Yep, I can live with that logic. Job done.

I've just caught up with the "posh white women" thing. No. All women: posh or not, white, brown, black, pink or green. All backgrounds, all levels of education and socio-economic realities.

It may be discussed more obviously, more publically, by women who, taken as a group from all the women in the world, are arguably in a more privileged position, but it does not mean the day and it's associated causes are the sole domain of this small, small group.

Odile and Sandgrounder, and Blueangel i think, all said similar things: change generally trickles down from a position of privilege and power. It rarely happens from the bottom up. The Suffrage movement was driven by privilege, yes, and women who had men in their lives who believed in them. Change was fought for, sacrificed for, by women but, ultimately, permitted by a historically patriarchal society. It doesn't lessen the achievement.

Have you seen Hidden Figures? Phenomenally talented, incredibly intelligent ground breaking women who still, still, needed a man to say "actually, I want her to do it, I believe in her, let her do it." And I know it's a film, bit taken from a biographical account and the main character is alive and was consulted. It's outrageously true. These women were warriors ever day. And the opposite of your stereotypical posh white women.

All women deserve a day. I'm a woman every day, a mum every day, but it's nice to have that one special day that universally recognises it.

As to the point about double standards: maybe, maybe not. I don't think it's a bad thing, in the long run. Historically there have been double standards for men forever. Still are. It's an uncomfortable truth but the world keeps turning.

Let Emma Watson wear a see through top. I'm sure she wears less on the beach. It doesn't diminish her intelligence, drive or talent. It shouldn't dilute the work she does for the causes she campaigns for. It's only a double standard if we let it be. Otherwise it's just a young woman in a white designer dress.

As to the point about double standards: maybe, maybe not. I don't think it's a bad thing, in the long run. Historically there have been double standards for men forever. Still are. It's an uncomfortable truth but the world keeps turning.

Ah, now I see the issue! You have yourself a lovely day, you charmer, you...

I have so much charm and so few issues it all just overflows...

I do like to challenge bollocks when I read it though.

It's playing catch-up. Was speaking historically and not just from a Swiss perspective.

Did your humour/sarcasm setting take a hit?

It's only because I'm not agreeing with you..

Scipio: you can stop that nonsense as well. Show me how many fathers well-meaning neighbours expect to stay home from work when their kid is sick (single parents and those with travelling spouses notwithstanding).

I've still not seen where you, or anyone else, has tried to explain why you think she's doing that.

As far as I'm aware she's never suggested that women shouldn't make themselves appear attractive to the opposite (or indeed, the same) sex, so I just don't see any evidence of double standards.

I'm assuming that you're just caught up in the popular myth of feminists being ugly man-haters who villify any woman that doesn't agree with their rather odd principles, or has the gall to - gasp! - conform to normal standards of attractiveness. EW campaigns for equal rights for women, internationally, and has nothing to do with that pareticular stereotyped image of so-called feminism.