Who needs Lads Mags?

So modesty covers and potentially restricting sales to the over 18s, have been in the press this week, with Tesco seeming to be at the front of this move. But this isn't good enough as Lose the Lads Mags campaign group point out.

A 'modesty cover' to conceal the nudity and breasts/sexual poses doesn't remove or stop this content from being made or existing. By covering the women up it does not really afford them any modesty, as soon as the covers are removed the women have been stripped of their modesty and in my opinion their dignity. Once the modesty cover has been removed the women are degraded to simply being pieces of meat for the stimulation of the buyer. By suggesting modesty covers the supermarkets seem to acknowledge that the content is inappropriate or not respectful. So why not do it properly? Why not ban the sale of these magazines?

I know there is far worse material online, and I know that those in favour of the ISP level porn opt-in will support blocking this, although perhaps without fully understanding or considering the power, restrictions and flaws that such a plan includes. I would like to make it clear I object to porn in all its forms, but I don't think this 'porn filter' as it has been termed will work. I also think the potential for blocking other material is too great a fear to ignore. However, this is not the blog post for such a debate. But, supermarkets need to properly consider their female and younger shoppers. I don't want to visit a supermarket that is selling lads mags, but I have little choice at the moment. I don't want to shop somewhere where crude and degrading images of women are sold, even if they are sealed in a paper/plastic bag. I'm sure parents of young children don't want to have answer awkward or inappropriate questions about the material shown on and in these magazines. Tweets from my followers and others indicate that this is a real problem and concern for many parents when shopping.

I also think that it is unfair on the shop workers to have to stack, handle and scan these items. For some it might cause embarrassment, for others it might distress or frustrate them. A fair question, that has been raised by many, is that is it discrimination against women to stock these sort of magazine? As it depicts women as sex objects. I don't know whether this is an argument that would hold in a court of law, but it is an interesting point.

Finally, the 'over 18' argument. At 18 you are legally an adult, but why as an adult is it suddenly ok to consume images of scantily clad women? At 18 is it suddenly ok to disrespect the opposite sex? No. So being an adult doesn't make it any better at all. It just seems another half-hearted attempt to show that you are bringing in some means of controlling who sees and buys the images. Without actually thinking about the impact of the images, because if you did then the logical step is to ban the magazines altogether. Anyway, as I mentioned earlier, Lose the Lads Mags is a fantastic campaign. See how you can get involved and make a difference towards creating a more equal and respectful society. Good luck!

Sexism in adverts?

I'm thinking of a particular advert when I'm grumbling today. I'm thinking of the new Diet Coke advert, I'm sure you know the one. It starts with a group of young women, who spy an attractive man and decide to roll a can towards him as he mows the grass. They motion to him to open the can. Due to the rolling action as he opens it it sprays all over him and he takes his top off. The women seem happy.

Now I know there are countless adverts using scantily clad women, or stereotypes or sex to sell products. I object to those as well. But, the reason I object to this Diet Coke advert is because I think it portrays women as vacant airheads who are only interested in the physical appearance of someone. I also don't think the majority of women would behave like this, and the advert seems silly. I also fear that when feminist groups rightly identify adverts that are sexist, stereotypical or derogatory about women then adverts like this one will be chucked back at them.

Here's a thought adland how about some smart or even funny adverts that don't feel the need to belittle either gender, stereotype or degrade anyone? In my opinion there is probably more sexism directed towards women, but we should not ignore sexism against men either. Instead we should be looking for true equality and removing this objectification and silliness. Anyway, only a short post about this for now as I want to gather a bank of examples (or a bank of poor examples) from adverts. So, longer post will follow!

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.

The Apprentice (and women)

The Apprentice, in particular the UK series, regularly pulls in millions of viewers and is popular prime-time viewing. For anyone who hasn't seen it, the format is simple:

• Between 14 and 16 candidates are normally involved.
• Their bios at the beginning of the series, and included as snippets during the episodes, showcase these individuals as often allegedly the 'best business brains' in Britain
• The candidates are then split into teams for business tasks, for the first few episodes they are normally split along gender lines
• The business tasks are designed to test different aspects of the business world, albeit in a very artificial environment.*
• The team that is deemed to or does lose each week is up for firing.
• Each team has a project manager and the losing manager selects two candidates to go into the boardroom for the potential firing.
• Finally, the winner gets a job or investment from Lord Sugar

Anyway....back to the point in hand. My frustration about the nature of tasks and the arrogance of some of the candidates is a little irrelevant really. My annoyance is the way that the women are often shown, spoken to and described on this show. Broadly I would break my annoyance down into: women who are strong and capable being portrayed as bossy and aggressive, men speaking down to the women, casual sexism and the contrast between the way men and women are described.

There are some notable examples; two famous and notable examples were Ruth Badger and Claire Young. Both women were very successful on the show, they had been successful in business before the show and continue to be successful after the show. However, they were often described as aggressive women during the tasks, when the same or similar behaviour in business was praised as decisive when talking about the men taking part in tasks. Strong women are often given the label of aggressive, and it is difficult one to shake.

Sexist attitudes are not confined to the 'grown-up' version of the apprentice. This year there were some absolute gems from the Young Apprentice, by absolute gems I of course mean bizarre sexist rubbish. The first episode sees the project manager of the boy's team label the fashion task as quite feminine. Now, not being the most fashionable of individuals I am prepared to be corrected, but I thought there were an awful lot of very famous and very talented male fashion designers. This is not even the worst or most annoying bit from the episode, but it shows how ingrained the notion of 'male' and 'female' jobs are. In the cab at the start of the task one of the candidates, David, declares that the men will win because 'they are the better sex'. This is then laughed about by the other male candidates in the cab. I tweeted about this at the time as I found his attitude and arrogance bizarre and dated. It is the fact that this was deemed a sensible thing to say on national TV about your fellow competitors, that you would win based solely upon your gender. Even if it was a joke, and I doubt it as it was preceded by the argument that even though cooking is feminine 'everyone knows men make the best chefs', it isn't funny or needed in the 21st century.It is that this language and belief system has become such a casual part of our society that no-one seems to really react.

What I intend to do, and any help is gratefully appreciated(!), is to properly document all the instances of dated or sexist language in the apprentice. I think that when we change the arena in which women are expected to work then we will start to see better moves towards equality. A Daily Mail article says that research blames women for the pay gap, this is because they allegedly do not ask for pay rises. Whereas other research suggests that women fear being seen as aggressive and pushy if they ask for a rise, a label that will only serve to hold them back in the future. We see women stuck in a vicious cycle, ask for a pay rise and they risk being seen as pushy, don't do it and they risk being seen as too cautious and not driven enough. TV shows like the Apprentice can help the portrayal of women in industry, they can remove the stereotypes and challenge them. However, at the moment I think it is falling short. I'd like to end this post with a link to some of the criticism that star of the show Lord Sugar has received for some of his comments about employing women of child-bearing age.**

*I have often reasoned that the business tasks/environment is very artificial because of the quick timings and lack of acknowledgement for the specific skills that would be needed to be successful in certain tasks. For example in Series 7 episode 2: Mobile Phone Application the candidates were required to design an App and launch it by the next day. An artificial task, that ignores the work required to design (properly), code and test an app for launching.

**These obnoxious comments are ignoring the basic fact that not all women of child-bearing age can have or wish to have children.

Women as portrayed by TV

This is just a briefish post (I promise!) because I want to add a couple of longer posts that focus on specific TV shows in the near future. I find myself watching a lot of random TV shows on DVD and on the iplayer etc (none of them live I might add!). Increasingly I have noticed some frustrating cliches and stereotypes that are not only boring and tired but offensive.

I'd like to start with a show that I had enjoyed as a child: Jonathan Creek. As a child I remember watching it and enjoying the puzzle solving, always a small competition between me and my dad as to who could solve it first (frustratingly for him I normally won!). Re-watching it as an adult I was disappointed to see the often sexist bit-part portrayal of so many of the female characters. Take the first episode for example: The Wrestler's Tomb, not wishing to spoil it for anyone it starts with an artist who has made his living painting nudes. Now there is nothing wrong with painting the female form, however, the comment was made that he was then sleeping with or had slept with a large number of his models. The women are characterised as falling madly for him and being almost in awe. It is assumed that the wife must have killed him out of jealousy, this is focused upon for a considerable part of the episode.

However, this is one episode and is perhaps not the worst of the show. One of the main recurring characters, Adam Klaus, the TV magician. He seems to permanently have scantily-clad women draped over his performances or he is portrayed as lusting after women. The women he lusts after seem to be portrayed as mere objects, in one episode he is pursuing a porn-star and is disappointed when her implant 'bursts', complaining that he has been cheated. Now I know that this is only *fiction*, but it is the fact that the writers felt this was an acceptable way to portray women and that it was necessary for the plot and episode. When actually the show would be fine with simply solving mysteries, murders and the rest. The fact that it seems almost automatic to have the female characters as 'entertainment' or the side-kick is frustrating.

Then there is the sheer number of shows devoted to beauty and conforming to an ideal. One particularly annoying example is 'Snog, Marry, Avoid?' in which women (and occasionally men) are rated by the public based solely upon their looks, they are then given a make-under. There are several flaws with this concept:

• Beauty in a person is something that can be judged, measured and rated
• Beauty is merely your appearance
• To be truly happy you should want to be desired by others, including people who you don't even know
• You should want to be married

Again, perhaps I am missing the point or being too *serious* here, but shows like this annoy me. They annoy me because they ask members of the public to judge someone based simply upon their looks; no consideration of achievements or personality and then they tell the individual that they need to change in order to be liked and desired. That is the first thing that annoys me about shows like this. The second is that there seems to be this goal of marriage presented for these entrants. You, yes you, want to be desired and married to someone who does not know you and is judging you solely on a photo shown by a TV crew with an agenda.
I also think it is dangerous for younger viewers to have this type of imagery and ideal presented as entertainment. An interesting piece by the National Association of Social Workers, based in Washington, looks at the role of body image for adolescent girls; considering the role of culture and media upon their self-image and esteem. So whilst these TV shows might be marketed as light entertainment they should be viewed as part of the cultural landscape that these young people are growing up in and trying to navigate.

I was going to look at The Apprentice and the contrasting way that women and men in business are often seen, described and portrayed. However, that is an entire blog post in itself. So I will finish with one more irritating example of casual sexism in TV fiction: Bad Education: Episode 4 School Trip: the bus driver amongst other misogynist little 'gems' reasons that he will never use sat-nav as he will not be told what to do by a woman. Again, I realise that this is *fiction* but it has been included for an attempt at comedy. It perpetuates the view that women are bossy and always moaning at these put upon men. Somewhere a writer decided that this an amusing little line for another show aimed at young people (BBC), it feeds into the society that sees women as a source of humour rather than part of the humour.

I appreciate that people might find this a little ranty or moany but I can't see a reason why TV can't be well written, respectful and still funny! We don't need to make cheap gags at the expense of a section of society. When adolescents grow up seeing women (in particular) as objects to assess based upon their beauty and as a source of amusement then is it any wonder that we still have street harassment and inequality? When our TV better reflects the world we should live in perhaps this will change.

The Olympics

The Guardian published an interesting piece about claims of sexism in the upcoming Olympics. It can be found here and concerns the travel arrangements of teams to London.

It focuses on the fact that men were to travel in business class whereas the women's teams were to travel in economy. In the case of the Japanese women's football team, they highlighted the fact that they were the seniors, in more than just age. The response was that the allocations were made based upon the fact that the male team had 'professional' status. Australia was also highlighted in this article as they flew their basketball teams in different classes. Here however, there was an attempt to provide detail and evidence that could explain the decision to treat professional athletes differently. It was to be based upon.......height.

The Guardian piece points out that one female member of the basketball team was 6ft8 (spokeswoman had said the average height for the women was 183cm and for men 200.2cm) or 203cm. Whereas several men who were mentioned in the article fall below the average height for male basketball players and are nearer to the average height quoted for female players.

There was also a challenge at the High Court regarding women's canoeing, as this is not included at the Games. Locog responded by pointing out that it was not a government body but a private body. However, Wikipedia in listing the role of the IOC shows in point 12 that sports should be encouraged and developed for all. This seems fairly self-explanatory.

I am sure that the upcoming Olympics will be a fantastic celebration of the incredible power and strength of the human body, but it is a shame that in the run up there are these issues that in 2012 should not exist.

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.