behind these defensive walls, I AM raising the child, taking care of those around me, teaching (and being taught about) respect and equality. I may not be yelling a battle cry, but I am taking care of business. My business. If that offends you, so be it.

Why it's NOT OK to joke

about certain things.

Something has got me riled up.

A light hearted comment made on British TV (and no, I won't credit the person who said it) which referenced domestic violence has attracted some debate.

Predictably, the usual comments have been rolled out. He didn't really mean it. You've taken it out of context. You're being over emotional. Can't you take a joke?

Well, no.

I CAN'T FUCKING TAKE A JOKE THAT REFERENCES VIOLENCE.

I teach. I teach children about a lot of things. And one of the things that I teach is that certain things are never, and will never, be up for flippant comment. Domestic violence is one of those things. The children that I teach get it. So why, oh why, don't adults?

Believe it or not, I don't go around looking for things to offend me. I'm not 'professionally offended' and quite a few people who actually know me think that I am quite funny, even entertaining at times. I have a reputation for being pretty laid back and easy going.

So when I do get upset, I think it's because something is genuinely upsetting. TV shows are scripted, discussed, planned etc. So somewhere, a group of people thought that it would be OK to use the phrase 'punch you in the face then give you a little kiss'. This phrase is often used to describe the physical and emotional ways in which men (generally) assault their partners. First the pain, then the turmoil, as they say 'it's OK, I only do it cos I love you' before they plant the kiss.

So, please don't make jokes like that. It isn't actually funny. I can think of lots of jokes, but domestic violence isn't one.

The Naked Truth

Why does it matter how we dress?

As a teacher, the issue of clothing rears its ugly head far too often. Thankfully, I am no longer in the UK, and don't have to deal with the endless disputes over school uniform.

Even so, there are problems which some people think we should address about what students should wear. In particular, it would seem that the garb of teenage girls causes the greatest controversy.

Only in a male dominated society could you find a situation where women have limits on how much skin they should expose, then failing to comply means that they are inviting sexual advances from men. In other words, girls, if you wear a spaghetti-strap top, then you have announced that you want men to leer at you, or worse.

So here are some 'truths' as I see them.

1. If a male can't look at a female without feeling overwhelmed by lust - just because he can see some skin - then he has a serious problem and should be seeking help. The female should have no problems at all about this.

2. There is a real paradox. Women are supposed to want to look attractive, so should dress in a way that men will enjoy, but women should be attractive without appearing too sexy. So short shorts? mini skirts? skimpy tops? They are all manufactured, marketed and sold, but we aren't supposed to actually wear them.

3. Men are allowed to take their tops off when they get hot, and run around just wearing shorts. It is assumed that even if women look and letch, they still won't touch. Should a woman wear a skimpy top, she has given carte blanche to any man to rape her, and what is more she deserved it because she was showing some skin.

4. If women wear too much clothing, they are told that they appear dowdy or frumpy. We should show some skin, just not too much. How much is the right amount varies dramatically. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

5. Society is so concerned about the way that women dress, even TV aimed at pre-schoolers has to censor what women wear. Really? Do 4 year olds get damaged by seeing a woman wear a skirt that ends above the knee?

There are so many rules about what is and isn't acceptable that it is impossible to explain them clearly. Obviously, men also have social mores to abide by, but they receive less condemnation about showing a little skin than women do.

So here's my two pence worth: Wear what you like.
 
I wish that I could advocate that you can walk down the street naked. You would be doing no harm. Sadly, though, you would get arrested. I try not to think about it too much, but just to get on with my life and wear what I want. I try to be oblivious to the judgement of others, and not to judge them. For now, I won't be telling teenage girls to cover their shoulders. I'm not brave enough to stage a protest by turning up to work naked, but I would applaud anyone who did.

Hush, Hush,

I thought I heard you call me a name ...

This post has been brought about from a mixture of real life and online events. It's about the need for groups on Facebook to be 'secret'.

I belong to one of these top secret groups. Not because I have anything to be ashamed of, but because I am concerned about the reaction of some of my Facebook Friends if they read my comments on there.

The group is about feminism. I haven't belonged for long, but it is for women who want to talk about feminist issues, and get involved in some action. 

Everybody knows that Facebook doesn't necessarily mean that your closest friends and family are even aware of your comments on there; but for me, and many of the women in that group, it is the case. Yet we feel the need to hide our group from these people.

Why?

I'm not ashamed at all about my beliefs in equality, I'm rather proud of them, actually. So why do I feel the need to hide this part of my life from people around me?

Many of them will identify with believing that women can and should be equal. In fact, many of them believe that women are equal. And therein lies the rub of it.

I live an incredibly privileged life. I have a good job, house, car, family, finances, friends etc etc. I'm by no means Donald Trump, but I am a million miles away from being a 'dollar a day' employee, just hoping to make it through the next 24 hours. I am immensely grateful for that. I also know that I live in a time and place where I am able to vote, work, drive, speak in public etc. all of these things add up to a pretty high rate of privilege. So why am I still moaning?

Because, a significant number of people I know would tell me that I'm being over sensitive if I mention how the ending of Skyfall is a pile of pants. Because, my career is a typically female one and gets paid less than typically male ones. Because, when I take my daughter shopping we have to go to the boys section of a store to find the things she's interested in. Because so few women are the CEOs, politicians, decision makers of our society. Because I am fed up of people assuming that I will cook dinner. Because I still see injustice around me at every turn. So, yes, I will stomp my feet and shout "IT'S NOT FAIR".

I may sound like a toddler tantruming because their sibling got a slightly larger slice of the cookie, but it's still true - the balance between male and female lives is not fair. We're not just talking about cookies here, we're talking about power and freedom and the ability for us to flourish, to be the best version of ourselves that we can be. Just because most of life isn't fair does not mean we should shut up about it. Because it is doesn't mean it should be.

I have no idea about how to right all the wrongs of the world, I can only fight the battles that I see in front of me, and I won't quietly shut up just to make other people feel comfortable. In real life, I will have conversations to challenge and change the disparity around me.

But online? I find far too many people willing to bring harsh judgement, cruel words and mocking comments. I find that my opinions get twisted and distorted to make me look just like that toddler. I find that it's a safe haven for people who wouldn't dare to voice their misogynist opinions out loud, not in real life. And I find that it's just too wearisome to keep rebutting the same arguments over and over again, to people who clearly don't want to hear.

So, online, I hide in my secret group, relieved that there is a safe haven where I can be myself. It's almost as if we live in a patriarchal society, where women are too intimidated to speak out their beliefs. Oh, wait ...

Time for me to hush up now.

AFV WTF?

Oh How We Laughed

Stuck in a Starbucks late one evening, my daughter and I had the pleasure of watching, America's Funniest Videos. We couldn't hear any of the show, but I have seen enough of these kinds of program to know that people send in their home recordings in the hope that they will win substantial amounts of money by allowing the nation to laugh at them.

Some of the videos are funny, but a considerable number of them really aren't. The vast majority show people being physically hurt or humiliated in a way that will take a while to recover from. So why do we persist in finding these things funny?

We all know that humor is complex, and that not everyone laughs at the same things, but there is a very strong trend to find people falling over, running into things, having things drop on them etc as 'hilarious'.

My daughter is 9, and found far more of the videos funny than I did. I began to be perturbed at how easily she laughed at others' misfortunes, and I pointed out how some of them would have caused pain to the person involved. She did notice this, and definitely had a cut-off point where she winced and didn't laugh when people were hurt. But I did start to question why this show sat so uneasily with me.

There are some obvious points to raise: people are allowing themselves to be publicly humiliated in order to get some cash; people are often hurt but their misfortune is turned into a cheap trick; some of the videos appear very staged and faked, implying that it's OK to deceive the viewer if they get a good laugh; the mighty media industry is, once again, getting rich at the expense of the viewer.

I could go on, but there are a couple of aspects that I want to focus on. 

First of all, we all laugh when something surprising happens, it is a defense reflex. But it's not OK to cash in on that and even encourage it. By laughing when people cycle into a fence, or fall off a wall, or whatever, we are actually becoming less aware of the feelings of others, and it feeds into the 'get over it' mentality that blames people for being oversensitive when in fact they are rightly voicing their pain or discomfort. I wonder how many of the 'willing victims' have not found the situation even remotely funny, but in fact felt coerced into entering the video in the name of showing that they have a sense of humor and are good sports? Of course, it would be selfish of them to retain their dignity in the face of their family or friends potentially winning $100,000 (and the prize money was mentioned often). Do we become so used to laughing at others that we become inured to violence and instead find it funny?

Most worrying, though, is that the vast majority of videos showed boys and men taking on a 'Jackass' role in the name of humor. Somehow we have accepted the 'truth' that boys will be physically rougher, more likely to get involved in 'horseplay' and taking risks for the sake of a thrill or a laugh.

Put these two points together and a very unhappy scenario unfolds: it is in the nature of men to be physically challenging, dangerous and violent even, and we laugh at the victim, not showing them any sympathy. These are not 'values' that I wish to see perpetuated within society. Normalizing violence, making it appear funny and an entertainment, is very risky. At what point do we stop laughing, and start to feel sympathy for the people who get hurt? Then making it OK to laugh at the victim, effectively finger pointing and catcalling, would seriously make some people wary of going against the flow. No matter how much they are hurt, there is immense pressure to see the funny side, be part of the team, not put up any resistance.

Now put those values into a real life scenario. It is OK for men to be a bit rough, and you shouldn't complain or you will be accused of not having a sense of humor, or fitting in with others. Heaven forbid that anyone would take your side and offer any support whilst others stare and laugh at you.

There are many reasons why people don't report domestic violence, and up there in the top ten are 'I felt ashamed'. Victim blaming is rife in our culture, and shows like this encourage it. There are plenty of amusing things in life without having to extort humor from the infliction of pain.

And for those of you who accuse me of trying to suck the joy out of everything, I have only one thing to say: get a sense of humor - a good one this time.

Bring Your Kids ...

It'll be FINE!

This is likely to get sweary as I have a rant coming on.

To those of you that say 'We love kids, bring them over, it'll be fine' when you don't really mean it.

1. It's customary to provide some food for guests if you invite them for a meal. If you know that what you eat and what they eat are very different, then either ask them to bring something to share, or buy in things they are likely to want. I'm not talking major expense here, but some bread and milk in the house when you have a kid coming for the day would be sensible and polite. OR tell the parents that you don't have those, could they bring some? Looking confused and then saying 'oh' is not the best response of a host asked if they have anything non-alcoholic for the child to drink.

2. Another thing that is normal, is to make some attempt to keep your guests entertained. You don't need to keep kids' toys around, but perhaps saying they can play the wii, then standing in front of them, talking loudly, so that they can't actually play, is a bit thoughtless. You are more considerate of your adult guests, why can't you be just as considerate to your younger ones? If the parents end up sitting with them in one corner of the room trying to corral them, it isn't much of a sociable occasion, really.

3. A kids' table is fine for the time that you're eating, fun, even. Unless there's only one child and no fucking food for them. Really? 

4. I'm probably a bit old fashioned, but I did think that speaking to your guests was part of being a host. If there's someone trying to speak to you, but you're too pissed/loud/selfish to even notice them, you're being bloody rude. 

Basically - if all you want to do is get pissed with your mates and not have to drive home - DON'T say 'bring the kids'. TELL PEOPLE that you intend to have a party for grown-ups.  If you invite people who have kids, and say the kids can come, then treat them as if they are real-life human beings who have been invited into your house, and be polite. If actually you're too self absorbed to speak to anyone but your best mates, and you can't be arsed to include kids, but make them feel left out, then cut the crap, tell people you don't like kids, and let them plan appropriately.

I probably will judge you a little for being someone who thinks adults just spontaneously appear and you can't bring yourself to accept the existence of children. But I judge you a whole load more faking some kind of open-hearted welcoming shite, when really you make my child feel excluded and ingnored. It's rude and discriminatory. Your lack of empathy makes you look like a bully, and no, I won't be calling over with my child any time soon. Next time I'll hire a babysitter (who will actually talk to her and feed her) or better still, stay home, where the conversation is better.

 

Everybody Needs To Be Free ..

We All Need To Be Free To Have A Voice

As a teacher, my voice is incredibly important to me. Without it, I cannot do my job. It is too important that I should be heard - not figuratively, but quite literally. I have often heard older colleagues comment that for women particularly, as they age, their voice appears to be heard less. Teenage boys, in particular, seem to be less attentive to voices which sound similar to their grandmothers'. I have heard about this far less from male colleagues.

Even so, a couple of recent events have surprised me. 

Chatting on an online forum, one poster asked the question, "Who do you think has a beautiful voice?" Of all the answers, only a couple mentioned women. Even when some women with gorgeous voices (Mariella Frostrup, Joanna Lumley and a few others) were mentioned, there was little response. Mention a famous male actor, and there would be a chorus of, "Ohh yes, he sounds so sexy/wonderful/caring", etc. 

In a completely unrelated incident, I was trying to find the original speech used for, "Everybody's Free (To Wear Sunscreen)". Being ignorant of its origins, and basing my assumptions purely on the single which used the speech, I was surprised to find that the author was a woman, Mary Schmich of the Chicago Tribune. I know that she gave permission for her work to be used, under a very short time constraint, and she was probably just pleased to see that her article had been picked up by a man as famous as Baz Luhrman. But why, oh why, does the voice have to be male? 

These two events simply underline for me how much we accept and expect the male voice to be the voice of authority. There is nothing wrong with women's voices. Very few of them are 'squeaky' or 'irritating', and I am quite certain that there can be some male voices which could be described that way. Yet, time and again, we find that women's voices are simply dismissed, not ones that carry any gravitas, or don't stand out in a crowd. 

Numerous studies show that women speak for less than 50% of the time in a mixed crowd, tend to use quieter voices, and often don't have their points picked up on, unless they are then repeated by a male. Yet we have the stereotype of gossiping, chattering women, with loud shrieking voices, trying to boss around their men and nag them into submission. For many women, their voice is the only tool they have to hold any sway. Many women have less economic, physical or political power than their male counterparts. If they cannot use their voice, even to be heard in the room they are in, then what hope do they have?

So those of us that do have a voice, who do have some education, money, the right to vote, and a position to speak from, we must speak up. Even if it is only in our own homes, or at work, in social gatherings, or exchanging small talk as we go about our daily lives, we must not forget that being able to speak out is not a freedom that every woman has. There is nothing wrong in using our freedom of speech to pass small talk, make jokes or talk about the weather, but we should also use that freedom to give voice to greater concerns, to speak for those without a voice, and to make ourselves heard, even if it does mean raising our voices.

Skyfall Ending

What is so wrong with the ending of 'Skyfall'?

N.B. There will be spoilers.

Plenty has been written - and there is plenty to write - about the representation of women in Bond movies, including the latest offering.

I went to see it expecting to simply clench my teeth and put up with the typical bikini-clad posturing and sex scenes. I was not disappointed. 

But that is not my biggest beef with Bond.

At the end of the movie, there is a re-ordering into the new status quo. M is no longer Judi Dench, and Moneypenny is back behind the desk.

The movie starts with M being a female character, unafraid to make a difficult decision, and not allowing sentiment to cloud her judgement. The character who later transpires as Moneypenny is driving Bond, and shoots him when instructed to. In other words, the women are calling the shots. Bond is, in fact, reliant upon them for practical (Moneypenny) and emotional (M) support. Without those women he would not be as strong and capable. Whilst he is the action man, Moneypenny is the person who shoots him down, even if she doesn't kill him, and M commands that the shot be taken. He may be the one jumping onto the train, but the women have the power of life and death over him. Moneypenny is a field agent, just like 007, and M is the woman in charge.

By the end of the movie, M has died, to be replaced by Ralph Fiennes, and Moneypenny is behind the desk, where every good secretary belongs.

I have heard many critics comment on how good it feels to see a 'return to form' for Bond. Yes, there are many iconic scenes and objects within the movie, but I cannot help but wonder if in fact, the critics are actually more satisfied that there is a return to masculine dominance. The final scenes of the movie did make me reminisce about the 'old style Bond', but then I realised that the women, just as much as the bad guy, had been vanquished. In fact, looking at named characters, there were 2 female deaths and one demotion, compared to one male death. If you want to do a full body count, there were the usual nameless stooges who died by the dozen, and, yes, they were all male (as far as we could tell), but almost 100% of the female cast were killed, whereas a far lower % of male actors met the same fate.

And that begs another question - why are so few of the 'baddies' female? The Bond franchise has used females as key antagonists; but if we are to accept that women are just as capable of being on the wrong side as men, why are so few of the fighting thugs female? In real life, there are women involved in active combat, but in the world of Bond, very few women slip out of their heels and into a fight scene.I know all about the suspension of disbelief, but the depiction of women is inconsistent even within the Bond movies. In a world where fighting muscle can be easily bought, why wouldn't women sign up for some gun-toting employment? The casual way in which so many men fill the screen, acting as bodyguards and soldiers of fortune, once again emphasises that this is a man's world, and only a few women will be allowed in.

The introduction of Judi Dench as 'M' seemed a nod in the right direction, even if the producers had chosen almost the only female English actor that Americans could name. Now that she has gone, there will not be a single female who is in any way Bond's equal, let alone his superior. Moneypenny may be able to banter, even to resist his charm, but we all know that really she wants him. There will undoubtedly be the usual two or three willing helpers and bed mates, maybe even an arch villain who is as able to seduce as Bond is. I'm sure that she could put up a good fight, but in the end, Bond will prevail. And that's really what the problem is. In the world of 007, there is no room for a successful, dominant female.

Whether we loathe him or love him, 007 will always be a male agent.

Bad Sex and Childbirth

Bad Sex and Childbirth

So, I have been mulling over what I dislike most about certain cliches on TV, and a couple of them have to do with sex and childbirth.

Example One: What she needs is a good 'seeing to'.
This idea is often associated with uptight women, but actually there are many movies and TV programmes where this idea is applied to an even broader range of women. Dexter Morgan: I am looking at you. In one series, a woman who had been horrifically sexually and physically abused managed to overcome her fears and face up to a new future by a) killing the perpetrators and b) having a damn good shag. Yep, months of imprisonment and ritualistic gang rape were wiped clean by one good seeing to. One man's penis achieved more than any amount of therapy would in real life. Because, of course, once you have a good shag, it makes up for all the bad ones. In other words, women, even if your body has been so abused that you are afraid to be touched, you should open yourself up to a 'good' man and he will cure you of your ills. In this particular case, the 'good' man is emotionally unavailable, stunted and warped. Even a serial killer, if he's good in the sack, will get you over that life ordeal that nearly killed you.

Example Two: Childbirth doesn't take that long.
There are many sit-coms movies etc that show women having babies, and they do now attempt to show women in pain, looking sweaty etc. but I have never seen one where they show just how looooooooong childbirth goes on for. Yes, there are stories of women who are caught unawares and give birth in the supermarket/park/bath/wherever. The reason we hear those stories is because they are unusual and dramatic. Judging from the unscientific anecdotal evidence I have gleaned in real life, then childbirth can go on for days. In MediaLand, the first contraction to the grand finale seems to average a few hours. In real life, the birth of a first child from established labour (not the first contractions) takes around 12 hours. Me? I went to bed for the night - twice - after contractions had started. The woman next to me post-delivery, had done a whole morning of running errands and getting the weekly shop in before she bothered to head for the hospital. So often we see female characters 'pop off' for a while, then everyone starts to get the good news. I have never seen an example of people saying, 'It's been three days, and she still isn't ready to push yet'. Even when we know the truth, it is still hard to believe it, as we are so often sold the lie.

Why have I linked these two things? Well, because sex and childbirth are times when men require women to use their bodies to benefit all of humanity. Without sex and childbirth, our species would not survive. Women really do have to be 'up for it' in order for all of us to continue. So, of course, it is important that we are encouraged to use our bodies for these things. If we don't want sex we are damaged or frigid. If we don't want children, we are selfish, or not feminine. Without the co-operation of women, men would be unable to survive as a race. The inverse is equally true, of course. I am sure that there is plenty to write about how men are expected to want and enjoy sex every hour of every day. Still, I don't see any media representations that attempt to persuade men that they should become fathers. In fact, often the opposite is true - that women are seen as somehow 'tricking' men with their wily ways, because women are all so desperate to have babies.

It's a neat twist. First, we have to be convinced that having sex is good for us. Then we have to accept that childbirth will hurt but we'll soon get over it. Finally, we are blamed for trapping men into our devious plan.

In real life life, this isn't how many relationships work, but certainly the majority view of the media asserts these things as truths. Why? It seems to me that whenever it is essential for women to perform a  role, that women are then told exactly how they should behave in order to fulfill it. We may be sold the myth that our bodies are our own, but in MediaLand, we really aren't given much choice.

Hermione Granger, you should be Ashamed of Yourself


When discussing the dearth of positive female role models, I often hear Hermione Granger cited as an example to look up to. True, she is a major character who is seen and respected as capable in her own rights. She also flies in the face of tradition by being able to battle, and not always just tagging along with the boys, but is clearly independent in both thought and action. I see these as all Good Things which I hope that young girls would aspire to.


But here's The Thing. I think that Hermione is the epitome of how women have moved from wanting to 'have it all' to 'having to do it all'.


Now, firstly, I have no problem with anyone who would like to have both a job and children. I find it very odd that the two appear to be mutually exclusive, if certain points of view are taken into account. I'm not a great historian, although I have quite an interest in history, and I am unaware of any society  when people stopped working in order to have children, or when no children were born because society was needing more cash to build up their economy. Every society has always managed to combine work and children, so women wanting that seems, to me, to be erm, normal. Laudable, even, rather than some kind of criticism.


But now it appears that modern women are expected not only to have a job, but also to provide the entire support system demanded of a 1950s housewife - a full time job in itself. And this is where my gripe with Granger begins. Who has all the information and knowledge gleaned from hours of research? Hermione. Who carries all the necessities of daily life in her chic-if-you're-a-teenager-but-really-a-mum-bag-in-disguise? Hermione. Who tends to the sick? Hermione. Campaigns for the downtrodden? Hermione. Takes care of people's feelings? Tidies up? Carries the fecking tent and makes the beds? Yep, you guessed it. Hermione.


Harry sits around in angst-ridden gloom, getting all the glory. Ron is a typical teenage boy, emotionally illiterate, and doing a runner when the going gets tough.


And Hermione does EVERYTHING ELSE. She is mother, girlfriend, best friend, nurse, housemaker etc etc. She does get some admiration for it, but how often do any characters say 'let me get that for you H'? or 'it's my turn, have a nap'? Never. She simply slips neatly into the role of provider-of-all with barely a flicker of an eyelash, and STILL she comes out fighting when needed.


So, Hermione, take your wand and wander off for some me time. Get selfish. Put a spell on those boys that makes them pick up their own socks or carry the books. Fill that bottomless pit of a purse with stuff that YOU would like  - movies and popcorn, make-up or books for light reading. Basically, take your wand waving, bag toting, all-knowing, loving, nursing, dancing, reading, bed-making, tent-providing, magic making, spell-binding, instant-healing, hair-flicking, problem-solving, eye-candy dress-wearing OFF our screens, and go and do something for yourself.

What I have against 'feminism'


I have always felt reluctant to label myself with the term 'feminist', and I had no idea why.


In the last few weeks, a few minor events, and my own thoughts, got me to an answer.


Feminism is not about attempting to promote one section of the population at the expense of the other. Nor is it about being 'militant', burning bras and having same-sex relationships just to 'make a point'. It can include some, all or none of those things, but they are symptoms of the cause, not the cause itself. Sadly, though, some people make assumptions the moment that they hear the f-word.


Feminism is about Civil Rights. Martin Luther King didn't campaign for 'blackism'. No such word exists. It is beyond insulting to define someone by part of their physical appearance. Yet, for some reason, not only do we believe it entirely appropriate to refer to this detail, but we define ourselves, and an entire Civil Rights movement by this. In addition, it is so acceptable to see 'feminism' as a fair target for criticism that there are newspapers dedicated to arguing against it. Can you even imagine a book called, 'The Black Racket' which wrote about racial equality being nothing more than some kind of 'con'? Yet an anti-feminism book along these lines does exist.


At the heart of 'feminism' is the very real truth that by default we refer to humans as 'he', and that women are seen as 'other'. In addition, we view women not only as other, but odd/different/inferior etc. So, when attempting to bring this to the attention of others, when pointing out that 'separate but equal' really isn't about equality, when refusing to fill in a form with Miss or Mrs, or not addressing an envelope to Mr and Mrs, we aren't trying to scream, 'look at me, I'm a woman, me, and I'm trying to be pushy and overbearing and subjugate men. I'm political correctness gone mad.' We're trying to live out our Civil Rights, to be seen as an equal part of the human race, to be accepted not just tolerated.


You don't need to see someone's skin color to engage with their ideas, or assess their working abilities, and you don't need to know my sex either. Unless you are my doctor or having sex with me, it really is none of your business. As such I will avoid giving people that information unless it is on a 'need to know' basis. It may well be staring you in the face, but online and on paper, I choose to remain neutral.


And instead of 'feminist', I claim to be a Civil Rights activist.

Why Oh Why?

Why have I bothered to set up a blog?


Well, apart from being so in love with the sound of my own voice, that I feel the need to also commit my thoughts to a screen, I had a moment of enlightenment.


It occurred to me that the main reason I hadn't started a blog was that I thought that other people would think (are you following this?) I was just being pretentious. After all, what do I have to say that is worth other people listening to? Half the time I can barely form a coherent sentence, let alone put together entire blogs. And the chances of my train of thought actually being train-like, rather than kangaroo bounds of dis-associated meanderings and mumblings?  Well, if you manage to keep up, you're doing better I than can.


So, then I realized that actually, sometimes I just have to get my thoughts 'out there'. If not, they tend to go round and round without giving me any kind of reprieve. So, this blog is my couch. I shall recline and hold forth on my own thoughts. They may not mean much to you, but it's worth it to me.