Fashion is not Vain, Dumb, or Stupid.

Ziad Ghanem Catwalk Show, AW14. (My image)

There is an assumption that fashion and feminism are on opposite ends of the 'interests spectrum', the former is compromised by the latter, and they never go hand in hand. The general outlook is that you cannot be a feminist if you like clothes, because clothes are vain, shallow, and insignificant and females, in the eyes of feminism (all rational people) are none of the above (correct) and should therefore disassociate themselves from such a mundane past time (incorrect). What is so often over looked is the fact that the opinions surrounding fashion are intentional and have been socially conditioned because this artform is the one area in life where women have a greater freedom of expression than men. 

Fashion is treated as trivial because women are treated as trivial. 

It is the height of irony that women are perceived as ornamental beings, objects of desire, and are constantly encouraged to tirelessly seek out a better physical self, yet when we take an interest in the very same attire that we are supposed to shower ourselves in in order to achieve all of this, we are punished for it. We become self centred creatures. Really, there is no winning. As a woman, you're either not good enough or you're trying too hard and this is exactly why feminism needs to be associated with fashion.

It is a definite form of sexisim to turn one of the only forms of expressions where women are free to liberate themselves and twist it into something that is worthless; an interest you should be embarrassed about taking a liking to.    

When the shoe was on the other foot and the most exquisite clothes were worn by the richest men in the land, frills, fabrics, and wigs were a status symbol and a goal to aspire to whilst those who weren't elites, Lords, or Ladies had to make do with rags and a palette of greys. But over time, more fabrics became widely available and more people were able to dabble within the realms of fashion, including women. And this isn't liked... the whole 'women having power' thing.

The tide has turned and women are free to adopt an androgynous appearance, in fact it's on trend, but it's a rather different situation for men. I'm not saying this is right, because it isn't, and anybody who knows me understands my firm belief that if I were a boy, I'd be a drag queen. I'm all for a man in a frock. But not everybody else is and whilst women are free to take on masculinity within the fashion sphere, the same does not go for men and even the idea of a 'man bag' is met with a widespread cringe. Men adopting female clothing styles can expect mockery at best and prejudice or even violence at worst. There are also sexist reasons for why it's this way around- masculinity offers an admirable sense of power while femininity is inferior and is not a quality worth aiming for- but the point remains, women have greater flexibility. And men, in history, have found this power unsettling because women have risen above their place and this is where the negative stigmas come from... men tied women down to stop the art form from revolutionising a females position within society. 

The sad thing is that it worked and can by proven by the fact that women's fashion is not made by women. You are far more likely to succeed within the industry if you are a man. Where is the justice in having an industry that is heavily targeted at women being controlled predominantly by Men? Of course, there are powerful women... let us not forget Dame Vivienne Westwood and the infamously fearsome Anna Wintour of Vogue. But she's most likely been a bitch because she's had to be- it is not easy to earn enough to survive in fashion never mind making millions as a woman at the top. On a small scale, of the 20 students on my art foundation course, which has recently drawn to a conclusion, only 3 were male and yet the odds are in their favour in terms of being the most successful. Likewise, the girl:boy ratio at UAL, a group of London art universities which include the best fashion & arts institutes in the world, is 75% female and 25% male. These students are the creme de la creme and yet 75% of students studying are at an immediate loss because of their gender.

Despite men being far and few between at the relevant universities, the situation is completely reversed at some point during the translation of studying and forging a career. Although it's difficult to gather statistics, the Womenswear Designer of the Year is perfect in showing the gulf between genders. Over the last 13 years, the prize has been given to a man 8 times but a woman is yet to win the Menswear Designer of the year award. Fashion is therefore a feminist issue and instead of one being completely disassociated from the other, they need to start working together and allow women to swim, not sink.

For this to happen, there are a number of ideas that have been forged and need to be undone again in order to rid the negative tones that have been attached to the interest that someone may choose to have in clothes. We need to modernise the thought process when people hear the word 'fashion' and I also think the fashion industry has to do a bit of work too:

1. Having an interest in fashion does not equate to a lack of intelligence. One of the biggest stigmas surrounding fashion is that anyone who takes an interest is in no doubt an air head. The underlying reason for this is because of the degrading of fashion that I have discussed above; the assumption is that anyone who takes an interest in something so superficial must therefore have no substance themselves. Obviously, my argument is that fashion isn't superficial, and nor are the people involved. In every industry, and in very work place, there will be a materialistic, shallow person, and yes- these people also exist in the fashion industry... but you can't tar everyone with the same brush. 

The assumption that you must be a little bit dim if you wear nice clothes and spend time putting an outfit together is wrongly entrenched to the extent that I've actually seen feminists attack and/or belittle other women because they like fashion. I'm currently reading Jo Brand's autobiography, and as much as I love the woman, I was upset by her remarks about some girls she came across during her school years:

She states early on in the book that: "I subconsciously absorbed the message that being a girly girl and dressing to please was not the way forward". This doesn't really seem that bad, but it immediately isolates "girly girls" for what they wear and pictures them as something fragile.... this is the start of a sarcastic dig at women who like fashion. 

She continues by comparing her choice of clothes of: "a T-shirt, trousers and plimsoles" with the other girls waring "pretty dresses and nice shoes"... making them sound a little bit inferior to her 'boyish' choices.  

And the insulting part comes when she sarcastically refers to their interests: "A few girls whose heads were filled the very important details of what was fashionable that year" ... making it sound as though this is totally insignificant and because they happen to take an interest, they did not have the capacity to care about anything else. She explicitly labels them as "sad" and "empty-headed" making the assumption that liking fashion makes you a bit thick.

... This really upset me because I usually completely idolise the woman.

2. Women do not dress to impress men. The belief that fashion is anti-feminism because women use it to attract the opposite sex is massively flawed. Women use fashion as a feel good tool- they dress for themselves. When women dress to impress, it's often for other women because it is a form of expression that a large proportion of us are interested in- fashion is a uniting common ground that women from all over can identify with. The best place to see this in action is at fashion week, women flock to one other in awe of each others outfits and often, once a conversation starts rolling, you forge friendships as a result of someone liking your watering can shaped handbag.

3. There is absolutely nothing wrong in caring about your appearance, focusing on your best bits, and being body confident. Because women are bombarded with a constant stream of airbrushed images of goddesses as a target to aspire to, being told what diet to try next (according to the latest edition of Grazia magazine it's all about 'The Clay diet' which simply involves drinking clay), and generally being told that we don't look good enough ever, we've got used to feeling crap about ourselves and being battered and bruised by outsiders opinions. 

I think it's tragic that only 1% of women in this country consider themselves to be beautiful. It shows how we've been socially conditioned to believe that the word 'beautiful' is about your face, not who you are, and links with my belief that women are almost embarrassed if they're happy with they're body. Well there's nothing to be embarrassed about. Being comfortable with the way you look does not mean you're shallow or vain, it's a very positive way of thinking. Flipping go ahead and love yourself and be proud about it.  

4. Being 'fashionable' is not the same as being 'high maintenance'. A fashionable woman may not actually take three days to get ready to go out for tea. And even if it does, don't be quick to judge it as high maintenance behaviour. Fashion is often about knowing your style, having an eye for creativity, and being able to visualise what 'works'. This means that a lot of 'fashionistas' can put outfits that may appear to have been carefully planned and thought down to a 'T' in just matter of minutes. It can take 5 minutes to get something together, or it could take 50. If it's an interest, then there is absolutely no problem in experimenting with outfits- I reckon it's healthy for your self esteem and mental health to play about with your wardrobe. Using the word high maintenance is simplifying and shunning a creative process and a hobby.    

5. Make-up is totally OK too! I only wear make-up occasionally and never did do for college, which was often met with remarks such as "you're so brave!!!!" which is actually both insulting and patronising. However, if I did to choose to wear make-up I don't think it would make me any less of a feminist. Obviously, if someone feels as though they can't leave the house without make-up on then there is a massive body image problem going on, but wearing make-up, I believe, is just another branch of the fashion industry that allows scope for extra creativity. You can do some amazing things with make-up. And if you feel as though popping on a bit of lippy, mascara, and bronzer makes you look that little bit more fabulous, then go for it... work your assets!  

6. If someone is interested in fashion, it doesn't mean they're a bitch. Not much explanation needed here but for some reason this assumption is made (this was another thing that Jo Brand suggested in her book) and I THINK it's because people are intimidated by people who look good. Especially when big sunglasses are involved. Just remember that just because a girl likes her fashion, doesn't mean she wants to morph into the personality of Anna Wintour.

7. Live television reports/newsrooms need to stop patronising women with 'powerful' high heels. Never have I seen a woman reporting the news, on breakfast telly, or on a panel, in a pair of flat shoes.  (Actually I think Caitlin Moran wore a pair of converse for an interview on NewsNight once). It's old fashioned minds at work and I find it all a bit unsettling. Why do women on the telly need to wear them? A smart heel is no smarter than a smart flat. And I'm quite certain that not every woman on the screen wants to be sat/stood there in a pair of shoes that are crippling their feet... especially when they're on air from 5.30am. There should be a choice. Having all female news reporters in high heels is a bit patronising and turns the 'empowering women' attempt into a 'lets-dress-our-women-up-like-pretty-little-dolls-and-make-them-a-bit-taller' horror show. (Production and styling teams, sort this out please.) 

8. The fashion industry needs to acknowledge that 'plus-size' is NOT a size 12. BUT we need to acknowledge that fashion is not the only source responsible for the country wide "lack of body confidence crisis." I am sympathetic with anyone who discredits what seems to be the industries projection of an ideal (stick thin) woman and I agree with the fact that 'plus size' should mean exactly that on the catwalk. Using tiny models is also a problem, and yes, many models do have eating disorders because of the brutal nature of the work. But sometimes magazines are forced to use tiny models because the samples they're sent for shoots are tiny as it's all about minimal waste and maximum profit. There are also many designers who do use plus size models, such as Ziad Gahnem who walks complete novices and as well as plus sized models with blue hair, covered in tattoos, he also hires transgender and transvestite models, as does Pam Hogg. So there are actually designers within industry, working vehemently to change it- they're not all the same. 

9. We've been taught to judge others instantaneously based on what they wear... this stops us wearing what we want to wear. On a personal level this follows a similar theme to the make-up comments I receive, my clothes aren't especially 'normal', and so I get the "You're so brave/daring to wear that".... which, as I say above, is not actually a compliment!! People seem to find it acceptable to discredit my clothes just because they think I can handle it. I get the "what on earth is that?!?!" reaction quite often. 

But I'm not 'brave', I'm just me. I wear the clothes I do because I like them not because I wake up every morning and think to myself "Today I'm going to be visually courageous". I much prefer the terms 'adventurous' or 'experimental' because thats what I do with my clothes, I explore with combinations and constantly find new things that I like, and I show the world this by walking down the street in an a pair  of my mums old dungarees, clashing patterns, and battered doc martens that are covered in paint. I don't let the mainstream trends or opinions effect my choice in clothes and I really wish more people thought this way. Wear the clothes you do because you like them, not because you saw 307 other girls wearing it first. 

There should be no shame in wearing the clothes that make you feel good. This is empowerment, and everything about that is rooted and supported by feminism. Womens fashion is feminist!

Just be you. 

10. Fashion is not Vain, Dumb, or Stupid. Need I say more?

Hannah

x

Facebook rant I made earlier.....

Stop FGM in the UK

*This Post contains graphic images*

FGM.

Three letters that are separately distinctive to most people on the planet. But together they make very little sense to the majority of the same people- and this worries me. It's actually rather tragic that in the twenty first century a form of  barbaric child abuse can be so easily carried out whilst a nation sits in blissful ignorance.

The letters 'F' 'G' & 'M' stand for Female Genital Mutilation, otherwise known as female castration:"procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons." The practice originated in the African cotenant in around 500BC but due to migration, this is now taking place all over the world. And may I heavily stress that not only is this procedure carried out on children as young as four, but they receive absolutely no anaesthetic throughout; every cut and every stitch is felt. 

It's happening here in the UK despite it having been illegal since 1985; and what's worse, there have been no prosecutions whatsoever since this date.

I write about this off the back of 'The Cruel Cut' which aired on Channel 4 on the 8th November (watch in full here). The programme aimed to raise awareness of exactly what FGM is and to inform people that it's happening on our door step; Over 66,000 women in the UK have already undergone female genital mutilation and more than 24,000 girls are at risk. It revealed the stories of victims and gave graphic accounts of what their own families put them through, including descriptions of being pinned to the ground and having to listen to their sister's screams whilst they wait to be operated on... all to make a girl 'pure'.
 
There are several variations of FGM;
 
-Type 1 involves the removal of the clitoral hood which is rarely, if ever, performed alone. More common is Type Ib (clitoridectomy), the partial or total removal of the clitoris, along with the prepuce. In this procedure, the clitoris is pulled upwards between the thumb and index finger, pulled out, and amputated- bleeding is stopped with stitching.
 
- Type 2 involves the total removal of the clitoris along with the partial of total removal of the inner labia.
 
- Type 3 is the removal of all external genitalia and the fusing of the wound, leaving a small hole just 2mm wide for the passage of urine and menstrual blood. One of the women involved in the documentary described the terror of her first period as she realised that the blood was actually unable to escape from her body as a result of this procedure. Following this, the inner and outer labia are cut away, with or without excision of the clitoris. A pinhole is created by inserting something into the wound before it closes, such as a twig or rock salt. The wound may be sutured with surgical thread- sometimes thorns are used- to hold the sides together. The girl's legs are then tied from hip to ankle for 2–6 weeks until the tissue has bonded.

The descriptions above are enough to prove that this is torture and it completely baffles me as to why it is simply not acted on.

As expected, there are many complications involved with FGM, both long-term and immediate, including fatal bleeding, septicaemia, and the transmission of HIV if the surgical apparatus is not sterile. Long term complications include incontinence and infertility as well as painful periods and intercourse. Neonatal fertility is also severely effected as a direct result of FGM; an additional 10–20 babies die per 1,000 deliveries as a result. The chances of a babies death during birth is increased by: 15 percent for Type I, 32 percent for Type II and 55 percent for Type III.

The death rates are unknown as few records are kept, complications may not be recognised, and fatalities are rarely reported.

The fact is, FGM effectively deprives women of their sexuality. Their natural genitalia is manipulated to the extent where natural behaviours, such as intercourse are too painful to endure, and their periods cause huge problems. Women are stopped from being women because of an operation that is illegally taking place.

I'm really struggling to get my head around any justification for this huge government let down over the past three decades.
 
Before watching the programme, I was aware what 'FGM' was but I didn't know what 'FGM' meant.... I knew that female castration took place in order to try and stop girls from enjoying sex but I wasn't aware of the extent of the practice and reasonings, nor was I aware of the term FGM. I don't really think I realised that this goes ahead without anaesthetic and I completely separated it from British culture, as though it had nothing to do with me, and there was nothing I could do about it. My partial ignorance made me feel slightly disgusted.

However, I was more shocked by the amount of people who were willing to sign a phony petition that would legalise FGM in this country, with many people agreeing to the words "Its only mutilation" as though castrating a woman was no big deal. I don't necessarily blame the people who signed it, I blame their lack of education surrounding the issue- the public simply didn't know enough about the abuse that Layla Hussein was pretending to defend.

 Out of the many people she asked to sign, only one refused. 
 
So why does female genital mutilation happen? 

There are many reasons for it's existence, it stems from purity and is rooted in gender inequality. Although many mothers of the children who are forced to have the procedure support FGM, it all stems from a males pleasure- FGM happens for men. It is cantered upon controlling a woman's sexuality, preventing her enjoyment of intercourse, and enhancing his through the tightening of the vagina. I truly believe that mothers support it through fear rather than having a genuine defence for the 'cut', as their is a huge stigma associated with not having it, an un-mutilated vagina is deemed as being 'unclean' and they're concerned about their daughters prospects of having a male suitor. It is said that FGM is an ethnic marker, and it is this factor which I think is making the pivotal difference between action and the whole thing going unnoticed....

..... Lets face it, if blonde haired blue-eyed girls were victims of this barbaric torture, it'd be all over the news and there'd certainly be 'FGM criminals' in prison. This is as much about racial inequality as it is gender inequality.

I also think that if it were white girls at the centre of this problem, Theresa May would have spared time to discuss FGM with those who were involved with 'The Cruel Cut' programme instead of refusing to come out of her surgery and having someone else write a letter on her behalf. The fact is that she's embarrassed nothing has been done to protect children who are vulnerable to circumcision DESPITE it being illegal. She is embarrassed, as is the government as a whole, that grave inequalities under the protection of the law still exist.

 If the government won't face the problem, we're going to have to force them to.

You can sign a petition by clicking here. "The aim is to get the Home Department- one of the five that FGM currently falls under- to take responsibility for and effective leadership against FGM as it falls under the Violence Against Woman and Girls (VAWG) portfolio. We want them to take the lead in drawing up and enforcing the implementation of a National Strategy and Action Plan to eliminate FGM in the UK."

We need 100,000 signatures for this to be debated in the House of Commons, and as I write this, we're on 73,508. Please help to make this happen. A debate is the first step forward in protecting young children. This has the potential to initiate a string of events aimed directly towards raising the profile of FGM and finally acting upon the law that was passed decades ago.

I truly think that FGM is yet another issue that should be on the National Curriculum- there is nothing more important than educating the masses.
 
As tragic as the story within the documentary was, 'The Cruel Cut' was the best thing I've seen on TV for a very long time; it fills you with the urge to be proactive, and I for one want to be an active part of the campaign. Leyla, Efua, if you're reading, please get in touch.

Hannah Riley
@hannahtheduck

(#StopFGM)

What Feminisim Isn't

After having watched this episode of newsnight a few days ago, I took to twitter- as I do on a regular basis- to express my views and was greeted with a bundle of tweets confirming the fact that gender equality still has a way to go. I understand that people will have conflicting interests, but to be told that I have "no right to comment" on an issue effecting me personally and the millions of other women on this planet by a male UKIP wannabe-MP is a bit much.  

The discussion above and the tweets I received  pushed all of the wrong buttons and I felt compelled to assure you all that feminism isn't about sandals and hairy armpits. For a start, I don't think the programme dedicated enough time to the discussion itself, I completely understand the fact that NewsNight has to stick to a schedulde and fit a lot into its 50 minute time slot but how can prejudice effecting 52% of the worlds population be covered in an 11 minute talk?

The three women involved had some very different opinions of what feminism involves and I'd like to show you my ideas, definitions etc. in a nut shell. I came up with the questions myself but wrote as though someone was asking them otherwise they read oddly, so here we have it:

What is feminism?    
- Simply working towards, and believing in the principle that women are equal to men. That's literally it. I can't speak for everyone, but in my opinion feminism is not about picking fights nor is it anti-men. It's just anti-inequality.

The image of militants and women with hairy armpits does not characterise feminists. If some women feel that venting their anger in such ways will help advance womens rights, then I do sympathise with them, and if some don't want to shave their armpits as a protest against the desirable image of a 'woman'- created by the influence of a males pleasure- then I wholeheartedly understand that. But it's sad that this stereotype makes people shy away from feminism because it's really not a complicated movement, it just wants men and women to be treated as equals.

And you don't have to be a woman to be a feminist, just as you don't have to be black to support civil rights... men can support equality too.  

Are you a feminist?
-I am unapologetically a feminist. No matter what stereotype people have of feminists, I will forever proudly associate myself with them. It would make no sense for me not to be one.

As Mary Beard points out above, "I can't understand a woman who isn't [a feminist]".

On what basis are women unequal to men? 
- Sport, Politics, Heads of Industry, and physical expectations.

Sexisim is everywhere but these are distinctive areas that immediately come to mind as they all involve vast inequalities based on sex.

The sporting world offers a prime example to show that the Equal Pay Act of 1970- ensuring that women are paid the same wages as males in the same positions- is not followed through. Wayne Rooney earns £180,000 a week. Compare this to the womens England football team who, after having received a £4000 pay rise in January this year, earn an annual wage of £20,000. It's disgusting.

Turn to Politics and you'll see the problem of under-representation. In Parliaments all around the world the presence of women is severely lacking. Here in the UK, 147 of our 650 MPs are female. It nowhere near represents the society we live in; and as the function of Parliament is to represent the people, this is a huge dilemma. Put on PrimeMinisters Questions on a Wednesday afternoon and you'll really have to look hard to spot a handful of women. We are in 58th position (joint with Israel) in representing women in parliament; The Philippines, Bulgaria, Canada, France, Finland, Tunisia, Sudan, China, Sweden, Ethiopia, and most ironically, Iraq, are all countries that rate above us in representing women in Parliament. Rwanda has the highest representation with 64% of representatives being female, look the other way and Micronesia, Palau, Vanuatu, and Qatar are all countries with absolutely no female representatives, and there are 35 countries with fewer than 10% of seats taken by women.

Women in positions above the glass ceiling is limited and our appearances are continuously objectified for the pleasure of men. Tits are everywhere.

What are your thoughts on page three? 

Mixed. I have no problem with the women choosing to model because really, most people do most things for money.... and the money is good. If page three were to be banned many of these women could be put out of work.  'Page 3' itself isn't something I get angry about and, despite all the bad press, I'm a big believer in the freedom of the press. I don't have much of a problem with porn magazines being on shelves either.... we live in a liberal state and pornography is freedom of speech.

BUT. And it's a big but. I hate, hate, hate, what pornographic images do in terms of objectifying women. As I suggested above, women are turned into sexual objects and the expectations for flat stomachs, perfect boobs, and a 'thigh gap' are brandished on billboards, posters, adverts, and magazines. But it must be noted that it's not JUST porn. I think the fashion magazines and the industry at large can be just as bad.... using excessive airbrushing and size zero models is something I really don't like. It's something I really struggle with when I go to fashion week.

I think the pressure of girls looking 'good' for their boyfriends stems from both magazines and porn. The whole thing with being completely hairless stems solely from the gratification of the male. I for one, would never fancy looking like my gentials are those of a three year old.

So really, I don't like what naked photos DO but blaming page three won't take the pressures women are surrounded by away. Women posing 'sexily' exists in a lot more than just tabloid papers. Much more would need to be done than taking away page 3 and there's a fine line between protecting women via banning such images and censorship.

Is sexisim an everyday occurance? 
-Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

Everything from childrens toys such as 'boy' and 'girl' lego and kindereggs to fairytales (as mentioned in the clip above) involving pretty blonde-haired, blue eyed princesses in beautiful ballgowns being saved by the brave knight in shining armour embeds expectations and limitations to gender roles at an early age. The terminology directed at women "ladies first", and being polite for the sake of 'ladies', even calling them 'flower' all comes from a patronising, derogitive light.

Trouble is, a lot of it goes unnoticed.

What womens 'issue' needs to be publicised to help awareness? 
-FGM. "Female Gential Mutilation".

Otherwise known as female circumcision. It is an ancient practice, dating back to 500 BC, originating in Africa but now occurs all over the world. FGM involves the removal of the clitorous and labias and the tightening of the entrance to the vaginal canal (where the penis goes). It is done entirely for the benefit and pleasure of the man as it often stops women from enjoying sex and enhances the enjoyment of the males experience.

It has been illegal to perform FGM in this country since 1985 but no prosecutions have ever been made- very little is done to stop it from happening and very few people actually know what it is.

There is currently a campaign raising awareness of the cause to stop it from happening and it will be the focus of my next article on this blog.

Do you support positive discrimination?
-Yes.

If a man is clearly better suited to the job than the woman, then hire the man. But if the woman is equally qualified and is as deserving of the job as the man, then choose the woman and do so based on her sex. Inequality has been the pinnacle of society for centuries and the only way to quickly turn it around is to discriminate positively.

It's not PC but being PC can often cause more harm than good.

How would you reduce sexisim if you had the ability to do so? 
- I'd start with young people because they're the future. Embedding a mindset at an early age is the best way to carry equality onto future generations. I'd ban companies from producing 'girl'/'boy' versions of toys.... no more pink lego.

In schools, I'd make sure that issues surrounding prejudices are taught from an early age and the unrealistic portrayal of women via pornography would be included in sex education.

Dealing with the issue head on is how to go about tackling it.

***

So basically, I think I disagree with everything that dear Angela says in the interview. And when I clicked on the twitter hashtag after watching the video, and stumbling across various vulgar anti-feminist and just plain anti-women tweets, I couldn't help but take a couple on. I thought I'd be able to transform their views with my words of wisdom but it backfired a bit and I was bombarded with tweets that basically told me to pipedown.

Apparently feminism is "stupid":

The last tweet saddens me somewhat. Because it's far from true- it's an ideology. Lets see the female England team on £180,000 a week shall we?


And then there's Paul, The UKIP guy, who tried to justify the below comment as a bit of lighthearted sarcasm.... because, oh, that makes all the difference.

I did start these bits of confrontation so I was prepared for reactions. But the closed-mindedness of it all just shocked me. If you fancy reading all the conversations I had between these two, pop on my twitter, @hannahtheduck.

I could literally go on for ever, and discuss the interview on NewsNight in great depth but I would literally kill my laptop in the process so I'll stop here, with the uplifting comment that feminism is arrogant. Of course.

Get a grip Jonathan.

Ok. I'm done now.




Hannah Riley.
@hannahtheduck