Why we don't have to prove sexism happens, it does.

http://jezebel.com/quit-fucking-asking-me-questions-a-refresher-course-512810149

Read it and absorb.

Sisters ARE doing it for themselves.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/18/older-women-tv-anna-ford

This article beautifully highlights the lack of representation of women in the workplace, mostly in broadcasting, and in particular ladies over a certain age. And it is true, they just drop of our screens, or get so much plastic surgery you never know how old they are or if they are, in fact, human. 

All I have to say on the matter is that my grandmothers have been two of THE MOST influential women in my life, with so much wisdom to impart, graceful and poised I wouldn't change them for the world. They have aged naturally and I wouldn't have it any other way. Do not underestimate women that have experienced so much change, they know so much we don't. 

The Misogyny Debate, Interrupted Women.

So I think this issue needs some more attention, Two female debaters, Rebecca Meredith from Cambridge University, and Edinburgh student Marlena Valles, were booed and heckled during their appearance at the prestigious Glasgow Ancients debating competition.

In an exclusive blog for The Huffington Post UK, Meredith, who has been ranked one of the top 20 speakers in the world, described the experience as "one of the most unpleasant incidents of my life".

Students Marlena Valles (left) and Rebecca Meredith (right)

"We were booed, heckled with 'shame woman' and exposed to sexual comments and queries of 'what qualifications does a woman possibly have to be here'. The difference between us? We were female.

"After the debate, a member of this group shouted "get that woman out of my chamber" as my partner Marlena passed.

"Students from Glasgow told us that the male members concerned often shouted 'whore' and 'slut' at female students," Meredith continues, "While a former female committee member stated that she had adopted 'battered wife syndrome' and had risen to the top of the GUU by accepting and ignoring misogyny. One said 'things will never change here, they are too powerful'."

Although president of the GUU society, David Lockhart, said the union would be investigating the incidents, five student societies have written a public letter addressing the "failure to properly address misogynistic behaviour":

Dear Mr Lockhart,

We are writing to you today on behalf of Glasgow University Scottish Nationalist Association, the Glasgow University Labour Club, Glasgow University Coalition of Resistance, Glasgow University Politics Society and the Glasgow University Feminist Society with regard to the recent developments at the Glasgow University Union.

As affiliated societies, we are extremely disappointed about the accusations of sexist and misogynistic behaviour by members of the GUU at the Ancients debating final, which have brought the otherwise sound reputation of debating at the GUU and this university into disrepute.

Misogynistic behaviour or discrimination of any kind should be strongly condemned and punished by the GUU. No-one at this university should have to face bullying or harassment, and we should always seek to promote equality and respect within debating.

It is with consideration of this fact that we have decided to disaffiliate with the GUU until:

1 Appropriate disciplinary action, up to a life ban, is taken against those responsible; and

2 A commitment is made to promote gender equality within the GUU.

While we welcome the recent statement from the GUU, it does not go far enough to reassure us - given the seriousness of the situation.

Regards,

The Glasgow University Scottish Nationalist Association, Glasgow University Labour Club, Glasgow University Coalition of Resistance, Glasgow University Politics Society and the Glasgow University Feminist Society

A petition started on change.org by Glasgow University student Caroline Moore to "expel the members responsible and show commitment to gender equality" has already garnered 3,855 signatures.

Moore calls on the GUU executive members to "denounce the actions of these members" "to demonstrate their commitment to a sexism-free GUU by undertaking a gender equality training session", adding "The GUU is not a Boys' Club anymore."

Moore refers to the GUU's previous sexist policy on women. The union, which was founded in 1885 and describes itself as "the finest training grounds for young politicians", only voted to allow women to become members in 1980. In November 2012, the GUU hosted its controversial "Last All Male Board" (LAMB) dinner. The dinner, a long-running tradition, was set up to "commemorate" the last all-male board of management, after females were admitted. The president of the GUU, Lockhart, attends the LAMB events.

Dorothy

Now Sylvia Path is 'Chick Lit'.

So previously we weighed in on the issue of 'chick lit' and how it tend to be demeaned by the wider literary community.  Now Sylvia Plath is involved. Personally, she is not my favorite writer, I enjoyed 'The Bell Jar', but I know people who hold her as something of an idol. So now that Sylvia Plaths' novel 

The Bell Jar has had a 50th anniversary makeover, many of these people have been in up roar at what they see as a belittlement of Plaths' talents. Plath's fans guard her legacy fiercely and many believe that this new cover turns her book into 'chick-lit'. Said incriminating cover is a bright bubblegum pinky red (above), contrasting with a 1950s style photo of a young woman patting powder from a compact onto her face, with her lips reflected in its mirror. It's color's seem traditional to those associated with chick lit, so many have calling it an insensitive choice for a book ground-breaking for detailing the suffocating power of gender stereotyping.

 Jezebel writes: “If Sylvia Plath hadn't already killed herself, she probably would've if she saw the new cover of her only novel The Bell Jar. For a book all about a woman's clinical depression that's exacerbated by the suffocating gender stereotypes of which she's expected to adhere and the limited life choices she has as a woman, it's pretty fucking stupid to feature a low-rent retro wannabe pinup applying makeup.”

Sorry Jez, I normally quite enjoy your wit, but I think your wrong, In defense I think it captures the essence of the book well. At the beginning of the book, The Bell Jar’s protagonist Esther Greenwood is working as a writer on a New York magazine; she and the other girls are given  freebies which include cosmetics such as the compact on the cover; and they are living and working in an environment concerned with glamour and fashion. So really the cover art is relevant to the book's content.Plus, the entire book deals with appearance and reality; Esther's outward appearance belies what is happening within. Knowing that she has to look and behave in a certain way. The woman on the covers powder and the lipstick are a mask, an image that is projected to others irrespective of inner turmoil'. The fact the mirror is in there invites you to reflect, as she does making up. Why is she fixing her face? Is it right that she feels that she has to do this? These sort of questions.

It is a disturbing image because of the placement and angles of the picture, the colour saturation and the expression on the woman's face viewed in the mirror, it's not a meaningless image. In fact the mouth is almost a sneer. Just like how be analyze more traditional art, why can't we analyze this book cover beyond the simple colours and make up? I can't help but think that sexism is evident not in the choice for the cover image, but in the public refusal to believe cosmetics and fashion are worthy subjects of a literary novel.

 In the 50s and early 60s women's behaviour was governed by certain social rules and they were valued mainly with regard to looks rather than intellect  The photograph on the cover captures this too. Nowhere do we see perhaps a pen or a notebook, the really important things in the protagonists life, instead we see the things that society viewed as important. The woman featured is firmly underneath the patriarchal thumb, toeing the line and looking just the way society says she should. Perhaps the cover can be interpreted deeper than simply cosmetics and a pout.

Regards,

Dorothy.

Casual Telekinetic Sexism

http://vagendamag.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/virgins-flying-in-face-of-progress.html

The total irony of them walking under the slogan 'flying in the face of ordinary' whilst perpetuating gender stereotypes is faintly hilarious, this is why little girls grow up with the ambition of becoming nurses not doctors. Why aren't the women designing 'kick-ass comfortable seats', if that is their dream of course (and getting involved in some accidental workplace sexual harassment 'bed-time' anyone?) Not to mention the token male-steward who is clearly not 'pretty enough' to appear in the final shot. Good job Virgin, making little girls aim not to fly planes, but to look pretty on them and prevent general spillage or discomfort...

Daphne

What a waste of Telekinetic Skills! I like the fact there is a token male steward.

Dorothy

The Issues of Travelling Alone, Feminist Rant.

A Discussion with Daphne and Dorothy.


This summer I plan on doing a bit of solo travelling, as a single, young female this has been met with a lot of anxiety from some of my friends and I was quite shocked.

Firstly, I don't plan on working street corners or going into seedy, drug-filled, basement raves so I didn't really get the concern for my well being. And then it was followed by 'aren't you scared of you know... rape'. Now this had me thinking. I mean, my mum says it to me quite regularly, oh don't wear that and do that. But mothers worry so she can be forgiven, doesn't make me any less angry. Here is a list I've compiled as to why:

1. Being a woman and being alone should not make me an identity-less rape target. It is like any other form of crime but if preventing myself from being a victim means living in fear, never going anywhere alone and covering MY BODY to hide anything that may excite or entice a male onlooker is frankly no way to live.
2. What I wear in actual fact probably has little weight on the matter, if a man goes out with the intention of raping a young lady, if an individual is sick enough to want to commit this crime, then I doubt he is going to go 'Oh look at her respectable knee length skirt, she is clearly not an ideal victim for my disgusting lack of humanity'. 
3. Women's outfits are actually a walking weapon factory, we are warriors when we go out. And Dorothy for one is not afraid to inflict a little damage if anyone gets too touchy in a club. Rings like knuckle dusters, spikes and studs on clutches and ankle breaker heels are all in our arsenal. The amount of damage a stiletto can inflict is impressive, not to mention being kicked by a girl wearing wedges hurts like a bitch.

I agree with what you are saying, these  are depressing reasons that people dissuade travelling alone. But at the same time not everyone is as noble as we want them to be. If you get into a 'sticky situation' you will have no on-the-ground support. The thing that I'm worried about is your trusting nature.

We shouldn't have to live in the world where being trusting is a crime. I want to be able to live and say that I have taken risks and at the end of the day RAPE IS NEVER MY FAULT, I shouldn't have to be fearful of doing anything to encourage such a heinous crime. 

Yeah, we shouldn't. But the fact is that we do. This isn't just about rape, its about of potential situations that when alone would be very uncomfortable.

Those situations apply to men too though, and men travelling alone is encouraged because it is 'character building' and they 'find themselves'. I'm sick of feeling like a walking target or a ticking time bomb waiting for the inevitable rape or lucky escape. It happens to one in three women so I'm just as likely travelling as I am on an unlucky night out in my home town. At least I am getting out there and living a little bit when taking the dangerous risks of being a woman...

That's what I'm saying, the rape issue is just as risky at home, but I would advise a potential traveler  female or male to take a co-traveller  As a precaution. You will be a vulnerable person, especially when people realize your alone. But at the same time, it will be amazingly character building, it's you call to take that choice however.Your a very sociable person, I'm not really, in the same way.

The point of travelling alone is that it forces you to be more sociable. Staying in hostels you meet like-minded solo travellers with similar interests and experiences to share, hostels are relatively safe places nowadays and security is pretty excellent, so the real threat is the sort of stuff I do at home anyway. I don't intend on running around and latching on to strangers, I just fancy a bit of self reflection. 

Wherever you go in the world there will be bad and good people. Personally, I would just like to have someone by my side that I could definitely rely on if push comes to shove. I just think that travelling alone would definitely decrease your personal security. Just make sure your carrying hairspray at all times, it's just as good as pepper spray.
Dorothy

I'll bear that in mind! 
Daphne