More advice for pregnant women?

Just a quick blog post today, relating to an unusual article that I came across following a discussion on a parenting forum. It is a piece in the Daily Mail about the dangers of hepatitis E in pork sausages. In particular the rather sensationalist comments in the article about the 1 in 5 pregnant women who contract hepatitis E will die, it seemed another example of overly dramatic information being presented to a group that is already feeling vulnerable. The article gives advice from 'experts' says that sausages should be cooked at 158F for 20 minutes. It is not clear from the sentences in the article who this particular 'expert' or group of 'experts' are, as there is mention of several groups/individuals in the piece. Now, as a vegetarian I don't know if expecting people to cook pork sausages for 20 minutes is excessive! I cook all of my sausages at 180F for at least 20 minutes so I figured it was probably similar for meat eaters, which would imply that the risks were lessened for the meat-eating pregnant women than being implied.

This is not the first piece of advice in the media for pregnant women in recent months. One of the most controversial press reports (across various news outlets) appeared in June of this year. It was the advice about what to avoid during pregnancy and included such gems as new non-stick frying pans. It seems that where ever pregnant women turn someone is offering advice. It is not simply the amount of advice that is offered it is the range and fact that the advice can often be contradictory. Pregnancy is not a time to start stressing people out, there is already enough going on without being bombarded with 'advice'. If a pregnant woman were to follow all of the advice that was out there I am sure very few would feel confident enough to leave the house, let alone eat. Upon seeing the midwife she asked if I had read the articles in the press with the long lists of potentially dangerous things, which include:

• non-stick frying pans
• buying new fabrics
• moisturisers
• new furniture

when I said I had seen it and thought the list seemed rather long. Her reply was that you couldn't live with such a long and restrictive list. Everything in proportion and trying not to let the fear of the unknown from gripping you. It seemed like easier advice to follow! I have come to the conclusion that the NHS guides to pregnancy are the right balance of informative without striking undue fear.

*As an aside, I enjoyed the headline of the piece 'Could as many as 10 pork sausages[...]hepatitis E virus?' when in fact the article meant and stated 10%! If it were 10 pork sausages that is a very different story!

Born to rule.....

So unless you have managed to avoid all talk, media-fawning and the like you will know that the future King was born. If you did manage to avoid all references up until this point please share your tips! I don't have a TV or buy gossip mags and yet still could not avoid the coverage. I will congratulate the Guardian on its Republican button, that allowed you to hide the rolling coverage and numerous articles that simply had to be written. However, it would have been even better if they had not covered it at all... (a view I appreciate may infuriate many)

My post brings me to the merchandise that has followed this birth, so many retailers so desperate and so quick to get on the bandwagon. That I can understand, it was a huge media event and people clearly want to buy the stuff. But my objections largely focus on the tired, gendered and stereotypical items of clothing that have been produced. I would have to say that the worst example that I found was ASDA's One day I'm going to marry Prince George. I had thought the assorted Born to Rule items had been bad enough across the media but this one really took the crown.

It's pink, with the boy's version naturally in blue, because clearly clothing for girls must be pink. That's the first problem with it, its simply conforming to the usual stereotypes about clothing colours for girls. Then there is the message, the royalist message is bad enough. The endless fawning over a family that we barely truly know. The celebration of inequality is almost endless, this child will rule over the UK irrespective of skill, ability, political persuasion or personality. As Republic point out 'shouldn't every child be born equal?', shouldn't every child have the chance and opportunity to be head of state, if they have the skill or desire? So for all the clothes that celebrate the recipient being 'born in 2013' perhaps the giver should stop and think about what they are celebrating when they pass on this item. The fact that the recipient happened to be born in the same year as our future ruler? The fact that the recipient will never know privilege like our future ruler? The fact that the recipient will never be head of state unlike the future ruler? Perhaps now it seems like an odd message.

Finally, back to the message of the first item of clothing. Do you really want your child to aspire to marry someone they have never met? Even as a jokey message it is pretty poor. What level of aspiration is that for your child? The focus of clothing like this, even if not explicit, is that girls should be thinking about their looks and superficial pursuits. It's just frustrating that in 2013 we still have this level of inequality and we still produce clothing and items that seek to stereotype and pigeon-hole the sexes.

What to wear....

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who needs Lads Mags?

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

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

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

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

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

Sexism in adverts?

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

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

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

When a positive isn't really a positive

When is a positive not really a positive? Sounds like the start of a bad riddle. Alas, this is not the case. I am referring to HIV testing and the fact that 2 and a 1/2 months ago I had routine booking in bloods taken at the hospital. Having no tattoos, never taken drugs, no blood transfusions, no donated organs, not in a job at risk of needle-stick and my husband is a regular blood donor (and so HIV negative) the HIV part of the booking in bloods didn't even cross my mind. When two weeks later I received a phone message telling me not to worry but there had been a problem with one of my bloods and it needed re-doing I simply assumed a vial had been lost or contaminated.

Nothing could have prepared me for the phone call telling me I had tested positive for HIV. I had to get it repeated three times because I simply could not take it in. My head was spinning, I was told I had to come in for further blood tests to confirm and check my levels. At no point was it being raised that perhaps the test was flawed. The first (and perhaps stupidest thing) I did was rush to search online. I wanted to know everything about HIV and the tests themself. So I also dug out my booking in bloods booklet to see what they said. The booklet which can be downloaded here talks about the tests. On the first page it mentions that tests will need to be repeated to 'check the results' and then on the 3rd page it begins to talk about HIV. It does not mention the risk of false positives or even seem to acknowledge that they exist. This is what has angered me the most as I went through hell, and I am sure I am not alone in this, whilst I waited for the results of my next round of tests. A hell that I was put through unnecessarily because:

• I was not (I believe) adequately informed about the tests before having them, as that booklet does not, in my opinion give the full picture
• Information at the time on the NHS site for example made no mention of false positives
• The very high accuracy and sensitivity figures given. For example here suggests a sensitivity of 99.3-99.7%.

At the follow up appointment I went fully prepared with what must have seemed like a million questions. The midwife was wonderful and did understand my anger and upset, as well as fear and I can not fault her for her professionalism and care. However, I had to have the ELISA repeated, I asked why the confirmatory Western Blot was not being used as this is what I had read online was the standard method to confirm a result. As the Western Blot separates out the sample and looks for three specific aspects of HIV rather than simply looking for antibodies. I had lost faith in the ELISA test as I knew I did not have HIV but feared that the test would once again falsely say I did. I also had to have a viral load taken to confirm my levels of the virus.

A viral load is simply that, there is no positive or negative. It looks for the amount of the virus in your blood. You can not get a negative you can simply get a 'load undetected' which a lab will not accept as being negative but will simply respond by saying it means your viral load is too low to detect. Now you will get a 'load undetected' even if you are HIV negative, but it does not mean they will sign you off as such. So, now the fear set in again that I would never get this diagnosis out of my blue maternity notes and that it would affect the rest of the pregnancy. I'm one of those people who finds themself swinging between fear, upset and then anger! It was this anger that fuelled my first complaint to the NHS about their 'receiving a positive test' page. They have since responded to say that they would look into the matter, and then that they would change the page and add my suggested reference to false positives. You can find the new page here, although I am disappointed that it does not list the potential causes of a false positive. I think this might help reassure people.

Anyway to cut a very long story shortish the ELISA came back negative and the viral load, as expected, 'load not detected'. I thought this might finally be the end of it. No! At my 20 weeks scan I had to have a 4th HIV test, when I asked why as I could not find any information to say why a negative was now not being accepted as negative I was told that it was needed to sign me off. Anyway, this one also came back negative and my fantastic midwife has signed me off and told them no more tests! Can not fault her or her determination, she has been wonderful. Whilst I am thanking people, the following are two amazing charities that deserve my thanks and support:

• Terrence Higgins Trust who gave incredible and supportive advice and information over the phone
• And, Tommys who also gave amazing advice.

Apologies that this is more diary like than normal blog post but I wanted to share this to try and help other people who might find themselves in my situation or who are worrying about test results for them or a loved one. Normal service will resume shortly!

When I grow up.....

I'd like to be

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where only the beautiful dare tread.....

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

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

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

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

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

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

Women and children: part 2

I know the blog post I just wrote said whatever women did with regards to having children they were open to criticism. And I know that I am now going to look like a massive hypocrite but this is not about judging women for having children, it is about judging the obligation and pressure that these particular women are put under, whether they realise it or not. I am talking about a recent piece about the Quiverfull movement, as described in a recent BBC magazine piece. It was an interesting piece that talked in particular about the spreading of the movement to the UK. For those who are not familiar, the focus is on having a 'quiver full', which translates to having as many children as you can, coming from psalms.

My criticisms stem from reading this piece about one of the influential writers/speakers within the movement; Nancy Campbell who is behind the Above Rubies ministry. Campbell argues that modern women seem to have forgotten their biological function, to have children. That having children is the highest achievement a woman can have. This is the bit I hate. It demeans women with children and belittles those who can not have children. It also seems to seek to sweep aside all the incredible achievements that women have worked and fought for in the last 120 years. The article is well written and interesting, it is promoting a documentary called 'The womb as a weapon'. Before I comment further I feel I need to better understand this movement, but my immediate reaction to the article is that this movement seems to seek to reduce women to a biological function and purpose. It undermines the work of women outside of their uterus and the achievements that women have made.

When to have children?

The alternative and much longer title should read, "Women, whatever you do you are doing it wrong. Too old, too young, going out to work, staying at home?"

Blog post has been inspired by a series of discussions and articles today about a survey which suggests that the majority of women in Britain think that 40+ is too old to have a child. The Daily Mail article highlights the findings of a survey that was apparently managed by YouGov on behalf of First Response (early pregnancy tests). The survey suggests that 70% of British women over the age of 55 (source: Daily Mail) think that women should not be having children over the age of 40 as this is too old. There does not seem to be any mention of the optimum age for men to be having children.

My first thought was that whatever women do with regards to having children they will be criticised by someone somewhere. I have blogged before about people choosing not to have children and the pity and vitriol that this seems to inspire from people who barely know those who they choose to insult. If women choose to get educated and then work their way up the career ladder that will inevitably affect the age at which they have children. There seems to be derision and much of the negative and rude commentary that surrounds this choice focuses on the following ideas, that;

• these women will be 'left on the shelf'
• these women are somehow going against the expected biological 'norm'
• these women are fair for criticism

If a woman chooses to have children younger, perhaps before or instead of university education or before embarking on what they may describe as a 'career-path' then they are equally criticised for being too young and not having seen enough of the world. Pity is often given that these women will miss out on; partying, travelling and education. There is also the assumption that if they are young, then they must need state support. It does not seem to matter what a woman does, she will be criticised for her choices. I have never noticed or heard these same points made about male friends or family members with regards to their choices about having or not having children.

Anyway enough of my rambling. The point of this post was about the new website that First Response are launching, called Get Britain Fertile. There is not a lot on the site at the moment, but I presume when the tour launches it will be populated with information. I understand the promotion of good health and exercise (even if I'm not a fan of the exercise!) but I think there is more to fertility than eat your greens. I think the Daily Mail piece, in choosing to focus on age, is also too simplistic. Women are not stupid, we know that fertility declines as we age. But, fertility is also not as simplistic or linear as this. Some women will be fertile at 40 and others will not be fertile at 20. To tell a woman, and her partner, that the approach to conception involves eating well and exercising is patronising at best. Any woman or man who has been anyway or where through fertility treatment, whether that is dipping a toe in or having to go further, will be aware of the limitless amount of 'advice' that people will offer. 'Have you tried...' becomes a catch all phrase from any allegedly well meaning friend, colleague or family member.

By all means it is no bad thing to encourage people to think about their health and fertility. But unless the NHS is prepared to offer full MOTs for couples wanting to conceive, at the start of their journey, it is perhaps a little meaningless. It is also no bad thing to think about the diminishing nature of fertility for both men and women as we age, but don't patronise people. Most importantly, whatever choices women make about their bodies, lives and children, don't judge them. They haven't asked for your opinion and I'm sure they're not interested! As an addition, I really hate the 'mocked' up image of Get Britain Fertile's ambassador Kate Garraway as a heavily pregnant woman who is clearly way over 40. The image looks as if she is closer to 70, I get it is designed to shock, but actually it is just confirming the patronising nature of this.

Just what is feminine?

Well? You hear the expressions 'that's not very ladylike', 'that's not suitable for a woman is it?' and the classic, 'that's not really very feminine now is it?'. The last one normally follows a woman swearing, at least in my experience (as someone who perhaps swears slightly more than is good for them!).

Putting the following into Google (www.google.co.uk), 'Define:feminine' throws up some fantastic and bizarre results. The definition search on Google is a great resource and the results here show why there seems to be such confusion

'Adjective: Having qualities or appearance traditionally associated with women, esp. delicacy and prettiness.
Noun: The female sex or gender.'

*The source for Google definitions is: Oxford American College Dictionary, as referenced here.

The first problem is that sex and gender are being used interchangeably here. The second problem is the fact that the adjective definition believes that there are qualities and physical elements that can be seen to be associated with women. What does that mean? The presence of breasts for example? This is obviously hugely flawed as there are women who for many often painful reasons have had to have mastectomies and may be waiting for re-constructive surgery or may have decided that they do not want to go down that route. There may be women who are in the process of transitioning and who have not yet had the breast augmentation operation, again they may not choose to. They are all still women, irrespective of some arbitrary physical feature. This notion of appearance is also flawed in the sense that it seems to suggest that women are one homogeneous group who all share the same qualities and physical attributes.

I also hate the notion of delicacy as being feminine and associated with women. As a Doc Marten wearing clumsy woman I in no way meet this aspect of the criteria. But, wait I have labelled myself a woman in my sentence! Finally, the notion of prettiness. What does this mean? The idea of prettiness is both cultural and subjective. What one person finds pretty or beautiful may repulse another. It also suggests that once again there is centrally held belief about what is pretty, which is possibly quite western-centric. If we stop and consider the majority of women who are chosen/selected/audition to model clothes they are normally very tall and slender. The use of such women to model clothes, make-up and lifestyles may suggest that they are the pretty ideal that is held by our society. I have blogged before about body image, young girls and the prevalence of eating disorders and I think it is this focus on pretty that should be seen to play a role.

So, If I were to conclude I would suggest that this notion of feminine seems to be culturally created and is conforming to a large number of stereotypes. The use of this word can then be used to criticise women who are deemed not to conform. If we contrast the definition of feminine with the definition of masculine (same dictionary source as before) we see the associated words are; 'virile, strength and aggressiveness'. The words associated with feminine suggest a level of passiveness and that there place is to look good on the arms of these strong hunters. A bizarre and outdated notion, so is time we scrap the word feminine as a means of labelling or criticising people or is time we reclaim it?

Women in Politics: Part 2

The all female shortlist

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

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

Women in power

I've blogged and tweeted about this before but an Observer report based on the report called Sex and power 2013: Who runs Britain? which was published by Counting Women in found that the number of women in high positions of power is falling. The suggestion was that over the last ten years the level of representation has reversed.

The problem with the lack of women and poor representation of women in roles such as:

• The police: as commissioners (14.6%), chief constables (13.7%) etc
• News and the Media: as national editors (5.0%) etc
• The Armed Forces: where there are no women in the highest three ranks
• Politics: Only 22% of the House of Commons is female*

Is that without an adequate female representation, women lack a voice. They lack a voice in the decision-making processes in this country, in the reporting of events and actions, in the upholding and responding to the law and in the shaping of the next generation. Last year there was an interesting piece in the Guardian about why women's representation was poor, it attempted to cover some of the possible reasons for this lack of representation.

Perhaps the biggest problem behind the lack of equal representation is the system itself. With women so poorly represented in many key fields such as politics, economics and policing their needs go largely unheard or voted out. Without the voice of half the population properly represented it becomes difficult to make the changes that would enable women to be involved or accepted in these positions. If women are not well represented who hears their needs, demands and desires? If these needs, demands and desires are not met, how are the women expected to take part in the political, social, economic systems of this country? The problem of the culture that sometimes can develop within industries that lack equality can be seen to play a part.

This week has seen a number of articles about sexist and inappropriate behaviour within politics. This can create an environment where women do not feel welcome or valued for their contributions, this in turn affects the numbers that will go into those fields and so on in the future. There is then the problem of the attitude from some who are already in 'the business'. Accusations of sexual harassment and the harassment itself are bad enough but when people then respond by reasoning that women need to 'toughen up' this does not help. Jo Philips, a former Lib Dem press secretary, was reported to have said this in response to the claims of sexual harassment that have been in the media this week. This response does not help, women should not have to 'toughen up' in the work place to succeed, they should be able to go to work and be free from harassment, sexual or otherwise. I would hope that no-one would respond to the victim of harassment by telling them to toughen up, so why should someone expect to have to do it at work? Sheila Gunn, John Major's former press secretary (from the same article) agreed with Philips and reasoned that women going into environments that are dominated by men should know what to expect. This view highlights two of the flaws that keep large numbers of women out of industries like politics:

• They are boys' clubs and women are not particularly welcome.
• That women should expect bad and unprofessional behaviour from men and have to deal with it, that this is part of the job.

I was going to say this is simply not true, however, a more appropriate response would be; this is simply not acceptable.

There is also then the problem of pay, as the Fawcett Society found that women are on average still paid 14.9% less than men, why would those within the current system want to change it? It may also lead us to wonder why women would want to go into jobs and endure the boys' club atmosphere when there is a strong possibility they may be paid less.


*All stats have come from the Observer report: here, also published in print on 24/02/2013.

Childfree or childless?

For women in today's society the words woman and mother seem to be used by some as interchangeable. If for some reasons you are a woman but not a mother as you get older you begin to feel marginalised. As a little anecdote I remember picking up a free magazine in a large supermarket last year titled 'the women's issue'. Expecting it to be full of stories and information for women I took it home. Upon opening it I realised it was all about mothers and children. It was frustrating (particularly at the time for me as someone going through fertility treatment) that the words woman and mother were treated as identical.

The expectation and stereotype, as peddled by fairy tales, Hollywood and the like, is that girl will meet boy, girl will fall in love boy, they will marry and then along will come a number of chubby cheeked children. Life will be complete as they sit on the veranda 60 years later reminiscing about their life. For many in society this story is simply something that will not happen nor do they want it to happen. As we move closer to finally allowing equal marriage the story will need to change to reflect this, no longer should Disney films simply be about boy loves girl, who marry, a family and live happily ever-after. The story should also reflect the number of marriages and relationships in which children do not feature.

For some this can be through choice and there are a large number of websites dedicated to singles, couples etc who choose not to have children. Tips on how to deal with the patronising 'advice' or comments that get shared with couples if they have been together a long time without children. In some communities and on some websites it is nicknamed 'childfree bingo' (a piece in the Daily Mail illustrates this quite well) in which the aim is to note all of the various arguments put forward by relatives and friends. Some range from flattery 'you would both be great parents, think about how much you have to give' to the downright rude 'children will give your life purpose'. Why does my life lack purpose? What does the notion of children give you purpose mean? I also get frustrated by the arguments concerning money. I have been told countless times that if I don't have children who will pay my pension? I pay my pension now, I watch it leave my paypacket every month. If the government choose to spend it now and not put it away for me I can't stop that! Whether I have children or not I will still be entitled to a pension. I also get told that those with children are funding medical care, again I pay my National Insurance. I also have paid a considerable amount for my medical treatment in trying to have children. I have had to jump through enormous hoops to attain treatment for infertility. This is the only medical condition I have had where I have found my age, weight and relationship status have ever played a role in my treatment. I am patronised in my healthcare options, I don't need it in my social life as well.

For those who can not have children and yet desperately want them, these types of comment are perhaps even more hurtful. When I wasn't sure if I wanted children I found them annoying and patronising. Now I am struggling to have children I find them hurtful and they make me angry. I want to shout at relatives, themselves with a number of children that they are ignoring as they make these comments, that I can do nothing about this, I have a medical problem. Sometimes I wonder about telling them about the painful, embarrassing and at times horrible treatment I have had in trying to have children but I imagine they would find this uncomfortable. Those who do know that we have been trying for a while are also prone to the ignorant comments, 'advice' such as relax, take a holiday, try this odd and expensive potion. I (more often than not my husband) restrain myself from shouting at them that this is a medical condition that will not be cured by 'chilling out' I need medical treatment.

I can not imagine ever walking up to a couple and asking them about their sex life and when they last had unprotected sex and if not why not. So why does it seem acceptable to ask those of us without children, for whatever reason, why we do not have them? I have found over the last couple of years that I have had to become more defensive about my lack of children status. The words childfree and childless are such loaded terms, some people prefer childfree to suggest choice and power in this decision whereas others choose childless. I think this should be up to the individuals to decide which if at all they wish to use.

Feminism and the surname

As a married feminist I often get asked why I changed my name. I also get asked whether feminists should or normally get married. The first thing I normally point out is that I am one feminist and can not speak for all feminists, as they are a hugely diverse group (we are not a hive mind!). The second thing is that for me marriage was about the relationship, and the legalities that go with marriage. To consider the issue of the surname, there were a number of options:

• Keep my surname, that no one could ever seem to spell correctly
• Keep my surname and my husband to share it, he was prepared to take my surname (still then have the spelling and pronunciation issue)
• Merge the surnames, now with our combination that would sound so bizarre and laughable!
• Take my husband's surname: easier to say and spell (perhaps what is 'expected')
• Create a whole new name

The last one is perhaps the most interesting and not something I had thought about at the time. If I were to marry again I think this is perhaps the most equal and fair route to take. Also the most interesting, and creates a truly blank canvas for your 'new' family. However, back to the other options, for me it did not matter whether I took my husband's name or kept my own as neither had come from women or from a free choice. My own surname came from my father, and from his father and his father and so on. For my husband it was the same. To marry again I think the equal (although not easiest - with regards to deed poll etc) option would be a new surname.

The rise of the 'Sugar Daddy'

I was vaguely aware of the notion (and seemingly rising phenomenon) of a sugar daddy. My understanding of a sugar daddy was a wealthy, older man who wanted to provide for a younger woman in return for companionship and possibly in some cases a sexual relationship. The website (that has irritated me this morning) Sugar Daddy describes it in a much more crude and blunt way. They suggest the following

"a sugardaddy is a man who engages in a relationship with a younger woman, where he is seen to be taking on economic benefits in return for the physical benefits a younger woman can provide"

This is such a shallow basis for any relationship and it saddens me to think that there are women out there who feel their only worth is their body or their looks. The website reasons that why would a woman want to work for her life when she can be spoiled by a man. Well there are several reasons why a woman might want to work/be financially independent and not relying on a 'sugar daddy'

• Financial independence is hugely important: it enables a woman to leave a relationship without feeling bound or trapped to the partner
• Financial independence also gives a woman equality within the relationship
• Engaging in a relationship such as this 'sugar daddy'-type relies on your looks being deemed attractive enough, as you age will you be replaced by the next younger model?
• Relying on a sugar daddy means appeasing them in return for money, this does not have to be sexual.

The next charming little section that I would like to consider is the 'How to find a Sugar Daddy' advice section. As you can perhaps expect the advice is often shallow. Although before going into that, there is one little snippet that I would like to focus on first. The last piece of advice relates to setting boundaries. I found this section worrying and questioned the possibility of some women ending up in situations beyond that which they would want. The section advises women that the men may be looking for sex, friendship or something totally different. They reason that there are lots of men looking to spoil beautiful women so you do not need to put up with anything uncomfortable. However, by the time a woman finds herself in an uncomfortable situation (potential here for any context/situation) it could be too late to back out easily.

Most of the advice takes the more obvious form of, if you want a rich man you have to look pretty like a Christmas bauble, there merely for decoration and enjoyment. Apparently to bag a man you need to look the part, this does not mean (they say) being as skinny as Kate Moss but you should spend time on your looks. They suggest a great perfume as men like this sort of thing. (I've always worn perfume because *I* like the smell of it). They argue that your clothing, hair, make-up and nails should be perfect, as you want to stand out *and* allegedly this will boost your confidence. I would reason that rather than boosting your confidence, a focus on having to look a certain way to please a man and working hard to maintain this look, will in fact leave many women self-conscious and unhappy. The brilliant Body Image Project encourages people to submit their stories about body image problems/stresses or upset that they have suffered. This project shows the impact that this notion of having to be perfect can have on self-esteem and body-confidence. I don't think encouraging women to look a certain way to attract a man helps this.

The next area of advice is about keeping this man once he has been attracted to you. Women are told to give him attention, listen to him, give him intellectual conversation, the site does mention some men may want sex, so that he wants to keep you around. There is no mention of any mutual respect for the woman, she seems to be expected to fawn over him, simply because he is wealthy. I appreciate I do seem to have missed one of the key 'selling-points' of the site in not getting this. Finally, the women are advised to spend time with their man on his terms. They suggest that he should be the sole focus for the women when out.

I really dislike these sites and this whole idea of sugar daddies because there is far too much focus on women having to conform to a fixed idea of beauty, total focus on only one partner in the relationship and the advice suggests an unequal relationship by solely focusing on his needs. I am sure people will criticise me and argue that these women are free to choose to be part of this. What I don't like is the fact that as a society we think it is ok, in the 21st century, to promote this type of relationship. The woman is not an equal in this, even if she believes that her beauty/body controls or enthrals the man, at the end of the day he controls the wallet and that gives power.

Sexualised behaviour on TV: Kavos and Magaluf

There have been a number of TV shows recently that have shown some horrific and degrading sexual behaviour, that made me wonder whether I was alone in feeling so shocked and concerned for the welfare of some of the people shown. I'm talking about the 'shock' documentaries about young people (late teens/ early twenties) holidaying in some of the more notable resorts. I'm talking about shows like

• What happens in Kavos on Channel 4
• The Truth about Magaluf: Stacey Dooley investigates on BBC3
And finally,

• Sun, Sex and Suspicious Parents also on BBC3

Watching the TV shows, online, the first thing that struck me was the huge quantities of alcohol being consumed. The fact that as one bar worker talking to Dooley states they pour free-hand, meaning people buying drinks mostly likely won't have a clue how much they have really drunk. With the alcohol comes a lack of inhibitions, and so the sex games begin.
This was the part that both shocked and upset me. Watching it I felt that so many of the contestants seemed vulnerable due to the amount of alcohol that was freely available. If we then consider the TV shows individually

Starting with 'The Truth about Magaluf', at about 11 minutes into the documentary Dooley is talking to two bar crawl organisers about the sex-games that she has just witnessed. One act that drew a large crowd in the bar was the 'Erection Challenge', the purpose of this 'game' was for the women to give the men erections within 3 minutes. The host of the game told the women that they could use any means to do this. Dooley was clearly shocked by this, as I was and as I assume most viewers would be, and spoke to the men who had organised the bar crawl and 'activities'. The men reasoned that they would not include someone who was too drunk but they then say that the aim of the bar crawl is to get the participants 'wasted'. Dooley is still visibly shocked by this, and asks if this is a common event. The response she gets simply does not seem to take in the seriousness or degrading nature of the games by simple stating that this is Magaluf and you know the reputation. They follow this up by reasoning that they simply encourage the games. The fact that so much alcohol is involved, with some of the bars being 'free' as you pay 25-30 euros to enter makes these games seem all the more seedy. My fear is that women, and men, are getting themselves drunk and feeling that they need to prove themselves in 'games' like this. I question whether a sober individual would, or would want to, take part in a game that involved them performing a sex act whilst partially dressed in public. The fact that for the crowd and organisers this seemed like a normal event made it all the more worrying.

To move on to the other show on offer from the BBC: Sun, Sex and... again there was one particular section that stood out and offended. It involved a booze cruise, now my understanding of the term booze cruise was people travelling to France or Belgium to bring back cheap alcohol. However, on the holiday shown the term booze cruise refers to people paying to go out on a pleasure boat, drink a lot and then take part or watch sex-games. Again, my objections relate to the degrading nature of the games and the sexualised objectifying environment that they create. The 'host' welcomes the young people onto the boat and asks the assembled people to raise a hand if they are a virgin. My first thought was 'how childish' and then 'what is the point?' in such a question. However, it was the response of the host that annoyed me the most. When a woman raised her hand the host responded by shouting at her that she was a 'lying f*****g b***h', cue laughter from the boat (and the woman involved I think). The next segment shows the hosts telling a group of assembled naked men (I don't know why or how this happened, either) to run around the boat slapping their willies in the face of women. Personally, a stranger running up to slap me in the face with their penis would disgust me and I would term it an assault if this happened. The next 'game' involved women being told to give a 10 second love-bite on the body part chosen by the male partner, this led to one man waving his penis around and then having the love-bite administered to it. These games seem to serve no other purpose than to degrade those involved. In *my opinion*, having watched these 'games', I felt many were designed to degrade women. I question whether the women involved would have taken part in these games had they been sober and not in an environment that is encouraging and egging on this behaviour.

Finally, the Channel 4 show, What happens in...., followed round both workers and holiday-makers. Some of the more disturbing details from the show:

• Workers devised a punishment involving downing a shot of urine, the reason for this punishment? If a worker had slept with another worker 3 times.
• Sex-'games' involving a cucumbers placed between men's legs, with female partners simulating oral sex to eat them.
• Women placing tomatoes between their legs for the men to eat, again simulating oral sex in front of a large audience
• The seemingly obligatory sexual positions games; what I am struggling to understand (ignoring the obvious - why? or why anyone would want to take part) is why the women always seem to have to be topless in the games?
• The group of young men discussing the scoring system they had devised for the holiday, with ugly women being worth more points.

My concerns about these three programmes relate to the sexualised environment they create. I feel there is a sexist edge to the attitude and behaviour shown. The 'erection challenge' for example: if the man doesn't get an erection I wonder what the response to the woman would be? Would she be blamed for not being attractive enough for him? Would she be blamed for not doing it 'right'? This is all of course speculation. I dislike the encouragement for people to take part in these games, particularly when so much alcohol is involved. At what stage do we judge that those taking part have had too much to drink, and are the hosts of these events qualified to judge that? Again, these are merely my opinions having watched the programmes. I found myself shocked by the way people were encouraged to strip off and perform sex acts on strangers in public. Alcohol, being away from home (and presumably away from the potential for people to recognise you) and in the company of people egging you on I worry about the vulnerable individuals taking part. The programmes did not show the aftermath of these sex-acts/'games' on the individuals involved, when they sober up. How will they feel when they sober up and reflect upon what happened the night before? Trying to discourage people from visiting and giving money to these bars and cruises is not going to achieve much, I fear. However, trying to empower young men and women to respect each other might hold a lot more value.

This is where I will end this post, on the notion of respect. Teaching respect must not be confined to schools. It should be present in the media, in our music, our homes, our businesses and our politics. We need to see true equality in order to see proper respect between individuals. With respect there might not be the pressure to engage and conform with these sexualised games.

Infertility, same-sex relationships and children

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Apprentice (and women)

The Apprentice, in particular the UK series, regularly pulls in millions of viewers and is popular prime-time viewing. For anyone who hasn't seen it, the format is simple:

• Between 14 and 16 candidates are normally involved.
• Their bios at the beginning of the series, and included as snippets during the episodes, showcase these individuals as often allegedly the 'best business brains' in Britain
• The candidates are then split into teams for business tasks, for the first few episodes they are normally split along gender lines
• The business tasks are designed to test different aspects of the business world, albeit in a very artificial environment.*
• The team that is deemed to or does lose each week is up for firing.
• Each team has a project manager and the losing manager selects two candidates to go into the boardroom for the potential firing.
• Finally, the winner gets a job or investment from Lord Sugar

Anyway....back to the point in hand. My frustration about the nature of tasks and the arrogance of some of the candidates is a little irrelevant really. My annoyance is the way that the women are often shown, spoken to and described on this show. Broadly I would break my annoyance down into: women who are strong and capable being portrayed as bossy and aggressive, men speaking down to the women, casual sexism and the contrast between the way men and women are described.

There are some notable examples; two famous and notable examples were Ruth Badger and Claire Young. Both women were very successful on the show, they had been successful in business before the show and continue to be successful after the show. However, they were often described as aggressive women during the tasks, when the same or similar behaviour in business was praised as decisive when talking about the men taking part in tasks. Strong women are often given the label of aggressive, and it is difficult one to shake.

Sexist attitudes are not confined to the 'grown-up' version of the apprentice. This year there were some absolute gems from the Young Apprentice, by absolute gems I of course mean bizarre sexist rubbish. The first episode sees the project manager of the boy's team label the fashion task as quite feminine. Now, not being the most fashionable of individuals I am prepared to be corrected, but I thought there were an awful lot of very famous and very talented male fashion designers. This is not even the worst or most annoying bit from the episode, but it shows how ingrained the notion of 'male' and 'female' jobs are. In the cab at the start of the task one of the candidates, David, declares that the men will win because 'they are the better sex'. This is then laughed about by the other male candidates in the cab. I tweeted about this at the time as I found his attitude and arrogance bizarre and dated. It is the fact that this was deemed a sensible thing to say on national TV about your fellow competitors, that you would win based solely upon your gender. Even if it was a joke, and I doubt it as it was preceded by the argument that even though cooking is feminine 'everyone knows men make the best chefs', it isn't funny or needed in the 21st century.It is that this language and belief system has become such a casual part of our society that no-one seems to really react.

What I intend to do, and any help is gratefully appreciated(!), is to properly document all the instances of dated or sexist language in the apprentice. I think that when we change the arena in which women are expected to work then we will start to see better moves towards equality. A Daily Mail article says that research blames women for the pay gap, this is because they allegedly do not ask for pay rises. Whereas other research suggests that women fear being seen as aggressive and pushy if they ask for a rise, a label that will only serve to hold them back in the future. We see women stuck in a vicious cycle, ask for a pay rise and they risk being seen as pushy, don't do it and they risk being seen as too cautious and not driven enough. TV shows like the Apprentice can help the portrayal of women in industry, they can remove the stereotypes and challenge them. However, at the moment I think it is falling short. I'd like to end this post with a link to some of the criticism that star of the show Lord Sugar has received for some of his comments about employing women of child-bearing age.**

*I have often reasoned that the business tasks/environment is very artificial because of the quick timings and lack of acknowledgement for the specific skills that would be needed to be successful in certain tasks. For example in Series 7 episode 2: Mobile Phone Application the candidates were required to design an App and launch it by the next day. An artificial task, that ignores the work required to design (properly), code and test an app for launching.

**These obnoxious comments are ignoring the basic fact that not all women of child-bearing age can have or wish to have children.

Women as portrayed by TV

This is just a briefish post (I promise!) because I want to add a couple of longer posts that focus on specific TV shows in the near future. I find myself watching a lot of random TV shows on DVD and on the iplayer etc (none of them live I might add!). Increasingly I have noticed some frustrating cliches and stereotypes that are not only boring and tired but offensive.

I'd like to start with a show that I had enjoyed as a child: Jonathan Creek. As a child I remember watching it and enjoying the puzzle solving, always a small competition between me and my dad as to who could solve it first (frustratingly for him I normally won!). Re-watching it as an adult I was disappointed to see the often sexist bit-part portrayal of so many of the female characters. Take the first episode for example: The Wrestler's Tomb, not wishing to spoil it for anyone it starts with an artist who has made his living painting nudes. Now there is nothing wrong with painting the female form, however, the comment was made that he was then sleeping with or had slept with a large number of his models. The women are characterised as falling madly for him and being almost in awe. It is assumed that the wife must have killed him out of jealousy, this is focused upon for a considerable part of the episode.

However, this is one episode and is perhaps not the worst of the show. One of the main recurring characters, Adam Klaus, the TV magician. He seems to permanently have scantily-clad women draped over his performances or he is portrayed as lusting after women. The women he lusts after seem to be portrayed as mere objects, in one episode he is pursuing a porn-star and is disappointed when her implant 'bursts', complaining that he has been cheated. Now I know that this is only *fiction*, but it is the fact that the writers felt this was an acceptable way to portray women and that it was necessary for the plot and episode. When actually the show would be fine with simply solving mysteries, murders and the rest. The fact that it seems almost automatic to have the female characters as 'entertainment' or the side-kick is frustrating.

Then there is the sheer number of shows devoted to beauty and conforming to an ideal. One particularly annoying example is 'Snog, Marry, Avoid?' in which women (and occasionally men) are rated by the public based solely upon their looks, they are then given a make-under. There are several flaws with this concept:

• Beauty in a person is something that can be judged, measured and rated
• Beauty is merely your appearance
• To be truly happy you should want to be desired by others, including people who you don't even know
• You should want to be married

Again, perhaps I am missing the point or being too *serious* here, but shows like this annoy me. They annoy me because they ask members of the public to judge someone based simply upon their looks; no consideration of achievements or personality and then they tell the individual that they need to change in order to be liked and desired. That is the first thing that annoys me about shows like this. The second is that there seems to be this goal of marriage presented for these entrants. You, yes you, want to be desired and married to someone who does not know you and is judging you solely on a photo shown by a TV crew with an agenda.
I also think it is dangerous for younger viewers to have this type of imagery and ideal presented as entertainment. An interesting piece by the National Association of Social Workers, based in Washington, looks at the role of body image for adolescent girls; considering the role of culture and media upon their self-image and esteem. So whilst these TV shows might be marketed as light entertainment they should be viewed as part of the cultural landscape that these young people are growing up in and trying to navigate.

I was going to look at The Apprentice and the contrasting way that women and men in business are often seen, described and portrayed. However, that is an entire blog post in itself. So I will finish with one more irritating example of casual sexism in TV fiction: Bad Education: Episode 4 School Trip: the bus driver amongst other misogynist little 'gems' reasons that he will never use sat-nav as he will not be told what to do by a woman. Again, I realise that this is *fiction* but it has been included for an attempt at comedy. It perpetuates the view that women are bossy and always moaning at these put upon men. Somewhere a writer decided that this an amusing little line for another show aimed at young people (BBC), it feeds into the society that sees women as a source of humour rather than part of the humour.

I appreciate that people might find this a little ranty or moany but I can't see a reason why TV can't be well written, respectful and still funny! We don't need to make cheap gags at the expense of a section of society. When adolescents grow up seeing women (in particular) as objects to assess based upon their beauty and as a source of amusement then is it any wonder that we still have street harassment and inequality? When our TV better reflects the world we should live in perhaps this will change.