Doctor Who IS She

Dear Sylvester McCoy,

You weren't my 'First Doctor', but it is of your tenure as the Gallifreyan in the Big Blue Box that I have the clearest childhood memories. My friends and I would ritually discuss your latest adventures on the bus to swimming lessons, and playing 'Dalek Dodge' in the creepy outside toilet block was a playground favourite. Those memories were fond, and we were sad when Doctor Who came to an end in 1989. I was unimpressed with the 1996 attempt at revival, and mourned the wobbly sets, rubber-faced aliens and dodgy special effects, and bemoaned the attempt to cast a 'sexy' actor in the role (all due apologies to Mr McGann; he just doesn't do it for me).

When the show was again revived in 2005, I approached it with as much caution as excitement, but I'm a big fan of Christopher Eccleston's work so I was always going to give it a chance. And it was incredible stuff. I loved it every bit as much as I'd loved watching you as a child - perhaps more. Then the delectable David Tennant took over and the dynamic between the Doctor and his companion suddenly became very different to what it had been when I was a child. Rose fancied the Doctor (so did I, having had a long-standing crush on Mr Tennant since my early teenage years). She fell in love with him. And he with her. Despite their separation, this shift in the dynamic of the relationship between Doctor and companion to be a romantic one continued, although Martha's love was unrequited. Donna had a more 'traditional' platonic relationship with the Doctor, but suffered the most upsetting, tragic fate ever: becoming the best person she could be, bettering the Doctor, then being forced to forget everything. David Tennant was undoubtedly a sex symbol and I don't complain about the relationship his Doctor had with Rose, or Martha, or Donna, but I hoped things might take a different turn when Matt Smith replaced him. They did, for a while, but only because Amy's heart belonged to another. Clara fell hard, and the Doctor did too. But it's simply not appropriate for an ancient alien to settle down with a twenty-something human now is it? I'm sure that's not the sort of dynamic you're so keen to protect. Step forward, Peter Capaldi.

Now, although I think it somewhat unfair to Mr Capaldi to suggest that his casting was the reason for the cessation of any romance between Clara and her Doctor, but the number of women who grumbled on social media that the Doctor was suddenly "an ugly old bloke" go some way to support the theory. The dialogue between Clara and Vastra in his very first episode, 'Deep Breath', confirms it. Clara fancied Matt Smith's Doctor. She doesn't fancy Capaldi's. And I'm glad. Series 8 marked a turning point when 'new' Doctor Who started being more like it had been when I'd first started watching it. The Doctor, no longer a young, attractive man (sorry, Peter!) was back to being a mentor rather than a mancrush.

When Peter Capaldi initially assumed the role of The Doctor, his concern that Clara was only with him because she fancied him was evident. Throughout his first series, she learns (finally!) how The Doctor was always so much more than that and she starts to appreciate him in new ways. Capaldi's Doctor reminds me so much of yours. It's one of the reasons I've enjoyed the most recent series so much.

One question I've always pondered, ever since my childhood, however is this: why is The Doctor always a man? Female Time Lords exist. Steven Moffat has, through the casting of Michelle Gomez as Missy - The Master or, rather, The Mistress, The Doctor's greatest foe - confirmed that it's possible for a male Time Lord to regenerate into a female form. A female Doctor is something he's seen as being on the cards for some time and he's been very open about it. Why are you so against the idea?

"It would ruin the dynamics between The Doctor and the assistant," you said. Did the dynamics between The Mistress and The Doctor change that much? At all? Missy is every bit the Machiavellian sociopath that Roger Delgado was. She and The Doctor have the same love/hate relationship they've always had. The dynamics between The Doctor and his 'assistants' have already changed since you played the role. It's somewhat ironic that yours paved the way for those who followed (1), given your remarks. What sort of dynamic did your Doctor have with Ace? The Doctor - your Doctor - was manipulative. Though she was by far the most realistic companion The Doctor had ever had up to that point, the first to work things out for herself rather than merely ask questions, the first to fight to protect The Doctor rather than scream helplessly for him to save her... but she was merely a pawn in one of his long games with an ancient enemy. The Doctor can't half be a bastard sometimes.

In some ways, many of The Doctor's modern companions have much in common with the 'sacrificial lamb' Bond Girl - the woman who falls hopelessly in love with Bond (usually the one already in a relationship with the bad guy) who ends up dying as a direct result of her encounter with Bond. Ace's fate depends on which version you prefer. Rose ended up trapped in a parallel universe, Martha risk her life in almost every episode. Jack was forgotten, left behind. Repeatedly. Donna saved everybody and was forced to live in a world where she was the only one who could never know about it. Amy was shot back through time. River died. People might forget that, since her last meeting with The Doctor was the first for both him and us viewers. But he showed every single one of them how to become better people. And they him. And it's here that I stop using gendered pronouns to refer to The Doctor. Because the qualities The Doctor possesses that allow that to happen aren't exclusively male.

As a long time fan of Doctor Who, the relationship between The Doctor and his (oh OK, one more time) companions has always intrigued me. It's possibly because I appreciate the insignificance of humans in the vastness of space. The idea that there is more out there beyond the solar system that we know, and the potential that we are therefore not alone. That this was not and is not the only planet capable of sustaining life. What might those other lifeforms be like? Would they wish to harm us? Despite The Doctor's tendency to be highly manipulative of them, he (last one, promise!) has a particular fondness for them. The Doctor wants to protect Earth (before it's inevitable death) and the continued existence of the human race. The Doctor's companions aren't naive, but they consistently arrive with a complete lack of awareness of their significance. Rose was a shop assistant, bored with her mundane existence. Martha didn't believe she was good enough. Donna knew she wasn't. The Doctor helped them all realise their own worth. Is that something only a man is capable of?

You describe yourself as supporting feminism but you believe that only a man is able to teach a woman (for The Doctor's companions are mainly female) her true value? Feminism challenges the very fact that men have been defining the value of women for millennia. We don't need men telling us how we can be better. This isn't to say that women can't be inspired by men, can't learn anything from men, just a plea for you to recognise that the role of teacher, mentor is not a solely male one. Perhaps your concern is harm to the romantic dynamic between Doctor and Companion? Is it the possibility that a female Doctor might form a romantic relationship with a female companion that concerns you? Or is it that you're uncomfortable with the idea of a young man forming a romantic attachment to a much older woman? Does the prospect of The Doctor being portrayed by a young, attractive by patriarchal standards woman bother you more than the role being filled by an older one? Or one not deemed attractive?

This isn't about a "cultural need" for a female Doctor, whom you compare to James Bond. You'll note that I don't say there are no comparisons between the two but I completely disagree that the characteristics of either character are exclusively male - the difference is how such characteristics are perceived in women. In the case of Bond, substance abuse, having multiple sexual partners, disobedience etc are seen as negative behaviours in women but Bond is lauded as a hero and such things are encouraged in men who wish to assert their 'maleness'. The Doctor's personality changes with each regeneration but remains broadly that of an individual in a highly privileged position who fights to protect the oppressed. As someone who claims to support feminism, you should realise that it is the fight of women against oppression and, whilst I personally welcome the support of male allies who can help break down the system of patriarchy from within, it is women's fight and we don't need (indeed many feminists do not want) men to help us. Since The Doctor's ultimate aim is to fight oppression, I wonder why you are so adamant this is something a woman couldn't do.

Steven Moffat said that "you cast a person, you don't cast the gender". That's why women have been playing Hamlet for centuries (2). What personality traits is it that you see in The Doctor that couldn't be portrayed by a women, bearing in mind that The Doctor's fundamental reason for existence is entirely unrelated to gender? Bearing in mind that The Doctor's personality is prone to change with each subsequent regeneration in any event? Peter Capaldi, who has been a fan of Doctor Who since - ooh - forever, sees a female Doctor as a possibility. Why can't you? Perhaps you share the same concerns that I do, that a female Doctor would be stereotypically female. Take The Doctor's costume, for example. Each has adapted it to fit their personality. To reflect the fact the producers wished to present the character as more enigmatic, yours wore a jumper emblazoned with question marks and carried an umbrella with one for a handle. Initially a light, casual outfit that reflected the Seventh Doctor's whimsical nature, it became darker in colour as the darker aspects of The Doctor's personality were revealed. On that evidence I don't baulk at the possibility a female Doctor might go through regular costume changes but then there's no reason why another male Doctor couldn't do this. Would a female Doctor pick a highly impractical designer frock and a pair of Jimmy Choo's as her preferred garment? Or would things take a comic turn, where someone whose entire lived existence as a man would result in series of clueless attempts to dress a body with hips and boobs? Would she rummage through The Doctor's absolutely enormous wardrobe of clothes or - horror! - make the TARDIS' first stop the nearest branch of New Look? As a woman who wears whatever the fuck she likes, I'd like to see a female Doctor who dressed a bit like me. Jeans and a t-shirt with biker boots one day, a patterned blouse and trousers with trainers the next, a vintage dress and Doctor Marten's the one after that. Heck, there are even days when I wear Converse with a massive, stripy knitted scarf and a trilby (like the Tenth, Fourth and Third Doctor's respectively). We can dress for the occasion or we can dress to suit our mood or we can do both - who says women have to wear dresses to weddings? Oh yes, men.

Doctor is a title that has no gender. Despite having been played by a man since it began, Doctor Who is not bound by the rules of gender, only the personality of the person playing the role and the imagination of the writers. The Doctor would not fundamentally change, only people's perceptions of the The Doctor. Your belief that The Doctor "is a male character" says more about your attitude than your claim to "support feminism". I note that comment was followed by the word "but". It seems all to common that anyone claiming to support anything then saying "but" doesn't really support it at all - rather like people saying they support breastfeeding "but not in public", or "but only if the mother covers up", which isn't supportive at all. It's not difficult to draw parallels between this and what you said.

I might draw a similar parallel between your argument and that against a black James Bond but at least Rush Limbaugh had the good sense to realise that he was being racist to suggest that was a bad idea. To argue that The Doctor is a "male character" is sexist. Plain and simple. You acknowledge the existence of the "glass ceilings" for women but then speak of "drawing the line" - where is the line for men? Men played Shakespeare's female roles because women were forbidden to act. Suggesting that there is ought now to be a limit on the roles women play simply because they are women is archaic and downright offensive.

You aren't the only person who seems to believe that the casting of a female Doctor would be solely to serve the interests of "political correctness" - that seems to be the feeling of a large number of people if the surveys I've seen at the end of various articles regarding your comments are anything to go by. I refer back to Steven Moffat's comment, "you cast the person, you don't cast the gender." Comments like yours, like all those who pooh-pooh the idea of a female Doctor citing "political correctness", show you don't see women as people, but just as women, with all of the associated gendered limitations. Feminism seeks to free women from those limitations. Saying The Doctor shouldn't ever be female is imposing a limitation on women. So please don't keep saying you support us, because those comments show that you don't.

Do I want you to apologise? Say you would back the casting of a female Doctor? No. You don't have to do that. If you believe it's a bad idea, then you believe that, for whatever reason and it doesn't matter if I or anyone else disagrees with you. Just don't try to defend your sexist comments by claiming to support feminism. Be Rush Limbaugh and own your prejudice.

Helen Mirren said she could name "at least ten wonderful British actresses who would absolutely kill" as The Doctor. I doubt Ms Mirren would be so self-important to include herself on that list but she'd certainly be on mine. Maxine Peake would be brilliant. Olivia Colman would too - and continue the newly established tradition of casting actors who have previously appeared in smaller roles like Freema Agyeman, Karen Gillan and Peter Capaldi (the latter two in the same episode. How awesome is that?!) Don't get me wrong, I'm not sitting here, typing away with the notion that the next Doctor should or must be female. I'm just not discounting it is a possibility like you are. Eddie Izzard would be an amazing Doctor. Phil Davis is fabulous (and he also appeared in 'The Fires of Pompeii' alongside Gillen & Capaldi, which would make for some spookily spectacular casting). But it isn't up to me to influence the process any more than it is you. I suspect Steven Moffat has an idea of where he wants The Doctor to go and he will cast the right person to take The Doctor there. That person may well be a woman. So be it. Line crossed, glass ceiling shattered. And I'll still watch Doctor Who because the nature of the relationship between Doctor and companion doesn't have to be based on the Doctor's ownership of a penis (3).

So we disagree. And that's OK. You don't have to change your opinion just to suit me. But that does mean you're not a feminist (4). So please don't say that you are or that you support us again unless you are prepared to revise your opinion. Just one final thought... what if the next Doctor is ginger? A ridiculous question, you might say. But arguing against a ginger Doctor makes about as much sense as your argument against a female one in my opinion, i.e. none at all.

Yours sincerely,

Samantha Reilly (age 36)

(1) http://www.denofgeek.com/tv/doctor-who/33496/doctor-who-how-ace-set-the-template-for-modern-companions

(2) http://www.theguardian.com/stage/gallery/2014/sep/26/female-hamlets-sarah-bernhardt-maxine-peake-in-pictures

(3) Or penises. Two hearts... anything else he's got two of?

(4) If men do behave in ways and express views that are supportive of feminism, I don't personally take issue with them describing themselves as 'feminist', although 'feminist ally' is preferable, I understand there are circumstances when it's easier not to. Like when your Tweet is four characters too long ;)

Fatherless on Father's Day

When I say 'fatherless' it's not because mine isn't around any more in the sense that he's deceased. He isn't dead. Well, he might be. I wouldn't know - I haven't seen him since I was sixteen and when my grandfather on that side of the family passed away the first I knew of it was as a postscript in a Christmas card from my Nanna. My father was largely absent from when I was young enough to still have my age defined in months. Not that I didn't look forward to spending what little time with him I got to, and I have many fond and funny memories of it. I have many more less pleasant memories though.

My parents split up because my father had an affair. My mother tried hard not to speak negatively of him. My grandma, however, would often remind me of the plans she had for her large, wooden rolling pin should he ever show his face at her door...

My Dad let me down on so many occasions though, and I eventually came to realise that he was a really terrible father. There's a photograph of us together, taken when I was around nine months old. To look at it, too see the expression on his face as he looks at me, you would assume I'd just deposited a nice fresh turd in my nappy. Which wasn't the case. He was trying to read the paper. So was I. The photograph, taken by my mother, was clearly intended to show that I was a curious child. What it shows is that Dad just wanted to read the paper though, and I was getting in the way. When I won a place at a rather prestigious high school, he promised to not only help pay the fees but to send me on the school's famous foreign exchanges and trips abroad. The latter never materialised and he stopped paying his share eventually, leaving my mother to struggle financially and accrue significant debt just so I could finish my education. There were many times I'd stand in our front yard, anxiously awaiting his arrival, only to get a phone call some hours later to say he couldn't pick me up that weekend after all.

Some time in the early 2000s, I received a telephone call from Nanna, saying Dad had been trying to get in touch with me. Given that me and Mum hadn't moved or changed our telephone number, well, ever, I found this a little hard to believe. He never did get in touch. She sent us a letter with a photograph of Dad's wedding to his latest wife who, somewhat creeping, bore a startling resemblance to Mum on her wedding day... and that was the last I heard of him.

What is the role of a father? For mine it seems it was merely to fertilise an ovum. A good father doesn't even have to do that necessarily, as any father raising adopted children, or children born via sperm donor or a myriad other circumstances where there is no biological relationship between father and child would tell you. A father's role in child-rearing is the same as a mother's: to love, to nurture, to protect, to teach, to guide, to inspire. So, since my biological father abjectlly failed to do any of these things, today I give thanks to the men in my life who did: the grandfathers, the uncles (both my actual Uncle and all the men I call 'Uncle' who were really my cousin or not even a blood relative at all), the fathers of my friends, teachers, professors, co-workers, friends and various prominent figures who have all demonstrated the qualities a father should (not all of them are fathers, by the way) and have together proved that there's more to being a father than simply being the man you call 'Dad'.

I'm bored of all the breastfeeding bullshit

Earlier this week, the results of a study into the long-term effects of breastfeeding on intelligence were published. The study found that breastfeeding duration was linked to IQ, i.e. that the longer a child is breastfed for, the higher their IQ. Those who conducted the study claim to have accounted for other factors, such as socio-economic factors, which might also be considered to contribute to a child's IQ. So far, so good, right?

Wrong.

Every single time a study like this is published, the same things happen:

1. At least one media outlet will ask whether mothers are put under too much pressure to breastfeed.

2. A steady stream of mothers who did not, or could not, breastfeed for whatever reason feel compelled to explain themselves.

3. Anyone who advocates for breastfeeding is likened to a Nazi.

These things don't irk me per se, they merely indicate that the point has been spectacularly missed. Studies that prove the 'benefits' of breastfeeding are bullshit. In saying that I'm not disputing that there is a direct link between breastfeeding duration and IQ, susceptibility to illness etc - there are, these studies have perfectly valid findings. What I call bullshit on is how they explain them.

None of these studies does a thing to increase our shockingly poor breastfeeding rates. Cultures which show higher breastfeeding rates tend to have better maternity leave, less or no advertising of formula and encourage things that are just normal behaviours in other mammals, like sleeping with their offspring and carrying them (babywearing), both of which make breastfeeding a damn sight easier than having baby sleep in another room or using a pushchair, as long as they're done safely. Schools often mis-teach children that being a mammal means birthing 'live' babies as opposed to laying eggs when, in fact, it means the babies are fed with milk, even if those babies hatch from eggs, as any Duck-Billed Platypus would tell you. Humans are often reminded that we are primates, that we are not that different to apes and monkeys. I think we often forget that we (and they) are also mammals.

Breastfeeding isn't anything exceptional, it's not 'ideal', it's just a biological normality. It's what breasts are for. It's what mammals do: when a women births a baby, hormones are released which stimulate her breasts to make milk. When a baby suckles, it stimulates the breasts to make more milk. Breast milk is tailored to meet the baby's needs, it contains not only the precise level of nutrients they need at each stage of infancy but is packed with antibodies, affording them protection from disease until their own immune system is properly developed. It's impossible to replicate artificially. What substitutes are available are adequate at best, potentially lethal if misused. It therefore follows that a breastfed child cannot have a 'higher' IQ, merely a biologically normal one. But countless news outlets hail this recent study as demonstrating one of the many 'benefits' of breastfeeding. How can something that the body is designed to do have 'benefits'? You might as well argue the 'benefits' of being able bodied, of not having asthma, of having 20-20 vision... but we don't, because that's stupid. Likewise we don't talk about the 'benefits' of not smoking. Oh the subtlety of language.

When a part of our body stops functioning normally, we try to fix it. If someone breaks a leg, for example, it's treated by setting the fracture so it can heal, and the person uses crutches to help them walk, they don't ask for the leg to be amputated first. If someone develops a kidney disease, they're first treated with medication rather than put on dialysis. If someone needs a blood transfusion, they get given human blood rather than an artificial substitute. If a woman's breasts aren't working properly though, the default position seems to be to stop using them, to replace them with something artificial. We don't do this when other parts of our bodies aren't working properly, it seems, only breasts when we're trying to feed our babies.

It seems to me that the vast majority of mothers do want to breastfeed their babies. The reasons why so few manage to keep it up for any significant length of time are many, and I don't wish to be critical of any woman who stopped breastfeeding at any point earlier than I did (my son self-weaned at the age of three) but when I see the same old myths trotted out over and over again by women who did stop breastfeeding very early on, or by women who didn't even start breastfeeding, that does irk me. The difficulty is that it's impossible to tell who is telling the truth and who is just making an excuse, perpetuating a myth. And it doesn't matter. The point is that nobody needs to justify why they did or didn't breastfeed, or why they stopped when they did or carried on to when they did. All that matters is that every woman has the opportunity to breastfeed successfully for as long as they wish. That's bound to include some women who don't want to breastfeed at all and, as long as they're making an informed decision not to do so, then surely that's OK?

An informed decision can only be made when you have knowledge of all of the facts. This means pregnant mothers need to be told the truth, they need to understand how breastfeeding actually works, so they don't panic about not having enough milk in those early days when it seems they can only produce a few drops, that babies don't all eat on the same schedule, that newborns have tiny stomachs and wake frequently and that that's normal. They need to be told how much harder it is to sterilise bottles and make up feeds freshly every time a baby is hungry, and what they risk if they don't make up a fresh bottle every time. They need to be told what the health implications of not breastfeeding are for themselves as well as their babies. They need to understand the difference between risk and certainty - that breastfeeding won't prevent them from getting cancer, that it won't make their baby smarter, that not breastfeeding only increases the risk of cancer, that it might mean their child might not reach their full intelligence potential.

It might seem obvious to some that because not breastfeeding has so many risks associated with it, every mother would choose to do it no matter what, but it's not that simple. If women weighed up risks vs convenience every time then we'd never take our babies out in the car, never give them jarred food, never use disposable nappies etc. When we opt for convenience over 'benefit' for our children we aim to do so at minimal risk, but we still take a risk. The issue for me is that most of us are barely aware of the risks of not breastfeeding. Anyone who tries to talk about them gets accused of bullying.

The biggest problem is that not breastfeeding is what's normal now. I remember seeing my cousins being breastfed as a child but, beyond that, I don't remember seeing anyone doing it in my day-to-day life. It's very rare to see film or television babies being breastfed. If breastfeeding is mentioned, it's usually in a comic or derogatory way. It's very rarely portrayed for what it is - just a baby eating. Friend had a baby? You won't find a 'congratulations on your new baby' card depicting breastfeeding. And the only time you'll see breastfeeding in an advert is when it's being used by a formula company to promote their product.

It's illegal to advertise or promote infant formula in the UK. 'Infant' formula being the first stage stuff you give to newborns. If a baby has formula, that's the only kind they need. There's no medical reason for any of the other kinds, the companies only created it to get around the ban on advertising. You might argue that's not fair, that mothers should have the right to compare products and decide which one to give their baby, right? But they're all the same. They have to be by law. There's absolutely no difference between the cheapest and most expensive brands, you're just paying for the name. Paying for them to advertise their other products. Inflating the price of the thing you need to keep your baby alive to pay for people to tell mothers in the developing world that their breast milk isn't good enough for their babies, to provide them with just enough formula to use until their breast milk is gone, forcing them to spend every penny they have to buy more formula which they can't even prepare safely because they have no access to clean water at home, effectively killing their babies. That's what formula companies do. They kill babies. They aren't interested in making their products better, safer, not interested in the health of your baby, they're only interested in profit. When breastfeeding advocates speak negatively about formula, it's usually in reference to these practises, not the product itself.

Infant formula has a legitimate place. Whilst wet-nursing is a possibility, it's a very rare occurrence in the West and carries its own risks - ones we just didn't know about when it was more regularly practised here, like HIV. The same is true of donor milk, unless it is properly screened. But you wouldn't accept a blood transfusion that hadn't been properly screened, would you? Mothers who accept donor milk directly from other mothers choose to take a risk in doing so, but milk banks exist in the same way blood banks do it's just the milk is given to premature or sick babies as a priority. It's not that radical an idea to have milk banks accessible to all, if enough women were willing to donate milk. Since such a system doesn't exist, if a woman cannot or does not breastfeed for whatever reason, there is is formula. It's an adequate substitute. Used properly it has minimal risk. But it's like any other medicine, there are potential side effects. Formula is a medicine, it is artificial and it is, we must be honest, inferior to breast milk. Vastly inferior. But rather than have a go at people like me who keep having to point that out, why aren't people having a go at the people who make it? Why aren't they telling them to make it better? Why aren't they complaining about the mark-up they have to pay and demanding less advertising so the product becomes cheaper? Why have a go at people like me who point out how unethical practises by companies like Nestle cause the deaths of so many babies around the world rather than telling them to stop those unethical practises? That's stupid.

There's often talk about women being 'pressured' to breastfeed, but I've never witnessed or experienced this. What I do see, all the time, is women who've been given wrong information, bad advice and wholly inadequate support taking the responsibility for other people's failures onto themselves. They feel the need to justify themselves, to 'make excuses', and they seem to take anything said about breastfeeding personally, whether positive or negative. This manifests most often as guilt. Sometimes anger. Almost always directed at the wrong person. Whilst it's true that all the necessary information is out there, not every woman is capable of seeking it out for herself. Many will need guidance and a lot of support. People learn in different ways and that means some women will need to be shown how to breastfeed, just reading about it won't be enough. That means breastfeeding needs to be seen, just for starters.

If something goes wrong with a part of our body, we go to the doctor. The problem is that doctors generally know squat about breastfeeding. They simply don't get taught enough about it. Specialist breastfeeding support isn't readily available everywhere. Women are told to stop breastfeeding because they have to take certain medications all the time, when the reality is that very few medications necessitate this. They're told not to breastfeed after certain medical or dental procedures, when there's no medical need to do so. They're told there's no reason to continue to breastfeed when their baby hits a certain age. It's all bollocks.

We do not need any more studies looking into the 'benefits' of breastfeeding. If I'm honest, we don't really need any studies that look into the risks of not breastfeeding either. What we need is a society that doesn't bat an eyelid when a woman breastfeeds her child, no matter where they are, no matter how old the child is. We need a society that gives parents decent maternity leave, that allows flexibility for mothers who return to work and wish to continue breastfeeding their children. We need a society where people expect breasts to be used for breastfeeding, not just to titillate men, where women are measured by much more than just the pertness of their breasts. We need a society where breastfeeding is just normal. If it were just the normal thing to do, more women would do it. But if we want people to see it as normal, we have to start portraying it as normal.

Where I live there is a programme that aims to support mothers who wish to breastfeed by ensuring they are seen by a trained Breastfeeding Support Worker as soon as possible after their baby is born. Part of this process includes referring them to a breastfeeding group - not for support as such, although the volunteers are trained to offer advice on how to overcome the more common problems women face, but as a means of putting them in touch with other breastfeeding mothers, or women who have breastfed. The women who volunteer for these groups are amazing. They help to normalise breastfeeding. They (pardon the pun) bust myths, they share their stories so new mothers know what's normal and what's not. Often, they have overcome a particular difficulty themselves and breastfed after a traumatic or surgical birth, breastfed multiple babies, premature or very sick babies, breastfed despite their own health problems, breastfed after they returned to work, breastfed older children. They encourage, they inspire, they empower other women. It's easier and more accepted for them to speak about the 'benefits' of breastfeeding - it's seen as gentler, less confrontational. That infuriates me and it's one of several reasons why I had to stop volunteering for one such group. That's not a criticism of the excellent work they continue to do, more an admission of where I stand. The older I get, the more I am becoming attuned to the subtlety of language, the more I see breastfeeding as a political and public health issue, albeit a particularly emotive one. One we seem to be talking about in completely the wrong way. Breastfeeding has no benefits.

What saddens me most about this is I'm not the first person to say it. Diane Wiessinger did almost twenty years ago in her article titled 'Watch Your Language' and very little has changed. I think perhaps she said it much better than I have, but the fact that so little has changed means I'm not going to stop saying it - shouting it if I have to - until they do. Until it stops being news when a woman is asked to cover up or stop breastfeeding. Until it stops being news that science has proven a link between breastfeeding duration and any given desirable health or social outcome. Until an entire generation of women grow up knowing how to breastfeed long before they decide to have children. Until it's just something women do and nobody bats an eyelid.

But until then, Kellymom is perhaps the best available resource on breastfeeding on the Internet, Baby Milk Action the only charity dedicated to protecting all babies whether breast or formula fed from the evil corporations who care more about profits than they do babies and Cradles are just, well, awesome.

MY Fat Story

I used to be fat. I used to weigh over thirteen stone and squeeze myself into size 18 clothes that were too small for me because I couldn't bear to buy a size 20. I'm only 5 ft 3.5 in tall so not only was this not a good look, it was also rather bad for my health. It's possible that it caused my kidney disorder, although it probably wasn't the only factor. It's possible my genes decided to fuck up my kidneys the moment I was conceived and there's fuck all I can do about that!

I was not always fat, although I'd perhaps say I had 'fat tendencies'. As a kid I had skinny arms and legs and a huge pot belly. This remained the case throughout my teens and early twenties until I started to be less self-conscious of it and bagged a fella that didn't mind it (1). An incident from my younger years stick in my mind:

A non-uniform day at school. I was standing with my 'friends' on the bus lane, near the end of the path which ran between the science building and the tennis courts. A girl we all knew was sitting on the bench that was there. She was wearing jeans and a crop-top. She was leaning forward slightly. My 'friends' commented that she was 'blobbing out' over the top of her jeans. This girl was at least two dress sizes smaller than me and with a stomach like a washboard. My 'friends' were always friendly towards this girl... to her face. Out of earshot they were complete bitches. I wondered what they must day about me when I wasn't within earshot. We weren't friends for much longer after that - for completely unrelated reasons, I must add.

I mentioned this incident to my mother who, instead of offering support, told me I 'could stand to lose a little weight'. Whilst this was perhaps, in essence, true, it wasn't what I needed to hear. I wore size 12 clothes at the time - not exactly enormous. I did want to be a little thinner, but I needed support and encouragement, not criticism that served only to reinforce the validity of the bitchiness of my then friends....


My weight and dress size remained pretty static throughout my later school life and the time I was at university. When I moved back home after graduating it crept up a little and I was wearing size 14s with a weight of roughly 10 st when I met the man who would later become my husband. I was a regular gym-goer at the time, and went swimming most days before work. That soon stopped, and I became a regular pub-goer and gorged myself on the chocolates I was bought and the sumptuous dinners he cooked for me. My weight and dress size crept slowly up. Not long after we moved in together, I decided to do something about it. I joined Slimming World (online - I was far too shy to walk into a group full of strangers) and it worked - I weighed 10 st 2 lb and could fit back into size 12 clothes the day we got married. I wasn't at my 'goal weight', however, and I had hit a massive hurdle in my weight loss journey: I was pregnant.

I found it impossible to process eating so healthily with the numbers on the scale going up. So I gave up. I ate what I wanted throughout my pregnancy and I put two stone back on. PTSD and PPD meant I wasn't able to climb back on the bandwagon straight away. Slowly, my weight started creeping up again. The size 12s stopped fitting, then the 14s, then the 16s, then the 18s started getting tight. I remember buying a pair of linen trousers in size 18 specifically to wear for summer because I was so damn hot all the time. They were a little tight, but I figured I'd be able to 'slim down' by the time I needed to wear them.

I don't recall exactly what it was that kick-started my second weight-loss journey. It probably wasn't one specific thing, just the culmination of months of hating looking at myself in the mirror, hating seeing pictures of myself, hating that I couldn't fit into the kind of clothes I wanted to wear, hating that I looked awful in the ones that did, hating being hot and tired all the fucking time... just hating myself. Despite the previous success I'd had with Slimming World, I didn't want to go back to it. It had always felt like 'a diet' to me, not a way of eating I could have continued for life, which it necessarily has to be to work in the long term (2). I decided to just try and eat more healthily and get back into exercising regularly. So I did. On my 'diet', no food was banned. I just ate less of it. Some 'dieters' dislike weighing and measuring and counting calories but I found that's what worked for me. I used an app on my phone to keep track of what I ate and I tried to view it in a positive way - instead of trying to stay under my calorie 'limit' I tried to look for better ways of using the food I liked to reach my calorie 'goal'. If I fucked up, and ended up buying dinner from KFC, I simply started afresh the next day. I started walking more, getting off the bus a few stops earlier. Last summer I even took up running - something I said I'd never ever do (unless something was chasing me), but I loved it. Gradually, the weight came off, the clothes got smaller, and I'm typing this weighing less than 9 st and wearing size 8 jeans. I still eat whatever I want, just in moderation. I walk practically everywhere but I've stopped running - at least until it stops being so cold and dark in the mornings. Fuck. That.

Losing that much weight wasn't as easy as it sounds. The premise is simple: consume fewer calories than your body expends in energy. It's the principle all diets are based on. The two ways of achieving this essentially amount to eating less and/ or exercising more; now AKA the Hopkins Diet.

The difficulty I have with this is that people don't become fat simply because they eat too much and move too little. People don't sit there, just stuffing their faces without a care in the world and watch themselves fill out. Even if there are no underlying issues, the weight creeps on, barely noticed, over a long period of time and it can be several years before they really see the change. People don't overeat or under-exercise just because they are lazy or ignorant, either. In my case, my relationship with food and exercise are all influenced by the following:

• Throughout my entire childhood I was taught to clear my plate. Not doing so was 'bad'. So I would eat past the point of satiety in order to be a 'good' girl.
• Food was a comforter. If I was upset, I was given chocolate or sweets to make me feel better. The association of food with comfort continued into adulthood until I recognised that it didn't need to be there - that doesn't mean I'm not still tempted to grab the chocolate if I've had a particularly shitty day.
• The practicalities of working, travelling a long distance between work and home and my husband rarely finishing before 7:00 or even 8:00PM meant that planning meals was a nightmare - one we usually solved by eating out or ordering in. Yes, I know we could have gone about this better but we went for the quick and easy option. Knackered, stressed people tend to. Sue us.
• PTSD/ PPD meant the prospect of getting out of bed some days was difficult enough, let alone the thought of cooking a fucking meal.
• When I was diagnosed with a kidney condition, I was placed on high-dosage steroids, which increase your appetite, making weight loss more difficult.
• When your childcare fees sap the majority of your disposable income, you can't afford to join a gym or slimming group or anything else that might give you access to some form of motivational support - when I investigated what was available through my GP I found out I wasn't fat enough to qualify. Finding the motivation to do it by yourself is fucking hard.

These aren't 'excuses' as such, but I did have to overcome these things in order to successfully lose weight. It wasn't easy to recognise some of these issues in the first place, and figuring out a way to deal with them on my own was even harder. A lot of people will need support from others to do this. They certainly don't need some sanctimonious bitch telling them it's easy. There's even been some new research that suggests it might not actually work for people who are chronically obese (3), because their body chemistry has completely changed making them 'a fat person' rather than a thin person who has become fat.

Anyway, I did it. I'm 'thin'. Am I happy? Well... yes, because I can wear the sort of clothes I feel comfortable in. I can look in the mirror and I'm pleased with what I see... most of the time. When I was a teenager I wanted a stomach like Cindy Crawford and now it seems I have one (4). I do find it frustrating that clothing sizes aren't consistent, so I can be a size 8 in one shop, a size 12 in another and a size 6 in yet another and that, according to some clothing brands sizing charts, my actual measurements make me a size 14 or larger when those sizes are far too big... I could write a whole, ranty, post about that.

A few weeks ago, I was standing in the queue for the fitting room at Primarni, clutching a size 8 t-shirt, a size 10 dress and a size 12 skirt (5). The woman in front of me had a pile of clothes draped over her arm - all size 14 or 16. She was thinner than me. Yesterday, as I was browsing the racks of clothing in a local charity shop, I saw a woman much thinner than me going through the size 12 trousers - clearly for herself as she kept holding them against her. Another woman was looking at size 14 dresses. She was also thinner than me. Now I know all about the 'vanity sizing' shit, but my visual impression of these women was that they were all thinner than me. And I can fit into size 8 or 10 from most places now. I refuse to believe that they were deliberately looking for loose fitting clothing - nobody wants a loose strapless dress or skirt with no belt loops! So either these women have poor body image (which tight jeans and t-shirts would suggest is not the case) or I do.

I find it quite terrifying that I might be looking in the mirror and seeing fat bits where there aren't any, that nobody else sees, but my husband still found me attractive when I weighed nearly four stone more than I do now so I don't fully trust other people's opinions on this! It wasn't that long ago that there was a furore over Primark using a dummy with 'protruding ribs' (6). It wasn't that long ago that I would have joined in. But my ribs started to look like that when I was over a stone heavier than I am now, when I was still overweight....

I know that someone is bound to be thinking 'stop comparing yourself to other women'. But that's a really difficult thing when you've been doing it for most of your life. Every day we are bombarded with images of women that are deemed attractive or healthy looking - you can't ignore it, it's everywhere. When I was younger, the guys I found attractive never felt the same - they usually preferred one of my thinner, prettier friends or (in one case) turned out to be gay. One I did go out with would spend our time watching music videos together telling me which female singers were 'too fat' - women far thinner than I was at the time. Unsurprisingly, it wasn't a very long relationship. My husband pledged to love me as I am, no matter how I am, but he recognised I wasn't happy when I was bigger and he's been as supportive as he can. I didn't lose weight to become more attractive to him, but to myself. Good job really, because I've been called a 'fat bitch' twice since my weight dipped below the 9 st mark - on both occasions it was by other women and not in jest....

I'd be lying if I said I didn't feel some pressure to look a certain way, to conform with what society expects of me, but I'd like society to know it's all an illusion. My clothing choices hide all of the ways my body has been changed by pregnancy so, despite being a titchy dress size now, I'll never wear hipster jeans or a crop-top. I do have a bit of muscle definition in my arms though - it comes from having to carry heavy bags (and toddler) back from the shops on a regular basis - so I'm happy to wear sleeveless or strapless things I never would have done before, although I'd never go without scaffolding (7)....

I remember a few years ago when Anne Widdecombe did 'Celebrity Fit Club' - a 'reality' TV show featuring overweight celebrities that was essentially a televised slimming club/ boot camp. I believe the celebs were discussing others who had written diet books and she commented that hers would just be two pages long: page one would read 'eat less' and page two 'exercise more'. Obviously, for a hell of a lot of people it's not going to be that simple. But it is a legitimate 'diet plan'. And it worked for me. It works for me. Eating too much food in general over several years stretched my stomach. When I first started reducing my calorie intake I found it terrifically hard because my stomach just wasn't full. It has slowly shrunk. It used to astound me that my housemate could eat a McDonald's meal for lunch (around 1000-1200 calories worth of food) and then eat nothing for the rest of the day and not feel hungry. Now I understand it. If I eat a 'big' meal I don't eat much - if at all - the rest of the day. I simply don't feel hungry and I can't physically fit any more food in my stomach. I frequently have to leave uneaten food on my plate - although I find it difficult and feel extremely guilty to do so sometimes, so ingrained it is upon me that this is inherently wrong. It's so hard trying to raise a child and teach them only to eat until they are full when you weren't raised that way yourself, but I guess I could be grateful he's just asked for and eaten three whole apples in succession rather than three packets of crisps or chocolate buttons. I must be doing something right!

And that's all I have to say about that. I have no recipes for 'guilt-free' versions of your favourite culinary indulgences, I have no sparkling words of wisdom, no secret to share. I just stayed focused and determined to lose the weight and I found a way of doing it that worked for me. And now I'm focused and determined to keep it off for the rest of my life... anyone know how many calories you burn typing? I seem to have typed rather a lot.... I have more to say but I drink loads of water these days (instead of heading straight to the biscuit tin every time I feel peckish) so now I really have to pee....

(1) To quote Charlotte Bronte, "Reader, I married him."

(2) Slimming World works for a lot of people. I'm not trying to slag it off. If that's what works for you - do it. If not, choose something that does. Studies have shown that no 'diet' plan is any more effective than any other, it's all about which method works best for the individual.

(3) http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/theres-no-point-telling-obese-people-to-exercise-more-doctors-claim-10039641.html

(4) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/cindy-crawford-praised-for-keeping-it-real-by-posing-in-underwear-without-the-aid-of-photoshop-10044763.html - my stretchmarks are way more impressive though... ;)

(5) You have to admire Primark for their ability to make a woman three (or more) different sizes within the same shop according to the item of clothing she's buying.

(6) http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/fashion/news/primark-forced-to-remove-skinnylooking-mannequin-with-protruding-ribs-after-customer-complaint-9629784.html

(7) I first went to Bravissimo when I was still breastfeeding (and quite fat) because I wanted a prettier bra than those I'd found available elsewhere. I've not bought a bra anywhere else since - and now I'd struggle to anyway due to having a back size only marginally bigger than I had when I got my first training bra....

Ickle Fings

When I was a little girl, my absolute favourite toy was my doll's house. It was a fabulous Lundby one, exactly like this:

I was extremely lucky, because I also had three additional floors for it, including this garage extension:

And this one with the most fantastic 'forest' wallpaper:

I won't show you the third one. I didn't much like the wallpaper in that one and, besides, I can't find a picture of it on Google images....

Anyway, this fabulous house was filled with c. 1980s Lundby and Barton/ Caroline's Home furniture and accessories. If you're curious to see the sort of things I had, you can check out my Pinterest. The house and much of its contents were bought for me by my mother and grandmother, whose house it always lived it. I spent countless hours rearranging the furniture, accidentally kneeling or standing on some bits having put them on the floor beside or behind me as I did so... oops. The house remained at my grandmother's long after I'd grown up and stopped playing with it because my young cousins would do so when they visited her.

After my grandmother died in 2010, I decided to take the house and restore it - it didn't matter that I was pregnant with a son, rather than a daughter, at the time. Sadly, I discovered that my grandmother had, albeit well-meaning, covered the floors with scraps of velvet and carpet and the walls with wallpaper offcuts - badly. And used superglue to stick everything down. The prospect of restoring it from the state it was in was way beyond my capabilities, and the thought of renovating it into something more modern never crossed my mind at the time, so I decided to sell it. I spent many happy hours identifying the approximate age and origin of the furniture, which had also included some old Dol-Toi and Mattel 'The Littles' items, as well as a number of others that weren't quite the right scale for a 1:16 doll's house but had lived in mine quite happily anyway. I listed everything on eBay and made a decent amount of money from it. I was happy.

A couple of years later as I was wandering round my local charity shops I came across this:

A near-perfect condition Caroline's Home in its original box. They only wanted £5 for it. I figured I'd stick it on eBay and maybe make a bit of profit... until I went into another shop and found this:

That's a Caroline's Home wardrobe - I'd had one in my Lundby doll's house. It was 50p. That clinched it. I was going to restore this thing and fill it with the furniture I'd had in my house as a child. It would be my new hobby.

Initially, that's exactly what I did. Charity shops, car boot sales and good old eBay were how I tracked down most of the items. Whilst I primarily focused on the things I'd once had, I also acquired things like this pink bathroom suite, hoping to furnish the house solely with Caroline's Home items - my Lundby House had had a Lundby bathroom suite.

However, this particular piece would require some renovation - the bathroom taps are broken. I started researching restoration techniques figuring that a custom renovation might be easier than tracking down replacement parts. Whilst doing so I came across some beautifully renovated Lundby houses - and I decided I wanted to do the same. When I'd wanted to restore my own house it had been with the intention of getting it back to its original condition. Now I could see that didn't have to be the case - I could repaint it, repaper it, do it up in my own style, make things for it and still incorporate the furniture and decorations I'd loved as a child. I trawled eBay and placed the winning bid on this:

Whilst it isn't quite the same as the one I'd had as a child, being a slightly more recent model, I didn't mind since my original intention was to completely redecorate it. However, once I'd got it home and had a little play with the furniture that had come with it, I decided I wanted to keep some of the original wallpaper to have as 'feature walls'. I found a way of making a removable template so I can cover it up and change it according to the style of room I'm creating, just in case I get the urge to start rearranging things as I did as a child, which I almost inevitably will....

It's a work in progress and, aside from acquiring a lot more furniture and miniature items to put in it, not much progress has been made in terms of redecorating the house itself. It's been a while since I did anything with it at all, but I've always got my eye out for 'ickle fings' to put in it. These pictures show off some of my favourite acquisitions so far and the sort of style I'm ultimately going for:

This last one is of my 'crazy cat lady' bedroom - it's not the most up-to-date version of this room, which now boasts several more cats and 'ladies' items including a whole load of 'Bratz' bits that were the perfect scale. This room's theme was inspired by my finding that sign (a fridge magnet) and being reminded of Jenny Joseph's poem 'Warning' and that scene in 'Friends' where Chandler predicted he'd become 'Crazy Snake Man' (1). My son does not mind that I have 'borrowed' bits of his Playmobil in order to complete this look....

There is more doll's house stuff on my Pinterest, including a board showing the things that have inspired me to get creative. And when I get around to it, I'll share the results.

(1) When I was single I'd said the same thing, except I'd have cats, hence the kids would've called me 'Crazy Cat Lady', and there you have it....

Feminist Frustrations: "Sexism vs Chivalry vs Manners" and "Why 'Compliments' - (Consent + Context) = Harassment"

A couple of things on Twitter sparked my interest in the past week or so. The first was this excerpt from a conversation Glamour magazine had with Gillian Anderson:

Glamour: What do you get riled up about in a feminist context? 

Gillian: A lot. I have feminist bones and when I hear things or see people react to women in certain ways I have very little tolerance. 

Glamour: But don't you feel sorry for modern men? Not knowing whether they should help us with our bags and open doors for us or whether we'll see it as an affront? 

Gillian: No. I don't feel sorry for men.

I don't feel sorry for them either. Helping someone who is clearly struggling is merely being nice, holding a door open for someone is just basic manners. I could rant at great length about how fucked off I get with people who don't bother to hold the door when someone is coming through immediately behind them, or who don't acknowledge someone who has. It's got nothing to do with gender. And I'll give you a tip: a lot of people are too shy, or sometimes too proud, to ask for help when they need it. It's okay - it's actually quite nice - to offer them help. If a man sees a woman struggling, it's not sexist to offer her help. It is sexist to see a woman not struggling with her bags and take them from her with the assumption that she might and you're actually doing her a favour. Things like this aren't that difficult to work out, surely?

It strikes me as odd that men might be struggling to know whether or not they should hold a door open for women for fear of being considered sexist when they seem very willing to yell sexual comments towards women in the street. This is sexual harassment, not 'freedom of speech' as some have tried to claim. When I wrote about this issue, I stressed the importance of context - essentially, if a man yells 'nice tits!' at me when I'm walking down the street wearing a polo neck, that's harassment; if he tells me 'nice tits!' when we're stood at a bar when I'm wearing a low cut dress and a push-up bra, that's a compliment I'm actually glad to receive. You can read the full post here.

Another way to look at this is to consider the comment in terms of consent. It could certainly be argued that my choice to wear a revealing outfit gives consent for people to comment on the part of my body it enhances and/ or exposes. When I've deliberately chosen an outfit that aims to disguise or hide them though, and I'm just trying to go about my daily business, I struggle to see how the same consent could be inferred by anyone.

Abi Wilkinson wrote an interesting examination of the consent issue, referencing the feelings of a rape survivor who experiences traumatic flashbacks when she receives unwanted attention and those of Paris Lees, who revels in it. Her point is that the man making the unsolicited comment towards a woman in the street doesn't know which one she is, whether she will feel flattered by it or fearful. The rape survivor told Wilkinson that she used to enjoy "burlesque pin-up style" but now worries she might be perceived as "having 'asked for it'" if she wears certain clothes. There's an implication here that rape completely destroys a woman's sexual confidence but I don't think that's what Wilkinson is trying to say - she's merely illustrating that it's possible to experience both angles. She describes her own position:

"I've received uninvited sexual attention that I've found incredibly upsetting and intimidating. Other times - I'm slightly ashamed to admit - crude, sexualised comments from strangers have given me a bit of an ego boost. Often, it's a weird combination of the two."

If you read my first post, you'll know that's pretty much my position on it too.

Wilkinson isn't critical of Lees' enjoyment of receiving such attention - she is critical of those who have told Lees that she isn't "a 'real' feminist" and is "betraying other women" by doing so. What she does criticise is the stance that, because some women do enjoy this attention, those who do not "should 'loosen up' and stop complaining." What? Like a rape survivor who is too afraid to leave her home because such attention causes her to have flashbacks? This is where the 'freedom of speech' issue comes into play - is the right for everyone to make uninvited sexual comments more important than the right of some people who are affected by them to be protected from them? The first thought that entered my head when Wilkinson posed this question was 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few' (1) - sometimes I am unconscionably nerdy - but I cannot possibly argue that there's a need for people to be able to make sexual comments towards anyone, whereas there is certainly a need for people to feel able to go out in public without jeopardising their mental stability. So I agree with Wilkinson's conclusions. Spock's claim is illogical anyway. And he contradicts himself later on (2).

Naturally I then went on to read Paris Lees' original article, where she asks "I Love Wolf Whistles and Catcalls; Am I a Bad Feminist?" As Wilkinson pointed out, the answer is no, and it's wrong for anyone to suggest so. Lees' article is an interesting read and I found myself agreeing with the vast majority of it because she too recognises that it's the context a sexual comment is made in that distinguishes an ego-boosting compliment from harassment. She quotes The Independent's social media editor Felicity Morse:

"If I'm dressed up in a sexy little something... sashaying down the street... I find a catcall rather appreciative. But if I'm out jogging or running to the bus stop, huddling past a building site in the rain, I find it intrusive."

Lees describes how she loves "catcalls... car toots... random men shouting 'Hello, beautiful!'" but makes a clear statement to men to stop doing things like saying "'I'd like to fuck you up the ass' as you drive past her in the street," because the latter is clearly harassment. Whilst some women - not necessarily only rape survivors - might sometimes feel that what Lees considers "harmless fun" is frightening, I wouldn't call to ban catcalling. Lees poses the question:

"If I smile next time a man wolf-whistles at me, does that make me a bad person? What if the next person he wolf-whistles at is a woman who's been raped? What if he ruins her day?"

Lees spoke to Ellie Mae O'Hagen of The Guardian about where catcalling fits in to the broader picture of sexual violence against women in a patriarchal society. Lees struggles with the idea that there's a connection between catcalling and rape and although I'd agree it's a terrible misnomer to postulate that 'street hecklers' or the 'readers of lads' mags' I do acknowledge it as a piece of that bigger picture that we shouldn't ignore.

Lees' conclusion is that catcalling and harassment are different things but says "I don't want to make other women feel pathetic if they don't enjoy street attention." She states she is a feminist because she doesn't like "men telling me how to think or behave or experience the world, and I don't like women doing it, either." There's a suggestion in her article - from another person, I must add - that how women feel when they are catcalled is a choice. It's a suggestion I have difficulty with. Whilst I'm all for owning your feelings and not seeking to blame others when you've fucked up and feel bad about it, the line between being controversial - which might be seen as offensive by some - and being downright deliberately offensive is often a very fine one indeed.

My own conclusion is this: some women - like Paris Lees - consistently revel in this sort of attention. Others - like Abi Wilkinson, Felicity Morse and me - like it sometimes and not others. Some detest it. Even that which the rest of us might consider relatively harmless might ruin their day. Ruin their life. I think it's important to remember that that's OK. However you feel about - I like Lees' term - "street attention", that's OK. As long as you remember that not everyone feels the same. I think that men who like to catcall need to look at the women they target more closely (yes, I am actually suggesting this). They'd soon see the difference between a woman who is "sashaying", who will probably not mind and might even enjoy such attention and one who is "huddling" and will not.

That said, there is a limit. Whilst a woman might choose to wear a revealing outfit with the purpose of (or not minding) inviting attention. It doesn't give people permission to do anything more than pay her a compliment, even if that comes in the form of a catcall she enjoys. You can look, but you may not touch without permission, not without consent. Women who dress provocatively might be asking for attention but they are not asking for 'it' - that's sexual assault at best, at worst it's rape.


One thing that pisses me off whenever women start talking about things like this is those men (and women) who bring up the 'not all men' issue (3). Yes, WE KNOW. It's often difficult to tell whether those who #notallmen are men who really just mean 'not me' and support feminism or whether they're men who think you're one of 'those feminists' and are the cause of the problem. It's like when anyone brings up domestic abuse - the victims of which are overwhelmingly women - and reminds us that it happens to men too. Yes it does, but the focus on female victims doesn't mean those of us who campaign on the issue are ignorant or dismissive of its male victims... fuck. I'm about to quote Spock again and then remind you that it's not actually a logical argument and comes entirely down to fucking context again....

I have a great deal of respect for the men who do 'get it'. Those who are aware of their male privilege and support feminism. I remember the emotional response I had when I first saw Daniel Craig - who then represented the ultimate symbol of male privilege and misogyny: James Bond - appear in drag in a video created to mark International Women's Day as Judi Dench's voice over reminded us that, even after decades of feminism, women are still very much second-class citizens. That two of them die every every week at the hands of a current or former partner. That's why Domestic Abuse campaigns focus on women; because two women die every week. It is still a very powerful piece:

I like to think that Daniel Craig's participated in this because he's one of those men, as I like to think the men who tweeted the link to that catcalling video are too. In the above film, Judi Dench says to Bond "I wonder if you've ever considered what it might be like to be [a woman]?" Here's another video that shows a man being given the same (albeit uninvited) opportunity and, given that the latter part of this post is about sexual harassment, it seems particularly appropriate to share it here:

I came across this quite by accident when I was doing background research for another post and I find it quite uncomfortable to watch. I mean, I love those arms too but shit, ladies - you ask first (4)! If this were a man grabbing a woman there'd be an outcry, but this sort of thing goes unchallenged. There might well be a twelve-foot high picture of the arms the women admire so in the background but this guy has turned up wearing a long-sleeved shirt. He's not inviting that attention. Arguably, the circumstances of this being an interview which will inevitably raise the subject (although... would it, if they hadn't put that picture in the background?) means I feel it's OK to ask the question. Hell, I'd even accept one of the women seeking permission to dispute his claim that that muscle definition is the result of "a lot of make-up" but they don't. Instead, two of them decide to cut him off mid-sentence and pounce on him like a couple of rabid dogs. Women who behave like this make it really difficult for women like me to speak out against street harassment. There are men who perpetrate it who use this sort of behaviour as justification for what they do - frequently under the #notallmen banner.

At this point, it sort of feels like I'm derailing my own argument by bringing this up, but the point I'm trying to make is that it's not just women who need to speak out about such things. Men do too - and not just to point out that they aren't all perpetrators of harassment or are also victims of it. Those men with good old-fashioned manners - those kind, generous men who are willing to offer help to an evidently needy stranger who might be too shy or too proud to ask for it when they want it - need to remind other men not to worry about how they're going to be perceived. Just as Paris Lees has never come across a woman who appreciated a man describing what sexual acts he'd like to do to her from his moving car, I've never come across anyone who appreciated someone leaving a door to swing back and smack them in the face. Those Men who recognise the difference between a sexually confident woman who actively chooses to display her ample bosom to all and might like you to tell her that you appreciate it, and a woman who dresses and moves in such a way as to draw as little attention as possible to hers, who spends every moment she's out in public praying that you won't say anything. Even - or perhaps especially - if she's the same woman. Those men need to remind other men that they do need to think about how a woman might perceive those actions. It's all about context. I appreciate perhaps this isn't that straightforward, given women's differing attitudes towards and experiences of street attention, or the outdated concept of chivalry becoming confused with what amount to basic manners, but many men do seem to understand this and many of the other issues important to feminism. Does that mean I feel sorry for the men who struggle with it? Hell no!




Footnotes:

(1) Is there seriously anyone reading this who doesn't know that's from Star Trek??

(2) https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2013/09/spocks-illogic-the-needs-of-the-many-outweigh-the-needs-of-the-few/

(3) Here is an excellent explanation of 'not all men' and what it actually means which explains why it's appearance in online dialogue is often confusing for feminists: http://time.com/79357/not-all-men-a-brief-history-of-every-dudes-favorite-argument/

(4) What happens here reminds me a bit of the uninvited bump-touching that pregnant women face. Their growing bump is the equivalent of that twelve-foot high picture, it's presence means it will be noticed, commented on, but touching a woman's bump without permission is also assault. You can buy maternity t-shirts bearing the slogan 'hands off the bump' as a means of preventing this unwanted touching. Maybe someone should start making 'hands off the biceps' t-shirts....