DISCLAIMER: I would like to make it ABSOLUTELY CRYSTAL CLEAR at this point that whilst I wholeheartedly support breastfeeding (and indeed advocate for it) this does not mean that I do not support the right of all Mothers/Parents to make their own infant feeding decision. This article is not intended to shame any woman who does not breast feed.

Jessica Valenti wrote this piece in The Daily recently. I totally agree with her sentiment that mothers shouldn’t be made to feel guilty. Breastfeeding is awesome and leads to much improved health outcomes both long and short term for Mothers and Babies. However, it’s also incredibly hard work and not everyone will be able to access support to breastfeed. Some women,  will have issues that mean they are physically unable to breastfeed. For some women, particularly those with premature babies in NICU’s the act of pumping breast milk can be incredibly stressful, particularly with no baby physically demanding milk to stimulate production. I get that. For these and a whole host of other reasons, which include not being mean, arsey people, we shouldn’t be making any woman feel guilty about how she chooses to feed her baby.

I don’t have a problem with any of that. In fact I salute Valenti for talking honestly and frankly about the fact that breastfeeding is difficult, and requires support which is often lacking, and without that support many women stop breastfeeding which is a why a shockingly low number of women continue to breastfeed following initiation at birth – at 6 months of age in the UK less than 1% o women are still breastfeeding exclusively as per recommendations (Infant Feeding Survey, 2005) and across the world less than 40% of infants are breastfed (WHO Global Strategy).

Yes folks thats right- us evil breastfeeding mamas, the ones who go round, apparently harassing non breastfeeding mamas, make up such a majority that LESS THAN ONE PERCENT OF UK MOTHERS BREASTFEED TO 6 MONTHS.  We aren’t some scary, self righteous majority, we are in fact an underfunded, under represented and socially harassed minority.

Anyway I’m digressing. My issue with Valenti’s piece is this statement :

“Thousands of studies have shown that breastfed babies are healthier on average than formula-fed babies — but no research has shown that it’s the breastfeeding that’s causing the better health. Moms who have the time and support to exclusively breastfeed, for example, may be more likely to support their children’s health in other ways. There simply is no proof that breast milk is the magical elixir so many of us believe it is.

“I never doubted that breastfeeding had myriad health benefits, so I was actually very surprised at what I found in the medical literature,” Wolf told me.

And it’s not just the science around breastfeeding that’s iffy — the social expectations and the dismissal of how hard nursing can be are also affecting women. “

I’m sorry, what? You know what, you can formula feed if you want to. You can claim that there are forces out there that shame you as a formula feeding mother. I’d like to argue that actually those same forces are busy shaming ALL mothers for all and any of their choices. But don’t you DARE to tell women and well, anyone reading for that matter, that the science around breastfeeding is iffy. Because really, it isn’t.

There isn’t some conspiracy where formula is secretly equal to breast milk, and nasty mean breastfeeding mamas (who make up less than 40% of the global mama populace) are lying so that poor formula feeding mamas feel bad. Breast milk is, scientifically speaking,  better for babies health by dint of it being custom made to meet the specific needs of the baby it feeds. The reason breastfed babies are generally speaking healthier is because breast milk contains immunological factors specific to each baby which protect it from disease. Breast milk doesn’t require making up with water which may be unsanitary thus exposing babies to gastreointestinal issues. Breast milk doesn’t require careful making up to ensure it is the correct strength, meaning that many babies every year become ill due to simple human error. And breast milk, unlike formula milk is sterile.

That doesn’t mean that people should always HAVE to breastfeed. People should breastfeed if they are in the privileged position of being supported and able to do so, if they want to and that’s that. I don’t care HOW you feed your baby, I care if you’re supported in doing so. I care if you have full access to ACCURATE and valid information which enable you to make your choice. No one should be shamed for parenting decisions- we do the best we can, with what we have at the time, and perhaps with different circumstances we’d make different decisions.

But, for fucks sake, don’t you dare lie about breast milk (or formula milk for that matter) when you are a publicly visible and respected figure. Don’t you dare. Because you’re contributing directly to a culture which shames women and uses shit science to justify shit social attitudes.

*Please see the WHO Report “Global Strategy for Infant and Young Child Feeding” for more details.

In the spirit of sisterhood and women friendly spaces, some friends and I recently had a women and children only weekend and piled into one house for a night of cooking, chatting, recharging and connecting. Between us we had 4 school age children, one baby, three dogs and a lot of catching up to do. It was brilliant- the power of strong female friendship is something I’m starting to really appreciate as I head towards my thirties. The only dent in the weekend arose on the Sunday morning. The children were watching TV as we sat round drinking tea and trying to come too, and then an advert break came on. There were about 8 adverts in this break which occurred on a national TV channel, during a Sunday morning kids program. The adverts were highly gendered- 4 aimed at girls and 4 at boys. There wasn’t a single advertisement which wasn’t obviously gendered. The adverts didn’t even feature a single child of the opposite gender, if you catch my drift.

So, that was infuriating point number one. Infuriating point number two can be found in the types of products aimed at girls and boys. Aimed at girls were kits to make soap, fridge magnets, a doll and a toy kitchen. Aimed at boys were two types of skateboard/scooter, a gun and a set of armed forces action figures and vehicles. The clearly gendered division of those adverts can be broken down to indicate that girls make things- useful things no less, and care for others; boys do physical activities and engage in strategic and destructive games which train them to engage in ‘manly’ pursuits.

If this is what we’re teaching children with the toys we buy them then really we’ve not come that far in terms of gender equality. Boys can care and make things as nicely as girls, girls can be as physical as girls. To suggest otherwise is to further participate in a mysogynistic culture which harms children of both genders.

So the headlines blazing across the Sunday Papers was the story of how the Coalition intend to ‘make’ benefit claimants do unpaid work for a specific period or risk losing their benefits. At first glance it seems a good idea, being out work takes it toll on your mental state, so why not do some unpaid work whilst looking ? Firstly, job hunting takes time, the internet searches, the rehashing of the C.V and even the time to travel to employment agencies (as my favourite champagne socialist Polly Toynbee found out and expressed in Hard Work). Secondly,  most people already do unpaid work, its called voluntary work which, if you’re lucky enough not to had to trudge to the dole before, you have to declare as part of your job hunting plan, but you’re not allowed to do ‘too much’ voluntary work nor state that you have made  a fixed time commitment less it stop you from landing a ‘proper’ paid job. So , if the government makes you do unpaid work because you are guilty of  the crime to be out of work in the middle of  double dip recession what gap are you filling? Why! the gap made by public spending cuts, think tank genius! The third sector is awash with recent graduates, the long and short term unemployed already,  so I can only presume that the newly unemployed  (fresh from the spending cuts, low level civil servants , librarians etc) are going to fill the gaping gaps left by the shrinking state. However, there is another kind of unpaid work done by nearly half of the planets population that the Coalition government never mention, a gap that is always filled due to social construction and that is the unpaid domestic labour provided by Women.

According to to a paper commissioned by the UN, the unaccounted economic activities performed by women include:-

• Cleaning, decoration and maintenance of the dwelling unit
• Preparation and serving of meals
• Care, training and instruction of children
• Care of sick,infirm or old
• Transportation of the household’.

Sound familiar? All that day to day stuff you do is worth nothing to the government and my argument is that it should be for several reasons. Firstly, these unaccounted activities are presumably unpaid because financial sustenance comes from a partner or the state, which as everyone knows is complete rubbish. Only the elite and upper middle classes can survive on one wage per household.  Single mothers live on a pittance and even when in work often end up hovering just above the poverty line . Secondly we also have to factor in the concept that women’s work is a relic of the industrial revolution,-  the Woman offers emotional and maternal support to the man who ‘is’ the wage slave ( the Women being a non economical unit). This concept is problematic now as Woman in this country have long been visible in the public sphere and now Woman  finds she is a wage slave Herself but but still endures the double burden. This is  nothing compared to our Sisters in developing countries but non-the-less, equal,sexist free Britain? Thirdly even if you don’t have children, Women are socially immersed into ideals of being this caring, nourishing being, via the media (domestic goddess that can whip up a four course meal in 10 minutes,drop everything for your friends, look out for your neighbours). Women have always been the volunteers that filled the gaps left by the state’s policies, the PTA’s that raise money for schools (mostly women), the coffee mornings for charity, Women activists that march and lobby at grassroots level , keeping your eye on that neighbour who you know is taking abuse from their  ’other half’, saying hello and engaging in conversion with an elderly person who you know, probably hasn’t spoken to anyone all day. If I where to categorize our ‘unaccounted economic activities’ as paid work then the list would be this;Nanny,Counselor,Lobbyist,Community worker,Fund-raiser,Chauffeur, PR,Carer, Nutritionist, Personal shopper. All validated, trusted positions,  economically viable but not so if the work is unpaid.If as the DaveCam puts it we are ‘all in this together’ then why is unpaid ‘domestic labour’  economically irrelevant in these days of the Big Society? We fill the gaps!

Did you notice that last week the fire service threatened to strike on bonfire night? The New Statesman posed the question is it an abuse of power? No actually its not, it strikes at the heart of the public’s fear of unsafety. So why is it that Womens strike day this year was largely ignored by the media? Well you know why,Women in the west are still seen as unpaid labour, economically irrelevant, whining when we have so called political rights.If we were were to strike, can you imagine the gap?  This is what I say, mind the gap left by Women, the void is too vast to cross safely, society would as we see it would crumble. Women fill the void left by the shrinking state , unpaid work for women claimants creates a triple burden. Marx once wrote’ We stand on the shoulders of giants’ but that’s rubbish we all stand  on the shoulders of women and society is taught that those strong shoulders are irrelevant because of a chromosome. MIND THE GAP!

A call for papers comes via the Filament magazine FB page, Feminst Porn Studies is looking for papers between 3000 and 7000 words from both sex industry workers and academic writers.

Oxford University’s Left Review is looking for submissions for Issue Three, which gives you two weeks to submit if you have any sociological, radical politics or economics papers.

When it comes to Filament magazine, I’m still in two minds about it. Yes, I like looking at sexy men and yes Ii think women should be able to access porn if they want to.  What I can’t actually bridge is the gap between the following-  when did I start thinking it was OK to view men as sex objects when most feminist thought dictates that women must not be seen purely as sex objects? Surely as a result,  neither should men.  What is this female gaze discussion all about?

The female gaze can be seen as  binary to the male gaze, but how do we truly know what the female gaze is?  If it is the  opposite to the male gaze then where is the space for Lesbians and Trans men? I know that all men do not not desire the slim blonde identikit archetype offered by the media, and all women do not desire the chiseled  jaw six pack ‘hunk’ also offered by the mainstream.  Nor are all women ‘secret bisexuals’, so why are the main images in this magazine oiled up and laid out for the ladies pleasure?

As a critic of post-feminism, I could simply say that this is  a new and improved way to control women’s sexuality, to mould us as sexually subservient to men. Don’t be fooled by embracing the so-called power of what I truly think the female gaze is . The male gaze is digested in the consciousness of women, who then internalise and invert this gaze because ultimately  men have power. To seize this power you must be seen as this veracious, ironic being who sees women as the media do- as a consumable product . Ariel Levy in her excellent investigation ‘ Female Chauvinist Pigs’ explores this notion within both heterosexual and homosexual culture and illustrates this perfectly.

As a woman in the ‘real’ world, having been socially conditioned to what is ‘hot’ and what is not (lets not be naive here), maybe Filament is a good  thing. I enjoy reading the feeds on FB  asking for what kind of image the readers would like to see ( I can’t help but think that it may sink into a readers boyfriends/husbands expo).  Most of the articles are pretty good and I don’t think I’d ever put it under my bed to avoid detection. That said, can any sexual objectification ever be justified?

So tonight after reading some stuff posted on a friends Facebook wall, I went and had a look at  a Poll on Breastfeeding. The questions asks ‘Do you think women should be forced to cover up when breastfeeding in public?’. I’m was somewhat pleased to see that of eveyone who had answered the poll, 56% said no.  However, what really troubled me was a) the fact that this is even a question that needs asking at all and b) the comments section which was full of glorious examples of mysogyny such as men telling women that breastfeeding in public without covering up was ‘indecent exposure’.

So let’s deal with point a) first- the fact this question even needed to be asked. I’m against the use of the word ‘forced’ in the question. No woman should be ‘forced’ to do anything, especially not when feeding her child. Let’s all just take a moment here to remember that breasts, contrary to popular myth, exist so that women can breastfeed. It is in fact, the primary function of the mammary gland to produce milk in order to nourish infants. I suspect that the reason this question gets asked is because in our modern, western, over sexualised culture we seem to have completely forgotten that  breasts are not sexual objects designed to titillate and pleasure men.

Moving onto point b)- the misogyny in a lot of the comments. There were of course several comments from people pointing out the sheer ridiculousness of expecting Mothers to feed their babies in toilets or  under blankets etc – when Michael Jackson stuck his kids heads under blankets in public we called it child abuse. How  is it suddenly okay when the parent is a Mother who is FEEDING her child? There were several comments from people asking what all the fuss was about, when breastfeeding is a perfectly natural thing. And then there were the comments where people argued that urination is natural, but that doesn’t mean they do it in the street. Here’s the thing- babies need feeding. Babies, when not fed become quite upset. I am fairly certain, the same people who call ‘disgusting’ upon seeing the tiniest hint of flesh in a breastfeeding mother, are the same people who ‘tut’ and mutter ‘ can’t they shut that child up? shocking’ under their breath when confronted with a Mother who is attempting to soothe her hungry child when she is too anxious to feed in public because of people’s reaction.

Also- how do these people think women breastfeed? Having breastfed one baby, bottlefed another (for long and complex reasons),  and in about 6 months time I’ll be breastfeeding a third, I’m desperately trying to work out how on earth anyone is ‘exposing’ themselves enough to warrant being stared at by people in public. It’s not as if one flops one’s breasts onto a table while the child uses a straw or something! Breastfeeding requires a baby to be latched on so closely to the breast in order to suck, that unless you’re feeding over a vest top or topless it’s nigh on impossible to see any flesh. Ifyour an inexperienced breastfeeder, who’s just getting into her routine, then yes you might ‘expose’ a bit of flesh whilst latching on, but seriously ‘indecent exposure’? That’s a bit much really.

It seems to me that there are many things tied up in this question and the attotudes the poll has revealed. Primarily there’s an issue about women and their use of public spaces- these people feel women should not feel comfortable or able to use public spaces to feed their children and that their behaviour and autonomy should be censured for ‘moral’ reasons. Those moral reasons rest on notions of womens bodies and body parts as sexual objects designed to bring pleasure to men, but not to carry out their primary function- that of feeding babies. Then their an issue about ‘forcing’ women to comply with a ‘rule’ which is based on fallacious arguments and a dominant male based oppressive power structure.

I’m not that fussed about how or where women choose to feed their babies. Breastfeeding from many points of view is prefferable to bottlefeeding,  but  for many women it isn’t a practical, medical or cultural option, and  either way it shouldn’t matter. We need to support women and their partners and families to be comfortable with their feeding choices- this means access to breastfeeding cafes, and clinics and lactation consultants. This means access to peer supporters, and proper, accurate information about both breast and bottle feeding.  This means being able to feed your baby in public in any way you damn please without fear of censure or disapproval or abuse.

And it means that as onlookers, as other humans using a public space, we do not judge. We do not comment, becuase whether supportive or not, we are intruding. We do not ‘tut’ or mutter ‘shocking’. We recognize that what we see is not indecent exposure, or bad parenting or shamelessness or a woman flaunting herself. What we see is a child being given it’s meal by it’s caregiver, and that is a perfectly normal, perfectly natural thing.

Apologies to all for lack of posting on the site , Suzi and myself have been going through last term of  academic year hell and I’ve also made myself a glutton for punishment and been voted in as  Student Union President (again).

Pursuing my interest in the doctrine (or non doctrine) of anarchy, particularly the action, or non action of  forum use and the ‘feeling’ that being, in these anarchist forums is to them, a space of free thinking (or, to use Hakims Beys definition, a ‘ temporary autonomous zone‘)  I started a thread on an online anarchist community. So far so good. In a second year of degree act of stupidity I made too good an argument, leading to a situation where the forum users just blankly agreed with me.

Thing is, I used an androgynous handle (name) so I decided to stir things up a little and reveal explicitly that I was female-  can you guess what happened dear reader? Yep, the thread wasn’t pulled, but, my explicit reply was!  I  e-mailed the sites administrator to ask why my reply was pulled and  he replied that my mentioning radical womens squats ‘marginalised’  a lot of the forum users!  I’m sorry I forgot there are no female anarchists! My topic was valid and a useful talking point, oh, pat on the head for me then for being clever, erm WTF?

I’hm not immune to the notion that there is inerrant sexism in the world and on the net ,I just thought that there may be a little less sexism  on the net.  The net is a place of deception as well as a place of truth telling and yes you could argue that my handle gave no clue to my gender, but should it matter  on an anarchist website? In an anarchist utopia we are all equal and not subjected to the mindless actions of blokes in balaclavas smashing up shop windows and ‘us’ women keeping the collective home fires burning. We are elders as we always (and have been ignored for many a generation and governmental policy) have been within the collective, just as men pass on their wisdom, so do women.

I know I may sound naive but I really feel that this is 2009, I’m a working class, single parent woman and I am  free to be educated, select partners etc, however, I have to also acknowledge that  I’m blonde ,’skinny’, white with technological advantage.  I have to acknowledge this privileged in off-line life , but do I have to on-line? Why, if the Internet is a virtual space where everyone is supposedly equal am I bombarded with adverts for pink computers, dating sites and online bingo halls? Its time to campaign against on-line sexism as well as offline sexism.

I watched the last episode of Pulling. It was ok at times its quite sexist towards men. However,  hey how many times to you see a BBC programme where the women get the funny lines?

I`m reading ‘The Dispossessed’  by Ursula K.Le Guin. Anyone else read it? I’ll do a review in a few weeks time.

So, somewhat predictable some idiot has gone and blamed the recession on women. Seeing as reading the article itself has caused my brain to actually explode due to a) The sheer, unadulterated misogyny of it, and b) The total lack of any grasp of economics the afore mentioned idiot has, I’m not going to try and deconstruct it.

I’m just going to reccomend you go and read Louise at The F Word quite thouroughly demolishing his argument. And then I reccomend you join me and the FemAcadem team at Million Women Rise on March 7th and help ensure idiots like the above don’t get to spread their hatred to far. Opinions like that, help a culture where violence against women is acceptable, and Million Women Rise gives women and their allies a chance to have their say in a public space.

If I wasn’t already cheering loudly for our cousins across the pond after Obama pledged to close Guantanamo Bay within a year, and immediately banned ‘trials’ there, I’m now positively HOWLING for joy.

Obama has lifted the Global Gag rule, that prevents organisations providing services in foreign countries from receiving US aid if they so much as mention abortion. And he yesterday said that:

“On the 36th anniversary of Roe v Wade, we are reminded that this decision not only protects women’s health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters,”

‘Nuff said really. Can we have an Obama now please??

So, according to the BBC our Internet service providers are being asked to retain and store our electronic traffic and, if needs be, inform the police if they find anything suspicious.The police then only need to get a warrant in order to look through your e-mails and text messages in order to gain evidence of any wrong doing.
Given that we live in the post 9/11 era we are ,apparently, all potential terrorists,I say this because every time the government trial these security ideas its because of the need to protect national security.

Let me ask you this- in the 1970′s & 80′s,were we all subjected to surveillance because of the terrorist threat posed by the I.R.A? Were all phones and paper mail bugged and tapped into? No. Why?  Well there wasn`t the technology then and a lot of people didn’t have telephones. So did terrorists communicate via carrier pigeon? No they met up ,the police then did police work (using human intelligence not using a programme to sift out the words bomb ,kill,maim etc). Human intelligence ,if I’m not mistaken, is what differentiates us from the rest of the animal kingdom and A.I.
Human intelligence and intuition is what guides us through life ,enabling us to make decisions (to what ever ends) and the police use it to catch criminals and to protect citizens.
Why does the government put more faith in monitoring systems than it does the actual human intelligence and the intuition skills of police officers? Could it be because its a cost cutting measure? Tell me,can monitoring someones electronic messages stop a knifing ,mugging,rape,domestic violence murder? Surely these crimes are more of a threat to national security than  the sensationalist statements of religious radicals.
We can`t rely on C.C.T.V . If you remember in the Mendez case the police used the C.C.T.V to back up their version of events, but in the end it was the human witnesses that convinced the jury of the truth. Yes the visual evidence of events were there, but it was manipulated so the police team could get a way with murdering an
innocent man and only with the honest testimony of human witnesses did the truth out.

There’s also the great moral panic about the electronic criminal,the electronic criminal who rips your credit card details of the net,the electronic criminal who clones your phone.
Listen carefully I shall only say this once…Hackers are not electronic criminals.
Why be afraid of the beast which is the electronic criminal, find the best firewall you can (you can download them free at Linux) ,change your passwords every couple of weeks, don`t use your birthday or name on your passwords and limit the amount of time you have blue-tooth switched on. If you knew someone had your debit card pin would you not change it? Would you walk down the street with your purse/wallet hanging out of your pocket so a pick pocket could easily lift it? Course not if you take the same precautions on-line as you do off-line then there’s a good chance you won`t be a victim of electronic crime.

So now here’s the bottom line: what a lot of people say is  “I don`t mind, I’ve got nothing to hide”. Well you know what, I’ve got nothing to hide either , I’m not a criminal , I’m just a citizen going about my business, but I do mind that I’m being monitored by my services providers,  whom I PAY for services, and likewise the Police (through taxes) .We are a nation that is paying for its own errosion of Liberty namely the right to privacy.

He who gives up liberty for security ends up with neither.
- Benjamin Franklin

I have to say I’m a pro porn feminist- well by that I mean , I’m a pro porn-that-is-made-by-consenting-adults- who-are-appropriately-re-numerated-for-their-time-and-who-have-working-conditions-that-are-as-safe-as-possible feminist. I’m anti trafficking, and I’m against a society that forces women into sex work, because they feel they have no other options or skills with which to generate much needed income. I’m not against women (or men for that matter) going into sex work because they enjoy it, or because they truly and freely want too. Before you tell me no woman could ever possibly be like that and all sex workers are forced, are suffering from deprivation or have drug/alcohol/psychological problems I suggest you go and read the blog of Renegade Evolution (NSFW), who is quite frankly damned awesome and was one of the first people ever to comment on my blog,  and then read Diablo Cody’s book Candy Girl about her experiences of stripping and the reasons why she did it.

If you don’t want to go and do that, then do go and read this awesome post by Renee at Womanist Musings. I’m particularly fond of this section :

This is not a profession that I would choose for myself but because I ultimately believe in the right of a woman to have control over her body and her sexuality I cannot sit in judgement of the result of where that decision leads.  My concerns are for the ones that are being prostituted without their consent.  My concerns are for those that are addicted, abused and raped.

That’s sums it up pretty well I think!