The pastel divide

Code Pink, posted by Lauren Sandler at Mother Jones’ Culture & Media blog, examines the implications of the gendered pink-blue split among children. Gender as represented by pink and blue goads me particularly because it is emblematic of the first step of applying gender to an individual; the first aesthetic step in a socialising process that will ultimately determine or at least heavily influence lifelong behaviour, relationships, occupations, treatment at the hands of others, education etc.

Dressing a newborn in either pink or blue is not a benign social tradition. Like expecting a woman to change her name upon marriage, it is an unquestioned convention that is hugely symbolic – in this case of the enormous gulf between sex and gender, and the widespread indifference to this disparity. In contemporary society pink and blue each carry codes of behaviour that children comprehend at a very young age. From Code Pink:

“Pink itself isn’t the problem; it’s the message it conveys. That troubling message…is that girls and boys are deeply dissimilar creatures from day one. Lise Eliot [a neuroscientist and the author of Pink Brain, Blue Brain: How Small Differences Grow Into Troublesome Gaps—and What We Can Do About It] argues that the pink-blue split shapes some enduring assumptions about babies’ emotional lives—at a time when girls’ and boys’ brains are almost entirely alike.”

A girl in pink will be encouraged to be passive and appearance obsessed. She will have different opportunities to her brother in blue, and different expectations placed upon her. Despite her own personality, she will have been shaped by forces beyond her control all her life – without ever really exercising her choice.

Monica Dux highlights how dramatically young girls can be affected by adherence to gender colour-codes and its accompanying behavioural baggage.

“Like raunch culture, the fairy princess aesthetic and its associated paraphernalia serve to entrench an extremely narrow idea of femininity, impressing on young girls that they are pretty, flighty little objects to be admired and marvelled at, rather than active young things seeking out adventure.

“This reinforces a passive understanding of what it is to be female, encouraging fantasies that are focused less on action, and far more on how you look. Of course, fairies and princesses can have adventures, but hyper-feminised modes of dressing put the focus squarely on appearance, teaching girls that self-worth is measured by how pretty you are, and not by what you do.”

The gender split that begins with the pink/blue dichotomy has other more sinister effects.  Kate Townshend, a British primary teacher, has written about ‘gender in the playground’ for the F-Word. Calling on her experience in the classroom, she links infant pink to the sexualisation of young girls – a topic which has had a great deal of media attention in recent years.

“They don’t call it grooming for nothing, and it starts with the indoctrination of ‘pink’ for girls from infant-hood onwards. Or so say the organisers of Pink Stinks, “a campaign and social enterprise that challenges the ‘culture of pink’ which invades every aspect of girls’ lives”. They argue that by the time they reach their teens, female children have a life-time of learning to become sexual objects behind them, so perhaps we should be far from surprised when 10-year-olds start clamouring for the latest porn star t-shirt, or worrying that their legs are too short…

“These kinds of attitudes hurt children of both sexes, not least because they leave them bereft of positive examples of male-female interaction in the media world they tend to worship and adore. But though they lack the words to articulate it, it seems obvious in some of the schools I go into that the boys know things are weighted in their favour, at least in the short term. By 11, they have already learnt that calling a girl fat effectively finishes the argument. It doesn’t matter whether she is actually fat or not. It has become a code word which makes it clear that since female self worth is built upon looks, it is easily destroyed by male indifference or antagonism.”

All of this is fairly self-evident. What is illuminating is that this convention, so entrenched as to be accepted as reflecting human nature, is a relatively recent social development:

“Assigning colour to gender is mostly a twentieth century trait. It should be noted that it is a practice limited most often to Western Europe and the Americas. It would also seem that the effect of colour-coded gender differences (pink for girls, blue for boys) existed oppositely initially.”

As Sandler explains in Code Pink, “this was a nod to symbolism that associated red with manliness; pink was considered its kid-friendly shade. Blue was the color of the Virgin Mary’s veil and connoted femininity.”

Which makes pseudo-scientific breakthroughs that support an evolutionary basis for every perceived gender difference, from a woman’s predeliction for shopping to a man’s fear of commitment, look ridculous – such as this one linking the pink/blue split to blue skies and blushing berries in our prehistory.

Still, pink for girls and blue for boys remains the dominant code used to consider sex and gender, and this stereotype is exploited and perpetuated by advertisers.  

So colour-coded gender and the ideology it represents – clearly such an effective marketing tool – is not likely going anywhere soon.

Venus women's razor

Schick Quattro Titanium men's razor

On banning the burqa

As has been widely reported in the last few months, French President Nicholas Sarkozy has the burqa in his sights. In June he announced to his compatriots that France would not accept a garment that made prisoners of the women who wear it. The latest controversy has seen a woman banned from wearing a burqini in a French public pool, ostensibly on hygiene grounds.

Sarkozy is the latest in a long line of politicians who have attacked aspects of Islamic dress in the name of women and their rights. These moonlighting feminists, by headlining their stance with a women’s lib tag, I think mask the true scope of their agendas – which in Sarkozy’s case could be to protect a certain aspect of a country’s cultural identity, or to marginalize another, or to assert authority.

As much as I dislike the burqa myself, vilifying the aesthetics of fundamentalist Islam – rather than say, focusing on the actions and beliefs of those who oppress women in the name of Islam – is a misalignment of energy and policy. Symi Rom-Rymer says it well in the Christian Science Monitor:

There are, no doubt, some women who are forced to wear this all-encompassing garment by their families, just as there are non-Muslim French women who are mistreated by their families in other ways. But to view the garment solely as a prison and as a symbol of male oppression, as Sarkozy does, oversimplifies a complex issue and may end up hurting the very women he’s trying to help.

If Sarkozy is truly concerned about the rights and dignity of these women, he ought to use high-profile speeches to discuss their needs, their concerns, and to focus on what they can contribute to and gain from French society, rather than on what they wear while doing it.

What will happen to women not permitted to wear the burqa in French public life (of whom there are reportedly 400 in France)? Will they happily cast it off and bare their exposed faces to shopkeepers and bus drivers? Will they enroll in university or vocational courses? Will they leave abusive husbands? Will it solve all their problems?

I have no definitive answers of course but I imagine that the result could be otherwise – could lead to further marginalization, could leave women further ostracized and isolated from the general community. As difficult as it is, if one is concerned about the rights of women wearing the burqa, it would be more useful to take a positive stance through giving those women support and fostering opportunities for their self-determination.

The wider Australian community also has a strained relationship with Islamic dress. The burqa perfectly manifests the other when held against Australia’s traditional cultural identity – laidback laconic larrikins living it up on the beach etc. The burqa threatens many people’s sense of self and of belonging. As Irfan Yusuf noted in July in The Age, Muslim women wearing the burqa provide the media a ‘potent symbol of Islam in the West’, one that is regularly exploited by news outlets.

When one Sydney Muslim man called for polygamy to be legalised, the Herald Sun website carried a photo of two burqa-clad women crossing the street. The website of its Sydney equivalent regularly carries photos of burqa-clad women in any story even mildly related to Muslims.

Julie Posetti, speaking at a forum at the ANU in July (which you can watch at ABC Fora), sums up my position pretty well. She argues that banning the burqa would be an oppressive move, and that much of the language used in calls against the burqa recalls cultural imperialism. She rightly says that the state has no place in a woman’s wardrobe. Imagine the government legislating against bikinis, or Catholic nun’s habits - it becomes an ethical minefield. Similarly murky of course is the boundary between cultural sensitivity, or regard for an individual’s rights, and cultural relativism.

Banning the burqa looks more like another symptom of France’s troubled relationship with ethnic minorities than a step forward for feminism and women’s rights. Policies of social inclusion and education would surely be more beneficial than those of prohibition and exclusion.

Fifteenth Down Under Feminists Carnival

The Fifteenth Down Under Feminists Carnival (July 2009) is now up at Hoyden About Town. I always forget to mention it here but you should all definitely go check it out – and have a look through some of the older Carnivals too!

Your inner sexpot consumer

 

The image accompanying The Age article

A couple of Sundays ago The Age website featured “Cheeky ad campaign or sexploitation?” – an article about “a popular clothes retailer using highly sexualised images of young women – many of them company staff ” in its advertising.

 

There are tons of photos of women in provocative poses on the Models page of the American Apparel site. I’m not arguing for the complete removal of sexual provocation from advertising images – sex has a place in the public arena – however some of the photos have no discernible relevance to American Apparel products. In this slideshow, for instance, Hannah Lee is pictured topless, with no American Apparel clothing in frame. Sunday’s Age article describes Hannah as ‘very young’ and the pictures ‘all provocative poses and barely covered breasts.’

The DIY aesthetic of many of the photos – taken in front of door frames, on couches, but mostly on white-sheeted beds – gives the viewer a sense of the voyeur. The many pictures of Natasha look like they were taken by a lover. Sophia, on all fours, arches her back and cocks her hips. Veronica, looking over her shoulder towards the camera, juts out her buttocks. Many of the other photos stick with this soft-porn script.

It is not hard to work out why businesses such as American Apparel opt for overtly sexual images to advertise their product. As Daily Finance points out, this strategy has been very effective for Calvin Klein in the past. “Every year or so, Calvin Klein manufactures a fresh “controversy” with a button-pressing, taste-defying ad campaign calculated to generate stories on the evening news without quite crossing the line into outright indecency of the sort that would provoke the authorities.”

I followed the Daily Finance article to this early incarnation of teenage sexual innuendo as a marketing strategy, when Brooke Shields reminds us nothing comes between her and her Calvin Kleins.

Do these images constitute the “caricatures of female hotness” identified by Ariel Levy? Last year the Herald Sun reported that many women “felt the way they were portrayed in advertising and marketing harmed their ability to be taken seriously in the workplace.” Citing the results of a survey conducted by Splash Consulting Group, the article said “most of the 500 women surveyed said they would go out of their way to boycott a product or service if they were offended by an advertisement for it.”

While the sexualisation of women in advertising uses women as commodities, as Monica Dux and Zora Simic point out in The Great Feminist Denial, young women ‘make ideal consumers’. Will women use their buying power to render obsolete exploitative advertising?

Feminist? Yes, You Are

This amazing essay from Tomato Nation’s Sarah Bunting was revived today via a Tumblr blog I regularly read, and is every bit as relevant now as the day it was written in 2003 (not to mention its sage and spookily prescient echoing of Obama’s “yes, we can” acceptance speech) and is compulsory and inspiring reading with your Monday-itis cup of tea/coffee/Bovril/water and lemon/etc.

feminism n (1895) 1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes 2 : organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests — feminist n or adj — feministic adj

Above, the dictionary definition of feminism — the entire dictionary definition of feminism. It is quite straightforward and concise. If you believe in, support, look fondly on, hope for, and/or work towards equality of the sexes, you are a feminist.

Yes, you are.

The definition of feminism does not ask for two forms of photo ID. It does not care what you look like. It does not care what color skin you have, or whether that skin is clear, or how much you weigh, or what you do with your hair. You can bite your nails, or you can get them done once a week. You can spend two hours on your makeup, or five minutes, or the time it takes to find a Chapstick without any lint sticking to it. You can rock a cord mini, or khakis, or a sari, and you can layer all three. The definition of feminism does not include a mandatory leg-hair check; wax on, wax off, whatever you want. If you believe in, support, look fondly on, hope for, and/or work towards equality of the sexes, you are a feminist.

Yes, you are.

The definition of feminism does not mention a membership fee or a graduated tax or “…unless you got your phone turned off by mistake.” Rockefellers, the homeless, bad credit, no credit, no problem. If you believe in, support, look fondly on, hope for, and/or work towards equality of the sexes, you are a feminist.

Muslim Women In Australia: Fighting Back, Yes, But Not For The First Time

Pictured: Silma Ihram. Sourced from the Age website, photograph by Angela Wylie.

You may have read last week’s media reports on the current situation of Australian Muslim women, particularly the provocative headline, “Muslim Women Start Fighting Back.” The sudden interest in the situation of Australian Muslim women was sparked by last week’s conference held at the University of Melbourne’s National Centre for Excellence in Islamic Studies. First of all, I must say I have a problem with the headline “Muslim Women Start Fighting Back”, for this to me implies that it is the first time Muslim women are fighting back, when Islamic feminism, a hotly debated topic in itself, has existed for a very, very long time.

One particular report funded by the previous government, and undertaken by the Islamic Women’s Welfare Council of Victoria, entitled, ‘Report of the community consultation of training of Muslim religious leaders’ provided some startlingly findings about the religiously sanctioned mistreatment and abuse of women in Australia.

The findings of the report are the result of broad community consultation, including interviews with police, lawyers, court workers, academics, and meetings with the Victorian Board of Imams.

As reported in the Age last week, according to the findings:

Women seeking divorces have also been told by Imams that they must leave “with only the clothes on their back” and not seek support or a share of property because they can get welfare payments.

And the report says some Imams knowingly perform polygamous marriages, also knowing that the second wife, a de facto under Australian law, can claim Centrelink payments.

Sarah Haskins Does Disney

Disney Princesses, to be exact.

Wonder what she thought of Enchanted?

Sarah Haskins: Everybody Poops. Except For Women.

Hey, guess what? Sarah Haskins still rules!

For some reason I can’t get this video to stop auto-playing (good work on your Firefox 3 compatibility, VodPod/WordPress), so hop over the jump for Target: Women’s latest, Number Twos…

Dawn Chorus Library: The Great Feminist Denial by Monica Dux & Zora Simic

Welcome to what will hopefully be the first in an ongoing Dawn Chorus series of book reviews/author interviews, and what better way to begin than with Monica Dux & Zora Simic’s The Great Feminist Denial (AUD$34.95, MUP), an exciting new addition to the feminist bookshelf:

Feminism, if not dead, is at least seriously ill. It is now common to hear women declare themselves ‘Not Feminists’, whereas in the 1970s it was taken as given that any thinking woman would be proud to wear that label.

What the hell happened?

In The Great Feminist Denial the authors talk with women—feminists and non-feminists, young and old, famous and not famous, child-free and with child—and use their responses as a starting point from which to refocus the key debates.

The book is a compelling read, mixing debate and a potted history of feminism, and rumination on the topic, with key interviews (with a student, a blogger, a magazine editor, and so on) to explore just what condition feminism’s condition is in, essentially with regards to Australian women, but also women in general.

Dux and Simic’s careful melding of personal reflection (I particularly enjoyed their misty watercolour memories of being University feminists making ‘I Love My Cunt’ badges). The authors attempt to dismantle the “straw feminist” myths and stereotypes that have come to populate the general consciousness whenever feminism is discussed – the “HLL – hairy legged lesbian”, the “media slut”, and so on – and, in a move that I think is very important, discuss the media’s influence on people’s interpretation of just what feminism was, is, has done and is doing. Is feminism responsible for “raunch culture”? Do feminists make “better girlfriends”?

The book tackles many of the media’s favourite issues that have arisen in the past decade or so with regards to women – the apparent pornification of sex, the proliferation of Caesarian births and the “too posh to push” debate, motherhood, work, asking whether Muslim women can, in fact, be feminists, and so on. At times this plethora of discussion topics leaves some debate a little underfed, but Dux and Simic’s determination to explore as many facets of their thesis remains compelling throughout.

Unlike, say, Ariel Levy’s Female Chauvinist Pigs, The Great Feminist Denial doesn’t baulk at the state of affairs and run scared, whilst waggling its finger at everyone. The finishing moments of the book – which ask why, if women and men are apparently equal, women still get a raw deal on everything from pay to Third World poverty – are, if anything, rather sobering, and should be a good answer to anyone who still bothers to suggest that feminism has done all it can do.

I asked the book’s authors, Monica Dux and Zora Simic, to give The Dawn Chorus an insight into the process of putting together The Great Feminist Denial.

* * *

The Dawn Chorus: What was your formative feminist moment?

Monica Dux: “I had many formative feminist moments, but growing up I didn’t have the word “feminism” to pin them onto. I have two older brothers, and their toys always seemed more fun, boys in general seemed to have access to so much more of the world than I did. I was meant to like dolls, to be cute, to not run, to wear dresses, and it felt very restrictive. I remember at a Christmas all the boys were given these ace cars by a family friend, and I was given pink underpants. When I tried to join in with the car games the family friend’s son told me to go play with my underwear, and I thought ‘that’s just not fair’. It wasn’t until I went to university that I called myself a feminist. Up until that time it was something I’d read about, but wasn’t sure I could claim. But from the moment I did, my feminism was constantly reconfirmed. When I was 19 I bought a motorbike, and if you want some lessons in extreme sexism try being a girl on a 600cc touring bike.”

Zora Simic: “Watching the Kate Bush video to Babooshka on Sounds when I was a little girl. It had nothing to do with feminism per se, but it got me excited about being female. Generally I’d say my feminism was formed in the context of a mostly female household – I’ve got two sisters and no brothers. I got mixed messages about being a girl from my parents – my mum still loves to tell me that she was a virgin when she got married and that sex is only ever suffering, but both my parents were delighted whenever I did well at school or sports. It took going to a rough co-ed public school to make me angry about sexism.”

Have You Met TED Yet?

TED is a technology and innovation conference that’s held every year in Monterey, California. Lots of great thinkers like Al Gore, Eve Ensler, and Richard Dawkins have all presented (strictly under 20-minute) talks. It costs around $6000 bucks to attend, assuming of course that they deem you worthy of a ticket. I would sell my decaying grandmother to go at least once in my life. But until I find a bidder I am forever thankful for the TED website.

Every talk ever filmed at the conference is available to view, and it’s all for free! With the number of hours I have spent on this site I’m sure I could have completed a PhD in astrophysics. But no mind, at least I’m doing something towards enriching my noggin.

Below is a link to one of my favorite talks by writer Isabel Allende. In it she talks about, among other things, her definition of feminism.

Click here to view Isabel Allende’s TED Speech.

This talk is apt as my first post for The Dawn Chorus. Especially when Isabel talks about what she thinks is needed to improve the world for some of its most disadvantaged women:

We need to nurture the feminine energy in men for real change to happen.

Cheekily, she then notes that they must be men with young minds,

as old guys are hopeless, and we must wait for them to die off.

And as a man with a young mind, I couldn’t agree more.