Tag: sexism

  • 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

  • Male photographers and girl models

    “I am arranging a series of editorial/lifestyle shoots rather like a day in the life of a model. Wanting to shoot some boudoir lifestyle images and I want to know where you can buy storage boxes etc for keeping all your jewellery, necklaces, earings etc. Every female has them on their make up table or beside table. I am wanting to recreate the real effect of a girl’s boudoir as studios don’t have these on their sets. Just trying to make it as realistic as possible.”

    “I find it worrying that some people seem more interested in the girls, the gear and the settings and seem less interested in looking at a great picture and admiring it for what it is and trying to develop the skill to learn how to create that yourself.”

    “I never ever ask a girl to go past the agreed levels.”

    I find it worrying that lots and lots of male photographers refer to female models as girls.

    I’m a stickler for using the correct words for things. Why use twenty words when you can use one? And yes, sometimes I make mistakes and get things wrong, but I do try to get it right.

    So in the spirit of discovery and exploration, lets determine what the word girl actually means.

    When you define:girl in Google, you get this:

    noun: girl; plural noun: girls
    1. 1.
      a female child.
      “girls go through puberty earlier than boys”
      • a person’s daughter.
        “he was devoted to his little girl”
    2. 2.
      a young or relatively young woman.
      “I haven’t got the time to meet girls”
      • a young woman of a specified kind or having a specified job.
        “a career girl”
      • informal
        women who mix socially.
        “I look forward to having a night with the girls”
      • a person’s girlfriend.
        “his girl eloped with an accountant”
      • dated
        a female servant.

    So the first definition that Google offers us is that of ‘a female child’. Well, I can understand that some photographers do photograph female children, I have done so myself in the past. The law defines a child as being under the age of 18 in the UK, just so that we’re clear on what we’re talking about. The law also forbids making indecent images of children, and the quotes above generally come from people who are more interested in the ‘indecent’ side of photography than the pure and decent alternative. (NB – I don’t believe there’s anything wrong with indecent images. Only yesterday was I shooting dirty sex pictures of a hot guy.) In short, there’s everything wrong with most amateur photographers talking about photographing ‘girls’ in a sexually appealing way.

    The second definition gets a little bit more tricky. It defines ‘girl’ in the more colloquial sense of being a young woman. This is where it gets more tricky. I still object to older male photographers referring to the models that they photograph as ‘girls’. Here is why.

    Neatly and succinctly Google has laid out the reasons why this is problematic to me.

    • informal
      women who mix socially.
      “I look forward to having a night with the girls”
    • a person’s girlfriend.
      “his girl eloped with an accountant”
    • dated
      a female servant.

    First up we have the informal usage of ‘women who mix socially’.We’ve all heard women say ‘I’m going out with the girls’. Well, some women. Not all of us will say that to be honest but that’s a minor point.

    When a woman calls her friends ‘her girls’, it’s a bit when people from a certain subculture use the N word. Or when my gay friends call each others fags. It’s a word that – even without many people realising – has been reclaimed for this kind of use. If you’re a member of another demographic, I’m not quite sure that you have the authority to use those words in those contexts. It’s a bit like women who have recently reclaimed the words slut and cunt – except ‘girl’ was reclaimed in a much more organic process that wasn’t overtly associated with feminist ideologies.

    The two bullet points that follow are examples of how ‘girl’ is generally used (and intended) when it falls out of the mouth of almost everyone else. ‘His girl’ – quite a dated phrase nowadays, I think we tend to think of 1950s Americans when we think of this way of speaking. However it’s a pervasive attitude within society, that a girl belongs to a man. Without doing large amounts of research I’d speculate that it comes out of a time when underage girls were married to older men and treated like property – so the phrase ‘his girl’ would have been accurate at a certain time and place. That usage has followed through and in the photographic community we have photographers extending that subconscious meaning and referring to models as ‘their models’.

    The second bullet point makes the point that female servants have always historically been referred to as ‘girls’. Male photographers hiring female models? Servants? All a bit too close to the bone if you ask me. There’s no denying the fact that lots of amateur male photographers do hire young, female models as a kind of weird sexual fantasy thing which makes the context of the word ‘girl’ when you know it’s historical precedence of a name for a servant rather creepy.

    You see the problem is that language has baggage. Sometimes it’s good baggage – associating gay guys with a happy and carefree lifestyle isn’t necessarily a negative thing. But using the term ‘girl’ for a grown woman (even if she is ‘young’) comes with it’s fair share of negative baggage that perhaps we need to be a bit more careful about using.


     

    I have no doubt that most male photographers don’t have this kind of intention at the forefront of their mind when they’re referring to young female models as girls. Lots of guys would be utterly horrified to think that they were involved in a turn of language that has it’s roots in the systematic oppression of women. However lets look at the culture surrounding the people that make these statements.

    I’m talking about quite a specific community of photographers here. In a tongue in cheek way I’m going to write the hashtag #NotAllPhotographers, but I’ve written about this particular community before, when I discussed on this blog how not all naked chicks are art.

    They’re a self-referential group of photographers. They look insularly to their own kind of inspiration and seem to be immune to inspiration from the world outside. With that attitude comes the fact that they also seem to be immune to getting with the times and understanding the implications of their actions.

    The work that they create is unanimously said (by the members of this community) to glorify women. To celebrate women. To show the beauty of women (NB – interestingly you do actually get some gay photographers who photograph men in this objectifying way). It’s all supposedly about elevating women onto this pedestal and showing them as a beautiful object.

    Oh fuck, there’s that word – object.

    Objectifying people is problematic.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • #ShirtStorm

    #ShirtStorm

    A disproportionately high number of my friends work in the STEM subjects. I also have a disproportionately high number of friends who are feminists. My social circle at the moment feels a bit like this. But with WAY MORE OVERLAP (I can’t draw Venn Diagrams). Also – all my friends are awesome. I couldn’t really write “ALL THE FUCKING AMAZING AWESOME RIGHT NOW” in the middle bit without looking a bit childish. #ShirtStorm happened this week.

    Screen Shot 2014-11-19 at 13.27.27

    So my Facebook feed has been full of #ShirtStorm for the past few days. For those of you that don’t know what happened, some awesome chap landed a spaceship on a comet – which was very cool. Except he wore a shirt that lots of people found frustrating for various reasons. Then the cesspit of the internet got upset with these people for finding it frustrating. And spawned memes. And of course the whole thing reinforced Lewis’ Law – The comments on any article about feminism justify feminism.

    Lets just take a look at the shirt that he was wearing before we go any further.

    matttaylor_shirt.jpg.CROP.original-original

    As well as wearing this particular shirt to the press conference announcing the landing, when asked about the difficulty of the Rosetta Mission, Matt Taylor replied with “She’s sexy, but I never said she was easy.”


    “She’s sexy, but I never said she was easy.”

    I’d like to address this before we get onto #ShirtStorm. Because I think it’s important for context. I’m going to let this twitter user start for me:

    https://twitter.com/Arlnee/status/535056180981141504

    https://twitter.com/Arlnee/status/535056380000874496

    https://twitter.com/Arlnee/status/535056511773323264

    https://twitter.com/Arlnee/status/535056667386208256

    https://twitter.com/Arlnee/status/535058094460399617

    You see, there is a background of institutionalised sexism within the STEM fields.[1] The background radiation of sexism (the tweets above are a great example) means that – like it or not – the STEM fields can be a hostile place for women. And it’s not just women who work in the STEM fields either, it’s also young women who are at school and are considering perhaps going to university with a view to working in them and people like myself who are considering moving into them from their current work.

    Casually sexist tropes like this all create the general feeling of women being ‘the other’ and that is not helpful to promote an industry that is diverse. And if there’s one thing that we’ve learnt over the years it’s that industries with good diversity do better. Making 50% of the population feel excluded from an industry doesn’t help anybody. Except maybe those who aren’t very good and got their jobs as part of the old boys network – but I digress. Or possibly those straight, white guys who realised that they’re playing life on the lowest difficulty setting available.

    You see, this is a common theme for me. I worked in logistics and I like things like cars, planes, boats… you get the idea. In all those hobbies the machines are always referred to as ‘she’. Some days when indulging in my hobbies I feel a little bit like Angeline Jolie in Gone in 60 Seconds. In case you don’t know, all the cars they have to steal are given female codenames so that they can say talk about them over the radio using euphemisms for sex while plotting to nick them and avoiding the police.

    gone-in-60-seconds-car-names-list

    Except this is real life, not a film. And we have to put up with everything being given female names, being referred to as a female gendered object, using crass language to talk about objects as women… Sheesh. Why the fuck do we put up with this shit in our hobbies? I remember once when I was a teenager when someone asked me what my bass guitar was called. I told the guy that my electric bass was called James. He said it couldn’t possibly be called James because guitars had female names, because you caress them, play them, finger them and make them sing. ARGH!

    This attitude of treating objects of women is just one of those little subtle signals that shows (usually without intention) that this is a male dominated sphere. Cars, boats, bikes, guitars, spaceships… you never see objects being referred to as male… do you? Of course you don’t. Because there’s a powerful link of ownership when you use these words. You’re reinforcing the idea that women are objects to be obtained and owned. It’s not very pleasant.

    Altogether comments like this create an atmosphere that’s dismissive to women. And then there’s the shirt…


    a5a

    #ShirtStorm

    First off, lets check what we mean by the word ‘offend’.[2]

    1. Cause to feel upset, annoyed, or resentful
    2. Be displeasing or cause problems to

    Yeah, so I’m offended by this shirt. And I’m a feminist. So I guess that means that his shirt did offend feminists. Or at least some feminists. I’m upset, annoyed, resentful and I feel it’s caused problems. More than anything though, I’m really fucking frustrated. I’ll take a look at ‘why’ in a sec.

    A friend of mine wrote this on his Facebook recently. He’s a senior teacher at a mixed gender secondary school.

    Right. There is an issue with encouraging girls into science. There is a reported issue of institutionalised sexism in science professions . These are big issues that need fixing for us to have a decent society.

    Landing a satellite on a comet is fucking awesome and should be used to encourage/inspire people into science.

    Was awesome scientist any less awesome at science because he fucked up and wore the wrong shirt. No.. Still an awesome scientist.

    Does the fact that (until it hit social media) noone saw this as a problem, highlight the endemic problem in the profession. Yes. Only would have taken one person to say.. dude, do you think that shirt’s appropriate…Put on a work one before you’re interviewed.

    People need to stop confusing the two. This is an awesome achievement and the team of scientists were ace scientists.
    There is an issue in the profession that we should deal with this. Internally or externally.

    I want to show this to 16 year old girls and say science and maths is great… You should consider this for a profession.
    I do have an issue doing this due to his dress sense.

    It’s still an awesome achievement though

    Too many people are Missing The Fucking Point. No one (I promise you) is deriding this guys achievements in the world of science. I can’t think of anyone who thinks that landing a spaceship on a comet is anything less than absolutely fucking incredible. I mean the guy is brilliant and his achievement is something that should be celebrated.

    Now, many people will know that I’m a reluctant participant in geek culture. I move in circles of geek culture and have lots of geek friends. I photograph geek culture, I write about geek culture, and I build databases for fun. (For the love of fucking God, I build databases for fun. Someone save me from myself.) I’m even dating a couple of geeks. Geek is my life. Well, not exclusively my life. Actually, it’s pretty much my life.

    Within geek culture there is undoubtedly a higher proportion of people who for various reasons are not quite as socially trained or aware as the majority of the rest of the population. If they are drawn to geek culture, if they are a product of geek culture or if they – in part – caused geek culture is debatable, but either way geek culture does act as a certain kind of safe haven for people who lack some social awareness. I’d like to argue that in some cases it actively attracts people without social awareness too, but that’s really for another blog post. Social awareness of gender issues in geek culture is also something that I’m studying at university, so I write from that point of view to an extent.

    Like the the points made above, this shirt conveys a message of ‘this is a male environment, women are welcome if they look sexy or shut up’. This issue of pornographic images at work (because yes, these are sexually titivating images and I’m going to label them pornographic) is one that many British feminists in particular are familiar with due to the No More Page 3 campaign. They wrote a good article on their site about how porngraphic images at work constitute sexual harassment. It’s actually against the law to force people to view this kind of sexual imagery.

    The Equality Act 2010 says that the following constitutes harassment in the workplace:

    When unwanted conduct related to sex has the purpose or effect of violating an individual’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for that individual.

    Wearing a shirt with highly sexualised images of ‘perfect’ women in skimpy fetishistic outfits who are brandishing guns while in the workplace is something that adds to an intimidating, degrading, humiliating and offensive environment for many women. It is not acceptable in the vast majority of workplaces. Indeed in the UK, I would be confident to complain about this to an employer and take it to a tribunal if required. (For the record I understand that a female friend made it for him. It’s irrelevant. It’s also irrelevant that some women are not offended by it. Again it’s saying that women are valuable in this environment for their sexuality rather than their brains.)

    How can you show a video of this press conference to a 15 year old GCSE student and tell her with a straight face that if she goes into science that her body will be valued more than her brain when one of the leading space scientists in the world is wearing a shirt covered in flawless pneumatic tits? What kind of a message does this give her, let alone the guys female colleagues.

    I don’t think that Matt Taylor was malicious. I don’t believe he’s misogynistic. I believe that he’s a misguided geek who aimed for ‘cool’ but landed on ‘unprofessional’. Recently in the news there was an article about how the education secratary believes that STEM subjects are far more important than arts subjects, but to me this is a perfect example of why both paths work together in harmony. This guy can launch a rocket and put it on a comet, but he doesn’t have the first clue about behaving in a way that doesn’t intimidate a large portion of the world. This is why we need social sciences, arts and humanities. It brings the humane side to the science


    8e2

    ShitStorm

    And then of course there’s the shitstorm that happened. Like I said right at the start – the comments on any article on feminism justify feminism. So many people are complaining at feminists and their allies for ‘making a fuss’ about the shirt and suggesting that their fuss is overshadowing the achievements of the team of scientists that landed a probe on a comet (including women scientists, I should add).

    One of the things that really gets my goat is people saying things like ‘feminists should pick their battles’ or ‘there are more important issues in the world to worry about than a little sexism’.

    Because quite frankly…
    1. This is actually quite a big battle in the grand scheme of things that will actually eventually change lives for the better.
    2. I’m more than capable of worrying about more than one issue at once. Being a feminist doesn’t prevent me from caring about issues like the environment or whatever the latest hot-topic cause is.
    3. Sexism is something that affects more than 50% of the population. It affects almost all women and an awful lot of men. That’s a bit bigger than ‘a little’. I’d say it’s one of the most important issues in the world today, actually.

    But the problem with the people who complain about the feminist response is that they’re perpetuating the message: women are welcome in Science, as long as they shut up and don’t cause a fuss about the institutionally sexist barriers that they might face. And that male scientists should be given a free rein to do what they want, even if it upsets female colleagues and commenters, or prevents just one young woman from choosing science as her career.

    There was more I was going to write, but I’ve been writing this on and off all day. And now I’m tired. And female scientists have had death threads for saying that they’re not happy with the image that this guy presented to the world. *le sigh*.

    References

    1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STEM_fields
    2. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/offend
  • #NotAllPhotographers and Prison Rape

    #NotAllPhotographers and Prison Rape

    So Sean Peacock / Shaun Colclough has been convicted of Sexual Assault and banned from ever taking a picture of a female model again without someone accompanying who knows of his convictions.

    A quick summary of the background. In 1996, aged 22, he raped an 84 year old woman. During his sex offenders rehabilitation he was taught photography and discovered he was pretty good at it. He was very good at it actually, I certainly admired his work when I was starting. He began to intimidate models with sexual discussion, exposing himself to them and assaulting them. The actual details are elsewhere on the web, it’s kind of beside the point for this blog. The judge argued that his behaviour was an escalation because he had gone from a drunken rape to systematically planning to sexually assault these female models. Right on sister, etc.

    I have nothing but the deepest respect for those women who have gone through the process of being a witness at court, leading to his conviction. Truly, that must have been a terrible experience. It can be hard for models to be taken seriously in instances like this because you know, they’re getting almost naked for strangers. It’s a bit like ‘She was wearing a short skirt m’lud’.

    But that’s not what I want to discuss here. I want to discuss the community reaction.


    Violence. That was the initial reaction.

    I keep my eye on lots of the amateur photography websites due to my job (hey, I write about photography professionally, in case you didn’t know). Even the websites I’ve been banned from for upsetting the managerial staff, I still keep an eye on those for what’s happening in the community. So when I saw last night that Roswell Ivory had posted about the conviction of Peacock / Colclough I had to stay up late for an extra couple of hours to keep an eye on the reaction.

    Violence and rape. The first responses I saw. Some lovely photographers actually wrote down that they hoped he went to prison and got raped by other men. Male on male rape is a serious crime and if you know anyone who’d ever been affected by it then you’ll know that it’s one of the hardest things in the world to deal with. Why would we wish someone to be raped in return for committing any crime? That’s a horrific thing to say.

    Screen Shot 2014-07-30 at 07.36.38
    From PurplePort.com. Hilarious.

    (Highlighting not my own – I just scrubbed out the usernames and avatars.)

    These photographers are potentially a danger to any model that they work with. Why? Because they consider violence and rape to be a casual, trivial thing. Let’s hope that a model never upsets them and they decide that they deserve to be raped for their misdemeanour, because clearly they believe it’s a worthy punishment for some crimes. Which crimes do they think it’s a worthy punishment for? Who knows.

    Discussing prison rape isn’t funny. Male on male rape isn’t funny. You know who else believes that rape is a suitable punishment for comes committed? Illegal kangaroo courts in rural India. Then even in this country there’s the violent drug dealers who think that rape is a suitable punishment.

    So when these photographers joke about how they hope Peacock / Colclough gets raped in prison as a punishment for sexually assaulting female models, they’re associating their views with these people. I’m sure that they’re the first people to say that they didn’t mean in in that way, but honestly, is there really a good way to say that someone should be raped? Is there ever a time that saying someone should be raped is funny? Is male on male rape funny while male on female rape is serious? Are the men that made these comments a bunch of fucking homophobic bell ends? (The answer is yes, btw. They probably are.)

    Male on male rape victims are considered weak and unmanly, which is why it’s considered a fitting punishment for criminals. Well, you know what? Male rape victims are anything but weak and unmanly and it’s about time we just stopped perpetuating this disgusting myth. Men get raped by other men. It’s every bit as awful as a woman getting raped. And we’d never say that a woman was weak for being raped, so why do we make that insinuation about men?

    I was going to rant more. But it was about to get personal. Read this instead. Especially the bit about unfortunate consequences.


    #NotAllPhotographers

    Then there’s the reaction of it being good to have that guy locked up because real photographers don’t do those things.

    Screen Shot 2014-07-30 at 07.52.09
    From an early blog post about Peacock / Colclough.

    I’ve seen several instances across the web this morning, but this one seemed to sum it up best. Also some of the others I’ve seen have been on private Facebook pages and I’m not quite comfortable sharing those on my blog. Although this one was public:

    From Facebook.
    From Facebook.

    Well, sorry guys. Peacock / Colclough was a real photographer. A bloody good one at that. Let’s face it, he took better pictures than most amateurs (and many professionals) could manage. This term ‘real photographer’. I’ve seen it bandied about in the past. It seems to be used by guys who want to give naive young models a false sense of security about working with them. Me? A cynic? No, you’ve got the wrong person there.

    And it’s not a shame he called himself a photographer. He was a bloody excellent photographer. What else should he have called himself? A man who owns a camera and take pictures of people?

    618px-Whiteknight

    It’s dangerous to start labelling people in these terms. If there is one thing for certain though, it’s often the people who use the term ‘real photographers’ that aren’t actually very good. So what makes a real photographer if it isn’t about taking good picture? To be honest, I have no idea, and I don’t really care. I’m sure I don’t fall into their definition of a ‘real’ photographer because I’m not politely taking pictures of T&A, but there you go.

    So this… #NotAllPhotographers thing. Of course, I’ve not seen that term used but there are parallels to be drawn with the whole #NotAllMen thing that happened earlier this year.

    Saying that not all photographers act this way is a slightly weird and extraordinarily infuriating defence. We know that not all photographers act this way. Those of us who work towards attempting to eradicate this sort of behaviour from our beloved industry and hobby aren’t stupid. Cases like this don’t need a devil’s advocate. They don’t need someone saying ‘he wasn’t a real photographer, real photographers don’t do this’. At worst it redirects the discussion away from the topic at hand and back to the fact that most photographers are well behaved. We don’t need to talk about how great lots of photographers are, we need to talk about how fucking awful a minority of them are.

    People who complain about these guys not being ‘real photographers’ aren’t engaging with the subject at hand. They’re derailing the discussion and doing a bit of white-knighting in the process. Yes, they were real photographers. Lets not ignore the fact that they were photographers.

    These people are not predators who own a camera, they are predators who are also photographers. Sometimes they do use photography to get what they want, but guess what, they’re still photographers. Removing these people from the community by basically saying ‘they’re not one of us’ is a problem. It means that we can’t deal with them. We can’t come up with strategies to root them out and figure out how to attempt to prevent this kind of thing happening in the future.

    At it’s very worst, if these guys aren’t photographers… then why are young women going to their houses/studios and taking their clothes off for them? If these guys aren’t photographers, then the models that are assaulted by them are just strippers and suddenly you’ve made it a whole lot worse for the models to do something about it. Because if you think that the authorities don’t take models seriously, then strippers and escorts have a whole extra layer of difficulty.

  • Female participation in e-sports

    Female participation in e-sports

    I want to talk about the recent decision that the IeSF made to remove the ‘male only’ qualifier from their ‘world championship’ type tournaments. And hey look, I’m going to be good and I’m not even going to discuss the fact I’m faced with Jaina’s great big sexy almost-bare tits every time I log on to play my Mage in Hearthstone! Although on an unrelated note, I just tweeted this:

    https://twitter.com/Charlotte_Moss/statuses/485740905270611968

    Anyway, back to the topic at hand.

    Apparently some guys have got pissy that there is still a female-only competition, while there is no longer a male-only competition. Basically it’s unisex for the big prize and a secondary female tournament without quite as much status. Women can compete either with the men on equal terms or with just their own gender.

    I’ve said before that I find much positive discrimination uncomfortable, I don’t agree with it being the best way to sort out that whole inconvenient patriarchy thing. However sometimes you just have to make a temporary exception – where temporary is at least a few years.

    The IeSF aren’t holding a separate female tournament because they’re misandrist, no matter what a load of these whingy geeks might think. I was going to quote some of the bile from the comments of the article I linked above, but to be honest I think you get the idea. Generally it sounds like ‘waaa waaa waaaaaaa, I don’t want to be forced to play with girls’. Or they’re playing the ‘reverse sexism’ line, and saying that it’s sexist towards men to exclude them from the female-only tournament.

    Here’s why it’s not sexist.

    The IeSF aren’t doing this because female gamers are in a minority. In fact, a massive 48% of gamers are female. Didn’t expect that, huh? There’s lots of people saying that female gamers are in the minority and they’re simply not. However female gamers are underrepresented in the ‘top tier’ of gaming – even down to the leading raid groups on my warcraft server which appear to be male dominated.

    I’ll say now, I’m a Warcraft player. I love raiding with my Paladin. I love doing pickup raids from OpenRaid, but the raids with voice communication are out of the question to me. Why? Because there’s always the chance that you’re going to get a group of guys who feel that women shouldn’t be there. Unfortunately this isn’t an unusual occurrence, it happens more often than not.

    The comments range from sexist comments (usually something clever about getting back in the kitchen) to something that basically amounts of sexual harassment (the guys seem to enjoy telling you about how they’re rubbing their massive cock over the thought of you). All this happens in front of everyone else in the room and no one ever stops it. Homophobic comments are common place too (“Why did you wipe us? You fucking gay fag…”).

    So by having a tournament that only women can enter it encourages a safe place for women. Hopefully this will also encourage women-safe places to play too. Perhaps women’s only guilds. Or even guilds that women run, where men have to be vetted in. But this is all just a short term (and slightly uncomfortable) solution.

    The longer term solution is to educate male gamers that sexist (and homophobic) abuse is wrong and that even if they’re not the ones doing the abusing, everyone has to speak out when they hear it to get it to stop. But that’s the longer term solution in wider society and we’re not doing so well there either. But in the short term we need to get more women comfortable playing in this kind of environment, and creating their own spaces where they have the confidence to speak up to abuse.

    At the same time the women-only tournament will create role-models for other female gamers. Someone to look up to and to aspire to be like. And eventually the standard of female gaming will raise because women are allowed an environment that is both safe and also full of great role-models.

    Then, and not before then, we can start to encourage more cross-over. To migrate the women over to the mainstream tournament. This has to be a multi-sided attack and it has to be done in conjunction with stamping out sexism and homophobia in gaming. And guys, you need to be a part of this as much as the women. We need you on our side, not whinging about the fact that women get their own tournament.

  • Positive discrimination in photos

    Positive discrimination in photos

    OR: IS IT REALLY ANY OF MY BUSINESS?

    So I have this problem. I don’t believe in positive discrimination.

    I don’t think that positively discriminating in most situations is the correct way to promote tolerance, understanding and ultimately equality. In feminism in particular I do not believe that the way to force equality to happen is by doing things like setting quotas for the number of employees, for example. It just breeds resentment and prevents the best people from getting the job, if the best person happens to be male. This is a little besides the point, but I’d like to set out my stall as to where I’m coming from. I don’t believe that positive discrimination is a good thing. If I got a job due to positive discrimination, for example, I’d never feel comfortable in my role and I’d feel pretty uncomfortable as a person.

    Dove-Real-Beauty-CampaignHere’s a great example of an utterly bizarre form of positive discrimination by Dove as part of their Real Beauty campaign. The campaign said that ‘all’ women are beautiful. And yet the campaign only shows a certain type of woman in their underwear. Yes, they seem to have hit the ‘racial discrimination’ quota, but ALL of the women appear to be something around a size 12, with a tummy and a decent pair of norks. None of the women appear to be underweight, overweight, muscular, disabled or transgender. In addition they all have shoulder length hair and perfect teeth. Did you notice that?

    As someone who is short, on the muscular side, size 6-8 with a bald head and bad teeth, I’m starting to feel pretty worthless about now. Because ALL women can be beautiful, as long as they fit what Dove tells us is beautiful.

    That’s the problem with positive discrimination, you start to leave people out. You can talk about how we should be completely egalitarian, inclusive and diverse, but where do you stop when you’re fundamentally talking about creating an image with only so many pixels to use?


    I come from a weird place with my photography, a place where standards of beauty and what’s ‘right’ gets twisted. In a previous iteration I was a full time fashion photographer, working in studios with some of the top commercial models in the country. This picture below, the girl at the far end in the white jeans? That was my stylist. And I’m standing next to her in the grey leggings. I can pick out at least five or six models from this line up who we regularly had in the studio.

    Hollister and Gilly Hicks pre-opening promotional event 4In fact this guy below, we regularly had him in the studio. (He was such a sweetie.)

    4360351805_aeba370978_bSo why am I posting these picture of hot guys? Because I want you to understand where I come from with my photography. This was my world, until I gave it up. Judging people against impossibly high standards of beauty was what I did. I’m not saying this was nice, or that looking back I particularly enjoyed it, but it’s part of what shaped me and my photography and it’s where I come from.

    What is it that they say? You cannot change your past but you can change your future.


    However.

    Recently I became aware of something interesting. When I meet a person socially I don’t make judgements against them. I don’t think in my head ‘this person is black’ or ‘this person can’t walk properly’ or ‘this person is overweight’.

     I’m going to stop here for a moment and say something. My interest is in feminist academia. I campaign and write about other -isms when they intersect with feminism. I have limited knowledge in this field so I’m probably going to express myself wrongly here. I also have lots of friends who call themselves by nicknames related to their skin colour, sexuality or disabilities and so sometimes I genuinely have not realised that a word was ‘wrong’ to use, because my friends use it to describe themselves. In fact I think the word disability is probably wrong, but I don’t know the right word to use. So mea culpa – I beg forgiveness before I start.

    If you asked me how many black friends I had, I’d struggle to know. Same with gay friends or disabled friends. I just have friends and to be honest their backgrounds, ethnicities, sexualities or not-quite-working-right-bits are all as interesting to me as any other friend. Each person has their own story to tell, which they tell on it’s merits rather than because they are a certain type of minority.

    I just see people as people. I’m not particularly interested in their gender, ethnicity or health status (that might be because I’m a misanthrope and not that interested in people in general an awful lot of the time – at least I’m honest). But apparently most people don’t think this way. Apparently most people do notice these things right off the bat. And apparently most people judge.

    Well lets be honest, I know most people judge, as someone who generally presents as female I experience this all the time. And because I have experienced this judgement in my life, I try not to apply that to other people.


    I’ve got to the point in the blog post where I realise I’m wandering off track and I say ‘where am I going with this?’

    So where am I going with this.

    I suppose what I’m trying to talk about is the fact that when you take a photograph as a creative exercise rather than a purely documentary work, you’re making aesthetic decisions. In fact I’d go one step further in that in pure documentary photography you’re also making aesthetic decisions – it’s just that they might be governed by a slightly different set of ideals.

    Creative photography is almost exclusively about aesthetics. Ultimately you select images on if you think they look good to your eye or that they tell the story that you, as a photographer, are trying to tell. Every photographer has different things that they look for in a creative image and indeed those things can change from client to client and job to job.

    So LRP photography for me is governed by a particular set of creative ideas. Now, it would be presumptuous to talk about the motivations of photographers who aren’t me and I know that my photography comrades from Empire – Ollie and Tom – both have wildly different ideas about what makes a great LRP photograph both to myself and to each other. But I think that’s what makes us a good team, you know? Because we’re actively looking for different things in our work and therefore you get three very different takes on the same subject.

    So I will admit that what I do, considering my background in photography and my journey so far, is that I judge people on the way that they look when I’m including them in my photographs. HOWEVER. And this is a massive HOWEVER. I do not judge someone based on how ‘beautiful’ society thinks they are, their ethnicity, their sexuality, their gender status or their bodies ability to function.

    What I judge someone on when I photograph them either as a model or at a LRP event is how appropriate they look in the settings. So for example when it comes to LRP I particularly love the look of the old, weathered Marches who look like they’ve seen dozens of harvests on their farms. Sure, I’m judging them as beautiful, but beautiful relative to the situation and the setting. I hope he’ll forgive me for saying I think he looks weathered, but this is one of my favourite shots so far from Empire:

    _MG_4656web

    Why is it a favourite shot? Because the whole thing just comes together. A senior member of a Marches family fighting to defend the Empire in worn, old costume that looks like it’s seen a hundred fights – it’s perfect!

    So when I say I’m judging based on aesthetics, this is what I mean. I’m not judging on what society believes is attractive, I’m judging based on what I believe looks good in a particular setting.

    And yeah, it’s what I believe looks good. Because I’m the one behind the camera. And because I’m the one putting in extensive amounts of work to make this happen, so that I can produce a portfolio that I adore looking at.


    You see, I do photography to make me happy. I don’t do photography to make other people happy. Of course it is always flattering to find out that people love my photographs or that they’ve given people self confidence or that they just enjoy having them as a record of a place that they have been, but fundamentally I take photographs because I love taking photographs. In fact I quit my job working in fashion because taking photographs for other people was no longer fun.

    Working with Matt and PD on events was an interesting challenge to me. It was a chance to attempt to make photography fun for me again, because I hadn’t picked up my camera in almost a year. I felt I had skills that I had learnt in the commercial world that I could apply to PD and I also though it was a great opportunity to use it almost like a sandbox for trying out new techniques and approaches. In that way it’s worked extraordinarily well, I think. Certainly from my end I’ve had loads of opportunities to try out new processing methods, new looks, new retouching techniques, all sorts of things.

    But something that’s really important to remember about all the crew at a LRP event, is that they’re doing it for fun and they’re doing it because they enjoy it. If it starts to stop being fun then they’re under absolutely no obligation to continue doing it. I suspect at some point in my future LRP photography will stop being fun, however if that’s six weeks away or two decades away – who knows. An awful of my ‘fun’ that is generated at events comes from the people I surround myself rather than the actual taking of photographs. I have wonderful friends and I enjoy the fact that my photography hobby allows me to spend time with them in this way.


     

    So there’s a point in here somewhere. I suspect as usual it will happen at around the 2000 word mark.

    There have been mutterings recently that perhaps the ‘official’ photographer for a LRP event should be held to certain standards of inclusivity and diversity and I’d like to give my thoughts on this topic pertaining to my own photography. Before we go any further together I want to say that I am not an official mouthpiece for any publications or organisations that I am associated with. ‘Official’ statements will always be given out through official channels. This blog is not an official channel.

    I’m not interested in knowing where strangers are from, their backgrounds, their gender status, their visible disabilities or any invisible illnesses that they might have.

    I’m interested in those things in my friends. And actually, I’m a nosy bitch and I am interested in those things in strangers. (Once again mea culpa – I take after my grandmother who was so nosey she once fell backwards off a chair in a bar in Mexico because she was leaning so far back to hear the conversation of two strangers behind her. She might have had gin.) But I feel it’s not my place to know those things about strangers, because I wouldn’t be happy with random strangers who happen to own a camera knowing such personal things about me.

    But say I was happy to try and implement a ruling about hitting quotas of images to use in my portfolio, the advertising for the system and the wiki. The first problem is that I have no clue how many people on the field are a minority of some kind. So we’d have to make them fill out a survey or something which is invasive and is never going to be considered a good thing. I remember when I was studying with the Open University and they sent out a survey asking our ethnicities, sexualities and disabilities so that they could ensure that they were meeting government set targets – absolute outrage ensued. People don’t like being asked this when they perceive it’s not for a good reason. So that’s the first hurdle.

    Then there is of course the issue of matching those surveys to people on the field. Unless you’re in my close social group at events, I don’t know your name. You might have messaged me on Facebook but I still almost certainly won’t know what you look like. It’s unlikely I will have put name and picture together, unless you’re using one of my pictures as your Facebook avatar. And even then, I still am unlikely to remember who you are when you come up and talk to me in a field. I just seem to have been born lacking this skill of recognition. Of course what I’m not going to do is before I photograph someone check who they are and then check against my database. When it comes up ‘white, cis, British, middle-class male with no illness or disabilities’ should I not photograph him? Should I actively leave him out of my photographs even though he’s doing something that looks amazingly cool? If you start visually marking people with what minority they are, you’re getting into very uncomfortable areas with anti-Semitic providence. Which can never be a good thing.

    But this does bring up a very serious problem when you’re talking about diversity and equality in pictures. In a photograph you simply don’t know if someone is disabled, for example, unless they’re displaying disabled markers to the camera. So you can photograph someone in a wheelchair and say ‘I have photographed a person who looks disabled in my photograph’ (even though they might not actually be disabled, but just sitting in a wheelchair for some reason) but how do you know you’ve photographed someone with debilitating depression?

    And then to take that further with the transgender thing, should I be looking at people and saying ‘that man looks like a woman who is dressing as a man, I must photograph them’? Because actually for personal reasons, I’m not ok with that. I’m not ok with photographing people because of the fact that they were born in the wrong gender. Sure, I try to make sure that ‘women’ and ‘men’ are represented approximately equally in my photographs, but I don’t want to make judgement calls on if I think that woman used to be a man. Because actually, that’s really fucking out of order and unkind.

    By extension, what do I do if I realise that I have not captured enough of one particular minority during an event? We get to a point a bit like what the NHS do when they find that a hospital isn’t quite meeting waiting times for A&E – they create a separate emergency ward so that they can ‘admit’ people and therefore remove the problem from A&E. Do I spend a few hours chasing down that one Chinese woman who attended to ensure that I photograph her? I’m sure she’d feel great that I was hassling her purely because she has Chinese parents. What a compliment! The same with disabled people. Should I chase down the guy with ME just because he has ME and I’ve got to up my inclusion rate for invisible illnesses? I’m sure he’d be thrilled.

    This might all seem very extreme but honestly when you start to think about it, it’s really not. If you set quotas or targets then you have to meet quotas and targets otherwise they’re just worthless and you might as well not have bothered in the first place. Making policies for the sake of making policies is a waste of everyones time. And actually in the relentless pursual of an inclusive and diverse policy when it comes to taking photographs, quite frankly you’re going to deeply offend far more people than you make happy. Suddenly I would become the villain – again.


    So positive discrimination in photographs at a LRP event. Well, to be honest, I just don’t think I can go there for the reasons explained above. It’s not my job to offensively try to work out who I should take a photograph of and who I have taken too many of. I just want to take cool pictures of cool people doing cool things. And I just want to shoot to make myself happy.

    And I want to leave you with something that a friend just said to me during a conversation:

    I always like the thought that no one knows what your problems are from a picture. Its a place to hide and be ‘normal’ .

    My beautiful friend has severe M.E. And she doesn’t want to be singled out because of that in photographs.

  • Sex and LRP. LRP and Sex. And some gender stuff.

    I make no secret of the fact that my chosen subject academically is gender studies. Yes, I’m doing it from a history of art and photography point of view, but gender studies is at the core of what I’m interested in. It’s taken me a long time to get to this place, it was only at about 27 or so that I realised this was what I was interested in. That’s because I had to make my own way there through the storm of teenage years and then painful twenty-somethings (that, FYI, feel like you’re pushing a rock up a hill with no end in sight).

    I got here through a convoluted exploration of what it means to be a woman in our society. And occasionally what it means to be a man. I’m pretty liberated on the whole in my approach to life, or rather I like to consider myself flexible. I live a solo-polyamorous lifestyle with a touch of relationship anarchy. I relate to different people in different ways and something that also means sex comes into the fray. I’d also like to add that I think I’m pretty liberated and open-minded in this respect too. Certainly, sex isn’t a taboo in my world, nor are different relationship styles, sexuality, power balances, and all the rest of it. In case it isn’t a taboo in your world too, try to be open to experiencing new things and learning what are pheromones and other ways to spice up your sex life.

    But to be quite honest, I’m so over sex. When it comes to LRP anyway.

    I admit, I’ve only been immersing myself in LRP for a year now. Seven events in total, all of them run by PD. Five Empires and two Odysseys. I’m not going to comment on Odyssey, I know nothing about the gameplay mechanics. What I do know about it is that it’s an adult themed game that deals with adult topics and actually, they seem to be written pretty fucking well in a non-giggly kind of way. But Empire, well, it seems different.

    The first half of 2013 seemed to deal a fair bit with making some people understand that this was a setting where gender or sex wasn’t a barrier to doing things. I don’t know what other systems are like, but from the way some people apparently behaved I can only extrapolate that in other systems it’s ok to stop women being generals, and men don’t do the cooking in camp. Or, with a nod to my beloved Warcraft, ‘healer girlfriends FTW’!

    This sucks. You know why this sucks? Because this is far too much like REAL LIFE.I know there are some people who I will have lost at this point, so this is the basic explanation: You know how if you’re a guy and you go to a fantasy LRP it’s cool because you get to be someone else? You know, if you’re normally a stockbroker who wears a suit to work every day and is oppressed by their boss you get to instead be an AWESOME GENERAL who goes round smiting foes? That’s fun, right? Well you know what’s NOT fun? Playing the same role that you play in every day life. I mean, would you go to a fantasy LRP and play a stockbroker who wears a suit and is oppressed by their bosses? No? Well then, I guess that most women don’t want to go to a fantasy LRP and play their every day role either. So just do me a favour, don’t stop a woman in her goal of doing something cool at an event just because you think that women shouldn’t do XYZ. Maybe she wants a break too.

    enhanced-buzz-17527-1373571837-5

    Anyway. That’s not entirely what I wanted to talk about, except for the fact I’m trying to point out that gender or sex is rarely relevant at Empire.

    So you know what blows my mind? The amount of women who want to be prostitutes at LRP. I mean, I get that everyone has a right to play their fantasy game the way that they want to play it. That’s totally cool. And I know that ‘the real world’ is not supposed to have a bearing on LRP’s like Empire and the way it’s played, but the reality is that is does, because you can’t just lose your cultural experiences when you step the other side of a hedge.

    Now, apparently there are male prostitutes in LRP too so it’s all ok and not horribly sexist. However, I find this a little… well… unpalateable. From what I can gather, there aren’t many male prostitutes in LRP. And by all accounts, they’re generally frequented by male characters too. Which means that we have basically just forced an outside world structure of patriarchal oppression into the game. It’s not so much that women are mostly the sellers of sex here, it’s the fact that male characters are pretty much the buyers. I don’t agree that being a seller of sex means that you hold the position of power in the transaction. You can offer to sell your body all day long, but if no one is buying, then you have nothing. Whereas having primarily male characters purchasing another persons body – that gives them all the power in the equation.

    I also understand there is some argument about female empowerment and taking back a role that in the real world is primarily the preserve of male pimps. I can kind of see that, but it still doesn’t sit right. How about we just abolish the idea that sex can be used for power? Because like it or not, the power is pretty much always with the one doing the stabbing. There’s a reason that a metaphor for the penis is the sword, and it’s not because of it’s shape or length (sorry guys…). The penis is the ultimate tool of patriarchal power. Even if you ignore all the other subtle reasons, it can still get you pregnant and put you out of action. Being a female prostitute is a dangerous profession where, on the whole, you’re at the whim of a bigger, stronger person who could take advantage of the situation at a moments notice. There’s nothing empowering, to me, about that situation.

    But guys, it’s ok! Because everyone knows that people are buying back rubs or a cup of tea and not actually sex. I have a problem with that too. Firstly it’s because it’s a naming thing. I’m a sucker for trying to use the right word. You’re not a prostitute or a brothel if you’re not selling sex. What really disturbs me though is that apparently some characters play the role of a prostitute because they want to actually give beauty treatments or massages in the game! I mean, I don’t understand this at all! Is there so much shame in setting up an in game ‘health spa’? Why is it more acceptable to say that you run a brothel rather than a spa? What kind of a fucked up world is that where selling sex is more acceptable than selling a skill?

    On hearing that back rubs are used as a phys-rep for sex in LRP I got a bit worried. I’m quite an intimate person with my close friends. I like to touch, cuddle and yes, even give a back rub every now and again. But that worries me. If a back rub is a phys-rep for sex, there’s far too much of a risk that it could be taken the other way too. By offering someone a back-rub, is that code for offering someone in the game-world sex? I don’t like that at all. I’m quite socially awkward and I would hate to offer one in kindness and have it taken the wrong way. That’s really uncomfortable and brings us back to what I was saying about how it’s really shit being held accountable to real-world crap in the game-world. Surely we LRP to get away from the reality of things like sexism and inappropriate sexual harassment – not unwittingly find ourselves back in the middle of it?

    I think what bothers me most is that we’re trying to shoehorn patriarchal structures into a world that doesn’t make allowances for them. This concerns me. It concerns me that it was written into the game as an *active choice* by the designers. That arguments were made for prostitution being a crime within the empire. Unfortunately this isn’t a satisfactory response either, because it acknowledges that there are *real world* problems with prostitution that can be transferred into the game world. This is one of those occasions where I kind of with people would just leave the subject alone. I admit it could be done *really* well by a player who was super intelligent and able to apply quite highly abstract concepts of gender and sexuality into the game, but unfortunately, I’m not sure that the tales I’ve told reflect that.

    And there are others who tell me that it’s just the way it’s always been and that I should, you know, shut up. Or go back to the kitchen. Or something. And I can’t just shut up and let it be the way it’s always been, because if everyone did that then women at LRP wouldn’t be able to be generals and stuff.

    tumblr_inline_n0jq8593m61qhq9qt

    I don’t know. I’m pretty blasé about sex. If you want to do it, then do it. If you don’t, then don’t. And that’s about as close as I want to get to it. But you know what? As a liberated person who has more than her fair share of liberated relationships with liberated sex, I just don’t really see the need to push it as part of a game world. That includes playing characters like prostitutes or seeing sex-plot out on the field or having immature character (both PC or NPC) backgrounds that fulfil some weird sexist stereotypes in the real world. We don’t need that shit in the game world as far as I can tell.

    For a while the other day, when discussing sex cropping up in LRP in various guises, I felt extraordinarily prudish. I was the one thinking ‘is this really necessary?’ Because in my world, sex just happens. It’s not ‘a thing’ that needs to be focussed on. Actually to focus on it makes me a little uncomfortable because it’s just so normalised in my world. And I get the impression that perhaps the people pushing for sex to be a part of the setting are maybe a little naive when it comes to talking about sex. There’s this slight vibe of teenage boy comedy movies like American Pie or whatever other shit Hollywood has come out with recently.

    It’s not that I don’t want to talk about it, it’s just that I feel perhaps it’s being given too much weight. Plus at Empire, there’s no nation where sex is A BIG THING. Lots of romance, yes, and presumably lovely sex happens as part of those romances. But in the same way that my friends don’t tell me about their sex lives, the characters don’t talk about theirs. It’s not that they’re ignoring it because we’re prudes, but rather just because it’s so everyday that actually it’s pretty bloody boring.

    And that’s just it. Sex is boring. Well, you know what I mean. Not while it’s actually happening, you hope. But whenever I see some puerile, teenage, sex-comedy film I just role my eyes and get irritated with all the rife sexism, immaturity and general lack of worldliness of the writers and characters. It seems, unfortunately, that LRP is no different.

    To me, there’s just a whole world of more interesting stories to write about. But perhaps that’s my fault for being a bit more on the liberal side of things.

    2yo7n6g

  • Sexism again

    So today I was accused of being a bit of a hypocrite. A new online magazine has been launched by someone on a forum I use with the content of ‘cars and girls’. Fair play, launching an online magazine and finding content for it can’t be the easiest thing in the world and must take up a fair amount of time. I have to admit I doubt I’d ever attempt a project like this because my design skills are simply not up to it.

    The thing is, I object to this format. Cars and girls. Girls and cars. Apparently picked because the two ‘subjects’ go together. The way I see it though it’s just more encouragement for certain types of men to think about women in a material possession kind of way. By associating something which is a highly prized material possession (modified cars in this context) and showing naked chicks alongside on many of the pages it creates a link between the two. You’re saying to the impressionable “Hey you, buy this amazing car and you’ll get this chick as well”. It’s reducing a woman to a possession to be owned in the same way as a car and that isn’t a nice way to be thought of.

    The justification for accusing me of being a hypocrite is that I shoot naked men and portray them as sexual objects. Well quite frankly I try to avoid portraying them as sexual objects and would be quite upset if any model thought that this is the way that I had portrayed them. But I wouldn’t ever make a connection between one of the guys that I’ve shot and a material possession. Because guys aren’t just a possession to have. They’re beautiful, if mysterious, creatures that I need in my life. I’d like to think I show them a little more respect than comparing them to a piece of metal that goes at speed.

    Another aspect to this of course is the issue of how women are presented with their own gender. I’m not the only woman in the world into cars and motor sports. In fact there are quite a few female racing drivers out there now and personally I’ve known as many girls over the years with heavily modified cars as I have guys. I find it frustrating when I’m supposed to just accept naked glamour shots of women alongside my hobby. It’s as if it’s ok for men to be titillated along side their hobbies but women are told that that’s just the way it is because men are a bigger market. Well I’m sorry, but I think that’s rubbish. Perhaps if these magazines featured more of a gender balance (in the case of photography) or just no sexual images at all (in the case of cars) then more women would read their publications?

    Fundamentally I don’t understand though with certain car magazines and websites why we need to have sexually stimulating images of women in them anyway. It seems like a macho pissing contest. He with the biggest car will get the girl with the biggest breasts or something. Don’t get me started on the scantily dressed women at race tracks – people keep asking why there are no top female racing drivers? Perhaps the answer is that we as a gender are put off by the whole sexist approach to the low level car and motor sport industry.