The Guardian - Women

Feminist discussions and awareness of gender issues over at The Guardian just seems to be getting better and better. This week Jessica Valenti published her first column on the female confidence sham and there's also an interesting piece on Everyday Sexism and The Vagenda.

Bad Housekeeping Post - Patriarchy 1, Politics 0 (Radio Raging)

Was rather chuffed last week to have Bad Housekeeping put up my post. The still fairly new online magazine focuses on gender and feminism discussion but features posts from students, postgraduates and academics. Wonderful idea and here's hoping it continues to grow (and thanks again!)

Up, Up, Up and Away....

There's a few reasons why I look at The Daily Mail web-site from time to time. It is kind of a guilty pleasure and provides some easy reading whilst eating lunch at work. It also provides me with plenty of fuel for the fire. I like something I can moan about. That's just part of who I am (apologies to friends and family but then, in all honesty, remember...you're meant to love me for who I am). So today's edition of the online Mail featured the following headline which caught my eye...

The way the headline is expressed is asking for more criticism of the mother involved. Regardless of what happened before, if a woman wants to lift weights and train post-giving birth why is it the public's business? Clicking on the link, the article itself is actually not that negative - so why insist on presenting it as such in the headline and caption? A number of readers will pick up on that rather than reading the whole, more balanced, piece. Another example of media sensationalising. The media is forever condemning mothers for one thing or another and often it's for things that really are of little significance; whether this is done overtly or more subtly through presentation and style. But then what did I expect?

After my initial rage however, I stumbled across the following piece also linked from the Mail's online front page. Good to see they're not forgetting the important stuff after all.

Rave, Jewish Punks and Female Masturbation

Some interesting pieces on The Guardian today: - the secret history of the UK's 'punky Jews' - images of 90s rave culture - pop music and female masturbation

NME Awards 2014 - Blondie

Nice to see Blondie receive the NME 2014 award for Godlike Genius. There has been some backlash over this, namely that this is the first time a female musician will have been awarded this (emphasis on musician, see Penny Smith 2002). And fair enough, that considering how many female musicians there are there does appear to be a disproportionate amount of male musicians who have received the award. Not too convincing are the mumblings regarding the award being given to Blondie as a band, rather than Debbie Harry in her own right (it's been awarded to bands previously to recognise the genius of said band, their collective effort). But that aside, it does seem to further emphasise that despite the increasing numbers of females in the music industry (whether creating, playing, producing or distributing), there is still a prevalent focus on the men. On a side note...also disappointing to see a number of news reports on Blondie's receipt of this award using very dated images of the band. They're still active so why not use an image which reflects them today?

30 Ideas for a Better Life - Women Take Note

The Observer Magazine last Sunday (03/01/10) ran a piece entitled '30 Ideas for a Better Life', a resolution inspired list of things to do this year. The suggestions ranged from 'Get Philosophical' to 'Take Control of Your Spending Habits' but what caught my eye was the stark juxtaposition of two aimed at women. Firstly is a entry from Sarah Pennells on 'Sound Financial Advice for Women' - Sarah runs Savvywoman, a web-site aimed at giving comprehensive and relevant financial advice to women. As Sarah notes in The Observer article:

I concentrate on the financial concerns and priorities of females in a way that resonates with them. I report and advise on issues such as how state pension changes affect women, how they have lower debts than men but become more anxious over them, and how to make immediate and long-term financial plans when child-rearing. I ask, are you and your partner even financially compatible?

A worthwhile cause and perhaps a justified resolution for this year perhaps then? But what is this then juxtaposed with? Read a little further on in the piece and you will find the idea from clinical psychologist and sex therapist Bettina Arndt of 'revitalising your sex life'. And though it is not suggested in the title itself, this again focuses on women. Because Bettina is suggesting that a focal problem in long-term relationships is 'mismatched desire', that this desire is usually lacked by the female and that these females need to basically get over it (my words not hers):

Arndt advocates a "just do it" approach for couples in a rut. Women should ignore their lack of desire and just get on it with.

So women of Britain, take note. Two ideas for a better life:

1. Get some sound financial advice
2. Lie back and think of England.

Happy New Year!

In which I lose faith (which arguably never existed) in the GSA

Jill Berry, president of the Girls' School Association (GSA), has been popping up in the press recently with some quite alarming, and sometimes contradictory, notions.

Commenting on feminism and fashion and the recent story about Cambridge female undergrads' scantily clad photos, Berry commented that:

"Girls can be highly intelligent and interested in being seen to be attractive – the two aren't mutually exclusive"

For starters, not really a problem. Perhaps the idea of 'being seen to be attractive' is problematic (to me this suggest pampering to the rest of society's/men's version of what this means) but I do support the move away from the 'blonde-bimbo' vs 'ugly geek' dichotomy.

And then Berry claims:

"We must resist the impulse to judge women, to judge them harshly and judge them narrowly"

Lovely. Again, an idea I can get my head around.

But then when an article in The Guardian titled Girls should be 'realistic' about careers and motherhood – schools group head appears, the plot thickens...


Teenage girls need to be taught a heavy dose of realism – that it may not be possible to be a perfect mother and a career woman, the president of the Girls' Schools Association (GSA) will say next week.

Berry is now implying that girls need to be realistic about their futures. That there is 'nothing wrong' with mothers not working once they have children. Firstly, what kind of empowering message is that to young women? That they can be all they want to be but will have to re-think all that once they think about starting a family? Why are we telling girls to be 'realistic'? Why are we accepting that as the reality that women are often placed into positions in which they are pushed back into the private sphere once they give birth? Instead of telling the generation of tomorrow to wise-up about the way the world is, how about educating them on how to change that world?

And you know that what lies beneath this is a discourse of 'bad working mothers'. Considering we weren't meant to be judging women for their choices Berry...


Links to the two articles:

Fashion not a betrayal of feminist ideals
Girls should be realistic about motherhood and careers

Fifites Women - The Daily Mail

The Daily Mail this week has been featuring extracts from a new book on fifties family life. This particular extract caught my eye. Though the piece is probably meant to draw attention to the changes in women's position and highlight how things have 'got better', the whole thing stinks of misplaced nostalgia. The scene is set in the opening paragaph when we are told about Britain in the fifties being a "country where doors were left unlocked, children played in the street and crime levels were low and falling - in fact, a Britain that has long since disappeared". The fact this is then followed by a look at women's position is perhaps now coincidence. Aren't the New Right guilty of looking back to a golden age which never existed, eager to claim a correlation between single/working mothers and juvenile deliquency?

Derek from Kent in the comments seems to have also picked up on the underlining messages promoted in this piece...

This article proves yet again that women should be AT HOME, not at work. It would solve the unemployment crisis instantly. Also a man will be happier at work knowing that there is a nice hot meal waiting for him when he gets home.

...and to think all we need to do to solve unemployment is to get women back into the home. Now why didn't we think of that?


Only in The Daily Mail.

100 years of Girl Guides

This year is the centenary of the Girl Guides. I was a Brownie but never made it as far as the Girl Guides (the association seemed at odds with my increasing desire to become a rock star). I did love being a Brownie though and I think part of this was because it challenged preconceptions of what it meant to be a 'little girl'. At times yes, we indulged in activities and chores deemed female but there was a balance as we also were encouraged to take part in things that perhaps in our homes, or at school, would be seen as boyish (such as orienteering, camping, climbing trees). Brownies went well with my Enid Blyton world I guess, my nostalgic side sighs at the moves to modernise the association.

Where you a Brownie or Girl Guide? What are your thoughts?

Laura

For more on the Girls Guides Centenary see here.

Recent newspaper coverage at:
The Daily Express
The Guardian
The Independent
The Telegraph

Less Airbrushing, more reality

A short one...

Jo Swinson and the Liberal Democrat's proposals for improving the media's portrayl of women at Comment is Free.

x-posted over at Subext blog

Lessons on Forming Nonviolent Relationships Really As Easy As ABC?

Today’s The Daily Mail reported on Harriet Harman’s initiative to tackle domestic violence through compulsory lessons on forming healthy relationships for children five and upwards. Before I explain my views on Harman’s proposals, I just want to comment briefly on the presentation of this news by The Daily Mail. The author of this piece seems to me intent on criticizing, and rallying criticism for, the initiative from the word go – the headline line alone begins Lessons about wife-beating at five which to me would suggest the article is going to be about something advocating wife-beating to children, immediately conjuring your distaste, instead of action to combat domestic violence. Secondly, again featured in the headline before even getting to the report, is the use of the expression yet another feminist initiative. ‘Yet another’ suggests disdain at the proposals from Harman and indeed any action in initiated by feminist beliefs. To actually label an initiative as ‘feminist’ suggests to me that people straight away are going to look disapprovingly on the idea because of the negative connotations of feminist/feminism. And the majority of the comments on the web-site with regards to this piece follow suit. So congratulations TDM firstly on the sensitive presentation of such a piece…

Onto Harman’s initiative and the body of the article itself…I can immediately see benefits and problems to this. When TDM reports that

Pupils as young as five will be taught about the evils of 'wife beating' and the need to form healthy relationships. The lessons are part of a controversial drive, unveiled today, to reduce violence against women and young girls. They will include teaching boys that they must not beat their partners or any other female.

I think hey! This doesn’t sound so bad! What is there not to like about a) teaching children about forming healthy relationships and b) reducing violence against women and young girls. Slightly off-putting the way it is deemed a controversial drive (because the notion of combating violence against women/young girls is way out there with, I don’t know, outlawing McDonald’s…) but so far looking good.

Last night, critics warned that ministers are cramming the already over-stuffed National Curriculum with lessons that should be taught in the home or in the community.

This has been an ongoing battle with PSHE. A colleague of mine, when speaking of the subject, would call it “PSHE…or things your parents should be teaching you”. In all honesty, yes it is things you should be taught at home/in the community as an important part of your growing-up but the argument is that this isn’t always being done. PSHE evolved from the early notions that education should be producing ‘good’ citizens socialized into the shared norms and values of our society (so New Right) and so of course when it was deemed that the family was not doing their part (government would cite rising statistics of single mothers/offenders as their proof for this) then the education system should pick up where the parents left off (or even out). I acknowledge that, yes, PSHE is largely what you should be taught at home/in the community (and which a number of us still are taught there) but that until we can ensure this is being done, the education system does appear the only means of attempting to ensure such teaching.

Putting it into practice further, the idea becomes less appealing:

The lessons will be part of the National Curriculum and are likely to be taught in Personal, Social and Health Education classes, which are attended by children from the age of five. Teachers will also be given new guidance on tackling 'gender bullying'.

Now I am not particularly convinced that firstly this would work in practice and secondly that it would have the desired effect. My first concern comes from my experience of teaching PSHE in Key Stage 3 (ages 11-14 approximately) which has demonstrated that the learners, on the whole, dislike the subject. It is not deemed academic; it is not an option which they pick for GCSE; it is not formally assessed as such – all these things contribute to learners not seeing any potential value to the subject (again, on the whole, as there are always a handful who put in the effort/work regardless). So my concern is that this may work in practice for a small minority, but not for the larger majority. Factor into this the impact the introduction of such lessons/curriculum has on teachers, and the education establishment as a whole. An added concern here is how such a sensitive issue would be approached. A year or so ago OCR removed the topic of Child Abuse from their AS-level Sociology course because of the implications of teaching such a sensitive topic and possible impact on learners. Wouldn't this warrant similar concerns?

The most eye-catching proposal in the document is the one to force schools to introduce statutory lessons in 'educating children and young people about healthy, nonviolent relationships'.


I love the idea of children and young people learning about healthy, nonviolent relationships but here we come to how I don’t think such lessons would have the desired effect. Making children and young people aware of violence against women may have positive aspects but as these lessons will not cover violence against men then I believe such lessons will run the risk of further instilling gender differences in young girls and boys. By acknowledging only violence against women and valuing this above violence against men, I believe we would only be purporting that violence against women is justified. If as young children we are brought into a discourse of violence against women I think this could potentially be internalized and acknowledged as we grow older that such violence happens against women, and not men, because of something fundamentally different in them. And though I am not saying this will mean the next generation committing violence against women as a result, I think this will result in further justification of women’s inferior position and treatment.

They pointed out the new classes will not cover violence against men, who are far more likely to be the victims of violent crime. This is despite evidence showing that boys and young men are more than twice as likely to fall victim to violence, and that young women are becoming increasingly aggressive.

I do agree with the criticism of the initiative not covering violence against men. Not because they are far more likely to be the victims of violent crime but firstly because of the argument I have expressed above and secondly because I think the commonly held assumption of, say, domestic violence as violence against women by men needs to be addressed. This is not going to be addressed by navigating away from discussion of violence against men in lessons focusing on healthy, nonviolent relationships. This then suggests that such violence is not important. Not only is domestic violence underreported by women, it is underreported by men who have been victims. Surely keeping the discussion of violence against men behind closed doors is not helping to correct such misrepresentation?

End Note: I am aware that I have focused my line of thought predominantly on domestic violence and it is slightly presumptuous (and hypocritical) of myself to have done so when talking about an initiative combating ‘violence against women’ (which was not expressed as merely domestic violence) and criticizing others for their assumptions on the same issue.

x-posted to Subtext

Excerpts from the forthcoming 'Noughtie Girl's Guide to Feminism'

The You Magazine today (supplement in the Sunday Mail) has snippets from the forthcoming The Noughtie Girl's Guide to Feminism by Ellie Levenson. The book itself is released 1st July but you can pre-order it from Amazon. Personally I wasn't sure what to expect but judging from the excerpts I saw today I have a horrible feeling I'm not going to be that impressed. Awful of me to say I know!

Fay Weldon - The F Word

The July issue of Easy Living Magazine features The F Word: an introduction by Fay Weldon. Whilst Weldon acknowledges a New Feminism which isn't anti-man or anti-sex; the fact our feminist actions need not focus merely on our experiences as Western women and the persisting negative connotation of the term 'feminism', there is one thing which troubled me very early in the piece:

"But then feminists committed the worst sin of all - they became boring. They will go on being seen as boring, I fear, until they acknowledge what everyone accepts except them - that men and women are different, physiologically and psychologically, and that sex is important. It's a Freud thing".

Coming from a sociology, rather than psychology, background I just can't get my head around this assertion. I also cannot envision that this is the key issue 'holding back feminism' or that it is what has made us "boring" (though I can't even imagine us being accused of being boring!). Why is sex important? What if sex itself is a construction? (and there are those who would argue just that!) How can we completely disregard the differences society creates of us in favor of such apparent innate ones*?

Aside from this niggling bit for me, the article was an enjoyable read; particularly Fay Weldon's brief charting of the feminist movement with tidbits from her own life. Has anyone else had the chance to see this? Or does anyone else have any thoughts on this?

*strangely enough I picked up a book from Waterstones today about gender and schooling/careers which actually speaks from a psychological, rather than sociological, perspective. Expect thoughts also on that to follow!

(x-posted at Subtext)

News Fix

A selection from The Guardian over the last week:

Boys outperform girls at science in UK, gender stereotyping to blame?

Interview with a Shanghai professor of women and gender studies

Orbituary

Patricia Crawford, Australian feminist historian.

Betty Scharf, Academic (LSE, Fawcett Society).

first WI at a university

new article

radio4 woman's hour feature

quite interesting. i find this whole 'making new of something old', adapting things, necessary in a way in today's society. and if any university i went to had set up a wi* i would have certainly joined.

*or i could have been pro-active and set up one myself(!), always the follower...

(link to news article as slacking right now with blogging...)

News piece: Meet the women bringing feminism to a new generation

Thoughts?

Channel 4 Super Botox Me

Last night I watched Super Botox Me, a Channel 4 documentary-type on botox. It followed journalist Kate Spicer on a botox quest; asking questions regarding vanity and the increasing cosmetic world we live in. I found it really interesting and disturbing at the same time. By the end Spicer, who from the start seemed quite aligned to feminist ideology, decided she would carry on with botox in the future because of the way it had made her feel. Changing the way she looked, albeit it not drastically, had really impacted the way she felt about herself. Fair enough I think and yes, I agree that often how you look on the outside does impact your feelings on the inside. But what I disagree with is the fact we are made to feel just that. I think it's fucking hard being a woman in contemporary society (no surprise there) and even harder to be a feminist woman in contemporary society. I am told how I should look, how I should dress, what is acceptable, what is deemed beautiful, and I know I shouldn't listen to all that but it's hard. When you've had such ideals drilled into you during your childhood, during your teenage years and during your early adulthood, it is really bloody hard to tune it out; to say you're not going to buy into it. I do worry about how I look, I do care about what people might think, I do buy nice clothes to make me feel good and I don't see this as a major problem for now because I recognise why I feel I need to do these things. I realise the hold society has on women with regards to appearance. And so, for the time being, I'm kind of happy to do as I do but to know inside why I do what I do. And I don't know if I had a point here or whether this was just a flow of consciousness but yeah, there you go. Thoughts?

Rustlers' "Date" Advert

In the continuing spirit of ranting over advertisements, Rustlers has now caught my attention. The advert is for a microwave burger and begins with a date ending at a house, the man goes into the next room to make a drink and the room the woman has remained in becomes a microwave, allowing the man to speed time from the woman sat on the sofa to the woman sprawled out in her underwear. The end idea is along the lines of "if only everything was as quick as Rustlers". Whilst searching for the video on Google I came across a piece in a local newspaper regarding views of the advert in question. The article quotes the senior brand manager at Rustlers as saying that:

"We believe that the advert is tongue in cheek and empowers women, as it is the woman in the ad who has decided to take her clothes off, not the man...The whole theme is that you can get a tasty Rustlers snack in just 70 seconds, there's no waiting round so you are fast forwarding to the best parts of life"

Just how are women empowered through this advert?! The argument that the advert empowers women because it is the woman 'deciding' to take her clothes off is completely defunct since prior to the microwave experience, when asked by the man if she'd like to remove her coat she declines. So instead he uses the microwave technique to get to the stage which perhaps she was not willing to do. And fast forwarding to the best bits of life? How about the courting of a woman, getting to know her, building up trust? Apparently none of that is important - it's just about getting the sexual pleasure by the looks of fines. And Rustlers wonder what's happened to our sense of humor?

Gagging for a drink?

Reading the latest post over at brand new feminist blog on such things as this poster from the Home Office. What is it with this relationship between being raped and being under the influence of alcohol? And why is it this relationship which the government/media jump on? It's obvious to me that it's yet another way of pointing the finger, moving the blame away from the real issue at hand. Let's bring attention to statistics regarding victims of rape (implying in the poster that these are predominantly female) who had been drinking but not address the issue of how these rapes were allowed to happen. Similar to - let's bring attention to the woman who was raped but was wearing a short skirt and was therefore 'asking for it'.

Why is it that as women we are expected to adapt or monitor our behaviour and actions for fear of becoming the victims of rape? We're scared into thinking that we're more likely to become a victim of rape for having that next drink, for wearing that particular outfit, for walking home in the dark...

How about directing the real issue here? That we live in a society in which individuals think that rape is acceptable and who would carry out such an activity. How about targeting them for a change?

Britney (Breakdown) Bashing

Subject title says it all really. Now I don't like Britney Spears as a (ahem) musician and I was not particularly keen on the messages she was sending out to young fans BUT can't everyone take a step back from the Britney bashing? Please find below my points of reference which has resulted in a rather fed-up moi.

1. Britney has been bashed for certain lifestyle practices which have strayed from the perfect princess of pop picture (think smoking, partying, pictures of Brit with a burger and chips...) yet we're completely forgetting that she's a young woman in her early twenties who is not only capable of making her own choices, but is free to let her hair down. The minute a young starlet (Lohan I'm looking at you here too) is seen clubbing or hitting the town BAM! the media's all over it like a fucking rash - double standards somewhat? I'm sure there's not this much commotion with male stars.

2. Britney was slammed in the press for being a "bad" mother, mainly due to driving with one son on her lap and the infamous (near) baby dropping incident. I just saw a You've Been Framed this evening in which a bride dropped her baby down some stairs. Did the YBF screen the video and think 'Jesus Christ we have a bad mother on our hands...', course not! We merely got a joke about mistaking your baby for the bouquet.

3. In the same breath in which we comment on Amy Wino's skeletal drug-induced frame, put Nicole Ritchie on magazine front covers with headlines like "TOO SKINNY!" and applaud Beth Ditto for breaking the mould, we leap on Britney's comeback performance and her (apparent) tummy. Whilst the stomach may not have resembled the toned (result of workout after workout) tummy of Hit Me Baby Spears, it was your average, healthy looking belly (and using the word belly even seems wrong). So let's call it fat shall we? Really scrapping the barrel here for justified bitching people...

4. Lastly (and probably the most serious) Britney obviously has some issues (post-natal depression perhaps) which no-one seems that bothered to deal with as they're too happy reeling in the soap drama which her life has become. I might not be too proud of the fact I'm discussing Ms.Spears on my feminism blog* but I'm happy in the knowledge I'm voicing what I feel is the unjust treatment of a woman.

* also slightly perturbed by the amount of 'starlets' I've referenced