The sex lives of others are our greatest fetish

Allegedly this man's guilty feet have got no rhythm

Rather belatedly, here is my blog at the New Statesman on George Michael, the public interest, and the salacious press creation of "sex scandals":

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/05/sex-lives-others-are-our-greatest-fetish

How conservatives hijacked the gay movement

Gay marriage: the whole point of the LGBT movement?

Discussing assimilationists and gay marriage at the New Statesman:
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/lifestyle/2012/04/how-conservatives-hijacked-gay-movement

The lesbian adverts that "One Million Moms" should be protesting

Mothers beware! This advert could influence your teenager to purchase tie-die.  

Urban Outfitters has been in the news as the target of a campaign by homophobic, optimistically titled hate group "One Million" Moms. The reason? A catalogue photo depicting this exceptionally chaste kiss between two flouncily-clad women. I hate the idea that tie-die is in fashion again, but apparently that's not the reason for the protest. Apparently One Million Moms campaign against "immorality, violence, vulgarity and profanity." That they have decided to make this ad a focal point for a campaign suggests that this "picture of two women kissing in a face holding embrace!" (as they call it, complete with exclamation mark) falls short on one or more of these points. It must be the old "immorality" chestnut.

As queer adverts go, though, "two women kissing in a face holding embrace!"is pretty tame on the immorality scale. Not even a 2 out of 10. Its nice to see some lesbian-ish (who knows, they could even be bisexual, or just good friends) action, but it's not inflammatory enough to get me out on the streets looking for the nearest straight child to forcibly convert. Of all the queer adverts that One Million Moms could have picked on, some are far more risque.

Relatively few adverts depicting same-sex attraction between women exist, but those that do seem to fall broadly into two categories. The first, and this is by far the biggest, is the shameless lesploitation genre. These adverts may feature same-sex activity between women, but they have about as much to do with self-defining queer women as Margaret Thatcher has to do with feminism. This ostensibly-lesbian-but-actually-lesbophobic-and-misogynist Jim Beam ad - which makes me want to sick in my mouth - is a prime lesploitation candidate.

Ignoring the poor dress choice, I think that the Urban Outfitters' "face holding embrace!" advert falls into another, second category. Its a normal scene (if your version of normal heavily involves Urban Outfitters Spring/Summer 2012), in a normal room, between two normal (if exceedingly slim, white and pretty) women. Unabashedly, it's a consumer capitalist image, but at least for once the content is aimed at the demographic it depicts. It's pleasingly devoid of gratuitously oiled-up nudity. It's a women's same-sex image, aimed primarily at women. 

Unfortunately, One Million Moms' immorality klaxon doesn't seem so tolerant as to enable any consideration of subtlety in intent or representation. Obviously not. If their main worry is that their kids might catch gay from a picture, or that they might be influenced by some queer subliminal messaging sneakily inserted into a handbag advert, then of course they couldn't care less whether the imagery does anything good for queer visibility or not. 

All the same, if they're looking for some other quite nice representations of queer women in advertising to protest, I've found my favourite five: 

1. KY scoops the lesbian audience

Ok look, I obviously hate the idea of orgasms as "that big moment", but actually this is pretty cute observational comedy. There's even a sneaky cat in the top left corner. I can imagine lesbian couples seeing this, then buying lube. Works for me (the depiction, not the lube itself. I haven't tried the lube. Yet).  

2. Lesbian cruises for lesbians: "It truly does change your life." 

An ad made by queer women, for queer women, featuring queer women? Also advertising an niche lesbian service, I know, so not attempting to corner a widely commercial market. But still, stop the press, butch lesbians have made it into an advert! 

3. Martina Navratilova: can't see past her incredible arms to work out what she's selling

Something to do with the supposed "pink pound"? I don't know. It's got Martina Navratilova in. 

4. H&M does ambiguity 

H&M are prime offenders in the sexism stakes, not least for their propensity to photoshop models' heads onto computer generated, identikit mannequin bodies. This ad, however, is part of a series of beautifully constructed ads using intimacy between women to sell to women. 

5. Devin & Glenn: Overturn Prop 8 and Make Homosexuals Marry!

Self-evidently this has little to do with lesbianism, but it is my favourite gay ad ever. If One Million Mom's were to protest anything, it should surely be this. Join them and let them know here: http://www.onemillionmoms.com/register.asp

Top 10 worst ideas in "The Rules: How to Capture the Heart of Mr. Right"

I hope the subtitle is literal; I've been looking for
a heart abduction mechanism for ages. 

What follows are pieces of dating advice that are written in a real, live book, unpromisingly titled, The Rules: How To Capture the Heart of Mr. Right. It is still being published in 2012. Presumably, that means that women today are seriously buying and reading it. The Rules act as a repressive counterpart to the The Game; a male equivalent which has spawned a soulless industry of strange, lonely men who share tips on how to best emotionally manipulate women into bed. According to The Rules' blurb, it worked for Beyonce, who after all has managed to put a ring on an absolute hunk.

What are The Rules? There are thirty five of them. Thirty five bits of advice that women are supposed to learn in order that their conduct may be irresistible to men, who will then want to marry them. The central theme of The Rules is passivity, sexily dressed up as "elusiveness" or "mysteriousness". Don't look at men. Don't talk to them. Don't ask them to dance. Don't live with a man. Wait to be approached. Wait to be spoken to. Don't be too opinionated. And don't EVER be available at short notice. Even if you actually are free that evening. Just, for heaven's sake, don't let him see that you have a personality.


The Rules aren't ever backed up by arguments. Instead, we are regaled with horror stories of "aggressive" women who met a sticky end, or rather, had relationships which didn't end in marriage. At one point the story of "Pam", whose relationship ended because she spoke to her partner first (breaking Rule 2: "Don't Talk to a Man First (and Don't Ask Him to Dance)") is described as "torture". Don't talk to men first, if you do, expect them not to like you. Poor Pam, she is so alone.

Authors Ellen Fein (now divorced) and Sherrie Schneider repeatedly write that following The Rules will attract the husband "you're really crazy about", though it isn't clear at any point quite how it is that altering one's personality to fit a set of prescriptions can be a foolproof method for being thought of as good marriage material by the very man of your dreams (but just "think of being a couple!"). Just for thinking that, I'll probably die alone in my bath, holding a well-thumbed copy of The Rules to my withered, sagging breast. It's a risk I'm willing to take. 

Anyway, here are the top ten most unbelievably awful bits of advice in The Rules. Do enjoy it. Somebody has to.

1. "In a relationship, the man must take charge. He must propose. We are not making this up - biologically, he's the aggressor" 

Actually, I think you'll find that you're making that up.

2. "One of the hardest aspects of dating is figuring out what to say...If you're smart, you'll stay cool and just listen to what he says...Just be there! Remember, men fall in love with your essence, not with anything in particular you say. " 


They literally wrote this: "If you're smart, you'll stay cool and just listen to what he says". That's real dating advice given to women in the 20th century. Just listen to what he says. Just be there. Like a blow-up doll with specially advanced hearing faculties.

3. "You will have to experience a certain amount of discomfort when you can't eat a cream bun and you can't call a man. But you want to be fit and you want to get married so you do what you have to do." 

But cream buns are so tasty?

Sisters, the road to success is long and hard, but one day you too could be both fit and married. But not unless you shed those cream buns and phone calls now. It's going to be tough, but we can do it.


4. "Don't leave the house without wearing makeup. Put lipstick on even when you go jogging!" 


Um, imagine if your almost-definitely-future-husband saw your face without make-up on? Can you imagine? 


5. "Don't act like a man, even if you are head of your own company. Let him open the door. Be feminine. Don't tell sarcastic jokes. Don't be a loud, knee-slapping, hysterically funny girl...when you're with a man you like, be quiet and mysterious, act ladylike, cross your legs and smile. Don't talk so much. Wear black sheer stockings and hike up your skirt to entice the opposite sex!"

This makes me want to run down the road slapping my be-stockinged knees, bellowing lines from Absolutely Fabulous through a megaphone. But then that would probably ruin my chances of getting a husband FOREVER.

6. "Of course, this is not how you really feel. This is how you pretend you feel until it feels real. You act as if!"

Sometimes, even smiling makes my face ache.

7. "You didn't lie in bed depressed, eating cakes before this date." 

I'm lying in bed depressed eating cakes right now, Ellen Fein and Sherrie Schneider. If those are even your real names. The experience of lying in bed eating cakes is pretty much the only thing that could make The Rules' stolid prose even remotely digestible.

8. "On the first date, avoid staring romantically into his eyes. Otherwise he will know that you're planning the honeymoon." 

Oh god! He knows! He can read my mind through my eyes! The only thing more desirable than a man who wants to marry me is a man whose telepathic powers can only be foiled if I stare at the floor for the rest of our relationship.

9. "Sometimes we want to call a man we are dating not to speak to him, but just to hear his voice. We feel that we are simply going to die if we don't hear his sexy voice this minute! We suggest you call his home answering machine when he's at work. Hang up before the beep."

I am sitting at home calling your answering phone and hanging up. Just to hear your sexy voice this minute. Or I am going to die. Literally die. I'm not a stalker, I just need to hear your sexy voice or I'm going to die. Oh, just call me Norman Bates and have done with it.

10. "If you didn't do The Rules at the beginning of your relationship, your husband might ignore you, talk to you rudely, or treat you badly. You might wonder, "Is his behavior the result of bad upbringing or something in his past?" Maybe. But we believe it's because you didn't do The Rules...Abuse doesn't happen in a Rules relationship because when you play hard to get and he works like hell to get you, he thinks you're the most beautiful, wonderful woman in the world, even if you're not." 


Did they just claim what I think they just claimed?


So there you have it, laydeez. I hope this inspires you to throw away your panniers of cream cakes and pick up your copies of The Rules. Happy marriages! I'm going to go and lie down with a cake.

Feminism is not just about choice

Um, this is awesome, and a T-shirt.

All of a sudden we're talking about 'a woman's right to choose' again. Threatening tactics more associated with the American anti-choice movement are steadily creeping across the pond, whilst in the States, the debate has spiralled even further downwards. On April 1st the '40 Days for Life' anti-choice campaign ends - 40 days during which abortion clinics worldwide were picketed, with abortion providers and women seeking abortions harassed, filmed, and intimidated. Recent exposes by the British Humanist Association and Feminist Action Cambridge show that anti-choice group the "Society for the Protection of Unborn Children" (SPUC) tell an incredible pack of lies during talks in schools - including the facepalm-inducing claim that abortion causes breast cancer. It's an increasingly terrifying time to be a fertile woman. 

'Choice' is invaluable when framing the fight for continued reproductive rights. However much Nadine Dorries' anti-choice minions might disingenously proclaim themselves to be 'pro-woman', the fact remains that the only real pro-woman approach is one that admits of a woman's right to choose what to do with her body. The US anti-choice slogan 'women deserve better' can be seen for what it is - a blinding bit of double-think - if you can see that the implicit end of the sentence is '...than to have the right to decide whether or not to carry a preganancy to term' (of course that full slogan would be neither catchy nor persuasive). As Sonya Renee concludes in this amazing video, "women do deserve better, women deserve choice". 

But feminism has more to say than, 'Great, you've chosen! Awesome! We can go home now!'  Feminism as a whole is about more than enabling women to choose, even if the right to choose is a good start. The idea that feminism's end aim is just to enable women to make the choices that are right for them is almost meaningless if it isn't combined with opposition to systematic oppressions. Paid work or unpaid household labour, leaving or staying with an abusive partner, choosing underwear, opting for either Team Edward or Jacob; all of these choices are relevant for feminists (and are situated against areas of feminist thought and criticism), but not all of the options are equal. 

Recently I've been hearing more and more about 'agency' - another important area for feminists which can sometimes become little more than a misused buzzword. Women's agency and women's choices aren't the same thing, but distinctions are rarely made. Choices reflect agency - but agency can be and is always constrained by more than just the choices that are available. 

We need to admit both that women's agency differentiates depending on position and privilege, and that women's agency is disproportionately constrained compared to men's. The existence of some women who are more privileged than some men in no way undermines patriarchy, anymore than the existence of the wonderful Borgen undermines the awfulness that is TV (not strictly a logical analogy). 

There are problems when 'agency' or 'choice' is used to block strands of feminist criticism. This debate is most often representational: the constant compulsions to be feminine, or beautiful, to wear make-up and heels, to 'perform' sexuality rather than experience it, are justified as agency-based choices which are therefore untouchable. We've got so caught up in saying 'of course you can be a feminist and wear make up and be pretty!' that we've stopped analysing the gendered institutions that create these pressures on women. Recognising that these things are gendered pressures doesn't mean you have to immediately throw your lipstick away to be a feminist, but its equally dishonest to refuse to analyze something that you happen to like. 

There are some fair criticisms of feminist positions that a: suggest that women who make 'anti-feminist choices' are either devoid of agency or anti-feminist themselves, or b: speak from some sort of unquestionable position of privileged 'total agency'.  It's very easy for me to point the angry-n-militant finger at the decision for breast enlargement, for example, as someone who basically lives in a library surrounded by weighty tomes and other people who mostly haven't had breast enlargement surgery. My life wouldn't improve if I modified my body in line with dominant cultural expectations. That's a massive privilege. I'm sure that cosmetic surgery might be a reasonable choice within a set of available options; this doesn't necessarily represent lack of agency, or greater false consciousness, or any of those other feminist bugbears. 

When porn director Anna Arrowsmith describes pornography as a 'dream job' that 'we consent' to, though,  she's really missing the point. The key to it is not to load choices with values: my choice is feminist and yours is not ("erotica is what I like, pornography is what you like"). Nor is it about decrying women who make certain choices as anti-feminist - I reckon feminists are defined by self-definition, within reason. It is past time, way past time, though, that we stopped being persuaded by attempts to paint oppressive institutions as 'feminist' through the rhetoric of 'choice' or 'you are denying my agency'. 

Just because some women choose to do it, it doesn't make it ok. It doesn't make it ok for feminists to attack other (less privileged) feminists, but critique shouldn't be stifled. The undeniable agency of the woman involved is not the last feminist word on the subject. Choice is important, but it means little without criticism, and even less without change.