Chat thread - come chat, rant, or celebrate, here!

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

With thanks to the lovely timetosmile - here's the new and rejuvenated Chat Thread.

Space to yak on, rant, post any of the good and bad stuff ... just basically any chat that you don't feel fits into a specific post. With a side order of reclaiming the word 'gossip'.

Aww, that's lovely.

That is sad about the girls though - at 3, as well!

Metro headline - Sex with consent "can still be rape"

Actual story - woman consented to sex with her H if he withdrew - presumably as contraception - he did not and judge ruled that negated her consent as she was deprived of choice regarding the crucial feature on which the original consent was based.

Score 1 to the judges, zero to the Metro headline writer.

Email from Amazon:

"For today only, five novels for women"

Ah well, at least it was women not girls or ladies!

Just out of curiosity, what are those novels?

"chick lit"!

I haven't read chick lit since Bridget Jones, or does that count?

Ok, cellulite:

Between the muscle and the skin is the subcutaneous fat layer, through which bands of connective tissue run. When the fat cells get bigger they distort the connective tissue fastening muscle and skin and this pulls and dimples the skin.

So ... how come the amount of cellulite doesn't increase directly in proportion to how, erm, fat you are?

I think it depends where the fat is and how strong the connective tissue is.

Thankyou, Doctrine. I now know precisely what is meant by cellulite.

I still don't see any reason why it should worry me, though.

It seems to be a perfectly normal part of being human, that doesn't require expensive products and nasty comments towards those that have it - just about everyone, I should think.

Yup - something like 80-90% of women have it!

I'm sure I have it too but I'm just far too myopic busy to look. Honestly. Are there no better things to do?

There's a program on bbc2 on Friday 3rd may about Marie Curie. It's at 9pm.

GGGGGGRRRRRRRRR

Waiting and waiting and waiting for the survey on a house we want to buy. totally on tenterhooks, whole chain waiting for us, we living in temporary shithole we want to get out of (and in fact cannot stay in for much longer so we really want this house to go through)...

dp (who is a MAN, with a PENIS) is really busy this week at work (new job + big week for meetings etc) and doesn't have time to dick about with personal shit in work hours. I have done EVERYTHING towards the ENDLESS admin of this house purchase so far. The survey is FINALLY done but I can't read it because... they have decided to send it to him.

WHY? Both my names come before his in the alphabet. I have sent every communication on this so any default-click-reply would come to me. Someone has deliberately chosen ONE email address to construct an email to, and it is his. COULD IT BE BECAUSE I DO NOT HAVE A COCK? or is that jumping to conclusions?

AAAAAAARGH The suspense is killing me!

I would phone them up to ask why they do it. Say you only ask because you want to know, because in this day and age women actually can do things, and you wonder if this is accidental and will they be more careful in the future because it made them look like sexist dinosaurs. You are doing them a favour so they can improve their image. Go on! Pull them up on it!

I have been a feMNist for too long... iPhone just suggested PIV as an autocorrect for "ouch"

Have just managed to get the survey sent to me. It was hard work. ALL THE FUCKING MONEY IS MINE. The mortgage application (I just checked) as me under "first applicant" and dp under "second". What reason could there be for them arbitrarily deciding to email him instead of me?

Oh, now that's shit.

Can you ring them up and bawl them out? I mean, they are really fucking up their business if they send stuff to him and it's you who deals with it.

Have sent strong note to the mortgage broker saying in a slightly more finessed way "I can't deal with organisations that do this, you had better tell them this and I want to know what they say".

I have had this before when I was trying to buy other financial products and it drove me to distraction.

Just want to have a mini-rant.

An old friend came to visit at the weekend, bringing with her a gift for each of my children.

DS1 (13) got a chemistry lab kit.

DS2 (6) got a crystal/rock science kit.

DD (3) got one of those Moxie Girlz dolls, which are just like Bratz, with those horrible big eyes and tiny waists.

This is the doll.

I don't mean to sound ungrateful, I appreciate that my friend took the time to buy gifts for my children, because she certainly didn't have to.

However, I was just frustrated that she went down the stereotypical 'doll for the girl' route, especially when it's one of these awful dolls.

DD isn't really a doll kind of girl, we have bought her a couple of (age appropriate) dolls, but she barely touches them. She's far more interested in playing with Lego (and not that girly Lego, proper Lego).

Sighs.

Freedom I wouldn't be too impressed too with this type of stereotyping.

On the subject of Lego though, I've been thinking about this (I do have a life, really, it's just one of those things ) - why is "girly" Lego not as good as "proper" Lego? I have the same instinctive reaction. But why do I think it's substandard because it's targeted at girls? Why should a pet-grooming salon (I don't know if this is a Lego Friend thing but seems likely ) be inferior to a beach house (Lego City - "proper" Lego, yes?) or the Death Star? After all it's an enterprise.

Am I overthinking this?

But in general I disapprove of gender-specific marketing. It seems that there are some studies that shows that all you need to do to influence boys or girls to play with a certain toy is to portray boys or girls playing with it. Why is that so difficult? Surely then you double your market?

And just had a look: chemistry set-no pictures of human beings, the volcano thing - mad male scientist in white lab coat (no stereotyping going on there then ), Disgusting Science - picture of a boy and a girl (yay!)

I suppose that's my problem with "girly" Lego LordCopper - the fact that is clearly gender-specific/gender-targeted.

It's very clear that Lego Friends is a "girly" version; the characters on the Lego Friends website are Mia, Emma, Andrew, Stephanie and Olivia. Not a boy in sight!

My son might want to build a Lego Friends pet-grooming salon, and if he did (and if such an item exists), I would buy it for him.

Why can't Lego Friends just be marketed as a colour alternative, i.e. pastel Lego bricks, as opposed to the "proper" bright colours?

NB: I am so sad, that I've looked to see if there is a pet-grooming salon and sure enough there is; Heartlake Pet Salon.

Freedom - yes, Lego Friends is clearly targeted at girls, but Lego city, Lego Ninjago etc are clearly targeted at boys - not many female figures around. Do we see those targeted at boys as the norm and those targeted at girls as somehow a concession and substandard? Of course ideally they should just be targeted at children FFS. (Though grownups like Lego too, I guess...)

I also wish they would have a wider range of colours. DS2 loves his beach house. It's got pastel blue bricks. And a crab. Arguably a beach house is not as aspirational as a pet-grooming salon? Bumming about vs running a business...

I'd like to see Lego simply targeted as children, as you rightly said, but Lego Friends is just so twee it evokes more of a reaction from me. Even the name of the city/town; Heartlake, it's just so saccharine.

Also, I find people are less likely to bat an eyelid if a girl plays with normal Lego, whereas when DS2 picked up a Lego Friends set round a friend's house she squealed and said, "oh no Alex, that's for girl's, build this spaceship instead." Err....

YY re Lego..