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!
Tuesday, 6 August 2013
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!
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!
Saturday, 20 July 2013
When a positive isn't really a positive
When is a positive not really a positive? Sounds like the start of a bad riddle. Alas, this is not the case. I am referring to HIV testing and the fact that 2 and a 1/2 months ago I had routine booking in bloods taken at the hospital. Having no tattoos, never taken drugs, no blood transfusions, no donated organs, not in a job at risk of needle-stick and my husband is a regular blood donor (and so HIV negative) the HIV part of the booking in bloods didn't even cross my mind. When two weeks later I received a phone message telling me not to worry but there had been a problem with one of my bloods and it needed re-doing I simply assumed a vial had been lost or contaminated.
Nothing could have prepared me for the phone call telling me I had tested positive for HIV. I had to get it repeated three times because I simply could not take it in. My head was spinning, I was told I had to come in for further blood tests to confirm and check my levels. At no point was it being raised that perhaps the test was flawed. The first (and perhaps stupidest thing) I did was rush to search online. I wanted to know everything about HIV and the tests themself. So I also dug out my booking in bloods booklet to see what they said. The booklet which can be downloaded here talks about the tests. On the first page it mentions that tests will need to be repeated to 'check the results' and then on the 3rd page it begins to talk about HIV. It does not mention the risk of false positives or even seem to acknowledge that they exist. This is what has angered me the most as I went through hell, and I am sure I am not alone in this, whilst I waited for the results of my next round of tests. A hell that I was put through unnecessarily because:
At the follow up appointment I went fully prepared with what must have seemed like a million questions. The midwife was wonderful and did understand my anger and upset, as well as fear and I can not fault her for her professionalism and care. However, I had to have the ELISA repeated, I asked why the confirmatory Western Blot was not being used as this is what I had read online was the standard method to confirm a result. As the Western Blot separates out the sample and looks for three specific aspects of HIV rather than simply looking for antibodies. I had lost faith in the ELISA test as I knew I did not have HIV but feared that the test would once again falsely say I did. I also had to have a viral load taken to confirm my levels of the virus.
A viral load is simply that, there is no positive or negative. It looks for the amount of the virus in your blood. You can not get a negative you can simply get a 'load undetected' which a lab will not accept as being negative but will simply respond by saying it means your viral load is too low to detect. Now you will get a 'load undetected' even if you are HIV negative, but it does not mean they will sign you off as such. So, now the fear set in again that I would never get this diagnosis out of my blue maternity notes and that it would affect the rest of the pregnancy. I'm one of those people who finds themself swinging between fear, upset and then anger! It was this anger that fuelled my first complaint to the NHS about their 'receiving a positive test' page. They have since responded to say that they would look into the matter, and then that they would change the page and add my suggested reference to false positives. You can find the new page here, although I am disappointed that it does not list the potential causes of a false positive. I think this might help reassure people.
Anyway to cut a very long story shortish the ELISA came back negative and the viral load, as expected, 'load not detected'. I thought this might finally be the end of it. No! At my 20 weeks scan I had to have a 4th HIV test, when I asked why as I could not find any information to say why a negative was now not being accepted as negative I was told that it was needed to sign me off. Anyway, this one also came back negative and my fantastic midwife has signed me off and told them no more tests! Can not fault her or her determination, she has been wonderful. Whilst I am thanking people, the following are two amazing charities that deserve my thanks and support:
Apologies that this is more diary like than normal blog post but I wanted to share this to try and help other people who might find themselves in my situation or who are worrying about test results for them or a loved one. Normal service will resume shortly!
Nothing could have prepared me for the phone call telling me I had tested positive for HIV. I had to get it repeated three times because I simply could not take it in. My head was spinning, I was told I had to come in for further blood tests to confirm and check my levels. At no point was it being raised that perhaps the test was flawed. The first (and perhaps stupidest thing) I did was rush to search online. I wanted to know everything about HIV and the tests themself. So I also dug out my booking in bloods booklet to see what they said. The booklet which can be downloaded here talks about the tests. On the first page it mentions that tests will need to be repeated to 'check the results' and then on the 3rd page it begins to talk about HIV. It does not mention the risk of false positives or even seem to acknowledge that they exist. This is what has angered me the most as I went through hell, and I am sure I am not alone in this, whilst I waited for the results of my next round of tests. A hell that I was put through unnecessarily because:
- I was not (I believe) adequately informed about the tests before having them, as that booklet does not, in my opinion give the full picture
- Information at the time on the NHS site for example made no mention of false positives
- The very high accuracy and sensitivity figures given. For example here suggests a sensitivity of 99.3-99.7%.
At the follow up appointment I went fully prepared with what must have seemed like a million questions. The midwife was wonderful and did understand my anger and upset, as well as fear and I can not fault her for her professionalism and care. However, I had to have the ELISA repeated, I asked why the confirmatory Western Blot was not being used as this is what I had read online was the standard method to confirm a result. As the Western Blot separates out the sample and looks for three specific aspects of HIV rather than simply looking for antibodies. I had lost faith in the ELISA test as I knew I did not have HIV but feared that the test would once again falsely say I did. I also had to have a viral load taken to confirm my levels of the virus.
A viral load is simply that, there is no positive or negative. It looks for the amount of the virus in your blood. You can not get a negative you can simply get a 'load undetected' which a lab will not accept as being negative but will simply respond by saying it means your viral load is too low to detect. Now you will get a 'load undetected' even if you are HIV negative, but it does not mean they will sign you off as such. So, now the fear set in again that I would never get this diagnosis out of my blue maternity notes and that it would affect the rest of the pregnancy. I'm one of those people who finds themself swinging between fear, upset and then anger! It was this anger that fuelled my first complaint to the NHS about their 'receiving a positive test' page. They have since responded to say that they would look into the matter, and then that they would change the page and add my suggested reference to false positives. You can find the new page here, although I am disappointed that it does not list the potential causes of a false positive. I think this might help reassure people.
Anyway to cut a very long story shortish the ELISA came back negative and the viral load, as expected, 'load not detected'. I thought this might finally be the end of it. No! At my 20 weeks scan I had to have a 4th HIV test, when I asked why as I could not find any information to say why a negative was now not being accepted as negative I was told that it was needed to sign me off. Anyway, this one also came back negative and my fantastic midwife has signed me off and told them no more tests! Can not fault her or her determination, she has been wonderful. Whilst I am thanking people, the following are two amazing charities that deserve my thanks and support:
- Terrence Higgins Trust who gave incredible and supportive advice and information over the phone
- And, Tommys who also gave amazing advice.
Apologies that this is more diary like than normal blog post but I wanted to share this to try and help other people who might find themselves in my situation or who are worrying about test results for them or a loved one. Normal service will resume shortly!
Saturday, 29 June 2013
When I grow up.....
I'd like to be
When it was revealed in the Daily Mail that Kate is expected to give birth in a private suite that could cost up to £10,000 it brings it home. To quote Disraeli in his novel Sybil, source: Sybil (novel) in Wikiquotes retrieved 29/06/13 from: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Sybil_%28novel%29,
So, when I grow up I have decided I want option d, to be equal. Properly equal, I don't want to be ruled by someone who hasn't even been born yet. Stop and imagine if this was a job application, would you accept it? This is why I will continue to support #Republic and #bornEqual (the Born Equal campaign).
- a. A bear
- b. A truck driver
- c. Head of state
When it was revealed in the Daily Mail that Kate is expected to give birth in a private suite that could cost up to £10,000 it brings it home. To quote Disraeli in his novel Sybil, source: Sybil (novel) in Wikiquotes retrieved 29/06/13 from: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Sybil_%28novel%29,
Two nations; between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as ignorant of each other's habits, thoughts, and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planets; who are formed by a different breeding, are fed by a different food, are ordered by different manners, and are not governed by the same laws: the rich and the poor.We are not the same, I am under no illusion. Republic ask 'shouldn't every child be #bornEqual a fair question but when we see 'ordinary' women facing midwife shortages and maternity closures whilst Kate enjoys a £10,000 birth it is difficult to see how every child is born equal. In the 21st century is it not time to call time on this outdated system and create true equality?
So, when I grow up I have decided I want option d, to be equal. Properly equal, I don't want to be ruled by someone who hasn't even been born yet. Stop and imagine if this was a job application, would you accept it? This is why I will continue to support #Republic and #bornEqual (the Born Equal campaign).
Tuesday, 4 June 2013
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;
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.
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
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.
Saturday, 18 May 2013
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.
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;
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.
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)