The Gender Equality Checkpoint

[DanaC]

I was going to post this in the summer, but it got by me and has suddenly popped up on a list of what's currently being read on the site.

One area of life in which women have struggled to achieve much of a presence, and which it is really important for women to achieve some presence is the realm of politics and government. As with the discussion about the number of female characters on screen and the number of female experts and news readers, this is one of those things where we (I think) almost instinctively feel as if there has been an explosion of female presence, to the point where they seem to be everywhere - but when you actually analyse it they've a fraction of the presence of men. We just don't realy notice the number of men, because they are the standard - we notice the presence of women.

One of the ways that sexism manifests in our culture is not just the number of women in politics and government, but how we discuss and understand female politicians. It is worrying to me how little that has changed, in some ways, since I was a child. Any woman in the public eye in any kind of a position of power, influence, or the potential of either gets taken down a peg in the language used to describe her. I don't meangets taken down a peg, as an individual - that happens to all politicians in the media. I mean taken down a peg as a woman. Everything about the way female politicians are discussed, interviewed, described and reported on underscores their femininity in a way that is weakening.

For example, the way a candidate in this year's Labour Party leadership contest was treated by the national political press.

How much do you reckon Jeremy Corbyn weighs? How does he measure up if you compare his looks to Prince William’s? How stylish would you say Andy Burnham is? And, if you had to guess, what kind of product would you say he uses in his hair?

The answers to these questions do nothing to help us decide who would make a better leader of the Labour party. But they do influence how voters perceive candidates.

The Mail on Sunday’s profile of leadership candidate Liz Kendall describes her as a “slinky brunette” and a “power-dressing Blairite” with a “lithe figure” who “remains New Labour to the tips of her stilettos”. The paper’s political editor, Simon Walters, asked if she wants to “get married and have kids”, quizzed her about her fitness routine and twice compared Kendall to Kate Middleton. At one point, Walters speculates that “she looks the same weight as the Duchess – about 8st”; later, he disingenuously asks her to discuss “the cruel comments about being a ‘childless spinster’”, neither telling readers who made those “cruel comments” in the first place, or where.

In any case, sexist media coverage has a real impact. A 2010 US study, commissioned by a non-partisan coalition of women’s groups, asked 800 likely voters to listen to descriptions of two hypothetical congressional candidates, Dan Jones and Jane Smith. Half of the voters then heard a sample back-and-forth debate about the candidates, which included sexist descriptions such as “mean girl” and “ice queen” and “prostitute” to talk about the female candidate. The other half heard a similar discussion without the labels. The findings of the study were stark; when sexist language was included, Jane Smith lost twice the support compared to the discussion that focused solely on her policies. Her initial support rating was 43%, which fell to 33% after policy based attacks, compared to 21% after sexist slurs.




The study also found that sexist language undermines the public perception of the female politician, prompting voters to see her as less empathetic, effective and trustworthy.

A follow-up study in 2013 by US organisation Name It Change It presented 1,500 likely voters with the media profiles of two fictional political candidates, one male and one female. Voters were divided into four groups: one quarter heard no reference to the female candidate’s appearance, while the other three groups were presented with either neutral, positive or negative descriptions of how she looked. The study itself used real quotes taken from media coverage of female candidates in 2012 elections. The conclusion? “When media coverage focuses on a woman’s appearance, she pays a price in the horse race, in her favourability, in her likelihood to be seen as possessing positive traits, and in how likely voters are to vote for her.” Importantly, all references to appearance, even apparently positive coverage that seems to praise a female politician’s looks, still result in a detrimental impact on her candidacy – a fact especially worth remembering when a journalist comments on the appearance of a woman in power and disguises it as a compliment.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandst...er-perceptions

[sexobon]

We men accept full responsibility for one cause of sexist remarks. As primitive humans we have not yet overcome this obscenity. Please accept our heartfelt apology for the shameful action of dressing our females.

We can't all be Ferengi.

[DanaC]

It isn't men, hon. It's people. Unconscious biases affect us all. Women are just as put off voting for other women as men are when this kind of reporting is used. We are also likely to focus on another woman's looks in a way we don't with men.

I noticed it myself with my nieces. As they were growing up I had tomakea conscious effort not to comment on appearance all the time. 'Hi babes - oh you look nice, where did you get that top?' Standard girl-to-girl greeting.

Nothing wrong with that, in and of itself, but it has an impact when it becomes the central focus for how we view women even in positions of power and responsibility.

[xoxoxoBruce]

So now you're the uncaring aunt who never even notices how hard they tried to look good.

[DanaC]

Hehehehehe. I comment if they've clearly got new clothes or are all dolled up for going out.

[xoxoxoBruce]

The problem is you can't know what someone else is thinking. They may have done something they feel makes them, like totally like different like ya know, but it's such a slight difference it could has been accidental or random. When nobody says anything, they're devastated. Or spent three hours fighting s blackhead or stray wisp of hair, then giving up. When somebody notices they're devastated. To be clear, this is not a female thing, it's a human thing.
I remember Calvin bitching to Hobbes, what good is it to have superhero underwear if nobody comments on it.

[DanaC]

True enough. It was more when they were youngsters really. Mum and I realised that the first thing we always said to the girls, in our greetings, was pretty much to the effect that they looked nice. We just tried to be a bit more conscious of stuff and maybe mix it up a bit.

It's hard though - because the pair of them are and always have been drop dead gorgeous.

In truth, it is often one of the first things I say to my bro as well when I see him. Because he is a bit of a style freak (style not fashion, I hasten to add) and likes to look good - he often has new clothes and it is instinctive to me to mention it.

But he isn't surrounded by 24/7 cultural messaging telling him his looks are his most important quality.

[DanaC]

This made me smile a lot. These young lads are very impressive.

Long before the idea of ending female genital mutilation (FGM) was gaining traction among world leaders, a group of young Maasai men were already questioning the need for the brutal practice.

“Female genital mutilation is part of our culture and practice and it marks the transition from childhood to adulthood, of women from girls. We now realise FGM is one of the practices we should not have in our society. It’s not helping us but affecting our girls and mothers and wives,” says Sonyanga Ole Ngais, one of the stars of a new documentary that charts how a cricket team formed in the shadows of Mount Kenya helped change attitudes towards the practice.

Interspersed with shots of life at home as they prepare for the trip, their arrival in the UK, and their first visit to Lord’s, we hear the team talking about FGM and the lack of women’s rights in the region, views in stark contrast to those expressed by Maasai elders.

“It started a long time ago when we were young and our sisters were being married off and not completing school,” says Ngais, in London this week to promote the film.

“When I was young I remember very well my last sister to undergo the cut [FGM], and she was married off. I really liked her and was really sad and cried a lot when she was married off. She was like my mother, taking care of me … when she was married I realised I was not going to have that company. I was not going to see her.”

Ngais, 26, had already seen three other sisters undergo FGM, drop out of school and marry young; culture dictates that girls should be cut before they are married. FGM has been banned in Kenya for years.

The pain of losing his sister to marriage never left him. And as Ngais grew older and came to understand more about what girls went through, he began to question the importance of FGM in the Maasai culture, and started talking to his friends about it.

“When I grew up I started to realise what these people were doing … it was not nice, it was inhuman.”

By this time, he had a younger sister, Eunice. He was determined that she would not be cut.

“I realised I was not ready to lose another sister,” Ngais said. “I had the passion to fight for women’s rights in our society.

“We have to realise girls have their rights and need to study. They don’t need the brutality of FGM.”

These young men, having left their communities, travelled and therefore gained wisdom, were given a hearing by their elders. They were asked whether they would marry a girl who had not been cut. Their response was tovow only tomarry girls who had not been cut. Since the parents of girls want most for them to be married - the most eligible and celebrated bachelors of their community refusing to marry girls who have been cut carries serious weight.

Read the rest here:

http://www.theguardian.com/global-de...s-championship

[DanaC]

This, on the other hand, did not make me want to smile. This is a piece from the Guardian, about the author's experience of travelling home from a show with her 13 year old daughter.

It was pretty late when we boarded the train, and the carriage was almost full of other theatregoers on their way home. My daughter was sitting on my right and the only free seat was on my left. After a couple of stops, a man got on. It was hard to tell, but he was probably in his 30s. He cast his eyes around the carriage before declaring, quite loudly, that someone would have to move. “I want to sit opposite her,” he said, staring at my daughter.




I could feel her physically recoil beside me, hardly able to believe that he was talking about her. She looked at me wide-eyed and didn’t speak, but grabbed my hand with her smaller sweaty one. I reassured her that it was OK. “There’s a seat next to me,” I told him.

No one else in the carriage spoke or even looked at us. He sat down very close next to me and proceeded to stare across at my daughter, craning to see round me. “What’s your name?” he asked. She didn’t reply.

“Pretty, pretty, pretty,” he said.

I told him quite clearly that she did not wish to speak to him and that I would like him to stop. Again, no one else said or did anything to help or support us.

For me, this was a first. The first time I had been out with my newly teenage daughter when she was sexually harassed. I felt ashamed about not knowing whether she had already been subjected to something like this before, when I was not with her, and I felt nervous to ask – she looked so fearful.

I also felt a sense of responsibility or fault. She had been late home from school, rushing to get changed and, as we left the house, I had grabbed a tailored jacket for her. It belonged to me and she wore it over a short, navy H&M dress, with socks and Doc Marten shoes. Her legs were bare. Maybe I should have taken a moment and insisted she wore tights? Or a longer skirt? Or trousers? So, already I was experiencing feelings of guilt and shame, and the harassment was not even aimed at me.




The incident also felt threatening and isolating. By now, we were four or five stops from our destination and my daughter had hold of my hand very tightly. I told the man we were going to move, but he got up himself and moved further down the carriage as a couple of seats had become vacant.

Now other passengers started to look up at us, one offering a tiny smile. Although the man had moved away, my daughter seemed to feel no safer and asked if we could leave the train before our stop and walk the rest of the way home, but we didn’t.

So we were both, in our own ways, caught in a position of feeling the need to alter our behaviour, either in practical ways, or through the internal dialogue with which we are saddled every day. Girls should dress differently. Or put up with the inconvenience of changing their travel plans. All in order to suit a culture that makes women feel bad about their own choices.

There's quite a bit more, but one passage really stood out to me:

I want to tell my daughter that men are wonderful, supportive, as full of complexities and joy and love as women are. I am sure she knows this anyway. But I also see that she is beginning to experience alternative ways of imagining men – menacing ways.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandst...in-front-of-me


It's a peculiar experience, being harrassed as a young teen. It can be threatening, it can also make you feel grownup. Often it is a combination of the two. I doubt there are many women who have not experienced some form of harrassment as youngsters. This was a particularly extreme example, but I recall several experiences from when I was around 12 years old, that definitely made men seem a much more dangerous proposition.

It's funny how you learn to navigate it - like any other social landscape, it forms part of how you see the world. I don't mean that it warps you - just that the risk and danger is an ordinary part of the world you are in.

Men, of course, have their own ordinary dangers to which they become accustomed and which they naturally take into account and navigate. But I thought some of the guys in particular might find the insight into a particularly female experience of interest.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Here's a good one, The Thing All Women Do That You Don't Know About.

There's this thing that happens whenever I speak about or write about women's issues. Things like dress codes, rape culture and sexism. I get the comments: Aren't there more important things to worry about? Is this really that big of a deal? Aren't you being overly sensitive? Are you sure you're being rational about this?

Every. Single. Time.

And every single time I get frustrated. Why don't they get it?

I think I've figured out why.

They don't know.

They don't know about de-escalation. Minimizing. Quietly acquiescing.

Hell, even though women live it, we are not always aware of it. But we have all done it.

We have all learned, either by instinct or by trial and error, how to minimize a situation that makes us uncomfortable. How to avoid angering a man or endangering ourselves. We have all, on many occasions, ignored an offensive comment. We've all laughed off an inappropriate come-on. We've all swallowed our anger when being belittled or condescended to.

It doesn't feel good. It feels icky. Dirty. But we do it because to not do it could put us in danger or get us fired or labeled a bitch. So we usually take the path of least precariousness.

It's not something we talk about every day. We don't tell our boyfriends and husbands and friends every time it happens. Because it is so frequent, so pervasive, that it has become something we just deal with.

So maybe they don't know.

[DanaC]

Excellent article.

[Sundae]

I found myself out once with a group of older men I know reasonably well.
I wouldn't call them friends, but we know eachother's names and say Hello in the street, stop to pass the time of day.

One of the men can be quite... irascible.
He'd been challenged by someone on a committee he Chairs and was very grumpy. I was obvious he wanted to kick off.
Now they were drinking (albeit slowly), and I had a soft drink, but there was no hint of violence; they're all retired anyway, not the usual age range for brawling. But I could see that his snapping was bringing the group down and I wanted to stay out a little longer in the warm, the light, some company.

So I did my Princess Diana.
I smiled, paid him attention, lowered my eyes, listened. Slowly diverted his conversation by asking about things I know he likes and enjoys (his caravan FFS!)
It worked. He stopped being sarcastic, got off his high horse, joined in the usual banter.

It wasn't until afterwards I realised what I'd done.
I suppose I was being manipulative. After all I got what I wanted out of it. Another half hour or so stretching out a Diet Pepsi.

And yes, I did feel a bit icky afterwards.

[Carruthers]

Originally Posted by Sundae

I found myself out once with a group of older men I know reasonably well.
I wouldn't call them friends, but we know eachother's names and say Hello in the street, stop to pass the time of day.

One of the men can be quite... irascible.
He'd been challenged by someone on a committee he Chairs and was very grumpy. I was obvious he wanted to kick off.
Now they were drinking (albeit slowly), and I had a soft drink, but there was no hint of violence; they're all retired anyway, not the usual age range for brawling. But I could see that his snapping was bringing the group down and I wanted to stay out a little longer in the warm, the light, some company.

So I did my Princess Diana.
I smiled, paid him attention, lowered my eyes, listened. Slowly diverted his conversation by asking about things I know he likes and enjoys (his caravan FFS!)
It worked. He stopped being sarcastic, got off his high horse, joined in the usual banter.

It wasn't until afterwards I realised what I'd done.
I suppose I was being manipulative. After all I got what I wanted out of it. Another half hour or so stretching out a Diet Pepsi.

And yes, I did feel a bit icky afterwards.

The irascible gent returned to a more equable frame of mind, the others had a negative influence removed from the evening's proceedings and you spent a little while longer in a relaxing atmosphere.

Manipulative? Nah. You poured oil on troubled waters and it didn't catch fire.

I'd enter that in the credit side of life's ledger.

[DanaC]

How can people still be aking these points ? This is only three years old.




And how is this still a thing?

[xoxoxoBruce]

And how is this still a thing?

It isn't, but if Faux news keeps bringing it up, maybe the rare cretin out there will think they aren't alone, maybe there are others, maybe a movement, maybe I can me get a button or bumper sticker.

Faux wouldn't do that to avoid talking about real issues, would they?