This is something i wrote for the F Word in 2009 and thought I would post it here because I am hoping to write about books a bit more.
When I was a young teenager, I loved Daphne du Maurier’s novels - the suspense in Rebecca, the romance of Frenchman’s Creek, the cold horror of Jamaica Inn. I devoured them, imagining myself on the Cornish coast, face to the wind, splashed with sea spray. But as I got older I forgot about her, did my literature degree and read only ‘high’ literature.
Then, last Christmas, at my parents’ house with no books to read, I picked up my old copy of Frenchman’s Creek and was instantly hooked again. I scoured second hand bookshops for old copies of her novels, ordered those I couldn’t find in the shops from Amazon and rediscovered the love I had held for her books when I was younger, as well as reading other, less well-known novels, such as the horrific novel of obsessive sadism, Julius, and the dark myths of Flight of the Falcon. As an older reader, there was one element of the books that really jumped out at me that I had missed as a teenager, and that was the thoroughly feminist, strong-willed and self-determined women in her novels.
Mary Yellan in Jamaica Inn is, in my view, one of the strongest female characters in du Maurier’s early novels. (Spoiler alert!) This is a woman who, after her father’s death, helped her mother run a successful farm, and nurses her through her long and final illness. She goes to Jamaica Inn, where she stands up to her brutish and criminal uncle, she protects her frightened and abused aunt, she fights off a potential rapist, and keeps her pride and her head throughout the horrible things that happen in the inn. She has the upper hand in her love affair with a horse thief and follows her heart and independent spirit, in control of her destiny.
Yellan is the protagonist in what can be called the ‘feminist fairytale’. She is strong willed and brave, bad things happen to those who cross her and good things happen to those who help her. She is a child of nature and, despite all the events that aim to shake her will and wreck her courage, she maintains a strength and light of purpose that sees her through her trials and leaves her with, if not an entirely happy ending, then one that promises her an adventurous and exciting future.
It’s impossible to overlook how controversial Jamaica Inn was when it came out. So controversial, in fact, that when Hitchcock made the movie of the novel in the 1930s, he had to change the plot so that the ‘baddie’ was a magistrate and the horse thief lover was changed to a sailor. It would not have got past the censors for a good female lead character to have a happy love affair with a thief. That du Maurier chose to have Mary follow her heart in this way shows just how daring and passionate her character is. She refuses to be bound by social convention and, eventually, her love turns her horse thief into a (slightly) more honest man.
Du Maurier’s characterisation is masterful, rich and colourful, and she paints a horrific portrait of why some wives choose not to leave violent husbands. Her rendering of terrified Aunt Patience, ruined by the violent, drunken and criminal activity of Uncle Joss, is a careful and sympathetic portrait as to why women can be drawn into these violent relationships.
Du Maurier also pulls off a master stroke in her characterisation of Joss. We see his violence, his horrible drunken behaviour, but we also see why he was attractive to Patience, why he was able to seduce women, why he is confident that he would have succeeded in seducing Mary had they met when both young. Like a grotesque reflection of that other anti-hero, Heathcliffe, we see the attraction of the passionate nature that hides and deceives, the ease in which the violence could be excused as passion and vitality, until it was too late.
One of the questions we ask in the book is, why doesn’t Mary leave? She knows her uncle, she knows what he is capable of, she sees what he has done to Patience. Yet what motivates her to stay is love and compassion for her aunt. An example of love and sisterhood, of a woman banding together with her fellow woman to protect her, to make sure she is kept safe.
Mary is brave, passionate and headstrong, a woman sure of her own heart and head, who is happy to throw caution to the wind in order to protect her aunt and love her thief. In this she is similar to that other du Maurier herone, Dona St Columb in Frenchman’s Creek, one of my absolute favourite du Maurier novels.
Dona is a woman motivated by her love of freedom and her desire to live the life she feels she has been denied. Tired of her childish rebellions in London, where she fights convention by dressing as a man and having dinner with prostitutes, her heart yearns for real rebellion, real freedom, where she can express her innermost self and escape the silliness and pettiness of society life in Restoration London.
So she goes to Cornwall, falls in love with a pirate and sails the high seas with him, tasting the salt air on her lips and feeling the sea breeze rustle her hair. She experiences the passion and understanding of true love, defends herself against the man who seeks to destroy her, saves the man she loves through cunning, daring and raw courage. Dona is a truly modern heroine, self determined, self aware, loyal and brave. She wants to live her life in independence, she wants to feel the full strength of her emotions and to taste, see and hear everything, with force. She is also a mother and devoted to her children, like a lioness or a tigress she defends her children from danger.
The reason I loved Dona so much as a child and as an adult is that she is so bravely uncompromising in her understanding of her self, in her love for her family and her love for Jean-Benoit, the pirate. The relationship between her and Jean-Benoit is one of equals, of mutual respect and understanding, a meeting of bodies and minds. And it occurred to me how this can be rare thing to find in a novel, especially a ‘woman’s’ novel, a rare thing seeing as it hit me so strongly. They meet and love each other as equals. He is not the centre of her life, nor she of his, their love is not painful or obsessive but mutual and loving and, that word again, equal. He risks his life for her and she risks her’s for him. He teaches her things, as she does him. It is one of the most careful and tender depictions of love I have read.
Du Maurier has sometimes been criticised for not always having a literary style, for writing thrillers, but I don’t believe this criticism stands up - just read her descriptions of the moors surrounding Jamaica Inn. She wrote novels for people to read and enjoy, fast paced and with characters you take sides with, characters with whom you live the experience. She is one of the most popular writers of the 20th century, inspiring new writers, films and prequels/sequels to her books. She wrote her first novel in her 20s and carried on until her 70s - a remarkable writer and an inspirational woman.
Du Maurier has been praised for her ability to portray the male psyche, from Julius to Max de Winter. Yet her depictions of strong, brave and loyal women populate her books and shine beautifully in her work. From Mary and Dona who I have focused on here, to the daring Isobel in House on the Strand, crippled and forthright Honor in The King’s General, angry campaigning Mad in Rule Britannia and, my childhood favourite, scheming yet honest Mary Anne Clarke. I believe she should be honoured for her incredible depictions of women and the way she allows her women characters to stand alone, telling their own stories, refusing to be defined by men. Her women defy convention and refuse to be categorised. They are fighters in a man’s world, lovers and mothers and sisters.
Thursday, 3 February 2011
Wednesday, 2 February 2011
A blog about social media
I wrote this for my work blog originally but have decided to post it here instead on advice from @ericbratislava
A helping hand with social media
Social media is a fantastic channel for marketing campaigns and a handy way to check out what that mean kid from school is up to these days. However increasingly we are finding it’s a vital tool when spreading the word about not-for-profit, charity and voluntary groups.
Why? Well, because it’s easy to set up a social media profile for a start. It’s also cheap (people hours aside). And, perhaps best of all, it has that grass rootsy feel where people can feel that they are getting involved with, contributing to, and being part of a cause they are passionate about.
So, where should a not-for-profit or voluntary organisation start when it comes to social media?
Firstly, set up a Facebook page. If you are a small and local organisation, then a Facebook page can be an even more valuable resource than a website. With, of course, the extra bonus of being free. After all, it allows you to share content, encourage and engage with members, organise events and make connections.
Use your Facebook page as a hub of information about the issues your group cares about. For example, if you see an article in the news, or on a blog, then put a link and share it on the wall. If you hear of events happening across the country, link to them. And encourage members of related groups to get involved with your page. They may be able to share info that you might have missed.
It’s also perfect for advertising and promoting any events your group may be running. Once the event is created, attendees can invite their own friends and connections, thereby widening the net and encouraging new people to get involved. It’s quick, easy and instantly gives you a big reach.
Integrating Twitter and a blog is a great way to encourage greater reach for your organisation. When you create new content for your blog, pop the links on Twitter. It’s far easier to reach people this way, instantly, than to rely on your blog followers checking their updates. Just as with Facebook, use Twitter to share content from other sources that relate to your group, and post links to events and campaign pages. Your followers will then share this content, and encourage more people to get involved.
Social media works by being a channel with which to create, share and discuss content. If you set up a Facebook page or Twitter account for your group, and then leave it to ‘form itself’ then you won’t have much success. It needs to be nurtured, filled with fascinating and relevant content that positions you as an expert and advocate of your field.
The beauty of using social media as a voluntary organisation is that the members of your group are empowered to contribute to your cause. From attending the events that you create on Facebook, to leaving comments and links on your wall, to RT-ing tweets and sharing blog posts. The relationship between you and your members becomes equal, based on a shared love or belief in a cause, making you much stronger.
A helping hand with social media
Social media is a fantastic channel for marketing campaigns and a handy way to check out what that mean kid from school is up to these days. However increasingly we are finding it’s a vital tool when spreading the word about not-for-profit, charity and voluntary groups.
Why? Well, because it’s easy to set up a social media profile for a start. It’s also cheap (people hours aside). And, perhaps best of all, it has that grass rootsy feel where people can feel that they are getting involved with, contributing to, and being part of a cause they are passionate about.
So, where should a not-for-profit or voluntary organisation start when it comes to social media?
Firstly, set up a Facebook page. If you are a small and local organisation, then a Facebook page can be an even more valuable resource than a website. With, of course, the extra bonus of being free. After all, it allows you to share content, encourage and engage with members, organise events and make connections.
Use your Facebook page as a hub of information about the issues your group cares about. For example, if you see an article in the news, or on a blog, then put a link and share it on the wall. If you hear of events happening across the country, link to them. And encourage members of related groups to get involved with your page. They may be able to share info that you might have missed.
It’s also perfect for advertising and promoting any events your group may be running. Once the event is created, attendees can invite their own friends and connections, thereby widening the net and encouraging new people to get involved. It’s quick, easy and instantly gives you a big reach.
Integrating Twitter and a blog is a great way to encourage greater reach for your organisation. When you create new content for your blog, pop the links on Twitter. It’s far easier to reach people this way, instantly, than to rely on your blog followers checking their updates. Just as with Facebook, use Twitter to share content from other sources that relate to your group, and post links to events and campaign pages. Your followers will then share this content, and encourage more people to get involved.
Social media works by being a channel with which to create, share and discuss content. If you set up a Facebook page or Twitter account for your group, and then leave it to ‘form itself’ then you won’t have much success. It needs to be nurtured, filled with fascinating and relevant content that positions you as an expert and advocate of your field.
The beauty of using social media as a voluntary organisation is that the members of your group are empowered to contribute to your cause. From attending the events that you create on Facebook, to leaving comments and links on your wall, to RT-ing tweets and sharing blog posts. The relationship between you and your members becomes equal, based on a shared love or belief in a cause, making you much stronger.
Tuesday, 1 February 2011
Sexism and homophobia
Some words on intersectionality.
This is a post that has been whirring round my mind for a while now but for one reason or another I just haven’t got round to writing about, although I have written and spoken a lot about homophobia in the past (not forgetting my seminal performance at the anti homophobic bullying police conference aged 17 – oh yeah! And a couple of uni essays…and speaking at the NUJ LGBT conference…and running workshops for school kids…and writing about gay parenting for the guardian…and talking about gay parenting for radio 4…).
The links between sexism and homophobia are vast and manifest and it is important when we look at fighting for gender equality we explore and discuss how sexism is informed and supported by homophobia.
Take an example cited in Natasha Walter’s superb book Living Dolls, where a mother interviewed is concerned about her husband’s attitude to their son, who loves dancing, dressing up and being creative. Her husband sees these things as being intrinsically feminine, and therefore is panicked that his son might ‘turn out’ gay. This is both a sexist and homophobic attitude to take, firstly because we have stereotyped certain behaviours in children as being ‘ok for girls’ and secondly that he sees these characteristics in boys as being symptomatic of homosexuality, which he perceives as “bad”.
There is no room in her husband’s attitude to suggest that creativity and dancing is fine for boys, and fine for girls, and fine for straight or gay boys and girls. The panic that he feels is based on his belief, informed by sexist stereotypes, that his son is feminine, and that feminine behaviour in boys is wrong, and an indicator of his perceived-to-be-wrong sexuality.
What we see here is the marking out of certain hobbies and character traits as only being suitable or ok for boys or girls, based on sexist stereotyping and resulting in homophobic attitudes.
To put it simply, think of the intro to Madonna’s ‘what it feels like for a girl’ where the narrator says ‘because for a boy to be like a girl is degrading. Because you think being a girl is degrading’. The feminine is seen as lesser, so if a boy acts in a feminine way he too is seen as lesser, and in a homophobic culture you see where this leads to.
Young girls, as anyone knows who reads Pink Stinks, also have gender stereotyping and homophobic attitudes impressed upon them. Raised in a pink bath of Disney Princesses, the alternative tomboy identity that was open to girls of my not-so-long-ago generation has pretty much vanished. Even my friend’s amazing little girl who loves playing outside and being a cheeky monkey still cherishes a love for Disney Princesses, which completely bemuses her mother. Whereas we had George in the Famous Five and Pippi Longstocking, they have Bratz and High School Musical. Tweenies always had games around boys (does anyone remember that board game with the phone where you planned dates?) but as we see an ever-increasing avalanche of pink, fluff, and boy-crazed dialogue, an alternative message for girls is increasingly absent.
Cordelia Fine’s recent book, Delusions of Gender neatly debunks the persistent myths that boys like blue and girls like pink; that it is innate for boys to play with guns and girls to play with dolls. Unfortunately, the bio-deterministic pseudo science that has tried to “prove” innate gender difference is enthusiastically reported by the press, whilst studies that show opposite findings are left ignored. It is these gender stereotypes that are not only fuelling sexism, but emphasise and promote homophobic stereotypes too.
Feminists often talk and explore how hetero women are portrayed in the mainstream media, particularly in lad’s mags and porn. It is important when discussing these issues that we also question and challenge the portrayal of lesbian women. If lad’s mag culture tells us that women are only and always sexually available for men’s consumption, and that their sexuality is based solely on male pleasure; then lesbians share this issue of being portrayed as performing their lesbian sexuality for men’s pleasure. If we want to fight sexualisation and commercial sexual exploitation, then we also need to address how lesbian sexuality is completely erased from our cultural discourse other than when we see it as a performance for men, as opposed to a real and valid sexuality in its own right. (I wrote my 3rd year course essay on this issue in 20th century literature so could go on all day…)
Last week, Melanie Phillips wrote a sickeningly nasty and spiteful article about the ‘gay agenda’ ruling the UK. Her argument, that mentioning gay people in lessons would turn kids gay, is so ridiculous and her anger at the thought of gay people even being mentioned in schools has a supremely negative impact on kids and young people. When I was at school, I read maths problems and reading books that were all about mummy and daddy. My reality of growing up with lesbian parents was never reflected back on me. The same is now true for my friend’s daughter. Her life is silenced in the schoolroom. It is isolating. It makes you feel different, when you are not. It magnifies, and refuses to challenge, institutionalised homophobia. When schools don’t address or talk about homosexuality or homophobia, gay children are more likely to be bullied and experience depression. When these issues are not talked about, little boys who like pink and little girls who like climbing trees are stigmatised for not fitting their gender stereotype, resulting in homophobic bullying that ruins lives – leading in some cases to suicide.
The recent sexist comments made by Keys and Grey can also be seen as being informed by homophobia, as can a lot of macho posturing and sexist behaviour in general. The desire to prove heterosexuality, the sub-conscious need to quash any thoughts that the speaker might not be straight results in the speaker making comments that are offensive to women. The one up-man ship of saying ‘I want to smash that’ – of performing a macho masculinity to a male audience, is a way of proving heterosexuality. This internalised homophobia, the fear of being thought gay, the fear of other men thinking the speaker is gay, plays itself out via being disrespectful to women.
It is a sad, sad thing that we still live in a world where being gay is seen as something so bad that (some) men feel the need to disprove it by proving their heterosexuality with the use of sexist, violent and demeaning language. Where boys who love dancing around the lounge are discouraged from this activity because their parents feel insecure about it. Where girls’s energy is channelled into loving pink, make-up and getting boys rather than creative, sporting or academic pursuits. Where it is ok for Mel Phillips to compare teaching about Alan Turing to child abuse.
My whole life I have been aware of the impact of homophobia. From my mum’s best friend abandoning their friendship when mum started a gay relationship, to attitudes from family, to the education issues mentioned above, to the fear of schoolfriends finding out that my mum was gay. When I was in a lesbian relationship I was spat on as I walked down the street, had abuse shouted at me, had rumours spread about me at school and, in one charming action, had so-called friends call my girlfriend and shout abuse at her down the phone. I had friends who were chucked out by their parents, beaten up and attacked.
Before I became a feminist I was primarily an anti-homophobia campaigner. As mentioned in the first paragraph, I actively campaigned to tackle homophobia as a school student and beyond. As I became more and more feminist, I realised that equality for men and women was nothing if we indulged in heterosexism, did not tackle homophobia or only achieved equality for white, straight, middle class men and women. I believe very strongly that by recognising how gender stereotypes are layered with an accepted or mainstream homophobia can we begin to tackle sexist definitions and labels of gender. If we refuse to explore the intersectionality between how we view gender and sexuality, and how we allow sexist stereotyping to fuel homophobic beliefs, then we will never find true equality.
This is a post that has been whirring round my mind for a while now but for one reason or another I just haven’t got round to writing about, although I have written and spoken a lot about homophobia in the past (not forgetting my seminal performance at the anti homophobic bullying police conference aged 17 – oh yeah! And a couple of uni essays…and speaking at the NUJ LGBT conference…and running workshops for school kids…and writing about gay parenting for the guardian…and talking about gay parenting for radio 4…).
The links between sexism and homophobia are vast and manifest and it is important when we look at fighting for gender equality we explore and discuss how sexism is informed and supported by homophobia.
Take an example cited in Natasha Walter’s superb book Living Dolls, where a mother interviewed is concerned about her husband’s attitude to their son, who loves dancing, dressing up and being creative. Her husband sees these things as being intrinsically feminine, and therefore is panicked that his son might ‘turn out’ gay. This is both a sexist and homophobic attitude to take, firstly because we have stereotyped certain behaviours in children as being ‘ok for girls’ and secondly that he sees these characteristics in boys as being symptomatic of homosexuality, which he perceives as “bad”.
There is no room in her husband’s attitude to suggest that creativity and dancing is fine for boys, and fine for girls, and fine for straight or gay boys and girls. The panic that he feels is based on his belief, informed by sexist stereotypes, that his son is feminine, and that feminine behaviour in boys is wrong, and an indicator of his perceived-to-be-wrong sexuality.
What we see here is the marking out of certain hobbies and character traits as only being suitable or ok for boys or girls, based on sexist stereotyping and resulting in homophobic attitudes.
To put it simply, think of the intro to Madonna’s ‘what it feels like for a girl’ where the narrator says ‘because for a boy to be like a girl is degrading. Because you think being a girl is degrading’. The feminine is seen as lesser, so if a boy acts in a feminine way he too is seen as lesser, and in a homophobic culture you see where this leads to.
Young girls, as anyone knows who reads Pink Stinks, also have gender stereotyping and homophobic attitudes impressed upon them. Raised in a pink bath of Disney Princesses, the alternative tomboy identity that was open to girls of my not-so-long-ago generation has pretty much vanished. Even my friend’s amazing little girl who loves playing outside and being a cheeky monkey still cherishes a love for Disney Princesses, which completely bemuses her mother. Whereas we had George in the Famous Five and Pippi Longstocking, they have Bratz and High School Musical. Tweenies always had games around boys (does anyone remember that board game with the phone where you planned dates?) but as we see an ever-increasing avalanche of pink, fluff, and boy-crazed dialogue, an alternative message for girls is increasingly absent.
Cordelia Fine’s recent book, Delusions of Gender neatly debunks the persistent myths that boys like blue and girls like pink; that it is innate for boys to play with guns and girls to play with dolls. Unfortunately, the bio-deterministic pseudo science that has tried to “prove” innate gender difference is enthusiastically reported by the press, whilst studies that show opposite findings are left ignored. It is these gender stereotypes that are not only fuelling sexism, but emphasise and promote homophobic stereotypes too.
Feminists often talk and explore how hetero women are portrayed in the mainstream media, particularly in lad’s mags and porn. It is important when discussing these issues that we also question and challenge the portrayal of lesbian women. If lad’s mag culture tells us that women are only and always sexually available for men’s consumption, and that their sexuality is based solely on male pleasure; then lesbians share this issue of being portrayed as performing their lesbian sexuality for men’s pleasure. If we want to fight sexualisation and commercial sexual exploitation, then we also need to address how lesbian sexuality is completely erased from our cultural discourse other than when we see it as a performance for men, as opposed to a real and valid sexuality in its own right. (I wrote my 3rd year course essay on this issue in 20th century literature so could go on all day…)
Last week, Melanie Phillips wrote a sickeningly nasty and spiteful article about the ‘gay agenda’ ruling the UK. Her argument, that mentioning gay people in lessons would turn kids gay, is so ridiculous and her anger at the thought of gay people even being mentioned in schools has a supremely negative impact on kids and young people. When I was at school, I read maths problems and reading books that were all about mummy and daddy. My reality of growing up with lesbian parents was never reflected back on me. The same is now true for my friend’s daughter. Her life is silenced in the schoolroom. It is isolating. It makes you feel different, when you are not. It magnifies, and refuses to challenge, institutionalised homophobia. When schools don’t address or talk about homosexuality or homophobia, gay children are more likely to be bullied and experience depression. When these issues are not talked about, little boys who like pink and little girls who like climbing trees are stigmatised for not fitting their gender stereotype, resulting in homophobic bullying that ruins lives – leading in some cases to suicide.
The recent sexist comments made by Keys and Grey can also be seen as being informed by homophobia, as can a lot of macho posturing and sexist behaviour in general. The desire to prove heterosexuality, the sub-conscious need to quash any thoughts that the speaker might not be straight results in the speaker making comments that are offensive to women. The one up-man ship of saying ‘I want to smash that’ – of performing a macho masculinity to a male audience, is a way of proving heterosexuality. This internalised homophobia, the fear of being thought gay, the fear of other men thinking the speaker is gay, plays itself out via being disrespectful to women.
It is a sad, sad thing that we still live in a world where being gay is seen as something so bad that (some) men feel the need to disprove it by proving their heterosexuality with the use of sexist, violent and demeaning language. Where boys who love dancing around the lounge are discouraged from this activity because their parents feel insecure about it. Where girls’s energy is channelled into loving pink, make-up and getting boys rather than creative, sporting or academic pursuits. Where it is ok for Mel Phillips to compare teaching about Alan Turing to child abuse.
My whole life I have been aware of the impact of homophobia. From my mum’s best friend abandoning their friendship when mum started a gay relationship, to attitudes from family, to the education issues mentioned above, to the fear of schoolfriends finding out that my mum was gay. When I was in a lesbian relationship I was spat on as I walked down the street, had abuse shouted at me, had rumours spread about me at school and, in one charming action, had so-called friends call my girlfriend and shout abuse at her down the phone. I had friends who were chucked out by their parents, beaten up and attacked.
Before I became a feminist I was primarily an anti-homophobia campaigner. As mentioned in the first paragraph, I actively campaigned to tackle homophobia as a school student and beyond. As I became more and more feminist, I realised that equality for men and women was nothing if we indulged in heterosexism, did not tackle homophobia or only achieved equality for white, straight, middle class men and women. I believe very strongly that by recognising how gender stereotypes are layered with an accepted or mainstream homophobia can we begin to tackle sexist definitions and labels of gender. If we refuse to explore the intersectionality between how we view gender and sexuality, and how we allow sexist stereotyping to fuel homophobic beliefs, then we will never find true equality.
Monday, 31 January 2011
Sky Sports, Loose Women, sexism and silencing
This article was amended to fix some typos.
Meant to blog about this last week but with one thing and another (mainly full time job and BFN) I didn’t get round to it.
I did however go on BBC Bristol to talk about the Sky sexism row with Graham Torrington – a conversation that pretty much summed up the whole situation, the two sides of the ‘debate’ and the misconceptions that seemed to abound last week about this story.
Unless you were living on Mars last week you will already know what happened so I am just going to ‘dive’ in with my list of reasons why this story has been misinterpreted by various commentators or radio presenters since Grey and Keys declared that possession of a vagina means women are incapable of understanding the offside rule.
NB – I am going to do the media lazy crime of referring to ‘feminists’ and ‘we’ but I appreciate that I do not speak for all feminists, all women and am expressing the opinions I have formed from speaking to and working with feminists and thinking these issues through myself.
Misconception one – it was just banter
Unless the new OED definition of banter is ‘talking seriously and angrily about how “the game has gone mad” because a woman is doing a job with the word “man” in the job title’ I think we can safely say it was NOT just banter. These two men weren’t cracking jokes at Sian Massey’s expense. Even if they were joking, it would have still been offensive. But as it was, they were talking in a deadly serious tone about how the quality of the match was at risk precisely and only because the person watching the line was a woman. They weren’t making a joke about or discussing a bad call. They weren’t having a laugh with a colleague who they respected. They were very deliberately and very angrily expressing the sexist belief that a woman cannot do a job because she is a woman. To move from this to bitterly telling Karren Brady off for daring to address sexism in sport, to calling her ‘love’, was not banter. It was the ugly face of sexist attitudes in a world dominated by privileged men.
Grey’s request for a woman to tuck his mic into his trousers for him was again not banter, even if this time he was laughing. I didn’t see a flicker of a smile on her face. Does this mean, as some have accused us women of being last week, she is humourless, that she can’t take a joke? Or does it in fact mean that he was guilty of sexual harassment in the workplace, using his status within the organisation to intimidate staff members with an impressive display of dick swinging. His actions were sexual harassment by any standards, and deserving of a sacking.
Banter again was the language used to describe Keys’ charming description of Jamie Redknapp ‘smashing it’ – language that if nothing else is incredibly violent and left Redknapp looking distinctly uncomfortable. He laughed nervously whilst Keys repeated his vile statements louder and louder to assert his position in the group as alpha-male. It was ugly, it was crude and it used violent language to assert a position of power, suggesting that sex is men ‘smashing’ women, rather than something mutual and consensual. He was right to resign.
Before I spoke on BBC Bristol on Thursday, the Sports presenter expressed concern that we don’t want to see the banter and humour to be lost from punditry and sports presenting. I imagine most of us would agree with him. But I think we would be comfortable with an end to blatant sexism, excused sexual harassment and ‘jokes’ that seem to centre on committing violent sexual acts against women. That isn’t banter. That is sexism pure and simple.
And, of course, Grey and Keys aren’t really going to suffer are they? They’ll be snapped up by another channel with a pretty deal, whilst women continue to be invisible and mocked in a world that chooses to ignore their sporting success.
Misconception 2 – it was off the record so it was ok
This comment seems to have become very popular with certain strains of the right wing press. I ask you then, readers of the right wing press and watchers of all TV news to cast your mind back to one cloudy April day in Rochdale. As Gordon Brown stepped in to his car, he muttered that a certain woman with rather horrible views on immigration was ‘a bigot’. Sky News chased the woman down the street to inform her of his gaffe, made off the record. The TV and radio news repeated his off the record gaffe ad nauseum whilst he held his head in his hands. Newspapers re-quoted his off the record statement until we all knew about it and were all talking about it.
We either ignore what people say off the record, or we report it. We don’t have one rule for one and not for the other. If nothing else, at least Gordon Brown’s statement was true, which is more than can be said for Grey and Keys’ nonsensical splutterings.
Misconception 3 – what about the men, what about Loose Women, women are sexist too.
No shit Sherlock. And yet, curiously, most feminists I know don’t sit there watching Loose Women, cheering them on and going ‘hell yeah! This is my liberation! This must mean we have equality!’
In fact, most feminists believe that patriarchy hurts men too and that just as harmful stereotypes cause sexism against women, they also cause sexism against men. Take the issue of childcare, as brought up by a certain Tory MP last week. He accused ‘bigoted feminists’ of causing sexist laws that worked against men when it came to looking after children. And yet, and yet. The stereotype that informs the bias towards mothers caring for children are borne from the idea that women are carers and nurturers and men are tough breadwinners. These sexist stereotypes were not invented by feminists and it is feminists who have been fighting for better equality and sharing of childcare for a hell of a long time. Another stereotype brought up last week was that men, as portrayed on Loose Women, are stupid silly children incapable of cleaning the house. This stereotype is also harmful for women, suggesting as it does that cleaning a house has to therefore be the woman’s responsibility, because we are the only ones capable of wielding a mop. Perhaps this is why it was a feminist who coined the idea of the ‘stupidity myth’ in advertising. This is the idea that if women are stereotyped and silenced by the beauty myth, men are trapped by an unrealistic and unflattering portrayal of them as oafs who can’t clean an oven. Feminists are fighting negative stereotypes of all genders, because we recognise that sexism harms all of us and maintains gender norms that push equality backwards.
There isn’t a certain balance of sexism in the world. If a man is sexist against a woman, it isn’t cancelled out by a woman then being sexist against a man. They are both wrong. They don’t excuse the other. So, Grey asking a woman colleague to stick her hand down his pants doesn’t mean that Loose Women is ok, and vice versa.
However there is an interesting point to be made about Loose Women. As much as I find the programme dull, and disagree with the sexist-against-men remarks, it is one of the only times on TV when you will see middle-aged women, talking frankly about their bodies, their sexuality and their families. Talking about the things that matter to a lot of women. Giving women a voice and a face on a TV that so often waves goodbye to women when a wrinkle appears. Obviously it doesn’t excuse the sexist comments that stereotype men and women. But it’s just an observation a friend of mine made.
Misconception 4 – men aren’t sexist towards women any more
Or, another way to term it, the Giles Coren angle. Of course, if Grey’s and Keys’ comments didn’t disprove that straight away, Coren’s own comments about women being ‘harridans’ who would start a war over a pair of shoes certainly showed that it is an absolute truism that sexism against women is still mainstream, normalised and rarely condemned. In fact the ONE surprising thing about the Sky Sports row was that the behaviour was condemned, even if there has been this mini backlash.
Coren cites a Jo Brand joke about the best kind of man being a dead man. It’s a pretty tasteless joke. However Coren’s assertion that a man would not be able to make a similar joke about a woman is utter, utter bullshit. Rape jokes now abound in comedy. They are so common, so utterly normalised, that feminists who say they are uncomfortable with rape jokes are accused of being humourless. I’ve sat through TV panel shows where Frankie Boyle has happily made ‘jokes’ about murdering women who work in the sex industry. I’ve listened to Gervais make his famous ‘joke’ about raping an old woman. I’ve been to live comedy and listened to ‘jokes’ about how disgusting vaginas are. I’ve watched all male line ups again and again and again and again, and then listened to complaints when women comedians ‘take-over’ the conversation. Sexism isn’t just alive and well, it is now considered funny.
And even if this wasn’t the case, lets just take a look at the institutional sexism that makes Coren’s comments about how men ‘have to apologise all the time’ even though they are the real victims now (erm Giles? You know if you’re not sexist, you don’t have to apologise!) look a bit foolish. Like the pay gap. Like 4 women in the cabinet. Like the decision the government made when they ignored the gender equality duty. Like 1.5 women a week murdered. The 100,000 women who will be raped this year, whilst the conviction rate stays around the 6% mark. Last year we saw a man get 18 months for murdering his wife because he was ‘respectable most the time’ and saw a woman get sent to jail for being pressured by her abusive husband to retract her (true) accusation of rape. According to Forward, 6500 girls are at risk of FGM in the UK. Across the world, 100 million women are ‘missing’. Sexism is alive and kicking and it is causing ‘a genocide against my people’.
Misconception 5 – if you care about sexism, you don’t care about anything else
This is the last remnant of the whataboutthemen-nery debate – that by focusing on sexism against women, it is because you don’t care about anyone or anything else. It is the argument that says if you care about Grey and Keys, you don’t care about the Oven Pride ad. If you care about domestic violence or rape committed against women, you don’t care if it is committed against men. If you are concerned that 9 out of 10 sufferers of an eating disorder are women, you aren’t bothered that 1 in 10 are men. Or if you complain against DV and rape between a man and a woman, you don’t care if it happens between people of the same sex.
This is nonsense. Amazingly, a lot of people are able to care about more than one thing at once. (cue sexist chortling about women and multi-tasking ;-) ) Considering sexism, homophobia, transphobia and racism are all too often interlinked, to not care about all of them would be stupid, if not plain offensive. Violence against women is linked to violence against men. Offensive sexist stereotypes cross over with offensive homophobic, transphobic and racist stereotypes. Poverty is a feminist issue. The increase of the male beauty myth is linked to women’s beauty myth. We need to fight oppression and patriarchy wherever we find it. Privilege and layers of privilege are complex.
The final accusation really upsets me, on a personal note. The assertion that I don’t care about homophobia given my upbringing, or that I don’t care about same sex violence, something a friend of mine experienced, because I don’t caveat every sentence about violence with the statement, is silencing and annoying. To tell someone that they don’t care about something because they fail to mention it every time they write is silencing and derailing. Simple as.
So. To conclude.
Banter and sexist comments, rape jokes and sexual harassment are not the same thing.
Sexism is bad whoever it is directed against.
To say that sexism against women doesn’t exist anymore is bullshit.
Because I care about sexism doesn’t mean I don’t care about racism, homophobia, hetero-sexism or transphobia.
La fin.
Meant to blog about this last week but with one thing and another (mainly full time job and BFN) I didn’t get round to it.
I did however go on BBC Bristol to talk about the Sky sexism row with Graham Torrington – a conversation that pretty much summed up the whole situation, the two sides of the ‘debate’ and the misconceptions that seemed to abound last week about this story.
Unless you were living on Mars last week you will already know what happened so I am just going to ‘dive’ in with my list of reasons why this story has been misinterpreted by various commentators or radio presenters since Grey and Keys declared that possession of a vagina means women are incapable of understanding the offside rule.
NB – I am going to do the media lazy crime of referring to ‘feminists’ and ‘we’ but I appreciate that I do not speak for all feminists, all women and am expressing the opinions I have formed from speaking to and working with feminists and thinking these issues through myself.
Misconception one – it was just banter
Unless the new OED definition of banter is ‘talking seriously and angrily about how “the game has gone mad” because a woman is doing a job with the word “man” in the job title’ I think we can safely say it was NOT just banter. These two men weren’t cracking jokes at Sian Massey’s expense. Even if they were joking, it would have still been offensive. But as it was, they were talking in a deadly serious tone about how the quality of the match was at risk precisely and only because the person watching the line was a woman. They weren’t making a joke about or discussing a bad call. They weren’t having a laugh with a colleague who they respected. They were very deliberately and very angrily expressing the sexist belief that a woman cannot do a job because she is a woman. To move from this to bitterly telling Karren Brady off for daring to address sexism in sport, to calling her ‘love’, was not banter. It was the ugly face of sexist attitudes in a world dominated by privileged men.
Grey’s request for a woman to tuck his mic into his trousers for him was again not banter, even if this time he was laughing. I didn’t see a flicker of a smile on her face. Does this mean, as some have accused us women of being last week, she is humourless, that she can’t take a joke? Or does it in fact mean that he was guilty of sexual harassment in the workplace, using his status within the organisation to intimidate staff members with an impressive display of dick swinging. His actions were sexual harassment by any standards, and deserving of a sacking.
Banter again was the language used to describe Keys’ charming description of Jamie Redknapp ‘smashing it’ – language that if nothing else is incredibly violent and left Redknapp looking distinctly uncomfortable. He laughed nervously whilst Keys repeated his vile statements louder and louder to assert his position in the group as alpha-male. It was ugly, it was crude and it used violent language to assert a position of power, suggesting that sex is men ‘smashing’ women, rather than something mutual and consensual. He was right to resign.
Before I spoke on BBC Bristol on Thursday, the Sports presenter expressed concern that we don’t want to see the banter and humour to be lost from punditry and sports presenting. I imagine most of us would agree with him. But I think we would be comfortable with an end to blatant sexism, excused sexual harassment and ‘jokes’ that seem to centre on committing violent sexual acts against women. That isn’t banter. That is sexism pure and simple.
And, of course, Grey and Keys aren’t really going to suffer are they? They’ll be snapped up by another channel with a pretty deal, whilst women continue to be invisible and mocked in a world that chooses to ignore their sporting success.
Misconception 2 – it was off the record so it was ok
This comment seems to have become very popular with certain strains of the right wing press. I ask you then, readers of the right wing press and watchers of all TV news to cast your mind back to one cloudy April day in Rochdale. As Gordon Brown stepped in to his car, he muttered that a certain woman with rather horrible views on immigration was ‘a bigot’. Sky News chased the woman down the street to inform her of his gaffe, made off the record. The TV and radio news repeated his off the record gaffe ad nauseum whilst he held his head in his hands. Newspapers re-quoted his off the record statement until we all knew about it and were all talking about it.
We either ignore what people say off the record, or we report it. We don’t have one rule for one and not for the other. If nothing else, at least Gordon Brown’s statement was true, which is more than can be said for Grey and Keys’ nonsensical splutterings.
Misconception 3 – what about the men, what about Loose Women, women are sexist too.
No shit Sherlock. And yet, curiously, most feminists I know don’t sit there watching Loose Women, cheering them on and going ‘hell yeah! This is my liberation! This must mean we have equality!’
In fact, most feminists believe that patriarchy hurts men too and that just as harmful stereotypes cause sexism against women, they also cause sexism against men. Take the issue of childcare, as brought up by a certain Tory MP last week. He accused ‘bigoted feminists’ of causing sexist laws that worked against men when it came to looking after children. And yet, and yet. The stereotype that informs the bias towards mothers caring for children are borne from the idea that women are carers and nurturers and men are tough breadwinners. These sexist stereotypes were not invented by feminists and it is feminists who have been fighting for better equality and sharing of childcare for a hell of a long time. Another stereotype brought up last week was that men, as portrayed on Loose Women, are stupid silly children incapable of cleaning the house. This stereotype is also harmful for women, suggesting as it does that cleaning a house has to therefore be the woman’s responsibility, because we are the only ones capable of wielding a mop. Perhaps this is why it was a feminist who coined the idea of the ‘stupidity myth’ in advertising. This is the idea that if women are stereotyped and silenced by the beauty myth, men are trapped by an unrealistic and unflattering portrayal of them as oafs who can’t clean an oven. Feminists are fighting negative stereotypes of all genders, because we recognise that sexism harms all of us and maintains gender norms that push equality backwards.
There isn’t a certain balance of sexism in the world. If a man is sexist against a woman, it isn’t cancelled out by a woman then being sexist against a man. They are both wrong. They don’t excuse the other. So, Grey asking a woman colleague to stick her hand down his pants doesn’t mean that Loose Women is ok, and vice versa.
However there is an interesting point to be made about Loose Women. As much as I find the programme dull, and disagree with the sexist-against-men remarks, it is one of the only times on TV when you will see middle-aged women, talking frankly about their bodies, their sexuality and their families. Talking about the things that matter to a lot of women. Giving women a voice and a face on a TV that so often waves goodbye to women when a wrinkle appears. Obviously it doesn’t excuse the sexist comments that stereotype men and women. But it’s just an observation a friend of mine made.
Misconception 4 – men aren’t sexist towards women any more
Or, another way to term it, the Giles Coren angle. Of course, if Grey’s and Keys’ comments didn’t disprove that straight away, Coren’s own comments about women being ‘harridans’ who would start a war over a pair of shoes certainly showed that it is an absolute truism that sexism against women is still mainstream, normalised and rarely condemned. In fact the ONE surprising thing about the Sky Sports row was that the behaviour was condemned, even if there has been this mini backlash.
Coren cites a Jo Brand joke about the best kind of man being a dead man. It’s a pretty tasteless joke. However Coren’s assertion that a man would not be able to make a similar joke about a woman is utter, utter bullshit. Rape jokes now abound in comedy. They are so common, so utterly normalised, that feminists who say they are uncomfortable with rape jokes are accused of being humourless. I’ve sat through TV panel shows where Frankie Boyle has happily made ‘jokes’ about murdering women who work in the sex industry. I’ve listened to Gervais make his famous ‘joke’ about raping an old woman. I’ve been to live comedy and listened to ‘jokes’ about how disgusting vaginas are. I’ve watched all male line ups again and again and again and again, and then listened to complaints when women comedians ‘take-over’ the conversation. Sexism isn’t just alive and well, it is now considered funny.
And even if this wasn’t the case, lets just take a look at the institutional sexism that makes Coren’s comments about how men ‘have to apologise all the time’ even though they are the real victims now (erm Giles? You know if you’re not sexist, you don’t have to apologise!) look a bit foolish. Like the pay gap. Like 4 women in the cabinet. Like the decision the government made when they ignored the gender equality duty. Like 1.5 women a week murdered. The 100,000 women who will be raped this year, whilst the conviction rate stays around the 6% mark. Last year we saw a man get 18 months for murdering his wife because he was ‘respectable most the time’ and saw a woman get sent to jail for being pressured by her abusive husband to retract her (true) accusation of rape. According to Forward, 6500 girls are at risk of FGM in the UK. Across the world, 100 million women are ‘missing’. Sexism is alive and kicking and it is causing ‘a genocide against my people’.
Misconception 5 – if you care about sexism, you don’t care about anything else
This is the last remnant of the whataboutthemen-nery debate – that by focusing on sexism against women, it is because you don’t care about anyone or anything else. It is the argument that says if you care about Grey and Keys, you don’t care about the Oven Pride ad. If you care about domestic violence or rape committed against women, you don’t care if it is committed against men. If you are concerned that 9 out of 10 sufferers of an eating disorder are women, you aren’t bothered that 1 in 10 are men. Or if you complain against DV and rape between a man and a woman, you don’t care if it happens between people of the same sex.
This is nonsense. Amazingly, a lot of people are able to care about more than one thing at once. (cue sexist chortling about women and multi-tasking ;-) ) Considering sexism, homophobia, transphobia and racism are all too often interlinked, to not care about all of them would be stupid, if not plain offensive. Violence against women is linked to violence against men. Offensive sexist stereotypes cross over with offensive homophobic, transphobic and racist stereotypes. Poverty is a feminist issue. The increase of the male beauty myth is linked to women’s beauty myth. We need to fight oppression and patriarchy wherever we find it. Privilege and layers of privilege are complex.
The final accusation really upsets me, on a personal note. The assertion that I don’t care about homophobia given my upbringing, or that I don’t care about same sex violence, something a friend of mine experienced, because I don’t caveat every sentence about violence with the statement, is silencing and annoying. To tell someone that they don’t care about something because they fail to mention it every time they write is silencing and derailing. Simple as.
So. To conclude.
Banter and sexist comments, rape jokes and sexual harassment are not the same thing.
Sexism is bad whoever it is directed against.
To say that sexism against women doesn’t exist anymore is bullshit.
Because I care about sexism doesn’t mean I don’t care about racism, homophobia, hetero-sexism or transphobia.
La fin.
Friday, 21 January 2011
Some resources re sex industry links to violence etc
A lot of people (rightly) ask for stats and proof when the issues surrounding the links between the sex industry's links to violence against women and girls, low self-esteem and mental disorders.
Luckily for me, lots of people have done research in this area that I can point you to. And even luckier for me, the wonderful Bristol Fawcett Society provided heaps of sources, reports, papers and information to the Bristol City Council Licensing Committee to have a look at as part of the BCC's consultation period surrounding the new licensing regs for Sex Entertaiment Venues.
Unluckily the BCC haven't really taken any of these recommendations on board.
But I have reproduced the question asked by Bristol Fawcett and the list of sources so that readers have a useful reading list should you be interested in the gender equality impact of the sex entertainment industry.
Personally, I think it is stupid to ignore the violence, trafficking, abuse and drugs that runs through the sex industry. I would like to live in a world that didn't see women's sexuality as a bargaining chip, reduced to a few moves and facial expressions. Instead, i want to live in a world that celebrates and appreciates sexuality.
Here's the list of articles.
Question to be submitted to the Licensing Committee meeting on Friday, 21st January at 2011.
The documentation accompanying the Licensing Committee agenda for the meeting on the 21st January includes the following statement under the Equalities Impact Assessment section (page 30):
There is little independent research available on the types of activities that would be regulated under this policy with regard to the potential for a significant impact on any equality group.
Preliminary findings from a piece of ESRC research undertaken by the University of Leeds into lap dancing in England (premises providing lap dancing would be regulated by this policy) have provided some helpful information that has informed this assessment.
Given that the Leeds study is based entirely on those who derive financial reward from the industry, could the Chair of the working party explain why this is considered to be the only piece of "independent research” worthy of informing the equalities impact assessment and, by extension, the policy and why the many other references submitted have been ignored in the assessment of the impact upon Equalities groups?
The Leeds report, given that is using such a narrow methodology, presents a very one dimensional perspective of the impact on women. The many references submitted to support the adverse impact on women are not acknowledged or referred to in the EIA. A number of the source documents referred to in some of the consultation responses are listed below:
Page 82 – references quoted in Bristol Rape Crisis’ response:
Bindel, J. (2004) Profitable Exploits: Lap Dancing in the UK. London: Child
and Woman Abuse Studies Unit.
Eden, I. (2007) Inappropriate Behaviour: Adult venues and licensing in London. London: The Lilith Project.
Holsopple, K. (1999) Stripclubs according to Strippers: Exposing Workplace Sexual Violence. In Roche Hughes, C & D. (Eds) Making the Harm Visible:
Global Sexual Exploitation of Women and Girls, Speaking Out and Providing
Services, Kingston: Coalition Against Trafficking in Women. Pp. 252-276
Mcleod, J. Farley, M. Anderson, L. & Golding, J. (2008) Challenging men’s
demand for prostitution in Scotland. Glasgow: Women’s Support Project.
Object (2009) Joining up the dots: why urgent action is needed to tackle the
sexualisation of women and girls in the media and popular culture.
Papadopoulos, L. (2010) Sexualisation of young people – Review. London:
Home Office.
Raphael, J. & Shapiro, D (2004) Violence in Indoor and Outdoor Prostitution
Venues. Violence Against Women. 10:126-139.
Page 89 From the Psychology Today report submitted in Ches Chesney’s statement:
Cikara, M., Eberhardt, J.L. & Fiske, S.T. (in press). From agents to objects: Sexist
attitudes and neural responses to sexualized targets. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.
Harris, L.T. & Fiske, S.T. (2006). Dehumanizing the lowest of the low: Neuroimaging
responses to extreme outgroups. Psychological Science, 17, 847-853.
Haslam (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 10, 252-264.
Heflick, N.A. & Goldenberg, J.L. (2009). Objectifying Sarah Palin: Evidence that
objectification of women causes women to be perceived as less competent and less
fully human. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 598-601.
Heflick, N.A., Goldenberg, J.L., Cooper, D.P. & Puvia, E. (under review). From women
to things: Target gender, appearance focus and perceptions of warmth, morality and
competence.
Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., Murmane, T.,Vaes, J., Reynolds, C., & Suitner, C. (2010).
Objectification leads to depersonalization: The denial of mind and moral concern to
objectified others. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 709-717.
Vaes, J., Paladino, M.P. & Puvia, E. (under review). Are sexualized women fully
human?
Page 92 – From the Centre for Gender & Violence Research:
The research evidence shows that SEVs lead to increased reports of rape and sexual assault against women in particular (Eden, 2007; Raphael & Shapiro, 2004), to sexual harassment of women in venues and outside to other members of the public (Raphael & Shapiro, 2004; Bindel, 2004, Eden, 2007), to increased possibilities for prostitution and coercion of women into prostitution (Mcleod, Farley, Anderson & Golding, 2008; Bindel, 2004), to risks to children through sexualisation and use of underage dancers (Papadopoulos, 2010; Bindel, 2004), and to drug taking (Eden, 2007).
Referenced in Bristol Fawcett’s first response to the draft policy:
Child and Woman Abuse Study Unit at London Metropolitan University -
commissioned by Glasgow City Council to review lap dancing and table dancing clubs. (http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/NR/
CE629C7D6C3E/0/
The study concludes concludes that there is evidence that activities within lap dancing clubs are in direct contradiction with equality between men and women, and normalise menʼs sexual objectification of women.
i · Around half of women in England and Wales experience domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking in their lifetime (British Crime Survey 2008). It is estimated that there were 3,490 rapes in Bristol in 2006/7 (Safer Bristol Rape and Sexual Assault Strategy 2008-11). 22% of MPs are women. Women working full-time earn on average 16% less per hour than men working full-time and the gender pay gap in the South West is 21.5% (ONS 2009 Annual Survey).
· Daily sexualised messages create conducive contexts for violence, reinforce gender inequalities and undermine information campaigns about healthy sexual relationships (Home Office VAWG Consultation, 2009). Mainstream media are pushing a set of norms that undermine women's control over their own sexuality whilst purporting to represent a liberalisation of sex and women's sexual expression. Such representations serve to value females primarily for their Ê»sex appealʼ rather than creative or intellectual abilities, and in doing so reinforce gender inequality. There is a clear link between the consumption of sexualised images and the acceptance of aggressive attitudes and behaviours as the norm (Home Office, 2010)
· "Exposure to the sexualised female ideal is linked with lower self-esteem, negative moods and depression in young women and girls. Adolescent girls exposed to adverts featuring idealised women have significantly higher State Depression scores; and frequent exposure to films, TV and music videos featuring idealised images is linked to lower self-esteem (particularly among Black and Latino young people), stress, guilt, shame and insecurity.” (Home Office, 2010)
· A considerable proportion of young womenʼs aspirations have been reduced to being glamour models and lap dancers (EVAW 2008); Women in Journalism (2007); Girls' Schools Association (2010).
Luckily for me, lots of people have done research in this area that I can point you to. And even luckier for me, the wonderful Bristol Fawcett Society provided heaps of sources, reports, papers and information to the Bristol City Council Licensing Committee to have a look at as part of the BCC's consultation period surrounding the new licensing regs for Sex Entertaiment Venues.
Unluckily the BCC haven't really taken any of these recommendations on board.
But I have reproduced the question asked by Bristol Fawcett and the list of sources so that readers have a useful reading list should you be interested in the gender equality impact of the sex entertainment industry.
Personally, I think it is stupid to ignore the violence, trafficking, abuse and drugs that runs through the sex industry. I would like to live in a world that didn't see women's sexuality as a bargaining chip, reduced to a few moves and facial expressions. Instead, i want to live in a world that celebrates and appreciates sexuality.
Here's the list of articles.
Question to be submitted to the Licensing Committee meeting on Friday, 21st January at 2011.
The documentation accompanying the Licensing Committee agenda for the meeting on the 21st January includes the following statement under the Equalities Impact Assessment section (page 30):
There is little independent research available on the types of activities that would be regulated under this policy with regard to the potential for a significant impact on any equality group.
Preliminary findings from a piece of ESRC research undertaken by the University of Leeds into lap dancing in England (premises providing lap dancing would be regulated by this policy) have provided some helpful information that has informed this assessment.
Given that the Leeds study is based entirely on those who derive financial reward from the industry, could the Chair of the working party explain why this is considered to be the only piece of "independent research” worthy of informing the equalities impact assessment and, by extension, the policy and why the many other references submitted have been ignored in the assessment of the impact upon Equalities groups?
The Leeds report, given that is using such a narrow methodology, presents a very one dimensional perspective of the impact on women. The many references submitted to support the adverse impact on women are not acknowledged or referred to in the EIA. A number of the source documents referred to in some of the consultation responses are listed below:
Page 82 – references quoted in Bristol Rape Crisis’ response:
Bindel, J. (2004) Profitable Exploits: Lap Dancing in the UK. London: Child
and Woman Abuse Studies Unit.
Eden, I. (2007) Inappropriate Behaviour: Adult venues and licensing in London. London: The Lilith Project.
Holsopple, K. (1999) Stripclubs according to Strippers: Exposing Workplace Sexual Violence. In Roche Hughes, C & D. (Eds) Making the Harm Visible:
Global Sexual Exploitation of Women and Girls, Speaking Out and Providing
Services, Kingston: Coalition Against Trafficking in Women. Pp. 252-276
Mcleod, J. Farley, M. Anderson, L. & Golding, J. (2008) Challenging men’s
demand for prostitution in Scotland. Glasgow: Women’s Support Project.
Object (2009) Joining up the dots: why urgent action is needed to tackle the
sexualisation of women and girls in the media and popular culture.
Papadopoulos, L. (2010) Sexualisation of young people – Review. London:
Home Office.
Raphael, J. & Shapiro, D (2004) Violence in Indoor and Outdoor Prostitution
Venues. Violence Against Women. 10:126-139.
Page 89 From the Psychology Today report submitted in Ches Chesney’s statement:
Cikara, M., Eberhardt, J.L. & Fiske, S.T. (in press). From agents to objects: Sexist
attitudes and neural responses to sexualized targets. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.
Harris, L.T. & Fiske, S.T. (2006). Dehumanizing the lowest of the low: Neuroimaging
responses to extreme outgroups. Psychological Science, 17, 847-853.
Haslam (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 10, 252-264.
Heflick, N.A. & Goldenberg, J.L. (2009). Objectifying Sarah Palin: Evidence that
objectification of women causes women to be perceived as less competent and less
fully human. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 598-601.
Heflick, N.A., Goldenberg, J.L., Cooper, D.P. & Puvia, E. (under review). From women
to things: Target gender, appearance focus and perceptions of warmth, morality and
competence.
Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., Murmane, T.,Vaes, J., Reynolds, C., & Suitner, C. (2010).
Objectification leads to depersonalization: The denial of mind and moral concern to
objectified others. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 709-717.
Vaes, J., Paladino, M.P. & Puvia, E. (under review). Are sexualized women fully
human?
Page 92 – From the Centre for Gender & Violence Research:
The research evidence shows that SEVs lead to increased reports of rape and sexual assault against women in particular (Eden, 2007; Raphael & Shapiro, 2004), to sexual harassment of women in venues and outside to other members of the public (Raphael & Shapiro, 2004; Bindel, 2004, Eden, 2007), to increased possibilities for prostitution and coercion of women into prostitution (Mcleod, Farley, Anderson & Golding, 2008; Bindel, 2004), to risks to children through sexualisation and use of underage dancers (Papadopoulos, 2010; Bindel, 2004), and to drug taking (Eden, 2007).
Referenced in Bristol Fawcett’s first response to the draft policy:
Child and Woman Abuse Study Unit at London Metropolitan University -
commissioned by Glasgow City Council to review lap dancing and table dancing clubs. (http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/NR/
CE629C7D6C3E/0/
The study concludes concludes that there is evidence that activities within lap dancing clubs are in direct contradiction with equality between men and women, and normalise menʼs sexual objectification of women.
i · Around half of women in England and Wales experience domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking in their lifetime (British Crime Survey 2008). It is estimated that there were 3,490 rapes in Bristol in 2006/7 (Safer Bristol Rape and Sexual Assault Strategy 2008-11). 22% of MPs are women. Women working full-time earn on average 16% less per hour than men working full-time and the gender pay gap in the South West is 21.5% (ONS 2009 Annual Survey).
· Daily sexualised messages create conducive contexts for violence, reinforce gender inequalities and undermine information campaigns about healthy sexual relationships (Home Office VAWG Consultation, 2009). Mainstream media are pushing a set of norms that undermine women's control over their own sexuality whilst purporting to represent a liberalisation of sex and women's sexual expression. Such representations serve to value females primarily for their Ê»sex appealʼ rather than creative or intellectual abilities, and in doing so reinforce gender inequality. There is a clear link between the consumption of sexualised images and the acceptance of aggressive attitudes and behaviours as the norm (Home Office, 2010)
· "Exposure to the sexualised female ideal is linked with lower self-esteem, negative moods and depression in young women and girls. Adolescent girls exposed to adverts featuring idealised women have significantly higher State Depression scores; and frequent exposure to films, TV and music videos featuring idealised images is linked to lower self-esteem (particularly among Black and Latino young people), stress, guilt, shame and insecurity.” (Home Office, 2010)
· A considerable proportion of young womenʼs aspirations have been reduced to being glamour models and lap dancers (EVAW 2008); Women in Journalism (2007); Girls' Schools Association (2010).
Wednesday, 12 January 2011
BFN response to the police's warnings re Joanna Yeates' murder
I wrote this on behalf of BFN regarding the police's original response to Joanna Yeates' tragic murder.
My BFN colleague and I will be meeting the police this month to discuss this.
Here at Bristol Feminist Network, we believe that women's freedoms should not be curtailed by the actions of one or some men. Therefore we were disappointed that the initial police response to Joanna Yeates' murder was to warn women to be afraid of walking home alone in the dark, whilst the police search for the perpetrator.
We believe that this warning perpetuates the myth that women are somehow responsible for any attack that happens to them. But violent crime, sexual assault, even murder, are not natural hazards that women can somehow avoid if they follow a set of rules. The only person who is ever responsible for a violent crime is the perpetrator. Never the victim.
Women should not have to change their daily lives thanks to the actions of one or some men. Women should not have to feel afraid, or vulnerable. Women should not be made to feel responsible or ashamed for the violence committed against them.
We are pleased that the police have decided to amend their message to the public, encouraging women to carry on with their daily lives and not be afraid in their surroundings. We hope that they continue with this message.
Our thoughts and best wishes are with Miss Yeates' family at this terrible time.
My BFN colleague and I will be meeting the police this month to discuss this.
Here at Bristol Feminist Network, we believe that women's freedoms should not be curtailed by the actions of one or some men. Therefore we were disappointed that the initial police response to Joanna Yeates' murder was to warn women to be afraid of walking home alone in the dark, whilst the police search for the perpetrator.
We believe that this warning perpetuates the myth that women are somehow responsible for any attack that happens to them. But violent crime, sexual assault, even murder, are not natural hazards that women can somehow avoid if they follow a set of rules. The only person who is ever responsible for a violent crime is the perpetrator. Never the victim.
Women should not have to change their daily lives thanks to the actions of one or some men. Women should not have to feel afraid, or vulnerable. Women should not be made to feel responsible or ashamed for the violence committed against them.
We are pleased that the police have decided to amend their message to the public, encouraging women to carry on with their daily lives and not be afraid in their surroundings. We hope that they continue with this message.
Our thoughts and best wishes are with Miss Yeates' family at this terrible time.
Wednesday, 5 January 2011
Where are the women? Here they are!
During our research at Bristol Feminist Network and Bristol Fawcett in to the representation of women in the media, we discovered that women are all too often absent from our cultural landscape.
On Monday 10th Jan, we are trying to change that, with a cabaret line up packed with amazing women performers.
We will be celebrating the talents of women musicians, dancers, poets and film makers.
This event promises to be a true celebration of the creativity of women, in a society where all too often women's talent is pushed aside.
Come along and help us celebrate!
Where: The Cube, Dove Street South, Bristol
When: 10.01.2011 from 8pm
Featuring:
Lenny Savage - singer
Shagufta Iqbal - poet
Stephi Briggs - bellydancer
Eye to spy - filmmakers
I am fish - band
I am horse - band
Ana K - filmmaker and singer
Jen Steiner - singer
Christine Zaba - speaker
We will also be featuring Jan Martin reading some of the poems and prose from her recent workshops with survivors of male violence.
To learn more about the Representation of the Women in the Media project visit:
http://www.bristolfawcett.org.uk/MediaRepresentation.html
http://www.bristolfeministnetwork.com/awareness.html
On Monday 10th Jan, we are trying to change that, with a cabaret line up packed with amazing women performers.
We will be celebrating the talents of women musicians, dancers, poets and film makers.
This event promises to be a true celebration of the creativity of women, in a society where all too often women's talent is pushed aside.
Come along and help us celebrate!
Where: The Cube, Dove Street South, Bristol
When: 10.01.2011 from 8pm
Featuring:
Lenny Savage - singer
Shagufta Iqbal - poet
Stephi Briggs - bellydancer
Eye to spy - filmmakers
I am fish - band
I am horse - band
Ana K - filmmaker and singer
Jen Steiner - singer
Christine Zaba - speaker
We will also be featuring Jan Martin reading some of the poems and prose from her recent workshops with survivors of male violence.
To learn more about the Representation of the Women in the Media project visit:
http://www.bristolfawcett.org.uk/MediaRepresentation.html
http://www.bristolfeministnetwork.com/awareness.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)