Category: Feminism

  • Smart Clothes for Women

    Smart Clothes for Women

    I’ll never feel as smart as a man when I get ready to walk into an interview.

    How can I? Society has always told me that a suit, shirt, and a tie is the ‘uniform’ for most interviews and work. That’s what I always saw around me when I worked in an office before. That’s what I see on the TV and in movies. That’s what I saw my Dad wear to work every day when I was growing up. That’s what I see the other people wearing who are being interviewed.

    Since I’m about to soon finish nearly five years of education I’ve bought myself a suit to wear to interviews. But I don’t feel smart it in. I feel kind of… lumpy and a bit of a mess. It’s a beautiful suit from Hobbs. Hobbs really do make lovely ready to wear suits. Hobbs and Reiss are some of the best you can get for women’s workwear as far as I’m concerned (and of course the price reflects the good quality!).

    But I had such a problem getting trousers to fit. You see, almost all women’s trousers are all cut to be quite slim to the leg, even when they proclaim to be a straight fitting trouser. So I bought a size 12 trouser in the end because I’m a person who likes doing spin classes, although this does make the waist have six inches of fabric spare.

    The jacket is relatively nicely fitting, but weirdly broad shouldered as if it was made for an athlete (in contrast to the trousers which an athlete would never get into). Too broad for me and I grew up doing alot of swimming, I’m quite wide in the shoulder for my body size. So even though I bought a size 10 – as small as I could go – it kind of doesn’t quite fit me properly because it doesn’t sit right around the upper arms. Seems strange to make your trousers so skinny but your jacket so wide.

    Then there were the shoes. Of course the shoes depended on the kind of trousers so they had to come afterwards. What I really wanted were a pair of leather Oxfords or similar – like the men who work in offices and go to job interviews. But I couldn’t find a nice suit that would sit neatly on the top of a pair of Oxfords, so instead I had to resort to a nice leather pair of ballet flats. There’s nothing wrong with ballet flats, I find them quite comfortable actually. But they’re totally not autumn/winter wear. My feet freeze in them. I perhaps could have got away with a pair of ankle boots, but they’d have had to be high heels, and I’m going for an interview with the armed forces (with aptitude testing that requires using a foot pedal) and hopefully an interview with a leading construction firm (with a 15 minute walk to the station and an hour on the train). Somehow, high heels don’t really feel appropriate. Nor do they feel smart to me.

    Ok, well, I’ve made some compromises. But I have a suit that fits reasonably well and a pair of shoes that at least are leather so my feet won’t get totally wet if it’s raining. (Dry feet hardly seems like much to ask for when going to work or to a job interview, but apparently it is. Can’t wear bloody socks with them either.)

    So then I order some shirts. I want double cuff shirts so that I can wear cufflinks. I like cufflinks, they make me feel smart. And as if I get to wear (almost) the same clothes as the men as part of my interview/work uniform. I look at the main shirt manufacturers and I discount anything in a stretch fabric, anything that isn’t 100% cotton, anything in a pattern other than stripes or checks, and anything that is cut tight to the body. I end up with two gorgeous shirts from Hawes & Curtis. Shirts are one of my favourite things. I love them. The fabric is so beautiful and the garments are so light and practical for workwear. Again though, I have to order in a size 12. But this time because a size 10 clings tight to my breasts and gapes slightly at the front. Now just for the record, I don’t have massive breasts. I’m a 32C/D (more or less) which isn’t actually particularly large. But despite my petite frame, I have to go up to a size 12. Unfortunately, everything else is too big. The neck gapes – I can’t wear it buttoned up because it’s a few inches too big. I certainly can’t wear a tie with it. The sleeves are far too long, and the shoulders a little too wide. I won’t lie, I’m disappointed. I’m disappointed that I can’t have nice things. Well I can have nice things, but the nice things don’t really fit me. I don’t understand why I can’t buy a women’s shirt by collar size. Which leads me on to the main thing that bothers me…

    Why can’t I buy a women’s shirt by collar size? Because women’s shirts are ‘fitted’. I’m not entirely sure why, other than because the people that design them assume that women want to show off their bodies at work. If you’re wearing a shirt with double cuffs you’re going to tuck it into your trousers, so why does it need to have darts in the back and front in order to fit it close to your body? Why can’t it fit like a men’s range shirt where it’s loosely cut and just tucked into the trousers at the waist? I can only imagine that if it’s not to make women look more sexy at work, then it’s to make women spend more time ironing their clothes getting ready for work. I can iron a male cut shirt in no time at all. It’s so simple. But women’s shirts? Forget it. You can’t just press the front, back, front, yoke, collar, sleeve, sleeve flat on the ironing board.. no. You have to press each piece carefully because it is turned into a 3D garment with the darts designed to make it fit close to your body. It takes me three times as long to press my shirts as it does to press a man’s shirt. I suspect that it might be quicker if I invested in a decent large tailors ham, but why should I have to use specialist pressing equipment just because somebody has decided that women’s work shirts have to fit close to the body? Come on shirt manufacturers – sort it out. Just give me a shirt that fits close to my neck and has enough room in the body to go round my breasts without gaping. You don’t need to put darts in it. You don’t need to make it sexy. Just give me a practical garment that I can wear every day to work and doesn’t require me to give up half my Sunday evening to get five of them ironed.

    On top of that – you can’t transport women’s shirts easily! Because they have so many shaping darts in them, they don’t lie flat in a suit carrier! The shirt will basically always need ironing again when you get to your destination (which is why I bought a striped shirt for the interview that requires an overnight stay the night before…). I don’t understand why everything is made so difficult for women compared to a man’s work wardrobe.

    You know what? Should have bought the bloody shift dress that went with the suit jacket instead. It would have at least travelled better and taken less time to iron. I might have felt smarter in it too, because I’m not missing a tie from my outfit…

  • On 40k Sisters of Battle Sexism

    I was inspired to write a post recently about the sexism in the look of the current range of Games Workshop figures. I wanted to analyse all the female sculpts in one post; but with just the Sisters of Battle I’ve already hit 2600 words, so I figured that I’d do the others in a second post.

    This is an attempt to analyse the range of Games Workshop female figures, simple from images of the models and the small amount of text that accompanies them on the official website (UK version, correct as of December 2016). I’m going to use a fairly standard feminist history of art approach to the sculptures (with more swearing than is acceptable in academic papers), and I will treat them as if they are works of art like any other you might find in a gallery or museum.

    Sisters of Battle Canoness

    Back Sisters of Battle Canoness

    It’s the tit armour. I’m sorry, but it’s hideous. I mean, lets just think a little about reality; if Space Marines are hyper muscular under all that armour (a pretty standard thought about Space Marines) then they most likely wouldn’t have massive tits that needed to be accommodated on the front of their armour with weird globe-like structures. The fitter you get, the more fat you generally lose, and breasts are just made of fat and not really much else.

    I mean, I’ve got pretty large breasts (a DD cup last time I was measured) and I can fit just fine into nominally ‘standard’ plate breastplates made for men (it’s the waist and shoulders that’s actually difficult with the fitting). I know that some women are exceptions to the rule that the more athletic you are the less fatty tissue you have sat on your chest, but the reality is that this armour looks like she’s struggling to contain an extreme set of round breast implants. Why are some of the most elite soldiers in the universe so concerned about how they look that they have breast implants?

    There’s an argument I’ve seen tossed around many times that space marines are actually totally androgynous because the gene seed fucks with their genitals, so like, we already have female space marines. But if that’s the case then why haven’t their secondary sex characteristics disappeared too? If male space marines have no testicles then female space marines would logically have no breasts. However that argument against Games Workshop making female space marines is a load of crap – because if all secondary sex characteristics had disappeared then they wouldn’t have beards either. Sorry Space Wolves. Your mighty Viking manes are just as bullshit as the breasts. Mind you, I almost always use the clean shaved heads on my Marines. Or the ones wearing helmets. Even for my Space Wolves.

    Not to mention that the decoration on the boob armour looks far too much like those trashy fetish club outfits called ‘chastity bras’. You’ll have to Google that for yourself – I’m not posting it here. In fact, don’t bother Googleing it. It’s every bit the dull male power fantasy that you expect from a name like ‘chastity bra’.

    Verdict: Sexist.

    Battle Sister with Heavy Flamer

    Battle Sister with Heavy Flamer

    From this angle she looks pretty good. However, I’m pretty sure that her heavy flamer is hiding the same hideous tit-armour that the Canoness has. I like the cute gas mask she’s wearing though. I should put this model on my wishlist, then carve off her inevitable boob armour if you can see it.

    Verdict: Inconclusive.

    Exorcist Tank

    Exorcist

    I can’t seem to find a good picture of the sprue to see what armour she’s wearing. Can anyone help?

    Verdict: Inconclusive.

    Penitent Engine

    Penitent Engine

    Oh. Lets pause here.

    This model, a bipedal walker, has an almost naked, extremely pert and busty woman on the front of it. I mean I say *almost* naked, she’s not naked in exactly the same way as Milla Jovovich is not naked in Resident Evil. ‘What do you mean she’s naked? She’s not naked! She’s wearing an A4 piece of paper that just about covers up her rude bits!’ Yeah. She’s naked. And so is the woman on the front of the Penitent Engine.

    What does Games Workshop say about the Penitent Engine on their product page?

    ‘Driven by their pilot’s frantic need for forgiveness, they will charge towards the foe heedless of danger, knowing that only in death, theirs or the enemy’s, can forgiveness finally be earned.’

    Delightful.

    So basically what seem to be looking at here is an example of the ‘fallen woman’. The Victorians used the phrase ‘fallen woman’ to describe someone who has been a bit naughty with sex outside of the expected parameters of chaste life until marriage. So that would be hookers, mistresses, and any woman who enjoyed her sexuality more than was acceptable in Victorian times. The meaning has persisted and can still be found even now in some particularly insidious circles.

    I’m kind of unsure where the women on the front of the Penitent Engines come from. Are they Sisters of Battle who have committed some kind of heinous crime? Or are they just women off the street, as it were, who have committed crimes and are expected to atone for their sins with implanted feelings of guilt and pain, and eventually death?

    It doesn’t really matter that much – but ‘fallen women’ drawn from a group of battle nuns who have dedicated themselves to a life of religious vows is kind of unpleasant. The sexualised nudity of the figure in *that* context feeds straight into the Madonna/Whore complex which is pretty much The Worst.

    I mean, I suppose at least she’s wearing a sheet that goes to her ankles.

    I don’t really understand why women have to atone for their sins by being strapped naked to the front of a machine that walks into battle with no fucking clothes on when the men in the universe don’t have to. Is it because the only appropriate punishment for wicked women who have done wrong is sexual humiliation or something? I must have missed the memo. I’m pretty sure I remember from reading some of the books that blokes generally just go to prison.

    Verdict: Sexist.

    Seraphim Squad

    Seraphim Squad

    Mm, there’s that tit armour again. This time, with added corset!

    Battle corsets. I’m not sure who ever thought that was a good idea. I like the visible pipework on the male Space Marine’s power armour – it looks cool! Instead the Sisters of Battle get corsets that look completely inflexible and probably renders them unable to fight particularly well.

    I don’t know if you’ve worn a corset, but I have. In fact I wore corsets quite a bit in my early twenties and still do ocacsionally now. Corsets are very stiff – that’s the point of them. They are designed to force your body to conform to certain shapes that are aesthetically pleasing to other people (mostly men) so that you can then put fashionable dresses over the top of them. They were largely worn historically by women in the upper echelons of society who didn’t really have to do do much for a living. They’re more suitable for standing around in Royal courts than fighting Xenos on the front line.

    To many people corsets are symbolic of the fact that women have historically largely been considered decorative objects rather than people. Women were meant to stand around and look pretty rather than actually do anything useful. So why the fuck have these objects of bodily oppression turned up on an amazing fighting force of kickass women in the future? If I was designing the miniatures I certainly wouldn’t use this kind of symbolism.

    Talking about symbolism – lets talk about the name for a moment. Seraphims. Do you know what a seraph is? It’s an angelic being associated with high levels of purity (Isaiah 6:2-6). Unless you use the other meaning of it which basically means serpents instead (Numbers 21:6–8,Deuteronomy 8:15, Isaiah14:29, Isaiah 30:6). Oh yes. Angelic, pure beings vs serpents. Madonna/Whore complex again anyone? Poor Eve, she’s always being blamed for man’s sins. It’s not a name I would have picked for my cool warrior jetpack women.

    Verdict: Sexist.

    Retributor Squad

    99020108019_retributorsquadbundle01

    Corsets and tit armour.

    Verdict: Sexist.

    Battle Sisters Squad

    99110108104_sistersofbattlesquad01

    More corsets and tit armour.

    *yawn*

    Verdict: Sexist.

    Repentia Squad

    99110108110_repentiasquad01

    I can’t help noticing that these scantily clad women have what look like whip marks all over them. I thought I noticed it on the Penitance Engine woman, but I let it slide there because I thought maybe they’re battle scars. I wonder if there’s an explanation in the sales patter on the Games Workshop website…

    ‘they are led to war by a Mistress of Repentance – a harsh warrior who drives her charges onwards with a pair of neural whips.’

    Right. Of course. So here we have scantily clad, gimp mask wearing, women who are forced into combat by a dominant woman with a whip. Basically, it’s a lesbian sex slave party. I mean, the tit armour and corsets on the other minis wasn’t great, but this model type basically just proves that in fact this is *not* an army designed to appease women, it’s absolutely nothing more than a wank fantasy for a submissive man.

    screen-shot-2016-12-28-at-13-04-26Do you think these outfits are where they got inspiration for Milla Jovovich’s other outfit in Resident Evil? I suppose at least the red dress is A3 in size and she’s wearing pants under it.

    Oh and the armour! Why the fuck are their feet and nipples more armoured than anywhere containing vital organs? I suppose I should be grateful for the fact that two of them appear to be wearing armoured thigh high boots which will at least offer some protection against leg wounds when fighting Xenos. Even Space Marine Scouts have more armour than these poor chicks (who will fucking freeze their tits off as soon as they go anywhere below twenty degrees Celsius). Why don’t they even get shoulder pads? Is it because their delicate lady-shoulders can’t take the weight of them?

    Fucks sake.

    screen-shot-2016-12-28-at-13-22-27I also can’t help noticing that the women that make up this squad are really quite young and beautiful compared to the gnarled, ugly faces of the rest of the Sisters of Battle. I always thought that it was just the house style of Games Workshop to make basically everyone in the entire universe really fucking ugly. Turns out that’s not actually the case – Games Workshop will make an exception if you’re a lesbian sex slave who likes a bit of whipping. Apparently their sculptors are capable of sculpting beautiful women – but only if they’re to be used for some sad blokes to bash one out to. I’m also making the assumption here that the designers just thought the idea of an old, ugly woman in these sexy outfits would be just too horrendous to think about. Women who grow old or who are scarred should not get their tits out it seems…

    Verdict: Sexist.

    Dominion Squad

    99110108107_dominionsquad01

    More tit armour and corsets. It doesn’t get any better if I say it the opposite way round.

    Verdict: Sexist.

    Sororitas Command Squad
    99110108105_sororitascommandsquad01-1

    screen-shot-2016-12-28-at-13-44-08Tit armour, corsets, and a blow job face.

    No, I don’t fucking know either. At least the woman with the blow job face is wearing robes without tit armour.

    Verdict: Sexist.

    Immolator

    99140108055_immolator01

    Again, hard to find pictures of the figure.

    Verdict: Inconclusive.

    Battle Sister Squad Upgrade

    99110108109_sistersquadupgrade01

    I love the way that their breasts seem to sit on the top of the gun as if it’s a shelf.

    No wait, I really don’t. Guns should never be used to hold tits up, a bra is a far more appropriate garment. Probably a sports bra if you’re a kickass soldier of the Imperium.

    Verdict: Sexist.

    Canoness Veridyan

    99810108001_sistersofbattlecannonessveridyan01

    I understand that this is a figure based on artwork by John Blanche that was on the cover of the original Sisters of Battle codex. No, it doesn’t really make it any better. Games Workshop themselves mentioned it in a post recently on their blog.

    Lets make it clear that this is an new model that has been released in December 2016. Quite frankly I’m surprised that Games Workshop would bring out such an appallingly sexist model with such celebration.

    I mean, she’s wearing high heels. HIGH HEELS. I know that fantasy wargaming isn’t based on the real world, but I’d really like the design team, the marketing team, and the top tier of management at Games Workshop to wear thigh high boots for a day with at least a six inch stiletto heel and see just how goddamn impractical these things really are.

    Ridiculous, long, black, stiletto boots really are the preserve of fantasy dominatrixes (with few exceptions). The whole point of them in that particular fantasy setting is that they are difficult to walk around and do things in, meaning that the man (who worships the woman, of course) has to do things for her while she is pretty much helpless. She is reduced to mere object. Decoration. Diminished to living a languorous lifestyle. SO WHAT THE FUCK ARE THEY DOING ON A MILITARY HERO? If high heeled thigh boots are so effective for combat why aren’t the Ultramarines wearing them? Actually, I’d quite like to see an Ultramarine soldier wearing a high heeled thigh boot – but lets not examine that thought too closely.

    Other than that – lets see. Skulls for breasts? That’s a bit… peculiar. I’m sure that can be traced back to Freud again. In fact I don’t even know what to make of it really, I feel like it deserves a whole post just to itself.

    And that corset. We’ve already established that corsets are just wank on fighters. But this one appears to have a metal ring sitting just above her pubic area. What’s the significance there? My mind goes straight to some kind of chastity signifier. A woman who can be controlled. That’s why you put rings into bulls noses, isn’t it? Either that or it’s reminiscent of a door knocker… something something knock for entry? Not sure which one is worse really.

    At least she has shoulder armour. And a cool sword.

    And I really like her little surcote with the fleur de lis on it and the nice design around the split sleeve. I think I need that surcote for my LARP character.

    Verdict: Extremely Fucking Sexist.

    Battle Sister with Multi-Melta

    99060108016_battlesistermultimeltanew01

    I thought this model was awesome, then I noticed the tit armour poking out behind her gun.

    Verdict: Sexist.

    Battle Sister with Heavy Bolter

    99060108006_battlesisterheavybolternew01

    Shelf-tits.

    Verdict: Sexist.

    Battle Sister with Simulacrum Imperialis

    99060108090_battlesistersimulacrumimperialisnew01

    Alright, I’ll level with you. I think this one is kind of cool. Her hands and robes are in the way (mostly) of her tit armour so you can’t really see it. And it doesn’t seem to have weird chastity or skull decoration. I’d buy this model. She also has a really cool surcote. I mean it’s still sexist really, but it’s literally the least sexist mini so far.

    Verdict: Inconclusive.

    Sisters of Battle Superior with Bolter

    99060108085_sistersuperiorbolternew01

    Cute surcote, but tit armour and corsets. Again.

    Verdict: Sexist.

    Battle Sister with Meltagun 2

    99060108096_battlesistermeltagun2new01

    This one is getting an ‘inconclusive’ rating just because I think if the gun wasn’t so big then they would have made the tit armour mode visible.

    Verdict: Inconclusive.

    Battle Sister with Flamer 2

    99060108097_battlesisterflamer2new01

    Tit armour.

    Verdict: Sexist.

    Battle Sister with Storm Bolter 2

    99060108101_battlesisterstormbolter2new01

    For some reason Games Workshop have photographed this one at a different angle to just about every other model. But this allows us to see exactly how much of a tit shelf they are using their weapons as. URGH.

    Verdict: Sexist.

    SPECIAL MENTION

    Uriah Jacobus, Protector of the Faith

    99060108021_missionaryjacobusnew01-1

    What a surprise that the only male figure in the Sisters of Battle collection (with the exception of the alternative withered figure for the front of the Penitence Engine) is a leader who the Sisters of Battle follow faithfully into war. Fuck off.

    Fuck. Off.

    Verdict: Sexist.

    Sisters of Battle Facebook Header

  • Why I Don’t Care if You’re a Feminist

    Why I Don’t Care if You’re a Feminist

    I get it. It’s controversial to claim that you’re not a feminist. It creates arguments and divides. It’s even cool in some circles to actively not identify as a feminist.

    Traditionally this has been like a red flag to a bull. In the past I’ve been like ‘ZOMG HOW CAN YOU NOT?’ But now I’m more like *shrug* ‘cool story bro’.


     

    Before I took my degree, I considered myself a feminist. I felt that women deserved to be treated equally in society. I mean, that’s what feminism is – it’s the belief that women and men should be treated equally and should have access to the same opportunities.

    If you don’t call yourself a feminist because you think that the term has ‘problematic connotations’ then I think you’re missing the point somewhat. The problematic connotations are the hard fights that we have to fight. The difficult questions that we have to ask. We didn’t get to this point by being made of rainbow glitter and unicorn piss. We got here by challenging those who believed that women didn’t deserve to be equal. And that action isn’t always very pleasant.

    Saying that you’re not a feminist but you do believe in equality is a cop out. It ignores the fact that women are not equal yet, that there is a long way to go still. I am genuinely looking forward to throwing off the burden that is feminism and declaring that yes – we have made it. However I don’t think that will happen in my life time. Not even in the next generation either.

    14034701_1218734214843752_4291810384327086479_n

    I don’t have any ‘good reasons’ that you should be a feminist. Not other than wanting gender equality anyway. I mean that seems like a pretty good reason to me, but it doesn’t seem enough for many. I don’t have any secret justifications hidden up my sleeve, I only have the one. You should be a feminist if you believe that gender inequality is wrong, and that we should collectively do something about it.

    And that’s it really. Discussion over. I’ve nothing else to give on the subject. That’s all of the reasons I’ve got.


    The truth is, that doing work on gender equality (yes, that’s what I do: I research and write about gender and sexuality for a large portion of my time) exhausts me. It makes my brain tired. It leaves me with so little mental energy left over that sometimes I struggle to cook myself dinner and I have to order a takeaway. Sometimes I can’t even manage that so I just go to bed without eating.

    Social media makes me tired. During my most active period of research for my degree I was facing threats of physical and sexual violence almost every day on social media. It’s exhausting to go through this – and I don’t even have it bad compared to many others out there who are challenging the status quo.

    During the three years that I was studying for my degree I edited my Facebook friends list in such a way that it became what the news media call an ‘echo chamber’ – somewhere that doesn’t challenge your views. It’s usually said in a negative way, but when you’re that mentally exhausted the last thing you want to do is do work when you’re not supposed to be working. Imagine you were a landscape gardener – a hard and exhausting job. And every day your so-called friends expected you to go to theirs and do your job all night in your free time. And this went on for months… years… you never had a break. You never had time to decompress – that’s why I created an echo chamber on my Facebook feed. Because I can’t keep working all day and all night. I need time off too.

    But some people see this as a negative thing – particularly those in the LARP community, I’ve noticed. They criticize me because I won’t add those with opposing political views to myself to my private Facebook feed (and yes, if you’re not a feminist then you very much have an opposing political view to me). They say that I’m not learning from others, I’m not open to having my mind opened and my opinion changed. But I don’t want to have my opinions changed. My beliefs are fundamental to who I am. I am a feminist. I believe that we need to fight for all genders to be treated equally. And fundamentally, I believe that we are not there yet.


    Worse still are those who expect me to explain in person.

    Often there is a specific challenge that comes with the ‘I’m not a feminist’ statement, and it’s a request to change someones mind. I’ve lost count of the amount of times I’ve been asked to try and change someones mind, or teach them about feminism. I’d say on average about once every three weeks or so – if I’m being pretty social.

    And it really is a challenge. It’s issued in a way that is like ‘I don’t think you can, but I’d like to see you try and fail’. And inevitably you do ‘fail’ if you accept the challenge, because they never wanted to have their mind changed. They just wanted more proof that they are right and feminism is wrong.

    If I’m out with my mates, if I’m drinking, if I’m working at LARP, or even if I’m just hanging out watching some sport or something, I’m almost certainly not up for that debate (who am I kidding with that word – it’s never a fucking debate, it’s always you mansplaining to me – these guys don’t know what ‘debate’ means). I’m happy for you to query if I can recommend some books, or if you can read my academic work, but what I’m not interested in doing is listening to your views on why feminism is a crock of shit. Because quite frankly – I’m not interested.

    If you want to understand where I’m coming from, then listen to the experiences of women around you. Just, shut your mouth and listen. Because what we don’t need is you telling us that our experiences are invalid. It happens all the time – you should read Rebecca Solnit’s excellent essay ‘Men Explain Things to Me‘. I am really sick of men explaining my life experiences to me.

    In fact, you don’t even have to read the internet, just listen to the world around you. Listen to the guy who judged me for being a slut because I enjoy sleeping with multiple people. Listen to the person who turned me down for a job because I might get pregnant. Listen to the people who joked that women only go to university to find a man. Listen to the men who feel entitled to tell me on the street what they want to do with my body. Listen to the guys who think they can speak to me even when I’m wearing headphones and am trying desperately to ignore them.

    Look at the history books that only list one woman artist in the modern art section, but dozens of men. Look at the fact that only 15% of public art statues commemorating people are commemorating women. Just look around you.

    You are not entitled to my time to explain things to you. If you want to learn about feminism then you need to keep your eyes and ears open, and perhaps read some of the basic texts on feminism that many of us read when we were starting our journey.

    It’s not my job to convince you. You need to convince yourself.

  • #GamerGate – Quoted for Record

    I made a post on Facebook earlier in response to somebody arguing that yes, GamerGate was in fact about ethics in gaming journalism. So I have quoted it here in order that I can find it again.


    You know though, you’re very luck to be able to say ‘I’m out’ over a topic like this. You see, I was diagnosed female at birth. I have what society considers a woman’s body. That means I am routinely oppressed in our world. And yes, that really does include videogames. You see, if I want to play the kind of games that I enjoy (AAA fighting and exploration games) then I have to endure repeated negative depictions of my assigned gender which I’m taught that men always get to save the day, be baddass, and be sexual conquerers.

    I was taught that message since I was a child, through videogames. Because I’ve been a gamer since I was thee years old and I insisted that we keep my Dad’s old Grandstand box next to the telly all the damn time. Ms. Pacman taught me that all women wore bows, high heels and too much makeup. Tomb Raider taught me that heroines always wear short shorts. Red Dead Redemption taught me that women’s sexual torture is entertainment. And Metal Gear Solid taught me that women should *always* jiggle their tits for the player – even if the player is a straight woman. Because games aren’t made for women, they’re made for men. That’s why Quiet jiggles her tits at the camera and why her action figure had squeezable breasts that were made from a softer plastic compound than the rest of her body.

    I don’t get to say ‘I’m out’ on this one. This is my life we’re talking about. My hobby and profession where I’m constantly reminded that I’m simply not welcome. The very fact you can say ‘I’m out’ and return back to your daily life without a thought or a care is simply demonstrating the sheer amount of privilege that you, as a man, have in the whole gamergate discussion and the wider videogaming industry.

    None of this matters to you. You didn’t have to change your name so that you would be listened to and treated equally in the industry that you love (I did). You don’t have to avoid voice chat when you’re playing so that you don’t get guys asking you for blowjobs – and calling you a whore when you refuse. You don’t have to carefully read reviews of games carefully to decide if the sexism in the games is going to make the game an unenjoyable experience for you. Gamergate is just an argument you can have on your friends wall every now and again, convinced you’re in the right, before putting it down and going back to your microwave meal and shit telly in the evening.

    It was never about ethics in gaming journalism. Your friends – who you claim were heavily involved in the movement – are either lying to you or they’re thick. You take your pick. It was all about reinforcing women as outsiders in the videogames industry, an excuse to hound women from their jobs and homes, and a way for the core club of ‘gamers’ to flex their muscles about how they don’t want women in their basements.

  • The northerners used to be the good guys in the war against idealisation

    In about a month I’m giving a talk about a print by Albrecht Dürer. I’ll show you the print before I go any further.

    Nemesis (The Great Fortune) Albrecht Dürer (German, Nuremberg 1471–1528 Nuremberg)
    Nemesis (The Great Fortune)
    Albrecht Dürer
    (German, Nuremberg 1471–1528 Nuremberg)

    I really hate presentations to peers, however I have to do one in about a month and this is my subject. As artworks go I think I lucked out. Not only is Dürer pretty cool, but I get to draw interesting comparisons about the human body. I’m sure I have to talk about printmaking and stuff too, but the human body stuff is way more interesting.

    So this is an engraving most likely depicting a character who is representational of Nemesis – the Goddess of revenge and retribution. Dürer identified the central figure for us in the title, however her tummy, chubby bum and balancing sphere accoutrements suggest the Goddess Fortune. In addition the wings link her to victory, the cup to generosity and the bridle to dominance. I think what he’s saying here is something about revenge requiring good fortune, and to execute revenge well we require good fortune which comes from both generosity and dominance of both ourselves and our intended subjects. Or something. Anyway, that’s the deep stuff out the way.

    Screen Shot 2014-09-27 at 07.30.47Screen Shot 2014-09-27 at 07.33.30Look at her body shape. I think we’d describe her as having ‘a little extra padding’ if we were to talk about her politely now. First off I’m going to point out that she’s not pregnant – that pose and exaggerated tummy was typical of the northern European artists of this time. Jan Van Eyck painted women this way in both the Ghent Altarpiece and also the Arnolfini Portrait. Niether of these women are pregnant and you can see from their bodies that they’re not fat.

    But the northern European artists did certainly go in for a more realistic depiction of women at this time. They have muscle and sinew, bone and fat. They aren’t impossibly skinny or in awkward poses.

    Screen Shot 2014-09-27 at 07.42.10Here’s another. A French painting in the National Gallery from about the same time. She even has a cloth covering her modesty. The northern European artists rarely seemed to show if a model had pubic hair or not, their vulvas simply didn’t appear to be of any interest at all.

    There seems to be a tenderness in the northern European artists attitude towards their female subjects. A respect perhaps. They paint or draw lumps and bumps without hesitation presumably because that was what was considered beautiful in the sixteenth-century. Since there are so many depictions that follow this pattern it can be reasonably well assumed that the women here were happy to be shown this way. Perhaps even proud.

    Most of all though, these female subjects look like they are actually drawn from female models. They are real people rather than constructions from the artists imaginations.

    Enter: the Italians.

    The Italians were more typically doing something a little… unpalatable. It was pretty common to construct the subjects of their paintings from bits of different people. You might have one model for the legs, another for the face, boobs from a third…

    There are classic tales of Leonardo da Vinci (and others) believing that he couldn’t paint certain women because they were too beautiful to capture, and that he used to use his male lovers as models for the women he was painting. Many women appearing in his


    And that’s where I finished the post. Well obviously I didn’t finish it. But I still thought it was worth publishing when I went back to it two years later.

  • Wikipedia hack-a-thon : Non-male Photographers

    So… after reading some articles in class yesterday and hearing about a tutor’s experience with a women in architecture hack-a-thon, I’m curious to know if I could organise one for women photographers.

    This post is serving as little more than a bookmark to make me do something about it.

  • Challenging the photographic industry to be better

    It didn’t take me long to realise that the photography industry wasn’t a great place for everyone to inhabit. I’m not going to start recounting tales of everything I’ve ever found sexist, but you’re safe to assume that there’s a fair amount.

    Many of my experiences with photography led me down the path that has ended up with me writing a dissertation on feminist, queer, and black approaches to art. The biggest one was obviously my choice to be a writer. I remember my ex saying to me something along the lines of ‘you’re just one person, you can’t change the industry’ and I thought ‘I bloody well can – but I have to be the person who is telling others how to do things’. The last three years I’ve spent working towards the idea that I can really be a force for good within the photography industry. And the last two have been spent on my degree, learning about how to apply theories to real life situations.

    It’s an unusual career path, I admit. Most people work to earn money. And most people interested in photography want to be photographers. I discovered very early on that my heart wasn’t in a business where your sales tactics are worth as much (or more) than your talent.

    So instead of focussing on being a better photographer I focussed on understanding why people took pictures. And why people want pictures. And why the photography industry is the way that it is. And it’s fascinating – I promise you.

    The last year or so has really solidified what I want to do with my ability to write. I want to change peoples outlooks and make the industry a better place. I want to give a voice to those who don’t feel able to speak up – that can be one of the biggest challenges.

    The first time I spoke up I had nothing to lose. About three years ago I wrote to Black+White Photography Magazine to complain about inequality. They had what they proclaimed as being “The Nude Issue” – except really it was “The Naked Lady Issue”. I seem to remember that they had one man featured in the entire issue, and he wasn’t even completely nude. I never got an answer back, of course, they didn’t even print me in the letters page. I didn’t let it bother me, I just kept on trying to make my voice heard.

    I got into hot water later when I decided to challenge a troll on a modeling site forum and this time I lost something. He made a rape joke about women in India. I (and others) called him out on such gross and inappropriate behaviour. We both got banned from the forum for a few days. I didn’t think that this was enough – the rape joke remained on the forum for anyone to see. I wrote about my displeasure on social media. The site introduced a new rule that you can’t complain on social media and I lost my account as a result. In a way I think this was a blessing in disguise. I took some time out to think about what I really wanted to shoot and how I was shooting it. I came to the realisation that that wasn’t a crowd I really wanted to hang out with because it was pretty sexist and oppressive. I could do better – if I wanted to shoot models. To be honest I’ve not shot a model for years, I started to find other kinds of photography more interesting.

    More recently I was told by Mike, my editor at the magazine, that he’d gone to a conference on landscape photography only to be told by the keynote (and very well respected) speaker that there were no women doing landscape photography. Of course he Googled, found some awesome photographers on the first and second pages, and we contacted a couple and set up a whole issue of the magazine devoted to landscape photography – including the rather excellent Lynne. She wrote a blog that caught our eye about being a woman who does landscape photography so we interviewed her and it went down a storm. Being able to talk openly about some of the issues that women faced in the industry was genuinely exciting.

    And then of course, there was the Brett Florens debacle two days ago. I’ve already blogged about that. In a conversation on Facebook someone asked ‘how do I challenge these people?’ and I realised that not everyone is lucky enough to have gone down the educational path that I have.

    I realised that people within the photography industry don’t always have the framework needed to confront people head on. They don’t know how to say ‘I think you’re wrong’ because they don’t yet know how to articulate why someone is wrong. One of the major problems is that the person speaking up is often one of the oppressed groups, and the person they are challenging is part of a dominant group. This means that speaking up and articulating is even harder – because you’re not just challenging one person, you’re challenging the status quo.

    So last night I bought a domain name. It’s IntersectionalPhotography.com. And I hope that I can fill it with useful resources for people within the photographic industry to try and make our industry a better place to be. Everything from how to deal with sexist misconceptions to how to treat an unconventional client with respect, understanding, and compassion.

    I don’t know if it’ll work. But I feel like I have to try.

  • Is Feminist Methodology still relevant in History of Art today?

    Since I’ve now had my results back from my second year at university, I can post the final essay for my Culture, Gender and Sexuality module. I got 80% overall in this module – 70% is required for achieving a 1st.

    Enjoy!

     


     

    Is Feminist Methodology still relevant in History of Art today?

     

    There is little doubt that the New Art Histories revolutionised the way that many art historians saw the world and participated in art historical academia in the 1970s (Rees and Borzello, 1986a, p. 3). The term ‘The New Art Histories’ came into use because of the book of the same name which tried to summarise emerging methodologies in the late 1970s and early 1980s (Rees and Borzello, 1986b). Other authors interpreted the term as an umbrella phrase for critical theory (Jõekalda, 2013, p. 2) and most would agree that the term the New Art Histories cover political, feminist, psychoanalytical and theoretical approaches (Fernie, 1995, p. 19). This poststructuralist approach marked an important shift away from art as objects and focussed instead on social context rather than concepts such as connoisseurship and biography. In this essay I will focus on how feminist art history methodologies do not address queer artists and artworks adequately, however it should also be considered that non-Caucasian, non-Western, and disabled people are also not addressed by mainstream feminist theory either – amongst other personhood statuses. The word queer itself is complex but for the purpose of this essay I will be using it to represent non-default gender, sex and sexuality.

     

    Women were often left out of the traditional art historical canon and the New Art Histories enabled feminist art historians to rethink the past. Initially there was a push to rediscover women artists and attempt to place them within the traditional canon. This was primarily achieved by questioning assumptions about the difference between art and craft – many feminist art historians at this time believed that these definitions of art and craft were one of the primary reasons for women’s art being seen as inferior (Fernie, 1995, p. 20). However this approach relied on traditional canonical and biographical methodologies and the late 1970s saw a move by feminist theorists to challenging the discipline of History of Art itself. Academics began to suggest that merely inserting women into history was not the same as writing women’s history (Fox-Genovese, 1982, p. 6) and Griselda Pollock put forward the idea that women’s studies were not about women but rather the social systems that allow and maintain the dominance of men over women (Pollock, 1988, p. 1). One of the formative essays for feminist art history was Linda Nochlin’s ‘Why have there been no great women artists?’ (Nochlin, 1978) which warned against the idea of simply trying to name women artists who might be considered ‘good’ and insert them into the traditional male-dominated canon.

     

    Feminist methodologies, especially when combined with Marxist theories, gave academics a powerful and alternative way of looking at both history and the present, yet feminist methodologies as applied to the history of art have remained reasonably static in their approach. While feminism as a political movement has moved on with successive waves of ideologies, feminist methodology for history art often still works from the same seminal texts (such as Nochlin’s) that broke the original ground.

     

    In many respects feminist methodologies fit neatly into hegemonic, patriarchal culture – as much as their practitioners would like to suggest that they now champion intersectionality (McCall, 2005, p. 1771). They support the notion of a bigender society and specifically exclude those who exist outside of the gender paradigm that society currently uses to view the world and write history. Feminist art historical methodologies may well be the fight against the male dominated view of the history of art, but when viewing the history of art as a queer participant these methodologies only serve to reinforce the patriarchal structure and act as another hegemonic barrier that needs to be removed before a queer history can be composed. Traditional and New art histories combined act as a complete patriarchal version of the histories of art, a history that could potentially be rewritten by a new queer methodology.

     

    Introducing queer methodologies to the history of art is unlikely to be as simple as just viewing the world from a queer point of view. Queer methodology must be counterhegemonic in its nature, allowing new paradigms to be enacted. It is not simply a case of rewriting the history of art from a gay or lesbian perspective, or even a transgender perspective. In order to create a truly queered history of art the bigender paradigm should not be used and another must be found; otherwise queer methodologies will become just another pillar that supports the dominant patriarchal norm by acting in support of male masculinities and female femininities (Halberstam, 1998, pp. 3–4). Stephen Bann’s suggestion that a new cultural critique can gain strength from the fact that old positions have already run their course is as relevant now as it was when he discussed the idea almost thirty years ago (Bann, 1986, p. 19) and so queer theory must learn from the limitations faced today by feminist theory. As McCall discuses in a paper on intersectionality, feminist researches are already very aware of the limitations of using gender as an analytical category (McCall, 2005, p. 1772).

     

    ‘Feminine success is always measured by male standards’ claims Halberstam (2011, p. 4), and so by acting outside of the expected standards we can relieve ourselves of the pressure to conform. Some ‘renegade’ feminists, Jack Halberstam argues, have addressed that failing might be better than success while in pursuit of the counterhegemonies and this is a lesson that could potentially be learned by any new approach to the history of art. For instance lesbians do not conform to the expected heterosexual framework so they therefore fall outside of patriarchal societies and could redefine what gender means to them (Halberstam, 2011, p. 4). This way of thinking allows us to begin to construct a different gender narrative for the viewing of the history of art, by enabling those outside of the patriarchal hegemony to apply their own definitions of gender and sexuality. However most feminist history of art is largely unconcerned with sexuality or gender-fluidity and therefore this is not a tool that would be used by most feminist art historians. In most feminist art history the assumption is that the artist is heterosexual, white and often middle-class; there is no discourse available for the kind of alternative femininities and masculinities that Halberstam addresses in their text on female masculinity (Halberstam, 1998).

     

    Some feminist academics have begun to offer a kind of queer methodology – although still under the banner of feminism. The idea of introducing sex, gender and sexuality to feminist approaches is proposed by Mimi Marinucci (Marinucci, 2010, p. 105) and can be seen as part of the wider movement of mainstream feminism towards an intersectional approach. In some ways this approach works very well – there is real solidarity between the experiences of many women and those who are LGBT* (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex) due to the basic understanding of what it is like to be born into a state of patriarchal oppression. However there is also tension between the feminist and queer movements and as Marinucci points out there has been a history of feminist studies showing bias against lesbian women, gay men, minority sexualities and transgender people (Marinucci, 2010, p. 106).

     

    It could be suggested that art history is now in a state of post-feminism; where equality has begun to be achieved in academic writing and galleries. Certainly the large art institutions in the United Kingdom, such as the Tate, have no problems with showing large retrospectives dedicated to twentieth-century women artists. Marlene Dumas (Marlene Dumas: The Image as Burden, no date) and Sonia Delaunay (The EY Exhibition: Sonia Delaunay, no date) are currently showing major retrospectives at the Tate Modern in London, Cathy Wilkes is showing at the Tate Liverpool (Cathy Wilkes, no date) and the Tate Britain has hosted retrospectives of well known women artists such as Susan Hiller (Susan Hiller, no date) and has a Barbara Hepworth exhibition opening in June 2015 (Barbara Hepworth: Sculpture for a Modern World, no date). I am aware that naming the exhibitions being held of women artists pushes me precariously close to being guilty of what Nochlin warned against, however it does certainly appear that women artists now have a roughly equal number of major exhibitions as artists who are men when considering twentieth and twenty-first century art. Most feminist art historians can be categorised as using one of the other approaches to art history (such as connoisseurship, biography or iconography to name just a few) so it could be suggested that feminist art historians should just continue to work under those banners rather than identifying as feminists since the feminist art historian label seems to be no longer required.

     

    Marunucci presents the idea that queer feminism provides a new direction for feminism as a critical perspective. Introducing questions of sexuality into feminist art history would greatly increase the scope of the methodology. According to the label on the front of the book Art & Queer Culture it is ‘the first book to focus on the criticism and theory regarding queer visual art’ (Lord and Meyer, 2013). If this statement is indeed true it means that no feminist (or any other) art historian has been addressing the criticism and theory of queer art. This raises the question – if feminism was truly interested in any sexuality, sex or gender other than heterosexual women who were identified as women at birth, wouldn’t this book have been written years or perhaps even decades ago?

     

    Even if feminist art historians use approaches borrowed from gay and lesbian studies, this does not go far enough. A relatively recent biography of photographer Claude Cahun (Doy, 2007) is a good example of why feminist approaches are often inadequate even when combined with gay and lesbian studies. Cahun was a photographer who lived from 1894 to 1954. Originally identified as female at birth, Cahun had romantic relationships with women and in 1915-1916 began using the gender-ambiguous name Claude Cahun instead of the assigned birth name of Lucy Schwob (Claude Cahun – Chronology, no date). Most of Cahun’s body of photographic work is self-portraiture and Cahun presents as outwardly male in a large portion of the images. Where Cahun presents as a woman in images it is often an exaggerated and drag version of femininity. The biography by Gen Doy deals extensively with Cahun’s theoretical interests in sex and sexuality and also recounts her preference of living with a woman multiple times, however the assumption is always made that Cahun is a lesbian woman. Not once is the idea entertained that Cahun could possibly be transgender (and therefore potentially heterosexual) or genderqueer and Cahun is referred to as ‘she’ and ‘lesbian’ throughout the text without any explanation. Both feminist and gay and lesbian studies have failed as approaches when it comes to artists such as Claude Cahun since they refuse to engage with major political and personal aspects of the artist’s life and work. A queer approach may well have shed more light on this popular photographer from the early twentieth-century.

     

    According to government surveys only 93.9% of the adult population in the UK identified as heterosexual in April 2011 to March 2012 (Woodsford, 2012). Estimating the amount of transpeople in the UK is problematic due to the difficulty defining transgender status within current gender paradigms (do we consider self-identification as with sexuality or is medical intervention the standard for defining a transperson?), but a 2008 European study suggests that there could be as many as 1 in 20 transgender individuals within the male population alone using the most wide definitions – and this number is increasing exponentially (‘Transgender EuroStudy’, no date). Going forward feminist approaches do not offer enough scope to record and analyse these important aspects of an artists work and personal life.

     

    Feminist approaches to art history are still an excellent methodology for looking at artworks in the past and for discussing women’s status in society. However the fact that feminist methodologies rely heavily on a bigender paradigm, as demonstrated by the earlier discussed assumption that women’s studies are about the dominance of men over women (Pollock, 1988, p. 1), means that they are not so well-placed to look at artists today and in the future. In a society that is slowly but steadily rejecting the idea of a clear-cut ‘male’ and ‘female’ status (Hird, 2000, p. 348) we need methodologies that can produce a discourse on this new approach to working practices. Feminism is still relevant to the discipline of history of art while examining the past, but it becomes less relevant as we move into the future when those writing about art will need to talk authoritatively on a wider range of gender, sex and sexuality than feminist methodologies currently routinely discuss.

     


     

    Bibliography

    Bann, S. (1986) ‘How Revolutionary is the New Art History?’, in Rees, A. L. and Borzello, F. (eds) The New Art History. London, England: Camden Press.

    Barbara Hepworth: Sculpture for a Modern World (no date). Available at: http://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-britain/exhibition/barbara-hepworth-sculpture-modern-world (Accessed: 6 May 2015).

    Cathy Wilkes (no date). Available at: http://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-liverpool/exhibition/cathy-wilkes (Accessed: 6 May 2015).

    Claude Cahun – Chronology (no date) Claude Cahun Home Page. Available at: http://www.connectotel.com/cahun/cahunchr.html.

    Doy, G. (2007) Claude Cahun: A Sensual Politics of Photography. London: I.B. Tauris. Available at: http://site.ebrary.com/id/10333422 (Accessed: 6 May 2015).

    Fernie, E. (1995) Art History and Its Methods: A Critical Anthology. United Kingdom: Phaidon Press, Incorporated.

    Fox-Genovese, E. (1982) ‘Placing Women’s History in History’, New Left Review, (133), pp. 5–29.

    Halberstam, J. (1998) Female Masculinity. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Halberstam, J. (2011) The Queer Art of Failure. Durham and London: Duke University Press.

    Hird, M. J. (2000) ‘Gender’s nature: Intersexuality, transsexualism and the “sex”/’gender’ binary’, Feminist Theory, 1(3), pp. 347–364. doi: 10.1177/146470010000100305.

    Jõekalda, K. (2013) ‘What has become of the New Art History?’, Journal of Art Historiography, (9).

    Lord, C. and Meyer, R. (2013) Art and Queer Culture. London: Phaidon Press.

    Marinucci, M. (2010) Feminism Is Queer: The intimate connection between queer and feminist theory. London: Zed.

    Marlene Dumas: The Image as Burden (no date). Available at: http://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-modern/exhibition/marlene-dumas-image-burden (Accessed: 6 May 2015).

    McCall, L. (2005) ‘The Complexity of Intersectionality’, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 30(3), pp. 1771–1800. doi: 10.1086/426800.

    Nochlin, L. (1978) Art and sexual politics; women’s liberation, women artists, and art history. 4. print. Edited by T. B. Hess. New York: Collier Books (Collier books).

    Pollock, G. (1988) Vision and Difference: Feminism, Femininity and Histories of Art (Routledge Classics). United Kingdom: London ; Routledge.

    Rees, A. L. and Borzello, F. (eds) (1986a) ‘Introduction’, in The New Art History. London, England: Camden Press.

    Rees, A. L. and Borzello, F. (eds) (1986b) The New Art History. London, England: Camden Press.

    Susan Hiller (no date). Available at: http://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-britain/exhibition/susan-hiller (Accessed: 6 May 2015).

    The EY Exhibition: Sonia Delaunay (no date). Available at: http://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-modern/exhibition/ey-exhibition-sonia-delaunay (Accessed: 6 May 2015).

    ‘Transgender EuroStudy’ (no date) TGEU. Available at: http://tgeu.org/eurostudy/ (Accessed: 7 May 2015).

    Woodsford, S. (2012) Integrated Household Survey April 2011 to March 2012: Experimental Statistics. Available at: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/integrated-household-survey/integrated-household-survey/april-2011-to-march-2012/stb-integrated-household-survey-april-2011-to-march-2012.html#tab-Sexual-identity (Accessed: 7 May 2015).

  • Today I cried (OR: Why sometimes I hate the photography industry that I love)

    If you know me, you’ll know I love taking photographs.

    I mean, I really love taking photographs. I don’t quite make it the centre of my life, but it’s certainly very important to me.

    Photography has shaped my life. It has touched almost every choice I’ve made over the past ten years. It’s the reason I’m at university studying history of art. Because I wanted to understand what drives humans to make pictures.

    Over the years I’ve become frustrated though. So many photographers just seem to be living back in the 70s with their attitudes and world views.

    e84fad4c1e48910351a6b5253800fa67
    This notebook seems appropriate. Someone buy it for me.

    So this morning I decided to log on and watch the www.engagelive.co “What Women Want” session with Brett Florens. You see, he’s talking at the convention this year that I’m working and I’ve heard that he’s pretty awesome. Certainly I know that he’s popular within the society that I work for and so I figured I’d like to see what he’s all about. The problem was, it was just sexist drivel. Right from the start.

    Florens immediately used the bigender paradigm and gender stereotypes. ‘Men are more technical and women are more creative’ was the gist of the first hour. Even suggesting that there are more women in the industry now because they don’t have technical barriers to entry. You know what he picked as his example of a ‘technical barrier’? Loading film. Now, I don’t know about you but I’ve been loading films in cameras since I was about five years old. It’s not fucking rocket science.

    The problem is, that Florens has some great ideas. It’s quite clear that he is at the top of his game photographically and he does shoot great work. He also has a serious attitude problem. Every single bit of his advice seems to be framed as ‘women like this’ and ‘men do this’. And it’s frustrating. I had to turn it off after an hour or so.

    Framing success in your field as gender-based is problematic.Florens seemed to be largely saying ‘men – you need to be more like women. Women photographers are emotional and in touch with other women. And your clients are mostly the Brides, so you need to learn this shit otherwise you’ll fail.’ Of course the big irony here seems to be that Florens isn’t in touch with what the woman-hivemind thinks at all, otherwise he’d know that this kind of gender stereotyping isn’t helping anyone.

    There are some very real problems with gender based social conditioning in the world. For instance, our Western society teaches boys to value themselves highly and girls to value themselves less than boys. We grow up with these ideas and they become a part of our expected adult behaviours. It’s well documented that these behaviours shape our society – for instance in the gender pay gap, and the lack of women in top job roles.

     

    It’s a common refrain; one that pops up again and again in the mailboxes and conversations of those writing about gender imbalance or even just daring to talk about it. “Women are equal now (more or less)”. Why, it is frequently demanded, do we continue to bang on about something that is barely even an issue any more? Why not think about some of the real problems in the world, given that we women in the UK now live ‘gilded lives’ and, to all intents and purposes (apart from a few little ifs and buts) have achieved equality? Those little ifs and buts don’t half have a habit of adding up though…

    Laura Bates is right. The little ifs and buts really do add up. When an international superstar photographer like Florens gives lectures where he uses problematic gender stereotypes he’s basically giving permission for his followers to think this way. And then even more ifs and buts creep in, and suddenly just fighting the ‘ifs and buts’ battle is like walking up a steep hill in three feet of thick, clay mud.

    So why was his language problematic to me? Well firstly there was that initial assertion that there are now more women in the photography industry because the technical barrier to industry has been removed. It seems particularly pertinent to pick up on this point again since today is National Women in Engineering day.

    Screen Shot 2015-06-23 at 14.14.10

    On face value it doesn’t seem unreasonable to suggest that there are more women in the photography industry because of the lack of technical barriers due to digital. It’s almost certainly true. But it’s almost certainly not true in the way that Florens thinks it is. Over the past 100 years or so, photography has traditionally been the preserve of the white, middle-class male. Why? Because scientific and technical hobbies were considered appropriate for this demographic. Women simply didn’t study sciences in the same way that men did during this period which meant that there wasn’t generally the base level of chemistry and physics knowledge in place to really get on with photography as a hobby easily. This did create a technical barrier to entry – but it wasn’t because women are inherently poor at technical subjects, it was because patriarchal culture kept women out of education in general and at home looking after the family. Interestingly in the first decade or two of photography there were many women photographers, it was considered a good hobby for women back then. Not sure what changed.

    So really I suspect that it’s not so much that digital has lowered the technical barrier to entry, but rather that society has changed since the early 70s and more women are going into all kinds of different careers – including photography. Suggesting that women are coming into photography because the science-bit isn’t so prominent anymore is so deeply patronising to all those women who have made science their careers. The STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) industries can be hard enough when you’re a woman because of preconceived ideas about what women are capable of (or because those industries have been known to promote toxic working environments). It’s not cool to be an industry leader and promote those outdated and sexist ideas, Florens. Next you’ll be telling us that women photographers are a problem because they fall in love with you and then cry when you critisise them. Oh no, wait, that was last week in the biochemistry sector. It’s not a million miles away though.

    But there was also the perpetuation of damaging male stereotypes too in Florens’ introduction this morning. Florens went to great lengths to paint ‘men’ as emotionally stunted individuals who don’t care what women are saying and who aren’t in touch with their clients at all. Even using the comparison that when women greet female friends they say things like ‘you look beautiful’ whereas men call each other ‘fat pigs’ when they see their friends. Now, maybe I’m just exceptionally lucky. But most of my female friends don’t put much weight on their female friends appearances. My friends certainly don’t fuss over each others appearance and bolster some imaginary self-confidence that is tied into looks. But my male friends don’t call each other fat pigs either. He was trying to explain that men are condescending to each other, describing this as ‘banter’. To be honest though, that kind of banter is the domain of teenagers, not adult men. Or occasionally those grim, laddish types – who I couldn’t imagine generally going into careers like photography anyway. (Char’s Pro Tip: If your mates call you a fat pig when you see them you should change your friends because they’re dickheads.)

    There’s something very serious to be said here though. The persistent stereotype that men are emotionally stunted individuals who can’t open up about their feelings is a problem. It reinforces the idea that men shouldn’t talk about ‘girlie’ subjects.Florens discussed the idea that male photographers should get in touch with their feminine sides – as if emotionally connecting with people is somehow the domain of women. This isn’t a girlie thing, or a feminine thing, this is something that everyone should feel like they can do. Florens also used phrases like ‘macho men’ when describing those who guys don’t appear to be emotional or in touch with their feminine side (whatever that means), using the phrase as if this was the default state for all men.

    Suggesting that being emotional is ‘feminine’ is quite damaging. In our society, we still reward ‘macho’ men and punish those that appear to be ‘feminine’. We call them fags or pussys because they’re too girlie. This is one of the leading reasons why suicide rates due to mental health are so high for men. Because it’s seen as being weak and girlie to open up. Thanks Florens for potentially reinforcing this idea in many photographers heads. I understand that Florens was suggesting you could be better in business if you are emotionally in touch with your clients, but the way it was framed as ‘women = emotional’ and ‘men = not emotional’ is just perpetuating the problem.

    The whole way through Florens’ lecture I couldn’t help but feel he was missing a whole world of beautiful people. To him it seemed that only two types of people existed: feminine women and masculine men. What he was ignoring was the beautiful spectrum of everyone in between. I generally consider myself a masculine women for example, and there are men who are most certainly feminine men. And then of course there are those who fall somewhere else on the scale – transgender individuals, third gender individuals, those who don’t consider themselves either masculine or feminine, male or female. I’d urge everyone vaguely interested in being more compassionate where gender is concerned to pick up and read Halberstam’s book on Feminine Masculinity. It’s a great primer to the diversity of humans.

    When you’re at the top of your game, like Brett Florens is, I believe you have a certain responsibility towards the way that you educate others. Teaching isn’t easy, it’s a real skill that has to be learned. I’ve sat through quite a few lectures and workshops by lots of different photographers and although many of them are good photographers, they couldn’t teach to save their lives. To be a good photography teacher you have to understand words as much as you understand how to load film in a camera.

    Words hurt. Words can be damaging. Using the wrong words can mean that your message gets lost because your words have hurt people. Somebody said in the chatroom during the live broadcast that perhaps there should be some lectures on semantics for photographers – I think that’s a great idea. You could run Gendered Language 101, Abelist langage 101, and racist language 101 – and that’s just for starters. You could also run seminars on why women and men aren’t so different after all, and why we have far more in common than people seem to think. And then perhaps we might start to understand in the photographic industry that it’s not men that are the technical wizards and women who are the emotional souls – we’re just people with different mixes of the two.

    I once spoke to a lovely photographer who said to me ‘You need to know enough of the technical stuff to be able to drive your camera competently. Only then you can start being creative.’ They weren’t wrong, you know. You can’t have one skill without the other. That simply doesn’t work any more.


    So yeah, I cried today. I cried because there is still so far to go in the photography industry before we see any kind of parity. I wept because people like Florens keep perpetuating stereotypes that make it harder for anyone who isn’t a ‘macho’ man to get taken seriously. I cried tears of frustration because we are told by people like www.engagelive.co that Florens is not sexist, he is just ‘controversial’. Being sexist isn’t controversial. It’s sad. It’s the sign of someone clinging to an outdated world view that should have been left back in the 70s.

    The 70s – do you remember them? When sexism was rife, people didn’t wear seat-belts, drink driving was acceptable and Jimmy Saville was still letting kids sit on his knee on the tellebox. Yeah, the 70s. That time when it was still acceptable to say that women can’t do basic technical challenges. Like changing the film in a camera.

  • Access to Female Sterlization (Tubal Occlusion)

    First up – if you’re my mother and you’re reading this? You shouldn’t be. If you’re any other member of my family and you’re reading this? You can also go away. If you want me to block access to my blog where I talk about my sex life from your computer then we can arrange that – it’s why I installed TeamViewer on it.

    Last summer I was sterilized via the method of surgical tubal occlusion. I was 29. It was a long process for me to get there, with many difficulties along the way. I’m writing this blog to help other young women get this treatment. All references within this post are to the NHS in the UK.

    It used to be standard practice to refuse surgical sterlization to all women below the age of 30 unless there was a medical reason to carry it out. While that policy is no longer in existence, the right to decide on a case by case basis is now given to the consultant in charge of your surgery. They are free to make the decision whichever way they feel, hopefully with the patients best interest in mind. I think it’s important to understand and be aware of the fact that consultants are people too, with their own opinions, morals and cultural backgrounds. Therefore the treatment that they give can sometimes be affected by these things, because they are normal human beings. I just want to give advice on how I feel you can get yourself into the best position to get this surgery.

    My experience.

    1. Referral from the GP #1. I had no problems with this one. It was a doctor who has known me since I was a child. He questioned me briefly on why I wanted it, told me he felt the pill was still best for me, but referred me anyway.
    2. Referral to consultant #1. First trip to the gynae unit I met with a junior doctor. I found him deeply patronising and after half an hour he declared that I was a ‘difficult’ case and that he wasn’t prepared to make a decision. I had to have a meeting with his supervisor. (Why they didn’t look at my paperwork, see I was young and childless and reschedule me I don’t know.) Two months later I got an appointment with his supervisor, the consultant. I also found the consultant deeply patronising and quite misogynistic. If I’m honest, I didn’t really want him to operate on me. He didn’t want me to have surgery, but reluctantly agreed after I challenged his ‘no’ in a letter.
    3. Surgery #1. Cancelled after I arrived at the hospital due to other priorities in theatre. Rescheduled for three days later when I couldn’t get myself a lift to the hospital and someone to stay overnight with me. Because I couldn’t make the rescheduled date I was removed from the list and would have to start the process back at my GPs. If I was a cynic, I’d think it was all a bit of a coincidence.
    4. Referral from the GP #2. Was a little more difficult than the first time around. The female doctor that I saw was clearly quite uncomfortable with the idea. Nonetheless she referred me to the consultant.
    5. Referral to consultant #2. Gosh, finally in this process I met someone else who got it. I walked in, sat down, and he immediately said ‘I’m going to give you the surgery’. Then he went through the mental checklist that he had to ensure that I’d covered all the bases with my knowledge. He had to understand that I knew about every different alternative. And that I’d considered why I wanted to have it – and why my lifestyle dictated that I should have it. He was extraordinarily brilliant. Even explaining that ethically he felt some of his team might have a problem with the surgery, and that he wasn’t quite behind it, which meant that he would perform the surgery himself. Top bloke. He didn’t patronise me either.
    6. Surgery #2. Less good. For lots of reasons. Mostly involving people who didn’t believe I should be having the surgery.

     

    Know yourself.

    I know, this sounds deeply patronising. You should really be sure that you want this surgery. I’m going to point it out how (just as many people will point it out to you during your journey) that this is permanent. The NHS will not perform operations to reverse this procedure. You might be able to get a reversal privately, but they have a very low rate of success. I hated people telling me this, it felt like they were insulting my intelligence. But I understand that it’s an important point to reinforce.

    If you have even the slightest amount of doubt, then you will not get through the process. They will pick up on this.

    Arm yourself with knowledge.

    There are several things you need to prepare and learn for your consultations.

    The other different types of contraception that are available on the market. Here’s the cheat sheet:

    Caps
    Combined Pill
    Condoms (Female and Male)
    Implant
    Injection
    Patch
    Diaphragms
    IUD
    IUS
    Rhythm/Natural family planning
    Progesterone only Pill
    Vaginal Ring
    Vasectomy

    You should know exactly why the above options are not suitable for you. You should especially know exactly why you would rather have a sterilisation rather than your partner having a vasectomy. It is medically more risky for you to have this procedure than the equivalent being done to your partner. Additionally, a vasectomy cost could be much less than tubectomy procedures. The recovery time for your partner undergoing vasectomy can be less as well. On the other hand, female sterilization involves giving you a general anaesthetic and stopping your breathing, allowing a machine to breathe for you. This is dangerous. The consultant will want to hear why you are opting for the dangerous option.

    Know why previous methods have not worked for you (or are not working for you now).

    My primary argument for surgery was that hormone treatment had not worked for me in the past. I had an awful experience with the injection and had been through six or seven types of pill to try and find one that worked. LoEstrin was the one that worked best for me, however I still had emotional side effects from the hormones. I was also concerned at the level of protection I was getting because of the fact I also have some food allergies which… lets just say… they sometimes made my stomach empty quicker than it should. On such a low dose of hormones, if I had a day where I had an upset stomach it meant I was likely completely unprotected.

    Really know that you don’t want any (more) children. (Or make the point that you’d rather adopt or foster.)

    I approached this from the point of view that I didn’t want to have children, ever. This would be a very bad thing in my life. I laid out to myself – very clearly in my head – all the reasons why I didn’t want to have children. My most convincing argument appeared to be that I was in the first year of my undergraduate degree and I also had a masters and a PhD to go. Having to take a break out of education for a few years to have children wasn’t in my plan. It’s a shame that ‘I just don’t want them’ isn’t fully supported, but perhaps in time it will be.

    I also argued that as an adopted child (at birth) I see no reason why there should be any desire to get pregnant and push a child out of my vagina rather than adopting a child because their parents cannot care for them. And in fact, due to my social justice warrior leanings, I’d be more likely to consider fostering difficult teenagers anyway if I desperately felt the need to have children.

    Understand arguments for equality.

    I was asked during my first consultation how I would feel if I met a rich man (I was single) and he wanted children. I politely pointed out that I felt the doctor was rather sexist – and if he felt that my morals were so low that I’d change my entire world view just to get a bit of money then I’d prefer that he asked me to leave right now so that I could request a different hospital. He was pretty uncomfortable, the nurse in the corner who was taking notes sniggered a little big. Don’t be afraid to stand up for yourself. This is your body. You are an intelligent and bright person who is capable of deciding for herself if she wants children in the future or not.

    Know how much you want to tell the consultant, and prepare factual descriptions of your situation.

    I am single, pansexual and non-monogamous. At the time of my consultations I had no nesting or long-term partner.

    I did not tell the first consultant I saw about my sexuality or non-monogamy, I just told him that I was single. When I went for my second attempt at getting the surgery a year later, I had a bit of a ‘fuck it’ attitude and decided to see if that would actually help my case. It did. The consultant praised me for being an informed young woman who had clearly researched the available options and how they applied to my individual situation.

    I toyed for a while with taking a friend to pose as my boyfriend, however I decided I wouldn’t be able to play it convincingly. The second time round I just wanted to be respected for my own opinion.

    Take a friend to surgery. Or your partner. But not a male friend.

    On the day of my surgery I took a very good male friend of mine, who had supported me through the whole process. I felt that he was the best qualified person for things like, driving me to the hospital, seeing me vomit after I work up from anaesthetic, helping me take my clothes off and get in the shower, etc. There was nobody else I really wanted to see me in that state.

    However it concerned a member of staff that I had a man with me who wasn’t my partner, but who I was sure could stay in the room while my procedure was discussed. Turns out that basically they thought he might be my pimp and I was being coerced. I was deeply unhappy at their treatment of me in this case and I made a full complaint to the NHS PALS service afterwards. I just thought it was logical that he was with me after they’d already started drugging me up, so that if I forgot any bit of information he’d heard it too. Also I have no secrets from him. And we’re very open about sex.

    I would suggest – unfortunately – that you take a female friend on the day with you, if you don’t have a male or female intimate partner. It would just make things go smoother and be less stressful.

     

    So that’s it really. Hopefully this will help other young women in my situation get the treatment that they’re looking for.