Appearances or something else?

What attracts you to other people? Is it appearances, the way they dress, their face, the way they speak, the clothes they wear? For me - and I'm beginning to think I'm in a minority of one here - it is far more than that. I am attracted to people I can talk to and who understand where I'm coming from. That does not mean I have to agree with them all the time - just can I hold a conversation with them. Personality as well - can they laugh at themselves - do they have a good understanding of how they tick.



I would almost say appearances are irrelevant to me as I never seem to agree with the majority about which celebrity is sexually attractive. I can't understand what people see on George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Orlando Bloom etc. Now Sean Connery, Roger Moore or Hugh Grant I find attractive and I always used to like George Peppard. But again I can't rave about them and I could only get really interested in them if I could hold a conversation with them.



Is it perhaps an age thing? I don't know. My other half is always asking me what attracted me to him over 20 years ago now and I keep saying it wasn't anything physical - just his personality and the fact I could talk to him. He says he wouldn't be with me if he hadn't thought I looked beautiful. If I'd been ugly however well we got on he wouldn't have been interested.


Someone started a discussion on a forum about a woman on television saying he was distracted by her appearance and couldn't concentrate on what she was saying. I took issue with that and said it was how the person did her job that mattered not appearances. I was called everything under the sun including a plug ugly feminist and a lesbian. I also said a handsome man would not distract me in the same way though clearly I can only speak for myself!

Everyone seemed to be saying that I was wrong to criticise those who focus on appearance and that everyone does it. But not everyone does do it. I know some men - and yes I'm generalising here - are only interested in what a woman looks like and nothing else. There are also women who do the same. But just because there are many people who think like that doesn't make it right. It also doesn't mean you're bigoted if you happen to think it's wrong to insist that a woman's appearance is the most important thing about her.

Lack of posting

Sorry for the long gap. I just got so fed up with seeing so much anti-women stuff wherever I went that I just couldn't find the energy to write anything. Now the computer has been re-loaded and I've lost my favourites list I don't think I shall be seeking out the men's rights sites any more. They just depress me. So I have stopped reading them - for the moment.

Instead I'm busy reading e-books because I've just bought an Amazon Kindle. Not too many feminist books available for it yet but I'm sure that will change! I am reading a great many of the free classics available such as Jane Austen, Anthony Trollope, George Eliot, etc etc. Free books are always a good thing.

I was thinking the other day about Jane Austen's attitude to marriage as demonstrated in her books. It seems clear to me that she thought the ideal marriage was one of equals - not necessarily in the financial sense - but in the sense of well matched characterwise. Emma and Mr Knightley don't always agree and Emma has no qualms about arguing with him. The same with Elizabeth and Darcy.

Nowehere in her books are there downtrodden women subservient to men - except to point up the moral as in Colonel Brandon't first love and her daughter. In fact it seems Jane Austen thought the idea that women should regard men as superior to their own sex was rather stupid. Was she ahead of her time? Maybe not as I think the idea of women playing a more equal part in society had started to emerge - most notably in Mary Wollstonecroft' Vindication of the Rights of Women published at the end of the 18th century. Talking of which - I'm off to find a free copy to download!

Women and drinking

I have done my share of drinking in the past but rarely drink very much at all now. This is partly because I never know when the other half might suddenly need driving to hospital and I really would hate to have to say sorry I've drunk too much. So my drinking is mainly confined to Christmas and a wine box which usually lasts me well into January. I do have the occasional vodka and tonic as well - when I remember to buy the tonic.

I don't understand the attraction of drinking to excess so that you're falling down drunk and have a hangover in the morning. I have had my share of hangovers and I basically don't like them - which is another reason for not drinking to excess. That said I really don't like to see anyone in public drunk - whether it's a man or a woman. I find it odd the the media only ever seem to concentrate on young women who get drunk. Don't men get drunk any more?

I came across this comment on a Daily Mail story about the ladette culture leading to promiscuity and abortions which had me laughing out loud - not probably the reaction the author intended:

Young unmarried women should not be allowed to purchase or consume alcohol when not under the supervision of a man. It has too much of a destructive influence on their brains which have developed through evolution to be suited to bringing up a family and making a home for their man, not engaging in the complexities of social networking. We need sensible moralistic laws to ban this behaviour.

So men have a monopoly on wisdom do they? This is the sort of patriarchal attitude which feminism was set up to challenge - it seems women are still not capable to thinking for themselves - well not according to some men who might find themselves more at home in a previous century. As someone once wrote on a similar story - 'The Dark Ages just rang - they want their attitudes back.'

Respect

I've just skimmed through an article on this site www.henrymakow.com and come across this written by someone who lives in Denmark.

'Gender role confusion is rampant: particularly in young men and teenage boys. My own step son has confided in me many times that he just doesn't understand what girls expect of him. He tells me they are impossibly argumentative, confrontational [and] show no respect for the masculine at all. He says he would like to meet a nice girl and settle down, but he cannot imagine ever meeting one'.

So this guy thinks there should be gender roles - why? What is wrong with men doing traditional women's jobs or vice versa? Why shouldn't women argue? If men say something women don't agree with are women supposed to just accept it because the man is always right? In my book respect has to be earned, it should not be granted just because a man is a man or a woman is a woman.

Driving a wedge between men and women

Many men - and some women - say feminism was designed to drive a wedge between men and women. But is this really true? I don't think so. Feminism was - and is - aimed at giving women equal rights and equal responsibilities as well as equal opportunities as men. How can this be wrong?

Of course some men see women gaining power and independence as taking power away from them. But is this really true? I don't think so. If you as a man have to negotiate on equal terms with the woman in your life in order to decide where you go on holiday, whether you have children and how you bring them up - how can this be wrong? Femimism is all about giving women choices. It is not about depriving men of anything. The reason why so many men don't like it is that they're no longer allowed to beat their wives for their own good. Women can earn money just the same as they can and therefore are not dependent on the man dishing out the money as they see fit.

Is the reason why men don't like feminism that they can no longer control the women in their lives and tell them what to do? That's what I think it boils down to. If a woman can earn money she is always going to be in a position to say to a man she doesn't want him in her life - just as men have always been able to do to women. Men obviously prefer being in a position to call the shots and don't like it if women can do the same thing. I think there is an increasing trend for men to just want women for sex and nothing else - which is worrying. Did they ever want to have a real relationship with women? Obviously some do but an increasing number don't.

Men also seem increasingly worried that women only want them for their money but surely it was always like that - just dressed up in nicer clothing. Before it was possible for women to work outside the home they always needed to marry someone with at least some money. Men also married for money though they conveniently forget that. I would think that now women are able to earn money they're less likely to put money at the top of their reasons to marry.

So all feminism has shown is something that women probably always knew - there are some men who just want you for one thing. In that feminism has shown up many men as being shallow and not really worth bothering with for a serious relationship I suppose it has driven a wedge between the sexes - or has it caused many men to be displayed in their true coloours for the first time?

New blog - MFIF

The new blog called My Fault I'm Female is well worth reading. It has only been in existence for 8 days and has received over 60 'entries'. It's about those really irritating incidents which happen in every day situations because people make incorrect assumptions about women. www.myfaultimfemale.wordpress.com or there is a link at the top of this page. Brilliant reading - long may it continue. Except that you could say it would be a very pleasant world if there was no need for it . . .

Bile

I find the sheer unpleasantness of some people involved in bolstering the egos of down trodden men completely incomprehensible. The comment posted on my last entry demonstrates the vitriol quite nicely. I say I can't understand anyone wanting to subvert the justice system in the way www.avoiceformen.come advocates and they respond in such a violent way. I thought men were always held up to be the reasonable and logical sex?

I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that they're not at all reasonable and certainly not logical. They're always on about how all laws favour women and men are side lined. If men are really side lined - which I don't accept - then they only have themselves to blame. They have - in some cases - not adapted to the modern world and the way society has changed. It is no longer acceptable to behave as though women are inferior to men and just a little bit thick.

Unfortunately some men do not seem to have realised that and want to turn the clock back to when women knew their place. If that actually happened and women were returned to the home and not allowed to work unless they were unmarried - how would this benefit men precisely? They complain now that they have to pay child support when there is a divorce. If they had a stay at home wife who had never worked they would find a divorce would cost them even more. Or are they saying they should be allowed to keep everything and throw their wives on the street when they want to trade them in for a younger model?

It seems some men only ever read The SCUM manifesto. They haven't read any of the thoughtful and thought provoking writing by such feminists as Natasha Walter, Kat Banyard, Sheila Jeffreys, Rosalind Miles et al. But of course they write in rational language quoting research studies to back up their statements so they aren't of interest to these men - I would say they needed a higher IQ than they possess to even understand them. I always compare such writers favourably with Neil Lyndon and his personal rant - No More Sex War - in which no reserach is quoted and women are the ONLY source of trouble in the world. I still haven't managed to finish that by the way because it is just a rant and not cogently argued at all.

Roman Polanski

So Roman Polanski will not be extradited to face jail for raping and drugging a 13 year old girl. He admits he committed the crime but says he's got away with it because everyone including judges and juries would do the same thing if given the chance. That was the gist of what he said. What message does this send out to everyone? That such 'crimes' aren't really crimes at all - or they aren't if you've made some good films. Art excuses bad behaviour I suppose.

I for one will never watch a Roman Polanski film again - though I'm sure that won't bother him. I am just completely disgusted by the whole thing and equally disgusted by the men and women who have defended him in the media by saying the girl grew up without any problems and anyway she'd been abused before so it didn't matter - or she wanted it so that's all right. NO ONE wants to be raped - unless perhaps they have some sort of mental illness.

Sexist advertising

I don't watch television but from what I read there are an increasing number of advertisements which portray men as helpless when it comes to domestic tasks. I am against stereotypes of any description so I don't like the idea of this at all. Really all these adverts are doing is perpetuating the myth that women are all good at household tasks and that men are all hopeless at them.

Men unfortunately have contributed to the stereotype that they are now objecting to. Most men are capable of performing domestic tasks - many make a mess of them so that they are not expected to do them again - and some of them even admit they do this. So this is a myth that men will need to do something about dispelling. Though I'm not suggesting that women should pretend to be bad at domestic tasks even if they are good at them but we need to stop seeing people as good or bad at things according to their gender.

It does make a change though to have men laughed at for being helpless and hopeless - now they know how women have felt for centuries. Neither sex can be said to be generally good or generally bad at anything. Individuals have skills - or not - as the case may be.

Pregnant women and smoking

It is fairly well known that smoking is not a good idea if you're pregnant but I found the idea that pregnant women will be breath tested to see if they smoke. Why test them to see if they smoke when they know whether they do or not? What about passive smoking - which is apparently just as bad? Shouldn't they be targeting the pregnant woman's partner/husband as well to make sure they're not smoking? This is bad as the supermarket worker who refused to serve the pregnant woman with soft cheese in case she ate it herself.

What are they going to do to the woman if she is smoking? Lock her up and take away the fags?

Is feminism a trade union?

I've never understood why some people describe feminism as a trade union. What does a trade union do?

• Provision of benefits to members - in a similar way to Friendly Societies
• Collective bargaining
• Industrial action
• Political activity

Does feminism do any of these things? Political activity perhaps but that's about it. Feminism in the 21st century is much too diverse to be considered any sort of organised activity. As women don't have one employer or one type of work I can't really see how anyone can think of it as a trade union. http://www.theantifeminist.com/ has a bee in his bonnet about this and seems to think referring to feminism as a trade union is to insult it.

Sidney and Beatrice Webb's definition of a trade union is ' a continuous association of wage earners for the purposes of maintaining or improving their conditions of employment' Does this really fit with feminism? Individual women may belong to a trade union to do with their employment but are we saying they are also 'employed' in their private lives? If so who by?

Outraged!

I have just read an article on the F Word which has totally outraged me. An individual called Dr Dix Poppas in the USA is performing operations on small girls to reduce the size of their clitorises which he deems to be too big. www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2010/06/first_do_no_har

The follow up annual checks are just plain disgusting. How on earth he got this past any ethics committee is beyond me.

Words have completely failed me at the moment but I may add to this post later.

Do women have a sense of entitlement?

I frequently read comments on the Internet - usually from men - about how women always have a sense of entitlement. But what exactly does anyone mean by this? You often see it attached to news stories about sexual harassment or discrimination claims made by women. I would say yes anyone - male or female is entitled to the following:

• To be treated politely
• To be offered the same goods and services at the same prices and not to be offered less favourable terms because of their gender
• To have a safe working environment
• Not to be constantly harassed by sexual innuendo, physical harassment or pictures of nude members of the opposite sex
• To feel safe in their own home
• To feel safe when they go out at night - whether on their own or in groups

If that is having a sense of entitlement - then why not? Don't most people want these?

I think what people who make this comment usually have in their minds is the perception that women feel they are somehow more entitled to better treatment than anyone else. But I haven't come across any woman who thinks she somehow deserves more and better treatment than a man because she's a woman. Equal treatment would be just fine.

NOMAS

This seems like a good site www.nomas.org

These are men against sexism and pro feminism and gay rights. Their 12 steps men can take to end sexism are excellent and should be a way of behaving applicable to everyone - not just men.

Reclaiming the F Word: review

Reclaiming the F Word by Catherine Redfern and Kristin Aune is excellent and well worth reading. It provides a round up of feminist activity going on today and shows the sheer diversity of feminism. The authors show conclusively there is still a need for feminism. The laws have changed but culture and people's opinions haven't changed at all. The misogyny has become much more subtle and insidious and therefore much more difficult to fight. It is almost impossible to challenge humour and thus stifling gender stereotypes continue to be propagated - to both men and women.

The book is written in a very down to earth and approachable style with plenty of references to research and other printed and electronic material. The authors analysed a survey to provide some of their material for the book and the survey results are reproduced in an appendix at the end of the book. There are notes to each chapter and a useful list of further reading arranged under the chapter headings.

I found the book fascinating reading and it does highlight the relevance of feminism today and shows how people can become involved. It also analyses the way women are manipulated into looking and dressing a certain way as though their bodies are imperfect in their natural state. Advertising and the media are discussed and the way they portray gender stereotypes analysed. Politics and religion are covered as are work and home life.

It is clear to me from reading this and other recently published books that both men and women need to study their own behaviour and see if they are not making some very dated assumptions about the people they come across every day. The quotes from individuals who have experienced discrimination and prejudice are enlightening - and frightening. I find it shocking that statements made about women in the media and on the Internet pass almost without comment yet if the same things were said about people of colour they would be unacceptable or even illegal. sexism is alive and well in the UK today and this is what everyone needs to challenge as we are wasting the talents and abilities of too many people because of gender stereotypes.

Women clergy in the Church of England

I was astonished to read that Tessa Sanderson - the Olympic athlete - refused to be married by a female vicar. While I am all for freedom of choice I can just imagine what would have happened if she'd refused to be married by a male member of the clergy. I can understand why some people might wish to discuss their health with a member of their own sex - impossible where I live as our GPs are three men. But I actually cannot understand the preference when it comes to almost any other service. When it comes to professional services I'm far more interested in someone's qualifications than I am in what they wear, what sex they are, what religion they practice or what country they come from.

I am concerned at the slant the media will put on it. There will be all the comments about if woman can't even support each other why should anyone else support them?

Reclaiming the F Word

I've started reading Reclaiming the F Word: the New Feminist Movement by Catherine Redfern and Kristin Aune. It is excellent!! Really really good. I would urge anyone who is interested in the relationship between men and women today and the position of women in society and culture to buy and read this. If you want to get it at a discount then visit the F Word - http://www.thefword.org.uk/ where you will find a code to quote.

I will post a full review when I've read it.

I have just finished laughing . . .

http://www.the-spearhead.com/ is always good for a laugh and/or for making me absolutely blazing mad. An article posted there on 27 May called Feminism and the SAD (Standard American Diet) made me laugh but it also made me seriously angry. The gist of the theory is that Americans are all fat because of feminism.

The theory is that the second wave of feminism told women to stop cooking for their families and got women into the workplace doing low paid jobs producing fast food for the masses. Ergo Americans were fed on fast food and got fat and developed serious health problems. This wouldn't have happened if feminism hadn't existed.

Yes, well . . . . words almost fail me.

Especially as the whole argument is based on a fallacy - that feminism told women not to cook for their families. Even Betty Friedan didn't say that! The women she talked to who were happiest with their lot in life were those who worked part time or full time at a job which made them feel they were contributing to society in a meaningful way whilst still having time to keep their houses and families to the standard which was acceptable to everyone. In fact she found that those who were good organisers often had more time to themselves even after working full time and cooking for their families.

The theory also overlooks the role of men. The article states that men couldn't cook because they were too busy earning money - which is a cop out in my opinion. It's basically saying men don't want to do household chores because they would somehow emasculate them and as for cooking - well men will only do this if they can do it on TV and make millions out of it.

I personally don't agree with that idea but it seems to be what the article is saying. In fact it suggests men stood by and let this happen without doing anything about it themselves because it was 'women's work'. The sub text of the whole article is that women should go back to the home and stay away from things they don't understand because that way all the ills of an overweight population will be solved by a bit of home cooking. One of the comments suggested that the guy writing it would probably have been 3 inches taller than he is if his mother hadn't been a feminist . . . .

Riiiight! So it's the old ' Not me Guv, the other guy did it' excuse.

The English Marriage

The English Marriage: Tales of Love, Money and Adultery by Maureen Waller is interesting reading. It traces the history of marriage in England from Medieval times to the 1960s. Long after Europe reformed ins marriage and divorce laws England's laws were still heavily dependent on the rules of Medieval theology. The status of married women was little better than slaves or lunatics. All their property, until the late 19th century, belonged to their husband and they had no status in law as individuals.

It was very difficult for anyone to obtain a divorce. The poor didn't bother and simply walked away from the marriages and probably committed bigamy at a later date. The rich - because land and money were involved - resorted to law. A woman could be divorced for a single act of adultery. But if she wanted a divorce herself she had to prove cruelty as well as adultery.

When husbands were allowed to beat their wives, starve them and keep them shut up it was virtually impossible for a wife to prove cruelty. There was no doubt who was in charge until the 19th century when women started fighting back and several pieces of legislation improved their lot in life. Paradoxically widows had the best of it as they had virtually the same legal powers as men.

It is always difficult to look back on history and try and judge the events of the time through the eyes of the time. But comparing marriage and divorce in England with the same laws in other countries it is easy to see the English legal treatment of women was draconian even by the views of the times. Financial arrangements before marriage did seek to secure the income of wives if they were widowed in the main but that was all. There was no way out of an impossible marriage if you were a woman.

It was not until 1839 that women could expect to keep custody of children under the age of 7 after divorce - and then only if they successfully petitioned the Lord Chancellor and could prove they were of good character. Husbands would use access to the children as a bargaining counter in divorce or separation negotiations as access was wholly decided by the man and not the courts. Maybe we have gone too far in the other direction now.

Anyone who thinks women have never been oppressed and it's all a feminist con needs to read this book as the individual stories were taken from court records and the correspondence of the individuals concerned and at times show a horrific picture of the treatment of women by the law.

Accused in rape trials to be anonymous

Having read Sue Lees' Carnal Knowledge I can only think this is a bad thing. It will be the only crime where the accused has a right to anonymity. As rapists are getting more sophisticated and taking the trouble to get to know their victims before striking this will mean that these serial rapists are even more likely to get away with it. The conviction rate for rape where the victim knew their attacker is very small - I'm not going to quote figures because I have not looked up the latest ones and I don't want to post incorrect data. Stranger rape is more likely to result in a conviction - provided the accused is identified and caught.

At the risk of going against my own sex I would almost say it is better to have no anonymity for accused AND victim rather than losing the chance to have other victims come forward when the accused is publicly named. Many women waive their right to anonymity in any case - so will this proposed change mean that the rapist would also be named? Not enough information available yet I think.