I would like to clear a few things up before I start with my
feminist ranting blogging, and I think why I call myself a feminist is a
good place to start.
I don’t hate men. Feminists do not hate men. I love men.
There are men I dislike, yes, but there are also women I hate too, which doesn’t
make me anti-feminist. I think most people would say they hate Katie Hopkins
but I like to think this just makes me anti-Katie rather than anti-women.
Feminism isn’t about trying to make it so women are seen as better than men at
all. It isn’t about trying to get female superiority, or having a women-led
society. All feminism is is the radical thinking that women should be equal to
men.
That’s it. Equality. Simple.
A lot of people get offended when I suggest that they in
fact are a feminist, as if I’ve just told them they can’t speak their own
language. They deny it “I think women should be equal to men but I’m no
feminist”... well you kind of are. It’s not a dirty word at all. You either are
a feminist or a sexist, there really is not some grey area in between. You
either believe women are equal to men or you don’t. It’s that simple.
I guess now a few of you may be thinking “but women are equal to men?” and suggest that modern feminism is pointless. I get that a lot, too. Yeah it’s great that I have the vote, but I want more than that. I want equal representation in Parliament. Currently (according to 50/50 parliament) the figure in Parliament stands at 503 men and 147 women. Parliament is 77% male. I think women deserve more than that. I want women, apart from the monarch, to appear on banknotes and I want women to be represented by the media in the same way as men are.
Hang on now Jess, women ARE represented fairly in the media. There's loads of stories about women in the Daily Mail!
Well, no, unfortunately. I now invite you to google “GQ magazine covers”. Click on images and you should see the front pages of various GQ magazines. Have a really close look. Can you spot the difference between the men and the women?
The men look great, don’t they? Dressed up in suits, tie and all, with just their smiling faces showing. Now look at the women- over sexualised, often naked. It’s not fair. It’s not an equal playing-field. The man is presented as being intelligent, a business man, whereas the woman is just being shown as a sexual object, her purpose is to look sexy. You may have also noticed how the word “sex” appears a lot around the picture of the woman on the front page. It’s this underlying assumption within the media which really annoys me. These beautiful women, many of whom have amazing careers, are presented to be valued purely for their physical appearance. It’s really unfair to women. Yes, the women choose to model for these magazines, but that doesn’t make it right. It’s fairly obvious that the only choice these women have is to strip off, whilst the man’s choice is to wear a nice suit. This can be seen from how every single woman on the front page is sexualised and every single man is fully dressed. It’s unfair. It shouldn’t be that publicity for women means standing in your knickers. Women are worth more than that.
I’ve had to stop myself going on a rant about Page Three in this blog, but I believe that’s going to be the subject for another day.
Thanks for reading,
Jess x
I would like to challenge the absurd notion that equality of opportunity equals equality of outcome. To not understand such basic concepts would undermine any attempt to argue for equality in the first place. We'll take the age old concept of the supposed wage gap. Now this perpetuates the idea that for every £1 a man earns, a woman would earn £0.81. However, the is simply an aggregate of the average wages so what we see is a woman who works part time compared to a man with years of career progression. After all, do you disagree that women are more likely to work part time, and that part time work pays less? So that the only way you could achieve your "equality" would be to pay women more for less work than men, which completely counteracts the idea of equality.
ReplyDeleteOf course, it's far more complex than just part time work, another major factor is that women value money far less than a man as their main priority in life, and are more likely to focus on family and other areas. As a result, they tend to work less overtime. What we find, is that when we actually properly address the subject by looking at women in the same jobs as men, who are not mothers, they earn on average 5% more per unit of effort. If 95% of workplace fatalities are male, why should they not be compensated for the additional risk.
So how does this even relate back to your post, well we have to ask is the lack of females in Parliament a symptom of inequality, or just that women tend to be less interested in politics. If you disagree with me, then my advice is to go become an MP, in a democratic system the only barrier preventing this is your own will. That's right, when women complain they are under-represented, they themselves are entirely to blame. To install quotas would lead to the very break-down of a nations right to choose who should lead.
Now your response to this is that these differences are simply proof of traditional gender roles being forced upon us. But the idea that all behaviour is learnt is nothing more than new-age nonsense, that has been repeatedly discredited by modern biological knowledge. Studies investigating the brains of both genders have shown that areas of the brain that control empathy, fine motor control and social development in women are significantly larger, explaining things such as better handwriting and why women mature socially at a younger age. Men however, have better spatial understanding, and number crunching. What these studies show is that women and men are very difference, they are not meant to be in competition, but rather to compliment one-another. Which is why women are the equal in the rights and recognition they deserve, but they are in no way the same.
Bringing me onto my final point, believing in equality does not make me a feminist. Feminism seeks to bring about gender equality through the empowerment of a single gender. However, this is a one dimensional, pre-school way of looking at gender gaps. What we see is that in some areas women are discriminated, and in other areas there is a discrimination of men, even if it may skew to one side. After all, when have you seen a feminist complaining about how males are 4 times more likely to commit suicide, or face equal rates of body image issues. I am an egalitarian, not a feminist. And I believe in equality of opportunity, not outcome.
Please stop being boring and ridiculous. How can you say that women are to blame for being discriminated against? Your flowery language and impression of wanting "equality" does nothing to undermine any of Jess' points. Your just victim-blaming.
DeleteI do apologise if self determination is now "victim blaming". Though I do advise that rather than calling it boring and ridiculous, you actually attempt to counteract my arguments without resorting to petty feelings. And yes, I can provide citations for every bit of my argument.
DeleteHi Jimmy, please can you provide a Psychologically verifiable study which says that behaviour isn't learned and also these studies which have investigated "the brains of both genders have shown that areas of the brain that control empathy, fine motor control and social development in women are significantly larger, explaining things such as better handwriting and why women mature socially at a younger age." It's just that, as a Psychology student, I'd like to have a look at these studies. Thanks.
DeleteAlso, your final point of "believing in equality does not make me a feminist" Is actually illogical. The basic definition of feminism is "a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, cultural, and social rights" so saying you believe in equality but do not identify with feminism is contradictory. I suppose that you may not wish to identify with feminism due to the unfortunate name it is given in the media.
Furthermore,as regards to your comments on equal pay, I believe that men and women should be paid the same amount of money for the same amount of work. I'm not sure if you were serious with this comment, "women value money far less than a man", but if you are, I would suggest that this is a massive generalisation which there are no grounds for. Also, saying women "are more likely to focus on family" is not only offensive to women, but also to men. It's not just the mother's responsibility, and to suggest that men don't take as much of an interest in family life is actually unfair to men.
Also, please can you provide a source for this comment "women in the same jobs as men, who are not mothers, earn on average 5% more per unit of effort" I can't seem to find it online. Thanks.
Hi Jess,
ReplyDeleteWhat a great post and I really admire your position. However, I am one of those women that do not necessarily see themselves as feminists, because to me, the word does (rightly or not) carry an element of promoting one gender over another. I am also not one for quotas. Promoting equality, yes. Demanding a percentage, no. To me it impinges on liberties. I would absolutely hate to get a job over a male counterpart, based on my gender, over than my talent. I would find that really offensive - discriminatory in fact! Your blog has made me see feminist in a slightly different light though, thank you.
The thing that actually prompted me to reply was what you said about the portrayal of women in magazines, TV, page 3, etc. Whilst the page 3 debate is for another post, as you said, more and more we are seeing an identical portrayal of men in the media as well. Although you don't yet have bare chested men on the front cover of Elle, I stopped buying Cosmopolitan because of their regular male "centrefolds". Don't get me wrong, I am not prudish at all! In the same way that I wouldn't want to open a newspaper and see boobs, I don't want to buy a fashion magazine and see abs! If I want to access images like that, well, the internet is my oyster!
And what about all the diet coke ads? And Muller yogurt ads? They portray men in exactly the same way. Yes there are equally - and many, many more - sexist ads towards women - but a "we can do it too" approach is not the answer and it just perpetuates the notion that it is acceptable to reduce any human being - male or female - to their sex appeal, in broad daylight.
And what about the likes of women's awards, and even woman's hour on radio 4? Does it mean women can only listen to the radio for that hour? Or that men can't listen to the programme? Or that the programmes are made with just women in mind? For the sake of equality, should there be a "Men's hour"? It's an awfully dated concept and it should be scrapped! Equally, women's awards. Let's just have awards for everyone, or have a woman and man's award! This kind of positive "discrimination", alongside quotas, just broadens the gap as far as I'm concerned.
Jimmie, a great deal of what you have written s based on massive generalisation. Whilst anyone would agree that there are biological differences (hello, uterus), and that women are more likely to take career breaks to look after families etc (although increasingly many men are also choosing to do so), this does not mean they should be paid less. I know many women that have jobs where they put their safety at risk and they are not being compensated for this either!
It's 2014 for goodness sake - and we're in the western world. Let's just all get along. If we really want a debate about feminism, let's turn to Nigeria, perhaps...
Izzy, my personal view on adverts which are sexualising men is the same. It's degrading and perpetuates the idea of one being purely sexual, as if that's all there is to someone. It is rather one-dimensional and I by no means support it.
DeleteHowever, what you say about feminism only promoting one gender is wrong. It's called "feminism" because when the movement started, it was trying to empower women to the same level as men. We're still not there. This can be seen simply by looking at the "Everyday Sexism" campaign by the amazing Laura Bates. Feminism also empowers men. Feminism actively tries to get rid of gender stereotypes, which does benefit men. A lot of the time, when issues such as rape come up and people jump to the "it's male instinct" defence, it's feminists who are saying that that's a massive generalisation and not all men are rapists. Furthermore, feminists aren't all female. In fact, a lot of feminists are male. A lot of men respect feminism and campaign for equality. Arguably, because they realise how equal rights for women takes nothing away from men.
Feminism works both ways, too. I hate 'woman's hour' and most things which stereotype what I may enjoy listening to or watching as a woman. In my experience, they basically talk about the menopause and lib balm for an hour. Same with "loose women", they often talk about, and sexualise, men in an offensive way, one that wouldn't be tolerated if it were a group of male panelists talking about a female. Feminism, equality, goes both ways. It's not just about what is sexist towards women, it's about what it sexist towards men, too.
I would also agree that positive discrimination is still discrimination. My point about 50/50 parliament was to show how women are under-represented, I was quoting 50/50's shocking statistics. Although I disagree with positive discrimination, I also struggle to find a better solution for gender inequalities within Parliament. We are speaking of a predominantly male, socially backwards place, it would take years and years for more women to appear in Parliament. According to 50/50 Parliament, at the current rate (8 extra women MPs per election on average over last 3 elections) it will take over 100 years to achieve a balanced Parliament of around 50:50 men and women. I believe that Parliament should be representative of the whole population, whether that means more women or not is controversial, but I certainly don't think that parliament is representative of the country at all now. You may be interested in this article: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/06/david-cameron-male-bench-ed-miliband
I have always agreed with the "best person for the job" argument, but I worry that often it is perceived that someone is the best because of their gender. This has certainly been my experience, anyway.