A very short message, to some very stupid trolls...

Some wonderful, incredible women that I care very much about are currently being subjected to hideous online abuse. They are receiving threats of death and sexual violence simply because they have raised their voices and succeeded in making positive changes for us all.

The good news, though, is that these women do not stand alone. They can count on the care and support of thousands upon thousands of people, and scores of campaign groups are rallying around them, including mine (No More Page 3).

To those who like to spend their time in abusing and bullying women on the internet, I would just like to say this:

If you think your prejudice and your anger is working here, or frightening us, or forcing us into retreat, then please be assured that it works only to deepen our resolve and strengthen our voices. Every threat we get makes us stronger, and brings us - as a feminist community - closer together. It also strengthens our cause tremendously as you help us demonstrate the misogynistic attitudes still in play. You are the reason that the public sees our work as increasingly important.

In a nutshell, if you wish to keep abusing us, then keep this one thought in mind: you're only making us stronger.

Mr Cameron, you've been misunderstanding...

Dear David Cameron,

I’m writing to you to ask you to support the No More Page 3 campaign.

I know you’ve not been a fan in the past. I know that you’ve dismissed us, told us to ‘turn the page’, and brushed off Caroline Lucas when she tried to engage you in debate, but, after listening to your interviews on Woman’s Hour and The Jeremy Vine show this week, I realised this has all been down to a terrible misunderstanding. During your conversation with Jane Garvey you said that you couldn’t support a ban on Page 3, and that it was not the place for government regulation. Good news. We agree!

You see, our campaign is not about banning Page 3 at all! Don’t feel too bad about it, you’re definitely not the only one who has made that mistake (our twitter feed is often riddled with people deploring us for our attack on the free press, and our apparent disregard for free speech). Our campaign does not ask for a ban. It does not ask for censorship. It certainly does not ask for government intervention or regulation. Instead, we try to explain the Editor of The Sun (currently David Dinsmore) why Page 3 is not a particularly responsible thing to feature in a mainstream publication, and reminding him that he has an editorial responsibility, and perhaps he could use that to some level of professionalism, and that we’re not living in an episode of On The Buses anymore. We do not look for a ban, we look to change attitudes.

The reason we do not ask for a ban is because a ban does not solve the problem of the damaging sexist attitudes that led to Page 3 even existing in the first place. A ban does not mean that the big players in mainstream media have suddenly woken up and thought ‘you know what, this is 2013, and not a Benny Hill sketch, and many of the people I love and care about are women, and maybe I should start treating them as people rather than tits and arse’. A ban would not change these attitudes. They would simply make them less visible, further encouraging misinformed misogynists to declare ‘I don’t even know what these feminists are on about - they have jobs, trousers and the vote, why can’t they just accept we’re all equal now and go make me a sandwich?!’. If there’s going to be sexist nonsense and outdated attitudes going on, I want them out there where I can see them - I want them on the twitter feeds, I want them in the bumbling rubbish spewed out by MPs and I want them dripping down the right-hand side of the Mail Online. Because if they’re out there where we can see them, then we can point at them, we can laugh at them, and, more importantly, we can fight them. And that’s what we’re doing with Page 3. We are, on a daily basis, pointing at this anachronistic example of sexism, and more and more people are joining us in saying ‘oh yeah, that’s not really right, is it.’ We’d really like you to be one of those people.

We do not ask for a ban because we would rather challenge The Sun’s sexism until their editorial team sees that it has no place in today’s society, until they can be persuaded that this is not right, and until they make the voluntary decision to remove the breasts of young women from the pages of their newspaper. I’m sure that this is something you can empathise with, having told Jeremy Vine that we ‘need companies to act responsibly’. We simply ask for The Sun to act responsibly. Or, at least, to stop acting like a bad 1970s sitcom.

So there you have it, David. We’re not asking that you impose a ban. We’re not asking that you put in place legislation. We’re simply asking that you make a stand alongside many of your colleagues, and thousands of women and men, to say ‘ Page 3 is not a decent or respectful way to treat women in our society’.  Now, I can’t think of one good reason why you wouldn’t sign. Can you?

Yours,

No More Page 3

Dear The Sun (Do men like you naked?)

Dear The Sun,

So, today you addressed one of the issues that many No More Page 3 campaigners have with your paper; you invited women of varying ages, varying ethnicities, and varying body shapes and sizes onto your pages, and went some way in demonstrating that beauty is more than white, slim and big breasted. It was a noble move, and one that I think you genuinely made with only good intentions. You invited women onto your pages, and allowed them to talk openly and honestly about their bodies, the relationships they have with their own self-image, and what they like about their bodies. So far, so positive.

But then, the women’s bodies were then presented to four other people (three of whom were men), for them to pass judgement on. The panel was made up of:

1) Dr Hilary Jones, a medical doctor (who brought the benefit of his professional opinion to the table with comments such as ‘[her] bigger bust makes her waist look slimmer’ and ‘I would imagine she has no health problems’. It is true that you can ascertain the state of a woman's health simply by looking at her naked body - it's one of the reasons why A&E waiting times are so short)

2) Kate Nightingale, a psychologist (who brought the benefit of her professional opinion to the table with comments such as ‘a push-up bra would be good’ and ‘She has lovely, slim legs so could show them off by wearing skirts and dresses’ - I guess maybe she moonlights for Femail’s fashion section?’)

3) Martin Daubney (an ex-editor of Loaded who talks about the women as if they were cars he’s considering buying)

4)And a builder called Luke. Because builders are the true people.

At this point, I have to ask whether you are aware of a television show in Denmark, called ‘Blachman’, on which women are invited on to unrobe, and then have their bodies discussed openly by a panel of men, and which has also been described by many as one of the most sexist shows on television. Oh, sorry, of course you have, you published this article about it...

In the article, you identify that the show is very controversial, and you talk about how ‘The pair...openly run their eye over the nude guests - and controversially judge the women on their bodies.’ I’m genuinely intrigued as to why you then decided to adopt this approach in your ‘hey ladies, let’s all love our bodies!’ article? Is it because ‘The female body thirsts for words...the words of a man.’ - oh no, sorry, that was Blachman, oh gosh, I’m getting so confused! Is it because, actually, a woman’s opinion of her own body is nowhere near as important as the judgement of strangers (particularly men). Maybe that’s why you chose to call the article ‘Do men like you naked’ rather than something like ‘I couldn’t give a shit about whether a man I’ve never met wants a bit or not, I’m actually pretty happy with whadda-got, and that kinda still stands whether strange men agree or not.’

I do think your intentions were good, but maybe you can see two glaringly dangerous things about promoting this approach to the female body. Firstly, you give women the idea that, even though they may come in all shapes and sizes, the ultimate validation should come from men. Sometimes men they don’t even know. And that women’s opinion of themselves will never be as important as men’s (including men they don’t even know). Secondly, and potentially most dangerously, you give men the idea that their opinions on our bodies are super important to our self-esteem, thus encouraging otherwise well-meaning men to think they’re doing us a favour by commenting on us physically and sexually, or by expressing their desire for us, regardless of whether that desire is wanted or not. Because women just want to know whether men approve, right? But, wait...what’s that other word that people use for unwanted physical and sexual attention? Oh, yeah, sexual harassment, that it’s. And, as the Everyday Sexism Project demonstrates, it’s a major problem for women globally, yet you’re continuing to feed into this idea that women’s bodies are there to be commented on, that women, whether they know it or not, ‘thirst for words...the words of a man.’

If you’re genuinely concerned about your female readership, and whether or not they feel comfortable in their own skin, then there’s one very important significant changes you could make: stop treating women as though their opinions and views on their own bodies are secondary to the opinions of strangers, and stop treating women’s bodies as objects for the approval and entertainment of men.

And d’you know how you could take one, big, easy step towards showing your respect for your female readership?

No. More. Page. 3.

Some thoughts on reading letters

I’ve started writing letters. And sending them. Otherwise it’d be a bit pointless. At first, it was a slightly novel, kitsch way of getting back in touch with old friends and family, or of demonstrating to friends that I talk to on facebook everyday anyway, that I think they’re wonderful, so will express this by handwrittenly rambling at them for a page or two. It was a ‘project’, as well, and I do love a ‘project’ (especially when it comes complete with a spreadsheet, in this case detailing who I’m going to write to, their addresses, when I’m going to write etc). So far, it’s been wonderful, eye-opening and, (at the risk of sounding like a complete dick) a very effective way of reigniting my excitement for writing. However, I don’t really want to talk about writing letters right now; I haven’t done anywhere near enough of that year. But, before I started writing, I read a lot of letters, and here are just a few thoughts on why reading letters is a great thing, and you should probably go try it.

It all started with Letters of Note. It’s a website that publishes significant and deeply interesting correspondence; some between famous people, world leaders, writers, astronauts, scientists; and some not written by public figures, but the contents of which are so interesting that they’re worth a wider readership. Some of my favourites are from freed slaves, writing in response to their ex-’owners’ requests that they return to be slaves again. Personally, I can’t imagine responding to such a request with anything except ‘?!’ carved into a brick and thrown through a window, but the letters that these newly-freed men and women composed are so full of strength and wit that I usually find myself fighting the urge to punch the air when reading them. (I usually read these letters in public spaces and that would probably attract strange looks).

Reading letters is fascinating. Initially, it struck me as incredible, that something once so everyday and practical could simultaneously be such moving and insightful writing. However, now that I’ve had more time to think about it, it makes perfect sense that letters should be this way; they are a form of writing that offers the writer more freedom and more intimacy with their reader than almost all other forms of writing.

It’s rare that we get to read something that wasn’t initially intended to be seen by a wide readership; newspaper articles, blogs, tweets, facebook posts, poems, novels; all these, though they may be directed at one person or one specific group of people, all carry the acknowledgment that other people are able and invited to read. There are theories that it’s the feeling of voyeurism that makes the act of reading things not intended for us so thrilling, but I don’t think this is what I found when reading letters. Instead, it was the experience of reading a wholly different kind of writing; one that can be specific and frank, one that can be deeply personal, and one that can sit and muse beautifully on the minutiae, if that happens to be the relationship that the writer has with their specific reader. The purpose of the writing also makes letters fascinating reading. The purposes of letters obviously vary wildly, but, usually, they aren’t written to widen a readership, or to impress or even to be particularly literary. They therefore seem to be much more honest. Sometimes painfully so.

When I was in school, I didn’t really understand why we were taught to write letters. It seemed archaic and irrelevant. My logic was, all forms of communication are just forms of communication, and why would I write a letter if I could put it into an email, or explain it on the phone? It didn’t occur to me that every form of communication is necessarily different from another; that our words impart a different nuance depending on the medium we chose to communicate it. We can send the exact same words over a number of different mediums, but the implications of each message would vary as they find themselves coloured by the context, etiquette and practicalities of different mediums (for example, you can’t communicate a narrative down the phone in the same way you can in a letter, because sooner or later someone’s going to interrupt you). This may be eye-wateringly obvious to everyone else, but it has only really become clear to me recently; that letters aren’t a replacement for other mediums, just as other forms of communication aren’t replacements for letters.

Now let me just write a few. Maybe I’ll have a few near-coherent thoughts on that too.

Not an angry letter (aka, Dear FHM)

Dear FHM, and Bauer News Media,

Thank you for your apology. The fact that you have recognised the hurt and anger that your editorial slip has caused is a positive thing, and I genuinely thank you for it. Your apology, however, demonstrates that you don’t see the situation as one for which you need to take responsibility, but rather as one caused by misinterpretation on the part of the reader. This means that a lot of people have been left unsatisfied with your response. I don’t want to assume that your apology is disingenuous; by issuing it, you’ve entered into a dialogue with those you've upset, and that is good. You’ve given us an idea of your point of view of the joke, and this is helpful.

You may genuinely see it purely as a misinterpretation, and the writer of the joke may never have intended ‘victim’ to be read as ‘victim of rape/violence/murder’. Rape ‘victim’ was my initial reading of it, but I have since seen other possible readings of it, and friends have pointed out other ways that it can be read. However, this does not make the reaction of those who read it as ‘victim’ in the sense of violence any less valid nor any less distressing. You must understand that the writing you produce can be interpreted in many ways, be sensitive to this, and accept responsibility when ambiguity in your writing leads to a valid reading that you are making jokes in regards to violence against women. And I think that, as reasonable people, you can accept that that is what the joke looks like to many people.

It might also be helpful for you to understand why it looks this way to many people. Women are used to being portrayed in the media as sex objects, doting supporters of men (mothers or partners), or victims. I might sound like an old record to you, but recent research by Women in Journalism has found this to be a very pressing reality; we are either represented sexually, or as victims, or not at all. There is also another fact I’m hoping you are aware of; current austerity measures in this country mean that support for violated women has been drastically cut, meaning that women are not only frequently victims of violence, but now find it harder than ever to escape such violence. We are faced with a government telling us that our safety is not a priority. Add to that a press that makes light of offences against us, and you can see that this is quite a tense time to be a woman. So, when people see examples of someone making light of this situation, in a way that humiliates and threatens victims of violence, they are likely to react negatively and strongly.

I know you meant it in fun, not malice. I also know it wasn’t intended for me as a reader. I am not your readership. But I am on the receiving end of your readership’s attitude towards women, so the normalisation of violence against women has very real implications for me and other women. YouGov states that one in three teenage girls have reported being groped or receiving unwanted sexual contact whilst at school. One in three. And that’s only the number that have actually declared it. I’m hoping you can come to understand that sexual harassment and violence is a very real problem for women, and finding ways to lighten the issue for your male readership can only make the world a more hostile place for us.

I do understand that the joke was not intended for me. I’m not offended because I didn’t find it funny; rather, I was disturbed that violence against me was being casually joked about. Please understand that the women who are upset by this are not kill-joys, or trying to find things to be outraged about; we are worried - we are worried by the very real threat of violence, and the potential increase in that threat if mainstream publications normalise violent behaviour.    

I realise you did not mean to cause offence, but unfortunately you have unwittingly caused offence. The fact that you have responded with an apology is appreciated and I genuinely applaud you for engaging positively with your critics. But do not be surprised if your deflection of responsibility is not enough for many people. Please continue to listen to your critics, try to understand their fears, and respond appropriately and sensitively, and, finally, please take responsibility for the upset that your editorial slip has caused. You will only be respected for it.

We, the undersigned, agree with and support this letter.

Sacha Scott, Stuart Wigby, Ché Bee, Matt Bradshaw, Robbie Pickles

from Wadham Feminists
Phillippa Hibbs, AliceThomas, Hannah Dart, Amy Muckersie, Adrienne Joy, Lloyd Houston, Rosa Bennathan, Rhiannon Kelly, Yara Rodrigues Fowler, Sarah Poulten, Alexander Beecham, Anya Metzer, Eleanor Connor

from No More Page 3
Lucy-Ann Holmes, Jess Rhodes, Katie Pollard, Rachel Holland, Sam Naylor, Jen Hicks Taylor, Emma Tofi, Mel Prideaux, Fran Kilshaw, Lauren O’Sullivan, Sylvie Martlew, Alice McCallum, Mel James, Hannah Curtis, Marie Paludan, Grace Kavanagh, Bronwen Kate Fogg, Malcolm Fogg, Em Ze, Gill Rimmer, Cloudi Bluebell Lewis, Emily Beeson, Laur Evans, Katherine Armstrong, Keris Stainton, Claire Wade, Sadie Rees Hales, Eilidh Brown, Ceris Aston, Sara Guthrie, Kate Elizabeth Talbot, Rebecca Lehman, Clare Davidson, Abigail Rutherford, Sarah Jones, Nicole Stanfield-Caile, Claire Jones, Lizzie Houghton, Charlotte Fowles, Ruth Graham, Anna Bowen, Irene Walker, Jen Conway, Georgie Agass, Sam Chapman, Em Brewin, Rachel Graham, Sarah Gimigliano, Christopher Flux, Jayne Drury, Kathy Coutanche, Lame Magaga, Lara Scott, Rachel Dawson, Simon Bell, Grainne Purkiss, Sarah Pitt, Angela Gavin Towers, Louise Bromby, Tom Janes, June Stamper, Jessica Grace Moule, Shain Wells, Sophie Cole-Hamilton, Cliodhna Tyan, Emily Gray, Ashley Parke, Lauren Bravo, Hannah West, Amy Greenwell, Claire Postles, Charlotte Satchell, Angela Haynes, Cath Campbell, Louise Futcher, Lucy Alton, Holly MacDonald, Penni B rown, Lou Stirna, Alexandra Bateman, Ruth Tucknott, Joanna Chick, Jenna Sutherland, Sarah Cooper, Lizzie Blowey, Lindsey Withey, Claire Scott, Pippa Banham, Linda Theaker, Sue Jones, Lloyd Mills, Anna Tippett, Danni Smith, Claire Alexander, Ellen McGirr, Katy Chadwick, Alice Pember, Claire Butler, Rebecca Lax, Liz Chadwick, Jonathan J Williams, Rebecca Myers, Alison Davis-Kurley, Annelise O’Brien, Amy Kirkham, James French, Sam KayeSarah Faulkner, Emily Thompson, Kate Paice, Xenia Davis, Kirsty Hughes, Rebecca Milborne, Fiona Conway, Amy-Elizabeth Jones, Karolina Fung-On, Allison McCulloch, Charlotte McEvoy, Jessica Flowerdew, Ann Ruthven, Samantha Mackley, Jessamy Reynolds, Rebecca Linsdell, Maria Lehy, Hail Thompson, Sadie Price, Caroline Courtney, Rohanna Law, Elizabeth Ings, Sandy Alexander, Cathy Evans, Rowen West-Henzell, Sarah K. Bond, Alyson Fennell, Sarah Vogel, Dee Gorman, Aoifs Warren, Emily Harle, Frankie Edwards, Ben Picknett, Jenny Fyans, Fiona O’Carroll, Jen Aggleton, Eleanor Roberts, Katie Rhymer, Mhairi McGowan, Cheski Granger, Alice Knowles, Kate Pickett, Rebecca Chadwick, Caroline Tosal, Maddy Mould, Emma Sadera, Naomi Joy Makin, Debbie Brannon, Jessica Payne, Rosie Whitmore, Hayley Adele Robinson, Rosalind Oliver, Sonia Viner, Dawn Redpath, Summer Jade Dolan, Georgia Novis, Izzy Butcher, Anna Morris, Penny Lee, Tom Ball, Jo Cooper, Paul Clayton, Hannah F, Chloe Stables, Louisa Wells, Emma Bruff, RoseMary Warrington, Sophie Becket, Rebecca Askew, Sara Brammall, Georgia Waterton, Breege Whiten, Julie Clarke, Paula Court, Kelly Frost, Grace Murray, Jenny Brammall, Victoria Asquith, Fiorella Des’ree Jacobson, Hannah Partington, Imogen McCarthy, Kenneth José Lambert Loria, Nwando Ebizie, Bella Ferne Heesom, Sharon Thompson, Siobhan Smith, Helen Jenkins, Nicole Rowe, Anne Taylor, Clare Lion, Neve Ellis, Linda Walker, Gillian Riddell, Helena Horal, Ellie Judge, Asuka Leslie, Iris Flower, Paul Shepherd, Lisa Clarke, Caroline Taylor, Stephanie Pearce, Fiona McCallum, Aoife Kiely, Tracy Duckett, Claire Innes, Jackie Fitzsimons Lund, Sarah Vile, Beccy Hill, Barbara Boucher Brown, Katherine Hadoke, Louis Alloneword Lunts, Jessica Crowe, Fiona White, Rebecca Rose, Nicola Kerry, Jessica Stickland, Nathalie Lowe, Paulin Qu, Stephanie Davies-Arai, Lucy Fey, Emily Watson, Aislinn Corcoran, Caroline Pover, Ali Painter, Rachel Moss, Abigail Whitbread, Emma Cannings, Carri Gardiner, Frances Demuth, Michaela Sneddon, Eva Wilkinson, Hannah F Davis, Lucy Claire White, Elizabeth Roles, Kerry Gilroy, Caroline F J Hargreaves, Orla Mc, Will Wollen, Winking McScankster, Fiona Shaw, Andrea Watts, Valeria Murphy, Ellen Newberry, Sarah Louise Fellows, Cat Millar, Dan Fallon, Sarah Vogel, Kate Pickett, Catherine Svars Ker, Sarah Law, Claire Alexander, Sara Guthrie, Rosy Stephenson, Jane Dearman, Ali Painter, Nicola KerryRachel Dawson, Rosalie Courtney, Orla Pearson, Sophie Becket, Julie Clarke, Sarah Faulkner, Ariya Boone, Sam Naylor, Amyy Mallon, Nathan Stewart, Jessica Crowe, Ange Walter, Liz Naylor, June Stamper, Joanne Staunton, Lottie Hayes, Linzie Marie Clark, Anna Bowen, Jennifer McColgan, Diane Cox, Angela Gavin Towers, Grace Curran, Alasdair Murray, Jasmine Andersson, Hazel Ruxton, Sylvie Martlew, Lauren Parsons, Charlotte McEvoy, Severine Bernasconi, Tracy Hawdon, Claire Butler, Mandy Marshall, Katie Weidmann, Jess Rhodes, Chris Bromby, Marianne Skogen, Katy Turner, Mandy Meaghan, Julia Tippett, Lauren Wayland, Hannah Partington, Halima Cake Jafari, Asuka Leslie, Sarah Piantados, Alexandra Bateman, Dean Belfield, John Bruce, Ann Ruthven, Belén Amaia, Imogen McCarthy, Jacqueline Upton, Bernadette Gea Gea, Jen Hicks Taylor, Malcolm Mackintosh, Mick Swann, Amy Driver, Rosalind, Nicole Stanfield-Caile, Jane Lewis, Helena Horal, Reema Goldsmith, Sarah Gimigliano, Becky Symes, Lauren Bravo, Linda Theaker, James Galvin, Carys Nia Williams, Alistair Wardrope, Rachel Bellos, Jane Crawshaw, Noelle Magrino.

This isn't just any casual sexism....

Christmas gift buying can be hard. Accepted. And not just because the entire nation is simultaneously trying to plunder the entire high street, but because, suddenly, you find yourself having to define your relationship to someone in the form of a purchaseable, physical object.* You are faced with the challenge of finding something personal, that demonstrates that you have the faintest idea who that person is, what they like, what is important to them. For some people, this comes very naturally, but for others, it’s a real struggle.

So in steps the Christmas Gift Guide. The idea behind this handy shopping aid is that it will categorise items into what would make a good gift for different groups of people, thus narrowing down your search a little, and allowing some ideas you may not have considered to be presented to you. So far, so incredibly helpful. The problem is, though, categorised as it so often is into ‘for him’ and ‘for her’, the Christmas Gift Guide is also a festive bastion of casual sexism.

Take Marks and Spencers for example. Now, M&S is a shop I usually get along famously with. They do good, quality clothes for a wide variety of women and, unlike, say, Topshop, they have no pretensions that putting an outfit together should be a competitive bloodsport. If you go into their stores, you’ll probably also find that their Christmas section is pretty good. Their online gift guide, however, is dire.

It, like so many others, is based on the ‘for him’ ‘for her’ premise. Chose ‘for her’, and the site then takes you to a ‘for her’ site that offers three categories of ‘Lingerie’, ‘Beauty’ and ‘Cashmere’. The ‘for him’ section will take you to an equally bland section that also recommends ‘Cashmere’ alongside ‘Leather’ and ‘Boys Toys’. The Boys Toys section features the best - all the non-gender specific things, that aren’t specifically feminine, and so must be for the boys. Stuff for the car, for example (which i’m classifying as gender neutral as a SHIT TONNE of women drive, it’s not just something men do for fun), desktop games, lamps, notebooks, trivia cards. Y’know, the good stuff. The fun stuff.

However, worst bit is probably the ‘Gift Finder’. This asks you to define your intended recipient by gender, relationship (are they your mum, brother, friend, etc), age and then one of 5 personality types. The personality types for men are as follows:
Dapper Dresser (so, basically, likes clothes and is under 50)
Perfect Gent (likes clothes and is over 50)
Big Kid (likes toys/gadgets)
Gastronomic Gourmet (likes food)
Great Explorer (likes travel)

The 5 categories for women are:
Fashionista (likes clothes)
Glamour Puss (likes clothes)
Accessory Addict (likes things that go with clothes)
Lingerie Lover (likes things that go under clothes)
Domestic Goddess (likes things for the home)

The problem with this is so glaringly, ‘let’s-point-and-laugh’ stereotypically sexist that I can’t really be bothered to dissect it too. It’s the whole ‘women like shiny things/fashion’, ‘women want to look nice’, ‘women don’t want anything that’s not expressly related to being a woman’ etc etc etc - it’s all standard stuff and if you feel a bit left behind at this point I suggest you go and read ALL of The Vagenda.

No, casual sexism is only one problem. The other problem is that it is deeply, deeply unhelpful. Because it offers to give you help finding that perfect gift for your loved one, but then effectively only provides two categories (home and clothes) for women, and leaves everything else to the guys in a generic ‘boys toys’ category that doesn’t help you search for anything else. There’s a bizarre paradox that we should be presenting personal gifts that express the fact that we know, and have thought, about a person, but in order to do it we have to forget everything we know about that person except what gender they belong to. ‘Oh, your mum is it, here, how about a Great British Bake Off cake tin?’.

Last year, I got nearly all my present ideas from The Independent’s online gift guide. And d’you know why? Because it was categorised by interest. Gifts for gardeners, gifts for book lovers, gifts for foodies, etc. The fact is, our gender is only one tiny slice of our identities. I’m a woman, but I’m also a runner, a reader, a writer, an eater, a baker, a traveller (kind of), a stationery geek and a person who is getting increasingly fascinated by the first manned space missions. My boyfriend is a man, but he’s also a cook, a musician, a reader, a gamer, a runner, a drinks connoisseur and a person who appreciates good kitchenware.

But when large marketing campaigns such as Christmas sales appear, this fact is forgotten, because it is much easier to try and pretend that the population can be split into two camps and then you don’t need to design a marketing strategy that address too many different groups of people. It’s easier. John Lewis has made a better go of it by dividing into gender but then dividing into interest, so, sports, home, clothes, travel, books etc (maybe because the range they sell is much wider and this approach wouldn’t really work for M&S who pretty much just sell clothes and food). So, Dear Department Stores and anyone else who cares to tell us what to buy this Christmas - please get to know your customers, please get to know your target market. Please acknowledge that people are a bit more diverse than 'the ones with and without the tits' (I'd probably fall into the latter), and, please, Please, don't try to take all the magic out of Christmas to the point where you’re encouraging people to think of their family members as 1950s, chocolate-box stereotypes.



*Obviously, not all gifts have to be purchaseable - you can always bypass this particular brand of stress, and make them.

Still Life

This is a guest blog by Alice Thomas - historian, lawyer, award-winning public speaker and baker extraordinaire, who also takes mighty fine photographs, but not usually of women in bikinis. She tweets as @AliceBThomas. Because that is her name.

It was a phenomenal day. But a less than generous photo.

If I could do one thing to improve British women's body image, I would ban cameras.  I'd have an amnesty, collect them all up, and melt them down – possibly to make a giant sculpture of a happy, scruffy woman.

Why? Because cameras are the main way that paparazzi, porn, and magazines – the three corners of the Bermuda triangle of a modern woman's self-esteem – filter into everyday life. It starts with airbrushed cover shots. Then there are the sweat-patches, spots and (whisper it) body hair all properly circled and captioned – “Eurgh! Disgusting!” – so women know what they have to be ashamed. Finally, there are the 25 shots of Imogen Thomas in a bikini, just to remind you that even if you get a few good pictures, someone will wait until you forget to suck it all in to snap another one. Famous women have to be unnaturally perfect from every angle all the time.

That shouldn't matter. Most of us aren't Angelina Jolie and even if the Imogen Thomases of this world clearly like having bikini shots taken, the rest of us aren't obliged to join in. But it does matter, because we are surrounded by cameras all the time. The camera on my phone has more megapixels than Lady Gaga has twitter followers, and any time I go out there are at least 30 photos on Facebook the next day. My experience seems to be pretty standard. The constant expectation that we will be photographed, along with the unrealistic expectations we have of those photographs, can seriously fuck with how we feel about ourselves.

The pressure to look photo-ready is starting to filter through to beauty advice. I was reading a blog post on a bridal site (don't ask) that suggested that even women who never wear makeup should get the full clown-face on their big day because otherwise they'll look 'washed out' and 'anaemic' in the photographs. There was nothing about feeling comfortable and being yourself on your wedding day. Brides just had to remember that if you can pull off full Essex Friday night warpaint and put up with the itching all day, you'll look great twenty years later in the photos.

The article that actually prompted this one, though, was a list of 'women's ideal bikini bodies' that  explained how most of the women in their photographs were actually underweight. Gwyneth Paltrow, the favourite bikini body on the list, is at risk from osteoporosis because her diet is so restrictive her bones are brittle. I remember thinking that my sister looks awesome in a bikini – she's all blonde and curvy with Christina-Hendricks skin – but if you look at photos of her, she looks chubby and pale. I reckon if I saw these 'ideal' bodies in real life, they would look like skeletons or children or bodybuilders.

I'm not trying to suggest that 'bodybuilder', or 'child', or even 'Essex warpaint' is a bad look if that's what a woman aims to look like all the time (I draw the line at 'skeleton'). It just seems that so much of what women do to their bodies and their faces is a response to the idea that the most important part of a night out or a holiday is the photos afterwards. We have been deluded into thinking that, since so much of our life is photographed, the photographs are life.

We should be living our lives for the 99% that's actually living, not the 1% that's stored on a memory card. In the real world, if you're a healthy weight, you get a bit of exercise, you don't live off cake (unless you're Mary Berry), and you don't think about how you might look on camera every second, you're pretty much doing fine. If we can't do that, maybe we should stop asking the women to get thinner or flatter or browner, and start asking Nikon to make more accurate cameras.