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.

Women and children: part 2

I know the blog post I just wrote said whatever women did with regards to having children they were open to criticism. And I know that I am now going to look like a massive hypocrite but this is not about judging women for having children, it is about judging the obligation and pressure that these particular women are put under, whether they realise it or not. I am talking about a recent piece about the Quiverfull movement, as described in a recent BBC magazine piece. It was an interesting piece that talked in particular about the spreading of the movement to the UK. For those who are not familiar, the focus is on having a 'quiver full', which translates to having as many children as you can, coming from psalms.

My criticisms stem from reading this piece about one of the influential writers/speakers within the movement; Nancy Campbell who is behind the Above Rubies ministry. Campbell argues that modern women seem to have forgotten their biological function, to have children. That having children is the highest achievement a woman can have. This is the bit I hate. It demeans women with children and belittles those who can not have children. It also seems to seek to sweep aside all the incredible achievements that women have worked and fought for in the last 120 years. The article is well written and interesting, it is promoting a documentary called 'The womb as a weapon'. Before I comment further I feel I need to better understand this movement, but my immediate reaction to the article is that this movement seems to seek to reduce women to a biological function and purpose. It undermines the work of women outside of their uterus and the achievements that women have made.

When to have children?

The alternative and much longer title should read, "Women, whatever you do you are doing it wrong. Too old, too young, going out to work, staying at home?"

Blog post has been inspired by a series of discussions and articles today about a survey which suggests that the majority of women in Britain think that 40+ is too old to have a child. The Daily Mail article highlights the findings of a survey that was apparently managed by YouGov on behalf of First Response (early pregnancy tests). The survey suggests that 70% of British women over the age of 55 (source: Daily Mail) think that women should not be having children over the age of 40 as this is too old. There does not seem to be any mention of the optimum age for men to be having children.

My first thought was that whatever women do with regards to having children they will be criticised by someone somewhere. I have blogged before about people choosing not to have children and the pity and vitriol that this seems to inspire from people who barely know those who they choose to insult. If women choose to get educated and then work their way up the career ladder that will inevitably affect the age at which they have children. There seems to be derision and much of the negative and rude commentary that surrounds this choice focuses on the following ideas, that;

• these women will be 'left on the shelf'
• these women are somehow going against the expected biological 'norm'
• these women are fair for criticism

If a woman chooses to have children younger, perhaps before or instead of university education or before embarking on what they may describe as a 'career-path' then they are equally criticised for being too young and not having seen enough of the world. Pity is often given that these women will miss out on; partying, travelling and education. There is also the assumption that if they are young, then they must need state support. It does not seem to matter what a woman does, she will be criticised for her choices. I have never noticed or heard these same points made about male friends or family members with regards to their choices about having or not having children.

Anyway enough of my rambling. The point of this post was about the new website that First Response are launching, called Get Britain Fertile. There is not a lot on the site at the moment, but I presume when the tour launches it will be populated with information. I understand the promotion of good health and exercise (even if I'm not a fan of the exercise!) but I think there is more to fertility than eat your greens. I think the Daily Mail piece, in choosing to focus on age, is also too simplistic. Women are not stupid, we know that fertility declines as we age. But, fertility is also not as simplistic or linear as this. Some women will be fertile at 40 and others will not be fertile at 20. To tell a woman, and her partner, that the approach to conception involves eating well and exercising is patronising at best. Any woman or man who has been anyway or where through fertility treatment, whether that is dipping a toe in or having to go further, will be aware of the limitless amount of 'advice' that people will offer. 'Have you tried...' becomes a catch all phrase from any allegedly well meaning friend, colleague or family member.

By all means it is no bad thing to encourage people to think about their health and fertility. But unless the NHS is prepared to offer full MOTs for couples wanting to conceive, at the start of their journey, it is perhaps a little meaningless. It is also no bad thing to think about the diminishing nature of fertility for both men and women as we age, but don't patronise people. Most importantly, whatever choices women make about their bodies, lives and children, don't judge them. They haven't asked for your opinion and I'm sure they're not interested! As an addition, I really hate the 'mocked' up image of Get Britain Fertile's ambassador Kate Garraway as a heavily pregnant woman who is clearly way over 40. The image looks as if she is closer to 70, I get it is designed to shock, but actually it is just confirming the patronising nature of this.

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 Politics: Part 2

The all female shortlist

The all female shortlist is something that is sometimes criticised for giving women an 'unfair' advantage. I don't think it is giving an advantage in a negative sense, I think it is helping to redress the balance and beginning to get more women into politics, if it also makes the fact that few women make their way into cabinet and government a focus then that is also not a bad thing. If it forces people to discuss the poor representation that women have, with a view to trying to change it, then that is also a positive step. The Guardian highlights today that Labour have decided to use all women shortlists for 52 parliamentary candidates. This is because the party found that men dominated the list for new candidates in target seats for the 2015 election, when the lists had been open to both genders. The open lists have seen 17 men selected from 18 contests. This suggests that women only lists are needed to ensure that those who have the power to select the next candidates for constituencies are ensuring there is equal representation. This has led to 22 women only shortlists being drawn up for target areas for the next election, which has resulted in 23 female candidates being selected so far. However, this is from a total of 40 seat contests, meaning when the lists have been open to men and women only one was won by a female candidate. The paper raises an interesting question about the lack of women selected when the list was open, they ask whether this is because the 'stronger' female candidates found themselves on female only shortlists to ensure they were selected. Or whether the 1 in 18 when the lists were open was a backlash in response to knowing their were women only lists elsewhere, and so they felt they did not 'need' to select a woman.

A spokesman for Labour is quoted in the paper as saying that this is the only way to ensure female candidates. This begins to feel quite patronising. I blogged at the start of March about women in power and discussed the often sexist 'boys' club' environment that seemed to have been created in politics. I think this is perhaps more influential in keeping women out of politics and needing to rely on women only lists. If women do not feel confident about their ability then they may not feel confident enough to put themselves forward. Women are just as capable as men, in every aspect of life. However, the use of women only shortlists ensure that women at least begin to get some representation and way in to what can be seen as a male dominated female-unfriendly environment.

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.

Childfree or childless?

For women in today's society the words woman and mother seem to be used by some as interchangeable. If for some reasons you are a woman but not a mother as you get older you begin to feel marginalised. As a little anecdote I remember picking up a free magazine in a large supermarket last year titled 'the women's issue'. Expecting it to be full of stories and information for women I took it home. Upon opening it I realised it was all about mothers and children. It was frustrating (particularly at the time for me as someone going through fertility treatment) that the words woman and mother were treated as identical.

The expectation and stereotype, as peddled by fairy tales, Hollywood and the like, is that girl will meet boy, girl will fall in love boy, they will marry and then along will come a number of chubby cheeked children. Life will be complete as they sit on the veranda 60 years later reminiscing about their life. For many in society this story is simply something that will not happen nor do they want it to happen. As we move closer to finally allowing equal marriage the story will need to change to reflect this, no longer should Disney films simply be about boy loves girl, who marry, a family and live happily ever-after. The story should also reflect the number of marriages and relationships in which children do not feature.

For some this can be through choice and there are a large number of websites dedicated to singles, couples etc who choose not to have children. Tips on how to deal with the patronising 'advice' or comments that get shared with couples if they have been together a long time without children. In some communities and on some websites it is nicknamed 'childfree bingo' (a piece in the Daily Mail illustrates this quite well) in which the aim is to note all of the various arguments put forward by relatives and friends. Some range from flattery 'you would both be great parents, think about how much you have to give' to the downright rude 'children will give your life purpose'. Why does my life lack purpose? What does the notion of children give you purpose mean? I also get frustrated by the arguments concerning money. I have been told countless times that if I don't have children who will pay my pension? I pay my pension now, I watch it leave my paypacket every month. If the government choose to spend it now and not put it away for me I can't stop that! Whether I have children or not I will still be entitled to a pension. I also get told that those with children are funding medical care, again I pay my National Insurance. I also have paid a considerable amount for my medical treatment in trying to have children. I have had to jump through enormous hoops to attain treatment for infertility. This is the only medical condition I have had where I have found my age, weight and relationship status have ever played a role in my treatment. I am patronised in my healthcare options, I don't need it in my social life as well.

For those who can not have children and yet desperately want them, these types of comment are perhaps even more hurtful. When I wasn't sure if I wanted children I found them annoying and patronising. Now I am struggling to have children I find them hurtful and they make me angry. I want to shout at relatives, themselves with a number of children that they are ignoring as they make these comments, that I can do nothing about this, I have a medical problem. Sometimes I wonder about telling them about the painful, embarrassing and at times horrible treatment I have had in trying to have children but I imagine they would find this uncomfortable. Those who do know that we have been trying for a while are also prone to the ignorant comments, 'advice' such as relax, take a holiday, try this odd and expensive potion. I (more often than not my husband) restrain myself from shouting at them that this is a medical condition that will not be cured by 'chilling out' I need medical treatment.

I can not imagine ever walking up to a couple and asking them about their sex life and when they last had unprotected sex and if not why not. So why does it seem acceptable to ask those of us without children, for whatever reason, why we do not have them? I have found over the last couple of years that I have had to become more defensive about my lack of children status. The words childfree and childless are such loaded terms, some people prefer childfree to suggest choice and power in this decision whereas others choose childless. I think this should be up to the individuals to decide which if at all they wish to use.