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!

The wonderful Anji of “Shut Up, Sit Down” has a brilliant new piece up over on The F Word titled “Why cis attendees of RTN are letting trans women down”. For those of you unfamiliar with the argument, every year London Feminist Network host a Reclaim The Night March, protesting Violence against Women (VW). I’ve been once in 2008, and found it an uplifting experience but one which also left me somewhat uncomfortable after hostility between LFN and members of a Sex Workers Rights group arose.  I’ve also noticed that every year multiple feminist groups call upon LFN to explicitly state that trans women are welcome on the march, and every year LFN fail to state this. It’s a horrific example of transphobia, which I don’t think can or should be ignored any longer. Anji explains why LFN need to be explicit in their welcoming of trans women, and I would urge all feminists, cis or trans, to call on LFN to be explicit in their stataements regarding who is and isn’[t welcome to march with them. I would even go so far as to urge feminists to boycott the London March this year- many cities have RTN marches which welcome all self identifying women- Oxford has one on October 22nd – and so in order to put an end to the hideous transphobia routinely perpetrated by LFN, go to one of the smaller marches. That might seem a bit extreme but we aren’t good feminists or allies if we ignore, and are complicit in the abuse of our trans sisters.

We are lucky enough to be able to host some amazing photos of Million Women Rise, taken by the very talented Rowan Fulton (who is also very lovely). Do enjoy the photos, and do also please consider writing to the major newspapers, who once again completely failed to highlight Million Women Rise. Whilst this does mean we get to host some excellent photos, I would much rather be seeing them in the paper, highlighting our cause!

All photos are Copyright of Rowan Fulton, Photographer

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.

As I feel it’s necessary to claw my way out of the academic/geek cocoon I seem to have weaved around myself,  from time to time I venture into the world of the mass media. Since starting my degree I found that I hardly watch T.V (I don’t think Cbeebies counts) and I never buy ‘womens’ magazines. It wasn’t due to studying commitments, it was due to the repetition-  this is how you should look/dress/feel/D.N.A tests/cook/parent your child and what you should aspire to be (apparently the aspiration is happiness,which obviously can’t be achieved without at least four of the afore mentioned).  It never really occurred to me that these t.v programmes and magazines were actually reinforcing gender and class stereotypes, I just thought they were just thought they were crap.

For some unknown reason I bought ‘That’s life!’  magazine, maybe because of the sensationalist headline “Mum sold me for a bottle of Gin!”, but mostly because that’s the sort of magazine that were knocking around my Grans house when I was growing up. For 78p I had fifteen minutes of other peoples lives, saw photos of cute kids dressed up, read how daft ‘Men’ are, fashion on a budget, health/relationship problem pages and survival stories. What I took from the magazine was that maybe this cut-price magazine and the others of its ilk, are  a space for working class women to express their lives. OK they were paid for their stories and the stories were polished up by proof readers,but the kernel of the stories were issues affecting women.

During a particularly boring lecture  I asked Suzi what she thought of these particular magazines and  the conversation went like this:

(A) ” Do working class women’s magazines such as ‘That’s Life!’ empower or keep working class women in their place?”

(S) “They keep them in their place. Also the mags reinforce dominant social discourse- weight loss, cookery and cosmetic surgery”.

(A)” On balance though,do you think these magazines are better than , Marie Claire, Grazia and the like?”.

(S) ” All the women’s magazines are exactly the same just aimed at different classes of women, however, Marie Claire magazine runs many feminist stories . All in all the women’s mag market is generally designed to re-inforce gendered roles and dominant discourse”.

I decided to buy Marie Claire (for the first time) and see for myself . For the sum of £3.30 and a reassuring glossy heavy magazine with non-descript headliners ‘Perfect trousers to suit your shape’. Seven adverts for the top end fashion and cosmetic industry and then onto the contents page, more adverts, editors blurb, rundown of contributors and then at last first articles which were the letters page. More adverts then an article by Katherine Fleet (ala The Observer). I’ll confess now, I do read The Observer but tend not to read the columns about ‘nothing’ . Fleets piece was entitled ‘Superwoman:who needs her?` Who indeed I thought to myself.

More adverts , fashion news, eco news, adverts, fashion news, adverts, Celeb interview more adverts, wheres the feminism? I think to myself.

An article on women sex professionals was sort of on the right track,women’s attitude to drinking,child bride divorce in Afghanistan (why wasn`t this the front cover?) and then the life changing experience story or as I like to call it the  ‘I went to a poor country and talked to poor hungry black children and now I realise how lucky I am, my life is going to change for the better,hurray!’ story.

So , like ‘That’s Life’ the kernel was there, but for me there was more sharing of female stories in ‘That’s life!’. The survival of domestic violence, birth stories , rape, betrayal, consumer rights. But hold up, I thought to myself, aren’t these stories used for fodder on shows such as Jeremy Kyle,Trisha and like? Women and men being paid to tell their story on national t.v, shows such as This Morning dispensing consumer advice and how to make the most of yourself cosmetically wise.

Where is the Marie Claire T.V crossover? It’s with programmes like Ten years younger, Come Dine with me and Location, Location, Location. OK its easy to see the class differences even if you just took at look at the advertising in both magazines, when you look at the barriers of price and style of magazine it brazenly states that the working class are cheap, throw away and a bit tatty, whilst the middle classes are aesthetically pleasing, substantial and seemingly valuable.

Whats does this tell me about feminism in the mass printed media? Everyday survival stories of the working class woman is a readily available commodity, because lets face it ,whatever the world throws at the working class woman she can handle it as long as she can get a few quid for the retelling of said horrid event. Pretty clothes, cosmetics and lifestyle aspirations , ohh! and with the odd ‘lets find oppressed women /girls abroad’  stories to show us how good our lives really are,  are the fodder of Marie Claire.

These magazines have sat on the newsagents shelves for nearly fifty years now.  Have you ever noticed that you never see Marie Claire magazine on the same shelf as That’s Life? If we live in a meritocracy why isn’t the mass media portraying the fact,  instead of keeping us all in our boxes?

I love to end this article with a statement about what I’d put in a magazine if I had the chance, but I don’t have a clue. I can’t believe in either magazine though. One tells me how I should look , what clothes I should buy and that I’ll just never find shoes fabulous enough, punctuated by adverts from luxury brands (which I find contradictory to the post materialistic statements of the sustainability of the making of the magazine). The other tells me that shit happens, the adverts tell me that the government is watching and that I need to be reminded not to feed my kids whisky and deep fried mars-bars and that post-materialism is just a posh word for sharing money saving tips.

The Blogsphere is ringing this week with the sound of debating feminists/ pro feminists/other women identifying  peoples discussing BDSM and the agency and roles of women within BDSM sexual relationships.  I’m not going to link to the debates because a) I’m exhausted after attending double lectures and a talk on socialist feminism and b) I really don’t want to take a side in the existing debate, especially not at 10.30 at night, when I’m exhausted.

Mostly I just want a chance to open up a debate about Teh Kinky Sexzors without piggy backing off of someone else’s.

My opinions about sex pretty much run too – if it’s consenting, non- coerced, and involves people doing whatever they want to do to get each other off, providing no children, animals, dead people or unwilling participants etc involved, then people should do what they like. Essentially- do what you want with who you want providing there’s consent, sense, and equality in the room.

I can see, however, how and why there is a debate about how or not BDSM does or doesn’t hold up Patriarchy and existing, dominant ideas about sexuality, women’s sexuality and the kinds of sex we should all be having.

What disturbs me about some of these debates is, the perceived removal of women’s agency. One of the argument I’ve heard is that women don’t involve themselves in BDSM based sexual encounters because they really want too, they do it because patriarchy, porn, dominant cultural narratives and their (male) partners tell them they should.

This kind of thinking, in my opinion,  removes the agency of women who ARE engaging in BDSM because they want too, because they get off on it and so do their partners. I’m not for a second about to naively suggest that no woman has ever been co-erced into abusive situations involving BDSM- but I would argue that it they are co-erced then it’s not sex it’s rape, and that is a different ball game all together.

From the BDSM communities I’ve known of, safety and consent have been two of the most holy, cardinal rules ever. You don’t do a damn thing, if they or you aren’t fully aware and consenting. You don’t do a damn thing if they or you do not feel totally safe, and you have adequate safety measures in place- for some people that’s using condoms for others it’s safety words, reliable easily reached cutting equipment and first aid kits at the ready, just in case.

I’m confused by arguments that suggest we, as a movement, are fighting for women’s autonomy and agency to be recognized, whilst simultaneously denying women the right to have sex however they please. I CAN understand arguments focusing on women’s co-ercion into sexual behaviours, or women’s socialization into particular sexual roles.  What I can’t understand is why women, who are plainly choosing to engage in sex where they experiment in a number of ways with roles, identities, toys and boundaries are criticized and told they can’t possibly enjoy it, they’ve just been brainwashed.

How does dialogue like this help the movement? How does dialogue like this enable women from a variety of ideological positions to share experiences, beliefs and discussion about sex and women’s sexuality openly and honestly?

To me this standpoint of  agency denial, can be perceived as women hating, as much as, standpoints that suggests that women who freely enjoy sex are worthless or standpoints that suggest women shouldn’t have access to reproductive healthcare becuase they shouldn’t be having sex in the first place.

I would also like to question whether these arguments apply to lesbian/gay relationships. So far all the arguments I’ve read, have been about  heterosexual Dom/sub relationships and BDSM in heterosexual relationships. If a woman is the Dom in her lesbian Dom/sub relationship is that still upholding the Patriarchy? Does women dominating women, or tying women up count as internalized mysogyny? Answers in the comments section please!

I’m hoping this post will mean a discussion springs up. So far I’ve never deleted or modded a genuine comment anyone has made- I’m hoping this can continue. If you do comment (and please do- all viewpoints welcome) then please be mindful of your language and tolerant of the views of others.

This post is about a pivotal experience in my life-  a visit to Womynspace. I feel its relevant to write this because it changed my perceptions about my attitudes to other women, left wing politics, the legal system, the list could go on. The point is that nearly every week I find myself drawing on the experience.

To rewind…before I started at uni I never thought about feminism. Once or twice when I’d heard the word it was portrayed in a negative light. I myself come from a dysfunctional family and the women in the family had been subjected to cycles of abuse which in turn trickled down to me. I felt the only person I could trust was my father figure and therefore even though I did have female friends, I never really trusted them, they were all out to’ get’ me.

This visit also coincides with the beginnings of a great friendship with Suzi, my first interactions with another very intelligent role model who pointed me in the direction of Womynspace and myself for the first time in my life , truly being out of my comfort zone.

Necessary arrangements had been made, directions gathered, feminist peer grabbed in order to be my comfort blanket and off we went to London . I’d been to London only twice – once on a school trip and once on a jolly with an ex boyfriend. I took the car, I realise now that that was a comfort blanket too- I didn’t know my way around and the car was safe in the fact that I could get into it and drive away should anything untoward happen.

We drove into a rough looking area of London, a police car seemed to follow us in to a side street and observe where we were going. I parked up and we approached the metal  security gate. A woman  appeared unlocking the various padlocks in order for us to gain entry , she chatted whilst we went through the door and as she fortified the the door via a plank slatted against the door.The entry was dark damp and forbidding and the woman starting to show us around. The welding room,the smoking room and then up the stairs.

Once we got to the top of the stair case the atmosphere started to change ,there was some sunlight coming through the windows and I could see artwork on the walls. A photographer was taking pictures and two other women were chatting. We were shown around this tier of the house and the atmosphere was almost church- like, we were offered tea (thank you womynspace for introducing me to rooibos tea)and then sat down to chat.

I for once didn’t have anything to say for myself. Suzi on the other hand starting talking and drawing out the other women’s stories (usually my ‘job’). I felt for once that I really didn’t have anything to contribute and on reflection the way I looked didn’t matter this opportunity to just be `me` had never presented itself and therefore I was at a loss .

We left and got back into the car and Suzi and I didn’t say anything until ten minutes later when we both let out a collective sigh. We both felt peaceful and then talked about the experience.It wasn’t until much later that we realised we’d both had completely different experiences – Suzi had felt comfortable and confident, I felt the opposite.

I wrote the experience up as a feminist reflective essay and thought that would be the ‘end of it’….not so. As time went on and suggestions about space from tutors started to make sense to me I started to figure it out and de-construct what society had socialized me in to thinking. Feminists..bad, squats are only used by druggies and homeless people, the law is always right.

Womynspace taught me that its ok just to ‘be’ rather than ‘doing’, in the respect that we as women are always supposed to be pre-occupying ourselves with caring for other people, caring about what other people think of us and caring if  the sexually preferred gender finds us attractive.The one sentence that sticks in my mind from the experience was a woman saying ‘he doesn’t know anything about me’, that’s the best thing I ever heard in my life. Complete strangers don’t know anything about you. How dare they comment and judge someone they know nothing about?!

Another thing that struck me was the the premise of what space is – whats the difference between a woman’s group hiring a village hall or making use of a near derelict building in order to empower women? Money and the legal system that protects an investment. How much is a derelict building worth? Why shouldn’t it be put to use instead of being left to  crumble until the owner gets the ‘right’ price from a developer?

Womynspace changed and still is changing my perception of the world and society around me. Without it I wouldn`t be writing here, have the strength to show the world who I really am(ok, I’m your basic geek, but there you go) and that the ‘hidden’ shit’ – the issues that are swept under the carpet like the empowerment of women really does matter. Thank you Womynspace .

Whilst trying to get down to some serious study about capitalism the other night Suzi and I veered off the topic and had a discussion about Paula Yates.  We’ ve often talked about feminist icons  and I put it to Suzi that in my eyes Paula Yates was, in fact a feminist icon.

Back in the eighties I used to watch The Tube, I remember seeing this funny, vibrant woman wearing prom dresses and sporting a tattoo. No woman presenter on T.V looked like or interviewed like her. The Tube itself was descibed as shambolic and an alternative Top of the Pops, it was here that Paula Yates could shine

Previous to this she was simply known as Bob Geldofs wife, a groupie who got lucky, no mention was made of her career as a rock journalist, did she just get the presenting job because of her husbands connections? Even if she did, she grabbed the opportunity with both hands and made it so that she was a vital part of the programme and was never ‘replaced’ with a younger model through the years.

Paula raised a family, was not eclipsed by her high profile husband and managed to stay afloat in a very tough industry – is this not a mark of a feminist?

Paula did all this by expressing her femininity and raw sexuality which, in turn, masked her intellect – are feminists not allowed to be sexual? Have you never flirted in order to get better service in shops or get served first in a crowded bar?

Paula wrote two books on childcare which reflected what a great mother she must have been, funny, caring and practical albeit with nannies, but the books reflect that she was ‘hands on’.

Then of course along came Micheal Hutchence starting with the infamous big breakfast interview and ending with the tragic early deaths of both. When Paula left Geldof for Hutchence was it Hutchence who was cast as the home wrecker? No, Paula was cast as the villain in the piece, and,  in the eyes of the media she was back to being a groupie who got lucky and left poor Sir Bob, was she guilty of acting in a male gendered way?

I think it must of taken guts to leave such a (by that time) ‘sainted’ high profile husband and still live her life in public. I think she was unique, clever and a pioneer in reconstructing how a woman should act and I would definitely say that , to me, is what feminism is all about.

Reading through the Guardian today, re- celebrating the fact that America finally has a decent President, a guy who happens to be intelligence and have a social conscience I was struck by something. And that something was the absolute absence of commentary on women’s role in the Obama victory. In all the coverage I read there were TWO mentions of Michelle Obama and ONE mention of the Obama girls- the bulk of the commentary about Michelle was about how journalists couldn’t decide what colour her dress was. The one sentence regarding Sasha and Malia commented again on the colours of the dresses that they and their mother were wearing.

I watched the inauguration on the BBC. I wept a little, listening to the address, booed at Rick Warren and practically danced for joy watching Bush fly off out of public life. But, I noticed something. Of all the commentary on the BBC, there was only one female presenter and she was assigned to the route of the procession and largely redundant in the coverage. None of the guests were female- they were all men, and none of the commentary mentioned any of Michelle’s accomplishments or any of the sacrifices she would be making as her husband became president. Renee wrote a few days ago about the unpaid labour a First Lady performs and yet none of this was mentioned in any of the coverage I’ve seen. The one mention of Michelle’s role in her husbands presidency, was that she would be at the school gates each afternoon to collect Sasha and Malia. Her husbands role as a father was totally written out. It would seem, that, in the eyes of the world now, the Obama children have one active parent and that is their mother. Their father is just, obviously, going to be far too busy doing important manly things to be worrying about the trivialities of raising children. This portrayal annoys the hell out of me, because I’m damned sure that isn’t what the Obama’s think.

This total erasing of the women who are key in Barack’s life astounds me. The world really hasn’t changed that much. Michelle, a talented, intelligent successful woman, with her own career, her own achievements, her own dreams has been wiped out in effect, and reduced to being unpaid housekeeper to the worlds most ppowerful man. Or at least that is what has happened in the eyes of the media. She has ceased to be a dignified human being in her own right and become merely an extension of him.

I was bitterly disappointed. But, the fight for recognition goes on. Maybe one day, POTUS will have a wife who continues her own career, who employs ( at a decent and reasonable wage, let’s not perpetuate the exploitation here people)  someone to carry out the Housekeeping at the White House , and whose achievements are recognised, giving her a public identity of her own in the eyes of the media. Maybe the position of First Lady will change into a meaningful position of political power and social change, instead of being one of sacrifice and expectation. Maybe one day we’ll have a First Gentleman, or a female POTUS and First Lady. I live in hope.

For now, the fight goes on. The war isn’t won, even if the battle was.

This post is my response to a part of Suzi`s post  `The Mummy Myth`and also  expresses my thoughts on female competitiveness.

To begin with lets look at the two -sided coin which is the mainstream media…..

Can anyone remember any obviously pregnant women presenting the weather, reading the news or presenting breakfast T.V in the eighties? The only woman I can remember is Janet Ellis who presented Blue Peter and was subjected to complaints from outraged viewers because she was a)pregnant and b) shock horror, also unmarried.

Fast forward to the here and now, and pregnant TV presenters are  commonplace,a good thing wouldn`t you say? Pregnant women can be seen, heard and are generally considered capable  enough to carrying on working in their high profile jobs. Of course, the maternity leave ,pay and birthing plan are all held in the public eye, and  maybe the expectant mother will do an interview with various magazines saying how wonderful she feels and how she now, inexplicably  likes eating raw marrow with ice-cream.

After she’s had the baby, done the OK photo shoot and obligingly shown off said precious bundle it all goes downhill and becomes  a media free-for-all.Why hasn`t she lost that baby weight yet? Why’s she depressed when she`s got lots of money and round the clock nannies? Should she be going back to work so soon? Does she breast feed?

All these questions in some shape or another have been asked for millenia at the water well,over washing lines and in recent times, at the coffee shop. The only thing is, now these questions are amplified through the media, and so the stereotype of the Yummy Mummy in upper/middle class circles or MILF in working class circles has appeared, demonstrating that women’s only true commodity is to be fuckable. Crude but more to the point.
These stereotypes trickle down into society, and,  in my experience the ‘Yummy Mummies’ at my kid`s school (by the by, I live in social housing in a very desirable area and professional families frequently relocate from London to get into the schools catchment area)always look fantastic have the latest bicycle and trailer sets,talk play dates, eat organic food and about the marvelous kids boutique in town.There is one middle class mum there who talks to her child, doesn’t give a crap about her appearance and seems to do lots of volunteer work for the school ,but it doesn’t matter how marvelous she is, the nasty whispers are still there `Why doesn`t she lose some weight/Get some new clothes ? / Put some make-up on?’ (n.b I`m a semi goth skinny person who can look slightly scary to the untrained eye).
Of course this happens at school gates throughout the land and in also media land,  but why does it happen? Consider the facts -the media is controlled and bankrolled by men and what do men do when the empowerment of women is seeped into the national consciouness? Give us what we want thats, what,the gossip. How else do the media get away with giving meek reports about women sacked for being pregnant, or for asserting their right to extended maternity leave which in short costs money, money that most important commodity of all.  This all  shortly followed by hiring an attractive younger woman to read the news, in order to attract male viewers.
It seems now (sadly) that even after we`ve competed with each other in order to secure said Mr Wonderful (I realise this statement is heteronormative, but lesbian motherhood does tend to be ignored by the media at large unless it’s being reported in a negative way and I have no experience of being a lesbian mother and so am basing this on my  personal experience of motherhood and competition) that competition is  nothing compared to pursuing the crown of `perfect woman`- it’s the perfect housewife amplified with new and improved features .Marvel at her organizational skills! She`s still fuckable after four kids! She makes her own organic baby food and brings home the bacon too!

The point is is that the media amplified and commodified women’s competitiveness, packaged it,sold it back to us in glossy form and we’ve brought it in every sense