Sexism: Examples in Sport, Politics and Film.

The news stories have recently got me riled up. Therefore I wanted to highlight some examples of sexism that have frustrated me in particular.

Sport.
The Women's Tennis Champion Marion Bartoli. This blog posts highlights the disgusting and enraging comments made towards her.You can read it for yourself.
 http://publicshaming.tumblr.com/post/54864863081/womens-wimbledon-champion-marion-bartoli-deemed
What makes the whole thing even more depressing is that John Iverdale, the Radio 5 live commentator, commented on Bartoli's win by saying  "I just wonder if her dad, because he has obviously been the most influential person in her life, did say to her when she was 12, 13, 14 maybe, 'listen, you are never going to be, you know, a looker.".
 And its the sad fact that a male sport person never has to worry about the way they look, they just perform and if they are not necessarily conventionally attractive, it doesn't matter! In fact it doesn't even pass through anyone's mind to comment on it. Yet the way a women looks in sports is somehow relevant enough to be commented on and surely must be relevant to their performance! People commenting that Bartoli was sweaty and using that to put her down. Wow, she was sweating, no shit!

Politics
Another example I want to highlight is with the case of Julia Gillard. Now whether you think she should have been removed as Prime Minister or not, and whether you think she was a good leader or not, is not what I want to address. What I want to address is how she has been treated by the media. In an interview, a radio DJ asked her if her partner was gay, because he was a hairdresser. Why did this even seem an appropriate question to ask her. We can all assume that an interview with a male person of similar position say Paul Rudd, or Tony Abbott, would not have been asked such an inappropriate question. I really recommend this guardian article. It shows how difficult her position was, being the first Australian Prime Minister. That she can't just be seen as a Prime Minister like all others before her, but because being the first Female PM she put on a pedal stool and heavily criticised.

Film.
How Scarlett Johansson gets asked questions about her underwear and her diet while her co-star Robert Downey Jr is asked a serious questions about his character.

http://boston.ihollaback.org/2012/08/21/sexism-in-the-media-and-street-harassment/

Its this idea that women have to look conventionally pretty and if not they are not worthy of respect and can't be praised for their achievements. It's this idea that someone finds it perfectly acceptable to ask a women questions that are obvious inappropriate and humiliating. Its this idea that for a female actor, its more important to know how she fits into her clothes, what she eats to keep her figure and what underwear she wears rather than asking her a serious question about her role in a film.

Intersectionality and Privilege-Checking - NS Feminist Debate.

I recently listened to the NewStatesmen Feminism Debate podcast. The question that centred around the whole debate was 'What is the most important issue facing feminism today?'. The whole discussion interested me so much that I wanted to write my thoughts about some of the areas that came up.

Intersectionality

A definition: A theory which "holds that the classical models of oppression within society, such as those based on race/ethnicity, gender, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, class, species or disability do not act independently of one another; instead, these forms of oppression interrelate creating a system of oppression that reflects the “intersection” of multiple forms of discrimination.” 

Having listened to the debate and thought about it some more, intersectionality is something that seems kind of obvious to me, feminism is there to improve rights of women, but women are all so different and they experience things differently. So surely feminism, there to represent half the population, has a difficult job in representing all women. Thats were intersectionality comes in. It further proves as well that Feminism is not a one size fits all.

Another reason why its so important. - "Intersectionality allows the integration of systems of oppression – patriarchy, capitalism, racism, among others – to be identified, analysed, and challenged, and it provides a means of transcending and critiquing single-issue politics." - [link]

 The term was first coined in the 1980s. It was the theorist Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw who realised that Black Women in the US during the 1980s were suffering from both racial AND gender discrimination. Although the concept of intersectionality was heavily relevant and talked of in the 1980s, it has now become more and more used within discussions of feminism today. One of the panalist, Bim Adewunmi really made this clear in the NS debate.  She spoke of how Nikki Giavanni, a well known activist, was once asked a question, 'Where were the black women in the second wave equal rights movement?' and Giavanni replied - 'That wasn't our fight'. 

Many argue that the Feminism that is so well known is not representative of the progress of all women. This so called "Feminism" has only truly improved the lives of White, middle class women of the west. Feminism of the 1980s was hijacked by these women of privilege and used for their own benefit. This post is very interesting and talks more about the women's movement in the US and how it wasn't there to help black women.

Another article I found shows furthermore why intersectionality is important and what feminism should be about. Taken from the Open letter to the white feminist community. 

"Because feminism is not merely a movement about middle-class white women and their interests; it is about queer women and straight women and women of all colors. It is about making the world a better place for women and men alike, and it is a cause that should unite all of us."

Some have criticised intersectional feminists, saying that women need to focus on the bigger issues that effect all women, rather than having this in-fighting within the feminist community. But on the other hand, you surely can't expect someone to ignore issues such as race or class that are clearly integral parts of their identity.  Bim makes this very clear when she says 'If I am telling you that I have a migraine, don't tell me to focus exclusively on the gangrene eating away at my leg. There's time to treat both, no?' [Bim's article] 
This suggests that although the women's movement as a whole is important, this doesn't mean that the inequalities suffered by working class women or women of ethnic minorities can be swept away under the giant movement that is feminism and seen as a lesser issue. 

Privilege Checking?

Combined with the idea of intersectionality is the concept of 'privilege checking'. Some have  become very defensive at the term. I feel that it is something you just need to accept, and by accepting it you are in a better position to realise the difficulties of people less fortunate than you. Louise Mensch, a conservative MP is one person who has criticised this idea of privilege checking and asks for a return to "reality-based feminism". Laurie Penny responded to the whole area of controversy in a very clear way:

Actually, "privilege" isn't at all hard to understand. It just means any structural social advantage that you have by virtue of birth, or position – such as being white, being wealthy, or being a man. "Check your privilege" means "consider how your privilege affects what you have just said or done."

I agree with this alot. For people who write feminist publications, this is probably more difficult. The balance is between being so afraid of generalising that you only speak of your own experiences and at the same time not attempting to speak for all women, everywhere.

Zoe Williams in her Guardian article words it very well, the idea that being aware of your position, however privileged is not necessarily a bad thing, but just something one should be aware of.

"Reason to  "check your privilege" – not from some restrictive idea about how authentic you are, or whether you've endured the hardship to qualify as a progressive voice, but because not all prejudice is extinguished – some of it is just displaced. If someone else is taking the flak you would have got, in eras past, that flak is still your problem."

In Summary.

I found the theory of intersectionality very interesting but also very confusing, there is alot more I could read on the topic, and I haven't gone into much detail about it. One thing I think I can say is that intersectionality is very important, and people need to be aware of its necessity. 
Not being part of these minority groups does make me wary of discussing the problems for those groups, and in some ways its makes me more wary. I think the most important thing is that I am aware that each feminist's experience of inequality will be different, and if you find yourself disagreeing with a fellow feminist, take a step back, try and see it from their point of view. Listen more and talk less!
Just some of my thoughts. :)

Gender Labelling - Children's Toys.

So I recently saw this picture on my twitterfeed. Courtesy of LetToysbeToys. This example in particular is pretty terrible. When there are toys such as trucks and cars I sometimes have associated those as mainly toys for boys, I don't think this is right by the way. But the 'Chemistry Set' being labelled as for boys seems to hit me harder for some reason. It is just perpecuating the old-fashioned stereotypes of what boys and girls are supposed to enjoy playing with, and more seriously what they should want to do at school and later on as a career.

Now, I'm sure many would say that these labels will not stop children playing with what they want, and I agree. I played with legos, cars, my older brother's chemistry set, a toy microscope and many other toys that some would associate with boys. I also loved to play with dolls, kitchen sets, barbies, etc.
But then surely, if a child can play with anything they want. What is the purpose of gender labelling anyway?

From reading my twitter, having many complained to Tesco, this was their initial reply, which I'm sure many will see as very strange, "based on research":

@lettoysbetoys Toy signage is currently based on research and how our customers tell us they like to shop in our stores
— Tesco Customer Care (@UKTesco) May 4, 2013

 I'm happy that action is being taken, but there are so many cases of this.
 In some ways, I don't think these labels effect what children play with. I hope that parents will see these labels and not limit what their child can play with, and I believe that most parents are better than this. I also hope a child will not stop themselves playing with something because it is deemed 'a boy's toy' or 'girly'. Personally I feel these labels send a very bad message generally in our society.

The biggest problem I have is that it is the toy companies that are actually doing the labelling. Someone purposely labelled that 'Chemistry Set' for boys. What does that say about people's opinion of what girls and boys should do? Surely what feminism has been campaigning for all these years is to get rid of these ideas of what women should and shouldn't do! This one example is not helping the idea that girls can be a scientist if they want to be, and it is showing. Women are still under-represented in jobs related to Science, Maths, Engineering positions - (Guardian Article).

This example is just one way that gender labelling is to continue having a detrimental effect on the progress towards gender equality. Toys don't need to be for a certain gender, there is literally no need. If all labels like this could be removed, then maybe it would help reduce other damaging stereotypes of boys and girls. The ideas that boys need to be tough while girls should be sensitive and gentle. All of these things continue to limit what girls and boys should do!

Just some of my thoughts.
Thanks for reading!

The Progress of Social Movements and the question "Where are we in 2013?".

As a history and politics student I believe get to learn the best of both worlds. I study events that are happening right now and depending on what you define as history, events that happened ten to a hundred years ago. History; some question the relevance of a person who lived 200 years ago, and often see it to have very little meaning to the world we live in today. Yet surely the events of the past have shaped the world we live in today, and as the quote goes "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

When I look at the news today, it often makes me think; in years to come, these events I see will no longer be defined as current issues. But will be written as historical facts in textbooks. They will be intensely analyed by academics, historians, sociologists, etc! If you think of all the areas of history that have shocked you, or made you question the morals of people at the time. Students will study the events will are living in right now and some will think "I can't believe that happened, why did no one do anything to change that, I'm so glad we don't live in a world like that anymore".

I wanted to put it into the context of social movements. Those campaigning for improved women's right in the western world, in the developing countries. The LGBT movement: the concept that homosexuals deserve the same legal and human rights as heterosexuals do. The fight for gay marriage.  The African-American civil rights movement, the position of black americans today still shows that it is not over, as well as the fact that racism is still a sad part of society.
Many of these social movements have been, in different forms, campaigning for years. Some argue so much progress has been made if we compare the rights of these social groups in the 1960s and 70s. Yet many are frustrated with the progress of change. I noticed this frustration in the women's movement.
Women are in such a better position than it was 40 years ago, but it makes us question. In the year 2013...

- There is still so much sexism. Just read the accounts of women and girls from the everydaysexism twitter account. [@EverydaySexism]
-Women are still being paid less then men. This is supposedely unlikely to change until 2067. [X]
- The Steubenville Rape Case, highlights the terrible stigma there is to rape victims and the fact that the media continues to enforce this "Rape Culture".
- The case of the 5 year old girl raped in India. The first response of the authorities was to dismiss the complaint by the girl's parents and the offer of 2,000 rupees to the parents to keep quiet. That shouldn't be the first response. [X]
-The list could go on.

It makes you think. 'Really, this is where we are in 2013.'

Sometimes, it is quite disheartening seeing the great areas of progress in social movements, but then seeing examples in the news that makes you think, "if this is still happening, how is there ever going to progress at the pace that we want it?". I question sometimes this progress, and I wonder, will I see a female Prime Minister or a female US president in my generation? Or even a female political party leader.
 But I suppose, for those fighting for social rights, we, of course should demand change now, but these efforts should also be seen as part of history. That as long as people continue to campaign, areas will improve, and its the past movements that fuel the present, which will then empower future generations. I have no summary to this post, but yeah, there are some of my thoughts.

----

A side note: I recently read a really interesting essay in the Newstatemen, Centenary edition. A piece by Natasha Walter called "Lift up your voices". I think the edition has passed now, but if you happen to have it, I really recommend a read. It basically talks about the progress of Feminism over the last 100 years, as it the anniversary of the Newstatemen. It is very interesting and empowering piece.

Are Men and Women Treated Differently in the Classroom? - "The Chilly Classroom".

I first heard of the concept/theory "The Chilly Classroom" in a Feminist talk at my university. I can imagine there are lots of people who were like me, had never heard of it. It is a study which has looked at the way faculty staff, both men and women behave towards women and girls in a classroom setting. I have found this quite fascinating and wanted to share my thoughts on the whole concept and my experience of it.

- The Chilly Climate by Bernice R. Sandler [LINK]

- List of Articles related to "The Chilly Classroom" [LINK]

 

  Having been in education for long time like most people I feel I have good experience of class participation and the general environment of education. For me, I have noticed that girls do tend to speak less in class. But so do some boys. Is it just that they are more introverted or shy and find it more difficult to contribute?  that I look back at the 15 years I have experienced in education, I would say that I have a mixed view. I believe I have experienced a behavour from teachers, which have dismissed my contribution. At times thishas prevented me from wanting to take part in the future. Although this study looks at the whole idea on a larger scale. Those who have studied this concept, suggest that as a whole this behavour towards girls in school is reflected back in the society and is having a more detrimental effect that people may realise. 
Many may see the concept that all girls are treated negatively in a classroom setting to be generalising and it is. This theory does not suggest it happens in all classrooms, by all people, but that is happened significantly enough to be damaging to society.

My own experiences:
Throughout school, I can admit that I have enjoyed contributing in class. In subjects I enjoyed and felt confident in I have often been able to state my ideas and opinions easily. However I have found myself often putting my hand, the teacher acknowleging me and asking me to speak when someone would then interupt by speaking out. Now, I have found there is often confusion in class participation, some teachers like their students to put their hands up but then some prefer for students to just shout out ideas. This often causes more loud and confident students to speak more compared to quiter students, that may have something good to say, but aren't given the chance to.
 I have found trying to shout out quite difficult although I think I have done better as I went to A-level and University. That is one example where I see my own experiences reflected in this Chilly Classroom idea.

However recently in one of my university seminars I have noticed the way a lecturer responds to to students in class debate and have found that they are encouraging this chilly classroom effect in an alarming way. I find it quite frustrating. One situation that I found myself in. 

• Answering a question, the response I get  "Well yes, that is basically what [male student] said" I mean! what? I found it very discouraging when someone's contribution is dismissed and claimed as just repeating someone else. Why then ask the question in the first place?

• The lecturer/seminar leader "Come on girls, all I am hearing are the guys contributing". Saying this is not going to encourage women to speak.

• Answers given by women in the class often criticised and dismissed. The guys can say pretty much the same but you get this response. "What do you mean?", Name of student used as encouragement. "Yes, exactly!", " I kind of see what you saying".

 Now, maybe I have just experienced a situation that is not necessarily common, and is not necessary about gender but I feel in my experience that it did play a part.  By dimissing shy people's contribution (male and female) it will make them even more likely not to participate. By highlighing that the males are dominating the discussion and turning it into a competition between men and women is not helpful. grr! 
 Although I don't think this has effected me individually. I can imagine for some girls constantly having to deal with this it will reduce their confidence and self-esteem. Which then reduces the belief in themselves to achieve highly. 

In Summary: Of the select articles written on the topic, it is not about critising those who treat women and girls negatively in the classroom. Firstly, it is clear that it is often not intentional. Many have written of ways in which to "warm up" the chilly classroom. Advice for both teachers and students to prevent women and girls being treated differently in education.
All I would ask is that next time you're are in a seminar, classroom or meeting, just observe what is going on. You may realise it is more common than you think.
 If you have experienced anything similar, please comment, I want to hear!

Tackling Gender Inequalities Globally + UN Women Commission.

My previous posts have mostly been about the feminist movement in the western world. Now, firstly, tackling the obstacles to equality in the UK and doing so for  women in the middle east, Africa and other areas are clearly very different, although we do see some similarities in the oppression and the treatment women face. Yet I don't believe that this matters when the simple fact is that the Feminist movement as well as all feminists are campaigning equality for women. Even though issues in the uk and a developing country may need to be tackled in a different way, this is not to say that these issues should not be tackled together and as part of the a global movement.

Where do you start in tackling the problem of gender inequality in the developing world? As I notice with the whole topic, it seems very overwhelming, and disheartening in some cases. Will changes to legislation be enough? How can we hope for sudden change when the basic idea that a women is a human being entitled to basic human rights is not understood?! The fact that this even has to be an issue is very sad.

It is in an recent Guardian article ' The UN Commission on the Status of Women unmarks equality's enemies'  by Jill Filipovic (@JillFilipovic) that I realised how severe the problems are across the world. As part of the UN commission it started that all countries should implement that "religion, custom or tradition are not excuses for governments to skirt their obligations to protect all their citizens". Yet it is the Vatican, Russia and Iran that they want to remove this term. Which as Jill Filipovic stated, is surely creating an even more negative association of religion with the rights of women. I really recommend the article as it definitely opened my eyes to the fact that even at the the level of the UN, there are still attempts to restrict the rights of women. Surely we should be beyond that and attempting to tackling individual people's attitudes not the governments stance on the treatment of women!

Although there are so many issues that could be looked out I wanted to highlight a place that was once the center of media attention. It is in Iraqi Kurdistan where women are suffering. Many, I am sure, are not too knowledgable on post-war Iraq. I wouldn't say that I have looked at it much myself, but something I want to look at in more detail. But it was in this article http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/17/broken-dream-iraqi-kurdistan as part of the "Iraq War - 10 years on" series that highlights the suffering of women. It has made it apparent that even after the Saddam's Ba'athist regime that things have not changed. Not only do these women suffer from general inequalities they also face the difficulties that come with their identity as a nation.

There is no real conclusion to this blog post, I hope to write a future post with more detail on international situation concerning women, but these are just my recent thoughts. If you do have comments or extra information I would love to hear them. Thanks

Why Feminism is Still Important.

I got the chance to attend a recent talk at my university, called 'Why Feminism is Still Important?' I took alot from the discussion and wanted to express my thoughts on the whole debate. Firstly, I find it kind of sad that mentioning the word 'Feminism' can cause a number of negative reactions. Why can't this movement be represented for what it is, or how I see it, (as I am sure many do); as a desire to change attitudes of both men and women and reform the structures that are limiting equality.

If you type in to google 'Is feminism...?'. Words such as important, relevant, dead and sexist come up. No one would disagree that feminism is not the same as it was in the 1970s and 80s, is this to say it's dead? Does a social movement need to happen in the form of protests and marches for it to make a difference? Surely the influence of twitter, facebook and blogs as well as the growth in feminist societies at universities across the UK suggests that feminism it is still important and is in fact growing. Creating a new wave of feminism for the new generation. But in having to question the whole concept of feminism, this suggests that women themselves, (those you would think would be its biggest advocate) are dissociating themselves from it. Some argue that the movement encourages nothing but victims, that women should stop using this as an excuse. 

I honestly believe that if you support gender equality, then you are a feminist, although I can understand that some may identify more with the label than others. To add to this is the questioned idea of progress. Is feminism no longer important because equality has already been achieved? Has the majority of society become complacent, assuming that now women have the vote, are progressing in education and are gaining high position jobs that we no longer need to bother?

Why we still need to bother:

• Women are still severely under-represented in government. (X)
• Women are unlikely to receive equal pay til 2067.
• Page 3 in 'The Sun' still exists... (Guardian article.)
• 1 in 7 women are made redunant after maternity leave. (Guardian article)
• Women and girls still suffer from sexual violence, domestic violence, stalking, trafficking, and harmful practices including FGM (female genital mutilation) and honour-based violence in the UK. (X)

Thanks for reading! :)