It’s easier to influence people when you tell them what they can do as opposed to telling them what they can’t do. Throw the false idea of liberation into the mix and it’s even more powerful. I’m not saying that there’s some sort of conspiracy here, but society has deep seated ideas about how women should look and behave.

This can be shown when/if you analyse your own conversations about women and it can become concerning. You can go on to say it’s part of human nature but that to me is just a cop-out. As soon as you acknowledge that there is nothing you can do about the bad aspects of human nature you take one step towards justifying them.

Actually, maybe slightly less than completely, as I think it’s a bit unfair to criticize magazines for conveying message number 3. A lot of (especially teenage) boys do find insecurity repellent, and think that “confidence is the no. 1 most important thing in a girl”. (unless the ones I know are unrepresentative.) So they could just be preparing girls for the attitudes they’ll face.

It seems like the majority of the general population’s reading material is either utter rubbish or a corrosive influence – eg the Daily Mail, the Sun (readership 7.9m!!!), “chick-lit”, girly/porn magazines, the Express (circulation of 700,000+. I just can’t understand how basic human decency didn’t stop them writing “a former Al Qaeda suspect was flown back to Britain on a luxury jet yesterday – at Government expense. Now taxpayers face a massive bill for his new life on benefits” – this is about someone who’s been TORTURED with Britain complicit! argh.)

The more I find out about politics the more depressed I get – how on earth can we hope to have a just democracy if so many people have disgusting prejudices and hatreds created and strengthened every time they pick up a newspaper or magazine?

Anyway I’ve just finished reading Dworkin’s “Is democracy possible here” and I really, really enjoyed it, even though I disagree strongly with his positions on social insurance and especially abortion. Though I suppose that’s constructive according to him, as I’ve interpreted his two principles differently. 1. Is that an ok book to read? Not too hard for a 16yr old/not academic enough? 2. If those sorts of books are fine, can you recommend any other similar books? -i.e. that level of difficulty, as I thought it was (very) thought provoking but still accessible.

Thanks