Tag Archives: sexism

Leave them kids alone: On sexualisation

A shorter version of this post is available on Liberal Conspiracy

My four year old sister has a pink pair of plastic high heeled shoes. They are not the type of too-big heels that little girls tottered about in years gone by. They fit her little feet perfectly, and she clops about the house in them. She also has a red scooter that she rides along the street, picking up and collecting the elastic bands that postmen drop on their rounds. I ask her why she does these things (wears the heels, collects the bands). Her answer was the same for both. It’s fun. When my sister wears her pink high heels she isn’t vying for the attention of men or boys. She isn’t sexualising herself. Yet when I first saw her teetering about the house in these heels I panicked.  In my grown up mind, a high heel is a shoe designed to make the leg look elongated and sexually appealing. My instinctive protectiveness towards my sister made me want to snatch away the shoes, to dispose of them, to have her running around in trainers again. I didn’t want anyone looking at my sister like a sex object. But upon more thought, I came to the conclusion that the only person sexualising her was me. By assuming she thinks the same about high heels as my adult brain does, I was thinking of her as a being with a comprehensive understanding of sexual consciousness. She isn’t.

At a recent friend’s family get-together, music was playing, and one six year old got into the spirit by imitating the dance moves she had no doubt seen on TV. She was quickly reprimanded by a fellow party goer who told her not to dance like that, ‘because little girls who dance that way grow up to be whores’. She didn’t understand why she was being told off, and started to cry.

And yesterday on Question Time, Germaine Greer saw fit to brand little girls in sequined Jordan-pink jeans ‘tarts’.

Over the past week, lots of concerned adults have seen fit to speak on behalf of children, caught up in the grasping fear that they are all being sexualised beyond anyone’s control. Amidst all of the arm flailing, hand wringing concerns over the sexualisation of children, there has been some blind confusion about exactly who or what is sexualising them.  Reg Bailey, author of the Department for Education’s review into the issue entitled ‘Letting Children be Children‘, is baffled. In his analysis of this increasingly sexualised society, he finds it hard to pin down any cause, admitting ‘it is far from clear how we arrived at this point’.

Predictably, his much anticipated report was ultimately meaningless, based on emotional unease instead of quantifiable evidence, without even a distinct definition of sexualisation in the first place.  It’s almost depressingly comical to watch commentators and journalists alike repeatedly stumble over and miss the root of this dilemma.

The perspective of this sexualisation is almost philosophical. Many news reports cite worried parents lamenting the loss of their children’s innocence, but I think it’s worth asking- lost innocence in who’s eyes?

Children are not sexualising themselves. Adults are sexualising them by projecting adult morality on to them. More often than not, that adult sexual morality is entrenched in sexist ideals. The sexist ideals floated to the surface when that six year old girl was warned she would grow up into a whore if she continued to dance provocatively. Sexist ideals dictate to us that the way a woman or girl dances must reflect how much sex she has had, or wants. Sexism tells us that women don’t just dance for dancing’s sake- like every other female action and endeavour; it’s orchestrated for the benefit of men. Because after all, isn’t that why we function?

What happens when you project your patriarchal adult moral ideals on to pre-pubescent bodies? The judging starts.  Suddenly little girls are called whores, tarts, sluts.

This sexualisation doesn’t exist in a vacuum, and is indicative of the wider problem of objectification of women’s bodies.  Is it any wonder that these toxic gender roles are filtering down to kids?

They imitate their idols and we shame and punish them for it. The female idols in question are often regarded with disgust for balancing on the knife edge between daring to announce publicly that they have sexual feelings, and exploiting their sexual imagery. Morality crusaders are quick to let us know that sex is all around us, and that sex sells. But that’s a lie. It’s not sex all around us, but the objectification and consequent marginalisation of women’s bodies, commodified into accessory status. But for some strange reason, nobody wants to talk about that. It’s too much of a stretch of the imagination to challenge patriarchy. It’s easier to wail about this sexualisation of our children, all the while colluding in the myth that all of these sexualising factors are immediately permissible once the girl in question turns eighteen.

Regulation and legislation will not fix this. Equality will. Free women from these narrow, suffocating gender-fascist ideals of appearance and behaviour, and the girls will follow.

Nadine Dorries’ dangerous message

I’ve written for The Guardian’s comment is free about Nadine Dorries and her victim blaming on yesterday’s Vanessa Show.

Tucked away on daytime TV on Monday afternoon, Nadine Dorries was justifying her proposals for elements of abstinence-based sex education for girls. The Vanessa Show saw the Conservative MP go head to head with Julie Bentley, chief executive of the sexual health charity FPA. The women, along with presenter Vanessa Feltz and retired rugby player Lawrence Dallaglio, discussed the bill that was unveiled to the House of Commons two weeks ago.

When it was first introduced, Dorries insisted her aim was to empower teenage girls to say “no” to sex. There is really nothing empowering about teaching young women that their sexuality is not their own. Abstinence-based sex education teaches girls that sex isn’t something that they participate in – instead, it’s something they give in to. Towards the end of the debate, Dorries said:

“A lot of girls, when sex abuse takes place, don’t realise until later that that was a wrong thing to do … Society is so over-sexualised that I don’t think people realise that if we did empower this message into girls, imbued this message in schools, we’d probably have less sex abuse.”

Read the rest here!

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.

Do lads’ mags belong in student unions?

Women: not objects

Lads’ mags- what’s the big deal? Well, quite a lot actually. After successfully removing the magazines from the union shop’s shelves, Professor Mark Blagrove, The head of the University of Swansea’s Psychology Department, told the union’s student paper: ‘The University should have higher standards than the outside world. The University should be like BBC 4 and that’s it, and then you suddenly get the worst bits of cable television.’

Whilst I wouldn’t quite describe the issue in those words, Professor Blagrove is correct.

In these sex saturated times, many people don’t find lads’ mags offensive, but that’s because the blatant objectification of women has filtered into our social consciousness. However, just because they’ve existed for as long as you can remember doesn’t mean you shouldn’t question them.

After conducting my own somewhat amateur study into lads’ mags -I spent my hard earned money on a copy of both Nuts and Zoo- I came to the conclusion that they’re soft porn.  All that’s missing are vaginas on show.

A university is an educational institute. Our student union promises to ‘make life better for students’, whilst our university promises to ‘to promote gender equality’. The sale of lads’ mags in the student union directly undermines both of those statements. Whilst these magazines are obviously harmful to women, they’re also seriously detrimental to men, as they advocate tired, restrictive stereotypes. Both women and men are so much more than this.

Putting the images aside, there’s the issue of the content in these magazines. In May this year, perennial laddish  icon Danny Dyer caused an widespread furore when he advised a Zoo reader in his column to “cut your ex’s face, and then no one will want her…” -  simultaneously endorsing domestic violence as well as the notion of women as possessions. Dyer cried misquotation, and in a statement, Zoo blamed it on a “regrettable production error” – but there’s no denying that his quote stank of misogyny. Anyone with a social conscience can see that allowing this kind of crass, vulgar attitude towards women in a university’s student union is objectionable in the extreme.

In February, growing calls to move lads’ mags to the top shelf were fuelled by a report commissioned by the Home Office, with the argument that they add to the pornification of the mainstream media. And more recently, human rights group Object have targeted Tesco after the supermarket chain banned customers shopping in their pyjamas on the basis that the sight may ‘cause offense’. Object retaliated by donning pyjamas, creating a conga line through the aisles, chanting anti-sexist slogans and covering up lads’ mags with paper bags that read ‘lads’ mags lie about women’.  I can’t help but agree. These magazines promote the idea of women as nothing more than sexually available objects- always on standby; waxed, primped and preened – legs parted and lips pouting, all for your pleasure. That is a lie.

So yes, lads’ mags should be removed from our university’s shelves. I’ve no place to judge if you’re intent on getting your rocks off, but there’s no place for porn in our student union. Students primarily come to university to be educated. These magazines reinforce and encourage the objectification of women. If student consumers are that desperate for a soft porn fix, they can always leave university premises to find some.

Originally written for Pluto’s debate section.

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.