I’ll be different, next time. Next month, next dress, next glimpse. I need to – and will – change. Out comes the well-worn vanity case of to-do’s. Tighten this, lose this, dye this, wear this.

Right now is tense because back then wasn’t right and one day will be better.

We are taught, you and I, to work on ourselves. We are projects. Self-improving models of not-quite-there-yet. We’ll be beautiful, one day. We’ll be enough, one day. One day, we’ll get there.

But for now: shhh…silence, shrink, fade a little. This perpetual boot camp is our home.

It is what encages our thoughts and feeds our insecurities and bounds our living.

It is also home to billions of dollars’ worth of cosmetics and fitness and marketing and fashion and “lifestyle”…all sold to us along with the lie that we are not good enough yet. This mascara will lengthen your too-short eyelashes, this diet will slim down your too-big body, this necklace will pretty-up your too-boring style. Because today you aren’t, but tomorrow you might be.

Really?

No more. I am not going to waste any more minutes of my todays working on myself for my tomorrows. I am allowed to be, I choose to be, and I am: good & enough & beautiful…today.

We all have these stories. Each deserves to be told and heard.

Everyday Sexism have just released this video, explaining the campaign and its importance. The video comes after a very significant success last week which saw Facebook amend their policy on hate speech against women and the campaign’s participation in Chime for Change over the weekend.

EVERYDAYSEXISM LONG VERSION from AMOS PICTURES on Vimeo.

I have been interviewed a couple of times this morning about the ‘danger of pornography’ – but if you’ve spent time on this blog, you’re well-versed in this already. As a reminder, because pornography is both strongly addictive and progressively desensitising, I believe it can lead to harmful behaviour. You can read last year’s series on pornography here.

In his comments on the case, Phil Noyes, chief executive of the NSPCC, has also highlighted the link between child & ‘extreme’ porn and committing serious sexual assaults.

On the basis that the viewing of such material can lead to criminal behaviour, the conversation has turned to looking at ways in which it could be made harder to access violent images.

5 points to consider as we go forward (and there are more: what are your thoughts?):

1. Certain buzz words and search terms must be blocked. John Carr, from the Children’s Charities’ Coalition on Internet Safety, says that it must simply be made harder to find an image of a child being sexually assaulted online.

2. A ‘panic button’ on pornographic websites would be useful to viewers of ‘adult porn’ who came across illicit content: this would allow them anonymously play a part in combatting child porn. The Internet Watch Foundation already encourages this and demonstrated the effectiveness of the approach in Darren Leggett’s case.

3. More resource must be spent on banning websites internally: ISPs need to pay staff to ‘surf’ and take down websites in a more vigorous and regular manner.

4. Until this issue has been properly handled, more monitoring must be done by governmental agencies as well as employers in each sector. A reporter suggested to me this morning that seizing and checking computers of random or targeted individuals might be a solution. This is perhaps unnecessary, were we to utilize the tools we already have. Indeed, according to Jim Sheridan from the Commons Culture Committee, we have the “political will and technology”, and “if you can do it, we should be doing it.”

5. The making and viewing of child porn must be known to be both illegal AND a real risk to those partaking in these crimes. Law enforcement must become stronger in this sphere. Just this week, End Violence Against Women expressed concern with regards to a legal loophole that allows some simulated images of porn, and called for a ‘tidying-up’ of the legislation surrounding pornography.

Bridger is the second person in the UK this month to have been jailed for assault and murder following an engagement in child and violent pornography. There is no doubt that we must act, with wisdom and with rapidity. Will we?

UPDATE 2: people are contacting me about similar pages popping up today – ask your friends to report the page and contact any relevant authorities demanding action.

“Rate Your Shag” Facebook pages have appeared across the UK this week encouraging people to describe their sexual encounters, provide a rating out of 10, and name their sexual partners.

Many UK universities are represented in this new form of nonsense, with pages popping up since Monday of this week. Towns and cities are now also joining in.

Why this is harmful:

|| This is a form of bullying and harassment. By naming people along with intimate details about them, the creators of and contributors to the page are putting the mental health of others at risk.

|| Having one’s name associated with this kind of ‘banter’ could lead to problems with employment both for those who contribute and those who are implicated by tagging.

|| This creates a culture in which people and sex are cheapened to numbers and ‘banter’.

|| These pages also bring the reputation of universities into disrepute. This is the angle to take when contacting these bodies: unfortunately this has in the past seemed to be a more pressing concern than the mental health of students.

What to do:

Nottingham University’s page was taken down last night after it was reported to Facebook. Belfast’s first page was also banned yesterday after 4 hours in existence (though another has now been created.) We CAN get rid of these pages. It is important, however, to strike now. I’d encourage you to get involved: you have a voice, and I guarantee it will be heard.

It is also important to look beyond individual pages: specific to universities, senior management must take matters seriously to avoid pages like these being created in the future; and more generally, Facebook must adapt a more vigilant policy against this kind of abuse. Just last night Everyday Sexism’s campaign was heard and in HUGE news, Facebook responded to concerns expressed by thousands over harmful images being allowed on the site. They do listen. Let’s talk.

Here’s how:

1. Report the pages. The reason for reporting that receives most attention is “it’s harassing me or someone I know”. Ask your friends to do the same.

2. Contact the universities. Specific to Queen’s University Belfast: Director of the Students’ Union Gordon Douglas (g.Douglas@qub.ac.uk), Head of Student Welfare Paula Moran (p.moran@qub.ac.uk) and Marketing Manager Peter McConkey (p.mcconkey@qub.ac.uk) are the people to get in touch with. Express your concern and ask to be informed about the course of action that is taken. Gordon Douglas responded to an email last night and responses have already been received today from several others noting that immediate action is being taken.

The world awoke this morning to the news of UK Feminista and Object’s hot-off-the-press campaign bidding to put an end to the sale of ‘Lads’ mags’ in UK superstores. The groups have joined with a team of lawyers under the “Lose the Lads’ Mags” banner to highlight a piece of legislation that may prove instrumental in the end of lads’ mag sales.

Under the Equality Act 2010, displaying and selling lads’ mags and papers with Page 3-style front cover images can constitute sexual harassment or sex discrimination towards those working in store, and customers may also have a claim under this piece of legislation.

This part of the campaign is run in parallel to a petition calling on stores to “lose the lads’ mags” which, it is hoped, will serve as increased pressure on stores as the discussion is spotlighted.

The campaign has received coverage from most national press outlets; including the Guardian, the Independent, the BBC, the Huffington Post as well as BBC Radio, Sky News, ITV and others.

UTV Radio host Frank Mitchell was the person who first alerted me to the petition: he had caught wind of the campaign and wanted to discuss it on his morning show. He asked me to talk about why lads’ mags are something worth banning. My response is below (and I believe this discussion is more worthwhile than the campaign itself, which, like its predecessors, has its flaws: none of which should keep you signing the petition, though.)

1. By defining pornography as images purposed to arouse the viewer sexually, we imply that lads’ mags include pornography. Therein lies my objection to them. I blogged extensively last year on porn and how it has been found to be severely addictive and present a whole host of personal and societal problems. Furthermore, research continues to show links between exposure to pornography and sexually aggressive behaviours – see, for example, the recently released study by Maggie Atkinson. Lads’ mags aren’t just ‘glamour’ or appreciation of the female form.

2. Lads’ mags promote the idea of woman as sexual objects; dehumanising and objectifying us. The attitudes conveyed in magazines like Zoo, Nuts, FHM and co spread into wider society, as lad culture becomes general culture. A culture rooted in pornography is dangerous to women. Not only are there pornographic issues in the publications the campaign seeks to do away with, the attitudes in articles and features are harmonious to the objectifying manner in which women are seen in still images: that is, women are present only for the sexual arousal, pleasure and satisfaction of men: we are here to be looked at, unresponsive, still. Is this is what is believed about women, what kind of behaviour does it incite?

3. But women are not the only ones lads’ mags attempt to exploit. Lads’ mags suggest a narrow and harmful mould of masculinity and culture for men. “Lad culture” is not true to the diversity and complexity of men. It is dangerous reductionism to streamline men into only being capable of sexual arousal, running after the latest protein shake or video game.

These points do not directly address the impact of lads’ mags on children (who, let’s not kid ourselves, do have access to them) or on the models who provide their images. Let’s save that for another day, shall we?

Frank also interviewed a Page 3 model who suggested that her involvement in the industry was sexually liberating and that the readership of lads’ mags sought only to harmlessly enjoy the female form. There are always arguments both for and against that are compelling and reasonable in their context; this particular discussion of course brings up the issue of censorship. (Tonight I have also appreciated comments on women’s magazines who objectify and reduce women in a similar, and at times more harmful, way.) I enjoyed hearing Laura’s thoughts but found that her ultimate argument, that we shouldn’t ban lads’ mags if we don’t ban meat for vegetarians or cigarettes for non-smokers to avoid offending them, to be flawed. The sale of cigarettes does not lead to me being harassed or assaulted. The sale of lads’ mags does.

I have never addressed the issue of ‘internet trolls’ or Twitter abuse before, as I believe that most of the time, these people and their comments should be ignored and not fed. However, as the faceless misogynists weighed in on the #losetheladsmags conversation this afternoon from their temporary accounts by suggesting I get back into the kitchen and surmising that I must be single because “no man could put up with me”, I was reminded both that we still have a long way to go, but perhaps more importantly, the conversation is happening (or, at the very least, people are hearing opinions that provoke somewhat reflective reactions in them)…and that is key. Because more than a piece of legislation, more than a petition – it is of utmost importance that we regularly take stock of what we are saying, through our culture (of the lad variety or otherwise.) What do we think of each other, as men and women; and indeed, what do we think of ourselves?

http://www.losetheladsmags.org.uk/

White is a colour. It is not a mere absence of colour; it is a shining and affirmative thing, as fierce as red, as definite as black. Virtue is not the absence of vices or the avoidance of moral dangers; virtue is a vivid and separate thing, like pain or a particular smell. Mercy does not mean not being cruel, or sparing people revenge or punishment; it means a plain and positive thing like the sun, which one has either seen or not seen.

G.K. Chesterton

“Angelina Jolie showed again that she is the gold standard for celebrity activism: she started a conversation that will save lives.” Nick Kristof

What conversation will you start?