Where only the beautiful dare tread.....

I actually thought this was a joke at first. According to a piece on the Mail Online, and on their own website, the people who brought you 'beautiful dating' are now offering a service for employers and employees on the basis of looks! The Mail explores it from the angle of which countries are getting the most rejections. The UK apparently rates highly in terms of number of rejections.

So, I decided to check out the site. It is a microsite off of the main Beautiful People site that focuses on recruitment for members of Beautiful People. This presumably means you must be a member of the Beautiful People site before you can be considered for the listings/access to recruiters.

Now before anyone labels me a miserable unattractive spinster-esque figure who is only complaining because;

• they are not attractive enough to be on the site
• they have been rejected by the site

Let me assure you that I have never, and nor would I ever, apply/submit my details to something as shallow as this. And, I simply don't care whether anyone finds me attractive or not. I am sure I am some people's cup of tea/beverage of choice just as I am sure there are others that would not find me physically attractive. Now that we have got that out of the way, we can get to the serious issues!
1. This is not the way to encourage business, nor is it the way to get the best candidates. The tagline for the recruitment site is 'An attractive face is always a great first impression for any business', source: Beautiful People.com Recuitment. Now I don't know what readers think but I think that is rubbish! The best first impression for me is and has always been related to manners and professionalism. I don't judge people on their looks, nor do I think someone might be better at their job because of the way they look.
2. How patronising a message, if you consider what is being said. The best way to succeed in business and do well in life is to look good. What kind of message is that for young people, particularly at a time of high unemployment? It amounts to little more than suggesting education, experience and competence mean nothing when competing with a 'looker'.
3. Whatever happened to beauty is in the eye of the beholder? This has the potential to open up complaints of discrimination on many different levels. I appreciate the note on the Beautiful People dating site, that can be found at the bottom of the page in section titled How beautifulpeople.com works that states they are not defining the notion of beauty. They are merely representing what society thinks is beautiful through the voting system. However, only those who are members can vote, and presumably those who are members think they are beautiful (or why else would they be there?!) and have a definition of beauty that probably looks similar to them. Therefore could it be reasoned that people who do not conform to this identikit version of accepted beauty are less likely to be accepted by the current members? It is interesting when you consider it like that rather than seeing it as a democratic vote-in.
4. Professionalism? I also think that I would not want to do business with a company if I knew this was how they recruited their staff. I really hope this site is a spoof or a short lived venture.
5. Body image: this is such a negative and shallow focus. The idea of the body beautiful and that there is one definition of body beautiful is such a bizarre notion. Sadly it is one that seems to be accepted by many. Take our clothes for example; always modelled on tall, thin and often angular women. Anyone who dares be slightly larger is termed a plus-sized model and seen perhaps as niche rather than the norm.
6. The sad trend: this idea of body beautiful as being all important in the workplace is disgusting. There was a piece several years ago that suggested that employers did not want to employ overweight people because they would be lazy. This was covered by the Mail online and was discussing the result of a poll of 200 bosses. This is a disgraceful attitude to take and shows once again that sadly people in society seem to place important on looks over competence.

It is about time we started to challenge that and fight back. Body image is not a tool or means to judge people, there are no excepted rules about beauty and physical image should not be the most important aspect about someone.

Just what is feminine?

Well? You hear the expressions 'that's not very ladylike', 'that's not suitable for a woman is it?' and the classic, 'that's not really very feminine now is it?'. The last one normally follows a woman swearing, at least in my experience (as someone who perhaps swears slightly more than is good for them!).

Putting the following into Google (www.google.co.uk), 'Define:feminine' throws up some fantastic and bizarre results. The definition search on Google is a great resource and the results here show why there seems to be such confusion

'Adjective: Having qualities or appearance traditionally associated with women, esp. delicacy and prettiness.
Noun: The female sex or gender.'

*The source for Google definitions is: Oxford American College Dictionary, as referenced here.

The first problem is that sex and gender are being used interchangeably here. The second problem is the fact that the adjective definition believes that there are qualities and physical elements that can be seen to be associated with women. What does that mean? The presence of breasts for example? This is obviously hugely flawed as there are women who for many often painful reasons have had to have mastectomies and may be waiting for re-constructive surgery or may have decided that they do not want to go down that route. There may be women who are in the process of transitioning and who have not yet had the breast augmentation operation, again they may not choose to. They are all still women, irrespective of some arbitrary physical feature. This notion of appearance is also flawed in the sense that it seems to suggest that women are one homogeneous group who all share the same qualities and physical attributes.

I also hate the notion of delicacy as being feminine and associated with women. As a Doc Marten wearing clumsy woman I in no way meet this aspect of the criteria. But, wait I have labelled myself a woman in my sentence! Finally, the notion of prettiness. What does this mean? The idea of prettiness is both cultural and subjective. What one person finds pretty or beautiful may repulse another. It also suggests that once again there is centrally held belief about what is pretty, which is possibly quite western-centric. If we stop and consider the majority of women who are chosen/selected/audition to model clothes they are normally very tall and slender. The use of such women to model clothes, make-up and lifestyles may suggest that they are the pretty ideal that is held by our society. I have blogged before about body image, young girls and the prevalence of eating disorders and I think it is this focus on pretty that should be seen to play a role.

So, If I were to conclude I would suggest that this notion of feminine seems to be culturally created and is conforming to a large number of stereotypes. The use of this word can then be used to criticise women who are deemed not to conform. If we contrast the definition of feminine with the definition of masculine (same dictionary source as before) we see the associated words are; 'virile, strength and aggressiveness'. The words associated with feminine suggest a level of passiveness and that there place is to look good on the arms of these strong hunters. A bizarre and outdated notion, so is time we scrap the word feminine as a means of labelling or criticising people or is time we reclaim it?

Women in power

I've blogged and tweeted about this before but an Observer report based on the report called Sex and power 2013: Who runs Britain? which was published by Counting Women in found that the number of women in high positions of power is falling. The suggestion was that over the last ten years the level of representation has reversed.

The problem with the lack of women and poor representation of women in roles such as:

• The police: as commissioners (14.6%), chief constables (13.7%) etc
• News and the Media: as national editors (5.0%) etc
• The Armed Forces: where there are no women in the highest three ranks
• Politics: Only 22% of the House of Commons is female*

Is that without an adequate female representation, women lack a voice. They lack a voice in the decision-making processes in this country, in the reporting of events and actions, in the upholding and responding to the law and in the shaping of the next generation. Last year there was an interesting piece in the Guardian about why women's representation was poor, it attempted to cover some of the possible reasons for this lack of representation.

Perhaps the biggest problem behind the lack of equal representation is the system itself. With women so poorly represented in many key fields such as politics, economics and policing their needs go largely unheard or voted out. Without the voice of half the population properly represented it becomes difficult to make the changes that would enable women to be involved or accepted in these positions. If women are not well represented who hears their needs, demands and desires? If these needs, demands and desires are not met, how are the women expected to take part in the political, social, economic systems of this country? The problem of the culture that sometimes can develop within industries that lack equality can be seen to play a part.

This week has seen a number of articles about sexist and inappropriate behaviour within politics. This can create an environment where women do not feel welcome or valued for their contributions, this in turn affects the numbers that will go into those fields and so on in the future. There is then the problem of the attitude from some who are already in 'the business'. Accusations of sexual harassment and the harassment itself are bad enough but when people then respond by reasoning that women need to 'toughen up' this does not help. Jo Philips, a former Lib Dem press secretary, was reported to have said this in response to the claims of sexual harassment that have been in the media this week. This response does not help, women should not have to 'toughen up' in the work place to succeed, they should be able to go to work and be free from harassment, sexual or otherwise. I would hope that no-one would respond to the victim of harassment by telling them to toughen up, so why should someone expect to have to do it at work? Sheila Gunn, John Major's former press secretary (from the same article) agreed with Philips and reasoned that women going into environments that are dominated by men should know what to expect. This view highlights two of the flaws that keep large numbers of women out of industries like politics:

• They are boys' clubs and women are not particularly welcome.
• That women should expect bad and unprofessional behaviour from men and have to deal with it, that this is part of the job.

I was going to say this is simply not true, however, a more appropriate response would be; this is simply not acceptable.

There is also then the problem of pay, as the Fawcett Society found that women are on average still paid 14.9% less than men, why would those within the current system want to change it? It may also lead us to wonder why women would want to go into jobs and endure the boys' club atmosphere when there is a strong possibility they may be paid less.


*All stats have come from the Observer report: here, also published in print on 24/02/2013.

Feminism and the surname

As a married feminist I often get asked why I changed my name. I also get asked whether feminists should or normally get married. The first thing I normally point out is that I am one feminist and can not speak for all feminists, as they are a hugely diverse group (we are not a hive mind!). The second thing is that for me marriage was about the relationship, and the legalities that go with marriage. To consider the issue of the surname, there were a number of options:

• Keep my surname, that no one could ever seem to spell correctly
• Keep my surname and my husband to share it, he was prepared to take my surname (still then have the spelling and pronunciation issue)
• Merge the surnames, now with our combination that would sound so bizarre and laughable!
• Take my husband's surname: easier to say and spell (perhaps what is 'expected')
• Create a whole new name

The last one is perhaps the most interesting and not something I had thought about at the time. If I were to marry again I think this is perhaps the most equal and fair route to take. Also the most interesting, and creates a truly blank canvas for your 'new' family. However, back to the other options, for me it did not matter whether I took my husband's name or kept my own as neither had come from women or from a free choice. My own surname came from my father, and from his father and his father and so on. For my husband it was the same. To marry again I think the equal (although not easiest - with regards to deed poll etc) option would be a new surname.

The rise of the 'Sugar Daddy'

I was vaguely aware of the notion (and seemingly rising phenomenon) of a sugar daddy. My understanding of a sugar daddy was a wealthy, older man who wanted to provide for a younger woman in return for companionship and possibly in some cases a sexual relationship. The website (that has irritated me this morning) Sugar Daddy describes it in a much more crude and blunt way. They suggest the following

"a sugardaddy is a man who engages in a relationship with a younger woman, where he is seen to be taking on economic benefits in return for the physical benefits a younger woman can provide"

This is such a shallow basis for any relationship and it saddens me to think that there are women out there who feel their only worth is their body or their looks. The website reasons that why would a woman want to work for her life when she can be spoiled by a man. Well there are several reasons why a woman might want to work/be financially independent and not relying on a 'sugar daddy'

• Financial independence is hugely important: it enables a woman to leave a relationship without feeling bound or trapped to the partner
• Financial independence also gives a woman equality within the relationship
• Engaging in a relationship such as this 'sugar daddy'-type relies on your looks being deemed attractive enough, as you age will you be replaced by the next younger model?
• Relying on a sugar daddy means appeasing them in return for money, this does not have to be sexual.

The next charming little section that I would like to consider is the 'How to find a Sugar Daddy' advice section. As you can perhaps expect the advice is often shallow. Although before going into that, there is one little snippet that I would like to focus on first. The last piece of advice relates to setting boundaries. I found this section worrying and questioned the possibility of some women ending up in situations beyond that which they would want. The section advises women that the men may be looking for sex, friendship or something totally different. They reason that there are lots of men looking to spoil beautiful women so you do not need to put up with anything uncomfortable. However, by the time a woman finds herself in an uncomfortable situation (potential here for any context/situation) it could be too late to back out easily.

Most of the advice takes the more obvious form of, if you want a rich man you have to look pretty like a Christmas bauble, there merely for decoration and enjoyment. Apparently to bag a man you need to look the part, this does not mean (they say) being as skinny as Kate Moss but you should spend time on your looks. They suggest a great perfume as men like this sort of thing. (I've always worn perfume because *I* like the smell of it). They argue that your clothing, hair, make-up and nails should be perfect, as you want to stand out *and* allegedly this will boost your confidence. I would reason that rather than boosting your confidence, a focus on having to look a certain way to please a man and working hard to maintain this look, will in fact leave many women self-conscious and unhappy. The brilliant Body Image Project encourages people to submit their stories about body image problems/stresses or upset that they have suffered. This project shows the impact that this notion of having to be perfect can have on self-esteem and body-confidence. I don't think encouraging women to look a certain way to attract a man helps this.

The next area of advice is about keeping this man once he has been attracted to you. Women are told to give him attention, listen to him, give him intellectual conversation, the site does mention some men may want sex, so that he wants to keep you around. There is no mention of any mutual respect for the woman, she seems to be expected to fawn over him, simply because he is wealthy. I appreciate I do seem to have missed one of the key 'selling-points' of the site in not getting this. Finally, the women are advised to spend time with their man on his terms. They suggest that he should be the sole focus for the women when out.

I really dislike these sites and this whole idea of sugar daddies because there is far too much focus on women having to conform to a fixed idea of beauty, total focus on only one partner in the relationship and the advice suggests an unequal relationship by solely focusing on his needs. I am sure people will criticise me and argue that these women are free to choose to be part of this. What I don't like is the fact that as a society we think it is ok, in the 21st century, to promote this type of relationship. The woman is not an equal in this, even if she believes that her beauty/body controls or enthrals the man, at the end of the day he controls the wallet and that gives power.

Lifestyle in the supermarket

I have tweeted about this before, as have numerous people that I follow, it really isn't anything new. When you walk into the supermarket next time check out the magazines.

Many magazine stands seem to have slipped through a timewarp and are stuck in the 1950s. My most recent trip to a large supermarket (this morning - and shall remain nameless) showed 'men's lifestyle' and 'women's lifestyle'.

Men's lifestyle contained:

• magazines with naked women, examples such as Loaded
• magazines about science, examples such as New Scientist
• magazines about political satire and current affairs, examples such as Private Eye

The women's lifestyle section contained:

• Baby magazines, no examples I'm afraid as in my outrage I didn't pay enough attention!
• House and home type maagzines
• Bridal and wedding magazines
• Cooking magazines
• Fashion and gossip magazines have a whole other section!

I'm not suggesting that women can not stray into the men's lifestyle section to buy a magazine, that is not the issue. There isn't a barrier checking to see if you are male or not before your hand is allowed to browse the shelf. It is the fact that hobbies and interests are being clearly divided along gender lines. In the 21st century is there really any need to split these magazines down gender lines? Is the human race that clear cut? Whilst I imagine that the target market for many baby and pregnancy magazines is the female market, that does not mean a husband, partner, brother, father etc might not want to know what is going on!

The other issue is that as a woman if you want to buy New Scientist or the Private Eye for example is that you have to stand amongst the magazines that have semi-naked women on the cover. You might not feel comfortable in standing in front of a large sign that says Men's Lifestyle and trying to glance between the breasts to find what you want!

So, to conclude what became a much longer rant than I expected, no-one is saying you can not buy from either section it might just be nice to remove the gendered lines. Not all women are interested in babies and good housekeeping, just as not all men want to buy magazines with semi-naked women. Magazines should be shelved simply along the lines of common interest: babies and housekeeping, cooking, sports, Science, the economy and politics and so on. Not such a huge ask is it?

Women in computer games

Women in computer games, that age old discussion. In fact there is so much it is hard to even know where to begin. Do we start with the lack of female programmers (despite female gamers being on the rise)? Do we start with the way in which women are portrayed in many games? Do we start with the way in which for many young women computers and computer programming is seen as a male activity?

Before I start with women in games I want to look at those within the industry. There is a brilliant piece from Dev8D, which is a developer event, that looked at sexism in gaming. It identifies many of the frustrations, barriers and attitudes that women come across both at school and in the workplace. It is well worth a read as a starting point.

From there perhaps it makes sense to think about the way women are portrayed in games. I'm sure anyone reading this has seen or played Tomb Raider. With the main character being female n.b people automatically jump on feminists who talk about women in games and say 'but you've got Lara Croft, what more do you want?' Well perhaps we would like a strong female character (which Lara is) who did not have to conform to 'jiggle physics'. The piece on wikipedia in the previous link explores some fantastic examples of where women have been hugely let down by the gaming industry. The following Wikipedia (trigger link) link mentions a game called 'RapeLay' and I would urge you not to click this link lightly as the content and game description is distressing, unsettling and unpleasant. It has since been banned in many countries and on-line stores removed links to buying it. The game centres around a character(s) with the only purpose, seeming to be to stalk/hurt and then rape young women. I have not linked to this lightly and questioned whether I should but I was horrified to come across this game having never heard of it. But, I felt that people should be aware that there are people producing/who have produced this violent and vile material. We need to look at how games like this were ever produced and then how we can stop this from happening again.

It is games and stories like this that only further serve to explain why women make up 12% of the game programmers, the Guardian piece explores different reasons for this as women now make up 49% of gamers. This article also highlights the controversial Feminist Whore skill that could be picked up in a game to make a female character stronger. When the errant piece of labelling in released code was noticed it was removed but this does not remove the fact that a programmer placed it there. Perhaps this helps explain why game programming is an environment where only 12% of women feel comfortable or able to work. We risk missing a huge skill set and alienating half the population if we do not look at redressing the balance.