General Sexism and Bashing Heads Against Walls

 

I’ve been a bit quiet of late, and that’s primarily because I’m engaging with a bit of online debate on various forums; most of which is to do with the casual sexism that is so rife in everything we see, hear and do in the United Kingdom.

I thought I’d write myself a pocket guide to dealing with misogyny, and hope that it allows me to let off enough steam that I can stop engaging quite so much, because it’s frankly tiring and repetitive, and it makes me despair for what I am dealing with.

I would like to start by saying that I NEVER seek to to “make other people agree with me.” That is not my intent. Rather, I comment and debate on various threads, in order to engage and discuss issues that matter. I am happy to hear other sides, and am happy to put my viewpoint across. Too often, however, it descends into name calling and personal insults, and it is at that juncture, that I realise that the point is all but lost.

These are all examples of recent “debates” I have fallen into the trap of getting involved in.

1) On the Morrisons Facebook page, a reader posted a photograph of the toy aisle, in which boys and girls toys were separated and advertised with a gender divide. Not news, of course, and pretty much prevalent across most high street stores. A debate ensued. I made the point that I felt the gender divide – where girls’ toys are all sparkles, tiaras, dolls, prams, make up, shopping trolleys, kitchen items and pink lego, and boys’ toys are all dinosaurs, construction, vehicles, monsters, aliens, gunge and guns – was unnecessary. I (politely) advised that I felt it was unhelpful to segregate and market certain toys at different genders, because children will basically play with anything, and rightly so. I said that I didn’t like the message that it sends to children – “these are your toys, and those toys belong to the other gender” because it embeds the notion of the gender divide at an early age, and I gave an example where, at my son’s nursery, a boy had a doll and pram removed from him, whereupon it was given to a girl, and he was taken to the cars section.

A couple of people agreed with me, but for the most point, the vitriol and hatred I received made me wonder if I had inadvertenly posted that I was planning to kill, cook and eat some babies. I was told to “grow the f*ck up”, “stop projecting [my] own inadequacies”, “shut up and grow a pair”, “leave kids alone to be kids” and was also advised that I was a “rampant lentil-weaving feminist”, an idiot because it’s “adults what buy toys , not kids, you tw*t” and that there are “much better things to be worrying about”, and one kind soul made my point for me, stating that her daughter “loved to dress as a builder, and likes other boys’ toys. What’s wrong with that?”

Precisely!

Because although many of them failed to see it, we were actually ALL saying that children should and could play with anything and everything that came my way. Which was exactly my point in saying that gender marketing was unnecessary.

2) I commented on a thread by a local radio station, which asked if Page 3 was “cheeky fun, or pornography”. Most replies ran along the “cheeky fun” line, and I responded with a short statement saying that Page 3 IS pornography and unnecessary and helped to embed the notion in our society that women are there to look at, and not be listened to, because Page 3 is in a newspaper, which I feel is inappropriate. I followed it up with a quick “I’m not debating about the existence of porn, I am merely stating that it should be removed from a newspaper which markets itself at the family demographic”

I was attacked left, right and centre. I was told by one respondent that he had “fought for King and Country for 18 years, and he did that to protect the right of women to do whatever line of work they wanted”. My response that we actually have a Queen and haven’t had a King since 1952 didn’t go down too well, and neither did my question “what about my right to not see porn in a newspaper?”

I was told that I was jealous (I’m not), campaigning to remove something which is our country’s heritage (it’s not), and that I was a “do-gooder with too much time on my hands”

I was also told, by several people, that if I don’t like it, then I shouldn’t buy it – which clearly misses the point, because it is the existence of Page 3 which I object to, and which continues to objectify women in our society. I provided links to the No More Page 3 campaign, and to the #EverdaySexism project, and also links proving a correlation between Page 3 and some instances of sexual violence. I was called a “sad woman” a “f*cking idiot” and a “silly b*tch”

3) I saw a lovely photograph of a steam train, posted by my friend. It had a description on, advertising the fact that “even women” work on trains, and that a woman named Steph was the new fireman on the train. These were not my friend’s words, but I commented on the page, and mentioned that I felt it was a shame that it had to be pointed out that “even women” can work in this industry. I also asked, politely, why she was referred to as a fireman? I was met with a wave of misogyny that really shocked me.

I was told that the job description was part of the heritage of our country, and no “lady” has a right to change it – and the “ladies” who worked there didn’t want to, so why was I getting het up about it? I was told that women can do the job as well as men, and they were merely pointing that out (erm…thanks) and that men who work in hospitals as “ward sisters” don’t get all militant and “foot-stampy” about the job title, because men don’t react like women.

I replied to this by saying that I felt it unnecessary to include a gender description in any job title, and I would support anyone – male or female – who opposed it. I also commented that men in general tend not to react to sexism, because it isn’t directed against men in the same way it is, and always has been, against women.

Another poster told me that it’s “just language” and I shouldn’t get annoyed with language. I replied that I wasn’t annoyed, but that there is still a gender pay-gap and employment opportunity disparity in this country, and opinions like the one published were all part of that problem. I was then challenged because none of them believed in the slightest that there is a gender pay divide because “in all my years of working in public and private sector, I have never known women get less money than men”

Within two minutes, I posted 5 links to support these facts, which I found on google, published by The Telegraph, The Times, The Independent, the BBC and the Guardian. I then found a piece on the pay divide in professional sport and posted that. I mentioned that in graduate professions particularly, and including politics, science, engineering and business, the pay gap is very real.

The response to this? “When you’re in a hole – stop digging.”

My favourite bit, though, was the man who told me that there were lots of “feminine ladies” who worked alongside him on the trains. How lovely for everyone concerned.

These are but three examples. There are dozens more.

I find it interesting that the people who argue with me, tell me that I’m wrong, even when I explain to them why I feel the way I do, but they cannot tell me why they think the way that they do.
■The people who want to keep gender divide marketing just tell me I’m being silly and they’ll buy whatever they like – fine. So let’s get rid of it, if there’s no reason to have it
■The people who want to keep Page 3 tell me that it “doesn’t do any harm”, and say that it’s their right to look at it. – fine. Look at it from the top shelf
■The people that feel that gender-descriptive job roles are OK and that there’s no issue just told me I was wrong when I explained I felt there was. One of them did tell me that the job-description was part of the heritage of the industry, which is a historical indusrty, and something that they wanted to preserve. I disagree, but at least he had a coherent reason. However, when I presented them with facts to back up my opinion, I was just told I was incorrect because men don’t complain – fine. That’s their business. This is mine, and I feel like righting wrongs.

Very often I am flogging a dead horse, but I still think that my opinion has value, because I back it up with reason and fact. That doesn’t mean that I expect the world to agree with me, change their minds, or tell me I’m right. I just expect people to understand what I am saying, and accept my responses when I answer their challenges. I also welcome debate from people who hold other opinions to me – but I rarely get it. Because most people deny that it’s an issue, ignore the facts that I give them, or completely misunderstand my point of view.

However, if one side of a debate can only fall back on insults, aggression and refusal to acknowledge that there is even a debate to be had, then they are part of the problem that they don’t believe in.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20223264

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/nov/22/gender-pay-gap-falls-full-time-workers

http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/equal-pay/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-business/9915125/Gender-pay-gap-Female-graduates-dont-value-themselves-as-much-as-men.html

http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/home/research/articles-and-reports/equity-issues/pay-inequity

A Side Order of Sexism With Your Evening Meal?

I heard this today:

A: “She’s got an arse that could swallow up a G-string”

B: “I’d smash her. As long as I didn’t have to look at her face”

A: “Or listen to her talk”

Sadly familiar, yes?

And possibly surprising when I tell you that it wasn’t a pair of sweaty oafish idiots in a greasy spoon, leering at Page 3, but a couple of well-dressed, middle-class, well-educated 15 year old boys, watching a female classmate innocently walk down the road in front of them.

I know that the “G-string” comment wasn’t an original thought, but rather came from the charming penmanship of Jay-Z in his misogyny-fest “Run This Town.” I can’t work out if it’s better or worse that it was a quote.

I don’t even know where to start with this. Appalled that the two boys – both of whom I know – could possibly think that their sentiment was acceptable. Appalled that the lyrics in the afore-mentioned song actually go like this:

“She got a ass that’ll swallow up a G-string,

And up top, uh, two bee stings”

and appalled that this isn’t news. Because conversations like the above are still commonplace even in 2013.

Why haven’t we improved at this, as a nation and as a society? When I was a child in the 1970s, the world was a very different place; “Comedian” Jim Davidson was allowed to perform a caricature of a West Indian man, hilariously named “Chalky White” complete with grotesque accent, and exaggerated facial expressions.Disability awareness was non-existent, being gay was an instant ticket to give to people to cover their asses. Literally. And women were chefs in the kitchen, mothers in the parlour and whores in the bedroom.

Time has moved on apace. It is no longer acceptable to be racist or xenophobic. It is absolutely not allowed to discriminate against people with disabilities, and gay people are people. Their sexual orientation is none of your damn business.

So why? Why is sexism, objectification and discrimination against women still socially acceptable? More than that – still promoted by the media? Why is it OK to make judgements about women because of the way that they look and on no other criteria? Why are sexist jokes about rape and abuse and violence still broadcastable and laughed at? Why is my lack of male genitalia a consideration for anything?

Even at the recent Oscars, host Seth Macfarlane sang an incredibly bizarre choice of comedy song to open the event. The content was “boobs.” Boobs in films. Reducing the work and skill and integrity of Hollywood’s finest (some of whom were, admittedly in on the hilarity) to whether or not they got their baps out for the camera. Puerile, juvenile, jokes for the boys as it was, the biggest mistake within the controversy, was the fact that in a peak of lazy songwriting, Seth managed to include a number of films where “boobs” were seen because the film was about the character being raped.

Still – a gag’s a gag, eh Seth? Way to reduce the impact of abuse, domestic violence and terror to a cheap laugh.

I have promoted the rather excellent No More Page 3 campaign a few times. It is interesting to read the comments from both supporters and detractors on their Facebook page. The issue certainly isn’t black and white, and opposers often have well-thought out comments to make. All of which are usually addressed by one of the fine women in charge of the site.

I support the campaign, because I cannot believe that this abomination exists in this 21st century world. I don’t care about the “side order of boobs with my porridge” argument, because I don’t buy the newspaper and read it with my breakfast. I don’t buy it, because I think it’s crap, not because of Page 3. But the point is, it is printed in glorious technicolour every single day, just so people can leer. In a newspaper. IN A NEWSPAPER. It is completely and utterly socially acceptable in our society, for men (or women?) to openly and outwardly leer at a picture of a semi-naked woman, and comment on what they would do to her, without fear of recrimination or embarrassment. In a society where people stare awkwardly at women breastfeeding their babies, and where restaurants ask nursing mothers to leave dining areas as it upsets other patrons.

Whatever your thoughts are on the removal of soft pornographic images from a well-read family newspaper, consider this: if there was a picture EVERY DAY on Page 3 of a disabled person, with a silly comment next to it, for no other reason other than the fact that they were disabled, or a black person posing – for no other reason other than the fact that they were black – if they were printed on a daily basis, with no connection to news, events or lifestyle, wouldn’t you stop and think: “why?”

Now, ask yourself that question about the fact that those Page 3 pictures exist just because they’re women. I bet I can predict your answers. I bet you’re not impressed with them.

I’d love to know what they are – please feel free to comment below?

No More Page Three

One weekday morning, a little lad,
Who wanted to be just like his Dad,
Sat down for breakfast, toast on plate
His Dad he tried to emulate.
So he reached out and picked up The Sun,
Transition to adulthood begun.
He turned the paper, page one…page two..
And then page three. Well, wow! Who knew?
“No need for sneaking on the internet,
No scouring mags for a hot brunette,
No need to hide stuff under the bed
Because this is right out there instead
And as it’s printed in daily news
That MUST mean it’s safe for views.
It’s right there, getting daily hits
So that means it’s FINE to ogle tits,
And if Mum should wander near
I’ll pretend I’m looking at the news stories here,
Because as a handy little motif
They’ve also printed “news in briefs”
So if I should be caught ogling these birds
I can pretend I’m reading their insightful words.
Of course, I doubt the words are theirs
What do lasses know of world affairs?
If all the paper cares about
Is what they look like with titties out,
Then why should I believe that they
Ever have anything of interest to say?
No, because this is in daily print
It’s fine to leer at this bint,
Other men can’t think too much
Of these chicks – they’re there to touch.
If porn was dirty or a private affair,
Then it wouldn’t be printed so boldly there.
No, this must mean that it’s alright
I’m so lucky. Tits in daily sight.”
And so the little lad grew older
And with the ladies grew ever bolder.
Page 3 featured in his daily life,
Even when he “took a wife”
She didn’t much like the tits on show
But it was in a newspaper, so
She didn’t feel she could complain
He’d moan about her nagging again.
So each and every weekday morn
She accepted with her breakfast, porn.
And so did her kids, who didn’t think
That tits and news have no link.
Until one day, after years of thinking
Support for Page 3 seemed to be shrinking.
A group of people who’d had enough
Of being labelled as tits and chuff,
Worked on a campaign to stop the boobs
From appearing in the daily news.
They still championed femininity
But advocated it in privacy,
Nothing to do with porn being banned
Just about Page 3, they made their stand.
It’s all about objectification
Which is embedded within our progressive nation,
It’s all about how women are viewed
And how leering and perving is downright rude,
It’s baby steps towards a state of equality
And not seeing sexism as merely frivolity,
It won’t change the world overnight
But a step in a direction overdue, and right.
So boobs aren’t news – find your pictures elsewhere
And women aren’t commodities at which you should stare.
We are all equal unless it’s otherwise proved,
No More Page Three – take the boobs out of news!