Feminism is Very Much Alive

A few weeks ago, Piers Morgan, a man whose penis, it would appear, leaves him uniquely qualified to make declarations on behalf of Feminism, Feminists and Women, declared Feminism dead. He did so because a couple of women posted a photo of themselves topless. I spent the few minutes after trying to work out who exactly this Emily Ratajkowski was and left the rest of Twitter to feed Piers' ego by telling him he was wrong, which, of course, he was. Piers decided that he would again use the topless selfie he accuses Kim and Emily of using to make money, to, well, garner clicks on an article that, presumably, the writing of which makes him money. Irony aside, he remains wrong.

He tell us that he does not mind people using their bodies to make money, which is nice of him given he appeared in a Burger King advert that scars me to this day. Rather his issue, apparently, is that the photo is masquerading as an attempt to fight the cause of gender equality. Because, apparently, women doing what they want isn't actually gender equality. No, it transpires that gender equality is women doing what Piers Morgan thinks they should do. Anyway, mansplaining aside, I suppose I can see where Piers is coming from. He probably thinks that it sets a bad example and also that women should feel empowered, not by stripping down, but by other things. Of course, these are things as defined by our resident moral expert Mr Morgan, but that isn't the point. Women should not feel obliged to take their clothes off in order to be successful and Piers thinks that this photo encourages this view. But, of course, it doesn't. I mean, I don't look at Piers Morgan and think I need to be anything like him to piss people off - I do it just fine by being nothing like him. 

He goes on. It gets better. Piers laments the possibility that actually all this will do is promote the view of women as sex objects and encourage men to hold this view. Frankly, Piers, this is where I got annoyed. As if anyone is to blame for objectifying women other than the man doing the objectifying. That is not a problem with a photo, Piers, that's a problem with society and, well, with (some) men. If you look at a photo of a woman, regardless of what she is wearing, and sexualize or objectify her, that's on you. Not the photo. I am sure you do genuinely regret the idea that women are perceived as sex objects and I am sure you wish this to stop. I do not doubt your sincerity on this point, though, believe me, it is not difficult to do so. But if you do, and I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, then it's time to stop blaming women for it. Women are no more to blame for their objectification than they are for rape; a topless selfie is no more to blame for sexualization than a mini-skirt is for rape. 

Many women will look at the naked selfies and think, "You know what. No. I do not feel empowered by exposing my boobs on social media." Many mothers will dread the thought of their daughters doing so. And you know what, that is as valid a response as, "You know what. Yes. I feel empowered by exposing my boobs on social media." I am not going to sit here and write what I think is better for Feminism or women. It has nothing to do with my being a man. Rather, it has to do with my very simple notion of what Feminism is:

Supporting the choices of women, regardless of what they are and regardless of whether I would make those choices for me, if I were a woman, or if I would want the women in my life to make those choices for themselves. 

You want to post a naked selfie? Go for it. You do not want to? Don't. You want to be a housewife and raise kids and not work? Be my guest. You want to be a CEO? I hope you make it. You want to wear mini-skirts? Not my place to tell you not to. You want to wear a burka? Please, feel free. I may or may not think that women should post naked selfies. I may think I would never choose to wear a mini-skirt if I were a woman (though, of course, I do not know). But, damn it, Feminism is alive and well for as long as women feel they can make those choices for themselves and Feminism continues to thrive for as long as it fights for an environment where women are free to make those choices without consequences like, I don't know, an angry, self-righteous, arrogant, pompous, male know-it-all telling them what he believes they should and should not do to advance a cause he, at best, clearly does not fully understand.

Jose Mourinho, Sexism and Jeremy Vine

Jeremy Vine has written an open letter to Jose Mourinho. It's the sort of emotive tosh that passes for good writing nowadays and I cannot say it is particularly worth reading, but you can find it here if you so wish. It had no impact on me until I read the paragraphs on the club's former doctor, Eva Carniero, which I quote in full here:

"And then something utterly unhinged happened. I had to explain to my young daughter why you had exploded at the popular team doctor (one of the most prominent women in the Premier League) and I could not give her a decent reason. You did not just demote her and cause her to leave, you humiliated her. You should not have done it and I believe the players were also at a loss as they tried to explain it to their young daughters."

I have not made any comment on the Carniero case, but I thought it was pathetic at the time and I think it is pathetic now. I do not believe for a minute Jose criticised her because she is a woman. In fact to suggest as much is ridiculous - Jose criticised a male member of the medical staff at the same time and in his post-match interview said everyone had to understand the game and it did not matter who you were. I do not think Vine is suggesting this, but rather is telling us that for some reason he could not explain this criticism to his daughter, as if somehow women are incapable of suffering and dealing with criticism, or indeed, should not ever have to.

Vine states she was "One of the most prominent women in the Premier League." I do not doubt this. However, I hated the fact she was one of the most prominent women in the Premier League. I hated it because she was one of the most prominent women in the Premier League because a good number of male football fans are sexist wazzocks. I hated it because she was known as Chelsea's "fit" doctor, defined by her looks. I hated it because she was used to explain why Drogba liked to fall over and pretend his groin was hurt. I hated it because she was a prominent woman not because she was good at her job, which I assume she was, but because she was a woman who seemed to care about football and was, apparently, 'fit'. 

But this is not the issue. The issue is that it is completely irrelevant that she was a woman. It is completely irrelevant that she was a prominent woman in a male dominated industry where it was only a few years ago that two of the most prominent men in the industry questioned and joked about a woman's ability to understand the offside rule. Her sex is not relevant. Her ability to do her job is relevant and is all that should be relevant. We all know why Mourinho criticised her (and, for what it is worth, a male member of the medical team as well) and that was to deflect attention from another poor result - and it worked. However, whether or not we agree that she was or was not wrong to run on to the pitch, the fact that she is a woman should not enter our consideration. 

Imagine the paragraph read as follows:

And then something utterly unhinged happened. I had to explain to my young son why you had exploded at the popular team doctor (one of the most prominent men in the Premier League) and I could not give him a decent reason. You did not just demote him and cause him to leave, you humiliated him. You should not have done it and I believe the players were also at a loss as they tried to explain it to their young sons.

We would think Vine ridiculous. Why are we treating women any differently? Why do women need to be protected as if they are weak and vulnerable and unable of looking after themselves? Mourinho's reaction to Carniero's running onto the pitch was motivated solely by the running onto the pitch, not by her being a woman. Our response to it should be to criticise Mourinho for criticising the running onto the pitch or to criticise the running onto the pitch. To respond by complaining that we cannot explain Mourinho's actions to our daughters is absurd. It simply does not matter that Carniero is a woman and by treating her differently because she is one, by suggesting she should be immune from criticism and Mourinho's overreaction (something we would never do if it were a man), we are suggesting women need to be protected and looked after, because they cannot do it themselves. 

So perhaps, Mr Vine, you could tell your daughter that sometimes people overreact, that sometimes they do stupid things. Maybe you could tell your daughter that in life you may get an incredibly emotional boss who says what s/he is thinking without qualification. Perhaps mention that life can suck and sometimes your boss will suck too. You could even tell your daughter that sometimes she will make mistakes and pay a heavy cost for those mistakes but that is okay. Please, I beg you, do not suggest that women need to be treated differently from men, that women need to be protected or looked after or somehow are worthy of a different reaction. You become part of the problem when you do that.

Habs vs Feminism

Recently I saw a comment on facebook (see left) that I found troubling. The comment, still there at the time of writing over four hours since its original posting, reads "Why are all these feminists such freaks[?] :s" and is posted in response to a video that can be found here. What I find troubling is that this comes from a Habs Boy, a supposedly intelligent individual in the process of having his excellence nurtured. The comment, however, displays (at best) an ignorance of Feminism and a worrying ease at labelling all Feminists as freaks based on a video of one and at worst an active sexist attitude and dismissing of a (probably still misunderstood) Feminism movement. Granted the video goes over the top (to make a point, of course) and, if I am honest, I don't really find the analogy beyond the bit about salt at the start particularly amusing, which I imagine (despite the seriousness of the point she is making) was her intention. Anyway, that's all irrelevant because she, and other Feminists, are not freaks, regardless of whether the video goes over the top or is/is not funny. Of course that seems quite an obvious point. Trivial almost. And, indeed, it should be. The problem, however, is that it isn't. Not amongst a troubling number of people you encounter on social media and in real life but, more worryingly, it is also not the case, in my opinion, amongst many at Habs.

As part of my Introduction to Politics course, we had a lecture on Feminism, which (don't tell my lecturer this), I think was the only good lecture in the entire module. It more than made up for the mish-mash of Monty Python, jumping around and awful jokes that characterised the rest of his lectures. Clearly enthusiastic about the topic and passionate about the content of the lecture, it was a superb introduction to Feminism. At the beginning of the lecture he asked who would consider themselves as a Feminist and a very small number of students (not including myself) put their hands up. I had never thought about it, if I am honest. I never considered myself sexist, but I certainly did not want to associate myself with the much more radical notion of Feminism that I assumed was just 'Feminism'. By the end of the lecture, however, I was completely turned and ashamed of my prior ignorance of what Feminism was and my attitude towards it. The lecturer ended with the following sentence: "I don't believe that my daughter's life chances should be any different from my son's life chances because she is a girl, but because they are likely to be, that is why I am a Feminist." I am paraphrasing slightly, but I think it sums it up brilliantly but, more importantly for someone like me who was ignorant about Feminism and what it was, simply.

Why? Because I don't, for a minute, think that many would disagree with that sentence. When faced with the question of whether a sister, for example, should have different life chances just because she is a woman, I am fairly confident the vast vast majority of Habs Boys (including our "all feminists are freaks" friend) would think this a ridiculous question to ask. Of course our sisters' life chances should not be affected by their being a woman we would proclaim, unaware that we had just proclaimed to be Feminists. There are many strands, many different Feminist ideologies and many methods of achieving that goal, but that is the basic goal. The problem, however, is that many would then follow that with a, "But, they're women so, you know. Not as clever." or "They lack banter," or "But they'll end up in the kitchen, so why does it matter?" If reading that, as a Habs Boy, makes you uncomfortable then good - do something about it; if your instinct is to try and argue that it is not the case or deny the seriousness of it, I am afraid you are in denial. Whether or not we actually believed those things to be true, the ease at which we were able to say them and laugh them off was, when I look back at it now, shocking. As I have already said, I am ashamed of that, past, version of me. Habs Boys come to see a level of sexist "banter" as entirely acceptable, unaware of the fact that sexist jokes aren't just jokes, they have a knack of describing real situations that real woman face every day.

It is that comment that demonstrates this attitude towards Feminism: the ignorance of what it really is and the dismissing of those that are Feminists and the severity of the sexism that women face, which is, of course, in itself, sexist. The ease at which a Habs Boys can label 'all' Feminists as freaks based on a video arguing that a girl is never asking for it when it comes for rape, unfortunately, does not surprise me. I would hope the comment is aimed at the over the top nature of the video rather than the point she is making, but the belief that somehow making the point, in any manner, renders you a freak is troubling. Any prejudice, including sexism, is based on ignorance, an issue that needs addressing at Habs. If I had a chance to go back to Habs and lead an Open Day tour, I would inform parents that the biggest problem at Habs is the ignorance of Feminism and the levels of sexism (jokes or not) that are deemed acceptable.

Sometimes I feel disingenuous when I describe myself as a Feminist given events in my past, opinions I used to hold and arguments I have had (a discussion over Twitter with William Thong, who won't mind a mention and the opportunity to remind me what I was like, about an advert a particular haunting memory), almost as if they preclude me from being a Feminist now. I am glad for the lecture I had and the change in my beliefs. There is no shame in admitting you were wrong. There will forever be disagreements within Feminism and what it entails - the Page 3 debate (I can't decide if I agree with the 'me' that wrote that blog!) at Warwick a good example of this, perhaps, but at its bare bones, it is a very simple idea. I can only hope that one day the boy in question will stumble across something that will make him self-identify as someone who believes in, "...the radical notion that women are human beings," which is how Cheris Kramarae described Feminism, and not think of himself as a freak.

Update 1 16/06/14

Since posting this I have received far more of a response than I expected. I think what has happened is I have struck a few nerves and offended a few sensibilities - 'of course I am not sexist' has been repeated on the comments to my blog. To clarify, Habs is an example I used simply because I went there. It is not to say Habs is the only place this is a problem, nor an attack on the character of all current or former Habs Boys (many of whom I would still consider friends). It is simply an example.

In  any event, I do not, for a minute, doubt the sincerity of these 'I am not a sexist/I am a feminist' statements. If you read above, you will note above that I state Habs Boys would agree that a women's life chances should not be affected by her being a women - in other words, Habs Boys, in the main, would be Feminists on my definition. But then, I would have agreed and I, like many, did not act in a way to back up that agreement.

The issue is two-fold:

1. An ignorance of what Feminism really is

Whether this manifests because of an association of Feminism with solely more radical Feminism or merely a refusal to engage with Feminism, consciously or subconsciously.

2. A sexist culture

This is the crux of the issue. When I was at Habs I would never have considered myself sexist and had I come across a blog like this, I would have responded in exactly the same way as every Habs Boy who has posted on my blog has. In the least patronising way possible, I understand - no one wants to be labelled a sexist. However, we have to come to terms with it. There are countless examples - some highlighted in response to my blog - of Habs Boys making comments that were horrifically inappropriate and that cannot just be dismissed as a harmless joke. Of course, as was highlighted, a sense of humour is important but suggesting that the Habs Boys - banter = Habs Girls is just one example of a sexist "joke" that is not acceptable but was deemed acceptable. These sort of jokes perpetuate already strong stereotypes that are held amongst boys at all boys' schools like Habs that girls lack a sense of humour. When the head boy makes this joke, it legitimises the very real problem of dismissing cries of sexism as a girl's inability to take a joke. "Of course that was okay, it is just a joke, I'm not sexist - I don't actually believe that women all belong in the kitchen in chains to prevent their leaving." You know what, the last bit of that is invariably true, Habs Boys don't, I would argue, believe those things. However, in telling the joke and dismissing any offence caused as 'just an inability to take the banter' there is a subconscious sexism, a subconscious belief that if girls 'had banter' (if they were more like men), they would have laughed and not been offended. Undoubtedly sexist comments are rebranded as jokes, laughed at and approved of and culture where sexism is tacitly accepted as perfectly fine develops.

The problem is not unique to Habs, of course it is not. But there is an undoubted culture at the school where sexism is viewed as not an issue or ignored, leaving the boys all too ready to dismiss cries of sexism as misunderstandings and poor banter - as I once did, and as many currently and will continue to do.

Update 2 16/06/14

There are another two issues that need addressing after further comments on this post.

1. The example used

My choice of example as a springboard for this post has been criticised, both for misunderstanding the initial comment made and because the comment itself is not a bad example. I have two issues with this. Firstly it conveniently ignores the point of the article and attacks a premise that has no real bearing on the conclusion. Feminism and sexism remains an issue regardless of whether I understand that example properly or not and, indeed, I could have used a different example from my time at Habs. Second, I think the comment is quite a good reflection of the problem, if by no means the worse. The video is of a women making a serious point about rape and the response is that all these feminists are freaks. What an absurd response! I don't think the women makes her point in an especially amazing way, but it is a perfectly legitimate method of making a incredibly serious point. Attacking her character skirts around the real issue of rape and attempted justification - a serious one - and is just wrong for she is no eccentric.

2. I ignore a real issue of militant Feminism

Rejection of rape justification is not militant Feminism. Getting passionate in your speech against rape justification is not militant feminism. Rejection of rape justification is about as basic as you can get when it comes to Feminism, there is nothing militant about it. To suggest that somehow the initial comment was lamenting the plight of Feminism corrupted by its militant strands is remarkably offensive and avoiding the issue at hand. If militant Feminism was indeed the target, a video of a regular Feminist making a bog-standard point should not have been the one commented on. I, of course, dispute this was the target in the first place.*

It is hugely ironic that on a post and resulting thread about sexism at Habs that includes more than the one example I used initially, the anti-sexists and Feminists of Habs take issue not with the content of the blog, but the initial example I used. Apparently the real problem for many is not sexism but my example. Telling.

*Update 3 16/06/14: It should be noted that one of the comments this is in direct response to has since been clarified and I had misunderstood its intention. I am glad to have said comment in a message as now that I understand it fully, I can properly appreciate it. I leave these paragraphs here only in response to other comments that have been made without such clarification and as a general point about the mainstream nature of the video labelled as 'freaky'. As I point out, I do accept that the example I used is a small one and grant it may have been meant differently to how I took it (though such carelessness in commenting is also part of the issue). It is by no means the worst example (therein lies the problem) but its use, I feel, is still justified and demonstrative of the problem, whilst also being current and the initial motivation for the blog post.

Boobs Really Really Really Are Not News

Recently, the Warwick Debating Union hosted the No More Page 3 Campaign, Helen Goodman MP, Natasha Devon, founder of Body Gossip, and Raheem Kassam, editor/founder of Trending Central, to debate the motion "This House Would Ban Page 3" (for clarity, the former two spoke in proposition, whilst the latter two spoke in opposition). I was quite disappointed that I had to leave the debate midway through, having only listened to Helen and Raheem speak, especially when, in a short twitter conversation with Natasha, it was revealed that I missed a "fiery" one. Going off the two speeches I was lucky enough to see, there is no doubt the opposition should have won the debate, in my opinion.

I was rather bemused by Helen's speech, which began with her reading out a newspaper article and included the customary mention of her constituency. Other than confirming that she was not in favour of a government ban, there was not much of note. The point about a government ban is an interesting one. For what it is worth, I can understand that the campaign, and Helen, are not in favour of actually banning Page 3 via legislation, but rather are in favour 'of asking the editor nicely' but, to be frank, that campaign must be considered a failure. Of course the petition has been largely successful in terms of signatories but ultimately, if the Sun was going to 'voluntarily' drop Page 3, David Dinsmore would have done so by now. Instead, he has come out in support of the feature and this, obviously, points towards its continued presence in the magazine. Continued pressure and campaigning might be successful in ensuring the removal of the Sun from universities or individual shops, but ultimately, this will not have much effect on the Sun's decisions regarding Page 3. The Sun will continue to sell millions of copies regardless of whether my local corner shop or the Costcutter on campus stocks it - and I cannot see this changing. Making the safe assumption that there is not great pressure from the Sun's readers for Page 3 to go, there are two reasons for Dinsmore to remove the feature:

1. Removing it will see an increase in sales. 
2. The Government either makes Page 3 illegal or imposes the same conditions of sale on the Sun as are imposed on Nuts or Zoo

One would only be the case if the readers themselves started campaigning for its removal or if outlets like Tesco starting dropping the Sun in protest and I cannot see either happening, whilst both the No More Page 3 Campaign and Helen Goodman confirmed that they did not support option two, so it seems that Page 3 is here to stay, regardless of any disapproval of it. It is interesting that No More Page 3, and others, have written numerous articles about hugely negative effects deriving from Page 3, yet do not want to ban it, especially considering what I believe to be the current state of their campaign. 

As I have already made clear, I thought Raheem won the first half of the debate, the text of his speech has been uploaded to his website Trending Central and can be found here. Raheem, and I believe Natasha's, case goes beyond arguing for or against a ban, summed up neatly by the following statement: "Well, we're telling women, "No. You can't voluntarily pose for a newspaper. No. You must cover up."" Irrespective of whether No More Page 3 and Helen Goodman are calling for a governmental ban, there is a distinct dictating to Page 3 girls what they should and should not do by campaigning against Page 3, which seems to go very much against Liberal (and Feminist) values. I wish I had heard Natasha Devon's speech - from her tweets, I think it would have been along the lines of Page 3 actually promoting healthy body image with the variety of dress sizes, no breast implants etc, something that I think complements Raheem's point. 

For what it is worth, I do not really like Page 3 but my disapproval of Page 3 and its presence of the Sun is irrelevant really. Yes I understand the fear that boys/men seeing Page 3 girls and thinking that is what girls all look like or the fear that it can lead to the objectification or sexualisation of women but removing Page 3 is addressing that potential problem in the wrong way. Firstly, as Natasha tweeted after the debate (and no doubt said in her speech), to assume that Page 3 makes men think women are objects and so on is not only false (without blowing my own trumpet, I happen to have seen Page 3 and also happen to not think women are objects, and I am sure I am not alone) but is also simply offensive to all the "decent" men out there. Secondly, and more importantly, if we grant the assumption that Page 3 girls can lead to the sexualisation of women by men, the problem is not Page 3, the problem is those men.

In fact, much more dangerous than Page 3, in my opinion, are things like Smart Insurance's advert. For anyone who has not seen the advert, and cannot be bothered to click on the link, it depicts a man as coming home from work and arranging life insurance to help his family in the event that the worst should happen. The implicit message from this advert is that it is the man who is the bread winner, it is the man who needs to ensure his family is protected should the worst happen and that his wife could not possibly survive without his earnings. The advert itself is not explicit at all, but there can be little doubt that it could be seen to be reinforcing the gender stereotype and male breadwinner view that is prevalent in our society. I think there are many more people who are prone to influence by adverts like Smart Insurance's, whose implicit message is much more subtle than the bare breasts on Page 3. I am sympathetic to the fears of the No More Page 3 campaign, and others who disapprove of Page 3, but the issues they raise - the sexualisation and objectification of women, for example, should be combatted by education and other means, in my opinion.

Ultimately, the issues highlighted by the campaign are far deeper rooted than being caused by a woman having her boobs out in a newspaper.