iainjclark's Mysterious World

There was a great documentary by Kirsty Wark on the BBC last week called "Blurred Lines: The New Battle of the Sexes". (Still on iPlayer if you want to watch it.) The title is from the hugely popular online video last year, with teh naked ladies dancing. (I point this out because I'm so clued up I hadn't even heard (of) it when it came up in last year's Christmas Quiz. Finger on the pulse, me.)

The focus of the programme was the culture of abuse, insults, sexual threats and misogynistic remarks commonly faced by women online, including high profile recipients like Mary Beard and Caroline Criado-Perez. [EDIT : Perez has just posted examples of the abusive tweets.] Coincidentally my wife was just telling me the other day about the constant unwelcome 'approaches' she faces when online gaming as a female character ("Are you really a girl?" "How old are you?" etc.) and there are examples of precisely that behaviour in the documentary too. Equally there are some in the programme who deny that this is a female-specific problem, and say that rape jokes and abuse faced by women are just one facet of the jokes and abuse targeting men, and that the only difference is women's (hyper)sensitivity. I don't buy that. Sure, abuse is faced by everyone. Men get online death threats, and that's reprehensible too. But to say that women should simply "man up", as one commentator puts it, is to ignore the wider society in which we live, and the sheer amount and extremely misogynistic overtones of the abuse against women versus the generic nature of the trolling against men. The playing field is not level.

I look at society and it seems staggeringly obvious that women are the subject of systematic objectification, exclusion and lack of respect. I know it’s not all women, and not all the time. I know it’s better in our society than in some parts of the world. I know it’s talked about more openly than it used to be. But it's in the way TV shows and films are written and cast. In the age, looks and number of female vs male presenters. In comics. In music. In who gets book deals and recording contracts. In who wins awards. In the fact that the Best Actor Oscar gets announced after the Best Actress one (because, why exactly?) In advertising. In magazines. In who gets to participate in debates. In business. In politics. In the lack of respect for older women, or any women who don’t pander to male ideals of beauty. In dismissive attitudes to rape and domestic violence. In David Cameron 'joking' "Calm down dear" to diminish a female MP's opinion. Even in which members of the crowd the TV camera lingers on. In a thousand thoughtless moments of chauvinism by men who should know better. Including me, quite probably. You get the idea. I’m not going to brainstorm the world’s first comprehensive list of all sexism ever.

This may all sound a bit born-again feminist. I know it’s a bit rich, me saying women are oppressed like it's a revelation. I'm not trying to come off as more-feminist-than-thou. But it’s hard to ignore the fact that, commonly and insidiously, many women face much more of an uphill struggle than many men. In ways so ingrained that often people don’t see them at all, or choose not to. Sometimes it takes real effort for men in particular to step back from the blithe assumptions they’ve benefitted from all their lives.

It’s why it drives me mad when blowhard sideshow-acts like Jeremy Clarkson or Godfrey Bloom poo poo the very idea that sexism still exists. Or, God forbid, claim that men are the disadvantaged ones. These are the high profile crackpots. Almost reassuringly barmy. Obligingly self-satirising. The high profile UKIP donor who says he doesn’t think women should wear trousers. But for every crackpot there's an army of men who've never been near the 'Have I Got News For You' studio but who'll nod along. Why should women even *want* to wear trousers when men prefer to see women in skirts? (Yeah, women. Explain THAT.)

In employment law, the classic feature of unfair discrimination is that you only see the stereotype, not the individual. Someone will decide that women can't work in construction because they’re physically weak. Never mind that some women could beat me in a fair fight. (Okay, most women). Or they’re too emotionally fragile, or it’s improper, or it’s too dangerous. Leave that nasty stuff to The Mens. Recognising and challenging those preconceptions, treating people as individuals, recognising all the ways in which society is constructed to favour and pander to the desires of (straight, white) men, should not be controversial things.

At the risk of making this all about me, I sometimes feel paralysed in talking about feminism online because, although it’s a subject that I feel a passionate affinity with, it seems presumptuous of me to imagine that I can really understand. I worry that I’ll simplify, offend or patronise. I fear that even though I may imagine I’m a feminist, I’m wearing my own unchallenged sexist assumptions on my sleeve. (Memo to self: donate sexist arm-band to charity shop). I read powerful, illuminating articles on sexism like this or this and I feel that I have nothing to add. So I tend not to say anything at all.

But it's worth saying something, no? I try to be aware of my stupid assumptions, sexist and otherwise. I try to be conscious that the playing field is not level. At least it's a start.

("Join us tomorrow, when our topic will be: Religion, which is the one true faith" - Kent Brockman)

There's a very thoughtful opinion piece on the BBC website entitled "Is Barack Obama black?". It's a response to comments about Obama that frankly I hadn't even been aware of. I think the article makes some very wise points about artificially absolute definitions of race, and also the societal nature of the labels we apply to people. And indeed even if Obama is regarded as mixed-race that makes his accomplishment no less great, albeit less symbolic.

Rumours continue to circle around Paterson Joseph as a contender for the next Doctor Who, and he certainly seems interested. I know I was cheerleading for him earlier on the basis of his role in Neverwhere, but I've been reminded that he can be a little broad in his performances so I'd be interested to see a recent performance to make up my mind. He's in the BBC's new remake of Survivors, along with the increasingly ubiquitous Freema Agyeman and Julie "Bonekickers" Graham. It looks potentially okay, potentially terrible. I may summon up the energy to find out. Or not.

On a related note I'd seen others refer to the recently released BBC Archive material relating to the genesis of Doctor Who. What I hadn't realised is that the first two documents released, and particularly the first, are essentially internal BBC briefing papers trying to work out 'what is this thing called Science Fiction?' with a view to determining whether it could be adapted for TV. They propose to use Arthur C Clarke and John Wyndham as consultants, and even met with Brian Aldiss. As such these documents represent brief but fascinating "as others see us" thoughts about written SF in the early 1960s; at once insightful, pragmatic and patronising.

The remaining documents are more about Doctor Who itself: 'concept notes for new SF drama' and 'background notes for Doctor Who' are fascinating glimpses into the origins of the TV show, with the latter representing a recognisable yet strangely different vision of the series. It goes some way to explaining just how unlikeable Hartnell's Doctor would occasionally be in the early episodes.

This atheist bus advert is funny, sensible and positive. Really the mildest, nicest of messages. Amusing, then, to see how divisive it's proving on the very Guardian comments section that inspired it.

( Warning: Contains Atheism )

The campaign has reached £73,000 and climbing, far in excess of its stated goals. Which is nice. It all seems pretty harmless, and indeed pretty rare -- which is attested to by the level of slightly boggled media coverage.

--

¹ Genuinely sorry if all this offends anyone, by the way. I really do have a pathological conviction that even mentioning atheism in polite company is offensive, which is probably why I find this ad campaign so refreshing.

This is a fantastic dissection of a particularly odious anti-Muslim story in the generally extremely odious Daily Express.

What perhaps shouldn't surprise me quite as much as it does is that the story has only the slightest resemblance to the truth. The headline ("Sniffer dogs offend Muslims so now bomb search police face restrictions") is in fact not just a distortion but literally untrue and is disproven by the fine print later in the story.

This stuff really annoys me. Most days I wander past the news stand and see the headlines on the Daily Mail and the Daily Express and feel vaguely amused at how biased they seem to be. All tabloids pander mercilessly to their perceived demographic, after all, whether left wing or right wing.

Sometimes though I do get disheartened by how relentlessly the more right wing publications are brazenly trying to stir up xenophobia and make their reader (some hypothetical middle class, middle aged white person) feel that their way of life is under attack from all sides. For example, during the recent petrol strike (that only minimally disrupted the country) the Express chose big headlines stating "Government says not to panic but FUEL COULD RUN OUT!" To be fair, most of the media became obsessed with seeking out areas where there had been at least some disruption. Most didn't actively set out to cause panic, however. The Express is particularly fond of headlines that sound like they've been screamed by someone experiencing a nervous breakdown. Starting the headline with the word "NOW..." is their preferred means of indicating that this latest indignity is the final straw.

The website linked to above notes some of the more extreme comments to this story, which appear to be made by people who only read the headline. Okay, even the BBC website tends to have comments threads filled with slighty deranged people ranting from their chosen soapbox, but I still find this a little depressing.

I know the Daily Express is an easy target. I know they pander to a readership who already believes these things. I just find them particularly shameless and manipulative, and the one thing that really does aggravate me in journalism is Making Stuff Up.

(Link courtesy of the ever entertaining badscience).

Predictable perhaps, but some the comments on this BBC news story about the entirely admirable move to vaccinate girls from 12 to 18 against cervical cancer really do betray both astonishing ignorance about medicine and neolithic head-in-the-sand attitudes to sexuality. The same levels of ignorance were equally in evidence in emails to BBC News 24. I should know better than to look, shouldn't I?

And I quote:

"It cannott be right to inject cancer into patients"

(no really)

"The money would be better spent on Sex Education not vaccination."

"Like myself, I will teach my daughter to wait for marriage before sex and this will eliminate problems like stds and pregnancy which also destroys unmarried womens lives and costs taxpayers millions taking care of illegimates. But, on the other hand, if it will save loose women from cancer then it will be ok for them."

(pragmatism *and* generosity in one package)

"Why do women always get the vast majority of media attention, financial help and medical facilities when it comes to cancer treatment and prevention? The slightest news regarding breast or cervical cancer seems to hit the headlines."

"It would be very interesting to know how much money was spent developing the vacine. Has an equivalent amount been spent attempting to do the same for prostate cancer - I very much doubt it. When will there be equality for men in health care?"

"one has to question the expenditure of "hundreds of millions" to save 1000 girls each year."

"I DONT agree with this sexist vacination if males are'nt included"

(sigh)

"This is another great reason to teach your children at home."

(say whut?)

"Total and utter propaganda to make more money for the pharmacutical companies. FACT is the immune system will stop all diseases"

(because, as we know, no-one ever dies from anything)

"I am against vaccination unless there is evidence showing the disease is contagious, air borne, spread by some sort of interaction. Personally, the idea of pumping children with all sorts of drugs/chemicals (vaccines), I find quite disturbing."

(I've never heard it called "some sort of interaction" before)

...and so it goes on.

Janet is particularly annoyed at the sexism evident in many of the attitudes: women who have sex are 'loose' women who have done something wrong; money spent saving women would be better spent elsewhere (e.g. saving men!).

There are a great many rightheaded comments too, pointing out that this is not an issue about promiscuity. Sexually active does not mean promiscuous (and promiscuous does not mean immoral). Anyone who has sex, even once, is likely to be exposed to the virus. As Janet notes, all these concerned mothers must, presumably, have had sex at least once in their lives. That's all it takes. Vaccinating young doesn't mean we expect children to have sex young - but it does mean that the're protected before they first have sex, which evidence suggests is most effective. I'm quite taken by one comment on the website: "The fact that I could get HPV did not make me not have sex, so I doubt the opposite will make people have sex."

The idea, too that male diseases don't get attention or funding seems to me to be ludicrous and inaccurate. Hardly surprising since those who are decrying this vaccine seem to be talking from sheer off-top-of-the-head prejudice. And the relative cost of this vaccination is hardly out of scale with other treatments / preventative measures.

Apparently, Warner Brothers are no longer doing movies with women in the lead. No, really. This is such a gobsmackingly stupid statement that it's difficult to know where to start. You'd think it must be a misquote taken out of context, but apparently not. You see, some films with female leads haven't done so well at the box office recently, and... well, that's about it. Apparently that's what passes for sophisticated analysis in the multi-billion dollar film industry.

I'm sure there'll be some sort of retraction along in a minute, but it does make you despair.

I caught some of BBC News 24's coverage of the Stardust red carpet premiere the other night, and was a bit bemused when the entertainment reporter asked Ricky Gervais "How would you describe the film? Sci-Fi?" I'm left wondering whether the reporter had even the vaguest idea what film she was covering or just heard the word "Star" in the title. (Gervais made some cracks about Sci-Fi nerds just to help things along.)

US Senate blocks gay marriage ban. Thank god for that. Leaving aside the fact that it's a cynical political manoeuvre designed to appeal to right wing bigots, as my wife so rightly put it: does Bush really have nothing else to concentrate on right now?

Hey, I'm part of a distrusted minority. Finally! It may even give other minority groups something to be pleased about, relatively speaking, since: 'From a telephone sampling of more than 2,000 households, university researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in “sharing their vision of American society."'

Perhaps it's hardly surprising that strongly religious people distrust atheists. At some fundamental level you'd almost expect it, though it needn't necessarily be the case. To be honest I'm perfectly happy with the notion that people with equally strong - if opposing - religious beliefs have more in common with each other than with atheists. It's all about the way you view the world and your place within it, and religions do indeed have a great deal in common on that level.

I do wonder, though, whether this result isn't influenced by other factors. Atheism is also one of those forgotten minority groups (and how sad that it's a minority!) in that there's no sense that denigrating atheists is discriminatory in any way; no sense of guilt at having transgressed a cultural boundary. People will tend to be honest about their feelings towards atheists where perhaps they would not towards Muslims.

But still - to distrust atheists on principle - as if they were a homogenous group defined solely by their scepticism about the Almighty - indicates some fundamental assumptions which go hand in hand with distrust of science. It's that feeling that scepticism is the same as believing in nothing or having no moral values. The feeling that to demand scientific evidence for belief is to be contrary and closed-minded. That's more worrying to me.

I'm also struck by those minority groups mentioned in the quote; particularly their incredible diversity. They are all regarded as "other" by some kind of majority definition, but they share almost nothing else in common. That implictly says a lot about the very limited definition of social normality used by the people participating in the poll (or possibly by those conducting it, depending on how the quotations were phrased.) It's sad that there's any question of whether minority groups share a vision of society in common with other people: after all, any group is composed of individuals with their own beliefs, people who are not solely or even mainly defined by some arbitrary notion of "minority". And if there is any sense that those groups don't agree with the mainstream vision of society, it's almost certainly because that society treats them with suspicion and intolerance and seeks to disenfranchise them. So standing up for your rights leads you to be seen as a threatening outsider: talk about a vicious circle.

All of which is just the tip of the iceberg of a very complex issue, but there's nothing like a ridiculous poll to get your brain working.

Seen on a newsstand, today's Daily Express front page headline is:

"BOMBERS ARE ALL SPONGEING ASYLUM SEEKERS"

Although it's somewhat difficult for me to believe that this isn't a spoof, I suppose it's better than what they probably would have liked to print:

"ASYLUM SEEKERS ARE ALL SPONGEING BOMBERS"

Trouble is, of course, that since a few of the bombers *are* asylum seekers, now all asylum seekers will be tarred with the same very large brush. The fact that these particular asylum seekers arrived with their families at the ages of 12 and 14, and that those families have condemned their actions, appears to be neither here nor there as far as the press is concerned. (It's tough to imagine the headline "Murderer was middle-class white man". Because even where it's true, it isn't deemed to be a newsworthy distinction to make.)

In contrast, today's Independent has this reassuringly sober account, in which a strangely small number of bombers appear to be spongeing asylum seekers:

"Three of the 7 July bombers were British-born, of Pakistani origin, and the fourth was a Jamaica-born Briton. None of the killers had committed serious criminal offences, although one had been investigated by MI5 for association with a terror suspect.

Details of the second cell shows they come from Somalia and Eritrea but have lived legally in the UK for more than 10 years. Links are emerging between the two groups, but it is far from certain that they knew of each other."

Meanwhile the BBC summarises what's known about them so far.

So the Conservatives have managed to put themselves further to the Right on Immigration than New Labour; no mean feat. It's now set to be a central issue of the Tories' election campaign. While they preach reasonableness and practicality, I'm left feeling very uncomfortable about the idealogy that lies behind this. Michael Howard says "we cannot take them all", which seems to me to be the epitome of a straw man argument. Who ever said we were going to "take them all"? But if we're going to decide who to take and who not to take, shouldn't it be on other grounds than an arbitrary quota designed to look appealing in an election manifesto?

( Read more... )
...as you can tell, I'm feeling a bit ranty on the subject. ;-)