Is Farage Changing his Tune?

Recently "A long list of ideas designed to appeal to women was unveiled, who argued that UKIP 'recognises very much the huge contribution women now make to UK society'." This seems quite different to "earlier this month [when] Nigel Farage memorably opined that women were 'worth less' than men and do not face discrimination in the City." 

When polls revealed that UKIP was losing votes due to so many women opposing them, they decided to target this group in order to gain more support around the country. Some of their 'feminist' policies include:

- 3,000 more midwives for the NHS
- Access to specialist mental health services for all pregnant women and new mothers
- Wrap-around childcare - breakfast and after-school clubs - for all school-age children
- 'Zero tolerance' for illegal cultural practices or ones that 'conflict with British values' - forced marriages, female genital mutilation and honour killings
- Commitment to increasing the allowance for carers - 58% of whom are women - in line with inflation

- Scrapping the Tampon Tax 

Clearly these policies would all be beneficial to women, however some of them are mere by-products of their strong anti-immigration and anti-Europe views. For example, if we take the issue of FGM, obviously this is something that is unacceptable and should certainly be stopped, however it is unclear as to why UKIP wants to combat FGM all of a sudden. Is it so it can promote women's rights and fight for a fairer society? Or is it just another way to demonise foreigners and add to the growing islamophobia in Britain? It's probably a mixture of both.

Furthermore if we examine the detail of the tampon tax issue, then we in fact discover that this is something which is merely a side-effect of leaving the EU. That is to say that currently, due to EU regulations the UK is unable to change the tax rate on tampons and other sanitary products, therefore UKIP is using this issue to demonstrate the stifling regulations of the European Union. 

Perhaps I am being too harsh, and maybe UKIP have changed for the better. Of course these policies could be in good faith, long planned and saved up to win over those last few voters in the run up to the election. However, unfortunately I am completely convinced. You have the facts now, you make a choice - has UKIP truly decided to support women?

Written by Lili

Picture Credit: Ellen

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32232694

http://www.feministtimes.com/farage-its-the-system-that-needs-changing-not-biology/ 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/09/chauvinistic-boorish-ukip-men-put-off-female-voters-election-patrick-oflynn

Outnumbered

For the first time in history, there were more women than men partaking in a UK general election leaders debate. On the 16th April, Natalie Bennett (Green party leader), Lianne Wood (leader of Plaid Cymru) and Nicola Stugeon (leader of the Scottish National Party) took part in a debate with Ed Miliband (Labour party leader) and Nigel Farage (leader of UKIP).

I think these women deserve recognition because for so long British politics has been dominated by men, and despite the fact that there were only 143 female MP's in the last parliament (out of a total of 650), these three women have made it to the top.

Lianne Wood grew up in Wales and was educated in the local comprehensive school, and despite being a mother (and a single mother following her partner's death), she has been able to have a very successful career in politics. I think she is an inspiration to us all, demonstrating that it is not necessary to be privately educated (although 33% of British MP's are) nor a man to succeed in politics. She has managed to balance motherly duties with those that her work requires, and therefore I think she is a great example of the fact that it is indeed possible to be a working mother in this day and age.

Nicola Sturgeon was also state educated, and is the first ever female to lead the Scottish National Party. Despite becoming leader in the aftermath of the Scottish referendum, she has been able to gain much support for the Scottish National Party, with some polls naming her as winner of the 7-party leader debate. Once again this goes to show just how much impact women can make when they are allowed the opportunity.

Natalie Bennett is an immigrant (something that clearly does not seem to please Nigel Farage), and has lived in England since 1999. Unlike Nicola Sturgeon and Lianne Wood she was preceded by Caroline Lucas as leader of the Green Party, another female. Perhaps this reflects the party's policies: as quoted from their manifesto: "The Green Party would introduce a number of strong measures to promote gender equality and safeguard women’s rights including equal pay audits, shared maternity and paternity leave and better support for women in need." This clearly shows that women's rights are certainly on the Green Party's agenda and therefore their gain in popularity could have a positive outcome.

It remains to be seen what role, if any, these women will play in our next government, but for me it is an encouraging prospect to, at last, have some women able to represent us in parliament. Furthermore, for anyone who did not see, at the end of the 5-party debate, instead of a handshake, these three female leaders had a warm embrace. This just goes to show their solidarity, not just as parties with some common aims, but as women who have succeeded against the odds in gaining power and influence.

Written by Lili

Picture Credit: Ellen


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicola_Sturgeon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leanne_Wood 
http://www.ukpolitical.info/FemaleMPs.htm
https://www.greenparty.org.uk/assets/files/PolicyPointers/Women_pointer.pdf

Our Names?

Most women these days would agree that the inclusion of "Ms" on official documents in 1972 has been beneficial. But why exactly?

The title "Ms" was introduced as an alternative to "Miss" and "Mrs", thereby giving women a third option and allowing them to keep their marital status private. The word "Miss" originated from the word "mistress," and has long been the title of unmarried women. The main arguments against the use of both "Miss" and "Mrs" is that it requires women to state whether or not they are married, therefore being obliged to disclose this personal information whilst men do not even need to mention their marital status. 

Furthermore it is easy to misuse the titles "Miss" and "Mrs". That is to say that calling a grown woman "Miss" can be seen as demeaning and patronising, whilst some women feel offended if they are called "Mrs" because this suggests they are old. 

This is not something unique to our culture either, the idea that women must identify themselves in relation to a man is very widespread.

Take the example of France, where, until as recently as 2012, unmarried women were forced to identify themselves as "Mademoiselle" on all official forms. The word "Mademoiselle" originates from the words "Ma Demoiselle", translating as "My Lady".  However the word also "harks back to the term 'oiselle', which means 'virgin' or 'simpleton'." (The Mail) The very idea that an unmarried women should be less worthy and therefore referred to in terms of her 'simplicity' is quite shocking to think of in the 21st Century. Moreover, despite the fact that "Mademoiselle" is no longer included on official documents it is still widely used throughout France in both everyday speech and literary texts. It is perhaps unsurprising that so many people oppose the use of this title which highlights how ingrained male supremacy is in our current society, despite people's best efforts to make a change. In British schools for example, male teachers are called "Sir" whilst female teachers are called "Miss". This may go back to the time when any working woman would give up her career upon marrying, thereby meaning that there would rarely be a teacher who was, indeed, a "Mrs". However, it still seems to me that these two titles infer inequality, an especially damaging idea to expose so many children to from such a young age.

The fact that the terms "Miss" and "Mademoiselle" are often perceived as flattering is also interesting. when some French women were interviewed and asked their opinions on the term "Mademoiselle", many answered in a similar way to "Magali, thirty, French teacher and the mother of two, married" who said: "I am flattered to be called ‘mademoiselle’ in place of ‘madame’. It rejuvenates you." (The New Yorker). This brings up the widespread view that women (and sometimes men as well) are too often cast aside in their old age. our current society places so much value on youth and vigour that we seem to overlook the wisdom and experience older, more mature people can offer us. Therefore the fact that so many women are flattered by being mistaken for younger than they are alludes to another issue which is how our society views ageing. However, although there is more to say on this I will leave it for another time. 

In conclusion, despite that many people disregard the existence of "Ms" as being of much importance, viewing it as a petty matter and thinking that we have more significant things to focus on, the word, although small, represents a much larger battle. Namely the battle to allow women to be regarded as equals to men, for, regardless of the laws in place, our society remains one which often suppresses women. It is subtleties like the box we tick on a form that can pave the way for a more just and equal future. For anyone who thinks the fight is over, battle has been won, I urge them to think again. We have made great progress, but we are by no means finished. 

Written by Lili

Picture Credit: Ellen

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2104826/Au-revoir-Mademoiselle-France-bans-word-Miss-official-documents-suggests-woman-available.html 

http://www.newyorker.com/news/lauren-collins/adieu-to-mademoiselle

http://www.france24.com/en/20120222-france-strikes-out-mademoiselle-coup-feminism/ 

What Colour is Music?

Sarah Sahim of Pitchfork recently reported on the ‘Unbearable Whiteness of Indie’, noting that ‘In Indie-Rock white is the norm’. Her report has lead to backlash as some artists felt they were being targeted for something beyond their control, as Stuart Murdoch of Belle and Sebastian tweeted in response to the article ‘I wish I was in a band that looked like the Brazil team in the 70s, but we formed in Glasgow’. Although it may be argued that Sahim took the wrong approach in attacking individual bands she has raised a valid issue that applies across the music industry.


The genre of indie music is a clear starting point as it has commonly been associated as a white genre. Looking at the lineups so far for End of the Road festival and Green Man festival the whiteness of the genre is explicit: Out of the acts announced so far only 1 out of 70+ acts for End of the Road are black and 3 acts out of 65+ for Green Man. Yet few seem to question this, purely accepting it as a fact of the genre. A figure that many seem to accept despite his controversial comments surrounding race is Morrissey, one notable example being ‘You can’t help but feel that Chinese people are subhuman’. Many have dismissed Morrisey’s racist behaviour, claiming that his musical ability and popularity outweighs his flaws. However, when it comes to issues surrounding sex people are quicker to speak out. We were ready to talk against Blurred Lines and sexism in the industry but why are people less concerned with race? Why do people find is easier to protect white women but not women (and men) with a different skin colour?


The way we perceive people of different races has highly been influenced by the way they are presented within the industry. In summer 2014 it was reported that ‘White people claim 93% of jobs in UK music and arts industry’. By having such a small minority of other races in a domain where its influence came from them is paradoxical and it also means that people view music from other races as ‘the other’. A clear example of this is black women. In the industry they are rarely given the chance to define their own individuality but are clumped into one group, ‘commonly portrayed as hyper sexual and with a focus and fascinated gaze on their bottoms, invoking ideas of black women as wild and animalistic.’ This attitude to black women is highly toxic because it belittles the message of their work. Nicki Minaj is a clear example of a musician who fell victim, only recently has she been taken seriously for her work which talks about feminism and education as she has had to overcome plenty of criticism surrounding her appearance. Furthermore, she has been listed as one of the many stars (along with Beyoncé) who have been ‘whitewashed’ by magazines to fit into Western beauty standards.

M.I.A is known for her Sri-Lankan Tamil heritage and political activism with lyrics concerning religion and the Sri-Lankan civil war she and her family fled from as she notes ‘some people see planes/ Some people see drones/ Some people see a doom/ And some people see domes’. However, her political messages have been ignored as many have focused on the issue that she doesn’t sound like a ‘typical’ brown girl. In a review of M.I.A.’s debut Arular, Reynolds wrote that while ‘The record sounds great,’ there’s ‘something ever so slightly off-putting about the whole phenomenon...don’t let M.I.A.'s brown skin throw you off: She's got no more real connection with the favela funksters than Prince Harry.’ This is an example of an artist’s style being defined by their skin colour, which should not be relevant. FKA Twigs similarly is popular among indie fans but the label of indie has been removed from her. Instead, she has been placed in ‘PBR&B’, although sounding closer to indie icons Björk and Grimes, not R&B queen Beyoncé. How is it fair to deny people from a music genre or delegitimise their artistic message purely because of the colour of their skin?

Race has been a big issue for men in the industry too. Kayne West was recently announced as headliner for Glastonbury festival and this provoked backlash as 125,000 signed a petition on change.org claiming that he did not deserve it and a rock headliner should be found instead. Many have seen this as a racist issue, because it is placing white rock as superior to black rap and reminds me of Brown’s point that ‘White rock has always been considered as art, and black music as commerce’. Macklemore has also noted that as a white rapper he feels that he has a privilege black artists don't. ‘Why can I cuss on a record, have a parental advisory sticker on the cover of my album, yet parents are still like, 'You're the only rap I let my kids listen to,'’he said. ‘Why can I wear a hoodie and not be labeled a thug?...The privilege that exists in the music industry is just a greater symptom of the privilege that exists in America.’

Music being a microcosm for the society’s political perspective towards race can also been seen through the xenophobic and racist behaviour to ex One Direction member, Zayn Malik. During his time as boy band member Malik was constantly faced with racist behaviour: often labeled as the ‘dark, bad boy’ of the group although there seemed to be no action to go with it, forced to delete Twitter after receiving hundreds of racist tweets calling him a terrorist and had a parody video made about him titled ‘Zayn did 9/11’ which was released on iTunes. Such behaviour was heighten when Malik left the group, with fake reports started by social media that he left to join ISIS.


Only until the white domination of the music industry is over and artists of other ethnicities are no longer made invisible will negative perceptions of race change. We need to stop seeing white music as unique and the epitome of talent, while music of different ethnicities is seen as inferior and lacking authenticity. A musical genre should not be defined by whiteness, as genres can develop and grow to be even better when given diversity.

Written By Enya

Picture Credit: Ellen

Our Unfulfilled Potential

On a bright April morning in London I watched as stressed commuters spilled out of the carriages of a Waterloo & City line train. Despite my optimistic feeling for the day, I could not help but notice the lack of women disembarking from this train. Almost every person I could see was a man. Every now and then I spotted a high-heeled shoe amongst the rest, however this did not seem to be a true representation of our society, namely one in which there exists an equal number of males and females. 

This is a worldwide issue, astoundingly "there are fewer women than there are men called John running the US's biggest companies. Analysis of the S&P 1500 companies found that 5.3% of CEOs were called John and 4.5% David, whilst  just 4.1% were women." (The Independent)

The problem of women in work is yet to cease. We cannot be satisfied with the current situation. Despite there now being more working women, there is still an incredibly low proportion of women in high powered, executive jobs. The situation at Bank tube station highlights this. "Women hold fewer than third of top jobs" (BBC) This seems outrageous in this day and age, especially considering the fact that women have been campaigning for equality in the workplace for many years now.

With the upcoming general election, it worries me that "men outnumber women by four to one in Parliament."(BBC)  And as a woman I do not feel that I am represented in our government. When wondering how this inequality come to be, it seems as though there is an argument which says that one of the major issues, aside from childbearing, is that the characteristics needed to be a leader are considered unattractive in women. That is to say, if a woman behaves in a confident, authoritative manner, she is likely to be labelled bossy and unpleasant. Whereas if a men is powerful, authoritative, and a good leader, he will be praised for these qualities.  "Being visible and making your accomplishments known is essential to getting the kinds of experience that can move
you up into senior management, but some corporate cultures penalize women for that"(Fortune.com) This clearly demonstrates the necessity for successful women to behave in a lady-like way, that is 

somehow simultaneously boasting about one's achievements.



If we take the example of Margaret Thatcher, it has been found that "even women prefer leaders in typically female roles to have a Thatcheresque, 'masculine' voice." (The Telegraph) This is demonstrative of the wider issue, namely that in order to obtain a powerful position, it is necessary for women to take on certain 'manly' characteristics, for it is only then that they will gain sufficient power and respect from society. 

To me it seems absurd that only those more 'masculine'  women are able to reach executive positions. Women should not have to act differently in order to progress through their careers, instead society should value women for their unique characteristics. For this reason this is not an issue which solely affects women. In fact, I would argue that it is damaging for the whole of society. Without a balance between males and females in the work place, we are missing out on many skills possessed by women that could prove hugely beneficial if we were to profit from them. 

In summary, the under representation of women in executive positions is one we need to combat, because it cannot continue to be blamed solely on the biological issues of childbirth. It is important that we recognise women for their unique skills instead of ignoring them all, save those who act in a suitably masculine way. This is an issue which, I believe, is holding back our society. We need to make use of our whole workforce, not just 50%, in order to reach our full potential.

Written by Lili

Picture Credit: Lili

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18187449 
http://fortune.com/2013/01/17/why-are-there-still-so-few-women-in-top-leadership-jobs/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/9741902/Women-prefer-female-leaders-with-Thatcheresque-deep-voices.html
The Independent, quoted in the Week magazine, March 2015

Should prostitution be illegal?

Prostitution or “the oldest profession”, as it satisfies the most basic of human urges for money, can be violent and exploitative, masking both drug and sexual abuse. However it can also be a legitimate way of making money, prostitutes are providing a service – just like a surrogate mother provides her womb or a man provides his sperm for a sperm bank. Prostitution is something distasteful and potentially dangerous, however is its illegality really necessary?

In the UK, prostitution is not illegal. However, related activities are banned: managing a brothel, kerb crawling, and soliciting in a public place are illegal. Meanwhile in Holland Prostitution is entirely legal, allowing both legislation and organisation of prostitutes which helps to avoid exploitation and abuse. Conversely the USA and much of Scandinavia outlaw prostitution and prostitutes completely. There are 80 thousand prostitutes in the UK, and when the Metropolitan Police raided 75 brothels in Soho they found that the prostitutes earn £350 a day and the brothels had a combined turnover of £1million. In London there are an average of 28 brothels per borough and the average age for a woman to enter prostitution is 15. Unfortunately most under 18 prostitutes work on the street, which is estimated to be 10 times more dangerous than working from a house or a flat. Also concerning is that there are also up to 5,000 children involved in prostitution at any one time.

The fact that 71% of men who use prostitutes feel some kind of shame at paying for sex suggests that despite how wide spread it is paying for sex, is still considered shameful (this may reflect male impotency). But the bottom line here is that this feeling of shame is transferred on to the prostitutes themselves, they too are made to live with feelings of inadequacy. This stigma is attached by society to the prostitutes, leading to more hate and condemnation.  

As for why women enter prostitution Most identify the need to pay household expenses and support their children as their primary reason, suggesting that like many unpleasant jobs prostitution is done out of necessity.

More than half the women in prostitution have been raped or sexually assaulted, so prostitution seems to be a dangerous and violating profession to be in. Furthermore, considering that 57% of women who are prostitutes were abused as children, and 70% were in care, it is easy to understand the common argument of why prostitution should be illegal, namely that prostitutes are damaged people and prostitution is just continuing their abuse. In fact some women who work as prostitutes display symptoms akin to PTSD. This all suggests that prostitution should be illegal, because it is detrimental to prostitutes mental health, not to mention the STIs that are often contracted from it.

Women are also trafficked from other countries to work in the sex industry, 60% of inner city prostitutes are immigrants. Some come to the UK intending to be prostitutes however others can be lured to the UK with the promise of stable jobs and good pay only to be smuggled through the border and forced to work in brothels. Once here the women can be controlled, just as any prostitute, by their pimp, often not paid enough for their work and unable to go to the police because of the illegality of the profession. This illustrates that unregulated prostitution leads to a mass exploitation.

Due to prostitution being unregulated by an official body, because many actions to do with it are illegal, it can often be used to make money to buy drugs. It is an easy way to make money, and part of the shady underworld, 87% of women who work in street based prostitution are Heroin users, many developing the habit and then resorting to prostitution to make money, and others becoming prostitutes and using heroin to dull their senses. These are vulnerable people who need help, however this evidence suggests neither a ban nor legalisation. Banning prostitution would potentially drive this behaviour further underground, whereas legalising it would allow the government to help prostitutes – and possibly even allow the formation of a union to protect prostitutes. 

Forming a prostitutes union seems ridiculous because Prostitution is not considered a respectable career, people will not accept it as a choice, but rather assume that women who have no other option will enter prostitution – because people with another option would rather not sell sex. However there are many other professions, which aren’t exactly respectable, and they aren’t illegal. People working as porn actors for example. It isn’t really the prostitution that is disrespected, but rather the sexual desire (which is an issue old as time).

The legalisation of Prostitution reduces women’s risk of rape, theft, exploitation or violence because it would be a regulated, and prostitutes would be seen as workers, rather than illegal products to buy. Women would earn appropriate wages from their work, and it wouldn’t be an entirely unrespectable career. It would reduce trafficking because women would be in a legal career, so the illegal aspects (close links to the black market, illegal immigrants being forced to work as prostitutes) would be diminished. All this would limit the negative mental effects, such as the PTSD symptoms, and would lead to it being a healthier job.

Money is also a huge reason for prostitution to be legalised, if it was legal it could be taxed. In just 75 brothels there was a turnover of £1million. Women who work as prostitutes do not have to rely on benefits, they are being independent this would add legitimacy to their money and profession, for many of them would be impoverished without this source of income. By making prostitution legal these women will have a safer environment in which to work. There are also huge costs incurred in controlling prostitution, in the USA it is roughly $2,000 per prostitute arrested. By legalising prostitution we would be able to regulate it and make it safer, but also taxes would be made from prostitution, instead of having to police and arrest prostitutes we could protect them. This is shown in Holland where the industry is regulated under normal labour law, reducing exploitation, and the government takes 33% tax on prostitutes earnings. Zurich has illustrated one of the most inventive systems to deal with legalised prostitution, and introduced “sex drive-ins” which have alarm buttons and guards to keep prostitutes safe, they can get health check ups and support from social services on site as well. This illustrates how much easier it is to police a legal trade, and how much more protection can be provided for prostitutes.

Prostitution provides sex for both male and female clients, which is good for people’s health, it is helps people fight viral infections, lowers blood pressure, counts as exercise and lowers the risk of heart attack. It also supposedly improves sleep and reduces stress. However sex with a stranger can be less meaningful and enjoyable than sex with a loving partner leaving people feeling vulnerable, and in that case these assertions may not hold true.

The biggest feminist issue with Prostitution is that it is the literal commodification of women’s bodies. By legalising it as a society we suggest it is acceptable to view a person as a purchase, and that 'buying' a woman for sex is appropriate. However some people may ask what is the difference between selling your body through sex, and selling any other service, for example your strength, or stripping off for a porn magazine. The view is that between two consenting, un-manipulated adults there isn’t an issue with them having sex. People have sex for gifts, for dinner with people they don’t like when they are drunk, sex is just sex. Potentially the abhorrence towards prostitution in the current day is more to do with our veneration of sex, rather than the actual payment.

Many of these arguments come down to the veneration of sex, whether or not you think love is important in sex, or if sex is simply about pleasure. If it is your personal belief that sex isn't just about pleasure and that it must be done with the right person at the right time, then prostitution should obviously be illegal, because it corrupts that idea.

Quick run down on why people don’t like prostitution:

• Its potentially abusive

• It is not viewed as a respectable or suitable career, however this stigma is also linked to our veneration of sex and the disgust society still feels at sexual desire.

• It is the literal commodifictation of women’s bodies.

Reasons prostitution should be completely legalised:

• Allows for regulation – stops links with Human trafficking, drugs and the criminal underworld

• Allows for legislation to protect prostitutes from exploitation

• Could be taxed, this money could then be put back in to supporting prostitutes.

• Means that the identities of abusive clients can be obtained and they can be arrested

• De-stigmatises prostitutes and enables society to help them

In my opinion prostitution should be legal, for although it seems like a horrific profession, with the right help and guidance it can become less brutal and dangerous for prostitutes. Equally, legalising it will provide a legitimate form of income for women. Despite being a hangover from a sexist and oppressive time, if there are going to be prosititues, as women and as humans, we must do all we can to support and protect them. Prostitution will a be a profession that is not closely tied to the black market, the streets and the underworld but instead something much safer. If legalised completely then a woman will be able to reach out for help when needed, and trust in the help of the police and justice system. Prostitution is a commodification of women’s bodies, however it is unlikely to ever go away, and at this point improving actual lives must come before feminist ideals.

Written by Juliette

Picture credit: Willow

An Individual's Response to Everyday Sexism

Most men are arseholes. Now hear me out, because I know that those words written on a feminist blog will be swiftly responded by cries of “man hater”. But if that is the case then I may be a masochist because I happen to be a guy. 

Maybe I should give a brief history of me for this introductory piece in order to understand how I came to such a controversial position.

Up until my last year of college I had not found the feminist issue important or relevant. I was trying to overthrow the system in other ways and felt that sexism was a sideshow that would just work itself out. I even fell back on some truly ludicrous arguments that still embarrass me to this day. For example “most famous people throughout history are men, why did women never step up and take the reins”. I know, trust me if anyone hates that past me it is present me. It wasn’t until meeting some very strong and independent women, various nights out clubbing and ultimately university that I came to see the reality of the situation.

Up until this point the only time I had been with guys who were intoxicated had been my mates and, if I got one thing right, it was them, no matter how drunk they were, they were always gentlemen towards the women. So on a night out with people I did not know so well I was dismayed by the things I saw. I could recount countless anecdotes of the behaviour I have seen in clubs from guys who you would at first think were perfectly decent human beings giving the amount of respect deserved to another human being. Guys waiting outside the girls toilets waiting to pounce on women trying to enjoy their night out, casual slaps on the arse as though it was the most mundane thing you could do, doggedly pursuing a distressed girl through a club trying to “get with her”.

I swore to myself I wouldn’t recount anecdotes, apologies. I wonder why they do this, and yes it may be easy enough to blame it on the booze, plain and simple. Alas I can’t bring myself to. For me it is something more to do with their opinion of one another and how that dynamic plays out when they become “the pack”. That isn’t to say that on their own guys are great, just that when they are in larger numbers they let the slightly nastier side come out. This isn’t just directed at women either, I have seen groups of guys do nasty things to all sorts of people, all because they feel the need to constantly validate one another. This doesn’t just go for the typical 'jock' like characters, although they are the most well-known and clichéd, there are also the more insecure types, who, for various reasons, also perpetuate the sexism we see in the world around us. 

This group are worth paying particular attention to, because unlike the former, from whom you expect this kind of behaviour when sober, this group think that at a club they can somehow get away with it. This feeds into the great “she was asking for it” farce. These men can at times be even more dangerous, as I have seen they choose to drink noticeably less than everyone else, hoping that alcohol can be on their side for once.

However, what underlines all of this, is not necessarily the action; but the attitude towards women. Even when someone has been caught in the act, they defend themselves to the point where they are willing to come to blows. Moreover when sober friends come and defend the actions of these men, it makes even more clear the fact that this kind of behaviour can in no way be blamed on alcohol. 

So to return to the opening salvo, “most men are arseholes”. Of course this is incredibly personal to my own experiences, and I will be first to say that I know many males who are decent human beings. However, the one point I would like to stress is that it is an active choice to behave in an unpleasant, disrespectful way towards women. It is impossible to claim that “they know no better” and that they don’t understand what they are doing. They do, society and the media certainly don’t help but we need to allocate blame on the autonomous agents, as individuals responsible for their actions. If we claim that they are just victims of the system, we are only propagating this sexism and missing the crux of the problem. 

Social sexism can no longer be dealt with through du jure change (equality before the law), rather it now it has to deal with the issue through de facto change (a change of attitudes). We need to tell the individual that what they are doing is unequivocally wrong, rather than hoping that with enough bottom down enforcement and legislation the issue will be solved. 

So to conclude a casual reminder is perhaps in order: sometimes we get carried away with the idea that society is responsible for the daily bombardment of sexism, that it influences people to the point where they harass women both physically and verbally. And to a degree this is true, we are undoubtedly influenced by our enviroment. However we cannot blame everything on a societal level. As rational and automonous human beings we are all responsible for the actions we take, the individual is as much to blame as the society and culture they are from. That is why to really solve sexism in the 21st century it is not just necessary to have a top down legislative change but also an individual approach to the people who perpetuate it on an everyday basis.

Written by Micheal

Picture Credit: Cieran

Hijabs & Strip Clubs

Hijabs and strip clubs are two things that are not often associated with one another. However they have more in common that what first meets the eye. Both are often perceived as sexist and oppressive but in western society only one is constantly brought under scrutiny.

For many muslim women the Hijab is an integral part of expressing their faith which promotes the idea that both muslim men and women should dress and act modestly in the presence of the opposite sex. Nevertheless the western media is intent on portraying female islamic garments such as the hijab, niqab and the burqa as tools of male oppression. Far too often the focus is put on very small so called islamic groups which deprive women of the choice of wearing the hijab, niqab or burqa. It is crucial to remember that these groups are in no way representative of the islamic faith which preaches understanding and equality. What the media fails to understand that the whole point of gender equality and in fact freedom in general is that people have the ability to make their own decisions. This includes the freedom to choose what to wear. However, mention strip clubs and most people rush to their defence. It’s not just the media who are up in arms to defend this ‘beacon of sexual freedom’ it’s also many self identifying feminists. People claim that it is the girl’s choice to strip, they are not forced, and can even be sign of female empowerment. Sound familiar? So why is it that one set of values of freedom and the ability to choose are applicable to some women and not others? This is a strange problem as for once it isn't just the media and society to blame but also some feminists themselves. Third wave feminism started in around the mid-nineties and changed the way in which items such as push up bras and heels were viewed. Where first and second wave feminists were convinced that such things were symbols of male oppression, third wave feminists wore them with pride, as it’s true that, news flash, you can be ‘traditionally’ feminine and have a brain as well. Unfortunately what this brand of feminism sometimes misses out is the fact that that women are now more sexually liberated than ever before, is great but it’s not for every one. Western feminist groups such as Femen sometimes seem to be obsessed with the idea that if you're not conforming to their definition of freedom, such as wearing mini skirts and stripping, and choose instead to wear a hijab, then you are oppressed. All the same, although some feminists are to blame for this misinterpretation of the hijab, it’s true that yet again the myth that muslim women who wear traditional islamic clothing are oppressed is mostly perpetuated by, you guessed it, the media. Recently the media has been partial to a bit of selective feminism. Nice, middle-class, white women such as Tina Fey and Emma Watson are held up as ideal feminists. There are numerous articles praising them for making women’s voices heard because their achievements are important but also because these women are not deemed too radical. The media has no problem with strip clubs, because sex sells. No one complains about feminists encouraging women to take their clothes off because heterosexual men like seeing naked women. However when women choose to cover themselves for their faith and refused to be constantly sexualised that’s when the media suddenly develops a concern for these poor enslaved women. 
To conclude the wearing of the hijab or any other form of clothing designed to preserve modesty is in no way a sign of oppression if the woman freely chooses to wear it. Western society and a small number of feminists need to realise that female empowerment comes in all shapes and sizes. And finally the media needs to start being more representative of the different forms of feminism that are present in the world today.

Written by Tash

Picture credit: Willow

Transgender Representation

We’ve seen it before with Cillian Murphy in Breakfast on Pluto, Jared Leto in Dallas Buyers Club and now with Eddie Redmayne who is due to star in the highly anticipated film The Danish Girl. What do all of these films have in common? They all depict transgender characters. However the producers of these films all see it fitting to cast heterosexual, cisgendered, white men for the roles.

The importance of representation in the media goes without saying. With 45% of transgendered people of the age 18-24 having attempted suicide it’s vital that more is done to make transgenderism more widely accepted in society and that the support is there to help those people who are struggling with their gender identity. The representation of transgendered people in the media can help in making society a more accepting and show those who are experiencing gender dysphoria that they are not alone and, as clichéd as it may sound, things will get better.

However Hollywood recently have seemed to see transgenderism as more of a plot device, often portraying characters in stereotypical and patronising ways. What’s even worse is that it’s the same cisgendered men who are cast. It’s no secret that Hollywood is rife with discrimination with not a single black or asian actor being nominated for an oscar this year and with no transgendered people being nominated ever. What’s more, it seems as though roles such as Lili Elbe, the first ever recipient of sexual reassignment surgery depicted in The Danish Girl, would be perfect for a transgendered actor and would be a great opportunity to forward the fight for transgender rights but none the less the cisgendered eton-educated Eddie Redmayne has been cast. It’s extremely unlikely that any of these cis men playing transgender rolls have a comprehensive understanding about the real day-to-day struggles faced by transgendered people and Hollywood needs to learn that a transgendered woman does not equal a cis man in a dress.

Furthermore it is very rare that one ever sees a transgendered man represented in the media. That’s not to say there aren't any but it seems that they are hardly ever given a voice. But why is this? It seems that the stories of transgendered men are not deemed as sexy to audiences. This could possibly be because it clashes with society’s preconceptions about the female body and how it doesn’t like seeing them de-feminised. Because if you’re not conforming to society’s view of women and in fact actively rejecting the gender you were assigned at birth and femininity unfortunately many see you as an outcast which is yet another reason why it’s so important to increase representation of transgendered people.

The emergence of actresses such as Laverne Cox in her role in Orange is the New Black finally gave some hope that times were changing. However the persistent clichéd ways transgendered people are still being portrayed not to mention by privileged cisgendered men shows that the media still have a long way to go especially in regards to the representation to transgendered men.

Written by Tash

Picture credit: Ellen

http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/AFSP-Williams-Suicide-Report-Final.pdf