Tag Archives: patriarchy

In defence of slutwalks

“Women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimised.”

These were the words uttered by a Toronto police representative in January, talking a group of students at a campus safety information session. He’s not the first. In 2009, androgynous pop singer La Roux said: ‘There’s far more ways to be sexy than to dress in a miniskirt and a tank top … I think you attract a certain kind of man by dressing like that. Women wonder why they get beaten up, or have relationships with arsehole men. Because you attracted one, you twat.”

I can’t be the only twenty one year old woman who is no stranger to these warped opinions. The stance is deeply rooted in the notion that a woman’s body is some kind of public property that must be owned (not by the woman herself, mind) and protected by those who seek to steal or defile it. It’s an almost ingrained attitude that finds itself wheedling into every crevice of our culture- for example, many women who experience street harassment find telling the pursuer that she has a boyfriend is an effective deterrent- ‘thanks for the attention, but I’m already owned by somebody else’.

Arguments that attempt to justify victim blaming often (if not always) equate women’s bodies to property, money, or food. All of these things are less than human. Women are none of those things. Victim blaming absolves those who sexually harass, assault, and rape of all responsibility, shifting the focus to the person they did it to. Additionally, it paints men as uncontrollable sex beasts who are lead entirely by their insatiable penises, devoid of morals, logic, and empathy. In short, victim blaming undermines us all.

False debate about women’s clothing is definitive of rape culture. It excuses abusers for the crimes they commit. Maybe we should stop asking women if our clothes make us more susceptible to sexual assault, and stop letting abusers off the hook.

Women’s bodies are dragged out into the public sphere over and over again. Right wing extremists attempt to legislate subjective sexual morality amongst the echelons of power, from Nadine Dorries in the UK to republicans in the United States. Whilst these people make decisions about how we should conduct our bodies, we are being dissected.

Nobody ever claimed that the slutwalk movement celebrates promiscuity in women. But even if it did- so what? For hundreds of years, woman’s virtue has been inexplicably linked with chastity. We are constantly being defined by what we don’t do. The virgin/whore dichotomy is nothing new. We live in a time when Tory MPs are sitting in parliament pushing regressive abstinence agendas that teach young women that sex isn’t something you participate in, it’s something that you give up. The hand wringing hysteria over assertive female sexuality sexual autonomy is both extremely archaic and very much alive.

All of this is why I welcome the slutwalk movement with open arms.

The movement’s website states: ‘With sexual assault already a significantly under-reported crime, survivors have now been given even less of a reason to go to the Police, for fear that they could be blamed. Being assaulted isn’t about what you wear; it’s not even about sex; but using a pejorative term to rationalize inexcusable behaviour creates an environment in which it’s okay to blame the victim.’

Basic feminism 101. So why the backlash? It seems the name of the movement has caused confusion- some more methodical than others. I used to respect the anti-pornography campaigner Gail Dines, but her problem with feminist activists organising without her permission is unnerving. I admit, I must have missed the memo that confirmed she was crowned Queen of Feminism, because her approach to the debate appears to be very much her way, or the highway. Gail, along with professor of sexual violence Wendy J Murphy, have voiced strong opposition to the idea of slutwalks, asserting that women should not be fighting for the right to be called sluts. Whilst I sympathise with their  reservations about the word, but I just can’t agree with the way they have let their concerns hijack the very real issue of victim blaming. In fact, I’d go as far as to say that the misinterpretation of the cause and the consequent Guardian article condemning the march has single handedly begun the avalanche of misinformed debate that is obscuring the original cause of the march. As for Gail’s continued worry that concentrating on slutwalks will deplete precious feminist resources- I’m confused. I didn’t realise every feminist activist ran out of feminist energy at the end of every month. Should we be calling Dines for a top up?

Yes, the word slut is a contentious and derogatory term, with its conception mired in slut shaming and victim blaming. However, I can’t help wonder if Gail Dines and Wendy Murphy are wilfully missing the point. Surely the name of the march is a direct response to the policeman’s comment. Why are they choosing to ignore this? With a mainstream culture that rarely challenges victim blaming, I’m not sure if we should be trying to pick apart a genuinely well-meaning movement in its infancy.

The subsequent backlash over reclaiming the word slut doesn’t just shove the original cause to the margins, it is also incredibly indicative of a repetitive cultural hysteria over women’s sexual autonomy. What does promiscuity mean anyway? In this context it seems to be that age old outrage about women enjoying and even pursuing (!) sex- otherwise known as slut shaming. I doubt these links are a coincidence.

I’ve no inclination to reclaim the word slut, but I do believe that we should start shouting about how the word is consistently used to shame and blame women. That’s why I’ll be going on the march, and you should too.

Mr Kenneth Tong, misogyny epitomised

Ever wondered what misogyny is? Read this interview.

I fully understand that the concept of feminism doesn’t appeal to everyone (equality isn’t everyone’s bag, especially those who seek to benefit from inequality) but I was very, very pleased to see almost universal condemnation directed at ex Big Brother contestant, the detestable Kenneth Tong.

Popularised via Twitter over the past week for his disgraceful, irresponsible tweets encouraging women and girls to starve themselves for the benefit of his limp penis, today Tong felt the full force of interrogational journalism when Independent columnist Johann Hari’s interview with him hit both the internet and press with a bang.

Tong doesn’t believe women are fully human- rather, women everywhere are disposable playthings for him to exploit freely. Women’s flesh should be regulated. Hell, women shouldn’t even eat! How selfish of them!

Gems such as ‘A girl who has sex for free is an idiot. Seriously.’ prove that Tong views women in an incredibly twisted light- not as human beings with thoughts, feelings, wants, needs and desires, but instead as blow up plastic moveable dolls that exist solely for male utility.

This isn’t a free speech issue- far from it, because I will, and am, using my free speech to contest his free speech. And, whilst this idiot has the right to say whatever he likes, those of us who oppose his hate speech (and this is hate speech, directed at women and the overweight) can use our free speech as an effective protest.

I’ve resisted adding my voice to the crowd for a while on the premise of Tong’s attention seeking nature- but it’s obvious that he’s got his attention now, so I don’t see why not. Thank goodness that everyone thinks he is awful.

I don’t have much else to say on the issue, and I certainly don’t have anything new to add to the condemnation- Johann Hari has covered it brilliantly. Everyone should read the interview. Just read it.

Who wants to be a video chick?

Not me. Last night, the BBC attempted to tackle the issue with a sliver of sensitivity in the documentary ‘Music, Money, and Hip Hop Honeys’.

I can’t be the only black woman who is sick to the back teeth of other black women’s bodies being oiled up, dissected and objectified in hip hop and grime music videos.

I’m tired of seeing hip hop, R&B and grime videos that so gleefully encourage and illustrate male dominance and female subservience. By dominance, I don’t mean a numerical advantage- quite the opposite. Women often outnumber men in these videos, but the men are fully clothed and the women are partially dressed. The men are speaking and the women are silent. The women are jiggling their buttocks into the camera lens, but there no sign of the dominant male figures waggling their crotches into the lens for the good of the audience. 

Call me a prude, but the truth is I couldn’t care less about the supposed sexual liberation or empowerment that these women gain from starring in these videos. Instead, I’m pretty worried about the skewed representation of black and minority ethnic women in the mainstream media. I’ve followed hip hop, R&B and grime music since my early teens, and from the beginning I understood that misogyny was the norm. The day I realised hip hop wasn’t going to tackle its misogyny any time soon was the day hip hop star Chris Brown punched, slapped and bit his R&B girlfriend Rihanna, and his fans bent over backwards to excuse the abuse and blame the victim.  In hip hop, grime and R&B, the majority of black women’s bodies are constantly up for degradation or consumption.

In hip hop and R&B, lyrics about and towards women have changed dramatically over the years. In 1994, Boyz 2 Men crooned the lyrics ‘I’ll make love to you/  like you want me to/ and I’ll hold you tight/ baby all through the night’. Eleven years later, the Ying Yang twins rapped the lyrics  ‘You like to fuck, have your legs open all in da butt / Do it up slappin ass coz the sex gets rough’, with a chorus consisting almost entirely of the words ‘I’ma beat that pussy up’. Note that the word ‘pussy’ is completely divorced from the unfortunate female who happens to possess the genetalia in question. It’s no surprise, then, that the representations of women in the music videos that are paired with these songs are increasingly degrading and misogynistic.

In a world that’s crying out for black female role models, these images only peddle in and pander to the empowerment lie, albeit with new specifics. Black women aren’t really represented as fully human in these videos.  Instead, we’re subservient, covered in baby oil, and constantly jiggling. We’re portrayed as tantalisingly voluptuous and always sexually available. Our bodies are dissected by selective camera shots like slabs of meat.

Americanised popular culture is inescapable, and black women need diverse and positive representation. Currently, we’ve got Michelle Obama and Rosa Parks firmly in the heroine camp, and on the other side of the scale we have video chicks- black women who are paid to wear thong bikinis and shake their oiled buttocks at the camera.

Sometimes it feels like hip hop, R&B, and grime videos hold a unique kind of contempt for black women , one that prioritises female subservience and submission above all else. Feminists often protest objectification, but the knee jerk default is to challenge the Hugh Hefner-esque, pink and blonde, creamy skinned feminine sexual ideals.  We must never forget that black women are heavily objectified in the media too. We just have a different cookie cutter mould that we’re expected to conform too. Big buttocks, heavy breasts, thick thighs, tiny waists and full lips. It’s just as narrow, and just as damaging.

And what of the women who are enticed into the industry on promises of glamour, money and fame? What I saw from the BBC3 documentary, the ambition was possible, and also, very, very rare.

The UK has always lagged behind the USA, and the video chick phenomenon is no exception. Black women in the US have already reached Katie Price proportions when it comes to exploiting the video chick role- the BBC3 documentary reports that the most successful video chicks can make $9,000 for just showing up a premiere and $12,000 for two days filming. A few years ago, ex-video chick Karrine Steffans released the hotly anticipated expose and biography Confessions of a Video Vixen, detailing her career starring in videos and her affairs with the hip hop stars who hired her.

But here in the UK, video chick haven’t quite reached that level yet. Instead, women often respond to adverts on social networking websites calling for girls to star in low budget grime or hip hop videos.  In the words of one of the grime video directors who featured in the documentary, these women are often ‘swindled’, and promised pay that never appears.  This female empowerment lie tricks women into playing into the misogynist’s hands. You can have the money, the fame, the confidence and the admiration. You’ll be a better person for it. All you need to do is take your clothes off, spread your legs, push up your breasts, and pout.

For the purpose of convenience in this post, black defines those of non- Caucasian origin- African, Asian, Middle Eastern, mixed race, etc.

Assange is busy exposing you all

I don’t know anything about Swedish law. I don’t know any more about the Assange case than what’s been circulated in the press. But I do know sexism when I see it.

The irony of the Assange case is that, not unlike the purpose of Wikileaks, these rape allegations are exposing  the latent misogyny of many commenting on the case. The Assange case is busy exposing us all, and we’re completely unaware.

Some commentators on the issue outright dismiss the allegations simply because Assange created Wikileaks, citing internet rumours ‘one of the women may have CIA links‘ or that ‘one of the women threw a party for him the day after she claimed she had been ‘raped’- a real victim of rape would not do such a thing’.  Others scrunch up their faces in disdain before informing twitter/the blogosphere that there is only one real, credible, kind of rape- the kind that involves strangers, attacks, and weapons. All other claims of rape must be false rape, then. Those women must be overreacting.

Who are these people, and on what grounds do they have permission to redefine rape?

I couldn’t agree more with this article from The Independent’s Johann Hari. In it, Hari makes his stance clear, stating ’we will never unlearn or unknow the great truths that Julian Assange has brought to the world’, as well confirming  ’I do not believe in reflexively dismissing rape claims by any woman, in any circumstances.’ See, it’s not that hard to separate the website from the rape allegations. After his article was published, Hari had an exchange with one of his twitter followers, in which he must have felt he was banging his head against a brick wall:

Wikileaks can exist without Assange. I’ve always considered Wikileaks an invaluable source of information. I doubt that will change. But this case needs to stand alone.

Glenn Beck, the American right wing tea party patriot known for his reasonable and level headed comments on American politics, has stuck his oar in, with his own take on the Assange case. Just in case those of us who are reluctant to judge until the courts do don’t quite understand just how innocent Assange is, Beck has kindly broken the situation down into a chalkboard re-enactment.  It’s quite amusing to watch this video circulated amongst men who define as left wing- amusing, as well as incredibly depressing.  Not unlike the Daily Mail, Beck must have undergone a fair amount of mental turmoil when he made the decision on who to attack.

Some say that the rape allegations is being used as an excuse to imprison Assange as quickly  as possible. It’s likely this is true. Shock Doctrine author Naomi Klein tweeted yesterday- ‘Rape is being used in the #Assange prosecution in the same way that women’s freedom was used to invade Afghanistan. Wake up!’ What does this prove? That Interpol, the International Criminal Police Organization that have issued a red notice on Assange, don’t really give two hoots about rape victims.  Have a root around Interpol’s website if you like- they appear to investigate criminal organisations, pharmaceutical crimes, genocide, war crimes, financial and high tech crime, corruption, terrorism, human trafficking, drugs, and  even stolen works of art- but there’s very little about rape or sexual assault. Klein is probably right- and if she is, what an insult this red notice is, to rape victims around the world. Like it or not, these rape allegations are a feminist issue.

Where do you stand when it comes to the rape allegations? To completely dismiss them trivialises rape as a crime.

Do I regret dipping my opinionated toe into the Assange case? Of course not. The amount of opposition I received for daring to suggest that we separate Wikileaks from the rape allegations has been incredible- from the reasonably tame ‘[keep] fighting your corner – hats off to you – but you should give freedom of speech to those that have already made up their mind’, to mindless racist abuse from a random celebrity watcher on twitter. But the most farcical I received was two little words - ‘typical woman’.


Thank goodness that I’ve seen evidence to the contrary in the form of countless blog posts from men who also abhor the smearing of the accusers in the Assange case. Because, if it is true that only ‘typical women’ care about rape, and that only ‘typical women’ are prepared to attempt to counteract the overwhelming tide of misogyny that’s currently enveloping opinions around the case, then by jove, we’ve got some work to do.

Please stop trivialising rape!

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange was refused bail today.

The amount of people who are willing to jump to Assange’s defence and dismiss the rape allegations as ‘smears’ is worrying. What’s even more worrying is the amount of people who are eagerly willing to redefine what actually constitutes as rape. Suddenly, everyone’s an expert. Forget intent or context, apparently it’s only REAL rape if a stranger ambushes a woman with a knife and pins her down to the ground.  Some have even said the women who have accused Assange of rape are just making a big deal about nothing, that what happened to his accusers was just ‘surprise sex’.

The fact the Assange plays a crucial part in ‘opening governments’ really shouldn’t have any effect on the fact that he has been accused of rape. Those who dismiss the claims as smears effectively paint Assange’s accusers as liars before the court case has even begun.

There’s nothing strange about non consensual sex being regarded as rape, no matter how much the nay-sayers attempt to disregard Swedish law as incomprehensible.

Whilst I agree with many Assange defenders that it’s suspicious that the case was dropped in August, and then picked up again around the time that the famous cables were released, the same defenders seem too quick to jump to the conclusion that Assange created Wikileaks, therefore is a good man, therefore he has never done anything wrong in his life. I also agree with the sentiment that the Swedish authorities are using these rape allegations to imprison a man that governments across the world really want imprisoned for what they consider terrorist-like acts.  But, if anything this just proves that not many people are prepared to make a fuss about rape as a crime until someone famous is involved.

The Daily Mail has attempted to tackle the subject. Torn between vilifying liberals or feminists, The Mail opted for the feminist route. Here’s a brief dissection of a couple of stand-out points from Richard Pendlebury’s extensive, misogynistic article.

‘[Assange] is certainly a man of strong sexual appetites who is not averse to exploiting his fame.’

Translation:

‘Assange needs sex like oxygen. He can have any woman he wants. These women fell for his charms.’

And the next, discussing one of the women who has accused Assange:

‘An attractive blonde, Sarah was already a well-known ‘radical feminist’. In her 30s, she had travelled the world following various fashionable causes. While a research assistant at a local university she had not only been the protegé of a militant feminist ­academic, but held the post of ‘campus sexual equity officer’. Fighting male discrimination in all forms, including sexual harassment, was her forte.’

Loosely translated into language not dripping with sexism, this reads:

‘Sarah was a radical feminist who obviously hated men because she campaigned for equality. These facts alone suggest she’s more likely to lie about being raped. She’s attractive , which means that she probably lured him to bed- women only make themselves look sexy to flaunt their wares to men.’

I’ve come to expect this sort of attitude from the Mail, but its this same attitude from men who consider themselves ’left’ or feminist that really upsets me.

An article published on lefty website Liberal Conspiracy defined Sarah’s reaction as ‘cross’ when she allegedly discovered Assange wasn’t wearing a condom. The Daily Mail described Sarah’s reaction as ‘upset’. Both authors - who by some predictable coincidence are male- use words that trivialise the rape allegations currently being held against Assange. Both authors seemingly deliberately choose words that do not even begin to cover the sense of violation, hurt, and confusion that rape victims are likely to feel. Dismiss this argument as semantics if you will- but the choice of these words matter.

I am ‘cross’ when my day doesn’t go to plan. I am ‘upset’ when my laptop breaks down. If I gave a potential lover permission to have sex with me on the basis that he wore a condom, only for him to defy my wishes, I would be a lot more than ‘cross’ or ‘upset’.

Assange’s rape trial hasn’t even begun. We do not know if he did it or not. Just as it would be wrong to brand Assange a rapist, it’s equally as wrong to paint his accusers as liars.

The problem with pro-feminist men

Don’t get me wrong, I love third wave feminism, but like every movement, it has its ups and downs. Take for example the case of young, attractive male Hollywood actor, Ryan Gosling. It’s not often you hear Hollywood heart throbs, especially of the male persuasion, utter the words ‘It’s misogynistic in nature to try and control a woman’s sexual presentation of self.’ This alone should be celebrated, and it is.

Gosling was speaking out in response to the Motion Picture Assosication of America, the organisation responsible for rating US films, branding his new film Blue Valentine an x rated  NC-17. The MPAA have made this decision because of a scene that depicts Gosling performing oral sex on the film’s female lead, Michelle Williams. The couple in the film are in a relationship, and the sex act is consensual.  This rating, from the same organisation that has given less adult themed ratings to films that include women being raped by mutants and lizard men, as well as suffering sexual harassment and violence.

In regards to this, Gosling hits the nail on the head:

‘You have to question a cinematic culture which preaches artistic expression, and yet would support a decision that is clearly a product of a patriarchy-dominant society, which tries to control how women are depicted on screen. The MPAA is okay supporting scenes that portray women in scenarios of sexual torture and violence for entertainment purposes, but they are trying to force us to look away from a scene that shows a woman in a sexual scenario, which is both complicit and complex. It’s misogynistic in nature to try and control a woman’s sexual presentation of self. I consider this an issue that is bigger than this film.’

In theory, I should be happy- and I am to an extent, I think it’s brilliant that he’s highlighted the issue. But in practice, I’m annoyed- and not just because I’m a fun hating feminazi.

I’m annoyed because Michelle Williams said almost exactly the same thing, and the media didn’t see fit to mention this.

The just as astute Williams said:
‘Mainstream films often depict sex and violence in a manner that is disturbing and very far from reality. Yet, the MPAA regularly awards these films with a more audience friendly rating, enabling our culture’s desensitization to violence, rape, torture and brutality. Our film does not depict any of these attributes. It’s simply a candid look at the difficulties couples face in sustaining their relationships over time. Blue Valentine opens a door for couples to have a dialogue about the everyday realities of many relationships.’

Irritatingly, Williams’ quote is often far down in any related article, shovelled in under a headline that only mentions Gosling’s objection, therefore implying that the sentiment holds more credibility if uttered by a man.

This is annoying.

In reaction to Gosling’s words, straight feminists across the blogosphere appeared to melt in pro-feminist man themed arousal. One comment on Jezebel’s article actually read ‘I want him so hard right now. We could re-enact that scene.’

Regardless of whether that comment was a joke or not, it isn’t cool. There’s a danger of undermining the message if we reduce our response to his words into ‘OMGGG I WANT HIM SO BAD’. Not to mention that feminism is about rejecting excessive objectification. I think Gosling is a great actor,  and I respect him even more so for expressing a distaste for blatant inequality, but just because we share the same views doesn’t mean I want him in my pants.

I’ll bet you anything that if Gosling’s words were uttered by a lesser liked, female Hollywood star such as Katherine Heigl (who’s comments on gender inequality in the past have earned her the title of the most hated woman in Hollywood), they would have been ignored or dismissed.

I couldn’t possibly say there’s a problem with pro-feminist men. In fact, the title of this post may seem a bit loaded. The problem is the media’s reaction to their opinions. If anything, we should be welcoming everyone into third wave feminism, regardless of gender. But we should be careful not to spark unwarranted hero-worship to these men who, are in actual fact, pointing out inequality and talking common sense. If we do, we’re at risk of leaving the women, like Michelle Williams, who are saying the exact same thing, by the wayside.

Feminism, fakery and the parody of performance

Snog, Marry, Avoid- a tale of our time?

Now well into its third series, BBC3’s Snog, Marry Avoid is billed as a make-under show that promises to ‘transform OTT girls and boys into natural beauties’. Tune in and you’ll witness scores of women who are apparently in need of a  drastic make-under in order to reassure them they look fine just the way they are, and that they don’t need fake tan, nails, hair and eyelashes to look their very best. One sentiment echoed by almost every young woman hauled into Song Marry Avoid’s personal overhaul device (abbreviated into P.O.D- the harsh robot with a big heart) is that they don’t feel comfortable without make up. They don’t feel like themselves without make up. They feel unattractive without make up on, and some refuse to leave the house without at least a slick of mascara. The programme sometimes deals with interestingly decorated men too- but the majority of Snog Marry Avoid’s applicants are women.

Those of you who watch the X Factor will probably remember a young woman from Yorkshire who named herself Chloe Mafia. Chloe had a pretty good singing voice, and had also featured on Snog, Marry Avoid earlier this year. She eventually became the tabloid news’s object of ridicule thanks to her dress sense and beauty regime, which included barely there outfits, fake tan, heavy makeup and thick hair extensions. Queue vilification from the press and numerous allegations of Miss Mafia’s dalliances with the sex industry.

With both case studies, a few questions spring to mind. Why are young women so insistent on donning these extra bits and pieces, these add ons and addendums, in order to feel fully physically attractive? How did it come this? These women’s ideas of what constitutes as sexually attractive may be somewhat exaggerated, but ultimately, by toning down their image a tad, the same tired old formula of physical attractiveness = self-worth is still pushed, just at a different speed. Watch the Snog Marry Avoid ladies rush into the arms of their loved ones after their make-unders. They smile, they gush, sometimes they cry, as their boyfriends and husbands and sisters and friends exclaim ‘don’t you look beautiful!’. These make-unders aren’t as progressive as they seem.

Now, I’m no anthropologist, but I’d like to put forward the theory that the very same women who wear excessive amounts of makeup and fakery have been subjected to hundreds upon thousands of distorted and doctored images of ‘perfect’ women throughout their lifetimes. Fashion, beauty and lifestyle magazines aimed and women and teenage girls have long been advocates of using airbrushing technology and digital body sculpting in the pictures they publish. On top of this, there’s the issue of the women being photographed for those magazines being unhealthily thin in the first place (not all- but an unacceptable amount).  These magazines have the audacity to pass their doctored images off as real- as an accurate representation of what an attractive woman looks like.  These pictures are a unique kind of conditioning- over the years, if you’re led to believe that a woman is only attractive with all of these add ons, you’re bound to do it too. We shouldn’t be surprised, then, when women in their late teens and early twenties attempt to do the same with the resources they’ve got. We definitely shouldn’t pour scorn on them. All of us are guilty of emulating our icons, and it’s by no means something to be ashamed of.  The pictures are fake. Can you blame young women for aspiring to be fake, too?

Take one for the team?

If The Apprentice is anything to go by, it looks like women have more than glass ceilings to contend with in the world of business

The hotly anticipated new series of The Apprentice has begun, and I happened to watch last week’s episode of after a day of NUS women’s officer training.

This series, like every series of The Apprentice, began with Lord Alan Sugar dividing his business protégé’s into two teams- male and female.  But in the second episode of the series, 30 year old Stella English was plucked from the all-female team and instructed to project manage to all male team, who’d lost one of their members due to a family emergency. So far, nothing objectionable to report.

Up to a point, everything in Stella’s team ran smoothly. Together the team designed a beach towel with a cooling compartment pillow attached to it.

As required, the team needed an advertisement for their product. Chris Bates conjured up the ingeniously sexist idea of the team’s female project manager modelling the product for them, instead of hiring a professional model.

His colleagues all laughed, and Christopher Farrell grinned ‘I’d like to see that!’

Upon asking Stella, she made a face and expressed that she wasn’t too keen in taking her clothes off for the competition.

‘If I’m put in to that position, I’ll effectively be a model, and I’m supposed to be leading you guys’ she opposed.

Stella didn’t think it was feasible, and declined. However, that didn’t stop Christopher Farrell, Chris Bates and Alex Epstein heading to the shops despite that fact, and commencing the search for the perfect bikini. They wanted a red bikini for Stella. A red bikini with tassels on it.

This stunt wasn’t about saving money. It was about deliberately undermining a female project manager in a position of authority. I’ll bet my bottom dollar that if Farrell, Bates and Epstein had had a male project manager, they wouldn’t have asked him to strip down to his boxers for the sake of the competition. If Stella had volunteered herself it would have been a completely different situation – but she hadn’t. She’d expressed the fact that she was uncomfortable with the idea, but her male colleagues ignored her protests.

Once they’d paid for the swimsuit, the men consulted each other, seeking confirmation that they were all happy with the tankini they’d eventually chosen. They were, but Stella had zero input- in fact, she wasn’t even aware that they were choosing a skimpy outfit for her, ultimately against her will.

In the end, Stella took her clothes off because the men pressured her into it, and she wanted the team to win.

Popular television shows like The Apprentice aren’t the most accurate measure of gender equality in the business world, but the fact that this happened to Stella is just another depressing knife in the back of feminism. She was chosen for the television show on merit, like all the other contestants. Lord Sugar asked her to project manage the men’s team because he thought she’d do a good job.  But the men she managed refused to take her seriously, and undermined her authority. Any spectator could see that Stella’s colleagues derived a certain pleasure from Stella’s reluctant stance, and the fact that they pressed on with the decision without her consent proves this. They insulted her intelligence by reducing her project manager position into a mass of curves and limbs, and asked her to strip down and subject herself to objectification for the good of the cause. They attempted to make her feel guilty when she didn’t submit to their will. That just isn’t fair.

Video clip can be found here- http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00bk8x6

Ageism? No, that’s sexism

Take a quick glance at the UK’s trending topics on Twitter, and you’ll find the recent inclusion of the hash tag #proudofthebbc, in response to the Conservative led governments’ threat to cut the licence fee. There’s no denying the fact that BBC is a British institution, providing service to millions. But with every pro comes cons, and it appears that the twittersphere have conveniently forgotten media reports of a dossier sent to the chairman of the BBC Trust Sir Michael Lyons, by ex BBC presenter Selina Scott, last week. Scott was unceremoniously dropped from BBC Breakfast Time, and the 59-year-old maintains that her forced departure was due solely to her age. This isn’t the first time it’s happened.

Long standing newsreader Moira Stewart was one of the first to go, amidst an outcry of ageism and sexism from the press. She has since been reinstated and is now reading news bulletins on BBC Radio 2. Her controversy was, more recently, followed by Strictly Come Dancing Judge, Arlene Philips’ shock departure from the  show that she originally pioneered. Labour’s Equality minister at the time, Harriet Harman, spoke out in defence of Philips, as did Conservative MP Nigel Evans who told The Daily Telegraph: “We had the problem with the BBC and ageism when they got rid of the excellent Moira Stuart. This seems exactly the same. They are ditching a person whom they see as being on the wrong side of the tracks as far as age is concerned and replacing her with a younger model. It’s almost like a TV presenter scrappage scheme’.

These unfortunate women are either replaced by a younger face (in Arlene’s case, this face belonged to 30-year-old Alesha Dixon), or they disappear altogether. It’s a strange sort of ageism.  Funnily enough, the British Broadcasting Corporation isn’t caught out kindly asking it’s older, and more specifically, male television presenters, such as David Dimbleby or Bruce Forsyth, to retire. Quite the contrary. In fact, during the BBC’s general election coverage, 71 year old Dimbleby, who has been with the broadcaster for 48 years, covered the election action live for 18 hours whilst the nation voted for a hung parliament. This can’t be a case of the BBC considering its older anchors incompetent of doing the job, then.

Nigel Evans MP was correct to an extent, but it’s frustrating how the media’s coverage of the BBC’s ruthless culling of its older female television presenters is repetitively branded as ‘ageism against women’, when it is in fact, a case of old fashioned sexism- implying that women are only fit to appear on our television screens if they’re young and attractive.

When a woman’s age becomes an issue, and is perceived to hinder her ability to perform, yet the same rule doesn’t apply to her male counterparts- that’s sexism. This sort of treatment should not be labelled ageism, because the very word implies the discrimination applies to all, regardless of gender, when clearly it doesn’t. Singling out a gender for a reason so binary and reductive is both laughable (in theory) and unbelievable (in practice).  This is disgusting behaviour from one of Britain’s well loved institutions, even more so shocking because the corporation often finds itself setting an example to society, silently filtering into the British consciousness.

Proud of the BBC? I think I’ll pass.

Is feminism a dirty word?

It’s International Women’s Day on March 8th. With this in mind, perhaps it’s important to address the taboo of feminism amongst our generation. Why are so many young people reluctant to declare themselves as feminists? You’d think it would be common place in this day and age, given the extensive protests, essays, literature and general awareness we’ve witnessed from feminist movements over the past 100 years. But there’s a stereotype surrounding the word- one that conjures up images of angry, man hating, bra burning, dungaree clad women with hairy armpits. Singer-songwriter Marina Diamandis, also known as Marina and The Diamonds, summed it up when she recently tweeted:

“I like how women wrinkle their noses when asked ‘Would you call yourself a feminist?’…
It’s more fashionable to be sexually empowered than “intellectually” empowered, it seems.”

It could be said that the feminist battle has already been won. Women have the right to a university education, access to high power jobs, the right to vote… the list goes on. But it would be absurd to suggest women and men are now equal. What isn’t absurd is to suggest that we still live in a patriarchal society. A society where young women are indoctrinated with digitally enhanced and airbrushed celebrities, told they’re not good enough, and advised to spend as much money as possible to achieve perfection. A society that finds its young women overtly sexualised from an uncomfortably young age, and judged, first and foremost, on their physical appearance. If that’s not patriarchal, I don’t know what is.  A government funded report recently attracted a lot of attention from the press, earning comments from Gordon Brown and David Cameron. Both agreed that the sexualisation of children must stop. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest that this immense peer pressure on girls and women to look attractive in order to gain approval from their peers is down to the constant, aggressive barrage of images we’re all subjected to through popular culture- in particular, the celebrities we admire. Sure, these celebs are very talented, but looking perfect is top of their list of priorities. The unobtainable look has become the norm, and any female in the industry slightly left of beautiful is an anomalous phenomenon. Susan Boyle proves this.

Take a step back and asses the situation. What’s happened to common sense? As children we were warned never to judge a book by its cover. Good looks do not equal a good person. When did beauty become an accurate measure of self worth?

In a lot of ways, this is a boring, tired old argument, one that’s been debated time and time again. But doesn’t the fact that the issue won’t go away confirm how big a problem it is? Feminism has always been about empowering and equipping females with the opportunities and education to better themselves.

In reality, there is no stereotype that can define a feminist. Feminists definitely aren’t ‘anti man’. If you believe in equality, you believe in feminism. It’s as simple as that.

For more information, visit www.thefword.org.uk or http://www.internationalwomensday.com/