Feminism has obviously triumphed, no need to (wo)man the barricades any more sisters, its all done and dusted (how appropriate).
I imagine I have banged on about the Observer Woman magazine before: a tasteless and tacky exercise that suggests the editors/management of the paper have a way to go before being totally 'with' equality. This weeks edition had the usual nonsense, overpriced and ugly frockage, silly shoes and patronising 'beauty' advice. The main piece was on David Walliams who is not a woman, and perhaps noting that this was a problem (in view of their remit), they put him in a dress. I think he's a tosser, and Little Britain largely poo so I didn't read it, and it could well have been a serious think piece about the role of fashion and women with a satirical slant, but I tend to doubt it.
If you watch the TV or read the paper (even the Guardian) you kind of know where you stand as a woman - you should be young (or if not young then scheduled later at night so as not to frighten people with your wrinkles), you ought to be pretty, and you had better not be fat. If you are older, fatter or plainer you might get a billet on daytime telly, but you'd better be prepared for ridicule from the red tops if you ever put on a bikini, or a few pounds.
Inside the paper, the women's pages invariably deal with abuse or victimisation of some sort, dresses, dieting and parenting. On the one hand they worry about rape and violence, on the other hand they print photos of seriously skinny young girls (made-up to look even younger) painted to look like prostitutes and dressed to look like Lolita - with an S&M slant (see today's contribution in the Guardian). There is no contradiction here, I guess, as the sexualisation, objectification and infantilization of women probably fuels the sexual violence and abuse to some degree. Ho hum, all in a days work.
"Here come the girls" is the title of "girls aloud"s new single - this speaks volumes. The artists are all grown up women but they resemble Barbies - with their long fluffy hair and ludicrous clothing, and they take pride in being 'girls' - that is female children. Girl power is a load of old fucking nonsense isn't it? The power and the freedom to look like dolls, drink like men and behave like idiots - well that's something worth fighting for isn't it?
Feminism is unfashionable these days, but it seems like we need it more than ever - the pay gap is still there, older women and single female parents are still likely to suffer poverty more than male equivalents, male violence towards women has yet to be confronted (another crop of wife and child murdering bastards recently figuring in the news). Women have more and more restrictions placed on how they can look - largely thin, with big titties, long hair (preferably blonde) and YOUNG, and more and more expectations of what they should acheive, against the odds (kids and work, success in the office without messing up the kids, sexual openness without sluttiness, assertiveness with pushiness). It makes my head hurt.
And then there's the whole Sarah Palin thing: picked out cos she looks nice when she smiles, and cos she's a hockey mom (which means what exactly: a tireless follower of her kids sports, when does she fit that in with being a governor?). Apparently some women will vote for her just because she's a woman - I hope not
as, with her anti-abortion, creationist, climate change nay-saying, hunting and shooting persona, she's hateful. Just because she has the same genes doesn't make her a representative of women everywhere. I hope that the female voters in the US come to their senses and vote on the issues and not the sex of the candidates!
Anyway....