The Population Explosion is led by Women

  

Having children is better than working,

especially if the women are bored !

  

But what use is a man to a woman who has children by another ?

Money !

What does a good man bring to a relationship with a woman ?

Money !

It may depend on what the woman sees as her needs at any one time.

More Money

For example does she want more children or a father for her children ?

  

This could lead to another rejection ?

But also involves lots more Money

  

Security for herself ?

Security means Money

  

Maybe a better standard of living ?

That definitely involves  Money

  

A good man can provide if his partner appreciates him for what his needs are.

But sex costs Money.

  

Radical

Rise of the naked female warriors

Known for its topless protesters,

Femen is a worldwide movement against patriarchy.

But are the activists' breasts obscuring the message?

•  
• Kira Cochrane
• The Guardian, Wednesday 20 March 2013 19.33 GMT

One day last summer, Inna Shevchenko went into a forest outside Kiev, to learn how to use a chainsaw.

The lumberjacks who were instructing her couldn't work out why she was so keen.

"They thought I was just a crazy blonde," she says, shaking her white curls.

"I was acting like: 'Oh really?'" She affects a coy, clueless demeanour. "'That's how you do it? Great!'"

The next day she went to a hilltop overlooking Kiev, and stripped to a pair of red denim shorts, worn with heavy

boots, leather gloves, and a mask to protect her eyes.

The Pussy Riot verdict was due that day, and in tribute to the Russian punk activists – and to mark her

opposition to all religions – Inna proceeded to chop down a 13ft wooden cross that had been there since 2005.

Despite her preparations, it wasn't easy.

"When I started to cut it, I thought, 'it's not possible to destroy it,'" she says.

But after seven minutes it fell, and she posed against the stump for invited journalists.

With "Free Riot" scrawled across her bare breasts, she held out her arms to mirror the figure of Christ now lying on the ground.

Death threats arrived instantly.

She says there were official calls for her arrest, and Russian TV reported that the cross was a memorial to the

victims of Stalinism. Inna denies this, but Ukrainian journalists repeated the claim, and anger towards her

sharpened.

Men she suspected of being secret service agents immediately began milling outside her apartment, and a few

days later, she was woken at 6am by the sound of her front door being kicked in.

She escaped, jumping through a back window, then down from a first floor balcony, and made her way to

Warsaw with $50, a mobile phone and her passport.

She feared jail if she returned to Kiev, so some days later, she travelled to France, where women had expressed

interest in joining Femen, the feminist group she runs with three Ukrainian friends.

Femen's aims are straightforward, broad and radical. A war on patriarchy on three fronts, calling for an end to

all religions, dictatorships and the sex industry.

The group has been offered a space in a rundown theatre in Paris as headquarters, and it is here I meet Inna, 24,

at the start of a training session with 20 young Femen activists.

She is giving instructions on the correct stance – feet apart, firmly rooted, aggressive.

Femen warriors never smile, she says, they are not there to please anyone.

The group has been protesting topless since 2010, using their bodies to attract attention, to lure journalists, and

they have been roundly criticised by some people, who accuse them of playing into sexist stereotypes.

In a room covered with posters and murals – Fuck Religion, says one, Go out! Undress! Win!, says another – the

activists stand in rows, screaming slogans at each other. They're dressed in T-shirts and tracksuits, occasionally

stopping to swig bottled water. This is gym class for the revolution.

"Not a sex toy," they scream.

Then "Poor because of you" and "In gay we trust".

One by one, they take to the middle of the room, to show how they would behave at a protest.

One new member shouts "Pope No More", before two other activists launch themselves at her.

For a moment all three are mid-air, then they hit the ground and start struggling in a blur.

Inna has told them they must move constantly, to avoid being covered; their slogan will be written across their

bare chest and back, and they need it to be seen.

One woman fights hard, still screaming, occasionally breaking free, running a few paces, only to be brought

down again with a brutal thwack.

Finally, Inna calls a halt, and the woman stands up with blood running down her arm. Inna smiles, grabs her

hand, and holds the injured limb aloft.

There is clapping, cheering, congratulations.

As the activists start the next stage of training – situps, press-ups, running-while-screaming – journalists and

cameramen swirl around.

There is no attempt to hide the fact this session is being played out for the press.

As women fight, Inna comes up close to them, in her denim hotpants, hooded top and Converse boots,

instructing them to look at the camera. It doesn't matter how many people come to a protest, she says – if there's

one camera, that's what they need to target, to get their message out to millions.

On some level, this is working.

Each time Femen stages an action, videos pop up on websites worldwide.

But are their breasts obscuring their message? When I tell a friend I'm due to interview them, he is fascinated by

the idea of topless feminist warriors – but switches off as soon as I mention their arguments.

I suspect there are long-time feminist activists who take one glance at their tactics and, jaded by the use of

women's bodies in art, advertising, commerce, don't pause to hear what they're saying.

Their message can also get lost in the breadth and sprawl of their protests.

While other groups focus on one or two issues, Femen are everywhere.

Over the past few years they have protested for gay rights in St Peter's Square during the Pope's weekly prayers;

against the use of ultra-thin models at Milan fashion week; and during Euro 2012, in Ukraine, they grabbed the

championship trophy in protest against the sex industry. In London last summer, they smeared themselves in

fake blood and accused the International Olympic Committee of supporting "bloody Islamist regimes"; at Davos,

in January, they protested against male domination of the world economy.

And in February, they provoked both raised eyebrows and a few sniggers by launching themselves topless at

Silvio Berlusconi.

Their campaigning is unified by one central aim: to use their breasts to expose corruption and inequality

wherever they see it.

"One of the main goals," says Inna, "is to take the masks off people who wear them, to show who they are, and

the level of fucking patriarchy in this world, you know?"

She says they also want to reclaim women's bodies for women.

"A woman's naked body has always been the instrument of the patriarchy," she says, "they use it in the sex

industry, the fashion industry, advertising, always in men's hands.

We realised the key was to give the naked body back to its rightful owner, to women, and give a new

interpretation of nudity ... I'm proud of the fact that today naked women are not just posing on the cover of

Playboy, but can be at an action, angry, and can irritate people."

The group started in 2006, when founders Anna Hutsol, Oksana Shachko and Alexandra Shevchenko (no relation

to Inna), became friends in their home town in Ukraine.

It was not long after the orange revolution, in which Ukrainians had demonstrated for democracy, and Alexandra,

24, says they wanted to keep the revolutionary feeling going.

They started a women's group, and began organising against the sex industry.

Sex tourism is a major problem in Ukraine, and every woman is victimised as a result, says Alexandra.

"You'd walk down the street and foreigners, men, would come up to you, ask how much, touch you."

Inna joined the group in 2009, after meeting the other women on social media. In those early days they were just

developing their views. Feminism was unpopular in Ukraine; saying you were a feminist was "something similar

to saying you're an idiot, you're crazy," says Inna.

Alexandra says she used to believe the "image created by patriarchy, where feminists are ugly women with

moustaches who want to cut off men's penises".

(They've played with this imagery themselves. Until recently, their website featured a picture of a woman holding

an enormous scythe in one hand, a bloody scrotum in the other.)

They embarked on long, lively discussions about women's rights.

"We're not based on 700 pages of doctrine," says Inna, "instead we would come in and saying 'can you believe

that fucker?

He just touched my arse and said he wants to fuck me, and he will pay me with a cocktail.'

The discussion was very primitive, and we became angry, and wanted to express it, so we started doing street

performances."

These were clothed at first.

They would go out with price tags hanging off them to protest against the sex industry, for example; the group

has long called for the Swedish approach to prostitution, in which clients rather than sex workers are

criminalised.

They always had an interest in branding, and initially wore all-pink outfits – some journalists called them the pink

revolution. In 2010, in protest against the appointment of an all-male cabinet, they dressed up as men, then took

off their suits to reveal women's clothing. Inna was working in the press office of the Kiev mayor at the time.

As a result of the protest she was fired.

That same year, they staged their first topless protest.

Five activists at the polling station where presidential candidate Viktor Yanukovych was due to vote stripped in front of the media.

The next day, the image went global. They weren't immediately convinced they should protest topless all the time,

but the response started "a huge, hot aggressive discussion," says Inna.

She was initially against the idea.

She felt shy, uncomfortable with her body, and frustrated that as "a woman you have to take off your shirt to say

something".

But they continued to protest – sometimes topless, sometimes clothed – for six months, and she "realised that

sometimes when we were not topless, we were talking about much more important topics, but they were just

ignored".

They decided to go for it, and grew wise to the tabloid tactic of cropping out their banners – they began scrawling

slogans directly on their breasts. Inna says her naked body now feels like a uniform, while Alexandra describes it

as, "my weapon, my gun".

The group has been accused of deploying only young, slim, beautiful women.

But a new book about Femen, just published in France, features photos of women of different shapes and sizes

on demonstrations, pictures I've never seen elsewhere.

The media, unsurprisingly, pick the most obviously attractive photos. Inna says they have never chosen women

according to their looks, or weight; the only proviso is that they have to be well-prepared.

"There are a lot of girls who are very strong physically, but they cannot show aggression, they cannot imagine

how they will react if someone tries to grab them."

The movement is non-violent – Inna calls it "peaceful terrorism" – but she has been injured more than once, and

was badly beaten during a recent action.

Their actions have sometimes been dismissed but there is no doubt the women of Femen take serious risks. In

late 2011, for example, Inna and two other activists travelled to Minsk, in Belarus, to protest outside the KGB

offices against Alexander Lukashenko, the man often called Europe's last dictator.

While they expected to spend New Year in a Belarus jail, they allege that they were, instead, abducted by secret

service agents – a claim the Belarusian KGB denies.

Inna says a group of men caught up with them at the bus station, and they were driven for five hours into a forest.

There, she claims, they were covered in oil, threatened with lighters and knives, and ordered to strip completely.

She assumed they were going to be raped.

"They put handcuffs on us, and we were sitting like this," she leans forward with her hands behind her back, "for

six or seven hours, not allowed to move or talk.

One guy kept repeating that we were going to be killed, but before that they were going to have fun.

"They said, breathe, enjoy the air, because there is only one hour left of your life. Imagine the smile of your

mother, and now imagine her face when she gets your dead body."

Inna felt sure they would be killed, and started analysing her years with Femen.

"I knew this was the best part of my life, and something I would never feel sorry about, even in a situation when I

could be killed, and it was the greatest answer for me.

It was one of the worst days of my life, but also the best, because I understood myself."

The three women were eventually dumped in the snow, and she says the incident made her more determined

than ever.

"I suddenly saw the huge potential of this. Maybe it's strange to say this – I know some people already think we're

kamikaze – but that's why I now say I'm more of an activist than a person, because I know that tomorrow I could

be killed."

Alexandra says there is a criminal case against her at the moment in Ukraine, where she has been imprisoned a

few times for her protests, but she is living in Berlin, organising the activists of Femen Germany.

The group wants the movement to spread globally, and they try to support women who start offshoots in their

own countries.

They now have about 200 activists worldwide – a small number, but able to make a major impact – with branches

in Switzerland, Poland, Holland, Sweden, Brazil, USA, Canada and Italy.

An activist in Tunisia recently posted a topless image of herself online, and two days ago it was reported that a

fatwa had been issued, calling for her to be stoned to death.

Apparently there are a few UK activists, and one British woman, Pippa, 25, who lives in Berlin, has been

protesting with the German group. She says she appreciates how active they are.

She was involved in student feminism in the UK, but found it grindingly difficult to get people interested in

protests.

When they started Femen, says Alexandra, they felt they needed to change the way feminism was communicated

to young women.

"They don't want to read huge texts," she says, so the key was to create something visual.

"We understood that people have a lot of information coming at them through mass media, and we needed

something that could shock people, shake them, grab their attention."

Pippa likes the fact they don't spend hours debating actions; they just get out and do them.

But this approach might cause them trouble in future.

In Germany, for instance, they've been criticised for comparing the sex industry to fascism, using Nazi imagery to

underline this comparison.

There seems little doubt they hate fascism – they protest regularly against extreme rightwing groups, who on one

occasion knocked Inna's teeth out – but Alexandra is determined they should continue to use this loaded

metaphor, despite protests from Femen Germany activists.

"I understand that they feel this pain," she says, "but we want to make this connection between prostitution and

fascism, because people know that fascism is a fucking bad thing."

Inna uses the comparison in the context of religion too.

"I strongly believe that one day religion has to be forbidden," she says, "the same way fascism was forbidden."

Femen aren't subtle, they aren't inoffensive, and they certainly aren't sorry.

"We're provocateurs," says Inna, "and the reaction depends on those who are provoked." With members having

faced loss of livelihood, alleged abduction, arrest, jail, death threats and ridicule, it seems they are in it for keeps.

"One of our slogans is: 'Fight until the last drop of blood,'" says Alexandra, while Inna notes that every morning

she wakes up to death threats, sent via text message, that simply say "die", or "burn".

When she sees them she thinks: "Good morning!" she says, laughing long and hard

A Feminist Issue

For

“ Where there are hairless genitalia, surely the unwelcome suggestion of the childish body is never far away. ”

Louisa Saunders, The Independent

Against

“ It’s everybody. It’s the gay community, it’s the straight community, it’s very conservative guys, it’s very liberal guys. ”

Mike Indursky, New York Times

What's going on?

Hair removal ads: they're everywhere.

With news that pubic hair removal could up viral infection risk, and possibly increase the risk of sexually

transmitted diseases, it's time we talked about the topic more openly.

A 2012 study by IndianaUniversity, which surveyed 2,451 American women, showed that among the 18-24 age

group, two-thirds had totally or partially removed their pubic hair during the past month, and a fifth had been

hairless during that entire period.

We know it's prevalent, but why are women feeling the need to go bare?

And is it a feminist issue?

Case for: Pressure

Where it used to be seen as taboo to remove pubic hair, there is an established modern pressure for women to keep it off.

The amount of time, money and energy spent on an incredibly unenjoyable and often very painful experience is

absurd.

Let's not forget it's there for a reason - its removal has been proven to increase infection.

Marketing campaigns for hair removal products target women to say that being smoother will please your man -

and as a result men come to expect that any stubble is simply offensive, lazy or masculine.

Why should women pluck, scrape, thread, epilate, shave, dissolve or wax their natural hair to please anyone?

Plus, who naturally has no pubic hair? Children.

We all mature for a reason, and women shouldn't have to return to their pre-pubescent youth to fill any

adolescent fantasies.

Case against: Grooming

Styling pubic hair is not dissimilar to how hairstyles evolve with time. Just as you don't see many mullets around

anymore, in the seventies a full bush was preferred downstairs, and now a Brazilian is the fashionable choice.

It's each woman's preference whether she chooses to shave or wax, and it would be an invasion of privacy to

dictate what they should do to their private parts.

Men also shave their facial hair according to personal taste and trends, and increasingly tidy up and wax their pubic hair, too.

Personal grooming in on the up in every sense - anyone can see that hairs sprouting from swimwear is simply

unsightly.

The politics of pubic hair:

why is a generation choosing to go bare down there?

Shaved genitals have somehow become the new normal for an entire generation of women.

Surely it’s time we asked why.

Louisa Saunders ponders the politics of pubic hair

Louisa Saunders Monday 18 March 2013

 
Last weekend, I went to see my daughter in a university production of Eve Ensler’s The Vagina Monologues, the

successful and somewhat cultish play that brings the V-word out from the shadows.

On the way in, we were offered marker pens and encouraged to write on a large sheet of paper what our vaginas

would say if they could talk.

My younger daughter and I were a little too British to give this novel gimmick our full attention, but I watched what

the other women in the audience wrote.

“Oh, hang on while I clear the cobwebs away.” “Talk about a lean period.”

But then I saw that someone among the largely student, and presumably broadly feminist, audience had written,

“I need a shave.” I snatched up a pen and replied (though never having conversed with a vagina before), “No you

DON’T.”

Those familiar with The Vagina Monologues will remember that it contains an entire sequence concerning pubic

hair.

In it, a woman describes in eye-watering detail the painful process of removing her pubic hair at the request of a

lover – the smarting, the soreness and the vague discomfort of trying to comply with the fetish of a sexual

partner. The play was first produced in 1996 and yes, at that time, preferring to make love to a woman without

pubic hair was considered to be a bit of a fetish.

Because I belong to a generation that considered pubic hair to be a given, and because, the Monologues

notwithstanding, vaginas are not an everyday topic of conversation, the awareness that young women are

choosing to remove their pubic hair has crept up on me only gradually.

A gynaecologist friend remarked that she sees increasing numbers of hairless young women in her surgery.

A nanny who used to look after my children casually shared her pre-holiday checklist: get euros, arrange cat-

feeding, have full Brazilian wax.

My 19-year-old nephew told his mother that he had never seen a girl with pubic hair.

Tentatively raising the matter in conversation with younger women, I expected that some of them might share my

bewilderment with this still fairly new fad.

But I was met with awkward shuffling and downcast eyes, which told me that it might be better to change the subject.

I have come across only one in-depth piece of research that measures the extent of pubic-hair removal among

women.

Conducted last year by Indiana University, which surveyed 2,451 American women, it showed that among the 18-

24 age group, two-thirds had totally or partially removed their pubic hair during the past month, and a fifth had

been hairless during that entire period.

The prevalence fell as the age of the respondents advanced, but still in the 50-plus age group around 10 per cent

had engaged in some total removal during the previous month.

There is nothing to suggest that figures in Britain are likely to be much different.

Did this begin in the pornographic industry?

Or has pornography merely responded to what is fast becoming the new normal? Images of female genitalia au

naturel are now in a very small minority, and a large percentage of pornographic images show no hair at all.

The partial or full removal of pubic hair in pornography is so widespread, Joe Slade, professor of media and

culture at Ohio University, recently told The Atlantic magazine, that there is now a niche market for those who

prefer to look at the fully covered version.

Our sexual lives are a complex and  personal matter and it is not my intention to question the feminist integrity of

any woman who chooses to go hairless.

There  are those who argue that it is in some way  empowering and that it is something women do for their own

satisfaction – wear that  vagina loud and proud.

The removal of pubic hair is not confined to man-pleasing Barbies, nor even to straight women.

Nevertheless,  the fashion for it makes me uncomfortable.

Hairless female genitalia have an obvious association, and that is with pre-pubescent girls.

Where there are hairless genitalia, surely the unwelcome suggestion of the childish body is never far away.

Women, more than men, prink and preen our bodies to bend to the rules of attraction – to look more youthful and

even, you could argue, more childlike. Leg-shaving, lip-reddening, eyelash-darkening, hair-lightening – all these

hint at the flawless childish state.

But it is adult women who have sex and, surely, adult women to whom men want to make love.

Removing pubic hair is painful – agony, actually, according to those who have succumbed to waxing the area,

which is the most efficient way to go about it.

It’s painful when it grows back, and it’s expensive.

It is also dangerous.

Last year, Emily Gibson, director of the health centre at Western Washington University in the USA, launched an

appeal to put a stop to the trend for hair removal because, she claimed, it increases the risk of infection and

sexually transmitted diseases.

“Pubic-hair removal,” she said, “naturally irritates and inflames the hair follicles, leaving microscopic open wounds.”

She also said it was not unusual to see patients with boils and abscesses on their genitals from shaving.

And all, it seems, because of a growing feeling that there might be something unacceptable about female genitals in their natural state.

To me, this is a feminist issue.

What I find strange about this sea change, apart from the extreme speed at which it  appears to have happened, is

that something so widespread is so rarely talked about or questioned.

I have never heard women discussing their intimate grooming habits among themselves, even though there are

few taboos  when women talk among their own sex.

The implications culturally and politically are complicated and not entirely fathomable – but surely worth discussing.

The Vagina Monologues has evolved over  the years, with new pieces added to keep it fresh and topical.

If I were the author, I might revisit the part about hair, and give it a little trim  and shave.

The Telegraph on the other hand opts to headline on a rise in genital warts caused by bikini waxes.

Shaving and waxing of bikini lines could be behind an explosion in the number of cases of a type of sexually

transmitted infection that causes unsightly warts, doctors are warning.

Shaving the pubic region causes ‘micro-trauma’ of the skin, boosting the chance of a pox virus called Molluscum

contagiosum, say the French experts.

French doctors wanted to know if this rise was linked to the growing fashion for ‘Brazilians’ and other forms of

pubic hair removal.

They looked through records of visits to a private skin clinic in Nice from January 2011 to March 2012, and

identified 30 cases of water warts infection.

All but two of the 30 patients had undergone pubic hair removal.

Twenty of the 28 had been shaved, five clipped and three waxed.

Writing in the journal Sexually Transmitted Infections, they warned: ‘Hair removal (especially shaving) could

favour its acquisition, propagation and transmission by micro-traumatisms

How to keep her from straying

If your partner has a wandering eye, here’s how to spot it – and stop her from cheating

By Brittany Kennedy

 

Affair play

First, the bad news: your partner is hardwired for infidelity.

Now the really bad news: it's happening more than ever before.

In a recent nationwide survey, 34% of British wives and girlfriends admitted to sleeping with other men behind

their partners' backs.

But all is not lost. Studies show there are five specific types of female philanderer.

Here's how to spot her natural cheating 'type', so you can neutralise that hardwired impulse now.

The alpha female

Four out of five women seeking an affair on the internet fall into the ABC1 economic bracket.

"This is the sort of woman who goes to the gym early in the morning so she can hold down her perfect job and

body," says psychologist Susan Quilliam.

Beware when... She misses out on a promotion.

"When her power balance shifts, she will take drastic measures to get control back," warns Quilliam.

"She may look for new physical interests to provide that boost."

Abolish her animal instinct Confidence is the best form of defence.

"Initiate sex more often, and stand up to her.

The last thing she wants is another grovelling employee," says marital therapist Andrew Marshall.

"To these women, power is an aphrodisiac," says psychologist David Holmes

The attention seeker

A study by the University of Texas found that sexually attractive women have higher than normal levels of

oestrogen, and a stronger inclination to cheat as a result.

"She's a natural-born breeder," says Holmes. "Identify her by her swarm of male friends," says Quilliam.

Beware when... Her male friends start coupling off or lose interest in her.

"Without male interaction, these women subconsciously feel a sense of something lacking, and look to build

new relationships with men as a result," says Quilliam.

Abolish her animal instinct Set her loose on other men.

"It might seem counter-intuitive, but introducing her to male relatives or (trusted) friends will give you the

security of knowing her male companions – without depriving her of attention," says Quilliam.

Disregard this advice if your relative is Russell Brand

The thrill hunter

Her proclivity to cheat could depend on her ability to produce dopamine: the chemical that makes us feel

excited.

Some women are genetically predisposed to seek risk.

"She's the type who starts arguments just for the thrill of it," says Quilliam.

Beware when... Your relationship becomes less stimulating. "If Friday nights revolve around the TV and local

pub, she'll look to someone new to get the dopamine-racing rewards you used to give her," says Holmes.

Abolish her animal instinct Take up a new hobby as a couple. "Suggest going out to try exotic cuisines,"

suggests Quilliam. Foods containing tyrosine, such as almonds or bananas, will also boost dopamine (the safe way).

The pleasure predator

"These women have elevated testosterone levels – evident from their high sex drives and an interest in sport,"

says Holmes. Don't celebrate just yet when she turns on Match of the Day.

Beware when... You've been together for a long time. "Once your sex-life becomes less exploratory,

incompatibilities in your bedroom preferences can arise," says Quilliam. According to Canadian research,

women who feel sexually incompatible with their partners are three times more likely to cheat.

Abolish her animal instinct Get tactile – with your clothes on. "Contact outside the bedroom will recreate the

anticipation you felt earlier in your relationship," says Marshall.

Try letting your hand linger on her lower back while waiting at a crowded bar

The damsel in distress

"Most women prefer to be monogamous and only cheat when the intimacy disappears from their relationship.

Spot these women by their 'helpless' approach to dating.

Does she call you when her boiler breaks or computer crashes?

These women bring you into problem scenarios to see if you'll come to their rescue," Holmes says.

Beware when... You're stuck in a rut. "Following the same routine can create an emotional distance between

you, which causes sensitive women like her to feel anxious," says sex psychologist Janice Hiller.

Abolish her animal instinct When talking, repeat back the last adjective she used.

"Echoing her descriptions makes her feel like you understand – so she doesn't need to find somebody else who

does," says Marshall.

The question one must ask is if one had ones time again what would one have done differently.

One answer could be -

That one  has worked for women for too much of one's life and that shouldn't happen again.
 

Why ?

Because "women are a sometime thing" -

Instead one would have had less struggles in that direction and more pleasures to enjoy.

What would they be ?

Less debt and more independence ?
 
Don't get me wrong, I don't wish to exploit women because I don't like being exploited either.

Yes ! some do feel women have exploited them

Men do

Is it because they are more gullible than women, less astute or just more stupid ?

Naive ? possibly
 
 
A Woman Is A Sometime Thing lyrics by George Gershwin
But a woman is a sometime thing
Yes a woman is a sometime thing

Yo' mammy is the first to name you
Then she'll tie you to her apron string
Then she'll shame you and she'll blame you
Till yo' woman comes to claim you
'Cause a woman is a sometime thing
Yes a woman is a sometime thing

Don't you never let a woman grieve you
Jus' 'cause she got yo' weddin' ring
She'll love you and deceive you
Then she'll take yo' clothes and leave you
'Cause a woman is a sometime thing
Yes a woman is a sometime thing
Yes a woman is a sometime thing
Yes a woman is a sometime thing

What do women really want in bed?

Nikki Gemmell on why complete sexual honesty is something very few people can cope with

• Nikki Gemmell
• The Guardian,

George Orwell listed four writers' motives: sheer egotism, aesthetic enthusiasm, historical impulse (the desire to

record things as they are, for posterity) and political purpose (the desire to push the world in a certain direction).

I have a much simpler reason for writing: to be in control.

As a wife and a mother, as a woman, my desk is the only place where I have complete control in my life.

It is also, ironically, the only pocket of my life where I can be utterly truthful - especially in terms of sex.

It is hard, in a relationship, to be completely honest: to show your partner your secret self. Vita Sackville West

described herself as an iceberg, and said her husband could only see what was above the water's surface.

She speculated it was the reason their marriage worked.

What relationship can survive the harshness of absolute candour?

I can't stand giving blow jobs, but I have never said that to a lover; for years I have dutifully kneeled.

Many girlfriends feel the same.

One describes it as a chore in the same way she describes defrosting the fridge.

Yet, of course, she has never told her husband this.

Why is it still so hard for women, basking in the glow of so many feminist advances, to be more honest about sex?

To say such simple things to their sexual partners as:

"No, I didn't have an orgasm."

Or, "I find it incredibly monotonous when you make love to me, and sometimes it hurts."

Why are women still so subservient to their partner's pleasure at the expense of their own?

Why aren't we more in control?

Because we don't want them to turn away from us, perhaps.

We don't want them to find the woman who loves giving blow jobs (yes, they do exist).

Because we want our partners to think we are someone else.

Because sometimes we are willing to put up with a lot, to keep a relationship steady, to have children.

Is complete sexual honesty the last frontier that feminism has to tackle?

I loved the idea of diving under the surface of a woman's life, a seemingly contentedly-married woman, and

exploring her secret world. In my book I wanted to say all those things we may think, but never actually say -

especially to our lovers.

I had fully intended to put my name to The Bride Stripped Bare when I began, but soon found I was censoring

myself: afraid of too much honesty, afraid of hurting the people closest to me, and afraid that no man - husband

included - would ever want to sleep with me again, knowing that they were being so judged.

I was judging the dishonesty in my own sexual life most of all.

The aim was to be as merciless in print as a Chuck Close painting or a Ron Mueck sculpture -

but as far as I know,

those artists do not often turn their extremely critical eye upon themselves.

Now I know why.

I am not someone who is completely relaxed about nudity, have never been comfortable in a bikini.

And like many women in a swimsuit, I'm afraid of revealing too much.

But when the idea of anonymity came to me, everything clicked.

I was suddenly like a woman on a foreign beach who is confident that she doesn't know a soul and parades her

body loudly and joyously, without worrying what anyone thinks of her.

I had opened a door to a reckless, exhilarating new world, and could say whatever I wanted.

Like, I have never climaxed during vaginal sex.

And I was 30 before I had my first orgasm and I have lied, often, about whether I have had one.

And I am often thinking of another scenario entirely as I am being made love to, that has nothing to do with the

man inside me.

And for years I wasn't sure I was going about it the right way, because I was getting so little from the experience.

And it was such a relief to read that Marilyn Monroe had said, "I don't think I do it properly."

What's all this about big penises? I would much prefer a snug fit than one that makes me feel that I am being split

apart.

And, actually, I really don't like my breasts being fondled and a lot of women I know feel the same.

Anonymity gave me the freedom to voice, for the first time, exactly what I wanted when it came to sex.

I found the freedom to vent all those doubts I had felt for so long - and to write about a woman finding a way to be

in sexual control.

Finding a way to have exhilarating sex, the kind that can transport you to another plane.

I wasn't sure, though, that I wanted my husband to know of this woman.

I'm seen as a good, sweet wife. I didn't want to let him down.

Naively, perhaps, I thought I could get away with it: no one would know it was me behind the book.

It also meant I wasn't afraid of it failing.

It seemed such a strange hybrid of novel, memoir, treatise and sex manual; I wasn't sure it worked.

I was a very new mother, and I had lost my professional confidence.

I was exhausted, and my brain didn't work in the way it used to.

Then the story broke about the authorship, just after the book had been sold to its publisher.

Suddenly I lost control; journalists were camping on my doorstep and doorstepping my husband (to this day my

publishers, agent and myself don't know how they found out).

I couldn't lie about the its authorship, for Bride, above all, was about honesty.

One reader wrote, "I would never have had the courage to have said what you did - it's so raw, so open.

You're very brave." I laughed when I received this, for, of course, I would never have had the courage to say what I

did either if I had thought my name would be attached.

I still have my husband to deal with. He has just read my book.

We haven't made love since, because he is feeling raw and vulnerable.

But also, I must say, more than a little turned on.

I hope the book works; I hope honesty works. I don't know yet, it is too early.

I am not sure if our relationship can survive the spotlight of so much frankness.

Perhaps I would need to read his side of the story: a man's secret life.

To know what he really wants from sex, but has never dared say.

At least to his wife.

· The Bride Stripped Bare, by Anonymous, is published by Fourth Estate, £15.

Real Reason women say no to sex.

Some may surprise you.

1.Because you didn't do the dishes.

2.There is a weird smell coming from your butt.

3.You flirted with the waitress and it made me upset.

4.I feel fat and I am so not in the mood.

5.I have B.O. so I don't want you near me.

6.You have B.O. and I don't want you near me.

7.I didn't brush my teeth.

8.It smells like you didn't brush your teeth.

9.You aren't paying enough attention to foreplay.

10.I really don't want to give you a blowjob and I know that's what you like first and I just. can't. do. it.

11.Because I don't want to do it the minute you walk in the door like you expect.

12.Because you've been a pervert all day and it's annoying.

13.I'm hungry -- and not for sex.

14.Because I'm tired.

15.Because groping doesn't turn me on.

16.You're drunk and I'm not.

17.I don't feel sexy.

18.Because I have no interest in sex at all.

19.I slept with someone else earlier in the day.

20.I just want to be alone.

21.Everyone's been up my ass all day, the kid, the dog, the cat, I don't want you there, too.

22.Because you're being an asshole.

23.Because you're being rough in a mean way.

24.I masturbated today. I've had enough.

25.Because I can't orgasm and I don't feel like faking it right now.

26.Because you aren't hard and I'm tired of trying.

27.Because loafing around the house in your boxers while you scratch your balls doesn't make me hot.

28.I'm on my period.

29.Because I wish the time you just spent playing your Xbox you were playing with me instead.

30.Because you don't want to do it how I want and I don't feel like explaining.

31.I fantasized about an ex today. I can't do it with you right now.

32.Because I'm cranky.

33.Five minutes ago you were basically ignoring me. Now you want to have sex? No.

34.Because I just showered and don't want to get dirty.

35.Because I don't think you love me.

How many of these reasons have been true for you?

Mens chivalrous acts now make women suspicious

as they have become so rare, study suggests

• 'Knight in shining armour' not wanted as women view chivalry with suspicion

• Poll suggests 89 per cent would not accept man's help carrying shopping

• Shift blamed on men's standards slipping, according to style gurus

By James Rush

UPDATED: 13:52, 15 January 2013

Women are suspicious of kind men who open doors for them or offer a coat on a cold day because of a decline in

good manners, research has suggested.

Traditional acts of chivalry once thought to be polite and noble are frowned upon in the 21st century because they are so rare.

That means the 'knight in shining armour' persona is an unwanted fantasy now that women strive to be strong and independent.

Style gurus claim 'standards have slipped' in the way men conduct themselves so women are 'suspicious' of

gestures once thought to be polite or kind.

A survey said 82 per cent of women preferred to pay for their dinner on a first date and 52 per cent claimed they would happily pay the entire bill.

Men who think women are lumbering heavy shopping bags around should think twice before running to their

assistance, because 89 per cent would not accept an offer to help.

And the scene of a considerate lover throwing his coat over the shoulders of a wife or girlfriend seems to be just

for Hollywood rom-coms only - a massive 78 per cent said they would not accept the gesture even on a cold day.

Mark Hall, of Socked.co.uk, an online style guide offering tips on etiquette, said: 'Men's standards have slipped so

far over recent years.

'Any offer of chivalry from a gentleman knocks a woman off their guard and is viewed with outright suspicion.

'Does an offer of goodwill have to be taken the wrong way?
 
'If men upped their game across the board good manners would be back on the agenda once again.

'We've forgotten about good behaviour and it's high time gentlemen stood up to be counted - especially on a crowded bus.

'The figures show a drift away from what is viewed as acceptable behaviour.'

Decode her flirting

Learn the tricks to outmanoeuvre these five flirting types,

with help from Elizabeth Clark, author of Flirting For Dummies

 

Physical flirt

“She’s practically licking the rim off her glass, but watch her hands. If she’s moving them too erratically, she’s playing you.”

Playful flirt

“Her flirting is physical, with lots of giggling and arm brushing, but she’ll move on quickly.” Unless you move first.

Traditional flirt

She expects you to make the first move. “Test her reaction with eye contact, then an eyebrow flash: you’ll soon know her intentions.”

Polite flirt

“She’s interested if she stands a couple of inches closer to you than to anyone else. Blushing is another giveaway.”

Sincere flirt

“She tells you all about her ex and her mother. But she might be an emotional vampire.” Decide if you want to get bitten.

Flirting or Flaunting

Most women 'flirt to get their way': Laying on the female charm can go a long way

• More than half of British women admit to flirting with men to get their own way

• A fifth admitted flirting at work, according to a survey

By Eleanor Harding

UPDATED: 00:19, 13 December 2012
o 
It's something that feminists may find hard to stomach.

When it comes to getting on in life, laying on a little female charm can go a long way, a survey suggests.

More than half of British women admit to flirting with men to get their own way, with a fifth saying they do so at work.

More than half of British women admit to flirting with men to get their own way, particularly at work

Thirty per cent of the female respondents even said they used sex as a ‘reward’ for good treatment from their partner or husband.
 
The poll of 2,000 people found that 39 per cent of male managers admitted to employing a female candidate

based on their level of attractiveness.

Almost half of those men said they had gone on to have a relationship with someone they had employed.
 
Thirty per cent of the female respondents even said they used sex as a 'reward' for good treatment from their partner or husband

Almost three in five employers – 57 per cent – said they gave preferential treatment to attractive employees.

And when asked ‘Are you more likely to give way to an attractive motorist?’

42 per cent of men replied ‘yes’ – in comparison with 16 per cent of women.

The survey was commissioned by comparison website Confused.com which said it wanted to investigate

gender bias and positive discrimination.

Sharon Flaherty, head of PR at the  company, said: ‘So much focus nowadays is placed on how women can be

seen as equals in the workplace without gender coming into play.

‘But our results show that despite this, many women will turn to their feminine wiles to help themselves get

ahead, should the situation call for it.

‘Whether or not this is a good or bad thing is entirely subjective, but it seems that many women aren’t afraid to

turn to gender at some point or another as a means of benefit, whether it be to flirt their way out of trouble or bag a promotion.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2247296/Most-women-flirt-way-Laying-female-charm-long-way.html#ixzz2EuH95gD0

 

Guns dont kill people, women do:

Historical analysis finds fairer sex just as likely as men to fight in wars

Research reverses the commonly held notion of women as weak

History books have ignored the role of women as fighters, it is claimed

By Damien Gayle

2 November 2012

..In spite of examples such as Joan of Arc or Boudicca, the enduring myth in the Western world is that men are the warriors while women stayed meekly at home.

But the belief that women are the peacemakers while men are more likely to be warmongers is not borne out by history, a new study claims.

Research shows records have airbrushed women soldiers out of history as they do not fit the prevailing notion of men as protectors and women as weak.
 
Milla Jovovich as Joan of Arc in the 2000 film:

A new study claims that the role of women in military combat has been written out of the annals of history as it does not fit the prevailing notion of women as the weaker sex

Many examples exist of women who fought as bravely as their male counterparts, but they have not achieved the

recognition they deserve, claims Professor Montserrat Huguet of the Carlos III University of Madrid.

'War is learned, as are so many other trades, and gender is irrelevant here,' she explained.
 

More...Old habits die hard... but they can be overwritten: New study raises hopes for treatment of obsessive behaviours

Why even the hardest heart can melt: Scientists find we can't empathise and analyse at the same time

Why the happiness of a pay rise is shortlived - but working from home really could improve your life

Her research found women have always been present in wars, both ancient and contemporary, but have been generally portrayed as victims of war.

If they have had an active role, they had often been seen as far from the frontline serving in the rear as ambulance drivers, nurses, prostitutes or spies such as Charlotte Grey.

But history books have often ignored the contribution women soldiers made in actual fighting.

Professor Huguet said although military commanders understood women were equal to male soldiers, often they

were not deployed because of fears it might be seen as a sign of weakness, or if they did their contribution played

down.
  Ready for action: An Israeli woman soldier, left, prepares for a training session near Jerusalem in 2007.

Right, An Afghan woman soldier stands guard as officials prepare to burn seven tons of heroin near Kabul in 2004
 
A woman soldier poses with her gun during a rally in a stadium in Freetown, Sierra Leone: Women have usually been presented as the victims of war, or as supporting men from behind the lines or on the 'home front'

For example during the American Civil War women impersonated men to take up arms but Professor Huguet said 'the military authorities were perplexed and avoided recording these women's activities in the camp registers, thus extending the cloak of silence, which later resulted in a lack of data when history was being written.

'Fortunately, the expansion of archive sources has allowed us to gradually reconstruct the paths and activities of women at war.'

On many occasions, the professor claims, women were the ones who incited and promoted armed conflicts, as the rise of nationalist movements during the 19th century demonstrates.

The enduring symbol of this era is that of Marianne, the national emblem of France who representing liberty and reason as she leads the people into battle.

Although men tried to keep women away from the fighting, they also associated women with the feminine ideal of the homeland, conceiving them as mothers of heroes and champions of the nation.

'They became what I like to call heroes for around the house,' said Professor Huguet.
 
Symbol of the revolution: Marianne, the national emblem of France, is pictured leading a charge in the painting Liberty Leading the People by Eugène Delacroix, which hangs in the Louvre

Women's support of pacificism, particularly during the 20th century's two World Wars, allowed the myth of the meek feminine to endure. Yet the study found as women's pacifism grew, 'militaristic feminism' grew at the same pace.

WOMEN IN MODERN DAY COMBATAlthough most Western armies began to admit women into active military service in the Seventies, the role of women in combat remains controversial.

Countries which do allow women to fill active combat roles include Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, Germany, Norway, Israel, Serbia, Sweden and Switzerland.

In 2011 and 2012, the U.S. Defence Department began looking at loosening its near-universal ban on women serving in direct positions of combat, including ground combat.

One regularly offered objection to putting women on the front line is that the female skeletal system is less dense and prone to breakages.

It is also argued that women's general lower body strength and aerobic capacity makes them less suited to fighting.

In aviation, there was also the concern that women could not handle increased g-forces as well as men. Subsequent research found, however, that the reverse is true.
.

'Why would all women be linked to an anti-military opinion when there was a large segment of women who sought access to the various military branches under conditions equal to those enjoyed by men?' asked Professor Huguet.

The study noted during the Spanish Civil war in the Thirties women fought for the Republican side.

'[I]n the middle of the social revolution, encouraged by egalitarian ideology, they volunteered for combat, in battalions and militias,' said Professor Huguet.

However in 1936 a decree was issued banishing them from the battlefield.

Yet despite the ban some women stood shoulder to shoulder with their male counterparts.

'In spite of being prohibited from participating in combat, some women, like Rosario Sánchez Mora (Dinamintera) and Aida Lafuente (known as Libertaria, Niní or Nina) did not accept being moved away from the front; these women, undaunted, faced the same risks as the men they fought with,' said Professor Huguet.

Professor Huguet said: 'In Spain, in spite of the fact that international history is already an extensively studied field, with excellent results, there are areas that have not been given the attention they deserve.

'Such is the case of women and their presence in and contributions to the international history of conflicts, negotiations and peace.

'It is essential to establish the scientific foundations of women's participation in the historical construction of the culture, considering not only their social activism, but their activity in defence of their countries.'

Feminism and the Oedipus complex

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sphinx & Oedipus

Feminists have long struggled with Freud's classical model of gender and identity development, which centers around the Oedipus complex.

Freud's model, which became integral to orthodox psychoanalysis, suggests that because women lack the visible genitals of the male, they feel they are "missing" the most central necessary for gaining narcissistic value—therefore developing feelings of gender inequality and penis envy.

In his late theory on the feminine, Freud recognized the early and long lasting libidinal attachment of the daughter to the mother during the pre-oedipal stages.

Feminist psychoanalysts have confronted these ideas (particularly the female relationship to the real, imaginary and symbolic phallus) and reached different conclusions.

Some generally agree with Freud's major outlines, modifying it through observations of the pre-Oedipal phase.

Others reformulate Freud's theories more completely

Pregnancy The leading cause of death for teenage girls

in the developing world

• By Marie Staunton
• Health, Notebook - A selection of Independent views -, Opinion
•

 Tuesday, 10 July 2012 at 2:00 am
• 
• A pregnant fifteen-year old girl from Malemba who was raped 3 times, shows her belly to the photographer as she poses at her attacker's home.

The family planning world is meeting in London this week to make one straightforward request – give 120 million women in the world’s poorest countries access to contraception. 

Their reasoning is basic: ‘It’s mortality, stupid’. 

 Pregnancy is the leading cause of death for teenage girls in the developing world.

Most people would agree they are making a fair and simple ask:

Give girls a choice and help save lives. 

But, while increasing access to contraception is vital, it is only one piece of a complex puzzle needed to reduce early pregnancy. 

 There are a number of critical issues to address – including rape, lack of access to appropriate health care and lack of knowledge about contraceptives. 

However, the elephant in the room is surely early and forced marriage – one of the primary reasons young girls in the developing world end up in sexual relationships in the first place.

Take the case of Nargis.  

She was married in rural Bangladesh when she was 12 years old. 

She became pregnant soon afterwards.  

 In labour before her body was properly developed, she suffered serious trauma. 

Her baby died soon after it was born. 

She has never fully recovered, leaving her in daily, excruciating pain.

Girls aged 15-19 are twice as likely to die in childbirth as women aged over 20, while girls aged 10-14 face five times the risk. 

 What’s more, babies born to mothers under 18 are 60 per cent more likely to die before their first birthday than babies born to older mums.

Access to contraception would have certainly helped Nargis and other girls like her. 

However, equally importantly, we need to address why a 12-year-old ended up in a marital bed.

Poverty, gender discrimination, the impact of disasters: 

All of these are tricky and sticky reasons why girls like Nargis become child brides. 

 Often girls in some of the world’s poorest countries are only valued in their roles as wives or mothers. 

Some families even try to protect their daughters from the risks of pre-marital sex and pregnancy, by securing them a husband, and preserving their ‘honour’, as early as possible.

In Nargis’ case, her family said they simply had no means to look after her any more. 

Her family was so desperate that the village matchmaker was given 24 hours to find her a husband. 

 She had no say in the process and was terrified on the day itself.

If we want to stop child marriage and the resulting risky early pregnancies, we need to invest in long-term community programmes. 

 At Plan, we start with children themselves. 

 We support children in the slums of Dhaka who decided to take action after seeing too many of their friends married off. 

Through raising awareness of the problems and identifying kids at risk, local people claim to have cut the rate of child marriage by half. 

 Elsewhere, Imams in Niger (the country with the most child brides in the world), MPs in Kenya and filmmakers in Pakistan are campaigning against the practice.

Contraception is important – but child brides need sensitive and targeted help. 

They are triply disadvantaged by their age, their sex and their marital status. 

 Married girls with little or no schooling often have a limited awareness of their rights and simply lack the knowledge and power to negotiate safer sex.

Girls who marry young are commonly isolated in their own homes, meaning they can’t access sexual health services that do exist. 

Social stigma and a lack of age-appropriate services also stop them getting the guidance they need. 

 We are currently working with AstraZeneca and John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health on the Young Health Programme, which includes specialist projects to give young women, including child brides, a safe place to learn about their rights and sexual health.

International leaders must take heed of the calls from the Family Planning Summit and extend the reach of contraception. 

However, the work cannot end there. 

 Without tackling the root causes of early and forced marriages and gender inequality, we cannot hope to end the horror of the fifty thousand teenage girls who die every year because of pregnancy or childbirth.

Marie Staunton is chief executive of Plan UK

What women really want: to marry a rich man

Women still want to marry men who are better educated and earn more money than them, a report finds today. 
 
The idea that women dislike being financially dependent on men is a myth, with more choosing to “marry up” now than did so in the 1940s, according to Dr Catherine Hakim from the London School of Economics.

After decades of gender equality campaigning many women now find it hard to admit that they want to be a housewife more than they want a successful career of their own, she said.

The study comes after the Coalition announced a series of measures intended to narrow the pay gap between men and women.

Lynne Featherstone, the Liberal Democrat equalities minister, said large companies could be forced to declare how much more they pay men and announced that firms would be able to use “positive action” to recruit new staff from under-represented groups for the first time.

However, Dr Hakim criticised David Cameron for backing the idea of quotas to ensure that more women gain seats on the boards of leading companies.

Men dominate top positions because many women simply do not want long careers in business, she said.

In a 52-page report published by the Centre for Policy Studies think tank, Dr Hakim continued: “Women’s aspiration to marry up, if they can, to a man who is better-educated and higher-earning, persists in most European countries.

“Women thereby continue to use marriage as an alternative or supplement to their employment careers.”

Dr Hakim’s research drew on an extensive review of existing studies from around the world, census data, and national surveys conducted in Britain and Spain.

An analysis of figures for Britain shows that in 1949, 20 per cent of women married husbands with significantly higher levels of education than their own.

By the late 1990s, the proportion of women who were “marrying up” had almost doubled to 38 per cent.

Similar patterns are seen across much of Europe, the US and Australia.

The widely promoted goal of “symmetrical family roles”, with men and women sharing child-care, housework and employment, is popular among a highly educated, professional elite.

But it is “not the ideal sought by most couples”, the report said.

“It is thus not surprising that wives generally earn less than their husbands, and that most couples rationally decide that it makes sense for her to take on the larger share of childcare, and use most or all the parental leave allowance.”

Dr Hakim said many women did not want to “admit” that they were looking for a higher earning partner.

They even keep the fact secret from the men they are dating, she said.

“It has become impossible to say ‘I wouldn’t mind being a housewife,’” she said.

“It is so politically incorrect that a lot of women don’t want to admit it.”

The report said that the “war” for equal opportunities between men and women was now over in the UK.

The gap in pay between the two sexes has fallen from about 30% in the 1970s to as low as 10% today.

 Women do now have an equal opportunity to find work, but choose different priorities for their lives.

The report said it was wrong for politicians to expect that equal opportunities would result in equal numbers of women as men in particular jobs.

Women dance most attractively when fertile

14:32 11 July 2012 by Nic Fleming
New Scientist

Women seeking to impress men on the dance floor might want to consider strutting their stuff when most fertile.

Men shown videos of women dancing and walking were most attracted to their moves when the women were close to ovulation.

Bernhard Fink, at the University of Göttingen, Germany, and colleagues filmed 48 female students aged between 19 and 33 while they walked towards and away from a camera or danced to the drum track of a Robbie Williams song.

The women walked and danced once during the most fertile part of their reproductive cycle and again during a non-fertile time.

The videos were transformed so that only the outline of each woman's body was visible.

This was in order to remove all visual cues other than movement.

The researchers showed the video clips to 200 male students, who were asked to rate the women's attractiveness on a seven-point scale.

They gave women at their most fertile an average rating of 2.88 in the dancing clips and 3.31 in clips showing them walking.

 This compared with ratings of 2.72 and 2.98 respectively for clips recorded at non-fertile times.

Money earner

In 2007 researchers at the University of New Mexico showed that lap dancers earned more in tips when close to ovulation, though they did not study the reasons for changes to the men's largesse (Evolution and Human Behavior, DOI: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.06.002).

Fink speculates that increased attractiveness around ovulation is the result of physiological changes that are mainly related to an increase in oestrogen levels.

"Oestrogen has effects on muscular control, skill performance, and on ligaments and tendons, so it's reasonable to conclude that it could affect body movement," he says.

Whether changes to movement have evolved specifically to signal fertility or are just a by-product of physiological changes associated with fertility remains to be seen, Fink adds, but he favours the latter.

"Both men and women have the ability to judge the phase a woman is at in her cycle, and that can provide valuable information," says Gayle Brewer, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of Central Lancashire in Preston, UK.

"For men it allows them to identify potential mates in their fertile phase and to guard existing partners to prevent cuckoldry, while for women it can allow them to identify the most attractive female competition."

Journal reference: Personality and Individual Differences, DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2012.06.005

For   those of us who are old enough to know about oestrogen issues and you young ladies who have this to look forward to!

Pregnancy, Oestrogen, and Women

PREGNANCY Q & A & more!

Q:  Should I have a baby after 35?
A:  No, 35 children is enough.

Q: I'm two months pregnant now. When will my baby move? 
A:  With any luck, right after he finishes university. 

Q: What is the most reliable method to determine a baby's sex? 
A:  Childbirth. 

Q:  My wife is five months pregnant and so moody that sometimes she's borderline irrational.
A:  So what's your question? 

Q:  My childbirth instructor says it's not pain I'll feel during labour, but pressure. Is she right?
A:  Yes, in the same way that a cyclone might be called an air current. 

Q:  When is the best time to get an epidural?
A:  Right after you find out you're pregnant.

Q:  Is there any reason I have to be in the delivery room while my wife is in labour?
A:  Not unless the word 'child support payment' means anything to you.

Q:  Is there anything I should avoid while recovering from childbirth?
A:  Yes, pregnancy.

Q:  Do I have to have a baby shower?
A:  Not if you change the baby's nappy very quickly.

Q:  Our baby was born last week. When will my wife begin to feel and act normal again?
A:  When the kids are in university.

'OESTROGEN  ISSUES' 

10 WAYS TO KNOW IF YOU HAVE  'OESTROGEN ISSUES' 

1. Everyone around you has an attitude problem.
2. You're adding chocolate chips to your cheese omelette.
3. The dryer has shrunk every last pair of your jeans.
4. Your husband is suddenly agreeing to everything you say.
5. You're using your mobile phone to dial up every bumper sticker that says: 'How's my driving-call 0800-'.
6. Everyone's head looks like an invitation to batting practice.
7. Everyone seems to have just landed here from 'outer space'
9. You're sure that everyone is scheming to drive you crazy.
10. The Nurofen Plus box is empty and you only bought it yesterday.

TOP  TEN THINGS ONLY WOMEN UNDERSTAND 
10.Cats'facial expressions.
9. The need for the same style of shoes in different colours.
8. Why bean sprouts aren't just weeds.
7. Fat clothes.
6. Taking a car trip without trying to beat your best time.
5. The difference between beige, ecru, cream, off-white, and eggshell.
4. Cutting your hair to make it grow.
3. Eyelash curlers.
2. The inaccuracy of every bathroom scale ever made.

AND, the Number One  thing only women understand:

OTHER  WOMEN

 Women having it all is a middle-class myth

If I had to invent a way to undermine feminism,

 I'd set up a ridiculous standard of personal attainment

Laurie Penny 

Monday 09 July 2012

Ladies and gentleman, but particularly ladies: I'd like you to do me a favour.

I'd like us all to stop pretending that the topic of the month –

"Can women really juggle a high-powered career and childcare at the same time?" – is a very important question.

The reason we need to stop is that right now, in the midst of an enormous social, moral and financial backlash against women's independence, figures have emerged showing that middle-aged women are by far the hardest hit by the rise in unemployment – the first fired, the last hired and losing their jobs at a rate several times that of any other demographic group.

So much for "having it all".

Anne-Marie Slaughter, a high-achieving academic and Washington professional, just wrote an article in The Atlantic on "the myth of work-life balance", breaking the solemn news that even women like her still can't "have it all".

What I want to know is, when did we get so unambitious?

 When did feminism narrow its horizons so that the absolute maximum we're prepared to fight for is the rights of a minority of women to be admitted into a sexist labour market whilst managing the school run on the side?

"I am writing for my demographic – highly educated, well-off women who are privileged enough to have choices in the first place," she says. It's the most important sentence in the piece.
The right to equal work for equal pay, in Judith Butler's words, is secondary to the right to equal work itself – and that goal, for most women, is a long way off. In fact, whilst we're busy wondering whether anyone born with a vagina can really "have it all", women and girls are still doing most of the world's domestic work, largely for free, whilst the average man's share of cooking, cleaning and chores has barely changed since the 1980s. Usually, it's poorer women being paid to do the domestic work, the "women's work", that those in high-salaried, full-time careers no longer have time for – and nobody asks whether it's possible for a nanny or a cleaner to "have it all".

Without wishing to sound like a conspiracy theorist, if I had to invent a way to undermine feminism as a socially useful movement, here's what I'd do.

I'd set up a ridiculous standard of personal and professional attainment, one that would be unachievable for the vast majority of women who weren't independently wealthy, white and upper-middle class and I'd call it "having it all".

After I'd set up this impossible standard, I'd be sure to make women feel like failures for not attaining it.

If women believe we can and should "have it all", that means that it's our fault if we still don't feel free, our fault for not working harder, not managing our time poorly, not choosing the "right" partner (Facebook CEO Sheryl Sandberg's top tip for Barnard graduates).

Interestingly, these are precisely the arguments that any armchair neo-liberal uses when they're trying persuade you that "freedom" means working till you drop and questioning nothing.

Mothers, more than anyone else, have been sold a false idea of freedom, one that tells them that if they don't feel very liberated by back-breaking work, whether they're high-heeling their way up the corporate ladder or hoovering the office at night, they only have themselves to blame.

For many younger women who watched our mothers struggle to "have it all", the question of whether or not we should do the same has been mercifully sidelined.

Personally, with the economy the way it is, I don't have the time, money and stability to take care of a puppy, the thing I most want in the world, never mind a boyfriend, or a baby.

Most of my friends are in similar situations, but what we do have is the freedom to ask questions.

Questions like: are we actually allowed not to want a husband?

 Questions like: am I still a valid person if I don't ever make £50,000 a year?

Questions like: is planning not to get married or have children, planning to pour your energies into selfish creative work or travel, still an option?

Will it ever be an option?

Will there ever be a time when personal freedom for women means the same as it does for men?

What is radical about Slaughter's article is its acknowledgement that the "have it all" ideal has always been a fiction, even for seeming super women.

There was a time, not so long ago, when feminism had more imagination.

Within living memory there were serious campaigns for universal free childcare, for wages for housework, and for a welfare state that could allow everyone, not just women, to balance work and family life.

As our ambitions have narrowed, the gulf of disappointment between women's expectations and the reality of working life has become deeper and more painful.

Right now, in Britain alone, female unemployment is at its highest level since records began.

Those who still have jobs are facing wage freezes, pension freezes and cuts to child benefit that can mean the difference between being able to afford childcare and having to give up work.

 If the most that modern feminism can achieve is personal liberation for a handful of privileged women within a labour market designed by and for rich men, we may as well all go back to the kitchen – but if women's rights are going to mean anything in a post-hope, post-austerity world, we're going to have to start asking for much, much more.

Women are their own worst enemies, study finds

The Twisted Sisterhood book says 90% of women surveyed have felt mean and negative 'undercurrents' from other women

• Amelia Hill
• guardian.co.uk,

Kelly Valen, author of The Twisted Sisterhood, said she was shocked by the number of women who said they endured friendships behind frozen smiles.

Girls can be mean to other girls, but it is adult women who vie to destroy each other, according to a new book hitting the headlines in America.

Kelly Valen's The Twisted Sisterhood, soon to be published in the UK, reveals that almost 90% of the 3,000-plus women who took part in her survey frequently felt "currents of meanness and negativity emanating from other females".

Almost 85% of those who took part in the 50-question survey admitted having suffered serious, life-altering knocks at the hands of other women.

They reported that many of their female friendships had an "intense, sinister underbelly", characterised by "intrafemale incivility" and insidious, "gratuitous negativity".

More than 75% had been hurt by the jealousy and competition of a friend.

 

Valen said there was "a distinct undercurrent of meanness and negativity plaguing our gender".

"These secret, social battles are waged, in many cases, by the very same women singing the praises of girl power, feminism, and female friendship in their lives."

 

Valen said she was shocked by the number of women who told her that they endured their female friendships behind "frozen smiles and a facade of intimacy".

The battles waged beneath the surface were so merciless, she was told, that women felt unsafe with each other.

"They have correctly identified that the primary threat to [their] emotional security radiates ... from fellow females," Valen said.

 

Cultural icons, from Oprah Winfrey to Arianna Huffington of the Huffington Post, have praised Valen's "bravery" in speaking out.

Citing the book as an important wake-up call, they called on all women to read The Twisted Sisterhood: Unraveling the Dark Legacy of Female Friendships.

The prestigious New York Times Book Review had added its voice to the chorus, praising Valen for challenging the last female taboo: the adult sisterhood.

But Valen said that despite the praise, she had "donned a suit of armour" and was steeling herself for a furious backlash.

 Her fears are based on the savage reaction to an article she wrote for the New York Times three years ago, in which she admitted opting out of the "so-called sisterhood".

In the highly personal article, she first broached the idea that "our greater society of women is idling in an unhealthy, disconnected, and discombobulated state".

 

"The reaction to my 2007 article was devastating to me personally," she said. Valen was accused of being heretical and disloyal to the gender.

She was lambasted on forums such as the website Jezebel, the blog Feministe and the Washington Post. Female academics, book clubs and the greater blogosphere reacted with fury.

"Some dealt vicious blows," said Valen.

"How dare I air the ladies' dirty laundry! I was anti-woman, a 'femalesogynist' and an obviously bad mother."

"Any suggestion that women are co-architects of their unhappiness for failure to prosper [was considered to be] tantamount to misogyny, horizonal hostility and internal sexism," she added.

 

Supporters, however, pointed out that the savagery of the attacks reinforced Valen's argument.

The attacks became so personal that Valen was hesistant to develop her thesis in Twisted Sisterhood.

"My skin isn't all that thick. I wanted nothing but to crawl back to my cave and forget the whole thing.

"But intentionally or not, I'd found myself scratching the surface of something significant: Hadn't the very concept of sisterhood become downright twisted?"

Valen's question has been welcomed by some important voices. Psychotherapists – and best friends – Luise Eichenbaum and Susie Orbach have noted that: "Behind the curtain of sisterhood lies a myriad of emotional tangles that can wreak havoc on the overall health and quality of our lives".

Even celebrities have begun questioning how adult women interact. Gwyneth Paltrow posted anguished messages on her website about schadenfreude and frenemies.

Sienna Miller recently told InStyle magazine that, "I've been at war, without a doubt.

 I have really experienced the judgment of women.

There's no sisterhood."

Feminism: where exactly is a woman's place these days?

Cherie Blair has attacked the 'yummy mummies' who choose to stay at home.

By contrast, Angela Neustatter, author of a controversial book on women and the home, claims a whole generation put their own career needs ahead of their children.

Yvonne Roberts challenges her views

The Observer, Sunday 24 June 2012

//  

Should women put home-making first?

Dear Angela

In the past week, your invigorating book A Home for the Heart, Home as the Key to Happiness has triggered yet another outbreak of the ferocious debate about mothers at home and mothers in work.

Cherie Blair made her own stance with a critical aside on "yummy mummies".

You believe that feminism has meant women have reneged on their near sacred obligation, to make a house a home. In addition you argue that: "A whole generation of women have put their needs above those of their children."

As you will know from your research, you can tie a woman up in apron strings but you still can't keep her down.

In 1915 Christine Frederick, a mother and housewife, influenced by nascent time and motion studies in factories, measured and detailed to the minute her household duties, sliced her domestic burden drastically as a result and wrote the US bestseller Household Engineering, turning domestic management into a career.

What she and you appear to have in common is to assume that the core of what happens in the home is largely a female responsibility.

That's prescriptive and tough on men, women and children and harks back to a traditionally narrow definition of gender roles.

But rather than women putting their needs above their children, feminism was about changing the system, not acting as a recruiting sergeant to ensure its continued wage-slave dominance.

As a result, while two-thirds of mothers are in employment, the majority with younger children work part-time.

It's only a partial victory.

Not only do they work part-time, they frequently sacrifice their future prospects and lose their footing on the ladder of promotion to do so.

You refer to mothers who return to work days after giving birth – these alpha females are as representative as the "yummy mummies" castigated by Cherie Blair who "seek to marry a rich husband and retire".

Your book is wide-ranging, embracing children's rights, inter-generational households, including your own, and co-operatives and communes.

But why, I wonder, are there so few links between the private and the public: the external world of the labour market and economy that mould our homes much more immediately than feminism?

Best wishes, Yvonne

Dear Yvonne

I am puzzled that my book is read as assuming that what happens in the home is largely a female responsibility, because I refer to men as part of what goes on, of what happens emotionally, a good deal.

Yet I believe home is a place women are particularly inclined to value as an emotional base for children, and to suffer from having too little time and energy there.

But not for a nanosecond do I want a return to how life was for the 1950s women whom Betty Friedan [author of the ground-breaking feminist tract The Feminine Mystique, 1963] described as living in homes that, however gilded, felt like "concentration camps" . T

heir role was to provide the perfect backdrop to men's lives in the outside world.

Feminism has not wilfully disregarded the importance of home as a place that, at best, nurtures us as well as children, supports relationships and gives us a sanctuary.

But it was, quite understandably, too preoccupied with the big fights for structural change.

I perceived it vital to go back to work when my first son was four months old to show that we women could do work and family seamlessly.

And never mind that home – relationships with partners and kids – got the scrag end of our most animated and energetic time.

I have written a good deal about children and their mental health issues and I believe that battling for more recognition of how a decent quality of home life is vital for the wellbeing of families is something women as mothers should take on.

So should men – but as we give birth, shouldn't that add something to the equation?

Three decades of excessive consumerism, money worship and celebrity obsession have done much to harm our valuing of home – that place the artist and writer John Berger once described as a refuge from the chaos of the world outside.

Yours, Angela

Dear Angela

I agree that consumerism, long working hours, "money worship" (although more like debt addiction, since the average income is very modest) and celebrity culture have undermined some areas of the family.

The mental health of the young, in part due to family breakdown, is also a concern that you have rightly highlighted for years.

But I would challenge your notion that women are somehow closer to the battle for a decent quality of life simply because they have the capacity to bear children.

Doesn't centuries of conditioning have an influence? Shouldn't fathers be responsible too? Indeed, in this month's Atlantic Magazine, Anne-Marie Slaughter describes how she had a high-powered five-day-a-week job in Washington DC while her husband cared for their two sons in New Jersey She resigned.

"Women can't have it all," she decided – not until there is a radical culture change in employment, workaholics rebel, the US elects a female president and 50 female senators.

And, crucially, not until men are enlisted in the cause of ensuring a better balance between work and home.

Of course children need stability, time, love, fun and interest from the adults in their lives.

 But you seem to conflate a working mother (mixed with a little mea culpa when you stayed out late) with potential severe damage. Aren't most children and families more robust?

Don't sons and daughters benefit from knowing a life beyond that which Mummy controls?

Some parents can, and do, hold down three part-time jobs to survive.

That's very different from the woman who permanently chooses to party rather than mother.

The latter isn't feminism at work, it's selfish immaturity.

And it's been witnessed down the ages.

Best wishes, Yvonne

Dear Yvonne

I share your view that men should have the opportunity to be equally involved in caring and sharing, and that they, along with women, should be making it a political issue for a government that bangs on about how it cherishes the family.

After all, we know that a quality home life helps men's and women's relationships remain intact.

Some commentators seem to believe that I am saying that mothers shouldn't work.

Not so, but I do think we need to keep children's feelings in mind – as men should – and that we need to understand what our concern with fighting the good feminist fight may mean for their happiness.

So rather than women going for the male model of "juggernaut" jobs as a way of proving equality, we might do better to lead a revolution to get home valued for the benefits it offers society.

I do believe that, as the sex which nurtures a child inside, and is usually the first line of physical bonding, we can bring a particular emotional strength to the battle for home life, the place where children spend much of their formative time.

This is not to exclude men, but to recognise nature and nurture.

Yours, Angela

Dear Angela

On the issue of nature and nurture: you quote [in your book] the actress Monica Bellucci, married to Vincent Cassel. She says that since they are apart for stretches of time it is unrealistic to expect Cassel to do without sex.

Why? Because he's a man and, as they said in Victorian times, men have "uncontrollable natural urges"?

Or is she the dutiful wife standing aside while her husband has his cake and eats it? You write: "It is vitally important to re-imagine the value of home."

Why re-imagine? Various social changes, like relentless tidal waves, may try to loosen the anchor of domesticity, but the miracle is how resilient and hard-wearing family life has proved to be, reshaping and surviving against the odds.

You tackle the issue of how to keep a relationship intact and suggest we shouldn't be judgmental about, for instance, infidelity on the side via a dating site called confusingly, Loving Links, and polyamory.

So, Meg, "a frolicsome redhead", lives with her husband Matt and her boyfriend Dave, sharing a "kingsize bed".

I'm not judgmental, but given that family life, as you rightly say, is suffering from excess working hours, too little time and excessive consumerism, isn't diverting attention to shopping around for serial lovers and managing a ménage à trois only adding to the burden and increasing confusion in the world of a child?

The alternative might be living miserably, as you say – but it might also be a relationship that deepens and flourishes over the monogamous years. Or, alternatively, a relatively well-managed separation in which two harmonious homes emerge from one fractious household.

Best wishes, Yvonne

Dear Yvonne

I know a number of women who would consider it unreasonable to be expected to go without sex for long stretches, and act on it.

But Bellucci is speaking just for herself and Cassel. I talk of re-imagining home because in the 21st century I think there are so many pressures to believe that life outside the home – building careers, networking, socialising, being spotted at some glitzy party – is preferable to what then appears the comparatively mundane domestic environment.

So I wanted my book to look at how home can be – if we make time and enthusiasm for it – a source of support and joy.

 But of course this does not apply to abusive homes or those functioning on "emotional terrorism".

Supporting polyamory families is progressive re-imagining because I believe that having a wider than nuclear unit makes them happier and more inclined to stay put in their home caring for children.

But I am not an advocate for, nor judgmental of, individual sexual mores.

 Absolutely, I agree that a well-managed separation may be better than conflict, and that a long-term monogamous relationship may be a source of closeness.

But essentially I wrote my book to say let's look from today's perspective – a time when the notion of home has been downgraded – at what a source of happiness it can be, a place where we can be our authentic unvarnished selves.

It's about what we may gain from home if we value mundane huggermugger togetherness among people we have chosen to be with, or just luxuriating in our refuge alone.

Yours, Angela

Dear Angela

I agree with you about valuing home and making it a source of comfort and connection (now helped by Skype!). Of course, that can be highly pleasurable and brings its own rewards.

But where we part company is in making this primarily a female exercise, based on some mythical notion that we are "natural" homemakers (tell that to Laurence Llewelyn-Bowen!).

This fossilises men and women in time and does the opposite of the "future proofing" that you advocate. A danger lies in assuming that one's individual experience applies universally; diversity of experiences is surely welcome?

Living inter-generationally, for instance, is a habit that has never gone away among many Asian families.

In Home, A Short History of an Idea, Witold Rybczynski points out that "comfort" comes from the Latin comfortare – a genderless definition, to strengthen or console. How to put that into practice inevitably requires trade-offs, particularly if children are a priority.

However, paradoxically, among the most depressed groups are fulltime mothers and "long-hours" dads. Balance matters.

The Nordic countries weave their home and work lives much more seamlessly to everyone's benefit.

That's why I think the link between the private home and the public and political is vital .

Finally , you have been criticised for promoting alternative, at times highly insular, housing schemes: eco-homes and edifices made, for instance, of straw bales, solar panels and lime plaster.

Yes, these are mainly for the white and affluent, the "new hippy".

But these ideas and others that you outline such as CoAbode – bringing single parents together under one roof – is precisely about how the home is doing what it has always done: changing organically to fit the times while sometimes struggling to retain at its core what is, as you say, most essential – the heart of the family.

Best wishes, Yvonne

Dear Yvonne

My point is not that men can't be natural homemakers. Take amateur architect Simon Dale (any day over LLB!) whom I interviewed and who built by hand a wonderful hobbit home in Wales for his family and has an absolutely equal homemaking, childcaring role with his wife Jasmine.

But I see women as potentially having a particular affinity to home-making because of their biological destiny. And I wonder why, as feminists, we cannot celebrate this as a cherished part of what we are.

I never thought that battling for structural equality meant that we couldn't have separate and particular gender qualities.

That said, I am 100% with you on believing that respect, caring and good home life rests on a sharing of labour within, and outside, the home so that women and men can participate in both the public and the private world with time and energy for both.

And I love that genderless definition of consolation.

Likewise, I will join you in any demo at the barricades to get more flexible working time as they have, very successfully, in Sweden and which men and women both take without messing up their careers, but which also allows them to have rewarding time together with children.

And I do say this in my book, as I include men who go to enormous lengths to provide a really nurturing home for their children.

Ultimately, I do not believe there is such an ideological gulf between us

Yours sincerely

This is what women should look for in a mate

Ignore the 'nappy wall’ and glass ceiling, and choose a man who actually likes you 
 
 
By Vicki Woods
8:18PM BST 15 Jun 2012

There is never going to be an end to this work/life balance problem we keep having to hear about, because you cannot balance modern work with modern life; you can only logroll until you fall off.

 I have never found it helpful when high-profile women in good public-sector jobs (who earn enough money to pay someone else to manage their walls of nappies) continue to back policies that insist that women must be allowed to take a year’s maternity leave, and have the job they are not doing kept open for them.

A sensible woman, Helen Fraser, made a speech this week on becoming chief executive of the Girls’ Day School Trust (which was the Girls’ Public Day School Trust when my north Oxford friend went to Sydenham High). Lots of women won’t like her tone much.

Dipping a toe into the turbulent waters that still swirl around the employment of women (as though it was a 21st-century phenomenon), Mrs Fraser mused on the question of whether the “glass ceiling” problem was actually a “nappy wall” problem. (Answer: it’s the same problem.)

She mused again on whether what really mattered for women was a partner “who shares the load at home” or one who cares about whether your career is as successful as their own.

And should women be taught how to choose a mate?

Yes, they should; and what they should choose above all is a man who likes women.

Vast numbers of men don’t like women very much, not with the same broad, easy liking they have for their men friends.

Some men are only perfectly at ease with other men; companionable coves who don’t sneak, don’t whine, and all pull together when someone’s saying:

“On a count of three: one, two… heave.” (Every time I do that with a woman, she waits for the fourth beat.)

“It’s not just about finding a man who does the Hoovering and makes the dinner,” said Mrs Fraser.

No – it’s about finding a man who slips easily between the roles of prep-chef and head chef depending on how much work he and/or she has to do this evening – if you’ll forgive an illustration so heteronormative.

(I am allowed to be sexist at my age, anyway. I fought for your freedoms, little sister.)

I never mind a man who is always insistent on being head carver, even when he guards the sharpware with fussy jealousy (Lord, how I hate carving, myself) but I seriously object to a man who affects to take overall charge of the domestic offices in a supervisory capacity only.

I once had a neighbour – a good friend, though I don’t see him now – who surreptitiously ran an index finger over my kitchen shelf and looked at it to see how much dust it had picked up.

Both his wife and I yelped and howled at him, while my husband fell about laughing.

“Just seeing whether having a coal-fired Rayburn makes a difference…?” he said, with a look of injured innocence. I threw a dishcloth at him. Should have been the kettle.

The best choice a working woman can make is a man who loves children. It is the best cradle-gift a baby can have.

For some reason, mother-love is accepted as the naturally inevitable endgame to pregnancy and birth.

Father-love is not the same category of thing, is it?

The word itself looks so odd that my fingers hover over the typed word while I wonder if it will look more comfortable if I take out the hyphen (no) or put it in quote marks (no). Grandfather-love is an easier concept.

The nicest filthy-rich businessman I ever met had his two-month-old grandson in a Moses basket under his office desk. I was enchanted (and so were both of his PAs).

His daughter was at home with a post-natal problem that was not life-threatening but demanded she lie flat for six months.

His son-in-law was a barrister in mid-case; his own wife was nursing their daughter and caring for a three-year-old.

“So I get to do the day shifts,” he told me, beaming.

“It’s fantastic.

Never been so popular.

Tell you what – take a baby into an Italian restaurant at lunchtime and you don’t have a worry in the world.”

Russian Women – Some Things You Ought To Know

 

OR HOW TO AVOID WOMEN OF FORTUNE !

 

SO IF IN DOUBT PULL OUT

 

Not all Russian women are the same.

Of course they come in all shapes and sizes, although one would think from all the hype that they are all thin and beautiful and oozing of sexual prowess.

Well, don’t believe the hype.

But do know that if you are attracted to a certain type of woman, you’ll find her.
 
Russian woman looking for love.

Russian women are all scammers and I have been scammed in the past.

 I don’t trust Russian women! Now now gentlemen, don’t take it personally.

I would say less the 1% of these women looking for husbands are scammers.

There are ways to avoid this, one of them being to use reputable agency who does background checks and makes sure each woman is who she says she is.

 Don’t ruin it for the rest of us by badmouthing Russian women.
Attitudes are very different in Russian women.

Ok, this typically is not hype.

Russian women are very upbeat and positive in my experience.

Although you will find the occasional negative person.

But all in all, most Russian women have positive souls.

Doors.

Now I cannot say about all Russian women, but my wife has issues with doors when we are out.

You know when you go into a store, the doors usually say either Push or Pull?

Well if the doors Push, there seems to be no problem.

But if they say Pull, well I guess she never had to Pull a door open in Russia.

It says Pull on the door 99% of the time, but she never notices.

Even after being in the USA for 8 years!

So be nice and help her out if she has issues with this or something else. She is from a different country and things may be similar, but never the same.
 
Doors

The social life of a Russian woman may not be too exciting when she is in Russia, but that will change when she comes to the USA. Or maybe she does thrive in her social life prior to her arrival to the USA.

Doesn’t matter.

 Once she arrives, she will feel somewhat lonely.

She will miss her family, friends, and it will be strange that no-one speaks Russian. 

Everywhere I have been, there has been some sort of Russian community.

Here in Colorado Springs, there is a very large community.

If you Google ‘Russian Community in your city’ you may find local blogs, forums, web sites devoted to this.

Find out about events, things going on, etc.

Your new bride will need new friends, support and other women to talk to and ask questions.

Besides, Russians throw some great parties, especially birthday parties and at New Years.

Russian women are well educated.

Yes, most are.

They are able to attend a University for free as long as they keep their grades to a high standard.

You will find many doctors, lawyers and business women in Russia.

However, most of them cannot find work at the drop of a hat.

It’s only sticks and stones, ladies...

When some women complain about a male columnist’s snide comments,

 they make us all look weak and vulnerable.
 
Grin and bear it: the historian Mary Beard was the subject of hostile remarks by the columnist AA Gill

8:46PM BST 23 Apr 2012

Telegraph Expat

I remember quite clearly the moment, aged eight, that my mother passed on to me the greatest lie ever told to children.

Ned – a boy at school who liked to step on snails – had told me that my hair was “tangled and horrible like a witch” and that because of this I “probably had nits”, and not just your common or garden nits, but nits that would eat through my head and come out of my eyes.

And when I came home from school, red-cheeked, crying, begging my mother to cut off all my hair so I could get rid of the head-eating, eye-popping nits, she took me in her arms and said, “Now, now Bryony. I’m going to tell you something that you must remember for ever, something you must say to Ned the next time he tries to be horrible to you…”

I looked up at my mother, expectant, hoping for some magic phrase.

“What you must say to him is this: 'sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me’.”

This playground memory came back to me yesterday when I read about Clare Balding, hurt by words that were not even directed at her.

 To recap: on Sunday, the restaurant critic and TV columnist AA Gill wrote a piece about the historian Mary Beard, in which he remarked that she “should be kept away from cameras altogether. She’s this far from being the subject of a Channel 4 dating documentary.”

Everyone who doesn’t live under a rock saw this as a reference to The Undateables, a programme in which people with physical and/or mental disabilities search for love.

It wasn’t polite, but it made sense – readers of Gill’s work know that he is not a fan of the Meet the Romans presenter, writing in a 2010 column that “for someone who looks this closely at the past, it is strange she hasn’t had a closer look at herself before stepping in front of the camera.

Beard coos over corpses’ teeth without apparently noticing she is wearing them.

The hair is a disaster, the outfit an embarrassment.

If you are going to invite yourself into the front rooms of the living, then you need to make an effort.”

Balding, who two years ago had a complaint to the Sunday Times newspaper upheld by the PCC after Gill called her a “dyke on a bike”, went on to Twitter to defend Beard. “Ah yes, the great t--- Gill. The bizarre thing about him being a TV reviewer is that he hates television & most/all women on it.”

Balding was absolutely right to complain about Gill’s previous homophobic comment, but she got this wrong – Gill doesn’t just hate women; he is a professional misanthrope who seems to dislike the human race as a whole, save perhaps for himself.

He has, in past columns, slagged off the Welsh (“ugly pugnacious little trolls”) and the English (a “beefy-bummed herd”), and said that the Isle of Man “managed to slip through a crack in the space-time continuum”.

Nor are men immune from his aesthetic fascism: Tony Robinson has been described as “Gollum”, Niall Ferguson as the historian’s version of wee Jimmy Krankie, and he once accused David Tennant of gurning so badly that he resembled a “half haddock”.

None of these men responded to Gill, and nor did anyone on their behalf.

They probably had better things to do than bother to answer back to the arbitrary offensiveness of a bloke who watches television for a living.

 And yet a stupid, throwaway line about a woman’s appearance feels like the lowest of blows, causing thousands of Twitter users to take it upon themselves to ride to the rescue of the damsel in distress, in this case Mary Beard, a fearsomely intelligent woman perfectly capable of looking after herself.

(Her response? “I think Gill is better at reviewing soup and shiitake mushrooms than television programmes.”)

The same thing happened when the odious Frankie Boyle said that Olympic swimming gold medalist Rebecca Adlington looked like someone reflected in an upturned spoon; there was as much outrage as on the occasions he mocked sufferers of Down’s syndrome, cancer and Aids.

And that’s the worrying thing: every time we get our proverbial knickers in a twist about the pathetic comments of some idiotic misogynist who wants to provoke a reaction, we just end up making ourselves look like some vulnerable minority group, and not one half of the world’s population.

Sometimes it is better to laugh along with a roll of the eyes, or just ignore it altogether.

Anyway, it isn’t true to say that men aren’t judged on their looks.

They are; it’s just that we choose to ignore it. I don’t know how many times I have seen David Cameron compared to a ham, or Ed Miliband to a muppet (and I may have even made some of those comparisons myself).

When I wrote that the philandering MP John Hemming looked like a human being spliced with an avocado bathroom suite, he emailed me to say he found it amusing (one-nil to Mr Hemming there).

My goodness, if half as many comments were made about, say, Theresa May, as are made about William Hague being bald as a coot, there would be utter uproar.

Perhaps male vanity is just so impenetrable that men don’t notice negative comments.

Perhaps, after many years of inequality, women are entitled to be a bit more tetchy when their looks are criticised. But are the problems of feminism really solved by getting uppity about the latest boy to pull our pigtails? Are there not more important feminist fishies to fry?

 Equal pay?

 Benefits for single mothers?

Why didn’t Clare Balding tweet about the revelation also this weekend that 100,000 women in Britain have undergone female genital mutilation?

As a female columnist, I’ve experienced first hand what it is like to have blokes comment on your looks.

It doesn’t matter what I write about – someone will come out of the online woodwork and call me fat, ugly and in need of a diet. I’ve responded once in 12 years.

That has nothing to do with some admirable ability to rise above things – there have been times when I have almost bitten straight through my tongue – and everything to do with the fact that I think these people are the exception and not the rule.

The Gills, Boyles and sexist trolls under the line are, I believe, in the minority.

That is why they shock us so.

 When you step away from the internet, from the bubble that is television, men are not that bad at all.

We are a long way away from the Seventies and Eighties, when the likes of Bernard Manning and Jim Davidson entertained the masses with sexist jokes

. A lewd comment about a female colleague will now land you in serious hot water; no man I know would dream of wolf-whistling at a woman as she walked down the street.

Clare Balding and Mary Beard are right to feel cross that attention-seeking throwbacks such as Gill still exist in the mainstream media. But to borrow the words of Seneca – as Mary Beard does frequently – “It is often better not to see an insult than to avenge it”.

 Or, to paraphrase my mum: sticks and stones, ladies. Sticks and stones.

Why Arab women still 'have no voice' 
 
Amal al-Malki, a Qatari author, says the Arab Spring has failed women in their struggle for equality.

Talk to Al Jazeera Last Modified: 21 Apr 2012 13:10

 
Is the Arab Spring a movement leading to more freedom and equal rights?

Not for women, according to Amal al-Malki, a Qatari author who is very concerned about the rights of women in the Arab world.

She is largely skeptical of recent developments and says, if anything, the Arab Spring has only highlighted the continuing “second-class citizenship" of women in the region.

She argues that despite some progress made Arab women are still largely absent in the public arena.

“We have no voice.

We have no visibility... And I am telling you, this is why women’s rights should be institutionalised, it should not be held hostage at the hand of political leaderships who can change in a second, right?

Governments should be held responsible for treating men and women equally.”

Will the Arab Spring deliver its promises to everyone? Or is there reason to believe that women will be left behind?

 What has changed for women in the Arab world?

On this episode of Talk to Al Jazeera, we talk to Amal al-Malki, a woman not afraid to ring the alarm bells, about women's rights in the Arab world, political and social empowerment and Islamic feminism
 

Women who get hitched early, divorce early

 

Agencies : Washington, Thu Nov 10 2011, 16:51 hrs 

Radical says- As one third of all marriages end in divorce and many women divorce for profit this statement is not so unlikely. Bucking the trend would seem to be an achievement.
 
For women who get hitched in their 20s, divorcing in the first couple of years has become a common pattern now, and most of them go through this horrifying phase even before hitting 30.

While the factors behind every relationship's downfall are different, the underlying impetus behind marriage is similar for some of the women.

For women, who maintain a comfortable long-term relationship in their 20s, the next logical step is to get hitched, mainly because they find it convenient.

Madison, a 29 year-old accountant from New Jersey admitted to marrying even though she didn’t feel ‘crazy love’, because was ‘content and secure instead’, Huffington Post quoted her as telling.

Many times it is a previous relationship, which leaves a woman heartbroken and propels them to marry ‘Mr Wrong’.

They say you never really get over your first love.

“I didn't think I would ever fall in love again so I figured it didn’t matter who I married”, said Tara, a 26 year-old freelance writer from North Carolina.

There are many women who take the decision of getting married simply because they hope that marriage would change things.

For instance, Casey, a 35 year-old travel correspondent thought that once she settled into newlywed bliss, her ex-husband would be happier with his own life, will be able to hold a steady job and show her more affection.

However, in due course Casey, who married at 24, found her ex husband 'immature and insecure'.

Then there are instances when women hasten to tie the nuptial knot apparently because of low self-esteem.

“I was a very insecure individual at that time.

 I was losing weight from gastric bypass surgery and wasn’t happy with my appearance.

He told me I couldn’t do any better and I believed him”, said Kim, a 30 year-old social worker.

There is not one main reason, which can be blamed for getting married.

There are women who had a clue that their marriages were not meant to be but still went ahead with it anyway.

These interviews were conducted for the book ‘Trash the Dress: Stories of Celebrating Divorce in your 20s’.

Marrying up is on its way down

The Duchess of Cambridge aside, most women are choosing to marry within their own social class

Jane Merrick  , Kate Youde Sunday 08 April 2012

Independent

 
When the middle-class daughter of former flight attendants who counts miners among her ancestors married the second in line to the throne last year, it was hailed as the ultimate breaking down of social class barriers.

Yet Kate Middleton's achievement in "marrying up" to become the Duchess of Cambridge is becoming increasingly rare, with more young British women choosing husbands from their own social class or lower, a new study has found.

Compared with their mothers, women in their twenties are less likely to marry men in a higher social class than their own, research by the IPPR think tank shows.

The authors suggest an entrenchment of social class and widening inequality over the past three decades have driven the phenomenon of "assortative mating", or picking a partner similar to yourself.

The proportion of women "marrying down" has also exceeded those "marrying up" for the first time.

Researchers analysed the backgrounds and marriage choices of women born in 1958, 1970 and 1981 to see how female aspirations have changed across the generations.

With post-war social mobility on the rise, women born in 1958 were more likely to "marry up" than "marry down".

Some 38 per cent of women of this generation chose a partner in a higher social class, while 23 per cent married someone from a lower class.

A total of 39 per cent married someone in the same class.

Madonna, who was born in 1958, may be a multimillionaire but has working-class roots and married film director Guy Ritchie, the son of an army officer who has noble ancestry.

For those born in 1970, the proportion of women marrying someone in a higher social class fell to 32 per cent, although this was still more than those "marrying down", at 23 per cent.

Those marrying someone from the same social class accounted for 45 per cent.

Zoë Ball, whose father was a TV presenter, chose someone from the same middle-class background as hers when she married Norman Cook, the son of a teacher and an environmental consultant.

However, today's generation of brides, born between 1976 and 1981, is for the first time more likely to "marry down" than "marry up".

While the majority, 56 per cent, marry in the same class, those choosing a spouse from a lower social class account for 28 per cent, while only 16 per cent of women are marrying men from higher social backgrounds.

One women born in 1981 who, it could gently be argued, "married down" is Princess Anne's daughter Zara Phillips, who wed the middle-class rugby player Mike Tindall last year.

The IPPR suggests that one cause for the shift in marriage patterns is the changing jobs market since the war. In the 1950s and 1960s, deindustrialisation and the growth of women working in junior office jobs led to a trend of "marrying the boss", the report says.

 But as inequality grew in the 1980s, with losses of blue-collar, middle-tier jobs, education became more closely linked to occupation, and social class began to "harden its grip on who people met and subsequently married".

Nick Pearce, IPPR director, said: "This new analysis shows how social class has tightened its grip on marriage in Britain. In the post-war period of rising social mobility, men and women were more likely to marry across class lines than they do today.

This shift has implications for inequality, as high earners marry each other and then pass on the fruits of their combined success to their children."

The research also shows that more women of the current generation are marrying partners three or more years older, with the largest increase shown in women marrying men seven or more years their senior, who account for a fifth of this generation of married women.

Mr Pearce said: "Age no longer seems to be a social taboo, with many more people marrying partners who are more than one or two years older than themselves than in the 1970s and 1980s.

While governments have no business telling people who to marry, and have plenty of bigger economic inequalities to aim at, it is important for policymakers to understand these trends if they are to have a full understanding of what's driving the stagnation in social mobility."

The IPPR said the trends were important for understanding society today because, if more people marry within their own class, wider income inequalities are exacerbated.

The trend will also cause child poverty rates to increase.

When better-off people marry each other, they are able to invest more time and resources on their children's development.

Recent OECD research showed that the earnings gap between the wives of rich and poor husbands in the UK has grown since the 1980s, from £3,900 in 1987 to £10,200 in 2004.

A report last year by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) found that income inequality among working-age individuals has risen faster in the UK than in any other industrialised nation since 1975.

The annual average income of the top 10 per cent of earners in 2008 was almost £55,000, nearly 12 times higher than those in the bottom 10 per cent, whose average income was £4,700.

In 1985 the ratio was eight to one.

But it is not just in the UK where marrying up is in decline: across industrialised countries of the OECD, 11 per cent of the rise in inequality since the mid-1980s is attributed to "assortative mating".

In Sweden, an academic report last year concluded that "marriage behaviour is polarising" and argued that "marital homogamy" (marrying someone of the same class) is resistant to policy efforts to increase social mobility.

Force-fed and beaten – life for women in jail

New UN guidelines are being flouted worldwide, Independent on Sunday research shows

Female prisoners around the world are being subjected to body cavity searches, beatings and force-feeding, are held in padded cells, shackled during childbirth, and made to work in chain gangs.

 Some of the worst conditions are in developing countries, but there are also serious abuses and overcrowding in Europe and North America.

These are the major findings of a survey by The Independent on Sunday to mark the first anniversary of United Nations rules governing the treatment of women in prison.

The "Bangkok Rules" make stipulations about contact with families, gender-specific healthcare, psychological treatment and hygiene, and they forbid strip searches in most circumstances.

The guidelines were adopted on 21 December 2010, but reports from around the world show they are being widely flouted.

In Greece, for example, prisoners have been offered a choice between a vaginal search and solitary confinement on a course of laxatives.

Chinese prison officers encouraged inmates to tie each other up and fight. In Turkmenistan, prisoners are shackled to their beds as they give birth - a practice that is also legal in most of the United States.

South African prisoners complain that they run out of water on an almost monthly basis.

A Russian male deputy prison governor was jailed for beating female inmates with his fists and boots.

Rape victims have been jailed in Afganistan for having extramarital sex.

And women's prisons from Russia to Canada, France to Australia have been condemned for their appalling living conditions and inadequate mental and physical healthcare.

Just as alarming is the steep rise in the number of women being jailed. More than 500,000 are in prison around the world. In the US alone, there are now eight times more women in prison than 30 years ago.

Fiona Cannon, who chairs the Prison Reform Trust's Women's Justice Taskforce, said women's prisons are now seen as "stop-gap providers of drug detox, social care, mental health assessment and treatment, and temporary housing".

Self-harm and suicide are far more common among female prisoners than male, relatively few women are in jail for violent crimes, a majority have children, and many are drug addicts or victims of sexual abuse.

At Johannesburg Women's Prison, cells typically contain one toilet, one sink, one shower and as many as 40 people. Prisoners are locked in from 2pm to 8am.

"People can kill each other before they unlock the cells," Duduzile Matlhabadile, a former prisoner, told The IoS. "You don't know what's going to happen. It's not safe in there."

Ms Matlhabadile, who served 12 years for armed robbery and homicide, recalled an incident in which a woman threw boiling water over a fellow prisoner; it took two hours for the guards to come and open the doors. She said her cell would often be without water for two days at a time.

A former judge inspector of prisons in South Africa, Deon van Zyl, last year called the country's prison conditions "shockingly inhumane".

Campaigners at the Wits Justice Project, which investigates problems in South Africa's justice system, say the Department of Correctional Services has ignored their requests to gain access to prisons since February, adding that anecdotal evidence indicates conditions have not improved.

In northern Turkmenistan, inmates at the Dashoguz Women's Prison colony are reportedly handcuffed to the bed from both sides while giving birth.

The baby is given away and the woman returns to forced labour a day or two later.

More than 2,000 women are housed in a colony built for 1,000. Fights break out when food is handed out: black bread, porridge and a thin soup made of bones, cotton oil and pumpkin make up the daily diet.

The EU has its share of horrors, too. Greece's Thiva Women's Prison is an hour north of Athens.

A former detoxification centre, it has the bleak atmosphere of a converted warehouse. Its dormitories each hold six bunk beds and a couple of single beds.

A communal area features a concrete floor, dark green walls and little else; the exercise yard contains no equipment or shelter. Messages are conveyed to inmates via a loudspeaker.

 Vaginal searches are conducted there, as in other women's prisons in Greece.

Until earlier this year, prisoners who refused a vaginal examination on arrival were placed in a segregation unit for several days and made to take laxatives.

Authorities say vaginal searches are now undertaken only in exceptional circumstances and are now done by trained doctors, rather than by nursing assistants.

They say laxatives are no longer administered, but monitors from the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture confirmed that the practice was still going on when they visited in January.

In France, strip searches are more or less routine, and inmates' letters seen by The IoS complain about being made to adopt degrading positions.

One pregnant woman was told to lift up her breasts while being searched before being permitted to see her family in the visiting room.

But the real problem in France's prisons is healthcare. In the mixed-sex Nîmes Prison in southern France, for example, there is no facility for gynaecological examinations, which means that no preventative consultations are done.

In England and Wales, conditions are far more benign, but the number of women in jail has increased from 1,800 in 1996 to 4,100 now.

More than half of female prisoners say that they have suffered domestic violence, 37 per cent have previously attempted suicide, nearly 40 per cent left school before 16, and one in three have experienced sexual abuse.

More than two-thirds of female prisoners have children, which means, according to Home Office research in 2003, that prison deprives nearly 20,000 children of their mothers each year.

 And judges do not take into account whether a defendant is a primary carer.

"It's deeply ingrained in judges that a child must not be an excuse to avoid imprisonment," said Rona Epstein, who has studied 47 cases in England and Wales where judges have ignored the rights of the child.

The situation in North America is worse. The California state prison healthcare system has been in federal receivership since 2006.

To get healthcare and living conditions to a constitutional minimum, the state has been ordered to reduce its prison population by 33,000 over the next two years. In the meantime, supplies of medicines and sanitary products are limited, and understaffing means prisons are in lock-down mode.

Two-thirds of education staff have been laid off in the past two years, and all the while the prison population continues to rise.

The state's two biggest female prisons are both in the desert town of Chowcilla. Valley State Prison is designed to hold 2,024 people and is currently housing 3,810. Central California Women's Facility is holding 3,918, far more than its 2,004 capacity. Cells originally built for four people are holding 10.

"We've never, ever had the reports of violence among peers that we're seeing now," said Cynthia Chandler, the director of the women's campaign group Justice Now.

 "People are dirty, their cells are dirty, they're bleeding on themselves, they're emotional and in a state of despair. It's creating conditions inside a pressure cooker."

And, across the border in Arizona, female chain gangs are made to bury the dead and clear wasteland in the desert heat, in a scheme introduced by Sheriff Joe Arpaio in June.

Andrew Coyle, director of the International Centre for Prison Studies at London University, said: "Scandinavian practice in general terms is better than in many other countries.

That's because they put fewer people in prison, and the consequence is they can run them more decently and humanely. The criminal justice system is kept for those who need to be locked up for the sake of society.

"Reducing reoffending is a false target. It's based on the premise that sending someone to prison makes them less likely to commit crime.

In fact, one of the strongest predictors of future offending is being sent to prison.

We know the solutions: more community-based facilities and putting women in small units close to home.

The answers are there. They're just not being implemented."

Can you keep a secret, dear? Of course (for 32 minutes at least)

By Daily Mail Reporter

Last updated at 10:02 PM on 11th November 2011

Share your deepest secrets with her, and she will no doubt promise never to tell.

But beware of putting your trust in a woman – for the likelihood is she will have broken your confidence barely half an hour later, a study has shown.

Researchers found that women are overcome by the desire to gossip and can typically wait  no longer than 32 minutes before spilling the beans.

Depending on who the gossip is about, their husband, mother or best friend are most likely to be the initial recipients of the information.

But many women are putting themselves at risk of betrayed confidences, the survey revealed, with nearly half saying they often felt the need to offload their secrets to someone.

Almost half questioned said that they often felt the need to offload their secrets to someone while a sneaky 13 per cent said they intentionally relayed gossip so that it would spread.

A spokesman for Simple said: 'This poll clearly shows that women really struggle to keep secrets.

'Spilling the beans in just 32 minutes is very fast work, but with modern technology someone's juicy secret can be spread to huge amount of people all over the world in a very short space of time.

‘We are all guilty of sharing people’s secrets but there is a  difference between idle chit-chat and sharing someone’s most sacred secret.’

And Dr Christine Bundy, senior lecturer in health and medical psychology at the University of Manchester, said: 'Women need to decide what to reveal and what to keep to themselves, putting themselves into the position of a friend or family member.

'If they believe that it will cause upset by sharing their secret, it's probably advisable to keep it under wraps - especially if it's personal or important.

‘Everyone remembers a betrayal and it is probably not worth it for a bit of gossip.'

 

Verbal abuse is a form of battery that involves the use of words, rather than blows and punches.

In a verbally abusive situation, words are used to attack, control, and inflict harm on another person.

Verbally abusive behavior goes far beyond mean behavior; it involves inflicting psychological violence on another person, attacking the very nature of an individual's being and attempting to destroy his or her spirit.

Verbal abuse can affect people of all ages and in all types of relationships. However, it is especially prevalent in marital relationships.

A number of behaviors are considered verbally abusive, including angry outbursts, screaming rages, and name-calling.

Verbal abuse often includes blaming, brainwashing, and intimidation.

Hidden aggression is a part of verbal abuse, as well.

Verbal abuse is extremely manipulative, as insults are often disguised as caring comments.

Verbal abuse can be overt or covert, but it is always about controlling and manipulating the victim.

Often, verbally abusive comments are offered as jokes.

When the target of the joke is hurt or insulted, the verbal abuser laughs it off and says that the victim is overly sensitive.

However, the intent of the verbal abuser is to cause this hurt.

After a time, verbal abuse often escalates into physical abuse.

Happy and Sad

  
 
She said: "Out of all your friends, you have the biggest dick."

Tampo 

If you’re planning to enter into a relationship with a Filipina, it’s important to gain an understanding of what “tampo” is.  Let’s do this in a clinical fashion... 

Definition: While the analogy isn’t perfect, you can think of tampo as “pouting” or “sulking”. 

Cause: Typically, a Filipina will exhibit tampo when she feels she has been neglected or ignored, but she may also invoke it when she is jealous, or basically anytime her feelings are hurt.   

Symptoms: The Filipina will seem withdrawn or sullen.  She may be unusually silent, or she may express he dissatisfaction by “whining” in a melodramatic, almost child-like fashion.  She may refuse to eat (only in the most severe cases!). 

Duration and Severity of Condition:  Tampo is a strictly short-term condition and should not be considered life threatening.  Tampo is the result of mild dissatisfaction, not of actual anger.  The behavior is a cultural norm in the Philippines and a westerner should not be overly concerned the first time he encounters it.  Tampo is a very useful tool, because it allows a Filipina to show her displeasure about something you have done.  Remember, confrontation is generally unacceptable in Filipino society, so disagreement or displeasure must be expressed indirectly.   

Here is an example of tampo:  You’re with your fiancée walking hand-in-hand down a crowded street.  You notice a beautiful young woman walking toward you wearing a tank top that’s cut way too low, and you can’t tear your eyes away from her.  Your fiancée notices this behavior.   

A non-Filipina might react by saying, “Put your eyes back in your head!  I can’t believe you were staring at that girl right in front of me!  What has she got that I haven’t got!?”  At which point she may stalk off, cry, or punch you. 

A Filipina in that same situation, however, would probably squeeze your hand and say something like, “She’s pretty, di ba?”  Then you’d stammer something about not noticing, blah, blah, blah, and you’d think you’d gotten away with it.  Yet your fiancée would seem suddenly distant.  She’d not proffer her hand to you as you walked together, she’s speak only when spoken to, and she’d probably shrug indifferently when you asked her a question.  You’re on the receiving end of tampo. 

It’s very important that you understand this: Tampo is merely intended to let you know that you’ve committed some minor offense, for which you must make amends.  It is a mild behavioral reprimand that verges on role-playing.  The worst thing you could do is to get stressed out over a tampo session, because an over-reaction on your part may escalate the situation to the point that your fiancée or wife becomes genuinely angry.    

On the other hand, don’t misdiagnose genuine anger, sadness, or depression as mere tampo.  If you’re girlfriend, fiancée or wife seems deeply depressed, that is NOT tampo.  If she’s crying hysterically, that is NOT tampo.  If she’s hurling dishes at you, that is NOT tampo.  Tampo is mild and controlled and is the direct result of some perceived offense of a minor nature.  It is short in duration.  If an emotional abnormality seems unusually severe or extended in duration, and you cannot identify the cause, it is not tampo, and consequently deserves serious attention. 

Treatment:  Should you suspect that a Filipina you care for is displeased with you, and is expressing that displeasure through tampo, you have several options: 

Why I'm  Divorced

Last week was my birthday and I didn't feel very well waking up on that morning.

I went downstairs for breakfast hoping my husband would be pleasant and say,
'Happy Birthday!',  and possibly have a small present for me.

As it turned out, he barely said good morning, let alone ' Happy Birthday.'

I thought....well, that's marriage for you, but the kids.... they will remember.

My kids came bouncing down stairs to breakfast and didn't say a word.  So when I left for the office I felt pretty low and somewhat despondent.

As I walked into my office, my handsome boss Rick, said, 'Good morning, lady, and by the way Happy Birthday!'  It felt a little better that at least someone had remembered.

I worked until one o'clock, when Rick knocked on my door and said, 'You know, It's such a beautiful day outside, and it is your birthday, what do you say we go out to lunch, just you and me.'
 
I said, 'Thanks, Rick, that's the greatest thing I've heard all day. Let's go!'
 
We went to lunch. But we didn't go where we normally would go. He chose instead a quiet bistro with a private table.  We had two martinis each and I enjoyed the meal tremendously.
 
On the way back to the office, Rick said, 'You know,  It's such a beautiful day...we don't need to go straight back to the office, do we?'
 
I responded, 'I guess not. What do you have in mind?'

He said, 'Let's drop by my place, it's just around the corner.'
 
After arriving at his house, Rick turned to me and said, 'If you don't mind, I'm going to step into the bedroom for just a moment. I'll be right back.'

'Ok.' I nervously replied.
 
He went into the bedroom and, after a couple of minutes, he came out carrying a huge birthday cake, followed by my husband, my kids, and dozens of my friends and co-workers, all singing 'Happy Birthday'.
 
And I just sat there....
 
on the couch....
 
naked.