Tiffany Aching

Want to know one of my weaknesses? Kick-ass strong women. I have a few favourite female fictional characters, but Terry Pratchett's Tiffany Aching and Granny Weatherwax should be right near the top of that list.

Pratchett books get devoured over here. I savour every last drop, give a big sigh, feel slightly bereft, then leave them for a few months. I recently finished re-reading 'I Shall Wear Midnight' then went on to populate my Kindle with far too many a few more Discworld favourites that I don't have in paperback. 

The Tiffany novels* could almost be textbook pieces of feminist-inspired 'empowered' female stories. Tiffany's coming-of-age seems to have come full circle in 'I Shall Wear Midnight', when she returns home to take up her Witchy role. Did I mention I LOVE Coming of Age Stories. About Women. Who Kick Ass?

I'm not entirely certain why I adore these kinds of stories. I think it's to do with the 'overcoming' aspect. Tiffany has to get over herself to develop. She makes a sh*t load of mistakes. She's selfish, she shows off, she makes a big f*cking mess then goes and cleans it up, taking responsibility for herself. Styling herself after Granny Weatherwax (I mean, who wouldn't?) 

What I was really taken by, both times I read this book, was the support of the other Witches. TIffany has two places she depends on for emotional support, her Dad and the Witches†. The interesting thing about the witches is that it's not exactly them who support her; they serve as a means for her to remember to rely on herself. They are so unwaveringly THERE, reminding her of who she is, making her determined to succeed; they are the ultimate role models, idols and friends.

Those are the kind of people everyone should have in their lives.

Anyone else have a favourite female character? What makes them special?

*(four in total, The Wee Free Men, A Hat Full of Sky, Wintersmith and I Shall Wear Midnight)**

**You have to have footnotes if you're talking about Pratchett.

† Well, there's actually three I suppose. Her own Granny is the third, but I like to think of her more as Tiffany's inner strength, as Granny Aching passed away before the Wee Free Men, she's a bit of a totem for what Tiffany aspires to be, and is probably the reason why she likes Granny Weatherwax so much. Damn I could write so much about this!

A one track mind, but not blinkered

I really enjoyed The F Word Interview with Zoe Margolis, she's very frank and passionate about her views and it's refreshing to see someone in the mainstream talking so clearly about the fine line between empowerment and objectification. Often people misunderstand feminist objections to sexualised images, and, from what I've read, feminists themselves can sometimes seem confused about what they're actually fighting about! Abby Lee, Margolis' persona for the Girl With a One Track Mind blog/book, was destroyed by the media's desperate need to expose her real identity, so she is well placed to make statements like this - people have heard of her, and her notoriety makes her interesting to more than the usual feminist audience.

It's also exciting to see that she takes on the female magazine market:

My experience was a microcosm of what happens to women generally in society and women in the public eye especially: being outed, threatened and blackmailed. That type of shit goes on every single day in celebrity magazines and women’s magazines. Women should be questioning that when they buy into it - they’re buying into someone else’s misfortune and a very misogynistic view of women. I wanted to show that’s the reality. Women need to stop literally buying into it and supporting it. We need to question ‘why are we always talking about what women look like, what they wear and their sex lives?’

People say, “well, women buy these magazines so it’s what women want to read”.

But that’s what women are being given, there’s no fucking alternative. You’ll find the same stories in them all: they’re all dumbed down, patronising and very similar in style. Sometimes you’ll find something really radical and intelligent, but that’s not enough when 95% of the magazine is sexist conditioning. I do think women want more - the average woman who wouldn’t call herself a feminist, likes Heat and isn’t particularly political. But with no alternative provided, you have to take what there is: it’s that, or reading nothing at all.

There really aren't any alternatives on the high street, but if you're interested in a different women's magazine that doesn't sell the commodities of sex, objectification and beauty, you won't go far wrong with Filament magazine, but be warned, it's got an 18 certificate! (I think Zoe has even written a guest article in a previous issue)

Thank you, Zoe, for continuing to question our f*cked up society and trying to take the shame out of sex. You've proven they can't take you down, you will continue to say what needs to be said and hopefully, one day, women won't be shamed for having desires.

Child returns to nursery, mom returns to the world at large

It has probably not escaped your attention that I've been absent since July. Hey, what happened in July? Oh, just my lovely daughter 24/7!

I don't begrudge her, but it's been a tough time.

Anyway, anyone interested in little girls and gender roles should go read this blog passed on to me via a lovely friend, who got it from the beautiful and talented Felicia Day who I didn't realise had done anything awesome since Buffy, but she did, and she is (awesome, that is).

A taste of what Jolie O'Dell has to say on the subject of Women in Tech (from the first link):

"So, to all the special interest groups and fine individuals with fine intentions, I ask you one favor: Please stop pushing for more women in tech, and find a young girl to mentor instead. When she is young, give her “boy toys” and video games. If she wants one, get her a laptop instead of jewelry for her birthday. Tell her not to worry about flirting or her hair. Send her to a computer science camp or space camp. Encourage her to take advanced maths and sciences in school and to enter a computer science degree program."

Awesome too, right?

I'll try and write more soon, but I have another project I'm working on, which I might end up linking here, or I might keep anonymous, not sure yet.

Leave a comment guys if you're still here, please help my overwrought-mommy-ego!!

School days

Recent conversations have brought my time at school to mind a lot recently, coincided with thoughts about how my daughter relates to other children, and how that might affect her in the future.

And, ya know what? Like many, I had a crap time as a teenager due to various factors, but I don't harbour pain or anger at school, or the people I knew there.

A recent post at Feministe outlines how difficult it can be for people who are 'different' to get on in school. I guess things are a little different here, compared to in American schools where such a strict 'class' system is enforced (which I only really know about from TV and film, so, Americans, you can enlighten me if I'm wrong!)

I know I went through many phases of trying to 'fit in' with people, but, in the long run, I was, and always will be, somewhat of a solitary individual. For better or worse, I remember enjoying my own company and spending most of my time figuring out my own thoughts, rather than caring about what other people thought of 'my image' or my interests.

The comments over at Feministe made me think about what I'm teaching my daughter, and what I was taught as a child. I don't really recall any sit-down, pre-emptive talks about 'just be yourself.' Maybe they occurred, but they don't stand out. (Mum, dad, help me here?)

What I do recall, however, are my parents supporting me through every time I felt bad, or needed to let loose and scream, or just to talk about anything and everything.

So I guess my advice to other parents, and to myself, is to always talk to children. ALWAYS make them feel that they have valid opinions and you are interested in what they have to say. Never put them down or tell them they're being stupid. Sure, prepare them for the world, but the main thing is to deal with what's in front of you, how they feel, not stress over every single interaction they might possibly have in their lives.

I think about how I'm going to deal with the messages about gender NP will receive every day of her life, and realise that the only way to teach her is to challenge her: why does she think that's a good idea? Why does it matter what other people think? And listen to what she has to say. She's not even 3 yet, and I feel like I'm barely out of childhood myself, I just hope I've got enough wit and experience to help her through her own challenges.

Sexualisation of children

Fertile Feminism hits it right on the head with this post about what is particularly wrong about 'sexualising' children: it's the standard that is set in the first place that is the problem.

The hypocrite in the room

Against Our Will

"[Rape] is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear" - Susan Brownmiller

This quote was one of the problems that came up the other night in a discussion with my partner about the BBC4 program, Women.

(I say it came up, when in actuality I started ranting on about it and Mr Onions listened and nodded at the appropriate points. He found the program pretty boring)

My argument was that the quote was poorly expressed but had a certain validity to it.

In essence, I believe Brownmiller was saying two things:

Firstly, that by not standing up and speaking out against rape (and, by extension in today's world, rape jokes) men who do not rape are as good as rape apologists and enablers.

Secondly, that the fear of rape makes all women fearful of all men, to the advantage of men who would seek power by such means, and to the detriment of men who wouldn't. Obviously, women lose on both counts.

Now, the original quote is a great soundbyte, but is pretty inflammatory towards men, and it could be said, is exclusionary and difficult for people to relate to, without a strong knowledge of rape discourses. But I do believe it's an important point to consider, with reflection upon what it actually means.

Discuss?

UK Feminista

It's great that there's a new campaigning organisation in the UK, however, two (personal) things:

1. Basing the launch in London is great if you live down there, but, ya know, it isn't actually the centre of the universe.
2. Having it plugged on a feminist website 4 days before the launch makes it highly difficult to arrange getting there if you DON'T live in London.

That's all.

BBC 4 Women: Activists

NOTE: For my other writing about the BBC4 Women series see:
Libbers 1
Libbers 2
Mothers

Activists
I admit, the reason I'm so disenchanted by this series is because I'm not represented.

In my quiet little corner of the internet I found blogs such as Fertile Feminism, Blue Milk, and Mothers for Women's Lib, to name a few. Oh yes, I read the big feminist websites too, but those few women who were both feminists and mothers were the ones who were really saying things that meant something to me. Alongside those blogs, I would say that my developing feminist identity has been shaped by: my university work, my interest in gender, rather than Feminism, and my role as a parent.

I give you this information because I believe it heavily contributes to my analysis. Whether it is because of these factors or not, I've found it difficult to find anything I can relate to in the 2nd and 3rd episodes of this series.

The "Libbers" episode was actually great, it spoke to me and I could relate to the women involved (I know that sounds different to my original views but upon reflection I realised it was a great contextualisation, if a little dry and limited for novice viewers). I found the "Mothers" episode weak because there ARE women out there who are not constantly reinforcing the gender binary, but the documentary didn't represent them.

Now, the Activists episode? How about a few words from the notes I made during my viewing tonight:

limited causes, narrow definition, alienation.

I'm not intending to personally attack anyone, I simply felt that the representation made by this episode painted a very specific picture of Feminism today, that isn't entirely accurate or inspiring. I felt that the women who were interviewed were poorly prepared for the questions they were given (example - the question to the woman with the nail varnish? I imagine she's kicking herself now for not having prepared a solid reply).

Aside from Reclaim the Night, the causes that were being demonstrated against also seemed poorly prepared - I agree with Germaine Greer from the Libbers Episode: march (or, in this case, demonstrate) if there are lots of you, but if there aren't, don't! It seems pointless to me to try to fight the status quo when there are only a few people protesting - it makes the protest seem powerless and irrelevant. Why not wait until the opportune moment, with a large amount of radicalised people? Then the protest may be taken seriously and a powerful statement might prompt the average passer-by to question their own thoughts.

Anyway, something that did seem powerful was the interview with the woman talking about a rape case. This involved an 18 year old girl who was gang raped, but was cautioned by the police for 'lying' about it because a few seconds of mobile phone footage showed some kind of acquiescence on her part.

That is something that most women can identify with - the fear, the weakness in face of strength and, when it comes down to it, the complete lack of choice to say 'no' that the girl in question must have felt. That is something people can get behind and get angry about, surely that is the kind of injustice that will bring people to the movement?

However, the power of that section was buried underneath the mundane preparations for putting on a conference, please, tell me, what relevance is there in making salads?

I'm also really frustrated about the interviews with the parents of these young activists, I found this to be completely undermining of the young women's politics and passions. By not commenting on it personally, Engle seems to be mocking the activists. Filming the women worrying about salad, asking their parents 'how did she get like this'? and then refraining from challenging the parents narrow views, it feels like the women are represented as little girls playing at Feminism, when this is obviously not the case - they have worked hard to do what they do, but all this is completely undermined by a number of parents in the film, and Engle's lack of comment.

For example, one lot of parents paint their daughter as an 'angry teenager' because their discussions end with 'banging doors'. This young woman is in her twenties and is passionate about helping other women, but because 'her life' is charmed, her parents think she shouldn't be worried about those causes? To me this feels individualistic and narrow.

Obviously, there are cultural/generational differences between these women and their parents, the growth of online communities makes it easy for young people to feel connected to other people in the world, and encourages individuals to care about the needs of whole groups, rather than simply caring about themselves. This is blatantly a difference between women in their 20s and their parents. But it scares me. I get so scared seeing these parents so detached from their children's feelings and politics. I never want to be like that with my daughter. It's not like that with my parents, for which I am eternally grateful.

So, overall? I felt the program lacked depth, compared to the "Libbers", these women are just starting on their feminist lives, the same as me, so, obviously, their politics is unrefined and emotional. The interviews and footage, in my mind, only serves to reinforce the weaknesses of the young movement today. I am not an activist. It is difficult to be so when you have a young child and don't live in London. Perhaps if I were in a different situation I may feel some affinity to these women, but their causes are not particularly my causes, and their way of expressing their causes is different to mine.

This is not just a personal thing, there are even two women in the documentary who say they probably wouldn't join that particular group because their personal feelings about issues are different. It is telling to hear a women say 'they wouldn't like that of me' in reference to certain views. Should Sisterhood be that selective?

Unfortunately, I couldn't identify with the women included in the documentary. Whether this is because of how I have approached feminism, because of my academic interests or simply because I'm not from London, who knows? I felt Engle let people dig themselves into holes, and didn't get them a ladder, and I would have liked to see daughters and parents engaging each other in debate, rather than interviewed separately, which mostly served to infantalise the activists (particularly the ones who were interviewed in their bedrooms, rather than the lounge, like their parents!).

I'll leave the final word to Charlotte Cooper and Jess McCabe (of the F word) who are obviously not speaking about me, but their analysis can apply to anyone who would be turned off from feminism by these programs:

" for every woman who has turned away from feminism because they feel they are not welcome, these films will simply act as another erasure of their lives, their existence and their autonomy."

BBC4 Women: Mothers

NOTE: My other reviews of 'Libbers' and 'Activists' can be found here:
first thoughts
2nd watching
Activists

Mothers
Yes, I watched it, and I have lots to say.

Mostly I resented the demographic represented, but again, how else would it be pitched on this channel? I do believe that only one family lived north of London, and the parents in that family were both academics. I suppose it's appealing to the lowest common denominator, to just interview (stereo)typical nuclear families. However, there are SO many feminist families who are anything but typical!

Personally, it would have felt a much more rounded documentary if the lives of feminist families were included, e.g. non-working feminists mums, queer parents, mothers who stay at home but fill their lives with things other than children.

(Not to say that the stay-at-home parents featured in the program DON'T do other things, but the documentary didn't seem to show them doing anything other than 'typical' parenting - baking, play-groups, washing, yawn).

What about the parents staying at home and providing home-education? What about mothers who give up their time for voluntary groups (coughcough breastfeedingpeersupport)? What about working class mums who don't have a bloody choice in the matter?

Isn't it wonderful to pontificate about 'choice' when the people without a choice have no voice?

Furthermore on the subject of what a parent does, how about the question put to the Oxford graduate:

'what is the point of your education, do you need a degree from Oxford in order to stay home and look after your children?'

Well, those who know me can imagine my reaction.

(something along the lines of 'fiery wrath'?)

The fact that education for its own sake is not even considered astounds me. Once an educational level has been achieved it is always there to fall back on, use, or add to. I absolutely agree with the mother: she can pass her knowledge on to her children. I feel so passionate about my academic achievements and goals, but I also feel passionate about bringing up my daughter in the way I have chosen.

Why should motherhood negate education and the urge to be educated? Is education only compatible with working and earning? That sounds quite capitalist to me.

However, on to the thing I enjoyed: watching the squirming when Engle asked what activities they each do around the home. It was good to reinforce the idea that washing, organising and cleaning are not a realm of natural knowledge - it is learnt through trial and error, paying attention, reading, PLANNING and thinking, before doing. It's too easy to get drawn into always doing something because your other half 'doesn't do it well enough'. How the hell did that partner learn to do it in the first place?

Anyway, that aside, it's perfectly understandable that Vanessa Engle may have wanted to highlight the inherent sexism in the standard nuclear family. Today, that kind of sexism often goes unchallenged and is held up as a shining example of what family life should be about. However, my question is, can't we have some positive examples? Can't we see what other people are doing and be inspired, rather than depressed?

Mr Onions regularly challenges me, asking me if I am ever going to read something positive about feminism. Well, I put that challenge to this doc: make me feel positive next week, I want to see something good about feminist activism, some passion, some success, some positive ideas. Lets leave this sadness behind, please?

BBC4 Women: upon a second watching...

NOTE: Please read my other posts about BBC4 Women:
First Thoughts on 'Libbers'
Review of 'Mothers'
Review of 'Activists'

Libbers
OK, after watching BBC4 Women - Libbers again, I have a few more opinions.

Firstly, I actually enjoyed the program, I felt an affinity for many of the Libbers and seeing their passion and pain was a good contextualisation of the Women's Movement. Whilst I agree with The F Word that the view given is very white and middle class, I think the program was limited in this way by its target audience.

Which brings me back to my original thoughts, my criticism was mostly that the program was not accessible or inclusive, but obviously we're talking about a program made for BBC4, whose viewer-ship is probably similar to that of BBC Radio 4 - middle class, middle-aged and white. If we were talking about popularising feminism it would have to be placed on a channel that was for more popular viewing! BBC 1 would obviously have a different impact, and a program made for BBC 3 (which seems to be the 'youth' and 'comedy' channel) would probably be approached in a completely different manner.

So, moving on to the program that was actually made; here's my main criticisms:

Upon questioning Marilyn French about being a housewife, the interviewer (I assume Vanessa Engle) asks:

"Did you enjoy all that drudgery?"

[insert my rage face here]


I feel Engle demonstrated in just 6 words one of the problems about the whole "feminists vs housewives" debate. Those words suggest that life as a housewife is all 'drudgery' and assumes that French agrees with that analysis. Luckily French wasn't easily led, I was most impressed by her reply:

"I didn't mind it, what I minded was being limited to it"

Which is the core of the argument really, isn't it? It's not a case of it not being fulfilling or it always being boring, it's a case of being capable of other things, if you so wish to engage in them.

French further prevents a misinterpretation of her work when discussing the reaction to her book, "The Women's Room" which unleashed a "tidal wave of female anguish."
Upon being asked "did you feel proud of that?" French replied:

"no I felt anguished"

powerful stuff, not pride in her achievements, only sadness that so many women could feel the same way.

I like that the questions from the interviewer are challenged by quite a few of the women, highlighting their strong will (or perhaps a naivety of younger women interested in the movement?)

For example, I felt that quite a lot of pushing (on the part of the interviewer) was involved in the matter of sex, orgasms and lesbianism. A number of the women didn't want to speak about it and I think it may have been disrespectful to try to make (what seemed like) a big deal about this section of the program.

Another thing that struck a strong chord with me was the section about the sit-in against the male editor of Ladies Home Journal. Some of the arguments in the film footage from the time were just as relevant today as they were then, e.g. images of women being used to encourage other women to live vicariously instead of living their own lives to the fullest. I found this a really telling and sad section, those same arguments can still be made 40 years on, but there's such a quiet minority of people making them.

Which brings me to my conclusion: the program was good, but so sad. I was interested to hear the words of UK feminists, as most of the material I've had available before has been limited to the American Movement. The way the hope and power of the movements is expressed seems so wonderful, but this is contrasted harshly with the tinge of disappointment and sadness that seems to permeate through the interviews. French in particular seemed so sad: "we thought we were changing the world...but it ended."

Yet, besides the sadness, the program was good for the audience it was trying to reach, but, in my eyes, the audience feminism NEEDS is younger women, and those who have little-to-no connection with feminism. Surely this is the main way that the movement can be re-invigorated on a grand scale?

I'm sure there's much more I could add to this review, and I do have another post lined up about Susan Brownmiller and rape, but I'll save that for another time.

And to end, here's my favourite quote (no, it's not the cat one):

"I don't know what I am"
"Do you call yourself a lesbian?"
"No, I call myself a poet"
Robin Morgan

BBC4 Women

NEW 23-3-2010
I notice this one has been read a lot, but my follow-up post hasn't, so for a more in-depth analysis see:

my follow up post: here
2nd episode review: Mothers
3rd episode review: Activists


Original Post:
I watched the first episode of the new BBC 4 series 'Women' last night, a 3-part documentary about feminism and its impact on women. When I've watched it again I'll write a little more, but first, here's just a few comments:

Was this really the best way to start a series about feminism? Fine, the ideas and people of the second wave are important for contextualising the image and concerns of feminism today, but personally, my household found it to be pretty much Vanessa Engle fawning over "feminists of old", asking them questions that either made them slightly uncomfortable, or put them on the verge of tears.

I don't have a problem with second wave feminists, and I found the program interesting, for ME. But I'm also very concerned with inclusivity, demystification and opening feminism up to women who aren't so interested in it. What's the use of a program about feminism that doesn't inspire new women to get involved? Perhaps Engle will cover this in the following episodes about mothers and activists. I think, though, that the first part of a series needs a hook, and the only people who will have been hooked by this first part will be those who would have watched it any way, who do not need convincing about feminism.

There's also a review over at The F-Word, for anyone interested.

Abortion 2nd try...

Another scary article from a feminist website, this time The F Word, addressing the state of abortion 'services' (if you can even call it that!) in Ireland. Once again, apologies for being so lax about this previously.

Abortion

I think people in the UK really need to see what it can be like to try to get an abortion in areas of the USA.

Scary article from Feministing

Plus, remember - you have to pay for this privilege in the US. Many people can't afford to pay, so charitable organisations raise money for women to get abortions.

And then, of course, there is the doctor who performed MEDICALLY NEEDED late-term abortions. He was shot whilst in church by an anti-abortion activist.

Once again, praise the NHS for all you're worth, in the name of whatever deity/secular icon you prefer.

oh go on then...

I'll make a mention of Gail Trimble. But only a short one, mind.

Firstly I'd like to point out that I haven't watched the show, I am working from short clips I've seen and comments from other people. With this in mind, I shall begin:

However much it might pain the feminists, I have a feeling that the antagonism towards this smart lady might not be so COMPLETELY about her being female.

Is it, perhaps, more about her accent and demeanour? A lot of the mean things people have said are, yes, geared towards her appearance. I don't agree with this and I see how it relates to valuing women only for their looks. I also know that it is the kind of throwaway comment many (men) make when criticising a multitude of things, along the vein of '...and she's a munter too'

Regardless of what she looks like,

**please note here that I am not expressing an opinion on her looks and do not intend to make comment on it, too many other people have done so already**

her accent is *rather* plummy. She is smart and she has the diction to prove it. It riles people. It could well be a class/regional thing.

Hey, I even has a source right here to cite: Swann, J. (2002) Yes, but is it gender?
(I'm not being totally geeky, honest, it's on my dissertation plan sitting next to me)

People get so worked up about issues when there is a hint about sexism that they ignore the other possibilities. I concede that there is probably a hint of gender involved, especially in the comments on her appearance, but we mustn't neglect the class aspect. Look at the examples pulled on the f word website. Many pertain to her 'smug'-ness, her 'know-it-all'-ness, if that's not judging her by her accent then I quit linguistics!

Getting personal for a moment, (yes, how un-academic) if I had watched it, I feel that I would have disliked 'smugness' from either a male or female team captain. It is not that I have been conditioned to think that women should be modest and men be bold, I have decided from my experience that I dislike smugness on anyone. You could probably say that I have been conditioned to dislike a particular style of accent, having grown up in the phonologically-rich Midlands in probably a low-middle income household. But you could hardly call me anti-woman...thus if I were to find fault with her, I would be offended to be told it was because she was a smart woman!

Anyway, that's all I really have to say on the issue. I'm quite sad that they got disqualified, they should have been allowed to play with the team they started the competition with, regardless of the fact a member might have finished his course in the middle of the series.

Apologies for the rambling nature, just a collection of thoughts here really, goodnight.

Apologies...

...for the lack of bloggage lately. Unfortunately my dissertation is taking up most of my waking thoughts (if not so much of my time).

I thought perhaps it might be nice to describe what it is I'm working on; also, it'll hopefully serve as a reminder that I ought to be actually writing it, instead of providing you fine people with lots of useful procrastination fodder.

Anyway, my main areas of interest in linguistics revolve around gender and the representation of ideology in texts (would you ever have guessed?). In my dissertation proposal I've managed to combine these interests with another passion of mine - children's books. In particular I'm looking at the work of Garth Nix, who writes rather fantastic fantasy fiction.

Linguistic studies of gender in children's fiction are few and far between, therefore I'm being a bit of a dunce, taking on more than I ought to for a dissertation project, but hey-ho, that's the kinda person I tend to be.

Feminist analyses of children's texts, however, are much more common; these tend to focus on counting the balance of male-female characters, or searching for appropriate strong role models for young women. These role models may be represented by women acting in traditionally 'male' ways, or by women who achieve success by acting in feminine ways. This kind of analysis seems a little shallow to me - it simply serves to reproduce the idea of difference between men and women, without looking at the inherent problems of this dichotomy.

My interest is not just in the examples of women doing 'male jobs,' but more in the different ways women can be represented, ways that do not align themselves to a general 'masculine' or 'feminine' role, but allow individuals to become empowered regardless of their gender.

Fantasy is a brilliant medium for writers, allowing them to transcend the norms of modern societies, and create characters and situations outside the usual experiences of readers. This disassociation with reality allows, for example, the exploration of societies where there is no gender differentiation. (And I don't mean in the crap superficial way of 'ooh look, a non-gendered pronoun,' no, I mean in the actual attitudes of the characters, and situations they participate in).

I believe that Nix has produced a series of books that celebrate girls and women, without undermining this by making it about a difference between girls and boys. In the books, girls are undoubtedly empowered, but both male and female characters have their own power and their own weaknesses, giving a very equal view of the sexes. I believe this is an important aim for (3rd wave) feminism and that Nix achieves it in the context of these novels.

However, even in such 'equal' societies, it is possible to find traces of traditional gendered Discourses (in the Foucauldian sense of the word). My ultimate aim is to decide whether these traditional Discourses undermine the empowerment, for example, does a Discourse of Compulsory Heterosexuality reduce the women from strong characters to dominated ones? And if the Discourse is there, does it really matter in the grand scheme of things? Surely a love story in such an equal context can only demonstrate that relationships are about equality, not a demonstration of dominance?

Whether I will achieve this final aim is debatable, if I manage to simply demonstrate the feminist credentials of Nix then I will be satisfied, after all, there isn't a lot of scope in 11,000 words once you've written your intro/conclusion/outlined the method etc. I do hope that in the future I might be able to explore these issues further, but for the next 8 weeks I'll probably have to contain myself ;-)

Alpha mummy?

Who writes this crap?

Is this what being middle class is? Drinking yourself silly before (and after!) the kids are in bed and fantasising over men other than your husband?

More than 1/2 of that list involves lusting after other men, dreaming about dating again or other such day-dreams of infidelity. Really, are these women actually enjoying their 'Alpha Mummy' lives? It doesn't sound like it.

This list actively constructs the stereotype of vapid, ungrateful, selfish bitches. it's not even funny. It goes to show that it's not just misogyny that is a problem for feminism, but also women's own attitudes to themselves!

I thought Alpha Mummy's were the highly driven career women we hear so much about. Not drunken, jealous, lazy cows who can't appreciate the man they decided to have children with. I realise the list is supposed to be a revelation that Alpha Mummys' try, but actually fail to be perfect. I realise that for the middle class snob, who would enjoy this drivel, there could be some kind of amused recognition in reading the piece. But not me.

I actually appreciate my partner, he is wonderful. I actually enjoy being semi-intellectual, I like being able to discuss things other than shopping and celebrities. And, along a different line, I don't think it's clever or funny to brand yourself as a bad parent.

Alongside my ranting about how I don't agree with the ideas in the article, I think there's also a perfectly valid point to be made about women who DO recognise themselves in the list. The presupposition is that if you do these things, then you ARE a bad mother/wife. Brilliant, way to go, just go and knock every other women who reads it and thinks that they *must* be bad if they don't constantly live up to the stereotype. Once again I'll bring it back to the ideology: stating that a person who fulfills this description is a bad mother is a subtle reinforcement of an ideology of perfection.

It's hard enough with the media representations of 'perfect' celebrity mums (Angelina?), but at least with celebrities, they *are* of a completely different world to the rest of us. When a supposedly 'real woman' blog reinforces that you are failing as a parent if you
let your kids watch a bit to much TV, (and who decides how much is too much anyway?) then, although you may be laughing on the outside, your idea of the perfect mother has just been reconstructed. It's only a small step from here to considering that aspects of your life could be counted as 'failings'.

Articles like this might seem harmless, but combined with other media and peer pressures, it amounts to social conditioning. If you're reading this and mocking me for going over the top, it just goes to show how implicit this ideology of perfect mothering is. The 'joke' of the article is based on the fact that the 'super mum' idea does exist, but real people find it unobtainable. But is it really amusing that these people now class themselves as bad parents because of this? Ha ha, we're all laughing because 'oh, we must be such bad parents because we do this!' The ideology takes away the idea that different parents deal with parenting in different ways. This article serves to represent parenting as black and white: the right way, or the wrong way.

I'm not going to say that I must be a bad parent because I don't agree with this. No, I know I am a good parent because I have a happy child. The kind of opinion presented in the Alpha Mummy article takes away this option and, in my opinion, is damaging to women's views of their own styles and abilities.

Changing my attitudes...

Having never been particularly affected by either feminism or sexism, I have tootled along for most of my existence completely oblivious to the two concepts. However, as I think about it more and more (and study it intensely for university), I'm finding myself drawn to feminism. However, I do have concerns about some feminist issues, particularly the gender gap in pay.

Women still don't earn as much as men, particularly if they bring up children. But is this 'bringing up children' qualification an important point? As a mother myself I feel quite strongly about being there for my daughter as she grows up, particularly while she is below school age. I don't want another person bringing up my daughter, I want to have a direct and fulfilling influence upon her in her formative years, which takes me out of the job market for at least 3 years, preferably 4. However, as a university student, I have outlaid a huge amount of (borrowed) money to get myself an in-depth education in linguistics. I have nearly finished my degree and my daughter is now 18 months old. Unfortunately, staying out of employment keeps my debt growing to the kind of level where I can't even conceive the amount of money I owe.

But this is the literal price I am paying for wanting the best of both worlds. I am not the kind of woman who is driven by career aspirations, I am much more a mother than a worker. However, I will not deny that I am also driven by intellectual achievement. Thus I am going to want to work, in some capacity, at some point. If we hadn't had our daughter we would be 3 years better off financially. So do we deserve to earn as much as if we hadn't had a baby? I doubt many people would be convinced by an argument for this stance, after all, it was our decision to have a child. Knowing full well our values and opinions on raising children, it should have been a sacrifice we had factored into the decision.

However, it shouldn't be the case that women are disadvantaged because of having children, if they feel they have to go back to work asap to keep their job, or if they have to give up breastfeeding because they have to work in order to feed the family. My situation is lucky, I haven't got a job to lose. But never mind the mothers, what about those children losing out on a family environment because parents (and grandparents!) have to work?

Is this women's lib? Going back to work, leaving your child in an extortionate nursery? Is the world forcing women to lose perspective on their priorities? Of course, for many women their career is an important part of their life, but if they decide to have children, surely there should be a shift in focus? Perhaps a loss in earnings is a suitable price to pay for the knowledge that you have provided a strong parental influence in their early years. Notwithstanding, men are equally as capable as women at bringing up their children, and I applaud men who chose to do this, but with young babies, breastfeeding is also a factor that should be considered.

Now, it's perfectly acceptable for people to jump up and shout me down with arguments like 'but I can't afford to stay at home and bring up my child.' I know I've been extremely lucky to have a partner who can support us all. But, consider this: we live within our means. We choose not to have another child because we could not afford to provide for another and we choose not to spend lots of money on ourselves.

So, with all this in mind, I still feel drawn to feminism, but with a traditional slant. I want to stay at home and look after my daughter, but I also want to have the chance to earn an equivalent wage to my partner. However, I don't believe I should automatically expect to earn as much as him over my whole working life. He is already working and is obviously going to have earned more money than me. It is my choice to stay at home and I will bear the costs. The only issue I have is having access to an equivalent basic pension, for which there is already a system in place. Obviously, all situations are different and this is a very personal perspective on a personal situation. I acknowledge I'm speaking from a highly privileged position and welcome alternative views on the issue.