Rant on TV's Mad Men and Female Sexuality

Warning: Contains minor Spoilers for season 4 of Mad Men :)


I love Mad Men—you know, that show about the ‘60s Advertising firm with the hot redhead and all the smoking? I love the drama, the costumes, the excessive drinking… but more than anything I love the female characters. Unlike many TV shows and movies around, the women aren’t just two dimensional props to the male characters; these are roles you can sink your teeth into. There’s Peggy, the shy mousey girl rising in the ranks, from secretary to copywriter in four seasons, who is constantly making naïve mistakes which could ruin her; the aforementioned red haired bombshell Joan, the hospitality manager who knows exactly what to do in every eventuality, and yet struggles to manage her strained relationship with her husband; and of course glacially beautiful Betty, the perfect repressed wasp with one hell of a temper.



The show deals with plenty of women’s issues too—the obvious one being sexism and the state of women’s lives in the 1960’s, but also rape, contraception, prostitution, divorce, motherhood, adoption and depression… the list goes on.


But one issue in particular came up in the latest episode, which really surprised me—not least because of the character they used. Don’s daughter, lisping, cherub faced ten-year-old Sally Draper was caught masturbating. This, in itself I didn’t find particularly shocking—nothing was explicitly shown of course. Nor was I surprised by her mother Betty’s reaction—to tell her never to do it again, even in private, and to eventually pack her off to a child therapist—after all, this is 1965, and Betty’s parenting choices are usually pretty infuriating to the modern day observer.


What did surprise me—though perhaps it shouldn’t have—was the viewers reactions to the scene. Being a bit of a geek when it comes to films and television, I regularly rush to check the forums on http://www.imdb.com/ after each episode. Internet forums are possibly not the best place for my blood pressure, so I’ll try not to rant too much. Of course, the subject of little Sally Draper’s ‘self-abuse’ was one of hot debate. The reactions in general seemed to be: ‘What the hell?! She’s way too young for that!’ or ‘she was probably just confused and didn’t know what she was doing.’


It’s worth mentioning that the first reaction was largely from male posters—and I don’t blame them. It’s still fairly taboo in some circles to acknowledge that a grown woman masturbates, let alone a pre-pubescent girl. But let me clear this up; no, she is not ‘too young for that’. Babies masturbate. Anyone who’s had to deal with children under five knows that toddlers touch themselves too, male and female. This is not necessarily masturbation with the intention of having an orgasm—it’s often just for comfort, and because it just feels nice to touch yourself there.


This does not mean that Sally Draper, or any child who masturbates, wants to have sexual intercourse, or can even comprehend what that is. It simply means that they experience arousal, or just pleasant feelings which they associate with their genitals. And what on earth is wrong with that?


The second reaction; ‘she was confused!’ annoyed me perhaps even more. If Sally Draper had been a ten year old boy, touching his penis because he saw an attractive woman on TV (Sally was watching ‘60s television spy show ‘The Man from U.N.C.L.E’ and apparently had a crush on the lead actor), would we assume he didn’t know what he was doing? Or would the message boards have been flooded with guys reminiscing about the first time they whacked off to Emma Peel watching ‘The Avengers’? But, because Sally was a girl, she clearly had no understanding or concept of her own sexuality.


This is something which angers me in general, and which I will happily rave about to anyone who will listen; the idea of girls’ sexuality being decided for them. It’s almost as if young girls have their sexual selves confiscated from them until they are supposedly ‘ready’: ‘No, you can’t have that, it’s inappropriate for you.’ And of course ‘ready’ means ready for sex, ready to reproduce. How is that healthy at all?


What are girls really taught about ‘touching themselves’? Is it ever as acceptable or acknowledged in the same way as young boys doing it? There isn’t even a slang word for female masturbation; wanking, tossing off, jerking off, whacking off, tugging—these all apply to men, and what do we get? ‘Frigging’, ‘Fingering’… what do they even mean? It’s been very well documented that most women prefer to masturbate by stimulating their clitoris—not by shoving their fingers up there and wiggling them around, and yet these are the only words we are given, and explains why there is so much confusion around the subject for young girls who think they are strange because they are not having ‘vaginal’ orgasms (thank you very much, Freud) only clitoral.


This isn’t even just about masturbating. When it comes to young girls and sex they are told; ‘boys will want sex’ or ‘be careful, boys only want one thing’, ‘make sure he wears a condom!’ When are girls ever told that actually, they might want sex too? That sex is not, in fact, something which is ‘done’ to you, but a joint activity. That you need to be aroused for it too?


One of the great things about Mad Men is that it shows us Feminists how far we’ve come already with regards to the workplace, expectations, divorce and our own choices. But I still believe that when it comes to female sexuality we have a long way to go before we are allowed to own it ourselves.

By Louise MacBean

Anarchists, Feminists and Free Love

The wonderful woman in the photograph above is Voltairine de Cleyre, and up until her death in 1912 she was a dedicated Feminist and Anarchist. She spent a huge portion of her life spreading ideas of emancipation and freedom and a crucial aspect of her Feminism was the belief in ‘free love’, a phrase which has lost some of its power in more modern times. Often I have found myself hearing the phrase free love being used to describe somebody who indulges in non monogamous relationships or simply casual sex (does anybody know what insurance advert I’m thinking of?) It’s not that the Free Love movement does not support both these things; it’s just that it is so much more than this and to think of it in this highly simplified sense does a disservice to great Feminists like Voltairine.



Free love is not just a slogan leftover from the 60’s; free love has its roots in the Anarchist movements which came to prominence in radical politics between 1870 and 1930 in the America’s and Europe. Anarchist feminists believed that neither the state, the church nor long held traditions should be allowed to oppress people by dictating or prescribing their relationships, and it was from this principle that the Free Love movement developed.


The Free Love movement rejected marriage. Marriage was seen as being highly patriarchal in that it was a way men could gain power over women. Marriage was also seen as an unnecessary intrusion of the state and/or the church into the private relationships of individuals, and a way in which these institutions could regulate and dictate these relationships. This is a struggle that can still be seen today with states and organized religion not accepting certain relationships as eligible for marriage.


The Free Love movement accepted all forms of consensual relationship. A key part of the free love movement was its rejection of the idea that women should only seek long term monogamous relationships with men. In this sense, participants in the Free Love movement promoted complete individual freedom. Polyamory, monogamy, long term, short term, lustful or ascetic and everything unmentioned and in-between, all are considered to be various ways of exploring and claiming individual sexuality. It’s worth considering that this particular aspect of the Free Love movement is controversial today let alone in the 1880’s, long before women succeeded in their fight for the vote in most countries.


As the Free Love movement developed, the Feminists and Anarchists involved also recognized the need for the emancipation of non-heterosexual individuals from the restrictions placed on them by the state, the church and bigotry. The feminists in the Free Love movement felt that there was a clear logical connection between the fight of men and women against patriarchy and the fight of non-heterosexual individuals against their oppression. A historical example of this can be seen in the support Oscar Wilde received from American Anarchists when he was charged by the British state for ‘sodomy and indecencies’ in the 1890’s.


The principles and actions of the Free Love movement remain ahead of their time and they are not simply parts of history but issues that Feminists must consider and accept as relevant to their struggle. Is marriage a clinging form of oppression and unnecessary? Many Anarchists who still follow the principles of the Free Love movement prefer unofficial ceremony’s or simply ignore marriage all together when involved in long term relationships. Do you accept true female sexual liberation or are words like slut, slag and whore still common in your vocabulary? Monogamy is still considered (either consciously or unconsciously) by most to be the acceptable form of relationship whereas polygamy is seen as abnormal in western society. Finally, do Feminists really believe that women can be truly liberated while workers, ethnic minorities, children, non-heterosexual individuals and others remain chained? Or do we recognize that as Peter Kropotkin argued “one can only be free when all are free”.



Jack MacBean

You Don't Have to like Women to be a Feminist

For men who like, lust after and love men, womanhood usually doesn't take up centre stage in our lives. But what if it did? Perhaps womanhood defines our lives more than simply involving mothers, aunts and our friends (or Lady Gagas, although I prefer Anamatronic from Scissor Sisters myself if we're going there). Obviously these are important pillars for all men, especially with women being stereotypically seen as more accepting of gay lifestyles. However, womanhood doesn't simply end there for us.

For starters, the battleground that gay men, bisexual men, men who have sex with men and open-minded heterosexual me have been fighting is the same battleground that feminists have been fighting, that of masculine privilege. A Montreal study conducted by Vivienne McKenna highlights how violence against same-sex love has a gendered nature to it. She talks of how public space is at current masculine in nature (she cites Shirley Ardener in saying that the presence of men is used to define a particular place as "public"), and entry into this is "secured through the enactment of a sanctioned gender identity"; put another way, it was man who established that "It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." When same-sex love is publicly carried out, it is challenging this whole sanctioning process, the established order, the masculinised space. When two men hold hands in public, they are attacked not necessarily because they are feminine, or doing something feminine, but because they are not masculine (or doing something that's not masculine)... so say the powers that be anyway. Some people would argue that it is hyper-masculine, because it's double the man. To some people it is; to the dominating preudices however, it's not. Because it is neither masculine nor feminine, same-sex couples thus open up a space which is outside our gender binaries, which can be very feminist. Considering many feminist schools have been trying to break gender binaries for longer than the LGBT movement has existed, it's stupid to think that they can't help us expand on this.

This is not to exclude the whole (Western) history that exists between gay men and femininity (I say Western because it differs everywhere; India and Thailand have third genders existing, whereas handbags and rounded tops are considered normal for men in patriarchal Japan and China). For a man to act feminine, in personality, clothing, career, etc... he is shoving a middle finger up to those who demand everyone else conform to their prejudiced philosophies; because of the subjective nature of what masculinity and femininity consists of however, this leaves all men open to random violence if they are unlucky enough to come across someone with strong definitions of masculine and feminine. Nevertheless, this is what many schools of feminism do as well; they shove a middle finger up to accepted standards by saying that all standards are fine, regardless if they are classified as masculine or feminine. There are other schools of feminism that prefer the feminine, and advocate that above masculinity. Whilst this isn't subject to critique, it does affect every gay men who is labelled by others as camp or girly. Not only are these men brave enough to embody the traits endorsed by these feminist schools (whether they appreciate it or not), but they legitimise it upon themselves, just as feminist groups try to legitimise the view that feminine traits aren't bad or beneath masculine traits. There's a lot more in common than meets the eye, even if the men and women mentioned hate each other.

Unfortunately, major clashes have existed as long as the gay movement has over the issue of gender, one of the earliest being the figurative battles between "Swish" and Anti-Swish groups in 1950's USA. The Cold War context (exemplified in the Lavender Scare, where homosexuals were purged from all US federal jobs in the early 1950's for their suspected links with Communism) and the need to unite nations/suppress "deviance" is a major factor in starting this split, which we now see in less politicised terms of camp vs. straight-acting. And the desire for acceptability by what we would now term as "straight-acting gays" in regimes that exclude, yesterday and today, is one that should elicit sympathy from all oppressed groups. However the anti-swish/camp groups forget that in stigmatising what they consider not masculine, not only do they further the stigma around same-sex desire (which is not masculine to the powers that be), as well as acts of gendered dissent, but also continue to de facto endorse masculine privilege in saying that "non-masculine" qualities (including "feminine" ones) are not as worthy of respect.

This act of agent provocateur carries over into the "Swish" groups, particularly in the era of the "faghag" and the pink pound. As argued in the Guardian, Gok Wan, one of the kinder guys, still has a one-dimensional view of how women should look. Unfortunately, there are people like Marc from Ugly Betty, who instead use fashion and looks to judge and dominate. This is not only not feminist, but is also very oppressive, as it is not the place of a gay men to tell others what is better or worse. "Keeping up with the latest trends", or worse, believing you are making new ones, usually (not always though) involves supporting industries that isn't trying to make women's lives more comfortable, but one that's trying to make profit and endorsing damaging ideologies to achieve this, the repercussions of this including eating disorders that indeed have affected men as well as many women. Indeed, without these men, all men would not be as comfortable in being open emotionally or looking after themselves. However, there is a danger that this liberation from masculine archetypes is done through the oppression of another group (in this case, women). The competition to be beautiful doesn't just exist in women, and doesn't just reflect back on women.

There is no such thing as an abstention when it comes to any oppressed group - you either support them or you disagree with what they stand for, here being gender equality, and to be honest, disagreeing with gender equality kind of suggests you prefer to oppress women. You can't really claim ignorance when it comes to oppression. Just because gay men don't plan on engaging intimately with women in the long run doesn't mean that their life decisions don't have repercussions - many a time, gay and bi women have split from their male counterparts due to the ignorance of these women's different oppressions and different histories, thus, depriving gay men half of their political colleagues. An example of these different histories can be seen through the 1980's AIDS pandemic; although it was a devastating blow to the gay community's morale, the setting up of AIDS agencies forced the issue of male homosexuality into public and government spheres, worldwide. Lesbians have never had this urgency to publicise upon (as fantastic as lesbians occupying the ITV news studios live on air was), and has meant that in terms of liberation, lesbians are further behind than gay men. If gay men continually fail to recognise these differences within the movement and the individuals, there won't be a liberation, just a gay version of sexism.

Feminism affects gay men more than they probably realise. Firstly, we Westerners are doing the very acts that many feminist schools of thought have achieved and are still trying to achieve. Secondly, there are many ways that the actions of men who like men can have negative consequences upon women. Thirdly, women can (and do) fight with us in multiple ways - to not support them in return is oppression for women, political suicide for us. Men who like men have to support feminism, at the very least, because it serves their own interests.



This article is admittedly very brief - lesbian histories are vast, global and complex, and some lesbian groups themselves have their own faults in discriminating against/ignoring bisexuals, transexuals, and their histories (the B and the T, which again, is political suicide). Some of these groups however have fears of the parody of the feminine, and such critiques of drag and gender transgression shouldn't necessarily be thrown away. Neither should the typical vestiges of the pink pound be, like fashion; everything can be reclaimed for a good cause. There are also many individuals whose lives aren't represented in this article; every gay man is an individual just as much as every woman is. I hope that by using well-known paradigms (read "stereotypes"), the issues are made clearer.







Tom Pengelly

[The reference for the study cited is as follows:
Namaste, Viviane K., ‘Genderbashing – Sexuality, Gender, and the Regulation of Public Space’, in Stryker, Susan and Whittle, Stephen (eds.)(2006), The Transgender Studies Reader, Routledge, New York]

[The Guardian article cited can be found here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/06/gok-wan-femininity]

Female Chauvinist Pigs?

I’ve been reading a lot of contemporary feminist literature of late - in particular, Ariel Levy’s ’Female Chauvinist Pigs’. And a recurring comment on the state of feminism today has made me really question my own behaviour.

It is the idea of ‘Female Chauvinist Pigs’ - that we are becoming our own worst enemy. That women are becoming as sexist and consumed by raunch culture as the male chauvinist pigs we spend so much of our time protesting against.

I read an article in Shortlist last week - a magazine for men that doesn’t have tits or vagina on the cover - that sums it up perfectly.

http://magazine.shortlist.com/1W4c57ea8cd22bb012.cde/page/36

Now that I think about it, I have encountered so much female chauvinism. It's not just men rolling their eyes when they heard the word 'feminist' anymore - women are doing it too. 'I would call myself a feminist... But I don't want to stop shaving my legs and wearing a bra'. Come on girls, wise up.

But I am also guilty. I've read Nuts in the local kebab whilst waiting for my chips and haven't batted an eyelid. Is burlesque dancing really ‘empowering’? It is still stripping, after all. So many times has a male friend complained about a one night stand in a derogatory manner - ‘She has some fucking fine ass, but she wouldn’t go down on me! And now she’s calling me… Fuck that, she’s only backup gash anyway’ ‘Oh my god!’ I reply. ‘She wouldn’t give you a blow job? That’s just shit. Yeah fuck that.’ What exactly was I saying? Oh, it’s fine because that woman isn’t me, and since I do not know her, she doesn’t really exist. Furthermore, my loyalty lies with my male friend, to which engaging in this sort of ‘banter’ is just stationary - in fact, it makes me a cooler girl because I am now ‘one of the lads‘. But if I heard a man talking about me or a girl friend like that? I'll tell everyone that the only reason I didn't blow you is because you'd already blown your load when I so much as removed my bra. Plus, I felt that going down on a 2 inch piece of cocktail party meat just seemed like a pointless exercise.

I have Dita’s ‘The art of the Teese’ on my book shelf and I have spent time drooling over the many glossy photos of her half naked. I have argued with friends over who’s the best porn star and drawn cartoonised women with impossible hourglass bodies and enormous breasts and hair. I am not gay. I am just, perhaps, like a lot of others seduced by the glamour of these women. Maybe I am obsessed with them because I want to be them.Either way admiring a beautiful woman is one thing - talking about our fellow sisters like a male pig is another.

Nicky Marchant

Ladies Sing the Blues

One of my dearest wishes this year as co-founder of Femsoc; one wish close to my heart, which I would truly love to achieve, is Femstock.



Femstock will ideally be a live music night, on campus, (hopefully in the newly transformed ‘Attic’) the performers in which will be all female. Singers, musicians, bands, comedians, poets, magic tricks—whatever. They don’t even have to define themselves as Feminists, if that’s asking too much—just female. Why? Well, tragically I myself was not blessed with any kind of musical or performance talent (though not through lack of trying, let me tell you), but my boyfriend was, and ever the supportive partner, I have been along to every one of his gigs or open mic nights that I have been able to. Enjoyable as they have been, there have been perhaps only one female act, or female led act at each one.


I love female musical talent. I love their voices, whether they sound like Poly Styrene from X-Ray Spex or Celine Dion (…well maybe Celine Dion is going a bit far). I love the songs they write, I love what they have to say, and I love that even my dad thinks that a female bassist just looks cooler and edgier than a male one. And all of the handful of women I have had the privilege to see live at Kent have been fantastic, talented performers in a range of genres, skills and styles (as, of course, have their male counterparts, but do I really have to tell you that this isn’t about them?) The only problem with these girls is that there simply aren’t enough of them up there.


The solution seems obvious—GIVE these women somewhere to perform! A high profile live music event on campus intended as a platform for female and female led acts. If you wish to see a male dominated live music night then go along to any other night. But not this one! This one’s for the grrls!


…And of course, whenever I have brought up this idea in mixed company I have had the responses you’d expect, intended to immediately quash my bright eyed, flushed cheeked idealistic excitement.


“Girls just won’t sign up—if you haven’t seen them at open mic nights then it’s because they don’t want to be there.” –Honestly? You truly want me to believe that at a University of over 18,000 students, a large Drama and Performing Arts department, nine visible music and performance based societies, a university in which female students outnumber males, there are really not enough interested, creative, talented women to fill one night?


“What? Surely you’ll have to let some men perform—I thought feminism was about equality!”—Just because an event is pro-women, does not mean it is anti-men (one day I won’t have to explain that anymore…). Male students are welcome to watch and enjoy the evening, to assist with setting up, and even perform if they are part of a female led band! (Examples of female led bands: The Yeah Yeah Yeahs, The Dresden Dolls, No Doubt, Paramore…) If I get really desperate, then yes, I may have to consider inviting male performers in, but this is certainly not the direction I am hoping for, and I really think it will take away from the impact.


“It won’t have as good an atmosphere—girls don’t do Rock n Roll.” Good lord, this was possibly the most exasperating reaction. Girls don’t rock? I think that Janis Joplin, Patti Smith, Aretha Franklin, Beth Ditto, Suzie Quatro, Tina Turner and a number of artists I’ve already mentioned would beg to differ. Say nothing of the Riot Grrl genre.


I hope that I sound very sure of myself here. Of course I’m not; I have never organised a music event, or even played in a band before, and I am only just learning the amount of energy that needs to go into it, and what is required from me. Every time somebody shoots a negative question at me, like the ones above, my confidence takes a little knock and I wonder if they are right. FemSoc is not by any means the first to try and pull off something like this. In fact, what we are doing will only be one night, in a small campus bar. It should be very easy, compared to what has gone before us: The Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival has been happening every August since 1976 and is consistently overbooked, Shejay; which organises all women performances of electronica and club music has been going for nine years, Ladyfest was also started in the early 2000s, and is an international phenomenon, with events popping up all over the world, and 2010 has seen the return of Lilth Fair, an all women festival which toured America in the mid to late nineties, being sold out everywhere it went.


So there is hope! As I’ve said, and will keep saying, this is something I really want to happen this year at Kent, and for every naysayer, we’ve also had a mountain of support. I really do believe it’s something that can be done, even if I have to go out and look for acts myself! Hopefully it won’t come to that, hopefully girls will see this as a great opportunity, and a lot of fun! So; Funny women, Riot Grrls, Hippie Chicks, Souls Sistas and Divas, FemSoc wants you!

By Louise

A Sex Education: An Open Letter To My Old School

Warnings:  This post contains triggering material including discussion of rape, rape culture and victim blaming.

Below is an open letter of complaint to my old secondary school- I have left the school anonymous for now, because when term resumes, I hope to bring it up with them in person and give them the right to reply.  The lesson in question was one that my sister mentioned today, and was a part of.

Dear X School,

It has recently come to my attention that a member of your staff feels that it is appropriate to make jokes that perpetuate damaging rape myths in the context of a sexual education class. The class, which my sister was present in, was discussing the subject of consent, and “saying no”.

Apparently the teacher in question made what I assume he thought was an amusing remark, informing his students  thus- “Basically, don’t get into bed naked with someone you don’t want to have sex with.” Joke or not, the message behind this joke is highly disturbing. My sister actually came away from this lesson thinking that this was how the law actually stood on consent.

Nudity does not equate to consent. I will say it again. Nudity does not equate to consent. To give students the idea of this is incredibly dangerous to victims, potential victims, and perpetrators of rape. To insinuate that to be nude with somebody is to give up all bodily autonomy to another person is horrendous.

Imagine if a young girl, one of your students, gets raped whilst merely being nude with her boyfriend, and thinks that she was to blame for giving him mixed messages.

Imagine that one of these students goes away thinking that when someone is nude with them, it gives them an all access pass to that person’s body. They feels that it is okay to perform any sexual act upon them they wish, because they have been taught that the other person’s nudity means that they are entitled to that body.

Imagine if one of your student’s friends is raped, and that friend is blamed for that rape because of the rape myth that you have instilled in these young people.

What this has done is perpetuated a victim-blaming rape myth which feeds right into a dangerous rape culture. Instead, we should be de-bunking these myths for students. We should be teaching them that consent can be withdrawn at any time, and that if they don’t respect someone’s withdrawal of consent they have raped that person. We should be teaching them that consent to one sexual act does not equate to consent of all sexual acts. And consent to a sexual act once does not equate to consent to that sexual act for all time. Because that is how the law stands.

You are teachers- you have a duty of care to teach these students responsibly about “saying no”. And if you aren’t going to do it responsibly, I’d rather you didn’t do it at all.

 Yours,

Sarah McAlpine

UKC FemSoc at UK Feminista Summer School!

This weekend, 350 women and men made their way to the Amnesty Centre in Shoreditch to attend the UK Feminista Summer School, which had proved to be so popular it was fully booked within weeks of its announcement. The weekend was advertised as ‘Two days of training in feminist activism’ and included workshops and talks on running a feminist group, campaigning, fundraising, demonstrations, promoting diversity and public speaking, to name a few. It was also billed as a good forum for networking with other grassroots feminist groups, and UKC FemSoc were no exception.




UK Feminista was set up earlier this year—in fact only a month before UKC FemSoc itself—as a kind of social networking site for feminists and feminist organisations. The website includes a map, where you can locate your nearest group, and forums and blogs where these groups can discuss and record their campaigns and progress. Its major aim is to create a space to bring grassroots feminism together, and create better communication across the Women’s movement.



In the foyer of Amnesty’s very modern, shiny building, there were a couple of stalls laden with leaflets on every topic from domestic abuse and rape to abortion rights to feminist music festivals. There was also merchandise on sale, and a book stall run by Silvermoon women’s bookshop (did you know that in Waterstones they stock ten male authors to every one female writer?)



Once we were all signed up for whichever workshops we planned to attend, we entered the auditorium to do a spot of networking. We met girls who ran other University Feminist Societies (Leeds, Southampton and Bristol), people from brand new fledgling groups like ours (Belfast Feminist Network), and people from big, established groups (Fawcett, London Feminist Network, OBJECT). Lots of friendly ideas were exchanged, and the atmosphere was fantastic, everyone buzzing with feminist energy.



The lineup of speakers was equally impressive, including Kat Banyard herself, director and founder of UK Feminista, author of new book ‘The Equality Illusion’, Hannah Poole, writer for the Guardian newspaper, Bidisha, Julie Bindel, Karin Robinson, who had been responsible for Obama’s electoral campaign abroad, women from ‘Lady Fest’, the Fawcett Society, Eaves and Women in Prison. The weekend aimed to address Feminist Activism as broadly as possible, and it was inspiring to see so many women’s organisations represented throughout.



More than anything, it was a wonderful feeling to be recognised as a Feminist, and to be in a space where that was celebrated. As I have learnt hosting FemSoc events at Uni, there is immense satisfaction in learning that you are not alone; that Feminism is not your own personal eccentricity. It was fantastic to hear so many voices cheer each others accomplishments, and equally satisfying to hear the unanimous groan when Theresa May was mentioned. The humour and optimism was infectious, and left everybody feeling energized and ready to act.



As for me, I cannot wait to get back to UKC FemSoc and get to work. I’m thrilled at the response we’ve had already from students and even non-students about our society, and I’m determined to continue this message of positivity and excitement throughout the year. I can’t wait for the next big national Feminist event—which will be Feminism in London in October, and I urge everybody to come along too, as there is really nothing quite like it.

Louise MacBean

Welcome!

Just a post to welcome you all to Lib Service, the University of Kent Feminism Society's official blog! This will be a space for you to post any articles, thoughts and musings, reviews and interviews that relate to Feminism. We also hope to send out a newsletter each term on hard copy, which will consist of some of the most interesting and well written articles, as well as a couple of new ones!

We are very excited about this, and the blog will be open for anyone to post at. However, we ask that you submit any posts via our e-mail address; lib_service@hotmail.co.uk. This is only so that we can avoid trolling of any kind, and just to generally moderate the page. 

A few house rules;

Any article that goes into the termly/half termly newsletter may have to be cut down to save on space. If this is necessary, we will allow the author to do so, probably with a rough word limit. Of course, if they don't want their article published in the newsletter we will respect that =].

Commenting is currently completely open and unmoderated, just due to the amount of time that moderation would take. Therefore we will ask you to be respectful and keep criticism at a constructive level. Whilst we welcome debate, any inflammatory speech will not be tolerated, and if it occurs we would have to put in place a much stricter process for commenting. 

We are very excited to see what you have to offer us, and we would ideally love to have the first Lib Service newsletter out for Fresher's Fayre, so please, get writing!

Yours

UKC FemSoc