Happy International Women's Day!

Today is International Women's Day!

There is a huge number of events happening today all across the globe - visit www.internationalwomensday.com for details. There is a handy filter you can use to see what's happening in your country.

The first US National Women's Day was held in 1909, with other countries adopting the idea in subsequent years. In Armenia, Russia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bulgaria, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan and Vietnam, Women's Day is a national holiday.

Do we really need International Women's Day?

Although there have been huge improvements made since 1909, women still do not receive equal pay in many roles, and are still vastly underrepresented in politics and business.

In 29 countries, less than 30 per cent of women are literate.

In Canada, a report by the Canadian Labour Congress shows that women in Canada who worked full-time jobs in 2005 earned 70 cents for every dollar earned by men. Twice as many men than women earned $60,000 or more, while most of the people working for minimum wage were women.

On a global scale, there is still a huge amount of violence against women, and availability of education is still a real issue for many women internationally. Even in countries like Canada, the US and the UK, even where we believe that we as women can choose to have a successful career and be treated as equals in the workforce, we still find obstacles in our way, such as the prevalence of maternal profiling.

I believe International Women's Day is important to remind us that we have to be aware of our position in society and our rights, and be ready to defend them, and women around the world, if they appear threatened.

Why International Women's Day Matters - three short films from The Guardian newspaper.

Margaret's Massey Lectures - hurrah!

Writer, poet, feminist, environmental activist and all-round literary icon Margaret Atwood is to deliver this year's CBC Massey Lectures. Watch this space for more information.

Ever since a friend of mine pushed a slightly tattered copy of The Edible Woman into my hand to read on a long train journey, I have been a huge fan of hers, and always include her on my 'fantasy dinner party' list (alongside erstwhile regular Sir David Attenborough). I've never heard her lecture, though. If you haven't yet read this sublimely written and hilarious novel, beg, borrow or steal a copy now. You'll thank me, I promise. It's worth a jail term.

Read what she has to say on writing and women here

Visit her website here

Earth Hour - Saturday March 29th

Just a reminder that on Saturday March 29th the planet is being challenged to turn all lights off for 1 hour between 8 and 9 pm to reduce our impact on climate change.

Earth Hour was started last year in Sydney, Australia. 2.2 million people participated. The effort reduced Sydney's energy consumption by 10.2% which is the equivalent of taking 48,000 cars off the road for a year. This year, Earth Hour is going to be a global event. Over 77,000 people and nearly 5,000 business have already signed up.

Register here and make a difference!

Women are dumb! Giggle, giggle, faint.

One article you ought to read today, if you want something to gnash your teeth over:

Women vs. WomenWe Scream, We Swoon. How Dumb Can We Get?

This piece of "journalism", written by Washington Post columnist Charlotte Allen, got me so angry I started seething.

Essentially, if you don't feel like reading the article yourself, Allen starts with discussing the numbers of women who are getting a little overexcited at Barack Obama's election rallies. Fair enough, it's a little silly (although the prospect of actually having someone vaguely competent as US president might be justification enough for a little overexcitement). One point for Allen.

However, she then goes on to add further examples of women's "stupidity" and "mental deficiency" : reading trashy escapist novels and watching Grey's Anatomy seemingly the most damning. Oh, also, women are bad drivers. Never mind that her evidence says that men have worse/more fatal accidents.

I'm sorry, but a predilection for trashy TV and/or books is hardly a sign of mental deficiency. True, if women did nothing but watch/read this stuff, then maybe, but firstly, it's hardly all women who like it, secondly, it's meant to be ESCAPIST, and thirdly, there are plenty of male-oriented trashy shows involving car smashing, bike-building and plenty of semi-naked women.

And public displays of emotion? Don't even get me started on sports fans.

True, there may be fewer "female fighter pilots, architects, tax accountants, chemical engineers, Supreme Court justices and brain surgeons" in the world, but considering the endless years of sexism in the workforce, it's hardly surprising, and certainly not a sign that women should stop trying to fill our fair share of these positions. Girls are now outperforming boys at school at every level and they should be encouraged to go for any job they want.

To be honest, I have no idea what a piece of drivel like this is doing in a quality national newspaper. It's not even remotely funny, or tongue-in-cheek, something which might have allowed it to hang on with one little finger to a glimmer of credibility. No doubt the Post decided that publishing this would cause a little stir of controversy and push its ratings up, because I cannot see any other reason for publishing it.

It's completely unnecessary articles like this, intended to provoke feminist backlash, that are one of my personal betes noires. Why is a professional writer trying to perpetuate an outmoded stereotype against 50 per cent of the world's population? What on earth is the point?

Does she really think all women should give up and concentrate on "tenderness toward children and men and the weak and the ability to make a house a home"? In what way does journalism fall into that category? Shouldn't she be at home, arranging pillows on her sofa or knitting socks for her children? Charlotte, if you want to be dim, go ahead (this article is a great example of that...), but don't tar us all with your scrapbooking glue brush, thanks.

Oh, Oscar...

Well... I thought it was about time I acknowledged that defining cornerstone of modern culture, the Oscars.

Before even mentioning the awards themselves, I would like to point out a couple of my favourite things about this year's Oscars:

a) not having to stay up until the early hours to see it through (thank you, Eastern Standard Time) and

b) actually having seen a fair number of the competing films (thank you Canada, for letting me in).

Despite low audience ratings, I actually loved this year's ceremony (possibly because I wasn't pinching myself to stay awake through the Best Sound Editing award at 3 am), and I think much of this was due to host Jon Stewart, quirkily hilarious presenter of The Daily Show, who managed to blend irreverent mocking humour with an appropriate (for the Oscars) dose of obsequious schmaltz.

This year's crop of Oscar outfits were collectively one of the best ever. A bit safe, perhaps, nothing much to look back on and mock, but you can't have it all, I suppose. My favourites were Cate Blanchett's purple Dries Van Noten (does that lady ever put a perfectly Louboutined foot wrong?) and Jennifer Garner's Oscar de la Renta. Classic black but very chic. And personally, I thought Diablo Cody's leopard print Dior suited her down to the ground (no pun intended) although it's probably not the best idea to wear a dress slit to the thigh when striding up to collect your award...

I wish there was more to say about the menswear. With the exception of Daniel Day Lewis and Johnny Depp, both of whom wore slight variations (adding brown!), was every man there wearing a black suit with a black tie? Snore. Personally, I always had this fantasy of accepting my Oscar wearing Topshop. However, if Chanel and Valentino were fighting over who got to dress me, I'm not sure I'd turn them down.

My favourite award win had to be Marketa Irglova and Glen Hansard for Best Original Song (from the film Once, go see it NOW) Thank God they beat out all those sappy Enchanted songs. And such a cute moment when Marketa was given the chance to make her acceptance speech...

And finally, kudos to all the women who made this year's nominees and winners lists. While the men picked up their quota of gold for a slew of psychotically gory movies, women took to the podium to collect nearly half of the awards, including Original Screenplay, Sound Editing, Best Original Song, Art Direction, Documentary Short, Makeup, Costume Design and Animated Short Film, alongside Best Actress and Supporting Actress. Good going, ladies!

No jobs for mothers

What is wrong with the world?

I just read a somewhat head-exploding article by Viv Groskop on today's Guardian Unlimited called 'Mothers need not apply'. If you feel the need to rouse some of your feminist ire, go and read it. Actually go and read it even if you don't. It might make your head explode too.

The article is an investigation into 'Maternal Profiling' - apparently rife in the US - which is illegal in both Canada and the UK, although as Groskop worryingly points out, the fact that it is illegal does not necessarily mean that it doesn't happen.

For those not in the know about this latest 'buzzword' (accorded such status by the New York Times at the end of 2007), maternal profiling allows discrimination towards employees and jobseekers on the basis of family status. In clearer terms, it allows employers to overlook qualified female candidates because they are planning to have a child, or even simply considering it. In the US it is quite legal in all but 22 states to enquire about an interviewee's marital status and plans for children, and apparently many employers take advantage of this right.

According to research by MomsRising.org, a 140,000 strong US group that campaigns for equal rights for mothers:

-mothers are 79 per cent less likely to be hired than non mothers with the same resume and work experience.

-mothers were offered $11,000 less in starting pay than non-mothers with the same resume and work experience.

Even if a woman doesn't have any plans to start a family, or doesn't even want children, just because she is married and of child-bearing age, employers may look at her differently than a man at any age. This is a problem that affects all women, whether they already have kids, want kids, or don't want them.

And why is there no 'Paternal Profiling'? You'd think, in this day and age with all the emphasis on shared parental responsibility and discussion of paternity leave that the same principles would apply to men. Yet it seems like it's always assumed that it will be the mothers who are responsible for the child and will take time off from work. Surely, if all mothers and fathers did an equal share of childcare all employees could be treated the same?

Why should any employer assume that a woman is suddenly going to work fewer hours, make huge claims on their health insurance, or even leave her job just because she has a baby?

What's worrying for Canadians/Brits is that even though we have anti-discriminatory laws specifically designed to watch for this kind of behaviour, it's extremely hard to prove and take action against. It seems that many women, despite a tottering pile of legislation, are still being discriminated against in the workplace for this reason.

And because Canadian/UK employers are specifically forbidden from asking questions about marital status, an employer aiming to avoid hiring a woman who might get pregnant could easily avoid hiring any woman under 40 or so at all, and justify it in some other way.

Groskop's article does indeed show that maternal profiling is not just confined to the US:

"Last year, a survey by the new Equality and Human Rights Commission found that 70% of recruitment agencies had been asked to avoid hiring women who were pregnant or likely to get pregnant.

The commission also found that mothers face more discrimination in the workplace than any other group. Those with children under 11 were 45% less likely to be employed than men, with that figure rising to 49% among single mothers.

A YouGov poll of 1,000 UK directors, also conducted in 2007, revealed that 21% knew of instances where their company had avoided hiring women of child-bearing age - 19% admitted to making this decision themselves.

In the same poll, more than two-thirds of senior executives said that the bureaucracy surrounding parental leave posed a "serious threat" to their companies.

And in 2004 an extraordinary survey by HR information provider Cromer found that eight in 10 human resources managers would "think twice" before hiring a newly married woman in her 20s. (They had fewer reservations about hiring mothers with older children, they said, as they would be "less likely to take maternity leave".)"

You've got to be kidding me.

At least we get paid maternity leave though. Seriously, who'd have a baby in the US? The United States is one of the only countries in the world that doesn't have paid maternity leave (the only other industrialized one that doesn't is Australia, which still guarantees a full 12 months of unpaid maternity leave).

And a parting thought:

Given all the attention the gnarly topic of abortion has been given recently, particularly in the US, maybe it won't be such an issue when women are given the same rights as men, despite choosing to have children. 79 per cent less likely to be hired? $11,000 less starting pay? I don't know about you, but that's a pretty big incentive not to have a child.

Check out ParentDish.com and WashingtonPost.com for some case stories from readers (which also might make your head explode).

Get your Indie Fix at Indie Fixx

Thought I would share with you a new site and online store I have recently discovered called Indie Fixx. It profiles and sells unique handmade items by some extremely talented artists and designers. You know the feeling you get when you find a really amazing gift shop and you see a zillion things you want to buy for every single person you know (and about a hundred for yourself while you're at it)? Well - you'll get that here. Don't say I didn't warn you. And with every purchase you're supporting some uniquely talented individuals.

At the moment Indie Fixx is having a sale in their online store, where you can pick up oh-so-cute items such as this fawn pouch, prints such as this Forest Print (which they are also offering as a prize in a giveaway - just leave a comment at the Indie Fixx posting to enter) and some fancy Osmosis Triplet Earrings...

...this all alongside a host of new spring items, including housewares, bath goodies, jewellery, crafts , accessories and lots more! Seriously, go check it out. Now.

Garnier doubles up

A slightly freaky occurence today.

So I'm watching TV and an ad for Garnier Nutrisse Cream comes on (You know - the hair colour). It's an ad that I've seen many many times over the past year or two - beginning back in my homeland of the UK, where the product is represented by Big Brother host and perpetually pregnant yummy mummy Davina McCall. Here's the thing though - over here in Canada it's not her in the ad - it's Canadian chanteuse Chantal Kreviazuk.

And yet - the ad is EXACTLY THE SAME. The lines are the same, the direction is the same, the intonation of the words is the same, each head toss and flick of shimmering coloured hair is delivered at precisely the same point. They even look ridiculously similar. It all added up to a very spooky effect where I actually originally thought I was watching Davina McCall and wondered who in Canada would have heard of her.

No doubt this will not have much significance for anybody else. And it's probably not significant in any way past Garnier wanting to have people in the ad that the viewers will recognise. But you have to wonder - is there a Davina/Chantal lookalike in every one of Garnier's global markets? Is Davina copying Chantal or is it the other way round? Or are they both copying a Garnier-manufactured cyborg who has been specially trained in hair flicking and advising a fictitious mother on the best way to cover her grey hairs?

Makes you think...

A woman's place is in the kitchen... according to McCain (the frozen food company, not the Republican presidential candidate)

One of the things that provokes my wrath the most (and believe me, my wrath is not that easily provoked) is the sexism prevalent in advertising these days. And I'm not talking about the blatant "show skin to sell stuff" attitude.

A simple experiment - all you need to do is watch TV at any time of day (although daytime TV is a particularly bad offender) and make a note of exactly which products are targeted at men and which are targeted at women.

Go one step further. Imagine you're new to the planet Earth and then try and create a picture of each sex based on what products are aimed at them.

One ad I hate: McCain Slow Cooker Solutions, frozen stews you put in your slow cooker during the day and then come home to eat in the evening. The ad (I'm sure you've all seen it by now) shows a woman coming home to her family after work; even though her husband's already home and in the garage tinkering with the car, it's the wife that is expected to make the meal.

There's another similar campaign (it may even be for the same product) where a woman is at work and worried about doing overtime because she has to prepare dinner. Swiffer, Febreeze, endless air freshener adverts, adverts for kitchen and bathroom cleaning products, adverts for cooking, adverts for children's meals, baby products... Clearly it's assumed in the mind of the global advertising community that women care about nothing else.

And this message is a dangerous one. Advertising such as this leaches into women's minds and makes them feel like they should be spending all this time and effort cleaning and cooking - because clearly that's what every other woman in the world does - if you don't have a clean house, dinner on the table for your husband and kids, and a perfectly accessorized child with a brand-name packed lunch then you have in some way failed. With all the supposed emphasis on men contributing equally to cleaning, cooking and child care (and plenty do), isn't it about time advertising reflected this?

This is a subject that is bothering me increasingly... expect to hear more on this subject, with more examples, in the near future. Grr!

Happiness is... Stacy and Clinton

The title says it all. I love TLC's "What not to Wear" and the new season is so far shaping up to be very entertaining, with a few tweaks in format, all for the better. Last week's mother of five had a wardrobe overhaul to welcome her navy husband back to dry land and looked fantastic at the end, trading her long, ratty hair for a sleek shiny bob and her old child-like casuals for a sharp new tailored look.

Some might say that shows like WNTW are anti-feminist, stressing as they do the importance of outward appearance for women over what's on the inside. But what I love about the show is that it aims to make each one of its subjects feel fantastic about themselves, regardless of weight or age. Stacy and Clinton find the positive points of everyone and make them understand that anyone can look great - you don't have to be a size 0, 20 years old and 5'10".

In today's looks-obsessed society, where women are routinely judged for their age, wrinkles, number of children, waist size, chest size and about a hundred other things, it's refreshing to find a show that doesn't care about physical attributes. S & C always end up boosting the self esteem of the participant and send them home looking 100% better.

Take Clinton's Smart Shopping Quiz here, or check out fashion tips and see makeovers on the main site. I don't know about you, but I always want to cuddle Clinton (or possibly take him home for some soup) and steal Stacy's hair (and most of her clothes) for myself.

Along a similar line, I always end up slightly irked by "10 Years Younger", another TLC regular, now vamped up for primetime evening viewing with three subjects per programme. Although it usually includes a mix of men and women (and thank God for that, or I'd be here all night venting), it's completely the opposite to WNTW in terms of attitude.

The whole concept behind the show is that it's better to look younger rather than just looking fabulous however old you are. It sends subjects off for radical dental restructuring, Botox, Restylane injections and chemical peels, stopping just short of lipo and breast implants. Eek. Not to mention each show's clients are generally subjected to a Dr. Phil-like emotional grilling about their tragic lives before they're allowed the makeover. Horrid.

An introduction

The first post of my new blog - as good a time as any to explain what this blog is all about. A female look at all those topics that are so essential to modern life - fashion, beauty, celebrities, movies, books, culture, advertising, even politics and global issues thrown in.

In an age where men and women are supposedly equal yet discrimination still exists based solely on gender, it's important not to lose sight of the racetrack. Even though many of the obvious hurdles have been cleared, we are still fighting to be treated equally. Despite years of struggling, women are still being pigeonholed in the workplace, in politics, and in society as a whole, and mass marketing and advertising seem determined to go along with it.

Life should be fun. My blog is a lighthearted look at the world - but expect a few rants and raves along the way.

Feel free to join in!