Labels Against Women

The fact that I will probably be paid less, for doing the same jobs as a man never fails to anger me. Or that you are always judged for the way you do things as the way 'a women' does it, not you specifically. 

Shocked Monks

(Image is from http://scorpiondagger.tumblr.com .)

Hollie McNish, Some Brilliant Spoken Word

One about immigration and ignorance

'Cupcakes and Scones'

Okay, Now, you need to watch these two (the one above, Flo Rider- Whistle (but muted)) and below with the sound on. You'll realise why when you do it.

Thatcher: Individualism, Not Feminism

Daphne and I are from up North. Which automatically means that we will most likely not like Thatcher very much. At our high school we had one particular teacher who despised Thatcher, because he had been a miner during the cuts, and had to become a maths teacher, so you feel for him really. But he was a moody twat.

Yes a woman becoming Prime Minister was a huge step forward for feminism, but her policies did not align with most feminist ideology. She said she owed nothing to women's lib and was against childcare for the purpose of allowing mothers to work. The opinion held by some is that she was a pioneer, to quote U.S. President Barack Obama: 'She stands as an example to our daughters that there is no glass ceiling that can’t be shattered'.

But she broke the glass ceiling by proving women can be just as awful leaders as men. In 11 years, Thatcher promoted only one woman to her cabinet, preferring instead to elevate men whom Spitting Image memorably and, in certain instances, accurately, described as "vegetables". It has been said that although she 'broke the glass ceiling,' she pulled the ladder up with her. She was not supportive of women, when Edwina Currie approached Thatcher in 1988 to get approval for the world's first national breast-screening program she tried to appeal to the PM initially "as a woman" but that swiftly proved unsuccessful. So instead: "I put it to her that we would be saving money." That did the trick. Just because she was a woman doesn't mean that she is the beacon of women  in politics, instead, she taught us that there is such thing as 'individualism', she supported herself as a individual, not women nation-wide. As Hadley Freeman comments: 'Women aren't always good for other women because the gender of a person matters a lot less than that person's actual beliefs. I am reminded of this every time the debate comes up about whether more female bylines would reduce sexism in the media. Yet the Daily Mail has more female bylines than any other UK paper and is not exactly a totem of gender equality and female-friendliness.' Similarly, The Sun runs a feature with Katie Price, that doesn't mean that because they have a whole two pages dedicated to KP's thoughts, that they respect the opinions of women.

Don't forget she called Nelson Mandela a "terrorist" because she supported the South African apartheid (The Guardian). Thatcher was only great as an example against the argument that if the world were run by women it would be full of puppies and hugs and FEELINGS. People should not care that she was a woman or the first female prime minister. She was simply a prime minister who  happened to be a woman.

I wholeheartedly agree with all of this. Can I just add that my mother spent a good twenty minutes ranting yesterday about how she hated Thatcher but she could not for the life in her remember why, she just knew it was a deep seated hatred, and this appeared to bother her throughout the day. A LOT. 

Good Points: She was part of the team that developed soft-serve ice cream: http://www.mrwhippyicecream.co.uk/the-history-of......

Want more? Russel Brand has written a great article

'Chick Lit' is Psychologically Damaging

With Daphne and Dorothy

Chick Lit seems to be looked down on by  the literacy community, but also now, it turn out it's psychologically bad for you also. In a recent The Pacific Standard a new study that suggested chick lit is causes women to feel shit about themselves. The study, published in the journal Body Image, asked a group of 159 women to read one of two excerpts researchers manipulated in terms of the character’s weight, wardrobe and kinds of comments she makes to herself, and others, about her body. Afterwards, participants answered questions having to do with their own weight and sexual allure.

The results were that women felt considerably more crappy about their bodies when their protagonist was overweight and making negative comments about herself. Hence the idea that, “Chick-lit is hazardous to women’s health.” But I think a major problem with this is that the study was an except, not the ending of a chick lit book, which in said genre is invariably satisfying, and may make you feel positive about your well being, as you will still be relating to the character you having formed a connection with them. So really, I think this study was a little bit bullshitty. 

In my own life however, I find that I'm embarrassed to read such books, psychologically damaging or otherwise. I like to read 'chick lit', and enjoy balancing it out with 'heavier' books plus I find a good, relatively light book, such as those of Sophie Kinsella, Meg Cabot, Lauren Weisberger and such a to be a nice contribution to my reading life. But I get embarrassed when I read these books in public. The Chick Lit books that I read defiantly fall under 'read in the privacy of my home, or on a kindle' section, (the shame of reading a book with the word 'shopaholic' in the title I suppose). Why am I ashamed?  The genre is called a 'guilty pleasure', a term so often used by people in relation to the trashy novels and t.v shows we actually love, but shouldn't really be admitting to enjoying. It’s because we’re made to feel like we need to be consuming things that are more 'intelligent'. I don't want people presuming that because I'm reading that 'fluffy' book today that I am not intelligent, reasonable person. I promise, I'll be able to tell the difference between tortoises and  turtles and still enjoy books with satisfying endings.Not to mention sometimes you don't want to wade through eight chapters before anything really even happens (only so many times you can describe a rolling hills kind of landscape really aren't there?).

In my studies I have to write critical essays on 'heavy tomes' and I do genuinely enjoy reading such books. But sometimes Chick Lit is a refreshing antidote to my crushed brain, sometimes I don't want to slog though any more heavy thought provoking prose. You want to turn your brain off and fantasise about Prince Charming, fairy tales for grown up little princesses really. 

The book cover doesn't help. The  recurring pattern of pinks and swirly writing, all with similar covers this causes a whole range of authors to be clumped together. Or an artsy picture of an accessory, shoes, necklaces or bags.  The book jackets are decisions made by publishers. We decide what a book looks like and this is a complicated decision, influenced by what we think looks good, what we think will position the book most clearly in the marketplace, and how best to signal quickly to both retailers and readers what kind of book it is. In many ways the only thing that “these books” really have in common is that they’re written primarily by women and about relationships. 

This is from Jessica Rudd, who wrote Campaign Ruby and Ruby Blues : 'I’d much prefer my work to be devoured by many than nibbled by few. Sophie Kinsella, Candace Bushnell, Helen Fielding, Marian Keyes—they all write the lives of contemporary women and their books will be thumbed for generations to come....Herein lies the answer. I reckon if these were the stories of men—and dare I say written by men—they wouldn't be tagged as frivolous.' They (the characters  also all have excellent jobs and tend to be pretty ambitious, journalists, graphic designers, architects and just generally women that have it all. Plus many of these authors aren't 'idiots', Sophie Kinsella is an Oxford graduate for instance, on one of the most competitive course: Politics, Philosophy and Economics (PPE).

There are blokes who write for blokes but their work is not sneered at by the 'la-di-das'. we don’t call books by men and about men ‘dick lit’, even if they are commercial minded (we really should though!). You could argue that crime and thriller has a larger male audience, but they don't carry the same connotations that female-orientated genres do. Because we still live in a society where "women's interests" are given a lower ranking. I still hear comments from guys about girls getting "too emotional because it's that time of month" and frankly, it makes my blood boil, perhaps Chick Lit is looked down on because it's too openly emotional?

Sure, the plot can be a little formulaic and dull, but so can books of any genre. It's simply snobbish to presume that all the books of a certain genre have nothing to contribute. I like to think I have wide-ranging and eclectic tastes, although what I'm coming to discover is that genre isn't really that important to me, it's the quality of the writing and the portrayal of realistic and well rounded characters that draw my attention. This is true, if Fifty Shades of Grey had an inkling of decent penmanship, that extends beyond what I imagine would happen if you let a talking walrus write a book about S&M using only his flippers, then I imagine we wouldn't show so much disdain towards it. Yet it is being lumped in with all female oriented books and frankly it has launched a sub-genre of chick lit, where anything flies, that drags the genre down as a whole. 

I like to think I have wide-ranging and eclectic tastes, although what I'm coming to discover is that genre isn't really that important to me, it's the quality of the writing and the portrayal of realistic and well rounded characters that draw my attention.

I like to think I have wide-ranging and eclectic tastes, although what I'm coming to discover is that genre isn't really that important to me, it's the quality of the writing and the portrayal of realistic and well rounded characters that draw my attention

Why I Wasn't Aloud To Watch Grease

 

By Daphne and Dorothy

My Mum has had a pretty interesting life, she started out as a 'light jockey', then went to Art College,  her Mum then told her to get a 'proper job', so she joined the Police, she then became a body builder, but I  put a stop to that when I was born, now she's a solicitor. Her mum is the most intriguing and simultaneously terrifying woman I have ever met. But as I've grown older I've come to respect some of her views that before I thought were stunting my life. One of these such opinion is on the classic film that is 'Grease'.

When I first came home from a sleepover, ranting about how GREAT Grease was, and singing the songs, my Mum told me that she 'did not approve' and thought it 'conveyed the wrong messages'. She explained to me what these messages were:

1.   You have to change yourself in order for a boy to like you and not be embarrassed by you. Sandy doesn't simply have a makeover in order to fit into Danny's leather clad lifestyle, she has a complete change of character  becoming a completely different personality. Some could argue that what my mum was deterring me from doing was dressing provocatively,  but I don't that was the issue, she didn't want me to feel that my personality was unwanted, or unworthy. You could interpret the ending saying that she gives up the innocent poodle skirt, all prim and proper, and replaces it with clothing that reveals and celebrates an adult body and curves. And that this is not a descent into decadence for Sandy; but throwing open of the doors of her moral prison. After describing Sandy’s new overtly sexual look – the tight pants, leather jacket, earrings, wild new hair – the script says, "Yet she actually looks prettier and more alive than she ever has." Yeah but Sandy's provocative outfit is relatively tame in a modern context, the pants are a fair comment but EAR RINGS, come on. Your mum was definitely referring to ice-cream-loving, milkshake-drinking Sandy trading in her roller-blades for taking rides in the back-seat, (good girls shouldn't 'park', Back to The Future taught me that ). And that is what makes me feel uncomfortable, the fact that she changes the way she ACTS, Sandy's a completely different person, a person that previously she would be very uncomfortable being. In this regard, Sandy loses her sincerity and personality.

2.   Grease glamorizes smoking. My grandmother died of a smoking related condition, so my Mum has always been really against it. I once got grounded for pretending a lolly pop was a cigarette.  This is more to do with time period surely, it was the norm back then. They weren't even aware it was bad for them. Understandable for young, impressionable girls but I am not sure this should be on the list any more. But, we're not in that time period now, so to disagree with it seems valid, we can disagree with views because their out dated       

3.   She thought the song 'Greased Lighting' was crude, which it is:  "You know that ain’t no shit; I’ll be gettin’ lots of tit in Greased Lightning. . . You know that I ain’t braggin’; she’s a real pussy wagon…" But it's still pretty hilarious. Crude as it may be every single pop song of our youth has highly sexual undertones that we never ever 'got' so I like to air on the side of hilarity here, rather that they were  over stereotyping and through this satirising the young males of that particular generation.      

I did find some other interesting views on the internet (where else?) that suggested Grease has feminist ideas also:  "Freddy My Love" is the show’s female doo-wop number... They’re living in the 1950s, but these are women of the 60's. The idea of the other girls becoming back up singers for Marty shows us how much they love the girl doo-wop groups, an entirely new phenomenon at that moment that would become huge in the 60's. The Ronettes were the first "slutty" girl group to make it big singing rock and roll. They were what the girls wanted to be (to get the guys) and what the guys dreamed about getting. '"Freddy, My Love" is a song about early feminism, about women being sexual and aggressive. But it’s also about the materialism of the 1950's, a mindset in which money is better than sex, and gifts are the only true expression of love. Betty Rizzo must also be celebrated'-Scott Miller http://www.newlinetheatre.com/greasechapter.html Can I just point out that this song is never sung by the actresses in the film, however, and I think that a lot of the female empowerment overtones that you get in the stage play are distinctly lacking in the film. The moment that really gets me thinking 'yes you don't need to be ashamed' is when Rizzo sings "There are worse things (I could do)", she is permitting her female sexuality. 

Sandy is never more directly at odds with Rizzo than when she recounts her chaste summer romance with Danny. When she admits they didn't do the dirty, Rizzo is unimpressed. “True love and he didn't lay a hand on you? Sounds like a creep to me”. Rizzo has active desire, unlike Sandy's, she does not wait around for someone to enlighten her, like with Sandy and the makeover,  telling her friends “you goody-goodies are too much for me. I’m gonna get my kicks while I’m still young enough to get ‘em”. 

Yet, Rizzo is made to suffer for her raucous sexual appetite, she promptly falls pregnant, so perhaps the film is less supportive of independent female characters than suggested,  In 1950's America, an unwanted teen pregnancy was convent worthy, Rizzo responds characteristic fashion, turning up dressed in red, scarlet woman-esque, by owning her problems she has stopped anyone from using them against her, (think 'Pitch Perfect's' 'Fat Amy') and the pregnancy then turns out to be a false alarm (maybe promoting a safe-sex message seeing as they do 'ditch the rubber' in the car, ahem). When dancers are warned that vulgar movements will be disqualified, she quips “That leaves us out!”. Sassy. Rizzo’s performance of “There are worse things I could do”, begins as a teasingly, insisting she could do much worse than “go with a boy or two”. But she turns out to have something unexpected in mind. “I can feel and I can cry”, she admits, “a fact I bet you never knew”, before reaching her ultimate conclusion - “to cry in front of you - that’s the worst thing I could do”. We see that the 'cool girl' is afraid of being vulnerable. NO SHE ISN'T AFRAID OF BEING VULNERABLE, she just doesn't need the men to know that she is because being strong is more important, she stands apart from the other women because she is strong. She would have had that baby and raised it anyway if she had been pregnant because she is independent, strong and free-thinking. 

                  

Then the high school principle wishes the group well in the future, she tells the pupils that “among you there may be a future Eleanor Roosevelt” and the camera pans to an inspired-looking Rizzo, suggesting she is the cast for future independent women; Ms Roosevelt transcended her role as presidential wife to become a powerful UN advocate and feminist hero in her own right. But Rizzo is not a very supportive friend, nor is she a 'nice' person, Rizzo attacks Sandy for supposedly being a tease (leading Danny on but not delivering), being self-pitying, and being judgemental (in the scene leading up to the song). This is a bit hypocritical. Rizzo judges other women in a way that upholds the social character she has attributed herself, leader of the gang, being nice to Sandy all the time would just destroy this image that helps her be strong - and she has had her own problems to deal with that are actually a lot heavier than 'ooh Danny doesn't like me, now he does, now he doesn't ' so I think I'd be inclined to tell Sandy to piss off. 

Whatever way you look at it, the film end with Sandy shaking her leather clad ass in Danny's face, and he's all for her now she's changed. I totally agree that this is an awful message to give, but Danny does try and change himself too, joining teams, running track and the letterman cardi (give me leather any day) but that just doesn't stick, perhaps Grease is more about celebrating the wild side that is in all of us? They just overdo it a tad. 

Liberated in a Stone Castle, Top Disney Feminists

I thought I would share with you this really good article ranking Disney princesses from least to most feminist, people get in to some really intense arguments in the discussion section:

Ranked: Disney Princesses From Least To Most Feminist

It's hard to be liberated in a clamshell bikini.

Really Great Things: One Billion Rising

On Febuary the 14th, instead of feeling sorry for yourself, like I most probably will be, how about getting involved with this, there are 'Risings' going on all over the world, and both men and women are welcome, although it tackles issues dealt with by women:

ABOUT ONE BILLION RISING

ONE IN THREE WOMEN ON THE PLANET WILL BE RAPED OR BEATEN IN HER LIFETIME.

ONE BILLION WOMEN VIOLATED IS AN ATROCITY

ONE BILLION WOMEN DANCING IS A REVOLUTION

On V-Day’s 15th Anniversary, 14 February 2013, we are inviting ONE BILLION women and those who love them to WALK OUT, DANCE, RISE UP, and DEMAND an end to this violence. ONE BILLION RISING will move the earth, activating women and men across every country. V-Day wants the world to see our collective strength, our numbers, our solidarity across borders.

What does ONE BILLION look like? On 14 February 2013, it will look like a REVOLUTION.

ONE BILLION RISING IS:

A global strike
An invitation to dance
A call to men and women to refuse to participate in the status quo until rape and rape culture ends
An act of solidarity, demonstrating to women the commonality of their struggles and their power in numbers
A refusal to accept violence against women and girls as a given
A new time and a new way of being

READ: EVE’S LATEST HUFFPOST PIECE: “DEAR MR. AKIN, I WANT YOU TO IMAGINE…”

August 20, 2012

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eve-ensler/todd-akin-rape_b_1812930.html

Dear Todd Akin,

I am writing to you tonight about rape. It is 2 AM and I am unable to sleep here in the Democratic Republic of Congo. I am in Bukavu at the City of Joy to serve and support and work with hundreds, thousands of women who have been raped and violated and tortured from this ceaseless war for minerals fought on their bodies.

I am in Congo but I could be writing this from anywhere in the United States, South Africa, Britain, Egypt, India, Philippines, most college campuses in America. I could be writing from any city or town or village where over half a billion women on the planet are raped in their lifetime.

Mr. Akin, your words have kept me awake.

As a rape survivor, I am reeling from your recent statement where you said you misspoke when you said that women do not get pregnant from legitimate rape, and that you were speaking "off the cuff."

Clarification. You didn't make some glib throwaway remark. You made a very specific ignorant statement clearly indicating you have no awareness of what it means to be raped. And not a casual statement, but one made with the intention of legislating the experience of women who have been raped. Perhaps more terrifying it was a window into the psyche of the GOP.

You used the expression "legitimate" rape as if to imply there were such a thing as "illegitimate" rape. Let me try to explain to you what that does to the minds, hearts and souls of the millions of women on this planet who experience rape. It is a form of re-rape. The underlying assumption of your statement is that women and their experiences are not to be trusted. That their understanding of rape must be qualified by some higher, wiser authority. It delegitimizes and undermines and belittles the horror, invasion, desecration they experienced. It makes them feel as alone and powerless as they did at the moment of rape.

When you, Paul Ryan and 225 of your fellow co-sponsors play with words around rape suggesting only "forcible" rape be treated seriously as if all rapes weren't forcible, it brings back a flood of memories of the way the rapists played with us in the act of being raped -- intimidating us, threatening us,muting us. Your playing with words like "forcible" and "legitimate" is playing with our souls which have been shattered by unwanted penises shoving into us, ripping our flesh, our vaginas, our consciousness, our confidence, our pride, our futures.

Now you want to say that you misspoke when you said that a legitimate rape couldn't get us pregnant. Did you honestly believe that rape sperm is different than love sperm, that some mysterious religious process occurs and rape sperm self-destructs due to its evilcontent? Or, were you implying that women and their bodies are somehow responsible for rejecting legitimate rape sperm, once again putting the onus on us? It would seem you were saying that getting pregnant after a rape would indicate it was not a "legitimate" rape.

Here's what I want you to do. I want you to close your eyes and imagine that you are on your bed or up against a wall or locked in a small suffocating space. Imagine being tied up there and imagine some aggressive, indifferent, insane stranger friend or relative ripping off your clothes and entering your body -- the most personal, sacredprivate part of your body -- and violently, hatefully forcing themself into you so that you are ripped apart. Then imagine that stranger's sperm shooting into you and filling you and you can't get it out. It is growing something in you. Imagine you have no idea what that life will even consist of, spiritually made in hate, not knowing the mental or health background of the rapist.

Then imagine a person comes along, a person who has never had that experience of rape, and that person tells you, you have no choice but to keep that product of rape growing in you against your will and when it is born it has the face of your rapist, the face of the person who has essentially destroyed your being and you will have to look at the face every day of your life and you will be judged harshly if you cannot love that face.

I don't know if you can imagine any of this (leadership actually requires this kind of compassion), but if you are willing to go to the depth of this darkness, you will quickly understand there is NO ONE WHO CAN MAKE THAT CHOICE to have or not have the baby, but the person carrying that baby herself.

I have spent much time with mothers who have given birth to children who are the product of rape. I have watched how tortured they are wrestling with their hate and anger, trying not to project that onto their child.

I am asking you and the GOP to get out of my body, out of my vagina, my womb, to get out of all of our bodies. These are not your decisions to make. These are not your words to define.

Why don't you spend your time ending rape rather than redefining it? Spend your energy going after those perpetrators who so easily destroy women rather than parsing out manipulative language that minimizes their destruction.

And by the way you've just given millions of women a very good reason to make sure you never get elected again, and an insanely good reason to rise.

#ReasonToRise

Eve Ensler
Bukavu, Congo

Follow Eve Ensler on Twitter: www.twitter.com/eveensler

“IF YOU WOULDN’T HAVE BEEN THERE THAT NIGHT, NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE HAPPENED TO YOU.”

September 11, 2012

That's what Arizona trial Judge Jacqueline Hatch told a woman who had been sexually assaulted in an Arizona bar. 

Police officer Robb Gary Evans was convicted of sexual abuse. The felony carries a two and half year maximum prison sentence but Judge Hatch instead reduced the sentence to probation and 100 hours of community service before transferring responsibility to the victim of the crime.

Another reason to RISE - for a justice system that works to protect victims and not criminals.

To find out more go to: http://onebillionrising.org/