London Student has had a feminist edition out this months.
Being a woman, I'd kinda hoped I'd have some concrete views on it - but no. Like racism, politics, et al, I merely have a fuzzy "everyone should be nice to one another", and ultimate hope that the problem will go away so I don't have to worry any more. Gender-blindness would be my ultimate aim, I think, so women could play Hamlet and men Ophelia without needing to put an explanation in the script, that we could ditch terms like "straight" or "gay" entirely, and that all prejudices regarding jobs and rolemodels would disintigrate. We're all just people, after all. Not that that's ever going to happen, of course.
Have a look at this:
http://www.london-student.net/2009/02/16/asking-for-it/
I actually have issues with it as an article, because the point it's clearly trying to push is that we're being influenced by this mysoginistic agenda which still allows women to be objectified. Arguably true.
But the question they asked is "do you think that a woman is totally, partially or not at all responsible for being raped if:
A drunk
B has been flirting
C failed to say no clearly
D wearing sexy and revealing clothes
E known to have had many sexual partners
F alone and walking in a dangerous area
B, C, D and E I agree are worrying, because they are not intrinsically unhealthy things to do. But I want to gripe about A and F, to which the answer is clearly "partly".
This does NOT mean I think she deserves it. Nor does it mean I don't view the man as more guilty. There is not a single instance which comes to mind in which rape is justified (and if it does, it'll probably be some half garbled memory from a fantasy novel involving a firewitch and the end of creation. Still not making it OK).
But come on! Look at the question properly. If you are drunk, you are more vulnerable. Your reactions are slower, you're less likely to be able to defend yourself verbally or physically, and you put yourself in a position where you are not in control. This doesn't make it OK, but by getting drunk you are willfully responsible for putting yourself in danger.
It's like asking if women who trip over kerbs when drunk are responsible for the fact they've tripped. "Do you think a woman is totally, partially or not at all responsible for crashing a car if driving while drunk?" It's exactly the same principles. From a male perspective, do I want to assault Woman A who is in full possession of her running, screaming, police-phoning, fighting-back faculties? Or the one passed out on the sofa who might not even remember? You open yourself up to being taken advantage of.
The same goes for "if the woman is alone and walking in a dangerous are". It is statistically more likely that something bad will happen to you, because you are willfully putting yourself in a dangerous position. Let's take the heat off such a charged and interpretable topic, let's talk about mugging.
Person A takes a safe route home through lighted areas. Person B is walking in a dangerous and deserted area while flashing his iPhone. Is Person A responsible for being mugged? No, because he's done nothing stupid. Is Person B responsible? Well it still sucks, but any moron can appreciate that situation B is likely to be dangerous, while A is likely to be safe. This does not necessarily mean the public of great Britain are in favour of vigilantes robbing the rich to feed the poor. Person B has just not thought about consequences.
The survey and article were meant in good faith. It's a pity they tried justifying it with daft statistics, frankly, because it's obviously an important issue, and one about which people are far too accepting. The message - that both genders still regard violence against women as part of life, even subconsciusly - is a strong one, and needs to be got out. But the "drunk" think made me headdesk.
There was also an update about Miss University London, the beauty pageant taking place in a few weeks, also colloquially being referred to as Miss-Oginy London:
http://www.london-student.net/2009/03/02/clashes-expected-at-miss-ul-final/
I'm not sure how I feel about it. It's a complex issue, and my sympathies are equal on both sides. I think beauty contests are at a level quite fun - for example, I want a photo of me in my new dress, so was thinking of extending it to everyone around in Hampstead as an excuse to dress up and run around with a camera. When we held Miss Guernsey, one of the contestants was over 40, and she was quoted in the paper as saying she was taking part for a laugh, and to show that mature women are gorgeous too. For me, this is what a beauty contest should be. It's a way for women to celebrate their femininity - traditional, yes, cliched, certainly. The London Paper's Queer Corner complains that "all women naturally love to wear dresses. Slinky ones. Which glimmer". The fact of the matter is that some do, and Miss University London is for them not for us. You don't see me protesting at inter-University football matches, because I don't see the point of running around a pitch sweating for 90 minutes, because I don't feel represented by sporty girls in muddy shirts. It's like Forrest Gump campaigning against pub quizzes (Forrest being the first example I could think of of someone who's stupid but has his own sort of wisdom)
I haven't applied for Miss Uni London because I don't fit their standards. That's terrible, of course, but these standards will always exist, and we can only choose to embrace or ignore them. I didn't log on to the application form, then leave crying. I do not feel any less beautiful.
The Miss-Oginyst argument, it seems, is that all reinforces negative images of women. It forces them into socio-normative images of beauty, it suggests they're there to be looked at and encourages people to judge on appearance. I'm not sure this isn't an overreaction. Miss Uni London is a product of these ideas, not the cause. We've got to focus on killing the hydra instead of vainly attacking its heads.
It exists because this idea of beauty is already part of our society. Let's continue with the sporting metaphors: Miss London is the football World Cup. You don't see cricketers, snooker players, golfers, netballers, tiddlywinkers and rowing teams complaining that football should be banned. It's the way of the world that football will always get prime coverage, while golf will be relegated to sports channels. Yet it makes golf no less valid a sport. Or, Miss London is a competition for Barbie dolls. But there's a whole world of other sports, other ways of women expressing or ignoring their beauty, and not a single one is more important. Someone secure in their image can surely recognise that. Furthermore, football is a sport for footballers: don't feel threatened by it! Let them kick their balls around!
Back to the hydra's heads. Queer corner comments: "In real life, do female students parade down the corridors of our universities in flowing gowns while male student observe in suits?" The sad answer is yes, all the time. I like to think I dress up purely for my own joy, because I enjoy gorgeous clothes, and feel happier when I look good* - and most of the time it's true. But most people dress to impress others, maybe I do it as well, who can say. When you see people dressed up for a night out, a lot of them are deliberately intending to show off their looks. I wonder, is this necessarily a bad thing? We have no more right to tell the Barbies they are unhappy for allowing themselves to be objectified and enjoying their bodies, than they do to to criticise us for whatever way we choose to dress or express ourself. Finding hard and fast rules about what counts as right or wrong in this world is very hard, even when it comes to big things like killing people, and we all have to find our own life to live in.
*admittedly my own standards of "gorgeous" and "looking good" do not always tally with other people, like my little sister.
Again, Miss UL comes from already existing prejudices, and they are not going to go away. To be honest, I don't find the fact they measure waists and breasts as shocking as this question on the application form: "Which sex and the city character do you most relate to?". I could almost wing it onto the contest if not for that. You note they're not asking about Doctor Who. This is aimed straight at sportswomen who can explain the offside rule: Sex and the City sells this image, so do rom coms, women's magazines. Terrible, but it's a lifestyle choice. I mean, take Cosmopolitan: proudly putting the word "sex" on the cover at least twice since 1886. Because that's all women think about. As a magazine it disgusts me - I see it as shallow and irrelevant - but then I don't have to read it. And the women who do, that's fine too.
Because you choose to compete. In competing, you accept that a)you are going to conform to shallow, plastic notions of modern beauty, b) you are going to be perved over by people in the audience and c) you are going to be judged. This reinforces negative impressions outside of them, perhaps, but those problems are never going to go. Everyone judges on appearance on an extent; anyone who claims never to is...I hope they really do, because that would be lovely.
Those protesting against it, and people like me, who are confused because they don't give a damn - they haven't disqualified us, not at all. We're choosing not to compete. Who would want to be a member of a club who wouldn't have us as members? All the same, I don't see it as our place to take that contest away. Because for people already signed up to those ideals, yeah I see how it could a be pretty fun evening.
Being a woman, I'd kinda hoped I'd have some concrete views on it - but no. Like racism, politics, et al, I merely have a fuzzy "everyone should be nice to one another", and ultimate hope that the problem will go away so I don't have to worry any more. Gender-blindness would be my ultimate aim, I think, so women could play Hamlet and men Ophelia without needing to put an explanation in the script, that we could ditch terms like "straight" or "gay" entirely, and that all prejudices regarding jobs and rolemodels would disintigrate. We're all just people, after all. Not that that's ever going to happen, of course.
Have a look at this:
http://www.london-student.net/2009/02/16/asking-for-it/
I actually have issues with it as an article, because the point it's clearly trying to push is that we're being influenced by this mysoginistic agenda which still allows women to be objectified. Arguably true.
But the question they asked is "do you think that a woman is totally, partially or not at all responsible for being raped if:
A drunk
B has been flirting
C failed to say no clearly
D wearing sexy and revealing clothes
E known to have had many sexual partners
F alone and walking in a dangerous area
B, C, D and E I agree are worrying, because they are not intrinsically unhealthy things to do. But I want to gripe about A and F, to which the answer is clearly "partly".
This does NOT mean I think she deserves it. Nor does it mean I don't view the man as more guilty. There is not a single instance which comes to mind in which rape is justified (and if it does, it'll probably be some half garbled memory from a fantasy novel involving a firewitch and the end of creation. Still not making it OK).
But come on! Look at the question properly. If you are drunk, you are more vulnerable. Your reactions are slower, you're less likely to be able to defend yourself verbally or physically, and you put yourself in a position where you are not in control. This doesn't make it OK, but by getting drunk you are willfully responsible for putting yourself in danger.
It's like asking if women who trip over kerbs when drunk are responsible for the fact they've tripped. "Do you think a woman is totally, partially or not at all responsible for crashing a car if driving while drunk?" It's exactly the same principles. From a male perspective, do I want to assault Woman A who is in full possession of her running, screaming, police-phoning, fighting-back faculties? Or the one passed out on the sofa who might not even remember? You open yourself up to being taken advantage of.
The same goes for "if the woman is alone and walking in a dangerous are". It is statistically more likely that something bad will happen to you, because you are willfully putting yourself in a dangerous position. Let's take the heat off such a charged and interpretable topic, let's talk about mugging.
Person A takes a safe route home through lighted areas. Person B is walking in a dangerous and deserted area while flashing his iPhone. Is Person A responsible for being mugged? No, because he's done nothing stupid. Is Person B responsible? Well it still sucks, but any moron can appreciate that situation B is likely to be dangerous, while A is likely to be safe. This does not necessarily mean the public of great Britain are in favour of vigilantes robbing the rich to feed the poor. Person B has just not thought about consequences.
The survey and article were meant in good faith. It's a pity they tried justifying it with daft statistics, frankly, because it's obviously an important issue, and one about which people are far too accepting. The message - that both genders still regard violence against women as part of life, even subconsciusly - is a strong one, and needs to be got out. But the "drunk" think made me headdesk.
There was also an update about Miss University London, the beauty pageant taking place in a few weeks, also colloquially being referred to as Miss-Oginy London:
http://www.london-student.net/2009/03/02/clashes-expected-at-miss-ul-final/
I'm not sure how I feel about it. It's a complex issue, and my sympathies are equal on both sides. I think beauty contests are at a level quite fun - for example, I want a photo of me in my new dress, so was thinking of extending it to everyone around in Hampstead as an excuse to dress up and run around with a camera. When we held Miss Guernsey, one of the contestants was over 40, and she was quoted in the paper as saying she was taking part for a laugh, and to show that mature women are gorgeous too. For me, this is what a beauty contest should be. It's a way for women to celebrate their femininity - traditional, yes, cliched, certainly. The London Paper's Queer Corner complains that "all women naturally love to wear dresses. Slinky ones. Which glimmer". The fact of the matter is that some do, and Miss University London is for them not for us. You don't see me protesting at inter-University football matches, because I don't see the point of running around a pitch sweating for 90 minutes, because I don't feel represented by sporty girls in muddy shirts. It's like Forrest Gump campaigning against pub quizzes (Forrest being the first example I could think of of someone who's stupid but has his own sort of wisdom)
I haven't applied for Miss Uni London because I don't fit their standards. That's terrible, of course, but these standards will always exist, and we can only choose to embrace or ignore them. I didn't log on to the application form, then leave crying. I do not feel any less beautiful.
The Miss-Oginyst argument, it seems, is that all reinforces negative images of women. It forces them into socio-normative images of beauty, it suggests they're there to be looked at and encourages people to judge on appearance. I'm not sure this isn't an overreaction. Miss Uni London is a product of these ideas, not the cause. We've got to focus on killing the hydra instead of vainly attacking its heads.
It exists because this idea of beauty is already part of our society. Let's continue with the sporting metaphors: Miss London is the football World Cup. You don't see cricketers, snooker players, golfers, netballers, tiddlywinkers and rowing teams complaining that football should be banned. It's the way of the world that football will always get prime coverage, while golf will be relegated to sports channels. Yet it makes golf no less valid a sport. Or, Miss London is a competition for Barbie dolls. But there's a whole world of other sports, other ways of women expressing or ignoring their beauty, and not a single one is more important. Someone secure in their image can surely recognise that. Furthermore, football is a sport for footballers: don't feel threatened by it! Let them kick their balls around!
Back to the hydra's heads. Queer corner comments: "In real life, do female students parade down the corridors of our universities in flowing gowns while male student observe in suits?" The sad answer is yes, all the time. I like to think I dress up purely for my own joy, because I enjoy gorgeous clothes, and feel happier when I look good* - and most of the time it's true. But most people dress to impress others, maybe I do it as well, who can say. When you see people dressed up for a night out, a lot of them are deliberately intending to show off their looks. I wonder, is this necessarily a bad thing? We have no more right to tell the Barbies they are unhappy for allowing themselves to be objectified and enjoying their bodies, than they do to to criticise us for whatever way we choose to dress or express ourself. Finding hard and fast rules about what counts as right or wrong in this world is very hard, even when it comes to big things like killing people, and we all have to find our own life to live in.
*admittedly my own standards of "gorgeous" and "looking good" do not always tally with other people, like my little sister.
Again, Miss UL comes from already existing prejudices, and they are not going to go away. To be honest, I don't find the fact they measure waists and breasts as shocking as this question on the application form: "Which sex and the city character do you most relate to?". I could almost wing it onto the contest if not for that. You note they're not asking about Doctor Who. This is aimed straight at sportswomen who can explain the offside rule: Sex and the City sells this image, so do rom coms, women's magazines. Terrible, but it's a lifestyle choice. I mean, take Cosmopolitan: proudly putting the word "sex" on the cover at least twice since 1886. Because that's all women think about. As a magazine it disgusts me - I see it as shallow and irrelevant - but then I don't have to read it. And the women who do, that's fine too.
Because you choose to compete. In competing, you accept that a)you are going to conform to shallow, plastic notions of modern beauty, b) you are going to be perved over by people in the audience and c) you are going to be judged. This reinforces negative impressions outside of them, perhaps, but those problems are never going to go. Everyone judges on appearance on an extent; anyone who claims never to is...I hope they really do, because that would be lovely.
Those protesting against it, and people like me, who are confused because they don't give a damn - they haven't disqualified us, not at all. We're choosing not to compete. Who would want to be a member of a club who wouldn't have us as members? All the same, I don't see it as our place to take that contest away. Because for people already signed up to those ideals, yeah I see how it could a be pretty fun evening.
Comments (0)