spacer

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Men can’t comprehend the complex rules of television broadcasting, say women

Women everywhere were overheard this morning claming that men clearly don’t have the capacity to understand the complex broadcasting guidelines for UK programmes, and that they have no place using words on television.

Most amusing. Read the rest here.

Labels: , ,

Monday, March 29, 2010

Sainsbury's Shamed into Stopping Sexist Labelling

The press release below rather tickled me. As both a mother of three boys and as a woman worker in a male-dominated industry, I completely get where they are coming from and applaud their small but worthwhile victory. That said, I'm not too keen on promoting the military to either boys or girls.


PINKSTINKS FORCES SAINSBURY’S CLIMBDOWN OVER ‘SEXIST’ LABELLING

PINKSTINKS has forced UK supermarket giant Sainsbury’s to withdraw the ‘sexist’ labelling on some of its children’s clothes.

The retailer – which has more than 500 stores nationwide – has agreed to re-label thousands of children’s dressing-up outfits after pressure from Pinkstinks and the group’s 13,000 supporters.

Sainsbury’s has now admitted that its gender-specific product-labelling was ‘not acceptable’. The store was selling princess outfits and a ‘circa 1940s’ nurse outfit labelled GIRLS, while pilots, superheroes, soldiers and most astonishing of all, even doctors white coats were marked BOYS.

Abi Moore, Pinkstinks co-founder said: “We asked what sort of message this was sending to girls about what they are ‘fit’ for and what their aspirations might be. As far as we are aware, there are more women at medical school than men nowadays.

“On our website – www.pinkstinks.co.uk - one of our most popular role models is Flight Lieutenant Kirsty Moore, the first female Red Arrows pilot. An amazing achievement and yet Sainsbury’s pilots’ outfits were also labelled ‘boys’. As were the army outfits even though women have been fighting alongside men at the front line for years.

“We simply drew to Sainsbury’s attention the fact that it would be a hugely confident and independent little girl who would dare risk the ridicule of her friends by asking for a costume in-store clearly ‘meant’ for boys, no matter how much she wanted to dress up like a doctor, while the nurses outfit sends a message to boys that they are not ‘meant’ to be nurses either.”

Sainsbury’s has pledged the outfits with new non-gender specific labels will be in-store from July.

Sainsbury’s customer director, Gwyn Burr, told Pinkstinks: “It isn't acceptable to suggest certain professions are the reserve of any gender.

“This is an error and one I am seeking to address ASAP. The new labels which will be non gender specific will go on the next allocation of clothing, so will be in store from July.”

Says Abi: “Though this may seem trivial, it is important. This kind of labelling is part of the drip, drip of messages that girls (and boys) receive on a daily basis about their roles in life and the expectations that they should have. Pinkstinks is committed to tackling any kind of gender stereotyping, in particular that which is aimed at children, which we see as damaging, limiting or just plain old-fashioned.

“We want to congratulate Sainsbury’s on its swift action to redress this
matter and hope other retailers will follow their lead. We will be
watching.”

Labels: ,

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Tuesday Tosser: Alan Sugar


Women are their own worst enemies, says Lord Sugar

... in which Sir Sexist "hinted he would be reluctant to give a full-time job to a pregnant woman". Now that is an admission of inclination to unlawful sex discrimination, is it not? I strongly recommend that any woman who suspects that Sugar or his companies have refused her a full-time job because she is pregnant make a sharp note of this comment and ring her trade union's legal department.

Sugar is also apparently conisdering resigning his post as a government adviser. Note to government: push him before he jumps.

Labels: , ,

Monday, November 02, 2009

Make-Up and Contraception

Queueing up at the doctor's this morning, I saw a poster the text of which was something this:

Most women know 20 different types of make-up ... But only two types of contraception ... [smaller print] There are lots of types of contraception as well as the condom and the pill, and more on the way.

This was accompanied by pictures of various lipsticks, blushers, mascaras etc.

Now, was I just feeling over-sensitive this morning, or is this actually patronising, sexist tosh?

I don't claim to be "most women", and fully accept - with pride, indeed - that I probably know less about make-up than most men, let alone most women. But most women I know, however many different types of lippy they are familiar with, know very well that there are more than two types of contraception. This poster, sadly, perpetuates the idea that unwanted pregnancy is simply the result of women's ignorance.

I would love to know what research formed the basis of this poster's claim, presented as it is as a statement of fact.

Disappointing, the publisher of this poster is the Family Planning Association, which has done some good work and is often condemned by opponents of sexual and reproductive freedom.

It may be a minor matter, but in this case, it has let itself, and women, down.

Labels:

Sunday, March 01, 2009

University of the bleeding obvious!!




Lots of research proves what we already know, are there academics out there who can explain why we need research into:


Women in bikinis turn male heads and switch off the part of the brain that curbs sexism (Though they did justify their research by showing what was happening to men's brains)

"It is as if they are reacting to these women as if they are not fully human," said Susan Fiske, professor of psychology at Princeton University, who made the study on 21 male undergraduates using a medical scanner to analyse their brain activity. She told the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Chicago: "I wouldn't argue for censorship, but I would argue that it is important to know about the impact of the images you are showing."

The study focused on a region of the brain called the medial pre-frontal cortex, just above the eyes, which, when activated seems to damp a man's tendency to express hostile sexist thoughts about women, Professor Fiske said. Men who express the strongest sexist tendencies tend to have a less active medial cortex. It becomes decactivated in men who are the most hostile to women, but only for women in bikinis, she said.

"So basically they are particularly likely to treat these women as objects, at least that is the interpretation of the data we have so far. It is a preliminary study but it is consistent with the idea that they are responding to these photographs as if they were responding to objects rather than people."

It was "shocking" to find that the pictures of scantily clad women deactivates the medial pre-frontal cortex, Professor Fiske went on. "The only other time we've observed the deactivation of this region is when people look at pictures of homeless people and drug addicts who they really don't want to think about what's in their minds because they are put off by them."

The panel of 21 heterosexual male students were first rated in terms of their sexist attitudes to women, using answers to interview questions. Then they were placed in a brain scanner while viewing a set of images of women in bikinis, women in clothes and men in clothes. The scientists also used "sexualised" images, where the head of each semi-naked photograph was cut off so that only the torso was visible. The men were then given memory tests on what they had remembered about each image, with and without the heads.

"Heterosexual men had the best memory for the sexualised bodies of women - this is cutting-off the heads - even though they had seen the bodies for only 200 milliseconds," Professor Fiske said. The findings have wider implications for society because they show how sexualised images in the media and in advertising can dehumanise women by encouraging men to think of them in terms of objects to be acted upon, she said. "There is an avoidance-related dehumanisation or dementalising kind of response. This one is an approach-orientated response. These women are attractive, they are seen as sexually inviting.

And other useful research has been:

Fake orgasms differ from real ones
Professor Gert Holstege of the University of Groningen asked women to place their head in a scanner while having an orgasm with their partner. They were then asked to fake an orgasm and the scans were compared. The result? Different parts of the brain experience real orgasms and create fake ones.

The rhythm method of contraception is unreliable
A study in the British Medical Journal concluded women can get pregnant at any time of their monthly cycle. If you want to get pregnant, there is no substitute for frequent bonking (not a conclusion the researchers reached).

Men are attracted to women who wear red
Students at the University of Rochester, New York rated a woman's attractiveness in attire of varying hues. Most women opted for red. The researchers said this suggested they associated red with sex. Surprise! Red light district, scarlet woman, lipstick, painted nails; no clues there, then.

The more fit you are the longer you will live
Researchers from Washington, US, who studied 15,000 former servicemen concluded the highly fit had half the risk of death of the least fit.

Living near a busy road increases the risk of asthma
A study of 5,000 children by the University of Southern California found air quality affected health. They said: "Living in residential areas with high traffic-related pollution significantly increases the risk of childhood asthma."

Hurrying makes people less attentive
US researchers assessed the walking speeds of randomly selected pedestrians in 31 countries using stopwatches and a complicated measures. They concluded that "the more people rush around the less time they have to devote to factors that are peripheral to their main goals".

Giving up smoking is good for your lungs
Scientists at the University of Glasgow assessed smokers six weeks after they had quit. They found that they had improved their lung function by 15 per cent. What is even more remarkable is that editors at the American Journal of Respiratory and critical Care Medicine thought this a study worth publishing.

Binge drinkers are more likely to fall over
Scientists at Wake Forest School of medicine in the US who questioned 2,000 students concluded getting drunk made them prone to lose their balance.

Labels:

Friday, August 08, 2008

What do women want ? Husbands, babies and cushions.















Well that's the impression you are left with after reading what I assume is meant to be some witty battle of the sexes type banter over at The Times.

If you are feeling a bit bored pop over and see how many stereotypes you can find.

Tad and Molly are debating whether women should live with a man if she wants him to get down on one knee and propose (this is assuming heterosexuality here of course).

Molly thinks a woman should hold out for a proposal before rushing to move in:

My view is that until a man proposes he is still at some level deciding whether his girlfriend is The One. Until he decides, the downside of moving in together is too big to risk it. You know what they say about buying cows when you get milk for free...

Yep, that oldie, sex as a bargaining tool used by women.

Tad responds a bit later:

it's a big deal if a man asks a woman to move in. If we do it, it's because we want you there and probably want to marry you. The prize is there for the taking.



This article is pretty insulting for straight men and women.

Men are portrayed as seeing living together as a way to get 'free' sex. Tad disputes that , but its not much better. Seems if a man lives with you then feel honoured that you may get the 'prize' of being his wife.

Women are manipulative,with a 'ticking body clock', looking at the best way to trap her man and get that sparkler on her finger.

So yet again the stereotype of women not really being that into sex , using it to get what they want which is of course full blown domesticity. Oh and chuck in the tired cliche's about cushions and toilet seats . Surely 'Bridget Jones' is just so last century ?

Where to start with all this?

Well relationships can take all sorts of forms and not all are the heterosexual, married 2.4 kids variety. Some men really really want kids, some women have no interest in then whatsoever.

Some men want to marry, some women want to have open relationships or have a number of partners perhaps even with other women !

People do not have to live together to be partners.

Some women even quite like sex and don't see it as a way of trapping men and then feigning headaches for the rest of their not so wedded bliss.

Surely we can move on from the stereotype of the woman desperate to ensnare their 'prize' of a man .

Sex and relationships are a lot more complex, and potentially fun, than that .

Oh and Tad and Molly, try to be a bit more imaginative next time.

Labels:

Saturday, January 12, 2008

Les "différences culturelles" peuvent-elles excuser le sexisme?


A speech that I wrote and delivered a couple of years back has been translated into French and published in ProChoix News. Actually, it had already been published in 'Ni Patrie Ni Frontieres', but apparently this will get a much wider audience. Thanks to Yves Coleman for translating it and getting it published.

Its title? Les "différences culturelles" peuvent-elles excuser le sexisme? Or, Are 'cultural differences' an excuse for sexism? A favourite subject of this blog, indeed.

And for those of you who don't read French, you can read it in English here.

Labels: ,

Sunday, December 23, 2007

Women know your place !!

There is a debate in the commentsbox in an earlier post, about the role of women on the left.

Tami states :

Women still have trouble being taken seriously - and even when they are there is still a level of "ohh isn't that great! a young woman is involved in politics" which I pick up on easily and which is rather annoying to say the least. There is not a lot of encouragement to develop serious female cadre because of this condescending attitude and therefore you often have young women either not participating or when they do they are not particularly good speakers or particularly well trained - these roles are seen as male roles within the movement.

It's either that or your views get relegated to being "women's issues", environmentalism, LGBT right or other "soft subjects". You're not really expected to jump in there and debate heavy economic questions with the boys or serious political theory.
...

The left is going to need to address the questions of sexism not just in regards to the more fundamental issues as we have seen in the discussion of sexism on other blogs - but also in the very real unstated division between men's and women's "roles" within left groups.


Cat has joined in, adding a you tube link,and I thought I would add it here. Well I can't be arsed to think of anything to write .

So hat tip to Cat and check this out :

Labels: ,

Tuesday, October 09, 2007

Warner Bros without the sisters...


If a film bombs without a trace at the box office and the lead actor was a woman. What would you do? Well, it's simple really, don't finance films with women leads. That's the latest blue sky thinking from Warner Bros executive. The reason they have got their boxers in a twist is that the film The Brave One tanked at the box office.

So, they are indulging in that time-honoured tradition called "blame the woman"... I saw a trailer for that film and frankly, it looked....bad. It seemed like a hand-wringing morality tale and even though it had the stunning and wonderful actor, Jodie Foster, it just didn't entice me.
But instead of Warner Bros wondering whether it was piss-poor writing (men) that kept the punters away from this sub-Death Wish flick or even lousy direction (man) but nay, it is the fault of Jodie and obviously she must shoulder the blame....

Ah, sexism is alive and kicking in La-La land. And what I would like to know is when the next film that tanks at the box office and the lead star is a bankable bloke, will they send out an edict stating no more finance for flicks with male leads? Yeah....right and then I woke up..
I remember reading somewhere that there were more women screenwriters in the 1930s and 1940s as opposed to now. There was some really juicy dramatic parts for women. Iconic goddesses still remembered today from Katherine Hepburn, Bette Davis, Lena Horne, Rosalind Russell, Barbara Stanwyck, Jean Harlow, Louise Brooks ....the list is endless. Many of the films I have seen in the past year, the characterisation of women in many of these flicks has been lack lustre and under demanding. And Hollywood seems full to brimming with young women with the stereotypically plastic skinny look. They could be clones of each other.

I suppose the industry would argue that they are giving the punters what they want. I for one would love to see more developed, 3-dimensional crafted parts for women. There are some damn good fine actresses out there but alas, Warner Bros wouldn't want them anyway near the lead role. Maybe they will bring back the good old casting couch as well.....

Hollywood has a long long long way to go regarding equality and to quote Goldie Hawn : "There are only three ages for women in Hollywood: babe, district attorney, and driving Miss Daisy."

Quite!

Labels: ,