Originally published at Counterfire in March 2010
As someone who picked up on ‘geek chic’ about two years too late, who has only recently discovered the joy of cardigans and fell belatedly into the trend of spiky, shaved haircuts, it’s no surprise that it’s taken me so long to watch the new Lady Gaga and Beyonce video; the much-discussed, supposedly seminal, blockbuster of the year.
Ms. Gaga has been touted as the new Madonna; the provocative, exciting and edgy face of pop. I was promised by many a daring, queered-up feminist riot of a music video, accompanying the new single ‘Telephone’. Imagine my disappointment when, filled with wild expectations of the return of feminism to popular culture, I found nine long minutes of leather bikinis, a barrage of booty-popping and breasts, copious grinding and gyrating and more than one lingering shot of disembodied groins and fishnet-clad legs.
A strange amalgamation of scenes follow Lady Gaga being locked up and then rescued by Beyonce, whereupon they embark on a mass homicide involving maple syrup and rat poison, before eloping into the sunset with the police hot on their tail. Too much is wrong with this video to fit into 800 words, so let’s look at the most controversial clips; Gaga and the penis scandal, the lesbian kiss, and that sandwich.
After Gaga is thrown in jail, we see her vagina exposed as she’s undressed, and again as she rubs herself against her cell bars, prompting a guard to remark “See, I told you she didn’t have a dick”. There’s been a huge furore in the world of showbiz blogging over her purportedly ambigious genitalia, prompting remarks that she is trans, intersex, or a drag queen. Until now, she’s taken this whirlwind of gossip with the characteristic playfulness we’ve come to expect of her; telling reporters that she has a ‘huge donkey dick’, and posing for GQ with a strap-on down her trousers.
This is great: it’s funny, silly and a big “fuck you” to the hounding mobs of gossip weeklies that attempt to devalue her by suggesting she’s not a ‘real woman’. Rubbing your vagina through cell bars for a captive audience, however, is none of those things. It’s a capitulation to that very same pack of papparazi, who can now triumphantly hold up Gaga’s labia minora as their proof that she fits a binary mould of woman/man, and is willing to ‘get it out’ for the cameras along the way. Not exactly a triumph for challenging gender constructions.
When Gaga, bound in chains, is escorted out into the exercise yard, she proclaims her audacity and deviancy by engaging in that great taboo, the lesbian kiss. This has been the subject of much gleeful proclamation, the idea being that Gaga is taking lesbianism into the mainstream and ushering in an age where the gender of two people having a cheeky snog doesn’t matter.
Of course better representation of LGBT people in the media can only be a good thing, but in this context it’s about as liberating as T.a.T.u. dressed up as schoolgirls kissing in the rain: gratuitous shock-value porn that exists to boost video hits and not much more. Not quite a campaigning tool for the local LGBT group.
So far, it’s all been a little bit doom and gloom, so let’s look at the one aspect of the video that merits a bit of praise; Gaga eating a sandwich. Twice. Now, this might not seem like a rallying cry for celebration, but I seriously can’t remember the last time I saw a woman on the screen actually eating a meal that didn’t consist of a lettuce leaf and a couple of ‘naughty’ olives. Of course, in both of these scenes Gaga and Beyonce are either engaging in a little light domination fantasy (Beyonce), or dancing around in see-through vinyl with bondage tape crossed over their nipples (Gaga), implying that it’s only okay to eat if you’re making an effort to look hot at the same time.
Regardless, this is actually an interesting and perhaps even slightly progressive move in an industry that tells you that it’s not okay to eat, ever, full stop; lest you become a morbidly obese armchair-bound slob. Sadly though, this is not enough to save a video steeped in boring misogynistic femininity tropes.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t expect all pop videos to be genderqueering, femineering, domineering masterpieces. I’ve come to expect that much of the pop industry is happy to churn out the same tired sexist stereotypes day in, day out, and if I complained about every one of them I’d be wasting my time. But when the most liberating thing in a video touted as a feminist masterpiece is someone eating a sandwich (and not even the whole sandwich at that) then we need to seriously re-examine our notions of liberation and emancipation.
Saturday 6 November 2010
Panorama: The Cuts - How to Fight Back
Originally published at Counterfire in May 2010
BBC Panorama has, in recent years, bought us treats such as ‘Immigration: How we Lost Count’ and ‘Muslim First, British Second’ – so you would be forgiven for assuming that anything it beams onto your TV screen is likely to be a reactionary pile of frothing Islamophobic drivel.
Ninety-nine percent of the time, you’d probably be right. This week, however, seems to be the exception that proves the rule.
The Cuts – How to Fight Back , whilst not quite providing the ten-point plan it seems to promise, is an inspiring tour of successful campaigns fought by local residents against savage cuts to local services – if you can ignore the Dad’s Army theme tune that the patronising producer has inexplicably inserted every time an old person appears on screen, that is.
We begin, as ever, in London – Barnet to be precise, where the Tory council has decided that a live-in warden is not a necessary part of sheltered housing for OAPs. Apart from begging the question of what then differentiates sheltered housing from the local estates, this move is fairly repulsive – as a resident points out, this means that there is nobody to visit them, or to assist them if they become suddenly ill, meaning that they are increasingly likely to be put into a residential home.
For a party that proclaims the values of self-sufficiency and savings, paying for healthy OAPs to be put into a nursing home they don’t need seems fairly counter-intuitive. Thankfully the residents organise, petition, march and demand the re-instatement of the warden, finally mounting a legal challenge and winning.
A whistlestop tour ensues, where we see various councils dangling the butcher’s knife over music lessons, community centres and road repairs. The award for most vomit-inducing council without a doubt goes to Northamptonshire, where officials mount a roadshow survey of residents asking them which public service they would like to see cut (it goes without saying that ‘none’ is an answer not represented here).
As an insightful resident argues, “it’s a con, it’s all cut and dried before they come to ask us. It’s like a murderer asking his victim, would you sooner I strangled you or smothered you?”.
Paul Blantern of Northamptonshire Council, effectively tells residents that they need to choose between safe roads without potholes, care for the elderly and money for local schools – whilst earning a salary of up to £130,000. Anybody who isn’t hopping up and down and screaming at the telly by the end of this sickening tirade should seriously re-examine their political principles.
Whilst scenes like this might test your capacity for self-restraint, there is hope; the packed meeting halls, angry demonstrations, committed residents and petitions you could fill Downing Street with show us that the next round of savage cuts promised by the coalition government (or the ConDemNation, as angry tweeters have taken to calling it) will not be accepted in silence – they will be resisted and resoundingly rejected.
When they ask us to bear the brunt of the financial crisis by giving up our local libraries, swimming pools, community centres and parks our answer should be loud and clear – can't pay, won't pay!
BBC Panorama has, in recent years, bought us treats such as ‘Immigration: How we Lost Count’ and ‘Muslim First, British Second’ – so you would be forgiven for assuming that anything it beams onto your TV screen is likely to be a reactionary pile of frothing Islamophobic drivel.
Ninety-nine percent of the time, you’d probably be right. This week, however, seems to be the exception that proves the rule.
The Cuts – How to Fight Back , whilst not quite providing the ten-point plan it seems to promise, is an inspiring tour of successful campaigns fought by local residents against savage cuts to local services – if you can ignore the Dad’s Army theme tune that the patronising producer has inexplicably inserted every time an old person appears on screen, that is.
We begin, as ever, in London – Barnet to be precise, where the Tory council has decided that a live-in warden is not a necessary part of sheltered housing for OAPs. Apart from begging the question of what then differentiates sheltered housing from the local estates, this move is fairly repulsive – as a resident points out, this means that there is nobody to visit them, or to assist them if they become suddenly ill, meaning that they are increasingly likely to be put into a residential home.
For a party that proclaims the values of self-sufficiency and savings, paying for healthy OAPs to be put into a nursing home they don’t need seems fairly counter-intuitive. Thankfully the residents organise, petition, march and demand the re-instatement of the warden, finally mounting a legal challenge and winning.
A whistlestop tour ensues, where we see various councils dangling the butcher’s knife over music lessons, community centres and road repairs. The award for most vomit-inducing council without a doubt goes to Northamptonshire, where officials mount a roadshow survey of residents asking them which public service they would like to see cut (it goes without saying that ‘none’ is an answer not represented here).
As an insightful resident argues, “it’s a con, it’s all cut and dried before they come to ask us. It’s like a murderer asking his victim, would you sooner I strangled you or smothered you?”.
Paul Blantern of Northamptonshire Council, effectively tells residents that they need to choose between safe roads without potholes, care for the elderly and money for local schools – whilst earning a salary of up to £130,000. Anybody who isn’t hopping up and down and screaming at the telly by the end of this sickening tirade should seriously re-examine their political principles.
Whilst scenes like this might test your capacity for self-restraint, there is hope; the packed meeting halls, angry demonstrations, committed residents and petitions you could fill Downing Street with show us that the next round of savage cuts promised by the coalition government (or the ConDemNation, as angry tweeters have taken to calling it) will not be accepted in silence – they will be resisted and resoundingly rejected.
When they ask us to bear the brunt of the financial crisis by giving up our local libraries, swimming pools, community centres and parks our answer should be loud and clear – can't pay, won't pay!
No Justice for Ian Tomlinson - Police Not Charged
Originally published at Counterfire on 22nd July 2010
The police officer implicated in the assualt and death of newspaper vendor Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests last year will face no charges, the Crown Prosecution Service announced today.
Angry protests greeted the decision not to press charges, with the United Campaign Against Police Violence warning last night that this outcome would mean “stepping up [their] campaign for justice”.
The CPS defended their decision by arguing that the medical evidence was inconclusive and could not prove that Tomlinson died as a result of the blow administered to him by the police officer.
Interesting then, that two of the three post-mortems conducted into Tomlinson’s death agree that it was caused by internal bleeding. As even the BBC’s Dominic Casciani points out, that means 2/3 of the medical evidence points towards the police officer in question being directly implicated in Tomlinson’s death; more than sufficient for the CPS to proceed with the case.
Shockingly the officer – originally to be charged with manslaughter – also escaped the lesser charge of assault, despite clear evidence from the Guardian and other sources showing that Tomlinson was attacked unprovoked by the armoured officer.
This is not the first time that the police have evaded justice – the cases of Jean Charles de Menezes and Blair Peach can tell us that, as well as the scores of young Asian men imprisoned after the Gaza protests last year whilst the police officers who beat them were never brought to court.
This serves as yet another clear example of the disparity of power in society. Physically resist being kettled and attacked by police officers and you’ll be up in court for assaulting a police officer. Beat an innocent man with a truncheon until he dies from internal bleeding and you’ll walk out of court and straight back into the police force. Fiddle your benefit forms because £70 a week is nowhere near enough to live on and you’re the worst kind of state-scrounging scum; dodge corporation tax when you’re churning out billion-pound profits and you’re a thrifty, responsible entrepreneur. The list goes on.
The particularly galling aspect of this case, though, is the absolute brazenness of it; there’s no attempt to build up a narrative about the difficulties and responsibilities the police have to bear, or an appeal for understanding from a man who made a bad decision. There are simply out-and-out lies, outlined above, and incompetence – the officer can’t be charged for assault because the offence carries a six-month time limit, but there were no moves to prosecute him within the time frame after the attack.
But public anger towards police seems to be growing and growing - in recent years we have seen police shoot an innocent man seven times in the head; brutally attack Climate Camp protestors chanting ‘this is not a riot’ with their hands in the air; and most recently set free Raoul Moat, a man who warned numerous times that he would shoot his ex-partner upon release. Protests against police violence have been sporadic but determined, and justice campaigns for those murdered by police continue. Public sympathy is waning and waning. With the anger and hurt expressed by the families of those murdered by the police, and the renewed determination from organisations defending the right to protest, perhaps this public antipathy can be turned into an organised resistance to police brutality and the lies that accompany it.
The police officer implicated in the assualt and death of newspaper vendor Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests last year will face no charges, the Crown Prosecution Service announced today.
Angry protests greeted the decision not to press charges, with the United Campaign Against Police Violence warning last night that this outcome would mean “stepping up [their] campaign for justice”.
The CPS defended their decision by arguing that the medical evidence was inconclusive and could not prove that Tomlinson died as a result of the blow administered to him by the police officer.
Interesting then, that two of the three post-mortems conducted into Tomlinson’s death agree that it was caused by internal bleeding. As even the BBC’s Dominic Casciani points out, that means 2/3 of the medical evidence points towards the police officer in question being directly implicated in Tomlinson’s death; more than sufficient for the CPS to proceed with the case.
Shockingly the officer – originally to be charged with manslaughter – also escaped the lesser charge of assault, despite clear evidence from the Guardian and other sources showing that Tomlinson was attacked unprovoked by the armoured officer.
This is not the first time that the police have evaded justice – the cases of Jean Charles de Menezes and Blair Peach can tell us that, as well as the scores of young Asian men imprisoned after the Gaza protests last year whilst the police officers who beat them were never brought to court.
This serves as yet another clear example of the disparity of power in society. Physically resist being kettled and attacked by police officers and you’ll be up in court for assaulting a police officer. Beat an innocent man with a truncheon until he dies from internal bleeding and you’ll walk out of court and straight back into the police force. Fiddle your benefit forms because £70 a week is nowhere near enough to live on and you’re the worst kind of state-scrounging scum; dodge corporation tax when you’re churning out billion-pound profits and you’re a thrifty, responsible entrepreneur. The list goes on.
The particularly galling aspect of this case, though, is the absolute brazenness of it; there’s no attempt to build up a narrative about the difficulties and responsibilities the police have to bear, or an appeal for understanding from a man who made a bad decision. There are simply out-and-out lies, outlined above, and incompetence – the officer can’t be charged for assault because the offence carries a six-month time limit, but there were no moves to prosecute him within the time frame after the attack.
But public anger towards police seems to be growing and growing - in recent years we have seen police shoot an innocent man seven times in the head; brutally attack Climate Camp protestors chanting ‘this is not a riot’ with their hands in the air; and most recently set free Raoul Moat, a man who warned numerous times that he would shoot his ex-partner upon release. Protests against police violence have been sporadic but determined, and justice campaigns for those murdered by police continue. Public sympathy is waning and waning. With the anger and hurt expressed by the families of those murdered by the police, and the renewed determination from organisations defending the right to protest, perhaps this public antipathy can be turned into an organised resistance to police brutality and the lies that accompany it.
Rihanna and Eminem: Love the Way You Lie (Review)
Written in collaboration with Jo Gough. Originally published at Counterfire
Eminem and Rihanna's latest chart-topper, Love the Way You Lie, tackles the painful and prominent issue of domestic violence without resorting to shallow stereotypes.
The song follows the story of a violent relationship, narrated by the abuser. We are privy to the twists and turns in logic that run through the abuser's mind as he attempts to justify his behaviour – “but your temper’s just as bad as mine is”, he pleads.
Interestingly though, we also glimpse the moments of clarity – the shame and the galling realisation of what it means to be a woman-beater. And it is this that makes Love the Way You Lie both fascinating and instinctively repulsive – this is not the ramblings of a deluded maniac but of a troubled man struggling to draw lines between love, fear, hate and anger.
Rihanna is noticeably absent for the majority of this track, coming in only for the chorus:
“Just gonna stand there and watch me burn; well that’s alright, because I love the way it hurts.
Just gonna stand there and hear me cry, well that's all right because I love the way you lie."
This is, to say the least, uncomfortable – a song about domestic violence in which the only female voice is reduced to painfully affirming, over and over, how much she loves the beatings.
This has led to commentary that it glorifies domestic violence and makes it acceptable. Indeed, the video (directed by Joseph Kahn and starring Dominic Monaghan and Megan Fox) begins with the woman hitting the man, and throughout there is an interplay between sexual passion and violence, which could be seen to be promoting the idea that the victim 'provokes' or in fact enjoys the violence.
This is where the role of Rihanna is key. The photo of her horrific domestic violence was shown throughout the world. She asserts it happened to her; she did not cause it. Initially she went back to her perpetrator, but then left him because, "When I realized that my selfish decision for love could result into some young girl getting killed, I could not be easy with that".
The idea of the loving relationship is why so many victims return, and through the chorus repeating that she loves the hurt and lies it highlights the psychological hold within violent relationships. Love is used as a reason for both the violence and for staying together.
There is a quiet strength to Rihanna's singing, and coupled with the ironic undertone of the lyrics, the chorus could also be reaching out to perpetrators. Of course the woman doesn't love it, and no matter how much he excuses or gets her to excuse the violence, it is not justified.
From 3.13 in the video there appears to be a a point of no return; it only takes a look from the man to stop the woman leaving, and Eminems lyrics push through his excuses and show his acceptance of his violence and power, culminating in the lyrics,
'I know I'm a liar, if she ever tries to f**kin' leave again, I'ma tie her to the bed and set this house on fire'.
Rihanna's soulful chorus chimes in straight after, and we know the fate of the relationship.
The video ends with Eminem and Rihanna looking at the burning house, and then a repeat of the first clip of the couple lying in bed. This both emphasises the cycle of abuse and the need to leave the relationship at the point where it becomes abusive.
The song and video leaves you with a haunting insight into the cycle of domestic violence and where it can end up- and gives the message to leave the situation before it is too late. The song's message is for both the victim and perpetrator, sung by a victim and perpetrator who are no longer in abusive relationships. It sends out the message that there is a way out.
Rihanna was able to leave her situation because the abuse was in the spotlight and she had the financial means to physically get away. The court took it further than she wanted because it was such a high profile case- and even then Chris Brown felt he'd been let off easy due to his status. Recently a TV executive got only 18 months for killing his wife, after an argument over a joint of beef, because the judge deemed it a 'tragic accident'. For victims to feel able to leave and be safe and for perpetrators to get appropriate help, domestic abuse services and just prosecution are essential.
One in four women and one in six men in the UK will be the victims of domestic violence during their lifetime. Two women a week are killed by a current or former male partner. To get advice on or help with domestic abuse you can:
talk to your doctor, health visitor or midwife
call 0808 2000 247, the 24-hour National Domestic Violence Helpline
run by Women's Aid and Refuge (calls from a landline are free)
call 0808 801 0327 for the Men's advice line
call Respect on 0845 1228609 (www.respect.uk.net) - advice and
information for male perpetrators of domestic violence.
call the Mankind Initiative on 01823 334244 (www.mankind.org.uk)
treatment for female perpetrators of domestic violence.
Eminem and Rihanna's latest chart-topper, Love the Way You Lie, tackles the painful and prominent issue of domestic violence without resorting to shallow stereotypes.
The song follows the story of a violent relationship, narrated by the abuser. We are privy to the twists and turns in logic that run through the abuser's mind as he attempts to justify his behaviour – “but your temper’s just as bad as mine is”, he pleads.
Interestingly though, we also glimpse the moments of clarity – the shame and the galling realisation of what it means to be a woman-beater. And it is this that makes Love the Way You Lie both fascinating and instinctively repulsive – this is not the ramblings of a deluded maniac but of a troubled man struggling to draw lines between love, fear, hate and anger.
Rihanna is noticeably absent for the majority of this track, coming in only for the chorus:
“Just gonna stand there and watch me burn; well that’s alright, because I love the way it hurts.
Just gonna stand there and hear me cry, well that's all right because I love the way you lie."
This is, to say the least, uncomfortable – a song about domestic violence in which the only female voice is reduced to painfully affirming, over and over, how much she loves the beatings.
This has led to commentary that it glorifies domestic violence and makes it acceptable. Indeed, the video (directed by Joseph Kahn and starring Dominic Monaghan and Megan Fox) begins with the woman hitting the man, and throughout there is an interplay between sexual passion and violence, which could be seen to be promoting the idea that the victim 'provokes' or in fact enjoys the violence.
This is where the role of Rihanna is key. The photo of her horrific domestic violence was shown throughout the world. She asserts it happened to her; she did not cause it. Initially she went back to her perpetrator, but then left him because, "When I realized that my selfish decision for love could result into some young girl getting killed, I could not be easy with that".
The idea of the loving relationship is why so many victims return, and through the chorus repeating that she loves the hurt and lies it highlights the psychological hold within violent relationships. Love is used as a reason for both the violence and for staying together.
There is a quiet strength to Rihanna's singing, and coupled with the ironic undertone of the lyrics, the chorus could also be reaching out to perpetrators. Of course the woman doesn't love it, and no matter how much he excuses or gets her to excuse the violence, it is not justified.
From 3.13 in the video there appears to be a a point of no return; it only takes a look from the man to stop the woman leaving, and Eminems lyrics push through his excuses and show his acceptance of his violence and power, culminating in the lyrics,
'I know I'm a liar, if she ever tries to f**kin' leave again, I'ma tie her to the bed and set this house on fire'.
Rihanna's soulful chorus chimes in straight after, and we know the fate of the relationship.
The video ends with Eminem and Rihanna looking at the burning house, and then a repeat of the first clip of the couple lying in bed. This both emphasises the cycle of abuse and the need to leave the relationship at the point where it becomes abusive.
The song and video leaves you with a haunting insight into the cycle of domestic violence and where it can end up- and gives the message to leave the situation before it is too late. The song's message is for both the victim and perpetrator, sung by a victim and perpetrator who are no longer in abusive relationships. It sends out the message that there is a way out.
Rihanna was able to leave her situation because the abuse was in the spotlight and she had the financial means to physically get away. The court took it further than she wanted because it was such a high profile case- and even then Chris Brown felt he'd been let off easy due to his status. Recently a TV executive got only 18 months for killing his wife, after an argument over a joint of beef, because the judge deemed it a 'tragic accident'. For victims to feel able to leave and be safe and for perpetrators to get appropriate help, domestic abuse services and just prosecution are essential.
One in four women and one in six men in the UK will be the victims of domestic violence during their lifetime. Two women a week are killed by a current or former male partner. To get advice on or help with domestic abuse you can:
talk to your doctor, health visitor or midwife
call 0808 2000 247, the 24-hour National Domestic Violence Helpline
run by Women's Aid and Refuge (calls from a landline are free)
call 0808 801 0327 for the Men's advice line
call Respect on 0845 1228609 (www.respect.uk.net) - advice and
information for male perpetrators of domestic violence.
call the Mankind Initiative on 01823 334244 (www.mankind.org.uk)
treatment for female perpetrators of domestic violence.
All in the Genes? Book choices and 'mating strategies'
Originally published at Counterfire
Cowboy. Doctor. CEO. Midwife. Nurse. Wedding. If you’re a woman reading this, you should be getting hot under the collar and weak at the knees right about now. At least, that’s what Anthony Cox and Maryanne Fisher, two evolutionary psychologists from Canada suggest in their recent research paper.
In an analysis of more than 15,000 book titles by the publisher Harlequin (owner of that famous literary giant, Mills and Boon) they found that the most popular recurring themes were commitment, reproduction and cowboys. From this, they assert that women are biologically driven to themes that suggest children, physical or financial resources, stability in relationships and protection, because of their evolved “sex-specific mating strategies”.
So, what’s the problem? The researchers justify their conclusion by saying
Just like it would be ridiculous to suggest that a desire for this season’s broad-shouldered floral print sparkly maxi stiletto is a natural one, rather than one shaped by the various trends of the fashion world, it’s not only stupid but myopic to suggest that a desire for protection, children and commitment is entirely natural, devoid of history and context.
We’re born into a world that tells us that Disney romances and ‘The One’ should be part of the fabric of our daily lives, not just a bit of cheap escapism, and simultaneously ignores and marginalises the weak, the short, the ugly, the fat, the spotty, people with small breasts, big breasts, no breasts, no curves, too many curves, body hair (if you’re female), no body hair (if you’re male), until only the brightest, bubbliest and ‘best’ are left in the race.
This report makes no attempt to discover precisely what it is that moves us to act in certain ways, or believe certain things; no mention of advertising, of early-year socialisation, and crucially of capitalism.
Capitalists divide us along lines of gender, race and sexuality so that we are more fragmented, less powerful and easier to exploit. The report overlooks the ways in which capitalism shapes our desires and behaviour along gendered, raced and sexualised lines. There are countless examples of people’s actions being shaped by their material conditions, putting paid to the idea that behaviour can be explained away through biological imperative.
During the Second World War, millions of women took up work in the factories, offices and fields whilst men went out to fight; this was encouraged by a mass propaganda campaign from the government, with the focus on women being empowered and strong encapsulated in the American image of Rosie the Riveter.
When the war was over, this campaign was switched around and massive pressure was put on women to return to the home and raise children, resulting in the post-WWII baby boom. These weren’t just natural states for women; the machinations of capitalism, backed up by a propaganda machine in advertising, media and public discourse defined whether they could be a merchant or a mother, a hospital porter or a housewife.
As various people such as Nina Power and Lindsey German (who launched their Feminist Manifesto for the 21st century recently) have commented, the connection between women, work and capitalism has never been more sidelined, or more pressing.
There are now ever-increasing numbers of women in the workplace; but what are they doing, how much are they being paid for it, and crucially what is inspiring them to take these jobs?
Germaine Greer recognised when she wrote The Whole Woman that “women have always done the shit work, and any work done by women in great numbers becomes shit work”. Nina Power looks at this in more depth in her discussion of the feminisation of the labour force; sections of the labour market are badly paid, precarious and without the benefits of sick leave, holiday pay and so on.
Not only are these jobs sometimes directly targeted at women (she takes on the firm Office Angels) but the jobs themselves are feminised – undervalued, underpaid and unstable, not the pension-paying, benefit-reaping jobs of the breadwinners.
The study mentioned at the start is symptomatic of a wider turn towards biological determinism – with studies ‘proving’ that girls are genetically predisposed to like pink, boys to play with Action Men and any number of tired stereotypes. Any analysis of gendered roles and behaviour needs to leave these assumptions behind, and stop ignoring the crucial shaping factors of capitalism and work.
Cowboy. Doctor. CEO. Midwife. Nurse. Wedding. If you’re a woman reading this, you should be getting hot under the collar and weak at the knees right about now. At least, that’s what Anthony Cox and Maryanne Fisher, two evolutionary psychologists from Canada suggest in their recent research paper.
In an analysis of more than 15,000 book titles by the publisher Harlequin (owner of that famous literary giant, Mills and Boon) they found that the most popular recurring themes were commitment, reproduction and cowboys. From this, they assert that women are biologically driven to themes that suggest children, physical or financial resources, stability in relationships and protection, because of their evolved “sex-specific mating strategies”.
So, what’s the problem? The researchers justify their conclusion by saying
“Titles must be shaped by consumer demand; readers vote with their money by purchasing the titles that interest them the most..we therefore suggest that analyzing the titles is a valid way to investigate women’s mating interests.”This might not seem preposterous at first glance – people only buy things they want, surely, and what they want can reveal something about their general personality and desires? Well, only if we assume that our desires are given and ahistorical.
Just like it would be ridiculous to suggest that a desire for this season’s broad-shouldered floral print sparkly maxi stiletto is a natural one, rather than one shaped by the various trends of the fashion world, it’s not only stupid but myopic to suggest that a desire for protection, children and commitment is entirely natural, devoid of history and context.
We’re born into a world that tells us that Disney romances and ‘The One’ should be part of the fabric of our daily lives, not just a bit of cheap escapism, and simultaneously ignores and marginalises the weak, the short, the ugly, the fat, the spotty, people with small breasts, big breasts, no breasts, no curves, too many curves, body hair (if you’re female), no body hair (if you’re male), until only the brightest, bubbliest and ‘best’ are left in the race.
This report makes no attempt to discover precisely what it is that moves us to act in certain ways, or believe certain things; no mention of advertising, of early-year socialisation, and crucially of capitalism.
Capitalists divide us along lines of gender, race and sexuality so that we are more fragmented, less powerful and easier to exploit. The report overlooks the ways in which capitalism shapes our desires and behaviour along gendered, raced and sexualised lines. There are countless examples of people’s actions being shaped by their material conditions, putting paid to the idea that behaviour can be explained away through biological imperative.
During the Second World War, millions of women took up work in the factories, offices and fields whilst men went out to fight; this was encouraged by a mass propaganda campaign from the government, with the focus on women being empowered and strong encapsulated in the American image of Rosie the Riveter.
When the war was over, this campaign was switched around and massive pressure was put on women to return to the home and raise children, resulting in the post-WWII baby boom. These weren’t just natural states for women; the machinations of capitalism, backed up by a propaganda machine in advertising, media and public discourse defined whether they could be a merchant or a mother, a hospital porter or a housewife.
As various people such as Nina Power and Lindsey German (who launched their Feminist Manifesto for the 21st century recently) have commented, the connection between women, work and capitalism has never been more sidelined, or more pressing.
There are now ever-increasing numbers of women in the workplace; but what are they doing, how much are they being paid for it, and crucially what is inspiring them to take these jobs?
Germaine Greer recognised when she wrote The Whole Woman that “women have always done the shit work, and any work done by women in great numbers becomes shit work”. Nina Power looks at this in more depth in her discussion of the feminisation of the labour force; sections of the labour market are badly paid, precarious and without the benefits of sick leave, holiday pay and so on.
Not only are these jobs sometimes directly targeted at women (she takes on the firm Office Angels) but the jobs themselves are feminised – undervalued, underpaid and unstable, not the pension-paying, benefit-reaping jobs of the breadwinners.
The study mentioned at the start is symptomatic of a wider turn towards biological determinism – with studies ‘proving’ that girls are genetically predisposed to like pink, boys to play with Action Men and any number of tired stereotypes. Any analysis of gendered roles and behaviour needs to leave these assumptions behind, and stop ignoring the crucial shaping factors of capitalism and work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)