Tag Archives: Quotation

“Feminism is the unfinished revolution …”

13 Mar

- declared Natasha Walter in The Guardian earlier this week,  in her column about the centenary of International Women’s Day. Meanwhile,  back in my spiritual home of India, Dr Elizabeth Menon‘s piece in The Hindu reminded us that equality for some is still very elusive.

For me,  IWD was all about spending the day at a university,  at which I spoke and chaired an event called “Breaking Glass”.  I heard about the glass ceiling as it exists within academia and learned,  not altogether surprisingly,  that the issues faced by female staff at universities (reasonably high numbers at entry level, falling away at a career mid point,  subsequent difficulties in progressing to the top tier) mirror almost exactly those faced by their sisters in the corporate world.

I used the centenary of IWD to structure my talk around the way in which the world has changed for women since 1911 and the key events and people who have made those changes come about.  My brief had been to “make it light”,  so I peppered my slides with a few key quotations – some of which I share now.

“There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help other women …”

– Madeleine Albright, the first female US Secretary of State, 1997 – 2001

“I myself have never been able to find out precisely what a feminist is.  I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat.”

– Rebecca West, writer, 1913

“Well behaved women seldom make history …”

– Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, professor at Harvard University

“I wanted to work there because I wanted to become a writer. I was quickly assured that women didn’t become writers at Newsweek. It would never have crossed my mind to object … It was a given in those days that if you were a woman and you wanted to do certain things, you were going to have to be the exception to the rule.”

– Nora Ephron – writer, novelist, film director [on starting her career in 1962]

My favourite quotation,  which I didn’t use because I hadn’t then read the originating article,  comes from Mariella Frostrup in The Observer,  who,  in a blistering and truly excellent piece of journalism, reminded us that the struggle is far from over and that,  within the closed world of UK politics:

“… there are more blokes called Dave and Nick in government than there are women MPs. Women continue to hover at a steady 19% in the chamber, put off perhaps by a testosterone-fuelled climate where the last two prime ministers’ wives have given up high- flying careers to support their husbands or simply to satisfy the perceived demands of middle England.”


Check it out – one of the best and most impassioned articles on feminism you may read.

Men? In decline? Really?

7 Feb

Avivah Wittenberg-Cox’s latest blog piece is entitled “Be My Valentine” (I like what she did, there) and in it she urges the media – “enough, already” – to stop with the raft of stories equating the so called “rise” of women with the equally untrue “decline” in male fortunes.

I’m currently undertaking some research ahead of next month’s centenary of International Women’s Day and am compiling lists of amazing, game changing,  glass ceiling smashing women from around the world – please feel free to share your nominations with me, below. From Marie Curie, Margaret Thatcher, Daphne Jackson, Benazir Bhutto, through to Barbara Castle and Julia Gillard – the world is very definitely a different place now to when IWD was first conceived a century ago.  But has the success that women have undoubtedly achieved really come at the expense of men?  I don’t think so and nor does Avivah:

“It is imperative that this constant pairing of ‘rising women’ and ‘falling men’ stop. Women have absolutely nothing to gain from fearful men. Neither at home, nor at work. And the reality, in my experience, is quite different.

It is true that the tectonic shift in the roles and status of women have profoundly affected couples, companies and countries. We are, I often think, at the end of a century where women have lobbied, questioned and redrawn themselves in a million myriad ways. We are at the very beginning of a century where men have begun to think and write about the impact and implications of those changes on themselves.”

Here’s the last word from Tanya Gold; as she pointed out in Grazia last week, in response to a (male) assertion that feminists are bigots who discriminate against men and who “choose” to earn less, allowing careers, finances and ambitions to fall by the wayside:

“… We want to be paid less! We want rubbish jobs! We want to be denied a voice! Watch us oppress men with our lower wages!”

I hear you, sister.

 

 

Desperate housewives?

14 Jan

I love (actually, maybe “love” is too strong – OK, I’m “interested in”) the way that Mad Men’s Betty Draper is now being used by picture editors as visual shorthand to illustrate articles referring to, variously, housewives, stay at home mums and ladies who lunch.

(Similarly, photos of Joan now inevitably accompany an article about “curvy figures”.)

Dr. Catherine Hakim’s recently published report – Feminist Myths and Magic Medicine: The Flawed Thinking Behind Calls for Further Equality – which concludes that mainstream feminist thinking is defective and that the UK government should stop trying to promote it (there’s an accurate, if somewhat right wing summary of her arguments here in this Daily Telegraph article) and that women tend to marry for money rather than love – has caused a rash of newspaper reports, published from London to Sydney and (probably) all points between – and the two highlighted here both feature lovely photos of the former Mrs Draper, as does a recent article along similar lines in Grazia.

Tanya Gold’s piece in the Guardian:  

“Inequality between the sexes is not a big deal any more, a new study tells us. That is only true if you are happy for women to have less than men …”

- does at least make some fleeting Mad Men reference to the assumptions in the report, commenting that perhaps Dr Hakim’s work is:

“ … based on a weird, Mad Men themed dream she had on Boxing Day …”

Female writers across the world have decided that actually, it’s OK to want to marry for money, to not have your own career or income and to stay at home, surrounded by items from Cath Kidston and Emma Bridgwater (ironically, two women who manage to be married and have their own eponymous businesses). And of course, yes, it is fine, I suppose. But this lifestyle framework is surely only OK if there’s someone to fund it – and what happens if that someone isn’t there anymore – either through death, divorce, a change in their own or their employer’s financial circumstances?

(This rather gloomy article from 2008 suggests a potential increase in divorce due to the credit crunch, with:

“… about 80 percent of those surveyed believe that the turmoil — and lower bonus payments — will prompt more women to seek a divorce before their husbands’ wealth evaporates further.” )

Obviously, nobody goes into marriage or life as a stay at home mum thinking “one day we’ll split up or he’ll lose all his money in some huge, unprecedented global melt down and then what will happen to me?”.

But as this cautionary tale, Regrets of a stay-at- home Mom, recently published on salon.com shows, it can happen:

“Fourteen years ago, I “opted out” to focus on my family. Now I’m broke.”

(For more on the wildly radical idea that “a man is not a financial plan”, check out The Feminine Mistake: Are We Giving Up too Much?  by Leslie Bennets on the Recommended reading tab above).

* * * * *

In other news … the flyer I designed for Educators’ Trust India has now been printed up and is ready for use – if you’d like to see what they’re giving out to tourists in Goa in order to raise awareness of the issues of child poverty and of the need for literacy programmes, you can take a look and download a copy from my freelance writing site, Collaborative Lines.

Children, women, flip-flops and money

7 Jan

Happy New Year!

A friend just sent me a link to this site, wordle.net, which will generate your own word cloud for you,  based on your  choice of text (which you paste into their cloud generator window) or a URL.

Here’s what we get when I popped in www.thegenderblog.com – click on the image below for a closer look!

Wordle: A month in Goa, India

Women of Britain: please vote!

6 May

Rocking the vote in Florida, 2004

Whatever you do,  wherever you are today,  please go and vote; a hundred years ago,  you wouldn’t have had the option.

A hundred years ago,  women died, were imprisoned, starved themselves in prison, so that we, their future daughters,  would have the right to go to a polling station and exercise our vote alongside our husbands, fathers and brothers. 

Voting,  particularly for women,  is not only a right,  it is a hard-won privilege. 

If you think that “politics doesn’t apply to me”,  as I have been told so many times by so many women – then think about all the things in your world, in your life,  which do apply to you:  the environment, education, hospitals, employment, medical care, crime.  By voting today,  you are  using your voice to make a conscious choice about how your country is run and by whom.

Please – make time to vote today, whether it’s because you want to have a say in how UK plc is governed for the next five years or in memory of the brave suffragette fighters who suffered so terribly so that we would have the rights which they were denied. 

Here’s an extract from the 1909 diary of suffragette Laura Ainsworth,  in which she describes being force-fed:

“They hold your arms and legs … You have a towel wrapped around you. One doctor kneels at the back of your right shoulder and forces your head back.  He forces your mouth and the other doctor pushes the tube down your mouth about 18 inches. You have a great tickling sensation, then a choking feeling and then you feel quite stunned.”

(For more on these brave women and the debt owed to them by 21st century women,  check out “The Ascent of Woman: a History of the Suffragette Movement” by Melanie Phillips).

Victory for PinkStinks!

27 Mar

As my friend CJ would say, it’s “very pleasing”  to see that PinkStinks’s campaign against supermarket giant Sainsbury’s has been successful; thousands of children’s dressing-up outfits have now been cleared from shelves after complaints (via a PinkStinks co-ordinated campaign) that they promote sexist stereotypes.

As reported here in the Daily Telegraph, Sainsbury’s (“Try something new today!” – indeed …) were merrily selling nurses’ outfits “for girls” and doctors’ kits labelled “for boys”, along with pilot and “superhero” costumes – but these have now been removed and will be replaced with a new range of gender neutral dressing up outfits.

Nice work, PinkStinks – and a great testimony to the strength of their pester power social media campaign (which I joined even though I don’t have children myself, let alone daughters or even nieces).

Whenever I hear stories like this, or read about manufacturers and retailers unwittingly promoting gender and/or inappropriate messaging and stereotypes (wasn’t it Woolworths – RIP – who hit the headlines a few years ago for launching a range of pink painted bedroom furniture aimed at little girls named the “Lolita”?), I remind myself of a small boy called John and how invidious and impactful gender images can be. 

John is the son of a female friend who works as a GP; she is evidently from a very smart family, because her sister is also a doctor. One day, returning home from a visit to his aunt’s house, where my friend and her sister had been talking medical shop, John, then aged five, asked his mother:

“Mummy – when I grow up, can I become a doctor too, or is it only ladies who are allowed to do that?”

On “Women of the Raj”

31 Oct

I’ve just finished reading “Women of the Raj” by Margaret MacMillan,  purchased for the bargainous price of 1p from Amazon Marketplace (this second-hand book buying thing is my token nod towards economy whilst I’m on my sabbatical;  I’m still buying just as many books as before but I’m trying to pay less for them … but the volume,  no pun intended, continues).

“Hello”,  said the postman on Wednesday morning. “Here’s your daily Amazon delivery.”

Women of the Raj

So, “Women of the Raj” continues my fascination with all things from India,  telling as it does the story of some of the British women who were part of Britain’s involvement in India over three centuries,  but particularly between 1850 and the “end of the empire” in 1947. The role of the women of the Raj was to create a replica of British society and the book,  using source material such as letters, memoirs and novels of the period looks at how this was done and how British women from all walks of life adjusted to a country in which almost everything was “foreign” – described in the book as:

“The women … press on with their daily tasks, creating homes for their men, bringing up their children, and trying always to live the life of an English gentlewoman in the midst of an alien people.”

I’ll be going to India myself next month (more to come on this in a bit) and I know that I’ll mostly be packing lightweight clothing in loose, light fabrics … so try to imagine being in 80-100 degree F heat and yet being:

 “ … expected to dress as if you are still at Home [England]. Even on the hottest days, they wore stockings and dresses, which fell, until after the First World War, in heavy folds to the ground; and, until standards were relaxed during the Second world War, they never went out with their arms bare.”

I also liked this analogy, comparing the women’s’ clothing with the infrastructure of the British presence in India:

“Underneath, they wore petticoats and camisoles and, for much of the Raj, the inevitable stays [corsets] – the iron frame for the memsahib just as the Indian Civil Service was the iron frame for British India.”

And this bit also struck me as so very true; the likenesses between the British class system and the Indian caste structure had not previously occurred to me:

“In their love of rank and complicated social rules, the British were also influenced by their surroundings.  The Indian love of ritual, the whole elaborate structure of caste with its rules that governed how you ate, how you married, even how you dresses, seeped into their collective outlook.”

As well as providing a good overview of the history of the British in India in general,  and of the associated experiences of the “women of the Raj” in particular, MacMillan also tells the stories of a few specific women. I particularly enjoyed reading about Annette Akroyd, who, in 1873, with some help from her Indian friends, opened a school for Hindu girls.

(Further reading led me to the discovery that her son, William Beveridge, was the author of the report which became the foundation of the British Welfare State in the late 1940s).

So, a recommended read;  well worth a penny of your cash and a few hours of your reading time.

“All the world’s a stage …

30 Oct

… and all the men and women merely players.”

And this link to a Vanity Fair article on the difficulties experienced by female writers trying to break into the closed circle world of writing for the US male chat show hosts shows that the issues faced by women in corporate life are no different.

October 2009: Nell Scovell on David Letterman Hollywood: vanityfair.com

This bit particularly resonated with me; swap “late-night-TV” for “investment banking” and “writers” for “executives” and the identikit situation is more than clear:

“One frequent excuse you hear from late-night-TV executives is that “women just don’t apply for these jobs.” And they certainly don’t in the same numbers as men. But that’s partly because the shows often rely on current (white male) writers to recommend their funny (white male) friends to be future (white male) writers.”

OK. I do concur that perhaps male investment bankers may not be as funny as the guys who knock out the gags for Jay Leno’s monologue. But apart from that … same scenario, different dress code, yes?

Today’s quotation: very English, very northern

26 Sep

Here’s Victoria Wood, on death:

In India, if a man dies, the widow flings herself on to the funeral pyre. In this country, the woman just says: “72 baps, Connie; you slice, I’ll spread.”

Thanks to Ms Wood and also, to a lesser extent, her fellow Lancastrian, comedian Peter Kay, I can now no longer utter the name “Connie” other than in a Northern voice; it somehow sounds completely wrong in my BBC English accent.

(As did asking for an “Alfred Hitchchocolate cupcake, please” in San Francisco earlier this month … but that’s another story.)

More “Mad Men” – as featured in “New York” magazine.

16 Aug

A couple of years ago, I picked up a copy of “New York” magazine when I was out there on a business trip, and instantly found myself enthralled by its mix of news stories, political commentary (John Heilemann’s election campaign coverage during 2008 kept me very well informed), TV and movie reviews and, perhaps best of all, the now-on-the-back-page “Approval Matrix”, which divides the page into quarters and dubs news stories and events as “Highbrow/Despicable”, “Highbrow/Brilliant” and the “Lowbrow” equivalents.

Always good to know, for example, where a woman alleging that she was asked to leave an IKEA store in Brooklyn for breast-feeding sits on the moral compass, I think.

Because I am married to he who is officially the World’s Nicest Man, TLS, I am now a happy recipient of a massively overpriced but much loved by me subscription to “New York” magazine, which hits my London doormat at annoyingly sporadic intervals but which is always pounced upon and read immediately.

The most recent edition arrived yesterday, mid way through my as previously mentioned “Mad Men” marathon so I hit pause and opened it up … only to discover that the on-the-pulse editorial team had not let me down and were running a couple of “Mad Men” stories.

Here’s a link to a good interview with Christina Hendricks who plays Joan – and also a typically (but wittily, in classic NYM style) episode summary of the first two seasons.

I am so envious of all those based in the US who get to see the first episode of season three tonight. To quote from Monty Python: “you lucky, lucky bastards.”

← Older Entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 34 other followers