Last night I decided to watch The Sex Education Show in the hope that it might provide some food for thought of a bit more substance than the recent edition of Panorama, entitled 'Too Much Too Young' focusing on the moral panic over 'girls growing up too fast', 'sexualisation' (which now seems to be the accepted shorthand for the whole phenomenon) and high street stores selling 'inappropriate' clothing.
Coverage of this issue on television and in the media has been problematic for a number of reasons. Take the comments of the mother on the Panorama documentary, who was concerned that her daughter wearing short skirts and 'showing her legs' would lead to an underage pregnancy. Or the tabloid headlines which labelled Primark's padded swimwear for seven-year-olds as the 'PAEDO BIKINI'. The fact that the outrage exclusively focuses on girls, the way they might behave or the things that might happen to them as a result of liking or wearing certain clothes or being exposed to sexual imagery, rather than addressing the issues in the ways they affect boys, looking at the wider problems surrounding the way we view sex and relationships as a society, or asking the girls themselves what they actually think about it all. The way it practically demonizes sexuality at an age where children are probably going to be having a lot of questions about it and getting a lot of messages from society which are pretty confusing to them.
As I'd expected, The Sex Education Show went down the usual track of hand-wringing about miniature heels and bras, then filming 'stunts' which involved entering and protesting at 'guilty' stores such as Primark and Matalan, something which was particularly unproductive.
What struck me, perhaps over anything else, was the huge double standard which exists in all this media coverage and all these documentaries. People are horrified that young girls might be 'pressurized' into wearing heels or makeup or padded bras or showing themselves to be sexually 'available' and 'raunchy', despite the fact they're only seven, or 10, or 12. It's taking away their innocence, leading them down the wrong path, making them focus on the wrong things. Many people interviewed about it all have said that they want their daughters to be interested in a diverse range of pursuits, like sport or science or music. This is all great.
But the moment these girls pass the point where they're no longer considered 'children' any more, everything changes. As women, they'll no longer be expected to shun padded bras and makeup and an obsession with being attractive as 'inappropriate'. It will be become a requirement. If they have small breasts they'll constantly receive messages from shops and the media that they need to look more 'curvy', 'create the illusion of cleavage' and possibly have surgery to get the perfect figure. If they show up at the office without makeup on or in flat shoes, they might be asked to do something about it. Women's magazines will tell them how they should modify their behaviour in order to attract - and 'keep' a man. There's still the ridiculous stereotype, in some quarters, that men don't like 'brainy' women.
In short, if the 'too much too young' culture is going to change, this change needs to happen from the top down.
Young girls seek to emulate famous women, their mothers, their older sisters. If they see that these women's lives are controlled to a massive extent by diets, looking conventionally attractive and personal grooming, what choice is there for them? They are learning from a very young age that our society teaches women they must live up to certain standards in order to gain approval and be a 'real woman'. Who is helping them to see through this? If they hear their clothes being blamed for negative attention or harassment they might receive from the opposite sex, where does this leave their self-esteem in the face of victim-blaming? If they're told that sexual activity and curiosity at a young age is bad, but don't receive comprehensive, careful and thoughtful education and advice about it from their schools, friends or parents, they'll only end up confused further, especially when the moral panic is exclusively targeted at one gender.
I'm sure that we're going to continue seeing a great deal about the problem of 'sexualisation' in the news and on television. What this coverage needs is a more rounded and balanced perspective on the issues involved - and acknowledgement that they will not go away unless we stop expecting grown women to live this way while condemning girls for doing the same things.
Are we suffering from Royal Wedding Overkill?
Wednesday, 13 April 2011
As of today, there are just 16 days to go until the Royal Wedding. 16 days until we get to find out the answers to all the important questions we've been obsessing over for the past few months. What will the dress look like? How will Kate's hair be styled? Will she promise to 'obey' Wills and will Prince Harry get bladdered at the reception?
Before I go any further I feel I must confess that I'm severely ambivalent about both the event of the year and the Royal Family. I hope the couple will be very happy together and that they have a great day. I'm over the moon to be getting an extra day off work. It's the rest of it I can do without. Including getting in on all the twee souvenir-purchasing, bunting-hanging, flag-waving aspect of it all purely because it's the next logical step on the road to retro-patriotic materialistic heaven (see also 'make do and mend', reissues of 1950s lifestyle manuals).
Yes, you read that correctly. I've got Royal Wedding Fatigue. And with good reason.
Every day at least one of my friends from the blogging world tweets that they've had just about enough of tedious Royal Wedding-themed products and emails from PRs. You can't open a newspaper without seeing a story speculating about the big day (Kate wants to wear flowers in her hair! Camilla says "Hell to the no, you will wear a tiara and you will like it.") And poor Kate can't leave the house without someone comparing her to Princess Diana.
I can't help but feel that this is how it's going to be for the foreseeable future. Kate may be 'every inch the modern princess' but she's destined to have her every move photographed and displayed in a tabloid next to Diana doing or wearing something similar. I'm sure she's thrilled to have to live up to the example set by not only the nation's 'Queen of Hearts', but her future husband's deceased mother, who died during a somewhat dubious encounter with the press.
Okay, so it's kind of predictable that the media is going to compare the two, but let's stop it from bordering on the creepy, guys. As we were reminded last week, speculation over whether or not Diana was a virgin reached such a frenzy during her engagement that her uncle ended up publicly announcing her 'intact' status to the nation. Obviously, this prompted journalists to ask members of the public just how they feel about the fact that Kate is probably, you know, sexually active. And funnily enough, no-one seemed to care.
It's also obvious that Kate's going to have to put up with endless comments about not only her clothes, but her weight as well. The press already has knives out regarding her body shape due to the fact she may or may not have lost a few pounds in the run-up to the wedding. I'm sure the minute she gets caught on camera inclining her head downwards they'll be poking fun at the merest hint of a double chin.
I nearly spat my breakfast out the other day watching a lengthy debate - with special guests - on BBC Breakfast about the fact that William has decided not to wear a wedding ring.I'm fully aware that it's only in the past 50 years that men have started to wear them - and also that it'a particularly uncommon among upper-class men, apparently. But like many wedding-based dramas, some people are determined to make it all about 'tradition', keeping the spirit of those days when marriage was more about men possessing women alive.
"I am delighted by Prince William's decision. I have always regarded the practice of men wearing wedding rings as prissy and effeminate," wrote Harry Phibbs in (you guessed it) the Daily Mail.
He denounced what he sees as the absurb political correctness of people who expect men display their 'off-limits' status in the same way as their wives, going on to say that he hopes Kate will be promising to 'obey', so keeping the natural order of things intact.
Hopefully Kate won't let life in the limelight get to her - she's had a fair amount of practice now and luckily for her, she seems to be staying out of the sort of 'scandals' the tabloids love. It's just depressing to see that even though we never stop hearing about how times have changed since Charles and Diana got hitched, particularly in terms of press coverage, it's obvious that in many ways, things are very much the same.
This post originally appeared at BitchBuzz. Image via waldopepper's Flickr.
Snip snip
Thursday, 31 March 2011
How is this acceptable?
"The news comes a month after the government launched guidelines to help frontline workers in health, education and social services identify and prevent FGM, and pledged its commitment to ending the practice.
But charities say that without a central government co-ordinator, crucial efforts to raise awareness among professionals on a local level, where the issue is often still not understood, could be seriously hampered."
"I have seen first hand the effect this abhorrent crime can have on women and girls. This government is determined to put an end to it."
"I want to see an end to all forms of violence against women and girls. Our comprehensive and detailed action plan sets out how we are going to tackle these crimes – supporting those at risk, helping victims and ensuring offenders are brought to justice.
"Most importantly we need to prevent these crimes occurring in the first place. That is why we are challenging, and where necessary working to change, attitudes and behaviours."
After tomorrow, 62% of refuge services will have no funding and neither will 72% of services provided in peoples' homes.
An estimated 40% job losses predicted across the domestic violence sector.
70,000 women and children could be without support, as of tomorrow.
400 refuge spaces cut to 160.
Yesterday we learned that the Government is to abolish the measures it put in place to try to tackle Female Genital Mutilation. According to the Guardian:
But charities say that without a central government co-ordinator, crucial efforts to raise awareness among professionals on a local level, where the issue is often still not understood, could be seriously hampered."
When the guidelines were launched, Lynne Featherstone said:
"I have seen first hand the effect this abhorrent crime can have on women and girls. This government is determined to put an end to it."
So determined, in fact, that they're no longer going to bother with trying to tackle it.
Earlier this month I spent time in a country where better provision for women and children who are victims of domestic violence is badly needed. Shelters, for one thing - they don't exist. One of the women I talked to spoke of how refuges were one of the things she really felt her city needed and of how she felt they would make a big difference to many women. I listened to women talk about the problems this lack of provision causes - women having nowhere to go when they want to leave their partner - so they don't leave. Women who feel they can't support themselves and they're trapped because no-one else will help support them when they need it most - so they don't leave. And the violence gets hushed up, hidden away - and more serious.
Is that really what those running this country want?
Said Theresa May on International Women's Day, just three weeks ago:
"I want to see an end to all forms of violence against women and girls. Our comprehensive and detailed action plan sets out how we are going to tackle these crimes – supporting those at risk, helping victims and ensuring offenders are brought to justice.
"Most importantly we need to prevent these crimes occurring in the first place. That is why we are challenging, and where necessary working to change, attitudes and behaviours."
Somehow I don't think what's going to happen tomorrow will help.
What does 'bigger' and 'sturdy' look like? The Sartorialist wants to show you
Monday, 28 March 2011
Making regular appearances on my Twitter timeline since this afternoon: the latest post from The Sartorialist.
He spotlights a woman who is, apparently, 'one of the crop of new bloggers' (sorry, I'm not an obsessive follower of fashion blogs so I don't know anything more about her) - incidentally, without bothering to link her. Not only is she a fledgling blogger, she's also special because she's a 'bigger, curvier girl than most of the other bloggers who you see in the the press and tend to represent the genre'.
Hear that, Scott? That's the sound of a slow handclap because I don't think anyone can quite believe that you just made a point of describing the woman in those pictures as 'bigger', before referring to her 'sturdy' legs and the way that it's okay, she's balancing out their proportions with big shoes because, you know, those legs would overwhelm dainty footwear.
Now I don't really take offence at him having called her 'curvy' as some people have done (including many commenters on the blog, who feel he is using 'curvy' as a euphemism for 'fat' and that the words he has used in the post are negative words - of course they only are if you make them so). We see her side-on. It's kind of difficult to tell what her body shape is so it's pointless to discuss it. Different people have different perceptions of body size and shape so all I will say is that she's a woman who's slimmer than the average woman.
So what is it which has bothered me so much about the post? It's the description of her as 'bigger than other bloggers', which is ridiculous. In my only other real foray into blogging about fashion I spent some time discussing how in general, the fashion bloggers which get the most attention from mainstream media, the sponsorships and the clothing deals are the very young, white, thin, moneyed ones. I also pointed out that for those who care and who want to participate, there are thousands of blogs out there which are inclusive regarding age, gender, race and size, which are run by plus-size women and women in their 40s. Blogs that don't treat anything which deviates from the usual formula as something worthy of a special mention, like fashion magazine editors putting out a super-inclusive 'curvy issue' or 'black issue' once every few years and patting themselves on the back for months about just how revolutionary they're being.
So while Scott's right that the big-name bloggers tend to look a certain way, it's not like the rest of them don't exist. And it's hardly as if Angelika's look represents a major change compared to these big name bloggers, is it? It's extremely telling that all those years of photographing the beautiful and the stylish have left him believing that her body shape and her look represents a radical departure from the norm. If he hadn't made such a point of discussing her size I wouldn't even have noticed the supposed 'difference'.
My question is, why comment on it at all? I like street style blogs. I like them best when they are a real representation of the city they focus on, regardless of how conventionally attractive, thin or young the subject is. If the blog's about the clothes, comments on the subject's body type don't need to come into it, much less such patronising comments - the 'sturdy', the part about the shoes, which leaves you wondering what Scott really thinks about how Angelika looks and why he really felt the need to discuss it. After all, this is the man whose equally well-known partner has described him as her "weight loss coach".
He spotlights a woman who is, apparently, 'one of the crop of new bloggers' (sorry, I'm not an obsessive follower of fashion blogs so I don't know anything more about her) - incidentally, without bothering to link her. Not only is she a fledgling blogger, she's also special because she's a 'bigger, curvier girl than most of the other bloggers who you see in the the press and tend to represent the genre'.
Hear that, Scott? That's the sound of a slow handclap because I don't think anyone can quite believe that you just made a point of describing the woman in those pictures as 'bigger', before referring to her 'sturdy' legs and the way that it's okay, she's balancing out their proportions with big shoes because, you know, those legs would overwhelm dainty footwear.
Now I don't really take offence at him having called her 'curvy' as some people have done (including many commenters on the blog, who feel he is using 'curvy' as a euphemism for 'fat' and that the words he has used in the post are negative words - of course they only are if you make them so). We see her side-on. It's kind of difficult to tell what her body shape is so it's pointless to discuss it. Different people have different perceptions of body size and shape so all I will say is that she's a woman who's slimmer than the average woman.
So what is it which has bothered me so much about the post? It's the description of her as 'bigger than other bloggers', which is ridiculous. In my only other real foray into blogging about fashion I spent some time discussing how in general, the fashion bloggers which get the most attention from mainstream media, the sponsorships and the clothing deals are the very young, white, thin, moneyed ones. I also pointed out that for those who care and who want to participate, there are thousands of blogs out there which are inclusive regarding age, gender, race and size, which are run by plus-size women and women in their 40s. Blogs that don't treat anything which deviates from the usual formula as something worthy of a special mention, like fashion magazine editors putting out a super-inclusive 'curvy issue' or 'black issue' once every few years and patting themselves on the back for months about just how revolutionary they're being.
So while Scott's right that the big-name bloggers tend to look a certain way, it's not like the rest of them don't exist. And it's hardly as if Angelika's look represents a major change compared to these big name bloggers, is it? It's extremely telling that all those years of photographing the beautiful and the stylish have left him believing that her body shape and her look represents a radical departure from the norm. If he hadn't made such a point of discussing her size I wouldn't even have noticed the supposed 'difference'.
My question is, why comment on it at all? I like street style blogs. I like them best when they are a real representation of the city they focus on, regardless of how conventionally attractive, thin or young the subject is. If the blog's about the clothes, comments on the subject's body type don't need to come into it, much less such patronising comments - the 'sturdy', the part about the shoes, which leaves you wondering what Scott really thinks about how Angelika looks and why he really felt the need to discuss it. After all, this is the man whose equally well-known partner has described him as her "weight loss coach".
He has said in the past that 'older' and 'larger' women are often reluctant for him to photograph them, which may well be the case, but it does leave me wondering when there's no shortage of them on plenty of other street style blogs.
Furthermore, what's up with the policing regarding what people should and shouldn't wear? So Angelika, 'bigger' than other bloggers, needs a certain type of shoe in order for her legs to look okay? The notion that you should not wear various items of clothing and footwear because of your body type is one of the most tedious things out there. I know from past discussions online that one of the things that never fails to get people riled is the sort of 'advice' from magazines and websites which states that wearing clothes is all about 'hiding bad bits' and making your body into the most acceptable version of its natural shape possible. You know, creating the illusion of cleavage, or longer legs, or smaller hips, or making sure you choose jeans to balance out your proportions. So many bloggers spend so much time fighting these messages and being proud to wear what they want and express themselves through whatever clothes they want, yet the biggest names out there are still perpetuating this crap, these 'rules'.
Probably the worst aspect of it all was the fact that, as the negative comments poured in, Scott decided to do a post edit which increased the 'patronising' factor tenfold, describing to us as it does the way he sees the word 'curvy' and how it's totally okay, ladies, to be referred to as such. The edit finishes thus:
"Last week I did a post of older women every day, and I was proud of that. I am proud to be a blog that is showing women of different sizes."
You go, Scott. Keep being proud of the fact that you had a special 'older women week'.
I know, I know. The blog really does feature subjects of more advanced years, but more often than not it'll be older men that you'll see. And older men with slightly more diverse body types, while the older women are still without exception thin. His posts featuring women with the more, ahem, classic fashion blogger physique never include commentary on their size or shape. Does this show his singling out of Angelika in today's post as a good thing, or a bad thing? If you want to showcase diversity, just do it. Don't be self-congratulatory and patronising. Don't make it a one off and make such a big deal of it that you leave us in no doubt that it probably is just a one-off. Don't tie yourself in knots trying to sound less offensive and dig yourself into a deeper hole by inviting your readers to pass judgement on the size and shape of your subject in a way that you never would usually.
"Help me describe this young lady without using the word 'normal', but in a way that addresses her body size..."
Now I know that commenters being judgmental is just what happens on a lot of fashion blogs (including on this particular post - "yes, the jeans do make her legs look chubbier") but you don't have to ASK for it, as if you're talking about some sort of exhibit at a show, a woman whose size and shape needs to be 'addressed' like some sort of oddity. Help me describe this young lady so that my judging of her will be done in a way which is acceptable to you, my fans. It's not good however you look at it.
Furthermore, what's up with the policing regarding what people should and shouldn't wear? So Angelika, 'bigger' than other bloggers, needs a certain type of shoe in order for her legs to look okay? The notion that you should not wear various items of clothing and footwear because of your body type is one of the most tedious things out there. I know from past discussions online that one of the things that never fails to get people riled is the sort of 'advice' from magazines and websites which states that wearing clothes is all about 'hiding bad bits' and making your body into the most acceptable version of its natural shape possible. You know, creating the illusion of cleavage, or longer legs, or smaller hips, or making sure you choose jeans to balance out your proportions. So many bloggers spend so much time fighting these messages and being proud to wear what they want and express themselves through whatever clothes they want, yet the biggest names out there are still perpetuating this crap, these 'rules'.
Probably the worst aspect of it all was the fact that, as the negative comments poured in, Scott decided to do a post edit which increased the 'patronising' factor tenfold, describing to us as it does the way he sees the word 'curvy' and how it's totally okay, ladies, to be referred to as such. The edit finishes thus:
"Last week I did a post of older women every day, and I was proud of that. I am proud to be a blog that is showing women of different sizes."
You go, Scott. Keep being proud of the fact that you had a special 'older women week'.
I know, I know. The blog really does feature subjects of more advanced years, but more often than not it'll be older men that you'll see. And older men with slightly more diverse body types, while the older women are still without exception thin. His posts featuring women with the more, ahem, classic fashion blogger physique never include commentary on their size or shape. Does this show his singling out of Angelika in today's post as a good thing, or a bad thing? If you want to showcase diversity, just do it. Don't be self-congratulatory and patronising. Don't make it a one off and make such a big deal of it that you leave us in no doubt that it probably is just a one-off. Don't tie yourself in knots trying to sound less offensive and dig yourself into a deeper hole by inviting your readers to pass judgement on the size and shape of your subject in a way that you never would usually.
"Help me describe this young lady without using the word 'normal', but in a way that addresses her body size..."
Now I know that commenters being judgmental is just what happens on a lot of fashion blogs (including on this particular post - "yes, the jeans do make her legs look chubbier") but you don't have to ASK for it, as if you're talking about some sort of exhibit at a show, a woman whose size and shape needs to be 'addressed' like some sort of oddity. Help me describe this young lady so that my judging of her will be done in a way which is acceptable to you, my fans. It's not good however you look at it.
Image: Wikimedia Commons
Does your husband know you're out marching?
Thursday, 24 March 2011
Earlier today, just on a whim, I tweeted:
Feminists in a relationship with a man - how often do you get the 'And what does your partner think about all this?' question?
Answers ranged from "All the bloody time" to "Wow! I don't recall ever hearing it." Me, I get it quite a lot. Sometimes someone will ask in a fairly nervous way, as if I'm about to rip their head off (being a terrifying feminist and all, what else would you expect?). Other times they'll be a bit confrontational, a bit challenging. So does your husband mind that you may or may not have a cavalier attitude towards body hair? Oh, as long as you're not one of those ones with short hair and Dr Martens, then that's okay. Who really wears the trousers in your relationship?
Some time ago there was this man who would always sit next to me on the bus in the morning. We worked for the same company and got on at the same stop. I just wanted to read my newspaper. He just wanted to tell me about his exploits at chess club and his nightmare ex-wife. He told me he was just temping and I'm not going to lie, I longed for the end of his contract because he was downright strange and I don't like small talk. One Friday he asked me if I had any plans for the weekend and I told him I was off to Million Women Rise on the Saturday. He asked what that was and then he asked:
"And how does your husband feel about you going to that sort of thing? Is he okay with it?"
"Er, yeah he is."
"Oh."
A few weeks later I spotted him on the bus one Saturday. He was sat several seats ahead of me, animatedly telling the man sitting next to him about his belief that men are the 'heads' of women and that women should be 'in submission' to them. Personally I can't believe I took a bus journey with him every day for several weeks and he never even tried to evangelise to me. Bad form, Creepy Man.
Creepy Man was just one of many. Women ask me about it too. Every time I wonder what I should say - and not just because I have a really hard time not being sarcastic. Yes, my husband really objects to me being anti-violence against women. And protesting rape. And attempting to fight for equality. What do they expect? It's like they think that's the moment I'm going to admit to being a fully-fledged man-hater, keeping him firmly under the thumb until I decide how to do away with him. Or that I'm going to say that actually, yeah, it's a big issue within our marriage and he wants me to stop and go back to being the sort of wife who says nothing and makes him a sandwich and sits with him on the sofa with downcast eyes instead of swanning off to all those demonstrations.
In all seriousness, it's started to grate a bit. Just so you know, I have an incredibly supportive husband who is pro-equality and has no objections to my writing, or my activism, or my opinions. Some bits of it interest him more than others, but he supports me all the same. As he said to me a while back when I was telling him about an article written by some of our somewhat less equality-minded Christian brothers, "Why would you spend all that time trying to 'prove' that gender equality is a bad thing?" So when I answer in the affirmative to these people, it's a bit of a conversation-killer.
I think there's a few things people mean when they ask me this question. Does he feel threatened by my opinions? Does it mean I'm the one 'in charge'? Does it mean I'm domineering and unpleasant and don't care what he thinks? As the man, he has to approve everything I do and think, right? He gets asked the same sort of things when he's on his own with male acquaintances as well. Are my 'strong opinions' overbearing? Is he okay with me being one of those feminists? Is it threatening his masculinity? Okay, he's never actually been asked that, but I'm sure it's implied.
It's sad that people can't see past this scenario where one person's 'in charge' and one person's 'under the thumb'. Where one person has to 'approve' everything the other does. Where believing that both people are of equal worth is somehow an issue. You very rarely get the assumption that the relationship might in fact be an equal partnership. It's sad that people see my desire to see an end to the oppression of women as some sort of threat rather than A GOOD THING. And I wonder how often people are quick to assume that a woman must be 'under the thumb' if she has a male partner who's politically involved?
In the Christian circles I move in I think there can be a major fear of women with power and women with opinions. They're automatically questioned because for many people there's something not quite right about it. A lot of Christians see strong women as a challenge to 'Biblical womanhood' and the 'correct' order of things, where men are in charge and do the talking and the decision-making. They think of Jezebel.
Even among those who don't feel quite as strongly as your average misogynistic fundamentalist err on the side of caution when it comes to women and power. Woman preaching a sermon? Said with doubtful tone: "Of course it's only okay if that's definitely what God has gifted her to do." Woman in leadership? "Of course we need to know whether she has the correct motives or not." Woman making big decisions? "Well, as long as her husband's okay with it."
This tends not to happen with men and church life. Even though countless men have been exposed as abusive leaders or false teachers, there's not this nervousness about them being in charge. People don't automatically look for the downsides or criticize them as much before getting to know them. It's just assumed that it'll be fine, they're Great Men of God. And, you know, I like to think that before men take on preaching or leading responsibilities they discuss it and agree to it with their wives. But very few people automatically clutch at their pearls and say "Well - is his wife okay with it?!" It's kind of assumed that she will be.
I didn't mean to talk too much about this as it applies to a church setting but I do think that many people could have a bit more faith in this way in women who preach or lead and support them for who they are. It's discouraging to hear it when it's the first reaction to a woman being in a position of power. We need to trust more and believe more that women are being used in this way because that's right where they're meant to be and not because there's something wrong with them.
It's discouraging when it's the first reaction to me saying I've been to a march, or a conference, or that I believe in gender equality. You don't need to be so incredulous or put out that men can be okay with that kind of thing too. You don't need to smirk and say 'Your poor husband!' And I don't need to run every opinion I have past him before I air it in public or go everywhere with him. Just think about how ridiculous it sounds: "Is your husband okay with the fact you believe in the equal worth of men and women?" Yeah, I thought so too.
Feminists in a relationship with a man - how often do you get the 'And what does your partner think about all this?' question?
Answers ranged from "All the bloody time" to "Wow! I don't recall ever hearing it." Me, I get it quite a lot. Sometimes someone will ask in a fairly nervous way, as if I'm about to rip their head off (being a terrifying feminist and all, what else would you expect?). Other times they'll be a bit confrontational, a bit challenging. So does your husband mind that you may or may not have a cavalier attitude towards body hair? Oh, as long as you're not one of those ones with short hair and Dr Martens, then that's okay. Who really wears the trousers in your relationship?
Some time ago there was this man who would always sit next to me on the bus in the morning. We worked for the same company and got on at the same stop. I just wanted to read my newspaper. He just wanted to tell me about his exploits at chess club and his nightmare ex-wife. He told me he was just temping and I'm not going to lie, I longed for the end of his contract because he was downright strange and I don't like small talk. One Friday he asked me if I had any plans for the weekend and I told him I was off to Million Women Rise on the Saturday. He asked what that was and then he asked:
"And how does your husband feel about you going to that sort of thing? Is he okay with it?"
"Er, yeah he is."
"Oh."
A few weeks later I spotted him on the bus one Saturday. He was sat several seats ahead of me, animatedly telling the man sitting next to him about his belief that men are the 'heads' of women and that women should be 'in submission' to them. Personally I can't believe I took a bus journey with him every day for several weeks and he never even tried to evangelise to me. Bad form, Creepy Man.
Creepy Man was just one of many. Women ask me about it too. Every time I wonder what I should say - and not just because I have a really hard time not being sarcastic. Yes, my husband really objects to me being anti-violence against women. And protesting rape. And attempting to fight for equality. What do they expect? It's like they think that's the moment I'm going to admit to being a fully-fledged man-hater, keeping him firmly under the thumb until I decide how to do away with him. Or that I'm going to say that actually, yeah, it's a big issue within our marriage and he wants me to stop and go back to being the sort of wife who says nothing and makes him a sandwich and sits with him on the sofa with downcast eyes instead of swanning off to all those demonstrations.
In all seriousness, it's started to grate a bit. Just so you know, I have an incredibly supportive husband who is pro-equality and has no objections to my writing, or my activism, or my opinions. Some bits of it interest him more than others, but he supports me all the same. As he said to me a while back when I was telling him about an article written by some of our somewhat less equality-minded Christian brothers, "Why would you spend all that time trying to 'prove' that gender equality is a bad thing?" So when I answer in the affirmative to these people, it's a bit of a conversation-killer.
I think there's a few things people mean when they ask me this question. Does he feel threatened by my opinions? Does it mean I'm the one 'in charge'? Does it mean I'm domineering and unpleasant and don't care what he thinks? As the man, he has to approve everything I do and think, right? He gets asked the same sort of things when he's on his own with male acquaintances as well. Are my 'strong opinions' overbearing? Is he okay with me being one of those feminists? Is it threatening his masculinity? Okay, he's never actually been asked that, but I'm sure it's implied.
It's sad that people can't see past this scenario where one person's 'in charge' and one person's 'under the thumb'. Where one person has to 'approve' everything the other does. Where believing that both people are of equal worth is somehow an issue. You very rarely get the assumption that the relationship might in fact be an equal partnership. It's sad that people see my desire to see an end to the oppression of women as some sort of threat rather than A GOOD THING. And I wonder how often people are quick to assume that a woman must be 'under the thumb' if she has a male partner who's politically involved?
In the Christian circles I move in I think there can be a major fear of women with power and women with opinions. They're automatically questioned because for many people there's something not quite right about it. A lot of Christians see strong women as a challenge to 'Biblical womanhood' and the 'correct' order of things, where men are in charge and do the talking and the decision-making. They think of Jezebel.
Even among those who don't feel quite as strongly as your average misogynistic fundamentalist err on the side of caution when it comes to women and power. Woman preaching a sermon? Said with doubtful tone: "Of course it's only okay if that's definitely what God has gifted her to do." Woman in leadership? "Of course we need to know whether she has the correct motives or not." Woman making big decisions? "Well, as long as her husband's okay with it."
This tends not to happen with men and church life. Even though countless men have been exposed as abusive leaders or false teachers, there's not this nervousness about them being in charge. People don't automatically look for the downsides or criticize them as much before getting to know them. It's just assumed that it'll be fine, they're Great Men of God. And, you know, I like to think that before men take on preaching or leading responsibilities they discuss it and agree to it with their wives. But very few people automatically clutch at their pearls and say "Well - is his wife okay with it?!" It's kind of assumed that she will be.
I didn't mean to talk too much about this as it applies to a church setting but I do think that many people could have a bit more faith in this way in women who preach or lead and support them for who they are. It's discouraging to hear it when it's the first reaction to a woman being in a position of power. We need to trust more and believe more that women are being used in this way because that's right where they're meant to be and not because there's something wrong with them.
It's discouraging when it's the first reaction to me saying I've been to a march, or a conference, or that I believe in gender equality. You don't need to be so incredulous or put out that men can be okay with that kind of thing too. You don't need to smirk and say 'Your poor husband!' And I don't need to run every opinion I have past him before I air it in public or go everywhere with him. Just think about how ridiculous it sounds: "Is your husband okay with the fact you believe in the equal worth of men and women?" Yeah, I thought so too.
Women journalists still hitting the glass ceiling
Wednesday, 23 March 2011
A new survey has found that women are severely under-represented in newsrooms around the world.
Research by the International Women's Media Foundation has found that globally, nearly three quarters of top management jobs in news media are held by men, as are two thirds of reporting jobs. The report, which is being officially unveiled today at the International Women Media Leaders Conference taking place in Washington, DC, will be part of wider discussions by women in the media on how to 'level the playing field' globally.
It's the first research of its kind to be conducted since 1995 and sadly, is unable to report any significant improvement in women's representation over the last 16 years.
Although the reasearch showed great variance across individual countries and continents with women making advances towards equality in the boardroom and in pay in some nations, things don't look too good elsewhere.
For example, while the 85 newsrooms surveyed in Eastern Europe 'show strong tendencies toward gender egalitarianism' with no wage gap, men in the media outnumber women 4:1 in Asia and Oceana. And while women in South Africa and Kenya have been able to advance beyond the 'glass ceiling' in recent years, it's been found that women in the UK 'face a glass ceiling that seems fixed at the junior professional level'.
It was also found that only two thirds of Western European newsrooms have a policy on gender equity and fewer than half have a sexual harassment policy.
This fascinating and comprehensive report comes just a couple of weeks after UK organisation Women in Journalism released research it had commissioned in time for International Women's Day, telling us that:
“...women are still underrepresented in Britain’s newspapers, less likely to make editorial positions and less likely to write about hard news, politics and current affairs than their male counterparts.”
WiJ's report - entitled 'A Gendered Press?' - surveyed national newspapers and found that overall, 74% of their journalists are men. Just 22% of reporters at the Independent are women, rising to a 'high' of 36% at the Daily Mail (a fact in itself so depressing I could write a separate column on it). Women are best represented at more senior levels at The Times, holding 40% of editors' roles.
What's interesting is that the research also found that subjects traditionally covered by women - such as the arts and lifestyle features - are increasingly being dominated by men too.
So why is this happening? People have been discussing the 'macho' image of journalism for years - some with the insinuation that women just aren't up to the aggressive, stressful, long-hours culture it perpetuates and some with the feeling that women in the newsroom are treated like lesser beings by their male counterparts.
There's also the marginalisation of women and issues involving them which is visible in every newspaper. The 'hard news' - the 'men's news', written mostly by men, takes up the majority of the paper while stories about women and by women are often kept in a special section and categorised as 'lifestyle' or 'women's pages'.
Roy Greenslade, writing in The Guardian about the research, said of his post-grad journalism students:
"...I have noted the that females generally outnumber male students. Yet the jobs, apparently, still go to the boys. Why is that?"
It's a good question. When I was studying on a post-grad journalism course a few years back, the male to female ratio was actually about equal. Plenty of my female course-mates found jobs pretty quickly. What stands out more is that fact that many of us from that intake don't actually work as journalists any more, having found it incredibly difficult to carve out a career among the incessant closures and redundancies affecting print media these days.
But for those who do make it, where does the problem lie? Undoubtedly, there's sexism present in newsrooms. My mother, a newspaper reporter for over thirty years, has a string of tales about being patronised, being asked to go and make the tea and being incessantly referred to as 'darling'. Having attempted to work in national media once upon a time, I know well that a woman's appearance is a hot topic for discussion whether she's celebrity red-top fodder or the reporter sitting on the other side of the room.
It's also a matter of old boys' clubs. People tend to want to employ and work with people who are like them. Which means we get men employing men employing more and more men - usually middle-class ones from the same universities, too.
And although - thanks to freelance work and the potential to work from home - the industry makes it possible for women to balance work and motherhood, a dismissive attitude to mothers still often remains. Unless of course they're writing about babies and children. For the 'women's section'.
Something needs to be done to ensure the visibility and empowerment of women in all areas of journalism, to ensure that we're not confined to writing about so-called 'soft' news while the big stories get passed to men. Wouldn't it be worrying to do the same research in another 16 years' time and find that nothing had changed?
This post originally appeared at BitchBuzz. Photo from Shavar Ross's Flickr
Guest Post: Hey! Tabloids! Leave Those Kids Alone!
Monday, 21 March 2011
I’d like you to come with me for a moment and enter stage left on every Scout leader’s most disliked experience. It’s raining, your scouts are trying to strike camp. And somebody somewhere is having some kind of “issue”. Odds are a couple of the lads have had a “full and frank exchange of views” and are right now squaring up to each other. Or else somebody has dropped something heavy on a painful part of their body. Kids are great at picking their moments.
“What’s up?” I trot over to the site of the commotion.
“It’s R,” someone says. “She’s not well”.
R is slumped on the floor looking, for want of a better word, like death warmed up. Her worried looking patrol leader (a senior 13/14 year old scout for the uninitiated) and a couple of her friends are stood next to her. R looks pale and is pretty tearful. I deal with it, the gathering crowd are shooed away and I find out the story. In short she’s knackered. She’s knackered because she’s been on the go for the last 3 hours, but unlike the rest of them quietly went without breakfast (and that is to my discredit for not noticing). A mug of hot chocolate and a slab of kendal mint cake later and she is back up and running with her blood sugar back to where it should be. Spot of first aid on camp, not a big issue you might say.
Actually it is a big issue because R is 12 years old and scared of getting fat. And she’s not alone.
As it happens the above is fiction, it would not be appropriate to recount events about a real child, yet it isn't a total lie. It's based on several similar incidents that both I and fellow Scout and Guide leader friends have dealt with. Luckily I have never had to deal with any child with a full on eating disorder, although I know others that have. Yet from what I have seen I don't think it will be long before I do. It may end up being a boy (pressure on boys to be perfect is growing but that is another story for another day) but most likely it will be a girl.
How has it got to the point that I, a 32 year old man, am scraping 12 years girls up off the floor because they are not eating enough? I don’t think that there is a simple answer to that, the reasons are pretty complex, but one of those reasons is, I am convinced, the media obsession with female celebrities and what they look like.
Shortly before Christmas the Daily Mail published this article about Megan Fox. It seems she had the audacity to lose some weight and was a bit thin for the liking of the Mail. It wasn’t that long ago that another celeb was too fat for the Mail (complete with oh-so-subtle comment about curry and pint deal at her local). It doesn’t even have to be the fat/thin thing to get the tabloids (or indeed sometimes the broadsheets) going. It includes almost constant stories about how any woman in the public eye looks, how they dress, what surgery they’ve had, what they’ve done with their hair, ad nauseum, ad infinitum. It seems that what women look like has become the only topic in town.
At the time of writing, on the front page of the Mail website there are no less than 27 stories about what various women celebrities look like, and 3 about men (plus one about Romeo Beckham - don’t think he counts as a man just yet does he?).
And it is not just the tabloids, it’s women’s magazines, men’s magazines, TV shows, broad sheets, websites, you name the media source and it’s there (with the possible exception of radio). It seems like there is a never ending drip feed of the same message, “you have to look perfect, you have to look perfect, you have to look perfect”. And that drip feed hits home every where, from mature adults through teenagers and now to frighteningly young kids.
The result of that does not always result in kids keeling over from lack of food. It manifests itself in a number of other ways. It’s the girl that won’t go canoeing because the wet suit makes her look fat, or won’t use sunscreen because she has to have the perfect tan. And on each occasion you wonder where such a young girl is getting the impression that she has to look perfect, that it really would be a disaster to look anything other than perfect. And time again I come back to the media. Looking at the fronts of magazines in WH Smith, every one of the women’s magazines seems to be obsessed with the latest diet and the shape of whoever is the celeb of the moment. Doesn’t X look amazing for losing weight? Isn’t Y struggling to fight the pounds? And so on and so forth.
Of course the attitude of some boys doesn’t help either (and yes, in Scouts we do crack down on it), yet even some of the attitudes of teenage boys, treating girls simply as sexual objects which is appearing at an increasingly early age can be traced to the media and in particular the grossly irresponsible "lads' mags".
There are of course women who use their body image to make money, as is their right, but we are not talking here about the portrayal of professional models or those who deliberately court attention. It is those constant stories where celebs are snapped while on holiday or out shopping or in the park with their kids, the constant media intrusion that worries me. Those stories show that yes, the glamorous actress does sometimes walk to the corner shop for a pint of milk wearing a hoodie and no makeup, just like we all do. Yet rather than any hint that this is totally normal behaviour girls are told that this is weird, you can’t possibly do that! And so impressionable young girls get the impression that they have to look perfect (whatever that means) all the time and start to worry when they don’t.
I don’t write this pretending to have any answers, I don’t really know where you begin trying to change the whole sorry mess (although on a personal level I hope that organisations like scouts and guides provide an environment where kids can learn that there is far more to their self worth than what they look like). I don’t know what you try and change first or how. But until something does change I guess I’ll just carry on scraping 12 year old girls up off the floor.
This is a guest post by Akela. He's a left wing, enviromentalist, Christian, cheese-eating, football-following, real ale-drinking Scout Leader with a serious dislike of the tabloids. A wannabe children's writer, he used to blog regularly but now just surfaces on other people's blogs instead.
“What’s up?” I trot over to the site of the commotion.
“It’s R,” someone says. “She’s not well”.
R is slumped on the floor looking, for want of a better word, like death warmed up. Her worried looking patrol leader (a senior 13/14 year old scout for the uninitiated) and a couple of her friends are stood next to her. R looks pale and is pretty tearful. I deal with it, the gathering crowd are shooed away and I find out the story. In short she’s knackered. She’s knackered because she’s been on the go for the last 3 hours, but unlike the rest of them quietly went without breakfast (and that is to my discredit for not noticing). A mug of hot chocolate and a slab of kendal mint cake later and she is back up and running with her blood sugar back to where it should be. Spot of first aid on camp, not a big issue you might say.
Actually it is a big issue because R is 12 years old and scared of getting fat. And she’s not alone.
As it happens the above is fiction, it would not be appropriate to recount events about a real child, yet it isn't a total lie. It's based on several similar incidents that both I and fellow Scout and Guide leader friends have dealt with. Luckily I have never had to deal with any child with a full on eating disorder, although I know others that have. Yet from what I have seen I don't think it will be long before I do. It may end up being a boy (pressure on boys to be perfect is growing but that is another story for another day) but most likely it will be a girl.
How has it got to the point that I, a 32 year old man, am scraping 12 years girls up off the floor because they are not eating enough? I don’t think that there is a simple answer to that, the reasons are pretty complex, but one of those reasons is, I am convinced, the media obsession with female celebrities and what they look like.
Shortly before Christmas the Daily Mail published this article about Megan Fox. It seems she had the audacity to lose some weight and was a bit thin for the liking of the Mail. It wasn’t that long ago that another celeb was too fat for the Mail (complete with oh-so-subtle comment about curry and pint deal at her local). It doesn’t even have to be the fat/thin thing to get the tabloids (or indeed sometimes the broadsheets) going. It includes almost constant stories about how any woman in the public eye looks, how they dress, what surgery they’ve had, what they’ve done with their hair, ad nauseum, ad infinitum. It seems that what women look like has become the only topic in town.
At the time of writing, on the front page of the Mail website there are no less than 27 stories about what various women celebrities look like, and 3 about men (plus one about Romeo Beckham - don’t think he counts as a man just yet does he?).
And it is not just the tabloids, it’s women’s magazines, men’s magazines, TV shows, broad sheets, websites, you name the media source and it’s there (with the possible exception of radio). It seems like there is a never ending drip feed of the same message, “you have to look perfect, you have to look perfect, you have to look perfect”. And that drip feed hits home every where, from mature adults through teenagers and now to frighteningly young kids.
The result of that does not always result in kids keeling over from lack of food. It manifests itself in a number of other ways. It’s the girl that won’t go canoeing because the wet suit makes her look fat, or won’t use sunscreen because she has to have the perfect tan. And on each occasion you wonder where such a young girl is getting the impression that she has to look perfect, that it really would be a disaster to look anything other than perfect. And time again I come back to the media. Looking at the fronts of magazines in WH Smith, every one of the women’s magazines seems to be obsessed with the latest diet and the shape of whoever is the celeb of the moment. Doesn’t X look amazing for losing weight? Isn’t Y struggling to fight the pounds? And so on and so forth.
Of course the attitude of some boys doesn’t help either (and yes, in Scouts we do crack down on it), yet even some of the attitudes of teenage boys, treating girls simply as sexual objects which is appearing at an increasingly early age can be traced to the media and in particular the grossly irresponsible "lads' mags".
There are of course women who use their body image to make money, as is their right, but we are not talking here about the portrayal of professional models or those who deliberately court attention. It is those constant stories where celebs are snapped while on holiday or out shopping or in the park with their kids, the constant media intrusion that worries me. Those stories show that yes, the glamorous actress does sometimes walk to the corner shop for a pint of milk wearing a hoodie and no makeup, just like we all do. Yet rather than any hint that this is totally normal behaviour girls are told that this is weird, you can’t possibly do that! And so impressionable young girls get the impression that they have to look perfect (whatever that means) all the time and start to worry when they don’t.
I don’t write this pretending to have any answers, I don’t really know where you begin trying to change the whole sorry mess (although on a personal level I hope that organisations like scouts and guides provide an environment where kids can learn that there is far more to their self worth than what they look like). I don’t know what you try and change first or how. But until something does change I guess I’ll just carry on scraping 12 year old girls up off the floor.
This is a guest post by Akela. He's a left wing, enviromentalist, Christian, cheese-eating, football-following, real ale-drinking Scout Leader with a serious dislike of the tabloids. A wannabe children's writer, he used to blog regularly but now just surfaces on other people's blogs instead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
