Ridiculous Things I've Read in Women's Magazines

Women's magazines are trashy – everyone accepts this, right? You read them to look at celebrity bodies being dissected for the slightest bit of cellulite or to look at hideous clothes that rich people are wearing. You don't read them for searing social commentary, and so to judge them against such criteria when they're not trying to fit it would be unfair. Right?

The problem I have with this is that considering that the millions of readers that subscribe to magazines like More, Cosmo etc in the UK include millions of smart, competent women, I just haven't been able to work out why these magazines are so full of utter CRAP.

I'm not even really talking about all the fashion stuff, or the celebrity gossip – I'm sure there are people who like reading that as mindless fun even if I don't, and I don't want to generalise to all women. But so few of these magazines talk about anything 'real' that I wonder if it's not so much that they're giving women what they want from a magazine – fun, men, and fashion – but rather telling them that what they're giving them is what they want so repeatedly, that the line becomes blurred and everyone forgets how it all started.

That aside, the main problem I have is the hypocritical nature of these magazines. Cosmopolitan's byline declares itself for 'fun fearless females who want to be the best they can in every area of their lives'. I spent a while trawling through their website, and while I can see sex and fashion tips in abundance and more celebrities than I could shake a stick at, I fail to see anything much more substantial than that. Now, I know it can very reasonably be argued that if you don't like this sort of thing, then nobody is forcing you to read the magazine. Very true, excellent point. But I take issue with a magazine that apparently prides itself on catering to ALL areas of women's lives when it only caters to a few 'important' areas of some women's lives. Either it needs to admit that it's fallen short of its target by a LONG stretch, or it thinks that women's lives revolve solely around fashion and sex – and mostly around men.

Not only is that hugely insulting, it's also dangerous, particularly for younger, impressionable readers of the magazine. I could well be wrong, but I feel that in doing this, the magazine simply isn't acknowledging that there is far more to being a woman than knowing 156 sexual positions and knowing how to dress well – in short, knowing how to please a man. By basing their magazine on these things yet having a byline like the aforementioned one, and with only the cursory 'real life issue' thrown in occasionally, the magazine seems to imply that women wouldn't, or shouldn't, be concerned with anything beyond this. There are women-related issues that extend beyond bitching about celebrities. How about what we think about the shockingly low amount of female MPs? Or how the most recent benefit cuts have affected working women with children? These are issues that affect us, and by not acknowledging these, magazines that claim to be for the Everywoman insult our intelligence on a weekly basis. A survey found that over a quarter of women's magazine readers have strongly feminist viewpoints, and yet the magazines themselves don't reflect this at all.

These are some of the things I've read in magazines that I think best illustrate this point.

1) Cosmopolitan – 'It's more feminine if a girl wears a little make-up, it shows she cares about her appearance.' Ian, 26, quoted in an article on Cosmo online about 'What Guys Secretly Think Of Your Makeup'. It was then followed by how to achieve this look, as well as more male opinions on what women should wear.

Dear Ian, 26. Thanks for your input into this issue. I don't remember asking for it, but still, glad you shared. I'm so sorry I don't adhere to your perception of what a real 'feminine' woman is. I'll try and work on that, really I will. After all, if Cosmopolitan decides to quote a random guy saying 'women need to wear make-up' then really, my only hope for survival in this bitter cruel world is to try and please him. Really Cosmo? Take the opinion of any random guy off the street and then persuade women that they need to follow it? You're not even trying to PRETEND that women wear make-up for any other reason than to please a man. And actually, I bet if he'd said 'I actually don't think women should wear make-up, ever', you wouldn't have published him.

By the way Ian, while we're at it with wildly perpetuating stereotypes, I hope you won't be offended if I tell you that I think that all men should work out at least twice a day. It just makes them more 'masculine', you know? Lizzie, 23.

2) Cosmopolitan again – An article on sex tips for women included the sentence 'For him, the illusion of resistance [from the woman to having sex] will heighten his arousal.' Great. I know I definitely want to meet a guy who's turned on by women who are physically resisting him.

3) Cosmopolitan again – On their Life Advice page (of which at least 70% of the articles are about men, which is a slight improvement from the rest of the site, where it's probably over 90%) 'It may be tempting to contact a guy after an amazing date, but resist the urge.' Apparently it 'lessens the thrill of the chase for him.' Really, Cosmo, in 2011 are you still putting that about? If he can't handle a simple text message without freaking out, then he clearly has issues, and if he needs the thrill of the chase to stay interested, then dump the guy and buy him a fucking Snitch. 

4) Glamour magazine – Diane Kruger picture (above) – Do's and Don'ts - Caption 'DO let your curves do the talking'. Curves?! What curves? The woman looks like she hasn't eaten since 1993! And Christ, from the expression on her face, it's not through lack of hunger. Here's a tip, Glamour... DON'T hold up women like this on pedestals for what we should be trying to achieve, and furthermore DON'T have the nerve to call an emaciated woman 'curvy', when you know full well that any woman who weighs more than she does (read: everyone who actually eats more than a rabbit) will look at their own real 'curves' and hate themselves just a little bit more. It hardly presents a positive body image.

5) Seemingly every women's magazine – The word 'He' appears more times than the word 'You' Not only does this encourage women to think about what would make their partner happy more than what would make themselves happy, which is bad enough in my book and hardly encourages us to think for ourselves and be our own person – it completely excludes women who are single, particularly women who are single and perhaps aren't looking to date anyone. With articles in their hundreds entitled things like 'What HE thinks of your make-up', women who don't have a 'He' are automatically excluded, especially because they present the situation of having a 'He' as the 'norm', and therefore the thing to strive towards. What's more, anyone with same-sex preferences aren't even slightly given a look in, which once again excludes a section of women and divides our sex even further. Heterosexuality and having a boyfriend are still portrayed as the most normal and most important things in these magazines, and that just makes me sad. These aren't magazines that represent women fully, as much as they'd like to pretend they are. Women are much more complex and three dimensional than any of these glossy pictures and frothy articles give any of us credit for. I'm not at all saying that women shouldn't have partners and that magazines shouldn't acknowledge this; I'm simply saying that there is more to all of us than who we choose (or don't choose, in many cases) to date. And magazines should acknowledge that.

In addition to all of these ridiculous (and sometimes frankly bizarre) things that magazines tell us, there are even more harmful undertones, The attitudes towards weight loss and general appearance from women's magazines are appalling, and are one of the big reasons why it's been shown that women who read women's magazines tend to have lower self-esteem than women who don't. Perhaps they have lower self-esteem anyway, and read them for advice, only to have pictures of women who look like they need to be fed some cake shoved in their faces. And so the vicious cycle begins. Tons of adverts for cosmetic surgery to make you feel 'normal'. Make-up 'hints' in their hundreds. Articles entitled things like 'Lose that bit of tummy' or 'Tone up those thighs' alongside other articles on how obesity really isn't a laughing matter, it KILLS people. But most of the time, we're not talking about obesity. We're talking about normal women who weigh more than the stick-thin models with hunger trapped in their eyes that are plastered on every second page of these magazines and hailed as 'beautiful', making these women feel like they're not normal EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE. Lose that bit of tummy? Why the hell should you? I think what most women would like to lose (including myself) is that sickening feeling of looking in the mirror and feeling like they're not good enough. And that won't go away with 50 sit-ups a day and a juice-only diet – low self-esteem isn't related to being 'overweight', as the magazines would have us believe, it's related to not being happy in yourself.

For the most part, I try not to write about personal things on this blog, as I feel it detracts from more important issues and I don't want this to be all about me. But sometimes, using a personal example can be instructive. A year ago, I weighed at least half a stone less than I do now. While I berate myself for putting on this weight, and gaze wistfully at Facebook pictures where I was thinner (I know, pathetic), I have to take into account that this feeling of insecurity I have about my weight hasn't sprung up out of nowhere. I had it last year, when I was much thinner. And about 2 years before that, when I was around a UK size 6 for a while. I still wasn't happy, not to mention I looked pale and drawn. So I'm forced to conclude, really, that whatever my size, I will only ever really be happy with how I look when I stop worrying about it and accept that I am who I am, which is nigh-on impossible if I compare myself to these women in magazines that feed off our insecurities. This, unfortunately, is much easier said than done.

It doesn't matter how much weight we lose, or really how many new skin routines we try or how much fancy make-up we buy that's guaranteed to 'change us', that feeling will always be there as long as we subscribe to the impossible beauty ideals put before us in the media, and as long as those magazines insist on putting these ideals on a pedestal and hailing them as a common goal that we should all be striving towards. These magazines don't promote individuality, or celebrate the beauty of all the female forms, no matter what they say. They promote one very specific type of 'beauty', and leave the rest of us who don't conform to this out in the cold, desperate to be accepted for who we are. The only way of losing this is for magazines to woman the hell up, stop exacerbating insecurities, be on OUR side for once and embrace the not-so-radical notion that beauty comes in many forms, and that nobody should have to change who they are to be accepted. In short, as Kat Banyard comments in her book The Equality Illusion, they need to stop 'picking the wound and then selling us the plaster'. 

Harry Potter and the Strive for Gender Equality... Part 2.

The main thing about this series that makes it strike such a blow for equality is that in Rowling's fantasy world, there IS no gender imbalance. Nobody is ever penalised, pigeon-holed or stigmatised because of their sex, male OR female. Gender is never used as an excuse for someone not being able to do something, or contrarily, for someone being more able to do something. As improbable as that may sound to us in our society that enforces gender divides, within the context of her books, it works. So, take out the magic and the robes and spells … Why shouldn't it work for us too?

Being a male in these books doesn't afford you any more privileges or special powers than being a woman does. There are two important factors in her books that illustrate this, involving two huge parts of her society that are paralleled in our own. Violence, and sport. These are two large elements in our society that are used to illustrate and perpetuate gender 'norms' and stereotypes, and yet conversely don't perform the same function in these books. The method of fighting in Rowling's world using magic involves using wands, and isn't dependent on physical strength, but rather skill and prowess. Men fight women, women fight women, men fight men, and that's just the way it is. There is never a suggestion that a woman would be less capable at this than a man, and as such, there is no visible gender divide. When you compare this with our society, and you see how prevalent violence, or even just the threat of violence, is, it is easy to see how gender stereotypes and therefore inequality have persevered. This is also the case with Quidditch, the sport of the Wizarding world. Mixed gender sports are extremely rare, even in sports where the one advantage that men often have over women due to their body types, upper body strength, is not a factor. It's become commonplace to divide sports by gender under the guise of being 'fairer', yet really all it does is create a bigger inequality gap. In the fictional sport of Quidditch, being male doesn't afford you any advantage over women. All the teams Rowling creates are mixed gender, and this is once again presented as common-place. The issue of a female playing against a male is never even problematised, because really, why should it be? If two players have equal skill levels and competence, why should gender even be an issue? 

A friend of mine correctly pointed out that her society is still patriarchal to the extent that the positions of power are, for the most part, occupied by men. I think it's important to recognise this, as it shows that this series definitely isn't 100% focused on complete gender equality, as mentioned in my previous post. As much as I think it would have been nice to see a woman at the top for once, I think that it matters less in these books than in others because these positions of power are not glamourised, or even explored very deeply. In fact, often the idea of power itself is associated with greed, and therefore the positions of power are not seen as things to aspire to, but rather things to avoid. So I think it's less of an issue than it might have been if they WERE glamourised that they aren't occupied by women. The point of these books is not somebody (our protagonist) trying to ascend to a position of power; it's somebody trying to live a normal life. Although the political backdrop to this is important, I don't feel it's as prevalent as the human issues that are being discussed, especially when we consider that it's a children's book. I think these are the things that will stay with the readers more.

Rowling also does a great job of characterising a male lead character who has to deal with enormous upset and grief in his life. By getting inside his head and verbalising all the thoughts he has about his feelings towards death, being an orphan, being singled out to defeat the Dark Lord (we've all been there, mate), Rowling presents us with a male character that actually identifies with his emotions, even if he is only doing so because she is pulling the strings. But still, by doing this, she makes it 'okay' to verbalise feelings and discuss issues, something that would impact positively on her younger male readership, making them realise that discussing problems or expressing emotions is not a sign of weakness. It defies the male stereotypes that pervade our society of not discussing or dealing with emotions. This is NOT an inherent trait in men, biological and unavoidable; it's the result of self-perpetuated social conditioning and therefore can be prevented fairly easily if children are given the correct information early enough in life to stop themselves forming a pattern in their behaviour.

I work with children aged 5 through to 11, and I have to say that in the younger children, there is no gender divide over which children get more upset and express this through crying or telling the teacher; I would say it's around 50/50. But as the children get older, the gender divide in terms of expressing emotions becomes much more pronounced, so that by the time they are 9 or upwards, it is much MUCH more usual to see a girl crying because something has upset her, and to see a boy, having perhaps suffered a similarly distressing situation, internalise the feeling and become sullen or moody. As you can see, the result isn't the child is NOT upset, it's that he deals with it differently. On the occasions where boys have cried in my older classes, the atmosphere changes to one of palpable astonishment quickly, whereas when girls cry, although attention is drawn to them, it's never for very long, and it's never usually particularly negative. What's perhaps worse, is that sometimes I've seen the same child, after choosing to internalise his feelings rather than discuss them, react in an unnecessarily violent manner in order to express himself somehow, either immediately or shortly afterwards. And furthermore, what's even worse is that I see myself and other teachers subconsciously buying into this; being more surprised when a boy cries, or reacting differently to when a girl does. This is not the way to treat the problem. The impact of this social conditioning on these kids' lives is much more serious than it's recognised to be. We are harming these children by allowing them to believe that because of their gender, they must act in a certain way. They will grow up believing that they have to subscribe to the normative role of the heterosexual man, and if they don't – if they're not physically strong, or show their emotions by crying – then they have failed. Rowling, by contrast, normalises the expressions of feelings without attaching them to a particular gender. It's made even more normal and perhaps easy to relate to when we consider the fact that it isn't presented as the easiest thing in the world to do; Harry finds it a struggle, which leads me to my next point.

One of the strongest undercurrents of the book is the idea, which is consequently problematised, of facing challenges alone. A huge part of Harry's 'personal journey' (if it can be referred to as such in a kid's book) is that he has to face a lot of his hardships alone, as one by one people around him die. However, true to Rowling's theme of friendship, he ends up realising that there are some things he doesn't have to do alone, and that being strong isn't always about going solo. Rowling makes his friends indispensable to him, and fully active in his eventual victory. Cheesy, perhaps, and not that original in the grand context of themes of books, but when you consider that this is a children's book it becomes very important. A character that kids have spent 7 long books relating to embraces the fact that strength can come in more than just the physical form, and that asking for help and even needing people is not a weakness. This is not only something beneficial for kids to learn, it's absolutely paramount. It also, incidentally, goes against many of the existing (untrue) gender stereotypes about men that children are completely surrounded by – that they are alpha males, strong, who don't need help from anyone. Rowling creates a personable, likeable, fallible and physically pretty weak hero (she makes constant allusions to how weedy he is) that ends up victorious in his battle because he embodies the exact opposites of these stereotypes. Rowling inverts these social 'norms' in order to make one of the most popular literary characters of recent years, that could benefit her male readership as much as her female one.

One thing about the world that Rowling has created that might explain the lack of gender inequality is that there are too many divides – Muggle vs Wizard, Half-blood vs Pure-Blood, etc - for gender to factor in as well. But... isn't that the case in real life too? Aren't there far too many obstacles in EVERYONE's way every day without gender, and the social baggage that comes with it, being yet another hurdle you have to throw yourself across?

The only way to dispel illusions and stereotypes about men AND women that are harmful to both sexes is by teaching children when they are young enough that their gender does not have to define who they are, what they can do, and who they can be. And Rowling's series is a definite stepping stone towards encouraging children that gender, theirs or anyone else's, does not have to be a shackle.

Harry Potter and the Strive for Gender Equality... Part 1.

Forgive me the whimsical title, it made me giggle.

So. Harry Potter. I know you may not all be huge fans of the books, but I doubt many of you would disagree with the fact that (for better or worse) they have truly made their mark on both the literary world and the world of children's fiction within the past few years. With countless millions (I can't find the exact figure for some reason, if anyone knows it, please help me out!) of copies of the books being sold world-wide, Harry Potter has been undoubtedly far-reaching and successful, and the fandom craze it has created for the fictional wizarding world is testament to how influential these books have been on kids' lives. The thousands of children queuing up to buy the books on their release days in full wizarding garb is perhaps a key example of that. And maybe this is all for the better too, as Rowling explores important themes of love, loss, strength and friendship in her books, without ever patronising her young readership.

But many books explore these themes, so perhaps Rowling isn't that original in that respect, although her portrayal of them would be justifiably described as such. My argument, however, is that the Harry Potter series is one of the only series of its kind and success that strikes a blow for gender equality. And I mean gender equality, not necessarily just feminism. Men and women could both come off the better from their treatment in her books.

One of the ways she does this is by creating real, solid characters, in a believable 360 degree world. Her writing extends far further than the page it's written on, and as a reader, you rarely feel that there are parts of the world that she's forgotten to colour in. By refusing to revert to stereotypes of gender or otherwise in her writing, rather choosing to favour in-depth characterisation, Rowling makes it easy for you to believe as a reader that there is nothing 'inherent' about male or female traits. Men and women, when they are born, are inherently nothing other than human. All the rest comes afterwards.

Our hero is male. One might have thought that to really make a statement about gender equality, the lead character would need to be female, or otherwise perhaps characterised negatively? But we've already said that Rowling isn't consciously writing feminist fiction, and there are ways other than the obvious to make a point. For instance, despite the fact that the main character is male (or perhaps because of this), some of the strongest characters in the books are female – for example, Hermione, Professor McGonagall and Ginny, to name but a few – and their specific characterisation challenges stereotypes about women that have come to be accepted as truth. Hermione, for instance, is portrayed as competent, logical, brave, strong, perceptive and incredibly intelligent, and her role in the story is such that as a reader, you feel that there is no way Harry would be able to survive without her. She embodies a range of traits that are seen as male-oriented (such as extreme logic) and female-oriented (emotionally perceptive). By choosing to throw all these qualities in together, Rowling creates a REAL character – one who is undeniably female, but is never constrained by her sex. There is no sense of her striving to be more masculine in order to be of use, and equally, her looks (which women are taught from a young age to be one of their most valuable assets, or conversely, their biggest curse – more on that another time) rarely come into the equation. They are referred to occasionally, but never in conjunction with her value as a person, and certainly never as a measure of it. She is a character based solely on her merit as a human being, not as a girl.

This may all sound a little heavy, but think about the images young girls are bombarded with consistently by the Hollywood media, for example. Pretty girl is pretty, gets boyfriend. Ugly girl is ugly, has no boyfriend or social life, but then miraculously GETS pretty, so gets boyfriend. Her life is complete. Something to aspire to girls! Girl is career-focused, but never realised that all that she REALLY wanted was a boyfriend. Her life is complete. Ugly girl is intelligent – her saving grace! Thank god, THAT might get her a boyfriend. Pretty, intelligent, career-focused girl – labelled a bitch, because apparently women actually can't have it all. Any diversion from this barrage of stereotypes, in my book, counts as a blessing.

Similarly, Ginny is portrayed as a fiery red-head; kind, impetuous, as brave as all of her brothers, and just as competent. These qualities are only reinforced as positive in the eyes of the reader when she ends up with Harry towards the end of the series (oh so inevitable) – the hero of the books chooses a strong woman, who can fight as well as he can, yet again, never tries to assume a masculine persona. He's not threatened by confident women. Good for him. And good for Rowling.

Professor McGonagall, meanwhile, remains a strong, constant presence throughout the books; fearless, kind and incredibly intelligent. And apparently pretty old. She definitely serves as a reminder that a woman's uses are by no means attached to her youthful beauty. Her looks are never really referred to, but her age is, and yet the impression you're given is not of an aging woman past her prime, but of a woman whose intelligence and knowledge has only deepened with age.

What's more, Rowling doesn't highlight these characters the way one might if you were trying to show how gender-equal you are being. There is no sense of 'LOOK! She's a girl AND she can fight! Who'd have thought?!' She normalises their traits and their contexts, and portrays these things as standard, which of course, in real life, they are, even if they aren't recognised as such. In some ways, there's more of a sense of reality in this elaborately created fantasy world than there is in many 'real-life' novels. How ironic. In terms of gender balance, I mean, I'm not just slightly delusional.

For young girls to read this and realise, even subconsciously, that there are no differences between the sexes in terms of competence, and that their gender does not have to shackle them to being any particular way, no matter what society is telling them, is incredibly important. And in the same way, for boys to read this and to see the exact same thing is equally as important. I may be naïve, but while we lament the phenomenons that spring up around us from these sorts of books, I personally will be hoping that children (and even maybe adults...?) will be taking more away from these books than simply learning a few words of Latin and memorising the hand-movements for Wingardium Leviosa.

I never did that, by the way. Just to clarify.

Part 2 coming soon.

Rowling, writing and gender equality

Firstly, on a personal note, I have been make-up-free (I sound like I should be at some sort of meeting) for about 3 and a half weeks, and I am proud to say I haven't relapsed. Oh, there have been many times when I have hugely regretted the self-important decision to be make-up-free, particularly on a weekend jaunt to London to see some friends after 5 hours sleep and a 2 hour early morning plane-ride. And some days I think, weeeell surely a little lip gloss doesn't count...? Then I stop myself. Or I look in the mirror and shriek a little, scaring my poor flatmate (I'm only semi-joking). But just because something's difficult doesn't mean it isn't worth doing, and I've become much more used to being bare-faced now. I actually think it's making me more relaxed in general about my appearance and what people think of me, which is definitely a nice change. So, on Easter Sunday, will the first thing I do be to slap on some make-up? Who knows...

I mentioned in one of my earlier posts that I wanted this blog to be as much, or more, about recognising the support that there is for the gender equality movement as it is about highlighting the inequalities that exist in our society. I also said that this support can come in many ways, some that don't even superficially appear to be about gender equality. But they're still playing a significant role.

If somebody says 'feminist writer', there are of course key names that spring to mind. Simone de Beauvoir, Germaine Greer, Judith Butler. But of course, one does not have to write overtly about feminism to be a feminist writer – in fact, there are definite advantages to having a more covert feminist agenda when writing, as you can perhaps get your point across without setting off any 'feminist' alarm bells in any nay-sayers' heads. You can avoid any 'negative' labels and still say what you want to say, perhaps even more successfully.

So... J. K. Rowling. Probably not a name you'd find written on a list of all-time great feminist writers, as to my knowledge, she hasn't written any feminist discourse. For those of you who have been living under rocks for the past 10 years, she is the author of the famed Harry Potter series, and progressed from being extremely poor to having a mult-millionaire status within about 5 years. In addition to her wealth, she's received various accolades, including being named 'Most Influential Woman of the Year' by magazine editors in October 2010, and gave the Harvard commencement speech to Harvard graduates last year. Rowling is open about the fact that she had to depend on the welfare state for survival after the breakdown of her first marriage, and says that one of the reasons she chooses to still live in England rather than running off to another country like many wealthy tax-dodgers have done is because she is, as she says, 'indebted to the British Welfare State' (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7096786.ece?token=null&offset=12&page=2 ). She is a guest columnist for the Times, and a notable philanthropist, being the president of the charity One Parent Families. And a mother. Basically, she's pretty bloody awesome, and a pertinent example of the many women out there who have undergone huge hardships and risen to success – even if the difference is perhaps more markedly extreme in her case than in many others.

However, it's not only for the fact that she's a strong, confident, independent, successful, humanitarian woman that I consider her such a good role-model for women (and indeed people) everywhere. It's for her writing too. I know few people would consider the Harry Potter series a work of feminist fiction, and perhaps they're not. But that doesn't mean they can't have influential undertones for young readers, as I want to discuss in my following post. Writing has often been thought of as holding up a mirror to society, and also something that can truly effect change. Thousands of writers have written about social or political situations, allegorically or otherwise, both to inform and to inspire change. To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee, for example, was published in 1960 and deals with the extremely prevalent situations of the epoque of racial injustice in America.  

This view of writing is particularly pertinent when we consider children's books, and the fact that Rowling is a children's author. The books that children read when they are young have the potential to be incredibly influential on their lives. Children aren't born with preconceived ideas about anything – about race, about gender, about the world in general. They're like small, excited, talking sponges, who soak up the views of those closest to them, particularly if they're someone they really look up to. I work in a primary school in Madrid, and I've constantly heard children parroting what I can only assume to be the views of their parents or other family members, or perhaps something they've heard on television. In any case, these opinions aren't their own, they have simply adopted them as their own as they've heard them come out of the mouth of someone they respect, and therefore believe them to be true. And as they get older, they may not question these opinions, and assume that the reason that they believe them is because they ARE true. And then they have children. And so it continues. Someone recently patronisingly told me that 'gender roles just are what they are. There are just some things that men are better at than women and vice versa. I've never met a woman who wants to do yard work, for example'. As much as this annoyed me, I had to bite my tongue and remember that this (uninformed) opinion was probably just something he heard when he was growing up, and has never thought to question. That doesn't make it right though. And I had to look up exactly what yard work was. But I digress.

However, it cuts both ways, because as much as children can adopt bigoted and harmful viewpoints when they are young, they are also just as willing to adopt more liberal, accepting ones, and writing is something that can truly help to do that. Even if a child is hearing from their parents that the world is a certain way, we can hope that if they read a book that gives them a different opinion that some of that information may worm its way into their head and stay there, even if they don't realise it at the time. This is why educating children properly is so important for the future of equality of ANY type in our society. It is the only way we will ever truly combat racism, sexism or any other form of prejudice. Education (in a literary form too) is the best tool we have for social reform, so it's important that we use it properly.

To be continued.

On a personal note...

So, today is the first day of Lent, and although I´m not a religious person, I often try (and usually fail) to give up something every year. There was the year of not eating chocolate - that lasted a few days - and the year of not being mean to people - that was over even faster. I wondered if I´m just not somebody who´s particularly able to deal with committing to something for a sustained period of time? My short attention span would definitely attest to that.

I also wondered about WHAT to give up.. I didn´t think giving up meat or sweets were particularly what I wanted to do; I knew that after six weeks, I´d probably start eating them again and that would be that, the endeavour would have been pointless. 

This year, I´ve decided to give up wearing make-up. This sounds even more like a cop-out and much less of a big deal than giving up meat, to be honest, but for some reason the thought of not wearing ANY make-up for six weeks scared the crap out of me, much more than the thought of not eating meat. I don´t wear that much make-up really, only if I´m going somewhere special, or if I feel particularly self-conscious about how I look. After doing some research into perception of body image and its relation to self-esteem, I´ve been wondering how make-up comes into this. This isn´t a crusade against cosmetics - I definitely feel that that comes down to personal choice, and that they have their place - but I wonder if the wearing, or not wearing of make-up, can affect somebody´s self-esteem - and, more importantly, in which way? Adverts constantly tell us that if we look good, we´ll feel good. But if I only look good (and therefore feel good) because I´ve spent an hour putting 7 layers of crap on my face, is it really worth it? If I come to terms with how I look naturally, without depending on anything to make me look better, can I cut the thread, MY thread, that holds self-esteem and cosmetic dependence together?

The thought of going out clubbing, or to a party where all my friends would be looking glamourous while I´m shamelessly bare-faced, is a terrifying one. But that´s why I want to do it - I want to see if I have the strength to just be me, plain old big-nosed, pale-skinned me, for six weeks, maybe longer. And I actually wonder if this may inform my social behaviour too - will I find it easier to just be myself if I´m not hiding behind layers of make-up? Will I, in fact, take strength from the fact that I´m not using make-up as a buffer anymore, if that is the way I use it? Or will I just bow my head more often, and try not to look anyone in the eye for the next six weeks? Who knows. We´ll see how I get on.

So, world, this is my face. Guess you´re just going to have to deal with it.

A woman can stall the progress of gender equality as much as any man...

Madeleine K. Albright said that 'There is a special place in hell for women who don't help other women'. Solidarity as regards to feminism is something that is often contested - do we need to stand together, or can we show how capable women are by simply succeeding on our own as individuals? (This post is extremely long, I apologise!)

I thought of this as I read an article recently by Tanya Gold in the Guardian which discusses a report written called 'Feminist Myths and Magic Medicine: The flawed thinking behind calls for further equality legislation' by Catherine Hakim, which argues that equality legislation is no longer relevant in our society. The article (which can be found here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/08/tanya-gold-equality-legislation) disagrees with the report entirely, saying that the gender divide in 2011 is as prevalent and as important as ever.  

Now, I can't find the actual report to read itself; my trawling on Google leads me to believe that I'll have to buy it, and to be honest, I don't see it as worth it. As a result, I obviously don't know as much about the report as I would if I'd read it myself. As such though, I'll only use direct quotes that Gold has used from the report to back up what I'm trying to say, as although I agree for the most part with Gold's article, one could easily claim that she's biased. The point of Hakim's report seems to be that equality legislation has worked, and as such, should now be abandoned as it has no place in the society of 2011. Hmmm. Really, Hakim? Let's see...

Hakim makes the point that "Few women aspire to be engineers or soldiers and few men choose to be nursery teachers and beauticians[...]" Factually, in terms of numbers of people employed in these jobs, she may be correct, I expect (or rather hope) that she's done her research there. However, quoting a statistic or a number gives no indication of any sort of context, cause, or effect. She puts men and women into two different categories without even pausing to think about the deeper sociological reasons WHY this may be the case. Hakim seems to subscribe to the generally accepted view of 'natural difference'; that there are some things that men and women are 'just better at', or 'just more inclined to' – a theory that doesn't hold water once examined at close proximity, which I want to discuss at a later date.

"We cannot assume that a low percentage of women in higher-grade jobs is due primarily to sex discrimination." Fair enough, Hakim, we cannot assume this. But if you're suggesting that women gravitate towards lower-paid jobs 'by choice', then you clearly don't think much of your own sex. I accept that some women do not necessarily crave the power or responsibility of high-paid executive jobs – I myself have never particularly wanted to follow that path. But once again, she refuses to look beyond the statistic itself and to examine the reasons why it is this way.

An example – not to be generalised, but as a specific case in point. The 'Women in Law' website claims that 'The number of female trainees represents about 60% of lawyers in UK private practice. Yet, only 45% of solicitors (‘Solicitors’) with practising certificates are female and only 21% of partners are women. ' Also, 'only eight of the top 50 UK firms (by revenue) have 25% or more female partners '. Here we can see a vast difference between the percentage of female lawyers that there are, and the amount that make it into higher-grade positions such as partnerships. I'm sure Hakim would not wish to openly suggest that these women who train as lawyers who don't go on to become partners, or don't even go on to become qualified 'don't have what it takes'. And it could be argued that some of these female lawyers perhaps don't wish to become partners in their firms; I wouldn't wish to generalise to all women by saying that every female lawyer would want to be a partner. However, I don't believe that that can account for the magnitude of the difference in percentages. This is particularly true when you consider that they are progressing to a job, albeit with more responsibility and stress I'm sure, that is nevertheless in the same field. There is no reason that would suggest that these women wouldn't want to progress as high as they could, having already acquired many of the relevant skills. No reason, that is, unless you take into account the glass ceiling and sexism in the workplace, meaning that more men are promoted above women, and possibly more commonly and more dangerously, the implicit societal ideals about women that could perhaps make perfectly competent female lawyers think that they don't have what it takes, and result in them standing in their own way. Clever, as it masquerades as choice, and it's much harder to pin the blame on society than it is on an individual perpetrator.

Once again, Hakim refuses to believe that women are doing anything that isn't completely out of choice. But would she be gauche enough to say that these women, who statistically outnumber men as trainees, simply aren't as intelligent as their male counter-parts, and THAT is why they don't progress? I sincerely hope not, or the problem is worse than I thought. Therefore, though she fails to recognise it, there must be more to it than that.

She also claims that the gender pay gap is 'as low as 10%'. Okay, cheers Hakim, lower than we thought (although evidence from the Fawcett Society suggests it to be over 15%). However, her point seems to be that we shouldn't be complaining about this, as it's not a big a deal as we thought. However, it is the principle of the gender pay gap that is wrong; it's not just women being 'petty' and fighting over small change, the issue goes much deeper than that.

A little information about the author - Catherine Hakim is a former civil servant, and a Senior Research Fellow of Sociology at the London School of Economics, and has published many revered papers on various aspects of sociology, including women's place in society today. She has undoubtedly worked hard to get to the high-up position that she's in, and I don't doubt her intelligence at all. But after researching her report, I feel that she doubts ours.

Hakim doesn't believe there to be anything standing in the way any longer for women in the workplace, and that sexism in the workplace is no longer an 'excuse'. Equality legislation has done as much as it can; the sexes are just different, and this is why things are like this. We have to accept that things are the way they are, and that they've improved from what the used to be like, so really, we should just be grateful. This argument is almost akin to saying 'Well, racism is nowhere near as prevalent as it used to be, so really, shouldn't we just be happy with the progress we've made and leave it at that?' The world would, rightly, be in outrage if someone said this, but I feel that Hakim's point isn't all that different.

The worst thing about this report, I think, is that it's written by a woman. This may sound petty, and I would still be complaining about the report if a man had written it, believe me, but I feel that this report will be taken more seriously because it was written by a woman, and at the same time, essentially denounces any need for present-day feminism in regards to the workplace. I feel that Hakim is perhaps one of many women who believe that because there are so few women 'at the top' (a subjective place), there is no room for the sort of socialist feminism that Gloria Steinem advocated.

It takes one woman to separate herself from the crowd and say 'I don't believe in this' for progress to start grinding to a halt and for people to start questioning: 'Well, if she's a woman and she doesn't think there's any need, then maybe we should think again...' I've heard it said that one of the best ways to conquer a group of people is to divide them and set them against each other. Hakim, through this report, has only served to make that divide even clearer by separating herself from the group and essentially saying 'Stop whining. It's every woman for herself'. While I agree with the concept of taking charge of one's life, I cannot agree with the sentiment when she is so willing to accept that society is fine the way it is.

Hakim, in your mind you may be a sociologist first and a woman second, but don't screw the rest of us over because you got where you wanted. As patronising as you seem to think solidarity is, spite engenders spite, and you never know when there might be another woman who thinks the same way that you do waiting behind you to trip you up and take your job, all because of the Thatcherite individualism that you advocated.

I understand the fact that many women think like Hakim, and probably don't think that any sort of feminist action concerns them; that they can make it on their own with their own skills, and therefore won't associate themselves with anything like this. And I have no doubt that some women are lucky enough to be able to succeed on their talents alone. But nobody in this world exists in a vacuum, and while a few women may succeed on their own merits without coming up against any glass ceilings, the statistics speak for themselves, and there are thousands of equally qualified and experienced and intelligent women who aren't so lucky, and yet deserve to be. A few people managing to slip past the net does not disprove gender discrimination.

We all want the same thing in the end, regardless of gender – to be taken seriously, as human beings, and for our gender not to be ignored, but not to define who we are entirely. And if we all want the same thing, the only way that it can be achieved on a mass scale is if we all, as individuals, men included, choose to stand up and say in our own way,  'We are more than just our gender'. 

A woman is not all I am, but it is part of it, and a part that I refuse to ignore. 

A footnote...

I started this blog on Monday. It's now Wednesday evening. And over the past 2 days, I've thought countless times about just deleting it altogether, and denying all evidence that it ever existed. Not only does that make me insane, and possibly ever so slightly bi-polar, it also makes me a massive hypocrite. I thought about deleting it because I temporarily lost faith in my own opinion - not in the opinion itself, I'm far too arrogant to do that, but in the publicizing of it. I even went so far as to imagine possible thoughts of anonymous readers: Oh good, another woman thinks the world is unfair, brilliant. She doesn't have a clue what she's talking about; she's a clueless, naive, sheltered little girl, fresh from the womb of university, unknowingly ignorant and thinking she has all the answers to the world's problems... 

Then I got a grip on myself.

One of the points I made in my first post was that this issue isn't talked about enough, which is why it's so easy for people to brush it under the carpet; we, as a society, are not fighting hard enough to drag it back out into the cold light of day again. So, not only would I NOT be helping the cause to write one blog post about the subject then hastily delete it out of fear of only potential critics, I would also be an incredible hypocrite to stop writing about something for a pathetic personal reason, when I've already said that this issue is so much bigger than all of us. I knew it must be difficult to write about a subject that nobody else will touch; to beat your own path and be a pioneer. I never thought, however, that writing about a well-known subject (and it IS well-known, even if its gravity isn't always acknowledged) would feel just as intimidating; it comes with an ominous feeling that nothing you write will ever quite hit the mark, or be as good as what has preceded it. But the upshot of this is, if you can't trust your own opinion about a subject you're incredibly passionate about enough to share it with people, you clearly don't have enough faith in yourself. And if you don't have faith in yourself, you don't have a lot. And it's for this reason that I (wo)manned the hell up.

Another point I wanted to make was about the title of this blog. '(Wo)man up' is hardly the most original title, I agree. I chose it because I've been a 'linguist' (pffft, in the loosest sense of the word, I'd love to consider myself one though) for a number of years, and I've studied and been fascinated by the impact of sexism as both a cause and consequence of language, particularly in Romance languages that have genders, such as French and Spanish. And although English doesn't have genders in the same way that these languages do, it too has its inherent sexist undertones, which I believe serve as one of the root causes in the implicit sexism of our society today - though I digress. It's always irritated me that all the colloquial phrases to do with putting up with hard times and being strong are associated with masculinity - i.e. 'man up', 'strap on a pair', 'he must have balls to do that', 'take it like a man', etc etc. There are no equivalent phrases to do with women, as it's simply accepted now that men are the strong ones, showing a ridiculously unfounded gender bias in our supposedly gender neutral language. It hardly needs to be said, but women have proven themselves time and time again to be as strong as men, and as willing to put up with things as men - often silently, which obviously affords them no praise for this, and has resulted in masculinity edging out as being the 'stronger' gender. 

'There hasn't been anything invented yet, including war, that a man would enter into, that a woman wouldn't too.' (Will Rogers)

Hence, 'woman up' - the implications of which are, be like a woman and deal with it properly. If I wanted to do a complete inversion of sexism I COULD start saying 'man up' when I really mean 'don't deal with this rationally, ignore the root cause of the problem and go hit someone; in fact, even better, start a war! Quickly!' But then I'd be adhering to stereotypes and we don't want that, do we? Fair enough, this phrase isn't as catchy, and deciding to slightly change a phrase like that for your own personal use could be akin to polishing ash trays on the Titanic. But all change starts as small change.

Another point I feel I need to clarify is that despite the apparently slightly gloomy, fatalistic, 'we're all going to die' tone of my last post (definitely not intentional), I don't want this blog to be a breeding ground for angry thoughts, or a list of negative points about men, society and the world in general. Yes, I want to draw attention to the issues, both big and small, that face women every day because I don't feel they are given enough attention or weight. But another point of this blog is also to bring to people's attention the little things, so small that they may go unnoticed, that happen every day to show me that there IS hope for equality and feminism; that this isn't a lost cause. They are definitely there, and I think an important step in the fight for equality is to assess what we already have and take stock; apart from anything else, it forces us to examine our surroundings, and to see that there is a sense of solidarity there within our actions, even if we haven't perhaps realised it yet. This blog will be about negative reflection only to the extent that it can fuel positive reaction and action.

I believe that feminism comes in countless forms in innumerable places; we just need to tune in, to learn where to look for them and to perceive them in the right way. I also believe that in addition to the fantastic feminist leaders we've come to recognise as pioneers of the cause - Gloria Steinem, Simone de Beauvoir, etc - feminists, as I said in my previous post, can come from anywhere and be anyone. Just because they're not fighting the battle on the academic front doesn't make their contribution any less valuable; in a world as diverse as ours, there are countless ways to stand up for women's rights, each as unique and important as the last. 

More on that story later.