Russel: don’t buy into the brand!

As you may have noticed, my blog has been a little quiet lately. But I felt compelled to take a break from my hectic schedule to write this entry. After catching up with THE episode of Question Time. You know, the one with those two headline-grabbers claiming to give a shit about ‘the working British man’ …

Well what about the working British woman? Yet again sexist commentary and aggressive interruption of a female panelist was left unchallenged… Except by another female panelist.

Gentlemen, it a time to wake up. To realise that gender equality is at the heart of so many of our problems and to understand that it is YOUR ISSUE AS WELL.

Let’s begin with the comedian-come- saviour of us all *cough*…

Russell Brand.

Brand is no revolution leader… He is a sexist, self-serving career man.

How dare he have the audacity to assume he can speak for “us”, the electorate?

How dare he refer to Penny Mordaunt MP as “love” and talk her down. Is it not this kind of tone which undermines the position of female MPs? Is it not this very attitude which perpetuates the inequalities Brand claims to be addressing?

Possibly worst of all – How dare he suggest that the answer to our problems is to refrain from voting?

Spoil your paper, vote for the most unlikely party – but NEVER stop voting! All over the world, people are still denied this fundamental human right, and yet this attention seeking wannabe is advocating we squander ours? Maybe if the British education system told our kids about feminist history, Brand wouldn’t be so ignorant about this issue.

As a regular Question Time viewer, it is frustrating when they pull the ‘ratings winner’ stunt; inviting the likes of Brand and UKIP’s Nigel Farrage was always going to make headlines. Brand was clearly supposed to represent a voice for “ordinary people who disagree with UKIP.

Well guess what… I disagree with UKIP. But I also disagree with casual, off the cuff sexism on prime time TV.

When Penny Mordaunt attempted to quote the inspiration that is Malala, she was talked down. And why? Because Russel Brand is exactly the type of man who will be threatened by female political presence…

It speaks volumes that a comedian (who lest we forget has already publicly slut-shamed Andrew Sachs’ grand daughter) thinks he has the right to adopt a persona bordering on contemporary-Marxist. It is beyond hypocritical for him to preach about inequality, and talk to a female panelist in such a patronising way.

I’m not saying that Brand did not make some incredibly salient points (His response to the moronic Nigel Farage was fairly spot on) But this only demonstrates his position on the existing male-dominated political spectrum. As per usual, gender inequality was not listed among the most pressing issues in our society – probably because this would detract from Brand’s ‘working class champion’ fantasy.

So feminists, I urge you to continue to fight for what we all know is right. To ignore this man and others like him and use your vote in May. Stand up for what you believe in – even if that’s with a scribble on your ballot!

Never Too Busy for Feminism

So I must begin by apologizing for the radio silence of late! I have just started my formal teacher training and have an insane workload already (for those of you who think us teachers just take holidays all the time – we don’t! )

This in itself has led to me neglecting my blog, and in turn, neglecting feminism – something which prompted me to write this post. This time, I am ditching my usual satire to discuss the issue of authenticity in feminism and the notion that a quiet and inactive feminist is STILL a feminist.

And so I arrive at a key question:  To what extent is it possible to call yourself an ‘activist’ if you are not particularly active? Is it the state of mind that’s active or the amount of time you dedicate to protesting and standing up for your beliefs? If it’s the latter, I may as well hang my feminist hat up right now.

After contemplating this for most of today, I came to the conclusion that actually if you genuinely believe that a particular ideology should be promoted, then you will do this without thinking. I felt incredibly guilty this week for having to cancel a meeting with a local feminist group in my new city, (simply because I don’t have the time to dedicate to weekly get-togethers right now) and was beginning to feel rather lousy. As a teacher, I will be required to adopt a classroom identity which I fear will conflict with my feminist beliefs and I was really hoping the meetings would help to counterbalance these feelings. In reality, my workload simply won’t allow it –oh what to do!

During a discussion about the benefits of Media Studies today, I realised how much of my critical ability has stemmed from my research and complete fascination with feminist literature/theory. We are all guilty of over-using the phrase “I need feminism because…” but today I was instead left contemplating what feminism has given me already. Here is the list I came up with:

1. Feminism has empowered me to re-visit old and often painful memories of reading teenage magazines which made me feel rubbish about myself. Flow charts which told me boys wouldn’t like me and make up ‘tips’ which only served to make me even more conscious of my acne prone skin. I feel able to look back on those days from a renewed perspective and the knowledge that thousands (if not millions) of other women feel exactly the same way.

2. Feminism has helped me to articulate feelings of discomfort around men, and to identify behaviours which are not acceptable. All too often, I believe girls and women are encouraged to accept that ‘boys will be boys’ and that harassment and sexist behaviour is something to just be tolerated. It is my firm belief that feminism has already provided women with the courage to stand up against this. (Just today, my flat mate was harassed on the way to do her washing … yes, really)

3. Feminism has provided me with the ability to stand up for myself AGAINST OTHER WOMEN. I capitalise this, because it is all too readily assumed that women are automatically feminists or that feminists demonise men. This is bullshit. In the last few days, I have experienced some particularly un-sisterly behaviour from a female peer and used the strength I found in feminism to assert myself. This is who I am, this is how I look and if you can’t accept that…too bad!

So to conclude, I would say that being a feminist is not about having the biggest banner or the loudest voice. It’s not about spending every hour of every day ‘flying the flag’ so to speak. It is about recognising that so much of who we are as gender-equality campaigners is about what is already within us. We have a great world view, always remember that.

Yay for us! 

The Post-Feminism Delusion

 

For the past three months, I have been researching the birth and growth of what has come to be known as the ‘Post-feminism myth’; in the hope of understanding what it is that leads women to believe we no longer than feminism.

 

To be honest, before I began this project, I had spent so many years campaigning for women’s rights that I had been ignoring the growth of anti-feminist feeling. Every day I would be surrounded by statistics and stories conveying the need to keep fighting for equality, and never really thought about women who didn’t see this need. Writing my thesis on ‘Post-Feminism’ has been an eye-opener, and something which has left me feeling both incredibly saddened and determined to continue fighting for equality.

 

For those of you who aren’t sure, the ‘Post-feminism myth’ can be defined most simply as the belief that feminism is over. The reasons for this vary from believing that men and women are now equal, to the notion that feminism is disadvantaging women who want to get married and have children.

 

If I’ve learnt anything over the last few months I’ve spent researching ‘The Post Feminism Myth’, it’s that it really is a myth. A myth based on the media’s outright disgust with women who dare to look/speak/be any different from the stereotypes they thrust upon us day in, day out. A myth perpetuated to fool us that women are equal now. Worst of all, a myth which says feminism works against women (good old divide and conquer when all else fails).

 

Worryingly, it is a myth which has grown so much that groups of women are now taking to social media to openly reject feminism and distance themselves from it’s work. For me, this is a particularly sad reflection of how this incredible movement has come to be portrayed.

 

The disturbing ‘I don’t need feminism because…’ pages have gained much esteem throughout the course of my project, and though I don’t have time to respond to each and every ridiculous cardboard sign on Tumblr, I feel compelled to give a few of them a piece of my mind…

 

1. “I don’t need feminism because I don’t want to politicise my gender”

 

Feminism is NOT ABOUT JUST ABOUT WOMEN. Feminism is about promoting the idea that masculinity – in whatever form that takes – is not supreme. Feminism does not just speak up for women, it speaks up for anyone who does not ‘perform’ a masculine identity.

 

2. “I don’t need feminism because I can think for myself”

 

As a feminist, I would go as far saying this is offensive. Thinking for yourself is all very well and good, but who listens to your thoughts without equality? All women can think for themselves, and feminism serves to remind society of that.

 

3. “I don’t need feminism because being whistled at in the street isn’t oppression”

 

The simple response to this is, yes it is. I am a human being and walking down the street is not an opportunity for men to judge my appearance.

 

 

I could go on and on. The frightening thing about these statements, is that they demonstrate exactly how far the ‘Post-feminism’ illusion has spread. Just yesterday, the Evening Standard newspaper’s lead story was the fact that women in London earn around 13% less than their male counterparts. This is because society – capitalist, patriarchal society – does not value a woman’s work in the same way it values a man’s.

 

I have said in previous posts that the work of the ‘contemporary feminist’ is incredibly different from that of previous generations. Our battle is with more covert sexism, sneakier division tactics and just downright ignorance about what feminism actually stands for.

 

 

 

 

 

Top 5 “Things I Want My Students to Know”

 

 

1. Women are never “asking for it”.

It is sad that even in 2014, society still teaches “don’t get raped” as opposed to “don’t rape”. Girls and women are taught from an early age that the way they look and behave leads to judgement about their sexual desires.

During my analysis of one GCSE English Literature examination paper, I was shocked to discover that students were being asked to read an extract from John Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men and judge a female character’s attitude based on descriptions of her physical appearance and non-verbal communication. Students were rewarded for describing Curley’s Wife, with her red lipstick and sausage curls, as ‘promiscuous’ and ‘a tart’ (Words taken from one of many GCSE revision guides).

GIRLS: You are entitled to go out, dressed up with your girlfriends and not received unwanted harassment from men.

 

 

 

2. Feminism is not a contest

There are no prerequisites for feminism, it is a movement designed to empower and not divide women on the basis of how “feminist” they look. You are never “too pretty to be a feminist”(As someone once said to me). Keep your long hair and trips to the beauty salon if it makes you happy, do what YOU want to do and not what ideology/society/anyone else tells you you should be doing. That goes for your fellow feminists too, as this awesome shirt says (above), anyone who declares themselves a feminist LOOKS like a feminist.

 

 

3. Embrace Emotion

A common theme among the novels I have analyzed has been the correlation between female emotion and negative behaviour. Grief, in particular, has been presented as a trigger of everything from psychotic manipulation of other characters to supernatural haunting of others.

Women are NOT emotional wrecks, ready to explode at any moment. Women are just as rational, logical and able to use reason as men. As I’ve blogged before, there is research to suggest women actually deal with emotion better than their male peers because society says men should be ‘tough’. Which leads me to my next point…

 

 

4. Feminism is not just for women

Ahhh, my favourite rant. I probably have this discussion with the males in my life more than any other. As I discussed in my post Boys Do Cry: Why Men Need Feminism, men are also disadvantaged by gender stereotypes and sexism in society. Feminism is about critiquing society and being able to identify gender discrimination in action. This is not exclusive to women, and feminism should not be “marketed” to a particular gender at the expense of the other.

In recent weeks, stories such as the now infamous “Magaluf Girl” have lead to visible anti-Feminist feeling on social media. It is about time we stopped demonizing every woman who is a ‘bit too sexually active’ for society’s liking and remember that it takes two (or twenty-four) to tango.

 

 

5. Be your own hero

And finally, a message I’d like printed on the front of School Planners everywhere.

From a young age, girls are saturated with the nauseating narrative that if you are beautiful enough, your prince will come and give you everything you ever wanted. Well bollocks to that girls. Stay focused on your school work (even if that too is laden with patriarchal ideology) and strive to buy your own glass slippers. By all means WANT your man, but don’t NEED him to be happy.

Looking the Part: Barbie and the Battle for Female Success

As someone who relishes any opportunity to read all things feminism, I think I would probably be a very rich woman if I had a penny for every time Barbie reared her perfect plastic head for debate. After viewing Channel Five’s  The Wright Stuff‘s lengthy discussion on the issue, I simply couldn’t resist jumping on the Barbie-critiquing bandwagon.

This week Mattel’s latest addition to the Barbie range, ‘Entrepreneur Barbie’, has yet again sparked debate about the negative stereotypes the doll perpetuates.

Although many have argued that toys are just toys, I think we are yet again in danger of overlooking both what Barbie portrays and just how impressionable young girls are. It is a toxic combination which should be discussed on a far bigger and more serious platform than daytime television shows and commuter-friendly newspapers. The impact of this kind of stereotyping is that it places limitations on women and the extent to which they are able to prioritize their careers over other things. As Katy Brand put it: “Women can be anything they want to be as long as they look like this”.

 

Ultimately, the size label in your Warehouse shift dress is still every bit as important as your degree classification or work history – a message which does nothing to fuel female ambition or motivate the frizzier-haired teenage girls to aim high. Why should an intelligent young woman be made to feel guilty because her make up bag isn’t as full as her CV?

We live in an age where girls outperform boys year after year in both GCSEs and A Levels, and more women than men are now securing places at university. Sadly, this is not reflected in the boardrooms of big businesses or the top positions of almost any career you could name.

The reason for this is all that ‘Entrepreneur Barbie’ encapsulates; like it or not, she is eerily representative of a large percentage of female commuters who grace the Tube every morning with an iPhone in one hand and a ‘skinny latte’ in the other. Of course, there is nothing wrong with looking like this should you so choose, but our society does not leave women with any real choice – if you want a career then it’s Shellac nails and GHDs every step of the way ladies.

Though ‘Entrepreneur Barbie’ cannot be blamed for creating this image of the typical ‘girl in the city’, she certainly does nothing to counteract it. Like so many things, it is important that children of both genders are presented with multiplicities. Multiple versions of dolls based on adult women, pursuing a multitude of careers and enjoying the freedom of many, many informed choices. At present, Barbie has had 150 different careers in her 55 years; spending just 1.3% of her time as an astronaut or racing driver. It is fair to say that the huge proportion of time Barbie spends in wedding dresses gazing adoringly at Ken with her huge plastic eyes far outweighs her time spent pursuing typically ‘male’ careers.

It is all about balance. In theory, there is nothing wrong with Mattel’s latest creation, but little girls must be encouraged to understand that women do not need to look like this to be successful. Wouldn’t it be refreshing to see a ‘Sh*t I woke up late again’ Barbie, complete with Batiste dry shampoo and 30-denier black tights for those hairy leg days? (because showing half an inch of leg hair would just be too much, right?)

Last week, I blogged about female ambition and the lack of encouragement girls receive at school. I think ‘Entrepreneur Barbie’ is yet another reminder of the urgent need to equip our girls with the belief in their ability to be what they want to be, and not just what society says they can be.

A Difference in Ambition: Why Educators must Empower our Girls

 

 

 

This week, I have been investigating gender differences in ambition and attainment amongst male and female students. As I was googling and trawling through numerous articles, I re-stumbled across an interview with Kristen Stewart from February 2014:

 

“Female’s ambition is different to men’s. Men have a drive to make their mark on the world so people remember them,” whereas she feels that women “are more fulfilled with the selfless drive to create things, but one of the main struggles is finding out what you’re good at and going for it.”

I found this quote both interesting and worthy of deconstruction. To an extent, I think Kristen is right to suggest that by the time a girl has grown up, she is likely to have embraced a different kind of ambition to their male peers. But is this really because of inherent biological differences between the sexes? I am not so sure.

 

 

Are boys and girls so saturated by what they are exposed to as children that these ideas are simply ‘naturalised’ by our culture? I believe so and what’s more, I believe our education system is playing a huge role in this.

 

From the moment a child can read (and indeed before, if you really think about it), they are presented with stark contrasts between men and women; with physically strong and able male characters coming to the rescue of suitably beautiful “damsel in distresses”. In the Learning to be a Girl chapter of a text entitled ‘Educating Young Adolescent Girls’ O’Reilly argues that “Fairy tales and nursery rhymes are rich sources of gender stereotyping”. The impact of this stereotyping is something O’Reilly and her colleagues have investigated within the American education system, and an area which I believe needs far more research in the British system too.

 

O’Reilly who believes it is “important for teachers to understand the role gender socialization has played in the lives of the young adolescent girls sitting in their classrooms”. As educators, our primary responsibility is to empower our students – with knowledge and self-esteem in equal measure.

Our students will only achieve in certain areas if they believe they can, and right now there are too many young girls who feel they will not be recognised in so many of the male-dominated industries surrounding us. In Natasha Walter’s fantastic book Living Dolls: The Return of Sexism, she describes her encounters with glamour models and their desire for fame and recognition. Walter articulates brilliantly the disparity within a society which enables men to find acclaim within science and engineering, but facilitates recognition for women only when they are sexualised and plastered in tabloid newspapers.

 

 

 

Whilst Kirsten Stewart was right in her observation of differences of ambition, it is not enough to simply acknowledge this difference and passively accept it. Teachers and other education professionals must recognise the power they have to change a girl’s view of the world around her, and to encourage her to participate fully in that world by employing methods to achieve just this. If glamour models teach us anything, it is that young women do desire recognition and fame for achievement. Women are driven by acclaim and praise but are simply not encouraged to achieve it through the same means as men.

 

Take the GCSE English Literature syllabus for example. Nowhere on this syllabus are there texts which would pass the well-known ‘Bechdel Test’ (Which asks whether a work of fiction features two female characters, who talk to each other about something other than a man). Instead, the syllabus places a huge emphasis on Victorian literature which can be said to do the precise opposite. Texts designed to teach ‘morals’ or promote an ‘understanding of history’ are centred around male characters, whilst texts with female central characters are almost always concerned with romance.

 

I am not suggesting that the texts themselves are to blame, nor am I advocating replacing every novel or play on the GCSE syllabus with new ones. However, I do think more consideration should be given to the combination of texts studied by any one class, with a view to ensuring our young girls are equipped with examples of women who nurture their ambitions as well as their children. 

Kirstie Allsopp vs. Feminism

 

 

Kirstie Allsopp, may you be placed on a special Super Nanny style ‘naughty step’ for feminists, until you have thought about what you’ve done. I am not angry with you, just disappointed.

 

 

Let’s begin with her oh so inspirational words of wisdom for us twenty-somethings (because we really needed yet another overindulged celebrity telling us how to live our lives). Just last week, the Telegraph quoted Kirstie as having said:

 

‘Don’t go to university. Start work straight after school, stay at home, save up your deposit – I’ll help you, let’s get you into a flat. And then we can find you a nice boyfriend and you can have a baby by the time you’re 27.”

 

 

Kirstie elaborated on this statement, by suggesting that feminism was failing to highlight the fact that a woman’s fertility “falls off a cliff aged 35” (As if the Daily Mail hadn’t made it perfectly clear that we’re all selfish, un-maternal monsters for daring to want a life outside the home). This advice was then followed up with a defensive protest, in which Kirstie described herself as a “passionate feminist”. Ahem.

 

I am not out to attack Kirstie, and it has been said that within her rather contradictory stance lies a fairly salient point. It is definitely true that young women are under more pressure than ever to be all singing, all dancing super-humans; popping out babies one minute and using their freshly manicured fingers to answer business calls the next. But the suggestion that all women should put off career pursuits until AFTER they have bagged a man and had children is incredibly damaging.

 

I have known many mature students who have returned to university after having children, and found it incredibly tough to balance their academic studies with child care and family life. Whilst I salute these women, Kirstie’s stance fails to account for the criticism these women get (the ghastly “selfish mother” label rearing it’s ugly head), as well as the intolerable demands placed on these women to juggle parenthood with higher education.

 

Above all, Kirstie is guilty of regurgitating the same debate which has dogmatized women for years. Why should a woman have to wait fifteen years to exercise her potential because the likes of Kirstie Allsopp are panicking about fertility? We live in an age where women of 40 and over are becoming first time mothers, because they finally have the autonomy to decide when the right time is for THEM to have a family. And yet this woman, claiming to be a “passionate feminist” is advocating postponing education in favor of child-rearing and depending on a man to survive.

 

Feminism DOES NOT dictate that women should go to university and not have children, but it equips women with a CHOICE. Women like me, who at 24 still pulls ‘that face’ when I’m asked if I’ll be marrying my boyfriend any time soon. And it’s not because I don’t want to get married or have children, it’s simply because I am enjoying the same freedoms men have done since time began. The freedom to CHOOSE what to do with my life, when I want to do it.

 

Feminism has given me this. 

Learning from Tragedy: Why Students Must Be Equipped with Analytic Ability

 

So I’m at that stage with my dissertation where it seems to be following me around, everywhere I look I’m finding references to feminism and the never ending debate about it’s place in contemporary society. It is a debate which has taken the most sinister of turns in the last week or so.

 

As details of the Isla Vista shootings emerged, many were quick to label the attack as a ‘misogyny killing’ and quite understandably, direct angry condemnation at the perpetrator Elliot Rodger. Whilst it is easy to understand why many (including the numerous feminist blogs and Facebook pages) would choose to describe the killings in this way, I felt somewhat uneasy at passing up a valuable opportunity to extract lessons from this appalling tragedy.  

From the videos of Rodger’s ranting – about everything from his failure to attract a girlfriend to still being a virgin at 22 years old – it was clear that this was a young man who had serious issues with the world around him, and in particular, the gender stereotyping which dominates it.

I am not about to suggest that responsibility for these murders can be attributed to anyone except for Rodger as an individual, but there are certainly lessons to be learnt from the Isla Vista shootings which go beyond “feminists were right” or “male dominance is the problem”.

As I said in my previous post “Boys do Cry: Why men need feminism”, promoting gender equality is not just an issue for women. It is something which needs to be embraced by society and promoted in the classrooms of every school, every day. Rodger murdered the women he saw as prizes he failed to win, and the kind of men he deemed to be ‘typical’ of those who managed to attract girlfriends; if society had prescribed him these ideas, then he had overdosed. 

Ironically, the media’s reporting of this story exemplifies the issues which lead to it in the first place. 

I found the ever-reliable The Sun newspaper’s take on this tragedy to be especially problematic. How can a newspaper which objectifies women on a daily basis report on ‘misogyny’ with any degree of respectability? The readily available half-naked woman on Page 3 can be in the clutches on any man in the UK for just 20p, and yet the very ‘newspaper’ which facilitates this is taking a moral high ground. This is just one of the many contradictions we have come to passively accept as part of our culture and with devastating consequences.

It is this kind of message which promotes the idea that women and their bodies should be ‘up for grabs’ to a man as and when HE chooses. Young boys are growing up with this message and internalizing it to a point where failing to attract a girlfriend is associated with failing to be a man. Not all men will respond to this in the same drastic way Rodger did, but increased feeling of ’emasculation’ among men tend to suggest that gender-stereotyping is not benefiting them in the ways previously assumed. Just because our patriarchal society was designed to make men life’s lucky folk, does not mean every one of them is cut out to embrace it.

 

As the terrible story of the Isla Vista killings emerged from the USA, Michael Gove was busy carving great chunks out of the education system as we know it in England and Wales. Gove’s latest idea being to axe so-called ‘soft subjects’, with Film Studies and Media Studies among them.

If we can learn anything from Elliot Rodger’s horrifying videos, it is that young people are in desperate need of the critical ability to view what’s around them with a degree of perspective (something Rodger clearly lacked). They must be able to take a step back, equipped with the analytic ability to think about how the media presents gender and to know that there is no such thing as a ‘normal’ man or woman.

While many would argue that our education system is in need of reform (and in all fairness, I can see why), I believe there is some cause for alarm at the prospect of removing or discrediting subjects which involve a critical analysis of the media, unless these skills are to be assimilated into other subjects. Only when our English and English Literature GCSEs are designed to encourage questioning texts as opposed to just responding to them, can we afford to scrap subjects which are at least attempting to throw a

spotlight on the world around us. 

Promoting Integrity: The Thigh-gap and other ‘Frenemy’ Offences

 

 

As I checked out the above book from my local library this week, the librarian sighed: “Still not equal are we?”. With that, a two minute transaction blossomed into a thirty minute discussion. She recalled countless experiences of overt sexism in her fifteen years in a male-dominated workplace; from being whistled at as she strolled through the door to having her backside squeezed as she replenished the Science-fiction section (Whatever next?!). “It’s not as obvious now, but sexism is definitely still around us” she mused. 

 

I left the library with my titles of choice, and an anecdote which inspired me to consider how sexism had changed. I came to the conclusion that if the kind of sexism we encounter has changed, then so should the approach of feminists striving to tackle it. 

 

It goes without saying that the Feminist movement has achieved a great deal; women can vote, we have the right to an education and we are legally entitled to fair pay. All of this came about after very public protesting, in which women refused to be silenced until their work was done. They are the women to whom I will always feel indebted.

 

 

Many who argue we are now living in ‘post-feminist’ times say so because contemporary feminism lacks the kind of vocal protest of the Suffragettes, and so the issues surrounding sexism and gender discrimination in 2014 remain silent and covert (but by no means resolved). 

When we stop and think about it, I find it hard to believe that any woman would agree with the ‘Post-feminism myth’ (the view that we are completely equal with our male peers and no longer need feminism). But this is the problem – many women have stopped ‘thinking about it’. They have stopped identifying sexism as it occurs, and as a result they have stopped the fight against it.

 

So let us ‘stop and think about it’, for just a second…

 

YOU ARE EXPERIENCING SEXISM when you politely turn down the nightclub’s designated ‘creepy guy’ and his offer of a drink/dance/other attempt to get in your knickers, and this is met with insulting references about your appearance (because of course you’re either frigid or a lesbian not to find Mr ‘Sweat-patches of the year’ attractive).

 

When you’re on the long, unenviable commute home on a hot day and you feel too uncomfortable amid the pervy businessmen to even think about removing your cardigan, YOU ARE EXPERIENCING SEXISM. You feel like that because society has told these men it is OK to lust after women’s bodies at any given opportunity; it is just one example of how gender discrimination affects the most practical elements of a woman’s daily life.

It is the role of the contemporary feminist to highlight sexism as it occurs and to empower women with the tools to identify it and fight against it. This is an issue which is superbly articulated in Baxter and Cosslett’s The Vagenda; a book which labels Page Three as “the builder who whistles at you in the street” and magazines like Cosmo and Glamour as “frenemies who smile to your face, and bitch behind your back”. This brilliant analogy gets to the crux of the issue in just a few words.

 

Unlike the goals of the suffragettes, which were systematically fought for and won with glorious passion, contemporary feminism is facing an on-going fight against the media’s appalling representations of women – a fight which requires a different approach. So many of the journalists writing for these “frenemies” are female, making the chatty ‘best friend’ tone of these magazines even more appealing to the young and impressionable minds of their readership. Readers put their faith into these women writers, and are systematically let down. Instead of feeling empowered by this type of editorial, readers close their latest editions of Company or Sugar wondering why they’d never noticed (let alone cared about) their non-existent thigh gap, abnormal boobs or imperfect skin. God help us.

Social media, feminist blogs and books like Vagenda are the ‘weapons’ contemporary feminists must adopt to tackle this kind of shit from the media. We must embrace the feminists who are prepared to ‘talk back’ to those industries prioritizing magazine sales over the mental well-being of young girls and women. 

 

So you’ve read all this, and you’re prepared to get on board. You’ve placed your ‘I need feminism because…’ banner in the middle of your latest selfie and ready to declare war on all things unequal. You look around to your fellow females, sure you’ll attract support for your cause – Right?

 

Wrong.

 

As if it wasn’t bad enough that sexism has become sneakier, many women are reluctant to identify with Feminism as an ideology, because they feel the movement no longer represents them. A movement designed to promote inclusiveness and equality has somehow managed to alienate a huge proportion of its target audience (With the help of the media and it’s delightful stereotyping of feminists as flannel shirt wearing lunatics).

 

After researching ‘post-feminism’ until my eyes blurred, I found an emerging sense of anti-feminism from women who do not want to be labelled ‘feminist’ due to negative connotations associated with the term. For some women, being a feminist has become all too readily associated with man-hating, sporting short hair and being childless; something they struggle to identify with. Like so many ideologies, inaccurate interpretations of feminism’s true objectives has created divisions and alienated a huge number of women who ultimately want equality, but on their terms.

 

And rightly so!

 

Feminism is not about replacing one set of prescriptive ideas with another. As Kate Nash says (above), the most important message to promote is that ALL women can be feminists. Yes you can have a boyfriend and be a feminist. Yes you can have long flowing hair and wear make up, and be a feminist. Yes you can even buy the odd crappy magazine here and there … and still be a feminist. You can be different and equal and feminist… all at the same time (woo hoo!).

 

What you do need is an awareness that sexism does still happen, the integrity to identify it when it does and the support of a movement which recognises there is no ‘criteria’ for calling yourself a feminist. Only once we are achieving all of these things can we be sure that a quick flick through the latest trends will not leave us traumatized in the ways Baxter and Cosslett so brilliantly described.

 

 

 

 

Boys do Cry – Why Men Need Feminism.

 

From where I’m standing, there are no prerequisites for feminism except one – you treat every human being as a human being.

 

Feminism is not just an issue for women, and this is something I have been looking at in more depth over the last week or so. As someone who is analysing the GCSE English syllabus, I have had to consider the impact of my findings on all students; something which has caused me to re-think how I view the impact of gender stereotyping. It is very easy to get defensive, “Well men don’t have it as hard. If they suffer from gender stereotypes, then maybe they shouldn’t impose them” said one good friend of mine this week. And whilst I love her “take no prisoners” attitude, I don’t completely agree.

Gender stereotypes, like all stereotypes, create divisions. Norms which govern what “should” be, and determine who doesn’t quite fit into this category – and the consequences are not good for anyone.

Take body dismorphia for example; an issue which effects boys as well as girls. I have overheard countless conversations between teenage lads discussing how big their biceps should be, and watched a steady steam of 11 year olds emerge through a classroom door with matching Justin Bieber haircuts.

Boys and men care about their appearance. Recent studies by the the University of Birmingham have revealed an increase in steroid abuse among young boys who want a bulkier physique.

http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/impact/perspective/steroid-abuse-opinion.aspx

 

This anxiety is generated by the same pressures which lead teenage girls in the West to become anorexic. We live in a culture which is obsessed by appearance and in particular, appearance which conforms to gender ideals.

I found it interesting to have been reading the above book Teaching Men to be Feminist by Anne Dickson, in the same week that Conchita Wurst has been dominating the newspapers following Austria’s controversial Eurovision win. The fact that a human being has sported a dress and a beard simultaneously has caused outrage, and why? Because Wurst represents a fabulously disjointed gendering, queerness and confidence in being who he is. If feminism had really achieved all it had set out to, then Wurst’s appearance would not have caused such a stir in 2014. Anyone who believed we were in “Post-Feminist” times has got ahead of themselves.

 

Dickson’s book proved to be an incredibly interesting read; describing the effects of patriarchy as “psychological repercussions” – a term which I thought articulated my concerns perfectly. Such repercussions are felt by men as well as women, and Dickson cites the high suicide among Japanese men who can’t keep pace with society’s expectations on them as a key example of this. Sexism robs men of the right to sympathy when times are hard and links failure to succeed with a lack of masculinity.

 

Gender stereotyping is a deep-rooted and complex issue, so ingrained in the lives of many people that they rarely stop to consider it as anything alarming. But if you pop on a pair of feminist glasses for just a second, you will see just how damaging it is.

 

 

Dickson places a refreshing amount of responsibility on men, and suggests practical ways to address sexism: “One way men could challenge unthinking sexism is to talk about it: bring it out into the open” she says. Only once society is aware of what could be considered sexist, can there be any hope of eradicating it altogether. Men need to stop criticizing feminists before they give us a fair hearing and they need to speak up when they agree with us. If Emmeline Pankhurst had sat passively nodding to all that she thought was right, we would have no progress whatsoever.

 

Put bluntly, it is about time men played their part.

Dickson raises an incredibly interesting point about the way relationships between the sexes should be portrayed, arguing that we should be promoting “the kind of love associated with friendship” above the sex and lust which litters advertising campaigns throughout the Western hemisphere.

Respect for women as human beings, with a capacity for intellect and conversation is absolutely paramount to achieving this harmony between men and women. If you’re male, and a feminist – SAY SO for goodness sake! Be proud to hold respect for women.

 

During a recent holiday, I allowed myself a break from researching feminism (or so I thought), and chose Morrissey’s Autobiography as my read of choice. For me, Morrissey is somebody who has always represented a struggle to be heard above a loud and unforgiving majority, and I was excited to dive into the 500 or so pages of uninterrupted ramblings. And I wasn’t disappointed. I reached this quote, and sat bolt upright:

 

“Books on non-sexist language flip my life for the better, and I understand feminism to be a social saviour”

 

I closed the book to contemplate why I felt so surprised. As a huge Morrissey fan, I was aware of his passion for animal rights and loathing of Thatcher – but feminism? This was something of a discovery for me. It felt good to read that a man I had admired for so many years was passionate about feminism. It felt good to read that a man was able to recount times when he had felt like a victim of gender stereotyping.

 

 

Criticized for being “weird and unpenetrable” and praised for adopting a “beautiful, measured prose style”, Morrissey’s Autobiography might well have attracted mixed opinions, but for me it was a wonderfully honest and vivid memoir of an incredibly interesting life. Whatever your opinion of this man, feminism could do with more like him.