Should We Ban The Sun Because Of Page Three?

This week at Swansea Students' Union, the union put forward a motion to ban the distribution and selling of The Sun and The Daily Star in the on campus shop. Honestly, I've always thought it would come much sooner than this to follow up the banning of lads mags on campus some years ago. Following a student forum earlier this week, the motion to ban these newspapers failed, though we will support the 'No More Page 3 Campaign," which is really great. However, the whole debate got me thinking about this issue.

When we come across stories like this, we are reminded that nude modelling is still considered a very controversial subject, especially for women. We have come a long way in the feminist movement since its inception but, clearly, there is still some room for improvement. I do not like the fact that The Sun put topless women on page three, because it is outdated and pointless, but I think the outright banning of a publication is not the right way to tackle this issue.

I'm not an avid reader of The Sun or The Daily Star by any stretch of the imagination, so I suppose it would not be a massive detriment to the rest of my time at university if it were on the shelf or not. It is safe to say that The Sun was never (and never really will be) a particularly popular newspaper in any Students' Union across the country, but that doesn't mean it should be taken off the shelves.

The banning is an issue of censorship. By the union not selling the newspaper, they are making it more difficult to obtain and, in my opinion, this is pretty much the same as censoring the publication. Historically, one of Britain's most valued heritages is press freedom from censorship and, (though Students' Unions are on a smaller scale in comparison to Britain as a whole), we should be treasuring this heritage and remembering that the freedom to choose which newspaper we want to read and therefore, the news we want to consume, is one of our most important and basic human rights. For me, the proposed banning was more an attack on my liberties to choose my own newspaper than tackling the issue of the objectification of women.

I feel like my freedom to express myself through my choices would have been restricted, and frankly, I feel like it is being implied that I cannot make an informed decision in what I read. Don't Students' Unions exist to represent the best interests of its members as a whole? The motion didn't represent the student body (what about those students who do read The Sun?), it discriminated against students and it went against the diversity of its membership. I admit, there should be an effort to inform people of the harmful results of these pages but, at university, we are all adults who know our own minds and know what we want to read. No one should take that right away from us.

(Also, I'd just like to stress that the union allows the stocking and selling of magazines in which men feature naked, but I'll come back to this point later.)

As with anything in life, I find that if you ban something, the likelihood is that people are going to be more inclined to try to find it anyway. Removing The Sun in our Students' Union will not end the exploitation of women. Sadly, it is a misguided thought that banning the paper in the Students' Union will make a massive difference to the objectification of women on a global scale. In fact, as much as I'd like to think otherwise, it may even make things worse as people turn to other, less regulated locations to find exploitative imagery.

As I have already said, I am of the opinion that page three is an outdated part of the newspaper that should be eradicated. Times have changed and we need to move on from this kind of smut and get The Sun to produce some quality (albeit including a bit of pop culture) journalism. However, we are fortunate enough to live in an age in which a woman can choose what type of work she wants to do. If a woman did not want to undertake topless modelling, she wouldn't do it. It is her basic human right to do that and we should respect that.

We have come so far in the feminist movement. Over the course of the last 80 years, women have moved up the ranks and now, we are more equal than ever to our male counterparts. And yet, the movement that once liberated women and fought for our rights, is now restrictive, in this instance, I feel that it is effectively telling women who may want to be nude models that their ambitions are wrong.

I am a feminist. I am very proud to be a feminist. I want women to have equal rights, to be treated equally, and believe that any woman can do anything as well as any man could. But, I am increasingly seeing that there is a certain negative stigma attached to the word 'feminism' these days, which is a shame because it really is a very empowering and wonderful movement I hold very close to my heart. However, I'm starting to feel like the movement is telling me more about what I can't do, rather than what I can do. If I want to be a nude model, I have that right to be without anyone questioning it.

My main issue with modern day feminism, however, is that it is increasingly gender specific and gender focused. What the movement really needs is to fight for genuine equality between the sexes.

Men can be feminists. In fact, men make pretty damn good feminists. I find that feminists, in fact people in general, sometimes forget that men are also the brunt of sexist thinking some of the time. You think about our society and the ways in which men are expected to behave; the list of things they cannot do because of the way our society thinks is endless. Lad culture stresses that the only way men can enjoy themselves is by acting a certain way and this acceptance of the way 'blokes' should act makes it near enough to impossible for them to be otherwise. Men and women are both the brunt of sexist thinking in an equal measure these days, and it is something we need to remind ourselves of.

Reverting back to a point I made earlier, the union stocks and sells magazines in which men feature naked. If we're going to ban topless women being featured in our shops, then surely we must ban the magazines that promote naked men. If men and women are truly equal, (which, we know they are or at least they should be), and people are so against page three that they consider banning the stocking and selling of the publication that promotes the provocative images of women, then provocative images of men should go too.

Yes, page three should go. It is outdated, it is pointless and it has no place in newspapers. It is demeaning, not just for the women on the page, but for the men, women, boys and girls who have to see it. It should go. But banning the publication and taking away basic human rights to a free press for one bad page isn't the way forward. When you start to ban newspapers because you don't like their content, you remove the power of the people, and take away their abilities to make a conscious effort to stand up and say that they don't want to buy publications which spread sexist and derogatory messages. Should the union put internet blocks on their computers to ban access to certain websites? Should books in the library be banned for spreading a bad message? The answer is no. Banning the newspaper in my students' union will not make a massive impact on sale figures to bring about a real change, (as has been seen in many others across the UK) but a real and a sustained campaign could. We should also bear in mind that, while we have a right to a free press, we also have a right to do what we want to do, and if a woman or a man wants to undertake nude modelling, then that is their right. We should not challenge what people wish to do with their own bodies. While we wait for page three to be banned (because it will be one day), we should teach our children and remind ourselves that these women and men who feature in these provocative images, and people in general, are much more than sex objects and that this derogatory mindset has no place in our individual thoughts.

Only Yes means Yes

While it is clear to many of us that men are from Mars and women are from Venus, the difficulties in communication between the sexes is a subject that has never really been understood. Both men and women, in fact humans in general, often find difficulty in understanding that, sometimes, when someone says no, that they really mean no.

The subject is explored in a recent blog post by Vincent Vinturi, titled, "When Her No Means Yes." You can imagine the kind of ludicrous bullshit that is going to be spewed out during this article from the offset. The article has infuriated me since I read it at the beginning of this week, so I'm now going to take some time to respond to it with my own thoughts.

Women say "no" to me in one way or another on a regular basis, e.g. "no, you can't have my number", "no I should go home", "no I'm not coming into your apartment", and of course, the classic, "no, we're not having sex."

Yet somehow, when it's all said and done, that woman is invariably happy that I didn't listen to a single word of protest she uttered; that I barrelled through her resistance nonchalantly and drove the ball to the basket. Women RESPECT this sexual insistence, even if they aren't acutely aware of it. 

Personally, I thought that society had somewhat moved on from these backward views. A woman is well within her rights to tell you no at any stage of the evening, be that at the bar, in the taxi home, her front porch or even her bedroom. From my point of view, I would have nothing but contempt for a man who tried to manipulate me and convince me that I hadn't really changed my mind, and would continue to force himself on me. I would definitely not respect him for throwing about his weight and convincing me to change my mind when it was already made it. It is nothing short of coercion and any man who believes that this is a good way to attract a woman is deluded.

The consent crowd, however, would like for men to believe that anything short of a written statement, notarized and signed by the soon to be fornicated party, is rape.

The only way to know that sex is consensual is if there's a freely and clearly given "yes," which, to answer Vinturi's distasteful joke, isn't that difficult to get out of a woman. Either she wants to have sex with you, or she doesn't. Ensuring consent only requires the most basic respect that we all owe to our partners from the offset: paying attention to how they feel, how comfortable they are and asking them if we can't tell.

It's really not that difficult. But, even if it were, it's the only way to ensure a genuinely equal world in which, not just women, but men's bodies aren't presumed to be available to their potential partners until otherwise stated.

Women want to monopolize power in the sexual marketplace so that they can control access to sex and manipulate this most primal, most productive of urges to their benefit. Ultimately, it isn't to their benefit at all but that's another story. Perhaps it's not different from Western men who go to a country where their sexual value is much higher and pussy seems to fall from the sky. We're all looking out for number one and doing whatever we can to pass on those selfish genes.

Ask any guy who's banged a lot of girls and has had a lot of same-night lays, and he will surely regale you with tales of seemingly insurmountable resistance, conquered and slain by his resolve and unwavering horniness. It's the nature of beautiful women to resist, test, protest, sabotage and make your job of ******* them difficult. 

It baffles me how Vinturi has any of his own stories to regale. The way he talks about women is demeaning, especially in the last two paragraphs. Women are not objects that are made to be 'conquered and slain by resolve'. This kind of logic just doesn't fly in real life sexual interactions. Are all women really to be considered willing sexual participants unless otherwise stated? If we flirt with someone, or even kiss them, does that give them permission to do whatever else they want to our bodies until we strenuously object? It doesn't, by the way, and I don't want to be in a world where not just women, but sex, is viewed in this kind of way.

With rape laws the way they are in countries like the US and Canada, it's downright scary to be a man and act with natural disinhibition in the company of beautiful women in these countries. We're at a dangerous cultural crossroads, where a woman's need for validation is at an all time high, and the repercussions for accusing men of rape are non-existent.

In the modern context, rape is essentially the act of ultimate validation and a rape accusation is the ultimate act of attention whoring. I'm not supporting it of course, don't be silly. But think about it. If a man finds a woman SO incredibly desirable that he would throw his freedom, reputation, his whole life away to **** her, that shows the woman is on the highest echelon of desirability. And in fact, women have begun to routinely accuse men of rape purely for the ego validation that the onslaught of attention brings them. Even though the night before, they gleefully received the gent's ravishment.

And why not? If a woman can have her cake and eat it, too, she will.

False rape accusations are not to be taken lightly. I will admit that it does happen and that when it does happen, it is very wrong and very dangerous for all involved. But to infer that rape accusation, be it genuine or not, is an act of attention whoring is completely wrong. The very assumption that women say no, not because we don't want to have sex, but so that we can humiliate and have control over any man who approaches us is, frankly, arrogant on the part of the man being rejected. Vinturi is essentially saying that women's objections are a challenge to a man's masculinity that should be overcome.

Secondly, I personally wouldn't feel very flattered in knowing that a man found me so desirable that he would throw his freedom to have sex with me. I can't even believe I have to clarify that.

But I have to issue a serious warning: ploughing through a woman's objections with bemused persistence isn't for newcomers to the game. Especially not in the US. You need to be FLUENT in reading female body language. You need to know exactly what you're doing. The thing to understand is that telling a man "no" is a way to weed out the weaklings from the men who know what they want (her).

Yet again, woman are being dehumanised. Women's wants, desires, boundaries and reasoning's are being totally dismissed. Vinturi sugar coats it; women's objections are a game and that, when it's all over, the woman will thank the man for forcing through her wants and boundaries. According to Vinturi, having sex with a woman isn't about connection, communication or even desire. It's about closing the deal, getting what he wants, regardless of objections, resistance or rejection.

I can't stress strongly enough how dangerous and backwards this way of thinking is. Though Vinturi states later on in his post that he is against rape and that his post is merely about how to persuade a woman, he is effectively buying into rape culture by writing all this nonsense down. What Vinturi fails to understand is the no actually does mean no. It signifies the end of the discussion and is absolutely not an invitation to push harder. Only a clear and direct "yes" can really mean "yes".

Feminist Disney

When we think of Disney Princesses, we usually conjure up the classic princesses who are delicate, pretty and obsessed with finding their prince, who usually comes in the shape of a man in the peak of physical fitness, toned up, with flowing hair and handsome features. Disney's latest venture, Frozen, certainly stays true to the classic Walt Disney Princess stories but has updated the story to reflect modern times.

For those that haven't seen this film, Frozen tells the story of two orphaned sisters, Queen Elsa and Princess Anna. Anna doesn't know that her sister has the magical powers of being able to create snow and ice from her hands; a power she struggles to control.  On the day of Elsa's coronation, her secret is revealed and she flees the kingdom of Arendelle, leaving it in a state of eternal winter. Anna sets out to bring her sister back, meeting a ice selling mountain man, Kristoff and talking snowman, Olaf.

At first glance, this is another classic love story between Anna and Kristoff.  Just as I thought the 

movie was about to steer in the very predictable direction of the-handsome-man-saves-helpless-princesses-territory, the movie completely turned around, much to my delight. This time, Disney have decided that the love between the two sisters should take precedence over any man, which is amazing. I am so glad that Disney decided to explore the territory of sisterly love for the first time.

 I have a sister myself so it was really easy to relate to Anna and Elsa's relationship and clear love for each other. Even better, the Scandinavian princesses are both very real characters; independent, strong-willed, capable, witty and smart. And what's more, they aren't apologetic for what they are, (Elsa learns this lesson in the duration of the film and comes into her own and embraces her powers as a part of who she is.) Anna remains true to who she is, and doesn't downplay her intelligence or quick witted humour for the sake of  the male protagonist of the film. These traits make the characters very relatable and remind girls that they should always remain true to themselves, and that there is more to life than waiting for your prince to sweep you off your feet.

Some say that Disney's classic movies give girls unrealistic expectations of men. It is true that male princes play a sizable role in the earlier Disney movies like Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty and The Little Mermaid, but I don't think that's the main focus of Disney movies. Many people choose only to see the romantic aspect of the films, and focus their attention on the men, but we must not forget the female co-stars, as Frozen has reminded us.

In fact, if we scrutinized the Disney Princesses beyond complaining how thin and helplessly romantic they are, we would find ourselves surprised at the positive traits that the princesses teach young girls. Cinderella embodies hard work, hope and remaining true to yourself. Snow White represents purity, innocence and being loving and open minded. Belle is loyal and very intelligent. Jasmine is incredibly sharp witted and Ariel reminds girls that they should have their own mind, even when their opinions aren't popular.

Many are questioning whether Frozen is the first feminist Disney movie but, to me, Disney has never been anti-feminist in previous films. Disney films were made to prove to young girls that women can stand for something and be successful and that, should they find their Prince Charming, he is found through hard work, dedication, patience and persistence. What we really need to do what we watch these films, be it the classic era or the new, is not to complain that there are no real men like that but to take a closer look at the co-stars of these princes and learn from them. 

Defined lines

Has anyone had the chance to watch the feminist version of Robin Thicke's song, Blurred lines? If not, (where have you BEEN?!) please go and look it up now. Or scroll to the bottom of this blog - it'll be there in all its glory.

The original song, Blurred lines is, while wonderfully catchy and upbeat, being accused of blurring the lines between consensual sex and rape which, to be fair, is pretty likely if you've seen the unrated version of the video. The earlier version of the music video, (the unrated one), was released in March and featured models Emily Ratajkowski, Jessi M'Benhue and Ella Evans who are all naked, (sorry, they do wear flesh coloured thongs and high heels), dancing around, flipping their hair and pouting for the camera. Initially, it was removed from YouTube for violating its terms of service. However, it was later restored but has been flagged up as 'inappropriate.'

If you've heard the song and seen the video, then you've probably had the same conversations that I've had about it. Is it sexist or is it empowering women?

As I've said, the tune is cracking, but the words and deeper meaning are offensive. To me, the song is pretty much about 'liberating' a good girl by proving to her that, actually, what she really wants is the wild sex that she isn't asking for.

Robin Thicke

If you're still in any doubt as to whether or not this song is derogatory against women, Robin Thicke has actually confirmed it. In an interview with GQ, he said, "We tried to everything that was taboo. Bestiality, drug injections, and everything that is completely derogatory toward women. Because all three of us are happily married with children, we were like, "We're the perfect guys to make fun of this."'

Wow....

So, as we can see, there's nothing 'blurry' about the male artist's derogatory intentions, but what about the naked, (sorry, pretty shoes and thong wearing), models involved in the project? Emily Ratajkowski, the beautiful brunet, Anne Hathaway lookalike model in the video (who I wouldn't recommend looking at if you don't want to spark off a spectacular drop in your self esteem) , dismissed Thicke's comments. In an interview with Esquire, she said that the models were told to have a 'sort of confidence' and a 'sarcastic attitude about the whole situation.' According to Ratajkowski, the eye contact with the camera and the attitude that they expel puts them in a 'position of power.'

When we think about it, she makes an interesting point really. Women, (and men alike) have had pressure to look a certain way thrown at them by the media for years now and, personally, that makes me feel like I am not able to enjoy the way I look without comparing my body to those images of women with an hourglass body, blonde hair and big boobs. But women should be proud of their bodies. According to Ratajkowski, semi-naked female bodies on television can be empowering.

Emily Ratajkowski

What happens when the half naked women on screen in high heels is being objectified by viewers, but doesn't herself feel objectified?  

That's a tricky one, isn't it?

It's feasible that the models in Thicke's video felt empowered and that their performance could have instilled confidence in many women, but does that really outweigh the negative impacts? Many people may have watched the video and seen it as a joke, but what about those who didn't? What about the people who might have watched the video and took in the idea that women can be treated like objects, without consent?

Personally, I don't find anything revolutionary about a video in which men and women partake in time old stereotypes. It's getting boring now, surely I'm not the only one who thinks that. If you want some rebellion, click the link below and watch the video. Now that's empowerment.

Defined lines 

University of Auckland students remake, 'Defined Lines.' 

The video is, without a doubt, absolutely brilliant. What baffled me about the whole thing was that it was removed (very briefly) from YouTube yesterday for unknown reasons. I can't see why the site had any reason to take that sort of action in regards to the remake, 'Defined lines', because all I can see when I watch it is a bunch of University of Auckland students having a bit of fun and putting across a positive message. The video shows how men would react to being objectified as women are thought to have been in the original. It has been watched more than 450,000 times since being posted on August 30th and, as I've said, it's brilliant. Far better, far more positive and far funnier than the original.  

Women can be just as bad as men sometimes, I know that. As this remake proves, sexism isn't all about the degradation and objectification of women. It's about society trying to define us based on our gender. Women are portrayed as overemotional and are objectified. Men are portrayed as unemotional and sexually obsessed. So when a women grabs some guys arse in a club, it's ok, because society says that's the kind of things that men like. Right? No. Wrong. Completely wrong.

Ending sexism isn't about empowering women or empowering men. It's about giving everyone the right to be who they want to be without the judgement of society telling them who they should be, how they should act and how they should look because of what's between (or not between) their legs. Simple.

Disney on feminism

I don't know whether it had been made 100% clear in all of my previous posts but I'm sure it has shone through in some that I'm all for feminism, especially for both genders.

You may also know, or not know, that I am a massive Disney fan. Literally. It's a sickness.

And so, today I will attempt to bring these two entities together in a collision that will shortly make sense to those among you who are completely baffled to the point which I am trying to make.

So, let's begin. This morning as I logged into Facebook while wasting away any hopes of achieving my potential as always, I browsed the 'news feed' for any references I could use for a new blog post to mostly make myself seem wittier than I am, when I saw a 'new' Facebook group pop up, in an attempt to entice me to liking the page. I say that it was new but, of course, what I mean is that I'd never seen it before.

Firstly, for those of you who don't own a Facebook page, like my father who is undoubtedly reading this, a Facebook group serves three purposes on the social networking site. It;

1) Serves as an excuse to get people to do things.

For example - If 1000 people join this group, Joe Blogs will admit that he is gay.

2) Is the best way to get something done without having too much contact with the human world.

For example - If 1000 people join this group, my girlfriend has said that she will marry me.

3) Serves to point out the bloody obvious.

For example - Join this group if you breathe.

Basically, a Facebook group will show everyone what interests you have and such. I assume that this goes on to manifest into a mutual interest which, theoretically, would manifest into friendship but, so far, I've had no evidence to support that theory.

So anyway, today I came across the Facebook group 'Disney gave me unrealistic expectations of men.'

Admittedly not the same title but you get my drift...

Firstly, yes, of course it did. Disney is fictional.

Secondly, yes, of course it did! Not all men are princes, to start with, and not all men are willing to fight dragons, evil sea creatures, evil Queens, chase women half way across the world or send telegrams around all the houses in the immediate area to find you. These are the kind of men you want to ride off into the sunset with - the ones who you, according to the movies, will never encounter a single problem with. What real life man can compete with that? As much as it pains me to criticise Walter Disney, Disney films portray an unrealistic and glorified version of love. If love were as simple as it is made out to be in these films, then we would all have found our significant others by my age and the world would be wonderful and full of love and blah blah blah.

Thirdly, even if these men did actually exist in today's society, I can assure you that you would not actually consider dating them. We all know that no one is more of a model for a future knight in shining armour than a good, old fashioned Disney Prince, despite being unrealistic or not but, in today's society, they would probably not be contenders for women's hearts.

For example, Prince Charming from Cinderella. Arguably the original Disney Prince, whose romantic decision making skills rest largely on his foot fetish. In today's society - Freak.

Beast from Beauty and the Beast. He's scary and he submits the village beauty to Stockholm Syndrome straight away but, all that is forgiven the second he gives Belle a library. In today's society - Unrealistic.

'The Prince' from Snow White. A prince who apparently doesn't have a name who goes out in search of what has been described as the fairest girl in the kingdom so that he can kiss her to bring her out of a spell and marry her, even though they've never met before. In today's society -  Lookist, egotistical and vain. 

Aladdin from Aladdin (obviously). A thief who is politically opposed to wearing a shirt but a firm advocate of the tiny purple vest who steals the less personable Kim Kardashian from her palace late at night for a carpet ride. In today's society - Girl snatcher.

Prince Eric from The Little Mermaid. A rich prince who can't tell the difference between an evil singing brunette and the ginger girl who saved him earlier in the film, and who is ready to marry a girl who has literally never spoken to him after at least 5 dates. In today's society - Untrustworthy and plain stupid.

I could go on but I'm sure you get my point. But this wasn't the only thing that bothered me about this group.

Mostly, this group got me asking myself one serious question. Are we all forgetting the co stars of these films? Admittedly, most of the Disney Princesses can be perceived as being a bit pathetic but they all stand for something, which we are encouraged to do by modern feminism.  Cinderella embodies hard work, hope and staying true to who you are. Belle stands for loyalty and intelligence. Snow White stands for being pure, innocent, loving and open minded. Jasmine stands for having sharp wit, despite being perceived as a bit of an air head and Ariel stands for freedom and sometimes stubbornness.  

The best Disney princess I can refer to on this point is Mulan who isn't officially a Princess but the Hero of China, which I'd prefer to have as a title any day. Mulan goes into battle so her father doesn't have to and, she risks her life for him by joining an army that had severe punishments for women pretending to be men. Honestly, out of all of the Disney Princesses, she had to be the best.

Mulan

Really, what I'm trying to say here is that I don't understand why girls these days are still spending their time and squandering their intelligence on waiting for a Prince who does not and cannot physically exist to come and sweep them off their feet, when they have such great role models to look up to. To me, it is evident that these Disney films were not made to give women unrealistic expectations of men, but were made to prove to women that they can stand for something and that, should they be lucky enough to find their Prince, he is found through hard work, dedication and persistence. What we really need to do when we watch these films is not moan about how no men in the real world are like that and fawn over fictional characters, but take a closer look at the co-stars of these 'perfect' men and learn from them. 

Welcome to Carnage - Alcohol, dressing up and sexism

Today, as I was informed by my handy iPhone 4s that I hadn't written a blog in near enough to ten days, I let out a sigh of agitation and proceeded to throw it the length of the room (I'M JOKING MOTHER). I am very sorry that I haven't updated in these last ten days or more - I'm sure you've all been going out of your minds with boredom, especially the few who have emailed me in the last week to tell me you've bookmarked my blog in your favourites as a subtle hint - (I'm touched guys, but maybe it's time to turn the computer off now and do something else with your lives). The point is, I'm back, my internet isn't playing up quite as bad anymore, and I've finally finished my work to a mediocre standard, which means I have more time to doss around.

Anyway, today after I picked my phone up off my sofa and sobbed a truly heartfelt apology, I finally took some notice of the flyers that my housemates have decided to stick to the walls. (This is done in the vain hope that we'll entice each other to go to these events throughout the year, which will be dominated by the typical 'Fresher'.) I soaked up all the information like the wonderful student I am, and couldn't believe it when I read that the carnage theme of 'Pimps and Hoes' was actually happening. There was me thinking that my boyfriend had been lying to me!

Slag'n'Drag. Geeks and Sluts. CEOs and Corporate Hoes. Golf pros and tennis hoes. Ah - I see that Fresher's week hasn't diminished after its ending last week- It's returned with a gusto of sexism. How interesting.

The most notorious and debauched student pub crawl takes place tomorrow night. Hundreds of Freshies will be taking to the streets of Swansea to participate - unashamedly stumbling around, kissing on the streets, reeking of vodka shots and behaving as their usual drink and disorderly selves. Female students will more than likely be wearing little other than bras and miniskirts with suspenders as they adhere to the fancy dress code of prostitutes, while male students will be wearing the typical glasses and full on suits that make your eyes water.

All this for ten pounds? Thank God I'm not going!

In all seriousness, it has raised a fair bit of controversy this week in the national news. The sexual objectification that the 'Pimps and Hoes' theme trivialises is something that I am against, which is why I'm not going. I know that we students like a laugh, a kebab at 3am and a good ol' fashioned piss up to proceed it, but even I think this is taking it a tad too far. And frankly, I'm always so far past the line, that it's a dot to me.

Let's look at it this way; a 2010 study conducted by everyone's favourite free-stuff-giving organisation, the NUS, showed that out of a nationwide sample of 2000 female students, 14% had been physically or sexually assaulted, 68% were subjected to sexual harassment and nearly 15% had experience unwanted sexual contact during their time at university. Given that bundle of statistics, maybe it's time for carnage to come up with a new theme.

I think that it's perfectly possible that the intention is light-hearted, and I hear all the people out there shouting that it's only fancy dress and that, (and yes, I've seriously read this argument), you're only young once, but it's scary to consider that a bunch of fresh faced, over enthusiastic and highly intoxicated students are being sent a message based on sexual devaluation. Male students are made to believe that they are powerful, intelligent and talented with titles following successful lines, while female students are led to believe that they are the subjects of their sexual desires. Sorry lads, but I'm far more than a sexual desire - I'm a woman with (semi) intelligent thoughts, (half hearted) feelings and fantastic sandwich making abilities. And I don't feel like being some sort of sexual object. Thanks, but no thanks.

Adam Gray/ SWNS.com

Ladies, let's get this straight. You don't have to participate! Like I said, I'm glad I'm not going. I don't really see the attraction paying ten pounds of wearing a pair of short shorts that I -

1) Don't own

2) Will cost me money I don't have

and 3) will (undoubtedly) proudly put my thunder thighs and cheeks on display for drunken lads to grab at. I don't own any fishnet stockings, corsets or a black hat to round off the whole assemble either, (if I had enough clothes on to call it that) and, I think that, like any other girl, I would have to have a hell of a lot of alcohol in my system to feel good about myself when dressed like a prostitute. I can walk around my room at home on any old day in just my underwear for free. So, I think I'll pass on that event.

What I want to know is what happened to the good, clean and fun carnages that we had last year? All I was expected to do was dress up as a nurse, a cavewoman and a policewoman  In that order. I can admit that some female students took pleasure in sexualising these somewhat innocent forms of dress, but I didn't. I'll be honest - I wore about fifty layers Dad. Scratch that, I wore a full on burka. I promise.

Adam Gray/ SWNS.com

I swear to God that last year, Carnage was promoted as an event where you got to meet people. I didn't meet anyone I particularly liked, if I'm perfectly honest, (bar a lovely hobo named Jonathan), and I can't imagine meeting anyone I'd want to make lifelong friends with after showing them more flesh than my mother has seen of me for years. The nice friends that my family so desperately craves me to find this year will not be found while I am wearing next to nothing.

This theme of 'Pimps and Hoes' has brought so much in to light - newspapers and blogs especially have been ranting about the sexual objectification of women and, as a result, the fad that is 'slut dropping' has been brought to the forefront of our attention.

Slut dropping is literally one of the most disgusting things I think I've ever read about. The idea, my clean minded, innocent friends, is to drive around town with friends in the early hours of the morning in the pursuit of offering a lift home to a woman that they deem as a 'slut' - (this is usually someone who is stumbling, drunk and all of the other things I described the young fresher's to be as of tomorrow night.) After asking her address, they drive as fast and as far as possible in the opposite direction, before forcing the women out of the car and filming her as they drive away. While there has only been one reported event of it, it's disturbing, we can't deny it.

Then again, who gets into a strangers car, drunk or sober?  

Thank God for the women's officer who gave me a brand new free rape alarm this week. Can't say I'm loving the faulty pin on it that made it go off at around 5am this morning, prompting me to think I was actually being raped but, the idea is there and my safety is intact. (IGNORE THE IRONY!)

All I'm trying to say with this blog is that women shouldn't be objectified in an event where the sole purpose is to drink yourself into a stupor that will undoubtedly still be hanging around  a week later. I'm not saying that female students shouldn't go out and enjoy themselves because 1) That would make me a hypocrite and 2) I would lost at least half of my blog readership. Women should be able to go out, get drunk and do whatever the hell they like. YOU ARE FREE WOMEN! But dressed as prostitutes? Well, that's a whole other kettle of fish...

The F word

Today, I am approaching  a subject that is bound to seriously damage the number of people who read my blog. Or rather, the number of friends that I have who are willing/forced to read my blog after my constant coercing.  I should be scared of potentially becoming 'that bitch on the internet', but, due to a healthy supply of fizzy drinks, chocolate bars, sweets and fat based products, I'm quite calm about the whole thing.

If you've been reading my blogs of late, then you'll know that two out of the five that have been posted are full of ranting about men's perception of women and, the pressures that women face in the modern day world. While I still maintain that fact, I just want to point out some home truths about modern feminism that will probably make Emmeline Pankhurst roll in her grave.

Let's get one thing straight before we go steam rolling into this sensitive issue; I am a feminist. I completely support women's rights; I spent God knows how many years in school learning about the Suffragettes movement, and many more continuing to learn about it in my free time. I spent my childhood being told by my grandparents to embrace my rights as a woman, that had been fought for nearing a century ago. I have the utmost respect for the movement and, it makes me proud that we still continue to work tirelessly for women's rights. But, I feel that the whole campaign is becoming somewhat.. close minded towards male feminists.

Here's my argument in a nutshell: men may make the odd joke about women staying in the kitchen and whatnot, but so do I. I refuse to have my rights to make jokes about my amazing abilities to make sandwiches  and doing golden medal worthy ironing away from me. The fact is, women are mean about men too. In fact, should you tune into ITV at half twelve on weekdays, (if, like me, you have nothing better to do), and that much will be proven. Loose Women is dedicated to talking about how stupid men are, and yet, they don't get taken off the air. The show represents a stereotype of modern feminism that, well, is crap really. There's a difference between women saying; "I am a woman, hear me shop, (sorry - can't help it) ROAR," and "I am a woman, listen to me giggling at my own jokes about how my partner is unable to perform the mundane domestic duties that I can."

How is that the liberation that the feminist movement has fought for? Can someone please point out to me how inviting bitter old women to gather around a table with cups of tea and bourbon biscuits to insult the male population is modern feminism? Frankly, I don't really want to be represented by this juvenile level rubbish.  

Whereas sexism against men isn't publicised as often as that against women, it does exist. Whether we ignore it or not, sexism against men is often a result of the same outdated gender rules that keep the female population in their place. Divorce courts often rule that the mother should have custody of their children, which we accept willingly. However, does no one want to point out that the British courts still seem to be operating under the attitude that it is a mother's job to have full custody of her children? And why do they often assume that father's cannot do the job that mother's can? My parents are divorced - and they are both wonderful people who have brought me up to be the fantastic and goddess like woman that I am. The fact that they shared custody of me wasn't a hindrance to my childhood. Fact is, men are just as capable as women.

Obnoxious male stereotypes stem from the same place as those that affect women: THE MEDIA. The idea that is drummed into women's heads by lad culture magazines, is that men are half brained, potential rapists who think of nothing but sex all the time and cannot have a conversation with a woman while looking them directly in the face. Plus, lad culture stresses that the only way men can enjoy themselves is by going out, getting absolutely car parked and having a good ol' fashioned manly fight. Maybe there are men like this out there, but the easy acceptance of the way that 'blokes' should be makes it near enough to impossible for them to be otherwise. Men drink alcohol until they throw up or piss in the streets and stare at tits 24/7 because they're 'real' men.

The list of things men cannot do is endless. They cannot enjoy dancing, care about their appearance too much or talk about their feelings. They aren't allowed to have feelings beyond being horny, angry or pissed. They can have relationships with other men, but they can't discuss emotions with them.  The fact is that sexism happens to men too. And sadly, men have no place in modern feminism to do anything about it. Male feminists do exist but, most of them feel like they can't have an opinion about feminism because they are men.

Like all my other blog posts, I'm getting too preachy. The point is feminism can be liberating for men, but its capability of being used as a tool for self development  is very influential. Gender aside, when we look at how society has effectively shaped your way of thinking, behavior, expectations of yourself and those around you and, the expectations of gender conformity, it can be such a release to break off from the conventionality that society pressures us with.

So, boys, if you need one reason to become a male feminist, here goes nothing: screw society's expectations of how you should be and screw lad cultures ideas of how you should perceive women. Fact is, we're more equal these days that we ever have been. Be whoever, do whatever and do it because you want to. Meanwhile, I'll put the kettle on and whip up a batch of cookies.

Just saying no... to plastic surgery

For you lucky few who have the privilege to know me personally, you'll all be able to agree that I am rather an opinionated person. (If you don't realise this by now, please make effort to get to know me better. Bring me some cookies. Buy me a sambuca and we'll be best friends.) Aside from that, I'm also a rather opinionated person with nothing to do for at least the next month other than read newspaper articles online. And today, I came across a rather interesting one.

Now, I realise that I have already ranted about the government pressuring us lovely British people that we need to generally be better at everything. But this article really bothered me. To all you 'manly men' out there reading this delightful blog,  I'm going to introduce you to a topic that circles women like a shopaholic let loose at a shoe sale. Something which you think you understand, but let's face it, as men, you don't understand much other than the offside rule and eating. So, here we are lads, the one thing you can't fathom about women - Breasts.

Yes boys, BREASTS. Not boobs. Not tits. Not nunga nungas, (though if you do have the chance to watch Angus, thongs and perfect snogging, I thoroughly recommend it.) Looking at breasts in lads magazines isn't going to broaden your knowledge of the subject, though it may distract you from zombie games for five seconds. Pretending to be fascinated by the quality of writing on page three of the Sun won't do it either - and yes we've all been there. Including me.

Different shapes and sizes don't make us different 

Boys, I know it's tempting but let's try not to objectify women, eh?  We have enough trouble as it is, what with all our 'sandwich making', 'ironing', 'cleaning' and shoe shopping to do. I don't think we need  a bunch of lads talking to our chests and not our faces on top of our problems. I'm not saying women are oppressed these days, but I'm not saying that we aren't either. But, that's a topic for another blog.

Now, as I've already said, I came across a rather interesting article today, courtesy of the BBC themselves. The link is just here >> BBCnews - Health. But, as we are the British population and we are slowly becoming too lethargic to even click a button, here's an overview.

So round 7,000 women in England along are being checked for have faulty breast implants. And around 47,000 women who live in the United Kingdom go under the knife privately, rather than with the NHS. I remember once reading that over 300,000 a women a year in the US alone undergo breast augmentation. That's a lot.

Apparently, there has been a major cause for concern regarding breast enhancement as it has recently been discovered that the cosmetic service industry may have been using substandard materials. The materials aren't toxic but, there are safety concerns. The French started the whole thing off, interfering in the way only the French can. Though, to give them credit, they were fully justified to do so in this situation. These PIP implants were statistically found to have double the risk of rupturing.

It isn't even the risk of having toxic tits that deters me from having implants. If anything, I'd have a breast reduction from a D cup to a C cup but, sadly, I am a poor student without a job and with enough common sense not to go through with it. Ladies, we all want to change something about ourselves, but selling off the family pet and taking out a loan with 1746% APR is a bit extreme. Let's all just calm down. Put the kettle on. Have an Irish coffee. And in the words of Uncle Bryn from Gavin and Stacey; "WILL YOU JUST LOOK AT YOURSELVES??"

You are BEAUTIFUL the way you are. You are born with everything you have and frankly, you should be grateful. Like I've said in a previous blog, and a billion times about the world's population, it's the person inside and not the package that counts.

Admittedly, we Britons enjoy pointing out our flaws to not only ourselves, but each other. The amount of times I've asked my boyfriend if my bum looks big in something is ridiculous. Plus, even when I get the answer I want, (ALWAYS a resounding NO, for future reference boys), I'm still not satisfied. We women never are. But that doesn't mean we should go under the knife unnecessarily  to embrace ourselves.

Plus, let's be honest here, nobody wants to end up looking like Katie Price. It isn't natural beauty and it isn't a true depiction of the typical British woman. Breast implants, lipo suction, bum enhancement and face lifts - all of them just make you look like a Barbie doll. I'd rather look like Ursula from the little mermaid and be happy than fear for my face if I get too near an open flame.

Valeria Lukyanova - The 21 year old Ukrainian seeking to be the real life Barbie doll 

Not to mention all the dangers that come with surgery itself. Women often have had to have additional surgery to fix their haphazard breasts, have complained of joint problems and suffered symptoms similar to 'Rheumatoid Arthritis ', (type it into Google and prepare to be put off surgery.) Some women have even had to take steroids to fix the millions of repercussions of cosmetic surgery, which, have negative effects in themselves.

Girls, I'm not saying the fires of hell will burn down on you should you even consider cosmetic surgery. And I'm not saying that some very obnoxious people may even encourage you to do it. I just want to make it clear that this is 2012. Our rights to be strong and independent women weren't handed on a silver platter. The sandwiches and crumpets might've been, but our rights to think for ourselves weren't. Try to embrace your bodies. Don't allow the media to pressure you into becoming something you weren't built to be.

Anyway, that's enough of that from me. If my negative ranting isn't enough to put you off enhancing yourself , feel free to watch Embarrassing Bodies on Channel 4. You will never eat at ten o clock in the evening again.

With my sincerest thanks to my boyfriend, who lies to me every day about my 'beach ball body'. If you enjoy my ranting, I'm sure you'll enjoy his a lot more! 

http://whatdidchrissaynow.blogspot.co.uk/