Excellent.

I have many questions.

First one:

In the last couple of years, a number of my work & recreational colleagues have started to ask me if I have a position on Botox. Should I be:

a) insulted
b) taking the hint
c) saving up for a longer-lasting & more drastic procedure?

Is it OK that I laughed for a week after reading the first ever Sid the Sexist in Viz?

Kate -

Political correctness be damned, the opportunities for Fun With Botox (tm.) are endless. Get some off the black market and use it to freeze up one half of your face for three months. Twist your features semi-permanently into an evil leer. Leave empty syringes around your desk at work. I guarantee that noone will bother you again.

‘Twist your features semi-permanently into an evil leer.’

Well – my features are kind of like that already.

Any other hints?

How about banning sunlight…?

Publicansdecoy -

Yes, it is more than okay. Sid is one of the best pieces of feminist polemic around. Sexists aren’t threatening, they are bloody ridiculous, and the Viz strip was one of the first media to signal that.

Kate -

well, naturally, as women of a certain age (i.e over 17) sunlight is our enemy, as, in fact, are all types of weather. Other evils to be avoided include -
food
laughter
distress
reading (it makes the forehead crinkle, encouraging early wrinkles)
fun (ditto)
human contact (ditto).

My advice is to retreat to a sealed, windowless room where nutrients and other vitals can be piped in through thin plastic tubes. All the celebs are doing it.

Auntie,

I’d agree with yr list, except, perhaps, the point about human contact. We spend a lot of time when being shagged, for instance, trying to keep a straight face – surely that helps with the wrinkles issue?

Dear auntie Laurie,

Have you heard about the Open Source Boob Project? What are your views on it?

sincerely

A Fan.

I kind of thought the whole web was an open source boob project…?

Jennie -

I hate to spoil the party, but this makes me clit-itchingly angry. As someone who has been a stripper in the past I don’t find the idea of a boob-hungry mob subversive in the slightest.

No way should be pressured into letting anyone touch their bodies in an ‘admittedly sexual’ way. Yes, the con was opt-in, but if you were there, would you have said no and risked looking like a prude or a party pooper? And how is the experience of standing there letting yourself be objectified and felt up, rather than participating sexually, a liberating experience for women? It plays into the idea that women are literally sexual objects, passive receivers of sexual attention.

Breasts are not open-source, any more than dicks are open-source. Information wants to be free, but boobs are not free-shooting sexual ‘information’ – they’re sensate parts of an individual’s body. Only a chauvinist geek coul have thought this one up.

If a stranger on an Open-Source-Boob crowd came up to me and asked to touch my tits, I’d say ‘yes – but only if I can squeeze your balls first, mate. Hard.’

Don’t apologise to me for that reaction, it was mine too. I didn’t want to look like I led that way with my question is all. Thank you.

Jennie -

it’s cool. Unfortunately, as young(er) feminists, anything we say that isn’t ‘sex-positive’ (urgh) risks being pigeonholed as prudish and outdated, which sets us artificially in opposition to feminists of older generations who see no harm in criticising cultural sexual behaviour. It’s one of the ways they get us.

I am ‘sex-positive’. I love foreplay, I love fucking. But I love it on my own terms.

* nodnod *

You’re not kidding.

‘Unfortunately, as young(er) feminists, anything we say that isn’t ’sex-positive’ (urgh) risks being pigeonholed as prudish and outdated, which sets us artificially in opposition to feminists of older generations who see no harm in criticising cultural sexual behaviour. It’s one of the ways they get us.’

Um – how is this? How is it that younger feminists are pigeonholed as prudish and outdated…? I thought we older feminists (in our 30s, no less) had this problem as well.

Don’t get your comments about being artificially in opposition to feminists of older generations. Doesn’t make sense. You may feel that you’re the first to make certain feminist comments, but that doesn’t actually make you the first. It just makes you younger. Like – you’re not the first Oxbridge type to dip her toes in stripping, or to act like the world shifted on its axis as a result. Like I’ve said before, we’ve all done it. We just did while you were still in yr gymslip.

Why have you got a problem with older feminists – at least, I think that’s what you’re saying. Hard to grasp yr language at times, Auntie.

‘Like – you’re not the first Oxbridge type to dip her toes in stripping, or to act like the world shifted on its axis as a result. Like I’ve said before, we’ve all done it. We just did while you were still in yr gymslip.’

Ah, I get your point, but I really didn’t mean to suggest that ‘the world shifted on its axis as a result’ – quite the opposite, in fact. Posh girls deciding to play at sex work is nothing new and certainly nothing subversive – just sad and repetitive.

As a young feminist, I don’t think I’ve got much new to say – that’s aprt of the frustration of being a feminist journalist (or trying to be). Nothing is news, practically everything has been said before – but change is still needed.

The point I was trying to make about polarisation in feminist culture is that ‘Sex positive feminism’ and ‘raunch culture’ often come under attack by older feminists – most notably in the pages of the Guardian. My inner teenage conspiracy theorists wants to suggest that the media are encouraging us to get at each other, but I doubt it’s that simple. The fact remains, though, that an artificial divide has been drawn up between ‘radical’ feminists, often but not exclusively from slightly older generations, and young women who seem to think that stripping, sex-work and being groped is something new, emowering and shocking. I don’t think either camp is entirely right, and I certainly don’t think we should be wasting our energies attacking each other.

For example, Feminist Action Forum (FAF) are absolutely against sex work, whilst Feminist Fightback (FF -not a younger group, but a ‘new and cool’ one set up last year) are involved in campaigns for sex workers’ rights – and this one little fact means that two significant London groups just can’t work together. It’s ludicrous, and makes me want to start quotin the Life of Brian every time I go to meetings.

And to clarify – when I said ‘it’s one of the ways they get us’, I didn’t mean other feminists, but a culture that’s still hostile, in general, to feminist agendas. Letting feminists fight it out between themselves neuters us, and it’s also an easy habit to get into, as it’s ideologically easier to attack the subtleties of other movements than tackle the whole overculture by oneself.

I certainly don’t have a problem with older feminists; I look forward to the day when I am one, and not only because I’ll hopefully have lost this unsightly puppy-fat around my face. I intend to smoke clove cigarettes, wear black, quote Andrea Dworkin and be distinguished.

brilliant!

Dear Ms. Pennyred,

I have been in a relationship, sometimes regrettably long-distance, for a year and a half – soon, my boyfriend will begin medical school in the city and as he has asked to me to move in with him I have limited my job searching to the London area, even though this will be expensive there are a few tempting prospects elsewhere.

This is, of course, very unfeminist of me and seems to put me on the path to being one of the upper middle class ‘doctor’s wives’ who, traditionally, have put his career saving lives before their own. (Leading to accepting his long hours in the office while he secretly bangs his secretary.) What sort of similar sacrifices can I demand from my man, to show that he is as committed to an equal relationship as I?

Presents? Copyediting favours? Sitting him down and making him read the complete works of Germaine Greer for a day?

Dear Ms Identity,

I think part of feminism is about getting away from the idea of male/female relationships as a form of gender-bargaining. Focus on the fact that you’re moving to London of your own accord, partly because of your relationship, but also because London is the place to be – particularly Turnpike Lane, City of Dreams and All-Night Booze.

That said, though, you are entirely justified in letting him know that you are putting yourself out for the relationship, and asking that he do the same – whatever that means for you. If your boy is a doctor and you aren’t, it doesn’t mean that your career and life choices are less valid – you bring a lot of joy to a lot of people (I theorise, not that we know one another of course). That said again, I find that presents and copious cunnilingus sessions are *always* good.

If the boy ever does get a secretary, I suggest that you sleep with her or him, just to make a point.

*loves*

Hello,

what does ‘feminism’ mean to you?

Is it the exclusive promotion of womens rights or the promotion of the view that one gender is superior to another, the desire to highlight issues affecting women or something else entirely?

I’ve seen it be called each of those things and some of them make me uncomfortable.

I know how angry I would feel if there was an ‘ism’ that promoted mens rights above womens so I guess I’m wondering more and more what feminism means to people, and whether the word itself is damaging to the cause. Whatever the cause is.

Genuinely curious:)

PS -

I’m with you in thinking that the word ‘feminism’ is slightly deceptive. I think that ‘gender activism’ would be more accurate.

Feminism, for me, needs to promote, first and foremost, the equal rights of women, the transgendered and ambi-gendered with men. Feminism isn’t about one gender being superior – it’s about gender, like race, not being a question of power any more. It’s about interrogating gender, interrogating cultural stereotypes, questioning everything.

Feminism is about opposing heteronormatice patriarchy – and recognising that patriarchy comes in many forms. Feminism is about being your own person, valuing yourself and allowing others to do the same, without being dictated to by received stereotypes.

Men can be feminists too – indeed, they should be, just as white people shouldn’t be turned away from ‘rock against racism’ events, for example. Feminism is about fighting patriarchy, heteronormative hegemony and gender fascism wherever it occurs, and men have just as much invested in that as women, if they want to be truly free.

Hey,

speedy answer:)

To be honest I dont think that currently either gender has equal rights – either in law or in culture.

“…being your own person, valuing yourself and allowing others to do the same, without being dictated to by received stereotypes.”

Now that sounds bang on to me.

It feels somehow restrictive to call that viewpoint ‘feminism’ as if it is unique to a particular gender. The word feminism makes it sounds like there’s a lot more going on – all of it specific to women. I guess that why I’m not a fan of the word, even though people who call themslves feminists often seem to me to say eminiently sensible-sounding things.

Now if there was a word that meant ‘your gender should not dictate how society treats you, and that is the viewpoint that I support’ it would be really quite shiny.

Do we have one?:)

Dear Auntie,

I’ve had a think about some of this, and I’ll tell you what gets on my nerves: the utter futility of feminism and feminist action while its proponents are so utterly self-indulgent and self-focused.

I don’t think there’s anything remotely useful or interesting – or worth analysing, or investigating – about the fact that a bunch of overindulged, middle-class navel-gazers like ourselves took our knickers off for cash at some point. I see that you make that point above yourself.

I don’t think the world cares an iota about our views on the male obsession with tits, or gender relations. I don’t care who you and/or other women shag. I barely care who I shag half the time.

What matters, Auntie, is that Rome burns while modern feminism indulges in appalling little infights about whose feminism is more feminist (although I admit I kind of started this one). I appreciate that you have said above that you are looking forward to becoming an older feminist, and believe men should be included in the feminist discourse. That is good news. I think any more division between the genders and age-groups would have done me in forever.

What we should be doing as feminists on this website is talking less about ourselves and our own dreary hangups, and more about the real issues that the left should address.

We should be talking about the fact that teachers, lecturers and god knows who else are going on strike this week, and why.

We should be working together to ask why this ridiculous Labour government is about to whack a tax hike on a group of people who cannot afford it. We should be out interviewing those people, not sitting here, trying to out-tit each other. I’m already so bored with the stripper/whore/male-hangup-with-tits thing that I can barely stand it.

I have already done a lot of interviewing this year of the female careworkers whose pay – and working terms and conditions – has taken such a hit since they began working for the Fremantle Trust. I’m going out on a limb, here, but I bet those women couldn’t give a damn about overeducated, overindulged women whining about being at a disadvantage. Ditto for women on benefits, etc.

Feminism, in other words, should never be about defining yourself. It can’t be. It should be about using lessons learned during the fight for your own employment, social and sexual rights to improve things for other women.

Signed,

An upstart colonial.

PS – What’s ambi-genderism?

Kate,

I’ve spoken to the Fremantle care workers, too, and you’re right – feminism for them means something utterly different. But I think the feminism of middle-class women and middle-class workers is also valid, and part of the same struggle.

Feminism has to be about identity, but about politics, too – it should involve constant touching base with trade unions, workers’ struggles, as well as seeing our movement as continuous with anti-racism and other forms of opposition to injustice.

I get the point you’re making, but I don’t think it’s an either/or situation. I think defining ourselves as women and men, and what femininity or masculinity means to us, is part of the class struggle – because gender fascism has always been a part of anti-socialism. The TUC is spearheaded by women who self-define as feminists. The 10p income tax rate is a feminist issue because far more women than men are working low-paid, part-time jobs. I don’t think these are issues can be separated from feminism.

P.S Ambi-gendered is a crib term for people who self-define as inter-sex, androgynous or ‘both’ genders. There aren’t many, but I thought they were worth a mention.

Plus, at a socialist feminist event I was on the panel for recently, we had representatives from the Fremantle workers in the organisation (in fact, following the event we organised a solidarity march with the workers). One of them stood up to say that she’d not been a feminist before, but was very heartened by the speakers and ideas she’d come across on the day, which was full of workshops and seminars, one of which was led by the Fremantle women.

The reason these women need so much better treatment from their agency is that most of them have caring obligations and work part-time, because most of them are women with traditional family arrangements. That makes it a women’s issue – and I agree that it’s not some airy-fairy concept of patriarchy we need to be fighting here, but an actual patriarchal employer organisation.

Is this a private conversation or can I get a word in edgeways?

Appropriating socialist concepts won’t win any arguments, however much sympathy you might feel you are getting: solidarity must cross barriers to have any effect.

Ask a feminist, expect an earbashing; ask an egalitarian, expect an answer.

“Ask a feminist, expect an earbashing; ask an egalitarian, expect an answer.”

How self-satisfied. And what if they’re one and the same person?

I didn’t mean to suggest that the two are exclusive!

It’s not like ‘feminist’ corresponds with woman, so you can’t accuse me of sexism either. I’m dissatisfied with the description, not self-satisfied.

Should I apologise for being provocative?

Apologise? I don’t know, what does the author think? Frankly, if you can’t be provocative on a liberal internet forum, you can’t be provocative anywhere.

What’s your Agony Auntie question, thomas?

Oh, probably something along the lines of ‘how long should I feel guilty for thinking your answer is not worth listening to?’

Oh, stoppit both of you.

*smiles devilishly*

*opens mouth, raises a finger to begin speaking*

*pauses*

*stops procrastinating and goes back to working*

*worries that this might look like flirting*

*gets coat and goes down the pub*

*gets coat and goes down the pub*

Mine’s a Pint.

(there’s plenty of non-feminists to pull at the pub)

*smiles devilishly*

“there’s plenty of non-feminists to pull at the pub”

That’s very true, Aaron. But I didn’t know that Fred Ted and Alan were your type?

That’s very true, Aaron. But I didn’t know that Fred Ted and Alan were your type?

Beggars can’t be choosers, Jennie!

Now that’s flattery!