Just add a makeover: A Problematic Equation

It can be really encouraging to see attempts to raise the issue of gender inequality in high profile media. More often though, it seems that reporters somehow manage to mess it up to such an extent that whilst verging on amusing for feminists, the framing of reports is simply demonstrative of sexist presumptions and perpetrates the problems it tries to address.

Take the following article from BBC’s ‘100 Women’ in October, for example:

‘Why tech needs a makeover to attract girls’

It really caught my attention. Of course it did- it mentions makeovers and attraction, and whilst I wouldn’t normally check out the education or technology sections of BBC News, I love makeovers and all things attractive! I’d never had any interest in technology before, but to be honest if it’s associated with makeovers I don’t care what ‘it’ is! Being a girl, I also do not have my own agency, but rather rely on the pull of external forces. I would never have decided to look into technology, but I am ready and waiting to be wooed, and it’s great that the technological world might want to attract me, welcome me into their arms, summon me as with a whistle or bell. Evidently someone cottoned onto the fact that though nowhere near as majestic as the magpie, Woman too will be dazzled by something that shines, and swept off her feet will change her course of direction to find it.

Or at least, that is what someone at the BBC seems to have been hoping.

To be honest, the extent to which this one headline demonstrates the problems women face in being taken seriously in all sorts of areas, industry to academia, makes it almost funny. In fact, perhaps this is a joke, or at least an ironic critique, a parody. Somehow I don’t think so. The reduction of women to concerns of appearance and the negation of their agency and intellectual processes leading to decision making is not the only reduction made in this article. The first piece of text in the body tells us that the woman interviewed is ‘already planning the future of her unborn children’. Fair enough, she is at liberty to do that, and if that is one of her concerns that’s fine. What isn’t fine is that this is not elaborated on whatsoever. Merely the fact that she has the potential to bear children and sustain population growth is mentioned in the first paragraph of text, seemingly just to remind the reader that even if she has done great things in technology, she is aware that her primary purpose is elsewhere. Like I said, I have no problem with thinking about one’s future potential children, but to mention it like that in the first paragraph, presumably the one that most people will read, and not to elaborate seems pretty fishy to me. Pretty reductive of women, pretty heteronormative and pretty pronatalist. And despite all those ‘pretties’, I’m not won over.

Perhaps in a douse of internalised sexism, the female interviewee refers to her ‘stubborn’ nature which enabled her to succeed in STEM subjects, as opposed to choosing a more positive adjective, such as resilient. Seems unsurprisingly similar to the ‘bossy girls’ label which has led to many women growing up to feel like it is not their place to be authoritative or enter positions of leadership.

Unfortunately, there was no plot twist at the end of this article. It was more like a knife that had already been plunged in being twisted. To quote the penultimate paragraph in its entirety:

‘The fact that Mrs Lovelace was coding in an age when even few men were, shows that there is no inherent aptitude problem, thinks Ms Imafidon’

That’s right, folks. The BBC in the year 2014 have helpfully stated that someone ‘thinks’ women are not biologically unable to excel in coding. Well that is encouraging. By which I mean totally disheartening. It is simply depressing that the BBC could not write an article about women in technology (an important topic) which begun with statement of the fact that a constructed biological essentialism (claiming women’s intellectual inferiority) is perhaps the main cause of women being marginalised in technology, and also simply believing they might not be up to it, starting from a young age. The conclusion of the article, which states tentatively that biologically equal disposition towards STEM subjects is one person’s opinion/theory, seems therefore almost as ironic, or at least demonstrative of the key problems, as the title.

With this sort of sexist, reductive reporting that infantilises women and deprives them of agency from the beginning, no wonder many women want to remain distanced from the world of technology.

A Message to the Marketers of Maximisers and Minimisers

Relatively uncomplicated, socks are my favourite item of clothing to buy. Lots of colours, lots of patterns and easy to fit- a surely winning combination that gives an overall light-hearted feel to the selection process. Expecting the most un-daunting of shopping trips I was not expecting the frustration to follow. Firstly, let me clarify that I rarely make shopping trips purely to buy socks, unless it is a very special special-sock-warranting occasion. I believe in this instance it was more of a tangent from a wider trip. I needed to acquire some light, thin socks or tights given the unexpectedly blazing gift of sun. To avoid a trek in the blistering heat I simply headed into the nearest inexpensive shop – Primark.

I should probably mention now that the sickeningly decorated, trivial introduction I’ve given is merely to try and balance the anger that, to be honest, I hope the next section of this post will convey.

Socks are next to bras. Bras branded thus: ‘MAXIMISE YOUR ASSETS’ & ‘MAKE AN IMPACT’. Ok Primark, here’s the thing- it is NOT alright to tell girls that a) their boobs are assets b) they should be maximised and c) their boobs are the way in which they should ‘impact’ the world. I hate the thought that thousands of teenagers will see the packaging of the most affordable bras in the UK and it is even suggested to them that the most impactful ‘assets’ of a woman are not her mind, her personality, her talents. What a harmful message. Once again, the attributes of a female have been reduced to her breasts which she is instructed to enhance in order to command any attention. It really is saddening.

After passing by the tights on my way out, already with an angry jaw locked between a frown of fury and lips swelling slightly because it really could make me cry, I get pretty ticked off about the labelling of tights as ‘natural’ and ‘nude’- what an assumption: we aren’t all ‘naturally’ that colour when ‘nude’. In fact, I bet the ‘natural skin’ colour of Primark’s tights matches a pretty damn small percentage of the population’s in the UK never mind globally! Eventually I made it to BHS, hoping to get a swimming costume that would stay in the right place after divebombs, bellyflops and just jumping around. The first thing I noticed was the reassurance BHS offered me. Reassurance that every single swimming costume was fitted with foolproof tummy control technology. I wouldn’t need to worry in the pool or on the shore that my tummy, surely a horrific and embarrassing creature, might be unleashed. Thanks to BHS, it would be under control. Maybe I’m in a minority, I often am, but I hadn’t realised how mortified I should be about my possession of a body which has lumps and bumps and contours and curves and guess what- flesh. Lots of flesh. It wobbles and it moves when I move. It is soft in parts and firm in others. It is natural. And I thought it was ok, but according to the Store of British Homes, it needs to be dealt with.

The message about the messages we are sent by advertising, media and branding being damaging to women and promoting unhealthy body image is not new or original. I don’t claim it is. However, I’m not sure enough people can see how marketing is not only exacerbating crazy ideas about the way ladies’ bodies ‘should’ be, but they are reducing women to this. Not satisfied with making women feel insufficient in their own skin (which is only ‘natural’ in one shade) companies are reducing women to just that in their attempts to sell more. According to the marketing that saturates our shops not only is your body is not good enough but it is what counts, it is who you are, what you are. Don’t support your breasts because it’s comfortable, MAXIMISE them because that is the only way you’ll get noticed. Don’t think about having fun on holiday, just be sure to MINIMISE that tummy as a top priority.

I think you get the point. I hope you get the point. I can’t tell you, male or female, not to let marketing reduce you to trembling insecurity about your body. I can’t convince you that it is an evil lie that your body defines you. But if this is how you feel, then know that this won’t be tolerated. And if you are a marketer of minimisers and maximisers, please (and that’s where my niceties end) know that this cannot continue. I can’t single-handedly stop you, but like heck will I try to unmask your bullying ways and belittlement of women.

Going Bare, Bearing Hair, Should I Care?

Firstly I want to address any concerns that the reader might have that I am writing this post because I am putting off doing a dull/difficult piece of work. If this is what you were thinking then congratulations, you would be right. However, do not be overly concerned because this is something I’ve wanted to write about for quite a while now and although admittedly I wanted to think of a suitably hilarious title for the post, it has taken some nasty string quartet questions to motivate me to abandon my fears and inhibitions and write about the taboo which is female body hair. I am going to write that again, extra big so that you get used to the idea. FEMALE BODY HAIR. HAIR WHICH GROWS ON LADIES’ BODIES.

Yes, that’s right- it exists! And it doesn’t just exist on bodies but it bears down on our minds too. Planning hair removal, putting space in the budget for razors, creams, waxes, epilators etc, worrying about erupting bristles, what length sleeves to wear to cover up any evidence of this natural phenomenon.

This is something I have so many thoughts on I don’t know where exactly to start to make a coherent piece on it, but I think the starting point is that the notion that women (and not men…) should remove their body hair in the UK (I can’t account accurately for anywhere else, I’m not denying that it could be an issue elsewhere) is an entirely societal construct motivated by capitalist desires. Gilette (or however you spell it, as you may have noticed I don’t spend much time in that aisle) only started selling products for women to try and increase profit, and now we’re in a world where girls can feel embarrassed about the slightest sprouts of spruces of body hair. There really is no reason for this to be the case.

To be honest, I can think of more logical reasons not to remove hair than to remove hair. For starters: You save time. You save money. You avoid pain. Furthermore, your hair is there for a reason. It is an infection barrier. And by removing it you don’t only remove the barrier but create the idea site for infection to enter. Shaving creates microscopic wounds and waxing rips the pores open for all sorts of nasties to enter. There have also been increasingly common incidences of procedures in sensitive areas which have resulted in abscesses and more serious infections. Delicious.

I’ve thought this for years and been irritated by the pressure to shave it but finally I’ve summed up the courage to brave it! (And even enjoy it) I didn’t shave my legs at all in winter and I only did my armpits a couple of times when I was wearing a sleeveless dress. But then came summer. And I realised I faced what seemed to be an actual moral dilemma. A real issue of principles. At first I was tentative and generally covered it up then gradually wore ‘skin coloured’ tights as opposed to thick opaque ones and then socks before I was ready not to bother at all. It was hot and I was wearing a dress and I didn’t need to wear any extra layers for insulation, and I wasn’t going to let society make me think that I should censor my body’s natural properties (ie THE HAIR) any longer.

And it has been going well since and I’d love to encourage you to reconsider any attitudes you might have towards female body hair in light of this. And perhaps even encourage the cultivation of it yourself. Although it seems like a more extreme example, if women (but not men) were expected to remove all of their skin or if they wished to keep it it had to be concealed it would not be tolerated. This may seem a ridiculous comparison but I think it highlights how ridiculous this societally imposed expectation is.

Any questions, please go ahead and ask. Any abuse, I’d rather you left it. Any advice on dying underarm hair purple, do get in touch.

🙂