Thursday 10 February 2011

Papers and Peer Pressure

by Susie Burdett

I had thought that I would blog to celebrate the creation of UN Women, the new UN organisation that has taken over operations for gender equality from the previous four organisations of the UN that were once dedicated to women's issues. I was going to talk about some projects, such as Prosperity Candles, or a shelter in Ethiopia, that are some of the positive initiatives occuring in complex political contexts. But then this article, about toilets, worked to combine a few of the random loose threads circling my brain.

Those loose threads can be effectively summed up in the picture at the top of this article.

So how do I get from toilets to Julia Roberts? Well, simple really. The International Development Enterprises (IDE) are trying to improve sanitary conditions in Cambodia and at the same time provide economic opportunities for local businesses. They do this through the somewhat controverisal method of shaming people into using a toilet. Sanitary conditions are a major problem in Cambodia. For the sake of those of a more sensitive constitution, I won't go into detail, but previous attempts to improve conditions by giving toilets away have failed. By shaming people into wanting a toilet, the IDE hopes to create the motivation to use it, and having developed an easy to build model, they have given local businesses a chance to build and sell the toilets, thus increasing economic activities at the same time as improving living conditions.

On the other hand is a photo of Julia Roberts dressed to impress which was widely ridiculed in the press due to the naturally occuring axillary hair clearly on display. Media, whether that be the newspapers, movie (both mainstream and x-rated) makers or magazines, continuely subjected people to images of a a supposed ideal of man and womanhood. Media has helped make plucking, shaving, trimming and shaping of body hair the norm, and have transformed plastic surgery to an aspiration for many seeking this apparent model of perfection, rather than a valuable tool allowing those suffering terrible injuries and disfigurements to lead normal lives.

Whilst I may find a narrow definition of beauty - and indeed the stress on the importance of beauty over other, more practical virtues - uncomfortable and distasteful, I am not actually condemning the beauty industry or the media (and cultural) obsession with celebrity and beauty - I am in no position to cast the first stone. My point is, if media can change the beauty ideal from the hairy men and women found in, say, The Joy of Sex to the plucked, buffed and toned actors, actresses and models we see on film, TV and in magazines, what else could they do?

Media, particularly social media, has been vital to raising awareness of conflict and tragedies around the world - as has been clearly highlighted by the news coming from Tunisia and Egypt, but it has also used peer pressure and shame to inflict and impose a narrow view of gender. It is clear how powerful media is as a force for creating change and raising awareness. How much change could they do for the good if, rather than using shame to inflict one way of being a woman (or man), they celebrated humanity, condemned injustice and encouraged equality? Both the media and the IDE use shame in their tool kit. But what a difference in the results!

Tuesday 1 February 2011

A Note to Men

by Richard McAdam


Gentlemen.

Is for you the word 'feminism' burdened with negative connotations? Does it foster in your manly breast prejudice and resentment, and elicit little more from you than a cocky rolling of the eyes and the arching of an insouciant brow? Does it conjure up images of angry, shrill lesbians daring to express outrage at invisible injustices? Then let me, as one man to another, prescribe the following course of action: through rigorous self-examination, self-education and self-flagellation, you resolve to STOP BEING AN IDIOT, and with the aid of some sort of neuro-linguistic programming adopt a deep and irrefutable notion that the above reactions to the f-word are clear and present symptoms of your BEING AN IDIOT. YOU IDIOT.

What this does not mean: adopting 'feminist' views as a means-to-an-end, paying lip service in order to get some 'lip service' ifyouknowwhatImean. (I mean kissing). It does not mean merely affecting outrage at the objectification or oppression of women when you are not possessed of any true and tangible notion of what that actually means, on any real and visceral level. It does not mean insisting on workplace equality and settling for that as being the only kind of equality that is important. It does NOT mean spouting hollow homilies on the strength and individuality of women or the beauty of the female form whilst at the same time clinging to an idea of them as possessions, convenient accessories for your ego. Don't kid yourself that the men who inflict the horrific physical and emotional violence in the stories from distant lands are some sort of different species, 'monsters' completely alien to your idea of yourself. We might not all necessarily be nurturing the capacity for that sort of cruelty; but that sort of cruelty has been born of these sorts of attitudes.


Why does it not mean these things? Because, ultimately, it's you, as a man, being oppressed; it's you, as a man, suffering the inequality and the prejudice. Not as a result of some numinous notion of human 'togetherness', but because this attitude directly diminishes you. You are a victim of your own discrimination, because what you excise when you decide that you will view women as anything other than equal is a fundamental function of your self. And no, you are not destroying your 'feminine spirit' – you are destroying your 'masculine spirit'. You just need to adjust your idea of what 'masculine' means.

Let me offer you up a contemporary role model: the motion-picture actor Ryan Gosling. Here at Mr. Hugo Schwyzer's blog (a site I'd recommend you delve deep into as part of your self-education), Mr. Schwyzer suggests Mr. Gosling's characterisations as presenting 'a new kind of masculine ideal', because 'he plays flawed and complex men whose tender decency is always at war with his compulsions and his rage,' and not 'overgrown boys'.

The skills needed to fight that war, and to achieve the goals of altering/enhancing/maintain your attitudes toward women are conveniently concomitant with the skills required to be fulfilled and happy. (Or the act of striving to cultivate those skills is in itself fulfillment and happiness, probably, or something.) They are the skills that will, ultimately, make the world a better place. Responsibility, kindness, maturity, and a balance of stoicism and sensitivity. These shall be your goals and your rewards.

Also, girls will like you more, you idiots.