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.