There exists basic criteria in action cinema that grants a woman permission to kick ass only if she is:
A Sex Symbol
Masculinised
Protecting her family
By Nicky
Monday, 6 June 2011
Why ‘Hanna’ is the Feminist Action Hero we’ve been waiting For
By Nicky
Friday, 7 January 2011
On Abolishing Sexist Language
There is a double standard in society where the sexual actions of a female are much more harshly criticised than a male. People even openly admit this and defend this. These stands like truisms yet people don't seem to do enough about it.
Think of terms intended to criticise someone's sexual activity in a negative manner. 'Whore', 'slut'. Both of these words are used at males, but we all acknowledge that these words are used the vast majority of the time against women. There is no word in the English language which criticises almost exclusively the sexual activities of males. We even tacitly acknowledge this by altering the word 'whore' into 'man-whore' – if the word whore didn't lay in language ready to be deployed against women, we wouldn't need to add 'man' in front of 'whore' just to criticise the sexual activity of a male.
The words 'whore' and 'slut' are sexist words because they are aimed almost exclusively against women. Not always, but almost exclusively against women. Seeing that these are the words we use to harshly criticise someone's sexual activity, and these are mostly aimed at women, these words continue the myth that women have much more moral responsibility over their sexual activity – that women are more worthy of criticism than men when it comes to their sexual activity.
I've recently been in various discussions with a friend who argues that they're not being sexist when they use these words because of the context they're used in. Admittedly, I've seen them use such words against men more than women. I know they're not sexist despite using sexist terms. However, there's still harm in using these words.
You might not use these words mostly against women, but other people do. Every time these words are used, you are enabling the existence of these words, and the sexism behind them. The way you use these words do not alter how other people use them.
The problem is, however, not the word itself but what lays behind it. We should stop using words like 'slut' and 'whore' not because the words are sexist within themselves, but because of the sexism behind the use of these words, whether or not people realise it.
I propose that we eliminate the words 'slut' and 'whore' from our vocabulary and, every so often when appropriate, challenge people who use such words. You can challenge them on the basis that words like 'slut' and 'whore' are aimed almost exclusively against women, and there is no common word like that against men. They shouldn't use them because it continues the idea that women are more immoral than men when their sexual activity is not agreeable.
The idea that we try to shame women, and not men, over their sexual activity is terrible.
And finally, to end with, the words 'slut' and 'whore' should not exist in our language in the first place as negative terms. We shouldn't particularly care about the consenting sex lives of others.
By 'Ad Hoc'
Think of terms intended to criticise someone's sexual activity in a negative manner. 'Whore', 'slut'. Both of these words are used at males, but we all acknowledge that these words are used the vast majority of the time against women. There is no word in the English language which criticises almost exclusively the sexual activities of males. We even tacitly acknowledge this by altering the word 'whore' into 'man-whore' – if the word whore didn't lay in language ready to be deployed against women, we wouldn't need to add 'man' in front of 'whore' just to criticise the sexual activity of a male.
The words 'whore' and 'slut' are sexist words because they are aimed almost exclusively against women. Not always, but almost exclusively against women. Seeing that these are the words we use to harshly criticise someone's sexual activity, and these are mostly aimed at women, these words continue the myth that women have much more moral responsibility over their sexual activity – that women are more worthy of criticism than men when it comes to their sexual activity.
I've recently been in various discussions with a friend who argues that they're not being sexist when they use these words because of the context they're used in. Admittedly, I've seen them use such words against men more than women. I know they're not sexist despite using sexist terms. However, there's still harm in using these words.
You might not use these words mostly against women, but other people do. Every time these words are used, you are enabling the existence of these words, and the sexism behind them. The way you use these words do not alter how other people use them.
The problem is, however, not the word itself but what lays behind it. We should stop using words like 'slut' and 'whore' not because the words are sexist within themselves, but because of the sexism behind the use of these words, whether or not people realise it.
I propose that we eliminate the words 'slut' and 'whore' from our vocabulary and, every so often when appropriate, challenge people who use such words. You can challenge them on the basis that words like 'slut' and 'whore' are aimed almost exclusively against women, and there is no common word like that against men. They shouldn't use them because it continues the idea that women are more immoral than men when their sexual activity is not agreeable.
The idea that we try to shame women, and not men, over their sexual activity is terrible.
And finally, to end with, the words 'slut' and 'whore' should not exist in our language in the first place as negative terms. We shouldn't particularly care about the consenting sex lives of others.
By 'Ad Hoc'
Monday, 6 December 2010
Feminist's First Burlesque
In a culture adorned with raunch, of glamourised porn stars, young girls with Jordan as their role model, women still being objectified and harassed on the street - just how 'feminist' is the Bulesque revival? Dita Von Teese, the Don of the tease, always replies by saying,
'Having your own choices, having equal rights - how is it not being feminist?'
The obvious response being that, well - you are still making a living by taking your clothes off. If stripping and lapdancing deeply objectifies women - why makes Burlesque any different?
Burlesque Idol at Madame JoJos, Soho. An inexpensive solution away from the expenses of a one woman show, and as I knew the club before (as both a feminist and a self proclaimed fag hag, how could I not?) I knew that it was unsleazy. And after a quick google, I found the night was hosted by 'Lola La Belle', a performer who proclaims that her 'deeply feminist burlesque offers more than just a breath of fresh air, it promises a revolution.' Perfect.
The evening was great. We watched 7 finalists compete for the crown of Burlesque Idol 2010, each introduced to us by our delightfully camp host and met with evaluation from a panel of judges (Labelle included. She did not perform herself tonight, so my induction to her deeply feminist revolution will have to wait) and the audience then voted for their favourite. Like a low budget X factor, with feathers.
But amidst the fun I was having, I paid attention to the key ingredients that I'd read made Burlesque an art form, and not just posh stripping.
The audience. I've read that the main audience for a Burlesque show is in fact is Girls and Gays. Neither of which want to have sex with the performer in question, thus she is not being objectified. The lack of slathering middle aged men brandishing notes is what makes it not a strip joint. The audience tonight was indeed predominantly female, but we didn't massively outnumber the male hetero contingent in the room. There was a stag do, but thankfully no chauvinism. It seems it's impossible to be a dickhead in a club where the ceiling is painted with butterflies.
The girls. One of the reasons the practise is firmly distinguised as an art removed from a profession of stripping is that women of any shape or size can perform. Far removed from the skinny with tits philosophy that dominates stripping. And this is something that I can heartily verify from all the women I saw. A comfortable size range of 8-20 was on display tonight.
And it is these factors that make for Burlesque as an endorsement female sexuality, embracing the art of seduction and thus feeling empowered as a result - as opposed to taking your clothes off for money. And my night confirmed these factors to be true.
But my case sample may have been somewhat anomalous. In a light hearted competition in a cheeky night club in the heart of London's gay village, it's unlikely any of these woman are going to feel anything but fun on that stage. Maybe if I had the chance to interview each of them I'd know for sure. But it would seem redundant - truth be told, every one of them looked like they were having a blast. I feel I may have not chosen an event that gave me the most accurate insight into the real world of Burlesque. Much as an alien wanting to learn about Popstars should probably not begin his or her education with a viewing of The X Factor.
As strip club culture endorses a the manicured, skinny and fake tanned, Burlesque still very much projects a particular idealised feminine image - in this case that image being the porcelain skinned hourglass. For every lapdancer told to gain an orange complexion and drop a dress size, perhaps there is a Burlesque performer painting herself in factor 500 and wearing a circulatory disorder inducing corset.
The inherent theme still remains. All of these women have our attention because, fundamentally, they are taking their clothes off. The act that thoroughly delayed the stripping by introing with a musical number was the act that got the least attention. Needless to say, the induction of a giant marrow finished by a finale of Union Jack nipple tassles got it back.
It is also interesting to note that our host this evening had to make the introduction with a verification that, yes, what they are doing IS art. Clearly my scepticism doesn't stand alone. That same host, however, was a total joy, and as an audience member writing a review on my night, it was a fantastic one and a great place to lose my B Plates.
And if the cynics of today may judge the revival of Burlesque as having lost sight of everything our 20th century sisters have taught us, then it may be interesting to note that the most classic act was the one that won.
But the bigger picture still remains. Whether this is still an art form that is as female empowering as it claims to be, and not just a repackaged symptom of our raunch culture, I'm still unsure.
And I am not the only one. This Monday the Bethnal Green Working Men's Club, in conjunction with Time Out and the Blue Stocking Society, are holding 'Art or Bust? The great Burlesque Debate'. Maybe they will be able to shimmy some light on my conundrum. Watch this space.
Oh and FYI, I voted for the one with the giant marrow. #
By Nicky Marchant
'Having your own choices, having equal rights - how is it not being feminist?'
The obvious response being that, well - you are still making a living by taking your clothes off. If stripping and lapdancing deeply objectifies women - why makes Burlesque any different?
As both a feminist and a self proclaimed lover of the feathers, lingerie and glamour, it is certainly something that has always been on my mind, and something that has been discussed before on this blog. I have read countless articles, dived into various debates. And I realised that amidst all this theory, my mind could not be made up until I'd seen it for myself.
Burlesque Idol at Madame JoJos, Soho. An inexpensive solution away from the expenses of a one woman show, and as I knew the club before (as both a feminist and a self proclaimed fag hag, how could I not?) I knew that it was unsleazy. And after a quick google, I found the night was hosted by 'Lola La Belle', a performer who proclaims that her 'deeply feminist burlesque offers more than just a breath of fresh air, it promises a revolution.' Perfect.The evening was great. We watched 7 finalists compete for the crown of Burlesque Idol 2010, each introduced to us by our delightfully camp host and met with evaluation from a panel of judges (Labelle included. She did not perform herself tonight, so my induction to her deeply feminist revolution will have to wait) and the audience then voted for their favourite. Like a low budget X factor, with feathers.
But amidst the fun I was having, I paid attention to the key ingredients that I'd read made Burlesque an art form, and not just posh stripping.
The audience. I've read that the main audience for a Burlesque show is in fact is Girls and Gays. Neither of which want to have sex with the performer in question, thus she is not being objectified. The lack of slathering middle aged men brandishing notes is what makes it not a strip joint. The audience tonight was indeed predominantly female, but we didn't massively outnumber the male hetero contingent in the room. There was a stag do, but thankfully no chauvinism. It seems it's impossible to be a dickhead in a club where the ceiling is painted with butterflies.
The girls. One of the reasons the practise is firmly distinguised as an art removed from a profession of stripping is that women of any shape or size can perform. Far removed from the skinny with tits philosophy that dominates stripping. And this is something that I can heartily verify from all the women I saw. A comfortable size range of 8-20 was on display tonight.
And it is these factors that make for Burlesque as an endorsement female sexuality, embracing the art of seduction and thus feeling empowered as a result - as opposed to taking your clothes off for money. And my night confirmed these factors to be true.
But my case sample may have been somewhat anomalous. In a light hearted competition in a cheeky night club in the heart of London's gay village, it's unlikely any of these woman are going to feel anything but fun on that stage. Maybe if I had the chance to interview each of them I'd know for sure. But it would seem redundant - truth be told, every one of them looked like they were having a blast. I feel I may have not chosen an event that gave me the most accurate insight into the real world of Burlesque. Much as an alien wanting to learn about Popstars should probably not begin his or her education with a viewing of The X Factor.
As strip club culture endorses a the manicured, skinny and fake tanned, Burlesque still very much projects a particular idealised feminine image - in this case that image being the porcelain skinned hourglass. For every lapdancer told to gain an orange complexion and drop a dress size, perhaps there is a Burlesque performer painting herself in factor 500 and wearing a circulatory disorder inducing corset.
The inherent theme still remains. All of these women have our attention because, fundamentally, they are taking their clothes off. The act that thoroughly delayed the stripping by introing with a musical number was the act that got the least attention. Needless to say, the induction of a giant marrow finished by a finale of Union Jack nipple tassles got it back.
It is also interesting to note that our host this evening had to make the introduction with a verification that, yes, what they are doing IS art. Clearly my scepticism doesn't stand alone. That same host, however, was a total joy, and as an audience member writing a review on my night, it was a fantastic one and a great place to lose my B Plates.
And if the cynics of today may judge the revival of Burlesque as having lost sight of everything our 20th century sisters have taught us, then it may be interesting to note that the most classic act was the one that won.
But the bigger picture still remains. Whether this is still an art form that is as female empowering as it claims to be, and not just a repackaged symptom of our raunch culture, I'm still unsure.
And I am not the only one. This Monday the Bethnal Green Working Men's Club, in conjunction with Time Out and the Blue Stocking Society, are holding 'Art or Bust? The great Burlesque Debate'. Maybe they will be able to shimmy some light on my conundrum. Watch this space.
Oh and FYI, I voted for the one with the giant marrow. #
By Nicky Marchant
Saturday, 2 October 2010
Why I don’t want you in my ‘big women’ magazine!
Excitedly, I rushed to my laptop to look it up and sure enough there it was, “Just as Beautiful”, a new publication which until now has been available only on the internet, a magazine featuring only women of size 14 and above. I was over the moon.
My housemate immediately took issue with it, however. She was annoyed that the magazine claims not to discriminate against size and yet they are discriminating against anyone who is below a size 14. She, a slim size 12 herself, agreed that the magazine was a good idea, and certainly a positive move, but still discriminatory.
I came across the same argument when I posted the link on the FemSoc Facebook wall. “What if you are a size 12, which still isn’t featured in the mainstream magazines because you’re not a skinny rake... fml” – it would seem that you can please some of the sizes sometimes, but you can’t please all of the sizes all of the time.
I understand the argument – there are very few, if any, size 12 women in mainstream women’s glossies and fashion magazines. I understand the point that this sends size 12 women the same message that it sends to size 14, size 16, size 18 (etc.) women – that they are too big to be models, too big to be featured in magazines, and too big to be considered beautiful.
It would seem that the solution is to feature size 12 women in this magazine too. But with this I have a real issue – I don’t want size 12 women in a magazine intended to feature what the fashion industry would dub ‘plus-size’ women. As a size 16 myself, if I pick up a magazine which is supposed to feature ‘larger’ women, I’d feel pretty miffed to see size 12 women. To me, size 12 isn’t big – granted, it’s bigger than the skinny skeletons featured in the majority of magazines and in shop windows -- but it’s still pretty damned thin. There are some days when I see size 12 women walking around and think I might be tempted to kill someone if it meant I could look like them.
Given that the average dress size for women in the UK is now a size 16 (up from a 14 less than two decades ago), a magazine featuring women of size 14 and above really shouldn’t be anything groundbreaking – these are normal sized women – they’re average, and they’re beautiful. So when I heard about the magazine, I was thrilled – finally a publication which isn’t going to make me feel like I should be on some kind of crash-diet (whatever the ‘diet of the month’ is), show me lots of clothes which wouldn’t even get over my thighs, and chastise celebrities for adding a couple of pounds to their coathanger-esque frames.
Here’s the issue with featuring size 12 women in this magazine: they’re not big enough. They’re two sizes below the national average, and they don’t belong in a magazine for ‘bigger’ women. The main issue is not that I’m jealous of size 12 women (well, maybe a little...) and I’m certainly not telling any size 12 women to stop complaining –a lot of size 12 women face exactly the same body hang-ups as I do, I’m sure, but my point is that if I picked up a magazine called “Just As Beautiful”, featuring larger women, and saw size 12 women, I’d be really angry with the publishers.
Case in point: A couple of months ago I was watching TV and an advert for a ‘plus-size’ clothing catalogue came on – this was a catalogue aimed at women sized 14-28, and yet the women in the advert were a small size 14, they just happened to be quite tall. I was so angry – even an advert aimed solely at women above a size 14 was afraid of showing (SHOCK HORROR) a woman who was actually above a size 14. Yet more not-so-subtle messages from the mainstream media that no-one wants to see an average-sized woman. Not even a BIG woman, just a normal woman; I was absolutely livid. I wrote to the producers of the catalogue, but I never received a reply.
So there is the crux of my argument against my size 12 housemate – if I pick up a magazine which promises ‘normal sized’ women, I expect to see normal sized women, and if I see thin women, I’m going to interpret that exactly the same way I do when I see a size 8 woman (or smaller) in Vogue or Cosmopolitan; that I, as a size 16, am too big because I’m bigger than the woman I’m seeing pictures of.
In fact, featuring thinner women alongside the ‘average’ sized women is going to send the message that the larger women are there to fill some kind of ‘quota’, and the size 12s are there to make the magazine more appealing to the ‘mainstream’.
So my message to the magazine “Just As Beautiful” – thank you. Thank you for existing, thank you for making me actually feel good about reading a magazine, and thank you for not showing me women who are a lot thinner than me and making me feel like I’m too fat to be attractive even though I am, more or less, average.
And here’s my message to the size 12s – I understand that you, too, are shown images of women thinner than you, and that you too feel like you’re being told you’re too big, and that you too have hang-ups about your figure, thanks to the media input we experience every day of our lives. But to me, you are thin, and you make me very jealous. If you are included in my ‘big women’ magazine, you’re just going to make me sad, and angry with the producers of the magazine. Please, respect the integrity of the magazine and don’t feel bad that you’re not being represented in it. It just means that you’re probably thinner than you think you are ;)
Zoë Scandrett
Monday, 27 September 2010
UKC FemSoc at The Welcome Fayre!
Hours were spent packing party bags, printing hundreds of flyers, lists were made, tears were shed, and we had a very heavy suitcase to carry up Tyler Hill to reach the plaza outside the School of Arts--but it was all worth it!
FemSoc has been preparing for the Fayre practically since we were ratified as a society. It’s such a huge event, and the best time to gather mass support and interest in your society, and we couldn’t have done any better. We had plenty of items laid out to catch people’s attention--books for the reading group (including ‘Persepolis’ by Marjane Satrapi, which the Feminist Reading group will be discussing in Bramley’s, 6pm on 5th October, and ‘Reclaiming the F-word’, whose author, Catherine Redfern will be coming to give a talk for our society on 18th October), DVDs we plan to watch, badges for sale, booklets and leaflets from the Women’s Resource Centre, the Fawcett Society and the London Feminist Network, and even Shania Twain playing on our speakers.
We were ridiculously busy. Our Feminist themed party bags went down very well and we ran out almost within an hour. We also ran out of official flyers, and ended having to write our facebook group on the back of postcards to hand out instead! We gained 290 email addresses for our mailing list and talked to so many enthusiastic people.
I think it was a really positive feeling for everyone who was involved with running the stall. To be honest, we did expect a bit of negativity, but I’m glad to say that we were completely wrong. Aside from the odd one or two dickheads, most of the people we spoke to were eager to hear more, and excited about what we had planned--my personal favourite response was:
-Who are you guys?
-We’re the Feminist Society!
-Ooh! Say no more! *signs up immediately*.
Although I also have to mention the most hypocritical quote of the day; from a representative of Kent Uni Conservative Association, calling us outdated. Yes, that’s right, someone who actively campaigns for the Conservative Party (key word is in the title) and wears tweed called Feminism outdated… hmm.
As for now, I’m so excited about our first meeting, which is tonight. I’m looking forward to seeing who turns up, what they have to say, and where they want us to go next. We already have so much planned for the year ahead; Catherine Redfern’s talk on equality today, Feminism in London, Femstock in the Attic, Reclaim the Night, Million Woman Rise… I can’t wait to inject some real Feminist energy into the University of Kent!
--Louise
FemSoc has been preparing for the Fayre practically since we were ratified as a society. It’s such a huge event, and the best time to gather mass support and interest in your society, and we couldn’t have done any better. We had plenty of items laid out to catch people’s attention--books for the reading group (including ‘Persepolis’ by Marjane Satrapi, which the Feminist Reading group will be discussing in Bramley’s, 6pm on 5th October, and ‘Reclaiming the F-word’, whose author, Catherine Redfern will be coming to give a talk for our society on 18th October), DVDs we plan to watch, badges for sale, booklets and leaflets from the Women’s Resource Centre, the Fawcett Society and the London Feminist Network, and even Shania Twain playing on our speakers.
We were ridiculously busy. Our Feminist themed party bags went down very well and we ran out almost within an hour. We also ran out of official flyers, and ended having to write our facebook group on the back of postcards to hand out instead! We gained 290 email addresses for our mailing list and talked to so many enthusiastic people.
I think it was a really positive feeling for everyone who was involved with running the stall. To be honest, we did expect a bit of negativity, but I’m glad to say that we were completely wrong. Aside from the odd one or two dickheads, most of the people we spoke to were eager to hear more, and excited about what we had planned--my personal favourite response was:
-Who are you guys?
-We’re the Feminist Society!
-Ooh! Say no more! *signs up immediately*.
Although I also have to mention the most hypocritical quote of the day; from a representative of Kent Uni Conservative Association, calling us outdated. Yes, that’s right, someone who actively campaigns for the Conservative Party (key word is in the title) and wears tweed called Feminism outdated… hmm.
As for now, I’m so excited about our first meeting, which is tonight. I’m looking forward to seeing who turns up, what they have to say, and where they want us to go next. We already have so much planned for the year ahead; Catherine Redfern’s talk on equality today, Feminism in London, Femstock in the Attic, Reclaim the Night, Million Woman Rise… I can’t wait to inject some real Feminist energy into the University of Kent!
--Louise
Tuesday, 14 September 2010
Zoë Scandrett--An interview with your Womens' Officer
Here is a short interview (via email) with the elected Womens' Officer for 2010/11 at Kent University, Zoë Scandrett. Zoë is a third year Philosophy student who has been active in Union politics since her first year, sitting on Union Council, working with SocFedCom, and being General Secretary of Kent Student Socialists Society last year. She is a vegetarian, socialist and a feminist, and also (according to facebook) plans to attend 'National Cheesecake Day'.
1. Are you a Feminist? Why?
Of course I’m a Feminist! I’m a Feminist because I believe in the equality of women and I think there’s still such a lot of fighting that needs doing before we can say that we are truly equal in all aspects.
2. What made you decide to run for the position Women’s Officer?
Last year, the Women’s Campaign didn’t really do anything, and I felt that it was an opportunity wasted; so I thought I’d have a go at doing a better job!
3. What do you feel is the importance of the Women’s Campaign?
I think the campaign has the power to really energise and empower women at the university to enact change that affects them and other students. I think that University is a great place to become political, and it’s one of the best places in life to meet like-minded people and get together to do something that makes a difference. The Women’s Campaign is a wonderful outlet for that – we’ll be doing things that will hopefully make a real difference to students and running campaigns on what the women at Kent feel are important to them.
4. What do you believe you can achieve this year to improve the lives of women at the University of Kent?
We’ll be running a campaign in co-operation with the Vice-President for Education to ensure that anonymous marking is rolled out across all departments at the university – which puts an end to favouritism and will prevent lecturers reflecting their prejudices in the marks they award for academic achievement.
Fortunately the campaign is very flexible and is member-led, so we’ll be able to work on what women tell me that they want – I’ll be hosting Women’s Forum every three weeks to discuss what women want from the campaign, and to respond to issues as they arise.
5. Do you see yourself having many major difficulties in achieving these aims?
I’ve sat on Union Council (one of the main decision making bodies within the student union) for over a year now, and I know how difficult it can be to get some things passed – there is unfortunately a lot of prejudice and misunderstanding among a lot of people on liberation issues; and I see persuading people to the cause as one of my biggest obstacles this year, but we’ve also got a lot of sympathetic and supportive officers who will be behind the campaign all the way, I’m sure.
6. What do you believe makes a successful campaign?
I think an effective campaign needs to respond to the needs of the people it’s fighting for. As long as women feel that they can come to me as their Women’s Officer with issues and I can help them to work through these issues and enact change where we think it’s needed, I’ll feel like I’ve led a successful campaign.
7. Have you ever personally felt discriminated against or taken advantage of due to your gender? What was your reaction?
Personally, I’ve never experienced anything major, but recently I was visiting a friend in Bristol and on the bus we heard a woman answer her phone. She’d clearly just broken up with her boyfriend who’d punched her and bitten her wrist. From the sounds of the conversation he was begging her to come back and she was telling him where to shove it. Everyone on the bus was listening to her conversation but no-one said anything, so when she hung up I quietly leaned over and asked if she was okay and begged her to go to the police and tell them about her ex-boyfriend’s abuse. She said she would, and I’m not sure if she actually did, but I hope so.
8. What do you believe are the greatest achievements/advances of the Women’s movement so far?
That’s a hard question, there’s such a lot! I’m not sure that I can pin it down to any one achievement or event, but the gradual social change in the developed world, in that women are now able to have careers and families, and (although there are of course plenty of obstacles which still need fighting against) aren’t judged (by most) for choosing to do so, I think is incredible progress, considering how (relatively) quickly these changes have come about.
9. Which women or woman particularly inspires you?
Caroline Lucas, the leader of the Green Party and MP for Brighton Pavillion. Not only do I admire her politics, but I really look up to her for her ability to make people listen to her, she commands respect without being ‘scary’ or dominating, and she works so hard to enact real change for people.
10. We hear so much about the negatives of Feminism—what do you feel are the positives? What about Feminism makes you happy, or has benefitted your life?
Feminism makes me happy because it’s about people uniting to fight for change which affects everyone, and will make things better for everyone. Feminism doesn’t just make the world better for women, which I think is one of the main misunderstandings – everyone benefits from an equal world – and men can benefit from women being equal, too.
I love the feeling of being radicalised – getting involved in fighting for something which you feel passionate about – debating issues, persuading people to your cause, and supporting others to do the same - Feminism gives me a reason to get up and DO SOMETHING. =)
If you would like to know more about the Womens' Campaign, get involved, or just be on the mailing list, email: Womens@kent.ac.uk
(interviewed by) Louise.
1. Are you a Feminist? Why?
Of course I’m a Feminist! I’m a Feminist because I believe in the equality of women and I think there’s still such a lot of fighting that needs doing before we can say that we are truly equal in all aspects.
2. What made you decide to run for the position Women’s Officer?
Last year, the Women’s Campaign didn’t really do anything, and I felt that it was an opportunity wasted; so I thought I’d have a go at doing a better job!
3. What do you feel is the importance of the Women’s Campaign?
I think the campaign has the power to really energise and empower women at the university to enact change that affects them and other students. I think that University is a great place to become political, and it’s one of the best places in life to meet like-minded people and get together to do something that makes a difference. The Women’s Campaign is a wonderful outlet for that – we’ll be doing things that will hopefully make a real difference to students and running campaigns on what the women at Kent feel are important to them.
4. What do you believe you can achieve this year to improve the lives of women at the University of Kent?
We’ll be running a campaign in co-operation with the Vice-President for Education to ensure that anonymous marking is rolled out across all departments at the university – which puts an end to favouritism and will prevent lecturers reflecting their prejudices in the marks they award for academic achievement.
Fortunately the campaign is very flexible and is member-led, so we’ll be able to work on what women tell me that they want – I’ll be hosting Women’s Forum every three weeks to discuss what women want from the campaign, and to respond to issues as they arise.
5. Do you see yourself having many major difficulties in achieving these aims?
I’ve sat on Union Council (one of the main decision making bodies within the student union) for over a year now, and I know how difficult it can be to get some things passed – there is unfortunately a lot of prejudice and misunderstanding among a lot of people on liberation issues; and I see persuading people to the cause as one of my biggest obstacles this year, but we’ve also got a lot of sympathetic and supportive officers who will be behind the campaign all the way, I’m sure.
6. What do you believe makes a successful campaign?
I think an effective campaign needs to respond to the needs of the people it’s fighting for. As long as women feel that they can come to me as their Women’s Officer with issues and I can help them to work through these issues and enact change where we think it’s needed, I’ll feel like I’ve led a successful campaign.
7. Have you ever personally felt discriminated against or taken advantage of due to your gender? What was your reaction?
Personally, I’ve never experienced anything major, but recently I was visiting a friend in Bristol and on the bus we heard a woman answer her phone. She’d clearly just broken up with her boyfriend who’d punched her and bitten her wrist. From the sounds of the conversation he was begging her to come back and she was telling him where to shove it. Everyone on the bus was listening to her conversation but no-one said anything, so when she hung up I quietly leaned over and asked if she was okay and begged her to go to the police and tell them about her ex-boyfriend’s abuse. She said she would, and I’m not sure if she actually did, but I hope so.
8. What do you believe are the greatest achievements/advances of the Women’s movement so far?
That’s a hard question, there’s such a lot! I’m not sure that I can pin it down to any one achievement or event, but the gradual social change in the developed world, in that women are now able to have careers and families, and (although there are of course plenty of obstacles which still need fighting against) aren’t judged (by most) for choosing to do so, I think is incredible progress, considering how (relatively) quickly these changes have come about.
9. Which women or woman particularly inspires you?
Caroline Lucas, the leader of the Green Party and MP for Brighton Pavillion. Not only do I admire her politics, but I really look up to her for her ability to make people listen to her, she commands respect without being ‘scary’ or dominating, and she works so hard to enact real change for people.
10. We hear so much about the negatives of Feminism—what do you feel are the positives? What about Feminism makes you happy, or has benefitted your life?
Feminism makes me happy because it’s about people uniting to fight for change which affects everyone, and will make things better for everyone. Feminism doesn’t just make the world better for women, which I think is one of the main misunderstandings – everyone benefits from an equal world – and men can benefit from women being equal, too.
I love the feeling of being radicalised – getting involved in fighting for something which you feel passionate about – debating issues, persuading people to your cause, and supporting others to do the same - Feminism gives me a reason to get up and DO SOMETHING. =)
If you would like to know more about the Womens' Campaign, get involved, or just be on the mailing list, email: Womens@kent.ac.uk
(interviewed by) Louise.
Wednesday, 25 August 2010
Rant on TV's Mad Men and Female Sexuality
I love Mad Men—you know, that show about the ‘60s Advertising firm with the hot redhead and all the smoking? I love the drama, the costumes, the excessive drinking… but more than anything I love the female characters. Unlike many TV shows and movies around, the women aren’t just two dimensional props to the male characters; these are roles you can sink your teeth into. There’s Peggy, the shy mousey girl rising in the ranks, from secretary to copywriter in four seasons, who is constantly making naïve mistakes which could ruin her; the aforementioned red haired bombshell Joan, the hospitality manager who knows exactly what to do in every eventuality, and yet struggles to manage her strained relationship with her husband; and of course glacially beautiful Betty, the perfect repressed wasp with one hell of a temper.
The show deals with plenty of women’s issues too—the obvious one being sexism and the state of women’s lives in the 1960’s, but also rape, contraception, prostitution, divorce, motherhood, adoption and depression… the list goes on.
But one issue in particular came up in the latest episode, which really surprised me—not least because of the character they used. Don’s daughter, lisping, cherub faced ten-year-old Sally Draper was caught masturbating. This, in itself I didn’t find particularly shocking—nothing was explicitly shown of course. Nor was I surprised by her mother Betty’s reaction—to tell her never to do it again, even in private, and to eventually pack her off to a child therapist—after all, this is 1965, and Betty’s parenting choices are usually pretty infuriating to the modern day observer.
What did surprise me—though perhaps it shouldn’t have—was the viewers reactions to the scene. Being a bit of a geek when it comes to films and television, I regularly rush to check the forums on http://www.imdb.com/ after each episode. Internet forums are possibly not the best place for my blood pressure, so I’ll try not to rant too much. Of course, the subject of little Sally Draper’s ‘self-abuse’ was one of hot debate. The reactions in general seemed to be: ‘What the hell?! She’s way too young for that!’ or ‘she was probably just confused and didn’t know what she was doing.’
It’s worth mentioning that the first reaction was largely from male posters—and I don’t blame them. It’s still fairly taboo in some circles to acknowledge that a grown woman masturbates, let alone a pre-pubescent girl. But let me clear this up; no, she is not ‘too young for that’. Babies masturbate. Anyone who’s had to deal with children under five knows that toddlers touch themselves too, male and female. This is not necessarily masturbation with the intention of having an orgasm—it’s often just for comfort, and because it just feels nice to touch yourself there.
This does not mean that Sally Draper, or any child who masturbates, wants to have sexual intercourse, or can even comprehend what that is. It simply means that they experience arousal, or just pleasant feelings which they associate with their genitals. And what on earth is wrong with that?
The second reaction; ‘she was confused!’ annoyed me perhaps even more. If Sally Draper had been a ten year old boy, touching his penis because he saw an attractive woman on TV (Sally was watching ‘60s television spy show ‘The Man from U.N.C.L.E’ and apparently had a crush on the lead actor), would we assume he didn’t know what he was doing? Or would the message boards have been flooded with guys reminiscing about the first time they whacked off to Emma Peel watching ‘The Avengers’? But, because Sally was a girl, she clearly had no understanding or concept of her own sexuality.
This is something which angers me in general, and which I will happily rave about to anyone who will listen; the idea of girls’ sexuality being decided for them. It’s almost as if young girls have their sexual selves confiscated from them until they are supposedly ‘ready’: ‘No, you can’t have that, it’s inappropriate for you.’ And of course ‘ready’ means ready for sex, ready to reproduce. How is that healthy at all?
What are girls really taught about ‘touching themselves’? Is it ever as acceptable or acknowledged in the same way as young boys doing it? There isn’t even a slang word for female masturbation; wanking, tossing off, jerking off, whacking off, tugging—these all apply to men, and what do we get? ‘Frigging’, ‘Fingering’… what do they even mean? It’s been very well documented that most women prefer to masturbate by stimulating their clitoris—not by shoving their fingers up there and wiggling them around, and yet these are the only words we are given, and explains why there is so much confusion around the subject for young girls who think they are strange because they are not having ‘vaginal’ orgasms (thank you very much, Freud) only clitoral.
This isn’t even just about masturbating. When it comes to young girls and sex they are told; ‘boys will want sex’ or ‘be careful, boys only want one thing’, ‘make sure he wears a condom!’ When are girls ever told that actually, they might want sex too? That sex is not, in fact, something which is ‘done’ to you, but a joint activity. That you need to be aroused for it too?
One of the great things about Mad Men is that it shows us Feminists how far we’ve come already with regards to the workplace, expectations, divorce and our own choices. But I still believe that when it comes to female sexuality we have a long way to go before we are allowed to own it ourselves.
By Louise MacBean
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)