Just a reminder that this blog is just capturing unorganised random thoughts. It is not research, nor is it complete. I like to have somewhere to capture these random thoughts. They could be wrong, but it is only through setting them down that I will establish that.
I am concerned about equality. Gender equality is my main concern, although I am concerned that discrimination in all it's guises is eliminated. I came across this statement from the European Commissioner for Human Rights, Thomas Hammarberg. I became confused about certain statements he made. Further, it crossed over certain beliefs I have about the problems of gender and legislation to prevent gender discrimination. I believe that the abolition of gender is necessary to bring equality. This does not mean getting rid of men and women – they are defined by their phenotype. What it means is getting rid of the socially constructed gender roles, enabling freedom for people to do what they want and to express who they truly are.
But more than that, I keep coming across a phrase I feel like a woman and the one in this article Most people legally defined as man or woman will experience a corresponding gender identity. These are phrases that I simply do not associate with. I was born female, and yet I cannot say that I feel female or experience a female gender identity. What I do experience is a societal expectation of how I should behave because I am classified as female.
My random thoughts are in normal typeface and are interspersed with the Thomas Hammarberg statement which is in italics:
The rights of transgender persons are still ignored or violated, but some signs of understanding now begin to appear. One example is the outcome, at long last, of Lydia Foy’s struggle in Ireland. She was registered as male at birth but has lived as a woman since 1992. This summer she finally succeeded in her battle for legal recognition by the Irish state as a woman and for a birth certificate that reflects this reality.
There is no question that the rights of many minority groups are still being ignored and violated. The question is whether or not altering the birth registration is necessary for providing equality or recognition of a person’s rights. A major failure of all equality legislation is that it is, in itself, discriminatory. It defines people into various groups and then says that they should not be discriminated against. In fact, the legislation should start from the position that all people are equal. If gender equality legislation was written in terms of people are equal regardless of gender, then would this situation have arisen?
Most people legally defined as man or woman will experience a corresponding gender identity. I struggle tremendously with this sentence. I have had to separate it from the rest of the paragraph because the issues raised here are so very complex. I have had such problems with this that I have been unable to get past this sentence. In many ways, this goes to the heart of the problem. I do not understand what is meant when he says that people “will experience a corresponding gender identity”. I am not sure that I ever experience a gender identity. I do not grasp what this gender identity is. I experience life as a person. I choose how I present to the world and I choose how I behave in that world, but I cannot say that I experience a gender identity. So I asked a number of other people to tell me about their own experience of gender identity. At first, I received some comments about gender identity being an internal belief in your own gender, but I explained that I did not want a definition but their experiences of being women and men who had no conflict with their gender identity. The silence swirled around the room strangling all the voices! Eventually, the best anyone could come up with is that gender identity is simply not experienced by people who do not have a conflict with it. Transgender persons, however, do not have such a corresponding identity and may wish to change their legal, social, and sometimes also physical status. And this is the point that others saw: as a woman who has no issues, gender identity does not even seem to exist, let alone be experienced. But for someone who is transgendered, there appears to be some conflict. And this is where the issues with the remainder of society exist, because the majority of society do not experience their gender identity, the transgendered community fail entirely to convince people that there is a conflict. After all, they are asking the remainder of society to buy into their conflict with something that a majority of people do not experience. But it is deeper than that. Gender is a social construction. As a social construction, this is a group of people seeking to change from one socially constructed gender role to another, because they feel they should belong in that other socially constructed gender role! Abolish these social constructions, and the problem goes away. If we were not so focused on these gender roles, then it would be possible for any person to adopt any gender role that they so wished, or more to the point, they could extract the elements of different gender roles that they wanted.
The case initiated by Lydia Foy in 1997 led to a High Court ruling ten years later that Ireland was in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights by not providing recognition of Dr. Foy in her preferred gender. It took the Irish government another 2.5 years to accept that Irish law is incompatible with the European Convention. In June 2010 the Irish government withdrew its appeal to the Supreme Court and will now recognise Lydia Foy as a woman.
I think that it was quite clear for a long time that Ireland was ignoring the European convention on Human Rights with regard to this issue. Obviously, there is a question for many people as to whether or not it is a Human Right for a person to be able to change their gender. But that is actually a flawed approach as we should be working, not to allow people to legally change gender, but to abolish the divisions caused by gender. If Lydia Foy had not been assigned male at birth, but was just recognised as a person, then there would never have been any kind of conflict and she would never have had to fight for legal recognition. Once again, the false focus on the importance of gender has caused an issue for a person, and denied them the right to live their life. If we abolish gender, then the problem goes away.
The Irish government will introduce legislation to recognise transgender persons in their preferred gender including the possibility for them to obtain new birth certificates. An inter-departmental working group has been set up by the Irish government to develop a legal framework which respects the human rights of transgender individuals. It is crucial that representatives of the transgender community as well as other experts be represented in this working group. This could become a good model for other states which are currently considering improving their legal framework for transgender persons, including Portugal, Hungary, the Netherlands.
There is a danger in involving the transgendered community in this work. The danger is that there is such a wide variance in the needs and desires of this group. This could result in legislation being passed that enables a change of registered gender that is effectively outside of the gender binary, which is the desire of many in the transgendered community. The whole fight should be to abolish or minimise the whole concept of gender. Allow all people to just be people to just be people.
Still viewed as a mental disorder
Ireland is not the only country where transgender persons have faced obstacles in obtaining legal recognition of their preferred gender. Some Council of Europe member states still have no provision at all for official recognition, leaving transgender people in a legal limbo. Most member states still use medical classifications which impose the diagnosis of mental disorder on transgender persons.
Of course, changing recognition of gender for all people would solve most of the problem. As to the mental disorder, well this is a complex area. It needs to be classified by the medical profession in some way. A condition which causes distress to a person is usually classified under the mental health conditions. Treatment surely cures this distress and hence the individual moves on with their life without a ‘condition’ after their transition. But where else do you classify it? As a physical condition? A person states they are female, but has a fully operative and non-flawed male body. Where is the physical condition that needs treating? Surely the desire to remove perfectly sound organs is questionable and of the same order as someone who wishes to remove their fully functioning leg? This is body dysmorphia. Now I am well aware that people have cured their issues through transitioning, but removing the involvement of psychiatrists surely risks people transitioning who should not? And there are already too many people who regret it. There have been a number of well publicised cases and a gender specialist was taken before the General Medical Council because of certain people who later regretted their actions. Strangely, one thing that came out of most of the publicised cases was the fact that these people had circumvented the psychiatrists and headed abroad for surgery. Should it be a mental disorder? It certainly needs treatment in conjunction with appropriate mental health specialists, if only to eliminate other causes.
Even more common are provisions which demand impossible choices, such as the “forced divorce” and the “forced sterilisation” requirements. This means that only unmarried or divorced transgender persons who have undergone surgery and become irreversibly infertile have the right to change their entry in the birth register. In reality, this means that the state prescribes medical treatment for legal purposes, a requirement which clearly runs against the principles of human rights and human dignity.
Some positive legal developments can however be found. The Austrian Administrative High Court ruled in 2009 that mandatory surgery could not be a prerequisite for gender change, and in Germany the Federal Supreme Court indicated in 2005 that operative interventions as a precondition for the change of gender are no longer tenable.
Clearly, the state should never force people through things such as divorce or sterilisation. The first is simply resolved by having equality of relationship status for all people. This means that any two people can enter into a legal relationship. Sterilisation is the same as any non-necessary surgery: why should unnecessary surgery happen, let alone be forced onto people?
Full right to physical and moral security
All countries need to develop expeditious and transparent procedures for changing the name and gender of a transgender person on official documents, in accordance with the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.
Just remove gender. This would be far more sensible than changing gender. People are people and not a gender. As to names, well a ‘rose by any other name ...’.
People should be free to use whatever name they wish to have.
In 2002, in Goodwin v UK, the Strasbourg Court’s Grand Chamber stressed that in the twenty first century the rights of transgender persons should be effectively protected by states. They should have the same right to personal development and to physical and moral security enjoyed by others in society. One cannot but agree.
This is not a right for transgendered people, but a right for all people.
Highlighting transgendered people may be the purpose of this article, but it applies to all people as opposed to just transgendered people. The implication of how this is written is that it is only transgendered people that suffer these discriminations, but it is not. I have recently debated the issues of equality with some transgendered people. They insisted that sex discrimination no longer occurs in this country. Subsequent transition sees them experiencing the discrimination that the rest of us have experienced as women. Of course, they cannot go back on their view that sex discrimination no longer exists and insist they are being discriminated against because they are transgendered.
There is a strong need for an informed dialogue about the widespread discrimination against transgender persons in Europe today. One contribution will hopefully be a comparative study, the result of which my office will present early next year, on continued discrimination in all parts of Europe on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity.
There is a need to remove all discrimination. While legislation continues to be worded so that you must belong to a defined group to receive legal protection, then the problems will continue. Once we start from the position of all people are equal and that any allowable discrimination must be allowed by legislation, then we will start to see equality. It can never happen while people are only equal if the law says they are. The law does not change hearts and minds. Discrimination just goes under ground until such time as hearts and minds are changed.
I am concerned about gender, because it negatively impacts my life. I am not free to just behave how I want, because I am expected to conform to the socially constructed gender role for an adult female. Why should I wear a skirt or dress or makeup? Conversely, why should a man be precluded from doing so?
And then there is the question of men being aggressive and dominant and women being submissive and demure. Why should that be the case? My observations show that many successful women have exactly the same traits as men, sometimes even more than their male peers. Where on earth do we get the idea that men and women need to have these traits and that these traits are linked to physical sex?
I believe we should be fighting for gender equality. Part of that is about fighting for women's rights, but much more than that, I believe in gender equality: equality of opportunity for all people, regardless of gender. Such equality would allow everyone to choose to live their life in freedom.
Sunday, 5 September 2010
Tuesday, 31 August 2010
Back to school...
As a new school term and year looms, we are once again faced with the normal problems that beset every parent. Does the uniform still fit? Have they got all the school equipment they need? Then we all face the trauma; the apprehension as the unknown approaches the child. New teachers, new subjects, new classmates, will friends have changed over this extended holiday?
Like all parents, we have to deal with these problems. Unlike other parents, we have to face another problem and so does our daughter: being a lesbian couple with a daughter. The following article sets out the issues faced by many Back to School in the Gay Household.
We knew that many of these problems would arise, so we met with the headmaster when our daughter started in the school and advised him of the situation but the school were not prepared. I provided some information that was circulated to the teachers so that they knew what the situation was and how best to support our daughter. Since they have never had openly lesbian parents for one of their children, they had never thought about many of the implications.
Now preparing the school and preparing our daughter were critical in making her school life work. She is a very poplar girl, with lots of friends. Children talk about parents and our daughter had the strength and ability to tell her friends that she has two mummies. Some of her friends even think it is really ‘cool’.
Of course, I would be lying if I pretended that there were no problems: getting the school records right took a few attempts, but they got there in the end. We are lucky in the UK in that adoption by the non-biological mother has been allowed for some time and the new law means that both partners in a Civil Partnership can be named as parents on the child’s birth certificate now: it is a pity that option is only recent as it would have saved many heartaches in getting adoptions sorted. It did mean that the school had to acknowledge both of us as parents.
Then there are words: ‘lesbians are disgusting’ was one thing said to our daughter. Another that she hears too frequently are phrases like ‘that is so gay’ or ‘don’t be so gay’. The word ‘gay’ being used as a derogatory word, particularly against boys. Even seeing two of the girls hugging brings shouts of ‘lesbians’.
But the worst problem of all started with a word our daughter used when talking to some of her friends. Another child overheard this word, a word that was so dreadful, so very unacceptable, that the child, at 9 years old, had no idea what this word meant. And the word? The dreaded ‘L’ word. Yes, our daughter caused a storm by referring to her parents as lesbians.
There is much to do. Schools do not have the resources nor the knowledge to address the issues of children from lesbian and gay households, nor from single parent households. In these days of much greater family variance, it is really important that these needs are addressed.
Like all parents, we have to deal with these problems. Unlike other parents, we have to face another problem and so does our daughter: being a lesbian couple with a daughter. The following article sets out the issues faced by many Back to School in the Gay Household.
We knew that many of these problems would arise, so we met with the headmaster when our daughter started in the school and advised him of the situation but the school were not prepared. I provided some information that was circulated to the teachers so that they knew what the situation was and how best to support our daughter. Since they have never had openly lesbian parents for one of their children, they had never thought about many of the implications.
Now preparing the school and preparing our daughter were critical in making her school life work. She is a very poplar girl, with lots of friends. Children talk about parents and our daughter had the strength and ability to tell her friends that she has two mummies. Some of her friends even think it is really ‘cool’.
Of course, I would be lying if I pretended that there were no problems: getting the school records right took a few attempts, but they got there in the end. We are lucky in the UK in that adoption by the non-biological mother has been allowed for some time and the new law means that both partners in a Civil Partnership can be named as parents on the child’s birth certificate now: it is a pity that option is only recent as it would have saved many heartaches in getting adoptions sorted. It did mean that the school had to acknowledge both of us as parents.
Then there are words: ‘lesbians are disgusting’ was one thing said to our daughter. Another that she hears too frequently are phrases like ‘that is so gay’ or ‘don’t be so gay’. The word ‘gay’ being used as a derogatory word, particularly against boys. Even seeing two of the girls hugging brings shouts of ‘lesbians’.
But the worst problem of all started with a word our daughter used when talking to some of her friends. Another child overheard this word, a word that was so dreadful, so very unacceptable, that the child, at 9 years old, had no idea what this word meant. And the word? The dreaded ‘L’ word. Yes, our daughter caused a storm by referring to her parents as lesbians.
There is much to do. Schools do not have the resources nor the knowledge to address the issues of children from lesbian and gay households, nor from single parent households. In these days of much greater family variance, it is really important that these needs are addressed.
Friday, 27 August 2010
When is equality not equality?
What exactly is equality? I always thought that it meant that everyone should be treated equally. That is, everyone should be treated in exactly the same manner as everyone else. It seems sensible to me, after all, why should a non-white person be treated any differently to a white person? A Christian different to a Jew? A woman different to a man? A gay man or a lesbian different to a straight person?
Why should anyone be treated differently to anyone else?
But they are. Look at the Government statistics for employment rates for disadvantaged groups and see the problem. Of course, I am primarily interested in gender discrimination. Gender discrimination in employment is still very strong. If it wasn’t then the statistics quoted in my post The Gender Pay and Opportunities Gap would not exist.
Forty years of gender equality legislation and it still does not exist in the work place. Of course, the reason for this, or so we are led to believe, is because women do not desire careers, but make other choices in life.
Remembering that legislation is in place, then how can discrimination still exist? How does it happen?
Take a simple example of two people of the same age that leave school, go to university, and then start a job at the same time. Both of these people achieved first class honours from UK universities and found jobs in the same department and office. They both started work in the same week and come from middle class families in Surrey. Two very similar people. Except that I forgot to mention that one of them is female and the other male.
Initially, they go on intensive training at the same time and pass their professional qualifications at the same time through the intensive programme. Then they really settle down into work. They are assigned to the same management group. Work is allocated by the senior manager in the department.
Initially, they are both given similar cases to work on, sometimes even collaborating. The only noticeable difference is that the woman clears her workload and leaves the office at the end of the working day, whereas the man tends to stay longer into the evening, as he has not kept up with the work rate.
More complex cases start to arrive, and a choice has to be made as to who should get these cases. The Senior manager allocating the cases does not intentionally discriminate, but chooses the man to take n the more complex cases. He struggles with the more complex work and extends his working hours to cope. The woman starts to seek additional work as she is completing her less complex cases in a faster time than originally.
Now appraisal time arrives and the man is rated higher than the woman, after all, he is taking on more complex work than the woman. This seems fair, after all, he is doing more complex work. But is it fair? Why is the woman not doing some of the more complex cases? Why is she not being given the same opportunities as the man?
Of course, this means that the man is promoted sooner than the woman and all of a sudden, the differences between their career paths becomes clear. What started as two equals soon changes simply because of the actions of one person.
The senior manager allocating the work did not intentionally discriminate, but chose the man as he happened to be still working outside normal working hours – working late because he was behind. ‘More dedicated’ was one of the comments from the senior manager. ‘Determined to get on’ was another. Never was the ‘struggling to keep up’ ever thought about. Of course, every Friday, the man was down at the bar drinking with the other men, whereas the woman headed home to prepare to go out. After all, work clothes are not party clothes for a young woman.
Equal, but unequal. Equal in terms of ability, but unequal in terms of opportunity.
Why should anyone be treated differently to anyone else?
But they are. Look at the Government statistics for employment rates for disadvantaged groups and see the problem. Of course, I am primarily interested in gender discrimination. Gender discrimination in employment is still very strong. If it wasn’t then the statistics quoted in my post The Gender Pay and Opportunities Gap would not exist.
Forty years of gender equality legislation and it still does not exist in the work place. Of course, the reason for this, or so we are led to believe, is because women do not desire careers, but make other choices in life.
Remembering that legislation is in place, then how can discrimination still exist? How does it happen?
Take a simple example of two people of the same age that leave school, go to university, and then start a job at the same time. Both of these people achieved first class honours from UK universities and found jobs in the same department and office. They both started work in the same week and come from middle class families in Surrey. Two very similar people. Except that I forgot to mention that one of them is female and the other male.
Initially, they go on intensive training at the same time and pass their professional qualifications at the same time through the intensive programme. Then they really settle down into work. They are assigned to the same management group. Work is allocated by the senior manager in the department.
Initially, they are both given similar cases to work on, sometimes even collaborating. The only noticeable difference is that the woman clears her workload and leaves the office at the end of the working day, whereas the man tends to stay longer into the evening, as he has not kept up with the work rate.
More complex cases start to arrive, and a choice has to be made as to who should get these cases. The Senior manager allocating the cases does not intentionally discriminate, but chooses the man to take n the more complex cases. He struggles with the more complex work and extends his working hours to cope. The woman starts to seek additional work as she is completing her less complex cases in a faster time than originally.
Now appraisal time arrives and the man is rated higher than the woman, after all, he is taking on more complex work than the woman. This seems fair, after all, he is doing more complex work. But is it fair? Why is the woman not doing some of the more complex cases? Why is she not being given the same opportunities as the man?
Of course, this means that the man is promoted sooner than the woman and all of a sudden, the differences between their career paths becomes clear. What started as two equals soon changes simply because of the actions of one person.
The senior manager allocating the work did not intentionally discriminate, but chose the man as he happened to be still working outside normal working hours – working late because he was behind. ‘More dedicated’ was one of the comments from the senior manager. ‘Determined to get on’ was another. Never was the ‘struggling to keep up’ ever thought about. Of course, every Friday, the man was down at the bar drinking with the other men, whereas the woman headed home to prepare to go out. After all, work clothes are not party clothes for a young woman.
Equal, but unequal. Equal in terms of ability, but unequal in terms of opportunity.
The Gender Pay and Opportunities Gap
The Equal Pay Act 1970 introduced the requirement for equal pay between men and women where they are employed on equal work. This has been followed by a number of other pieces of legislation requiring equal treatment regardless of gender.
Despite all of this legislation, there remains a significant difference in pay and opportunities for male and female employees. But are these differences due to discrimination or are they due to differences in personal choices? Even if the reasons for these differences are due to differences in personal choices between male and female employees, are these voluntary or enforced choices?
The gender pay gap still exists and, in 2010, the Government is seeking to introduce additional legislation to address this inequality. The 2009 Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings(1) revealed a 25% difference in average full time earnings for male and female employees. A carer benchmarking survey in the Accountancy profession published in 2010(3) revealed that males earn 60% more than their female counterparts.
The pay gap is not, however, the full story. A survey for the Guardian Newspaper in August 2009(2) revealed that, while 90% of companies surveyed had an equality policy, only 3% of executive directors are female. This suggests that opportunities for female employees are less than for their male counterparts. The Bow Group produced a report(7) claiming that 36% of boys stay on at school to take GCE/A levels compared with 44% of girls. This difference questions why there are fewer women making it the highest levels of business.
There are claims that the gender pay gap is not the result of discrimination, but due to other factors such as qualifications, work experience, values and preferences. Shackleton states that “Employer discrimination is not a major factor: the size of the pay gap depends on a range of factors, many of which are probably beyond the influence of government as they depend on the values, preferences and choices of individual men and women.”(4). He goes on to say that “When attitudes and preferences, as well as objective characteristics such as work experience and qualifications, are brought into the picture, however, most of the pay gap can be explained without reference to discrimination”(5). The higher number of women that are part time employees may contribute to the apparent reduced opportunities available to them. In the 2009 Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings(1), 89% of male employees worked full time compared to 59% of females.
Other research by the Fawcett Society “shows that whilst legislation has eradicated some of the most blatant forms of discrimination, it has not been entirely successful in changing hearts and minds. The widening pay gap, decline in women leaders, and resurgence in workplace ‘sex-object culture’ are all testament to the fact that equal opportunity policies and discrimination legislation alone are ill-equipped to close the gender equality gap”(6).
With a significant amount of legislation already in place, will additional legislation improve reduce the gender pay and opportunity gaps? Is it discrimination or other factors that is responsible for these differences? If it is the latter, is this due to voluntary personal choice, or is it the result of other factors?
(1) http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/ashe1109.pdf
(2) http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/aug/23/women-business-harriet-harman-equality
(3) a Career Benchmarking Study released by the ICAEW and recruiters Robert Half. http://www.financialdirector.co.uk/accountancyage/news/2258629/female-accountants-paid-less
http://www.roberthalf.co.uk/portal/site/rh-uk/menuitem.b0a52206b89cee97e7dfed10c3809fa0/?vgnextoid=8a43852d76d17210VgnVCM1000003c08f90aRCRD&vgnextchannel=0198ad657c762110VgnVCM1000000100007fRCRD
(4) J R Shackleton (p104) Should We Mind the Gap? http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-book442pdf?.pdf
(5) J R Shackleton (p12) http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-book442pdf?.pdf
(6) Just Below the Surface: gender stereotyping, the silent barrier to equality in the modern workplace? http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/documents/Just%20Below%20the%20Surface.pdf
(7) Boys: A School Report by Chris Skidmore http://www.bowgroup.org/harriercollectionitems/BoysASchoolReport%5B1%5D.doc
Despite all of this legislation, there remains a significant difference in pay and opportunities for male and female employees. But are these differences due to discrimination or are they due to differences in personal choices? Even if the reasons for these differences are due to differences in personal choices between male and female employees, are these voluntary or enforced choices?
The gender pay gap still exists and, in 2010, the Government is seeking to introduce additional legislation to address this inequality. The 2009 Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings(1) revealed a 25% difference in average full time earnings for male and female employees. A carer benchmarking survey in the Accountancy profession published in 2010(3) revealed that males earn 60% more than their female counterparts.
The pay gap is not, however, the full story. A survey for the Guardian Newspaper in August 2009(2) revealed that, while 90% of companies surveyed had an equality policy, only 3% of executive directors are female. This suggests that opportunities for female employees are less than for their male counterparts. The Bow Group produced a report(7) claiming that 36% of boys stay on at school to take GCE/A levels compared with 44% of girls. This difference questions why there are fewer women making it the highest levels of business.
There are claims that the gender pay gap is not the result of discrimination, but due to other factors such as qualifications, work experience, values and preferences. Shackleton states that “Employer discrimination is not a major factor: the size of the pay gap depends on a range of factors, many of which are probably beyond the influence of government as they depend on the values, preferences and choices of individual men and women.”(4). He goes on to say that “When attitudes and preferences, as well as objective characteristics such as work experience and qualifications, are brought into the picture, however, most of the pay gap can be explained without reference to discrimination”(5). The higher number of women that are part time employees may contribute to the apparent reduced opportunities available to them. In the 2009 Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings(1), 89% of male employees worked full time compared to 59% of females.
Other research by the Fawcett Society “shows that whilst legislation has eradicated some of the most blatant forms of discrimination, it has not been entirely successful in changing hearts and minds. The widening pay gap, decline in women leaders, and resurgence in workplace ‘sex-object culture’ are all testament to the fact that equal opportunity policies and discrimination legislation alone are ill-equipped to close the gender equality gap”(6).
With a significant amount of legislation already in place, will additional legislation improve reduce the gender pay and opportunity gaps? Is it discrimination or other factors that is responsible for these differences? If it is the latter, is this due to voluntary personal choice, or is it the result of other factors?
(1) http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/ashe1109.pdf
(2) http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/aug/23/women-business-harriet-harman-equality
(3) a Career Benchmarking Study released by the ICAEW and recruiters Robert Half. http://www.financialdirector.co.uk/accountancyage/news/2258629/female-accountants-paid-less
http://www.roberthalf.co.uk/portal/site/rh-uk/menuitem.b0a52206b89cee97e7dfed10c3809fa0/?vgnextoid=8a43852d76d17210VgnVCM1000003c08f90aRCRD&vgnextchannel=0198ad657c762110VgnVCM1000000100007fRCRD
(4) J R Shackleton (p104) Should We Mind the Gap? http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-book442pdf?.pdf
(5) J R Shackleton (p12) http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-book442pdf?.pdf
(6) Just Below the Surface: gender stereotyping, the silent barrier to equality in the modern workplace? http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/documents/Just%20Below%20the%20Surface.pdf
(7) Boys: A School Report by Chris Skidmore http://www.bowgroup.org/harriercollectionitems/BoysASchoolReport%5B1%5D.doc
Gender - What is important?
There are three elements to gender: physical gender, gender identity, gender role and presentation.
Gender Identity
This is internal to the individual. It is about how they consider (or do not consider) themselves. It is entirely hidden from the world, as it is completely impossible to see into someone’s head. What a person considers their own gender identity to be is irrelevant.
Why irrelevant? Because you do not interact with the remainder of the world based on your gender identity. In fact, most people do not even give their gender identity a second thought. Certainly it is not a male/female binary; a black or white choice, but is an infinite variety of shades in all directions, not just female and male. I am not, therefore, even interested in what a person’s gender identity is.
Physical Gender
This is just the physical body that you have and how it compares to the biological ‘standard’ of either male or female. Of course, this is assumed to be a binary, but it may actually be something uch more complicated than that. There are far too many intersex conditions that lay waste to the idea of a physical gender binary. There are many conditions which mean that a person’s body may not fit wholly within the binary. We must, therefore, consider physical gender (or sex) to be a large spectrum as opposed to a binary. Most people, however, simplistically see that external male genitals means physical sex is male and lack of external male genitals makes the individual female.
So far, I have concluded that people can think of themselves (gender identity) across a spectrum of identities and they may have a body that could be on a spectrum with female at one end and male at the other. Female and male are just the extremes of the identity. An obvious question is whether or not there is any correlation between physical gender and gender identity, but I suspect that is a question that may prove impossible to fully answer.
Gender role and presentation
This is the way that a person interacts with the world. It is the way they dress and talk. It is about their mannerisms and deportment. This is the element of gender that actually matters. It matters, because it is how we interact with the world and how the world interacts with us.
In a world in which we have divided everything into a simplistic binary of female and male, we also have divided gender roles and presentation into a binary which correlates with a person’s assigned physical sex, based upon their external genitals.
In countries such as the UK, there is an expectation that women will dress in skirts and feminine clothing; that they will be demure and submissive. Men are expected to be dominant and aggressive, to wear more rugged clothing and certainly not skirts. In Scotland, the traditional dress is a kilt. Call it a skirt at your peril: it is a kilt NEVER a skirt. There are many more elements as well, such as makeup, shoes, ways of talking and so on. There are all these different traits and clothing choices, all of which appear to be divided between male and female.
But why are they divided? Why is it wrong for a man to wear a skirt? What is it that means a woman is demure and a man aggressive? Is this something biologically programmed into us before birth, or is it something that is constructed from societal expectations?
Gender Identity
This is internal to the individual. It is about how they consider (or do not consider) themselves. It is entirely hidden from the world, as it is completely impossible to see into someone’s head. What a person considers their own gender identity to be is irrelevant.
Why irrelevant? Because you do not interact with the remainder of the world based on your gender identity. In fact, most people do not even give their gender identity a second thought. Certainly it is not a male/female binary; a black or white choice, but is an infinite variety of shades in all directions, not just female and male. I am not, therefore, even interested in what a person’s gender identity is.
Physical Gender
This is just the physical body that you have and how it compares to the biological ‘standard’ of either male or female. Of course, this is assumed to be a binary, but it may actually be something uch more complicated than that. There are far too many intersex conditions that lay waste to the idea of a physical gender binary. There are many conditions which mean that a person’s body may not fit wholly within the binary. We must, therefore, consider physical gender (or sex) to be a large spectrum as opposed to a binary. Most people, however, simplistically see that external male genitals means physical sex is male and lack of external male genitals makes the individual female.
So far, I have concluded that people can think of themselves (gender identity) across a spectrum of identities and they may have a body that could be on a spectrum with female at one end and male at the other. Female and male are just the extremes of the identity. An obvious question is whether or not there is any correlation between physical gender and gender identity, but I suspect that is a question that may prove impossible to fully answer.
Gender role and presentation
This is the way that a person interacts with the world. It is the way they dress and talk. It is about their mannerisms and deportment. This is the element of gender that actually matters. It matters, because it is how we interact with the world and how the world interacts with us.
In a world in which we have divided everything into a simplistic binary of female and male, we also have divided gender roles and presentation into a binary which correlates with a person’s assigned physical sex, based upon their external genitals.
In countries such as the UK, there is an expectation that women will dress in skirts and feminine clothing; that they will be demure and submissive. Men are expected to be dominant and aggressive, to wear more rugged clothing and certainly not skirts. In Scotland, the traditional dress is a kilt. Call it a skirt at your peril: it is a kilt NEVER a skirt. There are many more elements as well, such as makeup, shoes, ways of talking and so on. There are all these different traits and clothing choices, all of which appear to be divided between male and female.
But why are they divided? Why is it wrong for a man to wear a skirt? What is it that means a woman is demure and a man aggressive? Is this something biologically programmed into us before birth, or is it something that is constructed from societal expectations?
Thursday, 26 August 2010
Rape - a Man's right?
“If you wouldn't have been running around with those little dresses on it would have never happened.” That is not the response you would expect from your father when you are raped, but that is what is reported in this story.
It is sad that any person would make such a comment, let alone a relative. It does, however, highlight some of the problems still to be resolved.
When a woman is raped it is NEVER her fault: yes means yes and no means no. It is that simple. If a woman does not consent, then it is rape. The person at fault for that rape is her attacker.
I covered my feelings on this fairly recently, following the rapes at the Latitude Festival Why are women blamed for getting themselves raped?, but it just keeps coming up.
I also talked about clothes What is wrong with the clothes I wear? And here we are once again with a story that blames women for putting themselves at risk because of the clothes that they wear.
Of course, we are told that men just cannot help it, after all, it is just their natural reaction to a pretty woman to want to have sex with her. I don’t have personal knowledge of those kind of feelings, so I cannot easily challenge it, but I can challenge the idea that people should act on that feeling.
Let’s be honest, many of us at one time or another have felt jealous of someone else. Perhaps it is the new car, the money, the house or the job. Perhaps it is their partner, or their looks. All sorts of things raise emotions in us that may make us think “why should I not have that as well?” But do we act on it? Laws help, but our moral codes are the ultimate determiner of our actions. Most of us do not succumb to these temptations. Why should rape be any different? Just because it is sex? Because men have an inalienable right to have sex with women, whether or not the women truly wishes to do so
An inalienable right? How can I claim that many men believe that they have this right? Take a recent story Councils pay for disabled to visit prostitutes and lap-dancing clubs from £520m taxpayer fund. The paper is making a point about council’s wasting money, but that is not what I want to focus on. I want to focus upon the idea that this 21 year old man with learning issues had an inalienable right to have sex with women, and because he could not get a woman himself, he should be able to seek sex with a prostitute. Where does this right come from? The paper reports his social worker as stating that “Refusing to offer him this service would be a violation of his human rights.”
That is deeply worrying: it is a breach of human rights for a man to be denied sex with a woman. Not only is it a woman’s fault for wearing the wrong clothes, but it is also a breach of human rights for a man to be denied sex with a woman. Does that mean that rape must be a woman’s fault? After all, she cannot say no to a man’s inalienable right to have sex with a woman.
It is sad that any person would make such a comment, let alone a relative. It does, however, highlight some of the problems still to be resolved.
When a woman is raped it is NEVER her fault: yes means yes and no means no. It is that simple. If a woman does not consent, then it is rape. The person at fault for that rape is her attacker.
I covered my feelings on this fairly recently, following the rapes at the Latitude Festival Why are women blamed for getting themselves raped?, but it just keeps coming up.
I also talked about clothes What is wrong with the clothes I wear? And here we are once again with a story that blames women for putting themselves at risk because of the clothes that they wear.
Of course, we are told that men just cannot help it, after all, it is just their natural reaction to a pretty woman to want to have sex with her. I don’t have personal knowledge of those kind of feelings, so I cannot easily challenge it, but I can challenge the idea that people should act on that feeling.
Let’s be honest, many of us at one time or another have felt jealous of someone else. Perhaps it is the new car, the money, the house or the job. Perhaps it is their partner, or their looks. All sorts of things raise emotions in us that may make us think “why should I not have that as well?” But do we act on it? Laws help, but our moral codes are the ultimate determiner of our actions. Most of us do not succumb to these temptations. Why should rape be any different? Just because it is sex? Because men have an inalienable right to have sex with women, whether or not the women truly wishes to do so
An inalienable right? How can I claim that many men believe that they have this right? Take a recent story Councils pay for disabled to visit prostitutes and lap-dancing clubs from £520m taxpayer fund. The paper is making a point about council’s wasting money, but that is not what I want to focus on. I want to focus upon the idea that this 21 year old man with learning issues had an inalienable right to have sex with women, and because he could not get a woman himself, he should be able to seek sex with a prostitute. Where does this right come from? The paper reports his social worker as stating that “Refusing to offer him this service would be a violation of his human rights.”
That is deeply worrying: it is a breach of human rights for a man to be denied sex with a woman. Not only is it a woman’s fault for wearing the wrong clothes, but it is also a breach of human rights for a man to be denied sex with a woman. Does that mean that rape must be a woman’s fault? After all, she cannot say no to a man’s inalienable right to have sex with a woman.
Sunday, 22 August 2010
Male or female, straight or lesbian?
In view of some things that have happened recently, I needed to share these thoughts. The confusion between sexuality and gender identity can be very dangerous things.
Sexuality and gender identity are very different things. Now I am well aware that many transgendered people report a significant improvement in their life if they transition, however, it is not always the case. I have been surprised at the number of cases where individuals have gone through gender transition only to revert back to their birth gender, or to adopt a role outside the gender binary.
For a majority of people, they have no issue with their gender or their sexuality. For most people, gender is something they rarely even consider. It just is. They adopt a gender role and presentation in accordance with their sex. Further, they adopt the sexuality considered most socially acceptable: heterosexual. The majority of people are highly content with their assignment in the gender binary and with the idea of only having sexual relationships with those of the opposite gender.
But things do not always go right.
What happens when you start finding someone of the same gender attractive? How easy is it to accept that love?
Embracing a sexuality that is considered outside of the normal can be difficult. Society prepares us for the concept of a relationship consisting of a man and a woman. Everywhere you look, this is the pattern. I had to take task with the headmaster at a local school over the lack of single parent knowledge, let alone same sex parenting! From their earliest days, children are taught that normality is a mother, father and generally 2 children. The media streams the concept of heterosexuality continuously. Now, as the majority of people are heterosexual, perhaps there should be more images of heterosexuality, but why not present positive images of loving relationships that are free from gender constraints?
Is it any wonder that we grow up believing that the only acceptable relationships are between one man and one woman?
That leads me to a story of one woman who grew up in a very homophobic family. The story is not pleasant as a lack of acceptance of her sexuality led to permanent damage to her body. As she reached puberty, she began to realise that she had an attraction to women. But her socialisation had taught her that love is between a man and a woman. This cannot be right: one woman loving another? The tension created between her feelings and her socialisation made her acceptance of being lesbian a real issue.
The tension caused massive internal turmoil: “a relationship is between a man and a woman and I love a woman”. Reconciling that problem can prove difficult. Most of us today see the solution as simple: she is lesbian. It seems straight forward enough. However, when you are attracted to women and you are told that a relationship is between a man and a woman, not between two women, then if you cannot reject that view of relationships, then you have the choice of ignoring your true feelings, or questioning your gender.
She did try overcoming her sexuality hang-ups and even entered a full blown relationship with another woman. That relationship proved a disaster and, once again, she ascribed it to her sexuality being wrong. Of course, her subsequent relationship with a man was doomed to failure, despite her trying her hardest to be a “proper wife”.
In total despair, failed relationships with both women and men, knowing her attraction to women and believing that relationships should be between a man and a woman, she started questioning what was wrong with her. She had rejected the traditional female gender role and appearance in her teens. She even took pride in being identified as male on occasion. Mixing in a world with some more unusual people led her to a chance contact with a man, who had transitioned after being assigned female at birth. Finally, an answer. It solved everything. As a man, it was right for her to fancy women. Her appearance needed almost no work to allow her to be accepted as a man.
Now gender reassignment for female to male patients is undoubtedly a little more complex than for male to female patients, although, conversely, the hormone situation is simpler. Getting on a treatment programme was a real issue. Fighting through GPs, psychiatrists and gender specialists. Of course, her appearance, her mannerisms and her intelligence were no match for these specialists, who, to be quite frank, are a little needy in terms of understanding their patients. After 6 months of fighting, the first medical elements of her transition started with testosterone injections. The testosterone had an effect both in terms of changes to her body and to her mind. And it was these changes to her mind that made her realise that it was a mistake and she re-transitioned. From female to male and then back to female.
She had confused her gender identity with her sexuality, simply because of her socialisation and, in the process, did irreparable damage to her body.
She has since rebuilt her life as a woman and has overcome her sexuality issues.
Note, the above is a brief summary. There are other factors which affected her life, but do not add to the account given.
Sexuality and gender identity are very different things. Now I am well aware that many transgendered people report a significant improvement in their life if they transition, however, it is not always the case. I have been surprised at the number of cases where individuals have gone through gender transition only to revert back to their birth gender, or to adopt a role outside the gender binary.
For a majority of people, they have no issue with their gender or their sexuality. For most people, gender is something they rarely even consider. It just is. They adopt a gender role and presentation in accordance with their sex. Further, they adopt the sexuality considered most socially acceptable: heterosexual. The majority of people are highly content with their assignment in the gender binary and with the idea of only having sexual relationships with those of the opposite gender.
But things do not always go right.
What happens when you start finding someone of the same gender attractive? How easy is it to accept that love?
Embracing a sexuality that is considered outside of the normal can be difficult. Society prepares us for the concept of a relationship consisting of a man and a woman. Everywhere you look, this is the pattern. I had to take task with the headmaster at a local school over the lack of single parent knowledge, let alone same sex parenting! From their earliest days, children are taught that normality is a mother, father and generally 2 children. The media streams the concept of heterosexuality continuously. Now, as the majority of people are heterosexual, perhaps there should be more images of heterosexuality, but why not present positive images of loving relationships that are free from gender constraints?
Is it any wonder that we grow up believing that the only acceptable relationships are between one man and one woman?
That leads me to a story of one woman who grew up in a very homophobic family. The story is not pleasant as a lack of acceptance of her sexuality led to permanent damage to her body. As she reached puberty, she began to realise that she had an attraction to women. But her socialisation had taught her that love is between a man and a woman. This cannot be right: one woman loving another? The tension created between her feelings and her socialisation made her acceptance of being lesbian a real issue.
The tension caused massive internal turmoil: “a relationship is between a man and a woman and I love a woman”. Reconciling that problem can prove difficult. Most of us today see the solution as simple: she is lesbian. It seems straight forward enough. However, when you are attracted to women and you are told that a relationship is between a man and a woman, not between two women, then if you cannot reject that view of relationships, then you have the choice of ignoring your true feelings, or questioning your gender.
She did try overcoming her sexuality hang-ups and even entered a full blown relationship with another woman. That relationship proved a disaster and, once again, she ascribed it to her sexuality being wrong. Of course, her subsequent relationship with a man was doomed to failure, despite her trying her hardest to be a “proper wife”.
In total despair, failed relationships with both women and men, knowing her attraction to women and believing that relationships should be between a man and a woman, she started questioning what was wrong with her. She had rejected the traditional female gender role and appearance in her teens. She even took pride in being identified as male on occasion. Mixing in a world with some more unusual people led her to a chance contact with a man, who had transitioned after being assigned female at birth. Finally, an answer. It solved everything. As a man, it was right for her to fancy women. Her appearance needed almost no work to allow her to be accepted as a man.
Now gender reassignment for female to male patients is undoubtedly a little more complex than for male to female patients, although, conversely, the hormone situation is simpler. Getting on a treatment programme was a real issue. Fighting through GPs, psychiatrists and gender specialists. Of course, her appearance, her mannerisms and her intelligence were no match for these specialists, who, to be quite frank, are a little needy in terms of understanding their patients. After 6 months of fighting, the first medical elements of her transition started with testosterone injections. The testosterone had an effect both in terms of changes to her body and to her mind. And it was these changes to her mind that made her realise that it was a mistake and she re-transitioned. From female to male and then back to female.
She had confused her gender identity with her sexuality, simply because of her socialisation and, in the process, did irreparable damage to her body.
She has since rebuilt her life as a woman and has overcome her sexuality issues.
Note, the above is a brief summary. There are other factors which affected her life, but do not add to the account given.
Wednesday, 18 August 2010
I am a Survivor
Everybody knows what domestic violence (DV) is, don’t they? So why do the victims of DV put up with it? Most people do think they know what DV is but do they really understand it? I suspect that they have little idea. If they did, then they would know the answer to the second question.
I know what DV is. I am a survivor. I have survived for over 20 years now. The actual violence finally gave me the strength to leave, but the DV continued even after I left the ‘family home’. That may surprise many people.
Let’s look a little deeper at what DV really is. Most people I have spoken consider it to be things like violence against the individual. A man hits his wife, that is what DV is. WRONG.
DV is much more complex than that. A definition from “Women’s Aid:
"In Women's Aid's view domestic violence is physical, sexual, psychological or financial violence that takes place within an intimate or family-type relationship and that forms a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour. This can include forced marriage and so-called 'honour crimes'. Domestic violence may include a range of abusive behaviours, not all of which are in themselves inherently 'violent'."
The final part of that is important not all of which are in themselves inherently ‘violent’.
Take my situation as an example. I was the primary earner, so should have been able to be independent. In fact, when I finally left, finding somewhere to live was fairly straightforward. In fact, what people would recognise as ‘violence’ only happened over a couple of days; the days immediately leading up to my departure.
My DV lasted just 2 days then? No it did not. It lasted for a significant length of time. In fact, it lasted for several years. We were very young when we first got together. A relationship that was somewhat illicit and exciting. Little did I understand what was happening to me. At first it was little things. I never noticed how my entire wardrobe was changed. I didn’t realise how I had been cut off from friends, or how my hobbies were curtailed. In fact, my only reason for being out of the house was to act as a source of money: money that had to be handed over.
Slowly, I was dying. The real person was being squeezed until my very existence as an independent person was destroyed. No longer could I even make decisions, those were made for me. What I wore, who I spoke to, where I went were all decided for me. My beliefs, my hobbies and my friends were all imposed upon me. It had just happened.
While I was out working all day and then again in the evenings and at weekends, my abuser was enjoying life with her friends: trips to coffee shops and shopping during the day and then night clubs in the evening. When did I get excluded from all these things? Of course, I couldn’t go, because I was working.
At first I fought back. Arguments were intense. Slowly, I learned not to argue. It was my fault anyway, so don’t argue. I was, after all, useless. I failed to earn enough. I never looked good enough. I always said the wrong thing and embarrassed other people. In time, I accepted my place. I stopped fighting, I stopped having an opinion. In fact, I stopped being. DV is like a spiral that you descend as you ‘accept’ your place on one level of DV, so you spiral to the next, until everything has been exhausted. When you are trapped no longer able to function as an individual and no longer with the will to fight back, then what people traditionally understand as violence.
Women’s Aid identified four particular strands: physical, sexual, psychological and financial. Not all of these need to be present. In fact, just one and it is DV. I NEVER was subjected to sexual DV, in this relationship. The financial DV tends to restrict a person’s freedom: no money, then no ability to escape. I was the main earner, yet I was deprived of control over my finances, but primarily it was the psychological DV. This trapped me. A world of self-doubt and self-loathing.
Why didn’t I leave? Abusers know how to hold people to their will. That is the whole point. Each time I accepted one scale of abuse and failed to fight back, then the abuse became more intense.
I would like to get inside the mind of the abuser to understand why, but it is like the more control they have, the more they need. The more they subjugate you, the more they need to subjugate you. The less you fight back, the more they goad you to fight back.
Then the physical violence started. It was not for long. Somehow it broke the ‘spell’ that my abuser had over me. I can, to this day, remember clearly the entire scene. I remember details of the scuffed bright green gloss paint and the woodwork, the Artex flaking from the walls, light green paint for the top part and stripped light green and white paper on the lower half of the walls. Even the crusted stain on the lino on the floor pulls into view as the scene unfolds. Suddenly, a fork flies at me, unable to move as I watch the tragedy unfolding. The prongs heading directly at me surely adequate to pierce the softness of my eye. The trajectory is perfect, spot on target. And a sudden burst of brightness as clarity filled my brain. It was over, but somehow the only thing parted was my hair. It had missed by such a tiny margin, but had broken the spell cast upon me.
I left. It was by mutual agreement apparently. Of course, I left. That was the end, at least, that is what I thought.
But it wasn’t the end, just a new beginning. Out of the family home things were different. The DV was not so intense. As we were no longer a couple and no longer living together, strictly, it is no longer DV. But it persisted. Appeals to do this or to do that. To help out with this and with that. Of course, I was registered on the mortgage, so that was another hold for me. It took several years for the house to be sold. Every day giving more reason for contact.
Healing can never start until the abuser is isolated from their victim. My secretary at work even played a vital part in breaking that contact, by making excuses as to why I could not take telephone calls.
But I did stop it eventually. The main years of abuse are over 20 years ago. I am a survivor. The abuse took me to places I cannot even describe. It has and always will cause me issues.
The pain never goes away. Even time does not seem to dim the pain of what was done to me. Just occasionally, something happens and everything floods back again – and that happened again this week. But I am a survivor. I am a survivor of Domestic Violence. I found the strength to overcome and I went on to find love. True and unconditional love.
I found a woman who lifted me up and gave me unconditional love and support. It is through her that I became a survivor and was no longer a victim.
I know what DV is. I am a survivor. I have survived for over 20 years now. The actual violence finally gave me the strength to leave, but the DV continued even after I left the ‘family home’. That may surprise many people.
Let’s look a little deeper at what DV really is. Most people I have spoken consider it to be things like violence against the individual. A man hits his wife, that is what DV is. WRONG.
DV is much more complex than that. A definition from “Women’s Aid:
"In Women's Aid's view domestic violence is physical, sexual, psychological or financial violence that takes place within an intimate or family-type relationship and that forms a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour. This can include forced marriage and so-called 'honour crimes'. Domestic violence may include a range of abusive behaviours, not all of which are in themselves inherently 'violent'."
The final part of that is important not all of which are in themselves inherently ‘violent’.
Take my situation as an example. I was the primary earner, so should have been able to be independent. In fact, when I finally left, finding somewhere to live was fairly straightforward. In fact, what people would recognise as ‘violence’ only happened over a couple of days; the days immediately leading up to my departure.
My DV lasted just 2 days then? No it did not. It lasted for a significant length of time. In fact, it lasted for several years. We were very young when we first got together. A relationship that was somewhat illicit and exciting. Little did I understand what was happening to me. At first it was little things. I never noticed how my entire wardrobe was changed. I didn’t realise how I had been cut off from friends, or how my hobbies were curtailed. In fact, my only reason for being out of the house was to act as a source of money: money that had to be handed over.
Slowly, I was dying. The real person was being squeezed until my very existence as an independent person was destroyed. No longer could I even make decisions, those were made for me. What I wore, who I spoke to, where I went were all decided for me. My beliefs, my hobbies and my friends were all imposed upon me. It had just happened.
While I was out working all day and then again in the evenings and at weekends, my abuser was enjoying life with her friends: trips to coffee shops and shopping during the day and then night clubs in the evening. When did I get excluded from all these things? Of course, I couldn’t go, because I was working.
At first I fought back. Arguments were intense. Slowly, I learned not to argue. It was my fault anyway, so don’t argue. I was, after all, useless. I failed to earn enough. I never looked good enough. I always said the wrong thing and embarrassed other people. In time, I accepted my place. I stopped fighting, I stopped having an opinion. In fact, I stopped being. DV is like a spiral that you descend as you ‘accept’ your place on one level of DV, so you spiral to the next, until everything has been exhausted. When you are trapped no longer able to function as an individual and no longer with the will to fight back, then what people traditionally understand as violence.
Women’s Aid identified four particular strands: physical, sexual, psychological and financial. Not all of these need to be present. In fact, just one and it is DV. I NEVER was subjected to sexual DV, in this relationship. The financial DV tends to restrict a person’s freedom: no money, then no ability to escape. I was the main earner, yet I was deprived of control over my finances, but primarily it was the psychological DV. This trapped me. A world of self-doubt and self-loathing.
Why didn’t I leave? Abusers know how to hold people to their will. That is the whole point. Each time I accepted one scale of abuse and failed to fight back, then the abuse became more intense.
I would like to get inside the mind of the abuser to understand why, but it is like the more control they have, the more they need. The more they subjugate you, the more they need to subjugate you. The less you fight back, the more they goad you to fight back.
Then the physical violence started. It was not for long. Somehow it broke the ‘spell’ that my abuser had over me. I can, to this day, remember clearly the entire scene. I remember details of the scuffed bright green gloss paint and the woodwork, the Artex flaking from the walls, light green paint for the top part and stripped light green and white paper on the lower half of the walls. Even the crusted stain on the lino on the floor pulls into view as the scene unfolds. Suddenly, a fork flies at me, unable to move as I watch the tragedy unfolding. The prongs heading directly at me surely adequate to pierce the softness of my eye. The trajectory is perfect, spot on target. And a sudden burst of brightness as clarity filled my brain. It was over, but somehow the only thing parted was my hair. It had missed by such a tiny margin, but had broken the spell cast upon me.
I left. It was by mutual agreement apparently. Of course, I left. That was the end, at least, that is what I thought.
But it wasn’t the end, just a new beginning. Out of the family home things were different. The DV was not so intense. As we were no longer a couple and no longer living together, strictly, it is no longer DV. But it persisted. Appeals to do this or to do that. To help out with this and with that. Of course, I was registered on the mortgage, so that was another hold for me. It took several years for the house to be sold. Every day giving more reason for contact.
Healing can never start until the abuser is isolated from their victim. My secretary at work even played a vital part in breaking that contact, by making excuses as to why I could not take telephone calls.
But I did stop it eventually. The main years of abuse are over 20 years ago. I am a survivor. The abuse took me to places I cannot even describe. It has and always will cause me issues.
The pain never goes away. Even time does not seem to dim the pain of what was done to me. Just occasionally, something happens and everything floods back again – and that happened again this week. But I am a survivor. I am a survivor of Domestic Violence. I found the strength to overcome and I went on to find love. True and unconditional love.
I found a woman who lifted me up and gave me unconditional love and support. It is through her that I became a survivor and was no longer a victim.
Thursday, 12 August 2010
Pornification of Women
It is a sad world when we see how the sexual gratification of adult males is being pushed onto the rest of society. There is more pornography available than ever before. Search the internet even with a plain word such as “woman” and you will find links to pornography. Search with a word like “sex” and you will find links to pornography – pornography aimed at men. This is the point – aimed at men for men.
Now there is nothing wrong with sex. Really, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with sex. In fact, I have a very healthy sex life. I love sex when I am with the right person, but I am fussy about who that person is. So don’t mistake me for being anti-sex.
But I am anti-porn. Not because I am prudish, but because I have great concerns over the impact of porn. As I showed at the beginning, porn is aimed at men. I know some women state they enjoy porn as well, but they are undoubtedly a smaller group. The pornography, though, has a massive impact on their lives. Research(1) shows that, in the UK, 90% of young people surveyed admitted to viewing pornography and the age at which they first viewed pornography was 11 years old!
Now if we think about the consequences of that by considering a well known celebrity: Tiger Woods. "As soon as I read the Tiger Woods texts I knew this was a guy who liked porn. Acts like DP, ATM and choking are now commonplace, while a decade ago they would have been on the fringes of the porn industry."(2)
A celebrity who has been addicted to pornography admitting how it nearly destroyed his marriage, and impacted the lives of a great many other people. His access to porn normalised acts once frowned upon.
Young people are accessing this kind of material for on average 90 minutes per week. How is that altering their views? How are these pornographic images (and it is pornography, not sex) affecting these children? Is this normalising acts that used to be extreme or taboo?
Pornography is damaging women in particular, objectifying them. It is also affecting men, but the real issue is the “pornification” of women in order that women fit into the pornographic images demanded by men.
(1) http://www.sexualhealthsheffield.nhs.uk/resources/pornographybriefing.pdf
(2) http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/tawdry_tiger_FUez9gMmuPdqrih9ijNf2O/0
(3) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jackson-katz/interview-with-porn-schol_b_530909.html
Now there is nothing wrong with sex. Really, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with sex. In fact, I have a very healthy sex life. I love sex when I am with the right person, but I am fussy about who that person is. So don’t mistake me for being anti-sex.
But I am anti-porn. Not because I am prudish, but because I have great concerns over the impact of porn. As I showed at the beginning, porn is aimed at men. I know some women state they enjoy porn as well, but they are undoubtedly a smaller group. The pornography, though, has a massive impact on their lives. Research(1) shows that, in the UK, 90% of young people surveyed admitted to viewing pornography and the age at which they first viewed pornography was 11 years old!
Now if we think about the consequences of that by considering a well known celebrity: Tiger Woods. "As soon as I read the Tiger Woods texts I knew this was a guy who liked porn. Acts like DP, ATM and choking are now commonplace, while a decade ago they would have been on the fringes of the porn industry."(2)
A celebrity who has been addicted to pornography admitting how it nearly destroyed his marriage, and impacted the lives of a great many other people. His access to porn normalised acts once frowned upon.
Young people are accessing this kind of material for on average 90 minutes per week. How is that altering their views? How are these pornographic images (and it is pornography, not sex) affecting these children? Is this normalising acts that used to be extreme or taboo?
Pornography is damaging women in particular, objectifying them. It is also affecting men, but the real issue is the “pornification” of women in order that women fit into the pornographic images demanded by men.
(1) http://www.sexualhealthsheffield.nhs.uk/resources/pornographybriefing.pdf
(2) http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/tawdry_tiger_FUez9gMmuPdqrih9ijNf2O/0
(3) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jackson-katz/interview-with-porn-schol_b_530909.html
A transsexual woman, or just another woman?
An earlier post I made upset some transsexuals. It was unintentional. Perhaps a little background to my position may help. When a dear friend announced they were transsexual, I was shocked. Shocked mainly because my views on what gender is questioned the validity of why my friend was transitioning. Many hours of talk and I began to understand. Don’t misunderstand: I supported her, but really did not understand why she felt this compulsion to undergo such a process.
I watched her transition, how her appearance altered. I was surprised that I started thinking of her as a woman. Then she told me, she was not transsexual, but a woman. She rejected the idea of being transsexual - rather explaining that she was merely a woman wrongly assigned at birth.
Looking back, I can identify how she had integrated fully with the women she mixed with. At first, all I could see was a dear friend attempting to adopt a female gender role and that made me sad. Society uses female and male gender roles to oppress women so watching someone I care about reinforcing something I totally reject was somewhat troublesome.
Time has shown that she has fully integrated into life as just another woman, taking some strong positions on women’s issues. In fact, she has debated strongly with me on gender issues. I was surprised by her actual rejection of the socially constructed gender roles. Here is a woman taking a similar view to me, but having taken a different path to get here.
I was in trouble. My previous rejection of transgender people as little more than sexually motivated men was being challenged. Long held beliefs were being challenged. But I was soon to learn that one person is just that: one person...
I watched her transition, how her appearance altered. I was surprised that I started thinking of her as a woman. Then she told me, she was not transsexual, but a woman. She rejected the idea of being transsexual - rather explaining that she was merely a woman wrongly assigned at birth.
Looking back, I can identify how she had integrated fully with the women she mixed with. At first, all I could see was a dear friend attempting to adopt a female gender role and that made me sad. Society uses female and male gender roles to oppress women so watching someone I care about reinforcing something I totally reject was somewhat troublesome.
Time has shown that she has fully integrated into life as just another woman, taking some strong positions on women’s issues. In fact, she has debated strongly with me on gender issues. I was surprised by her actual rejection of the socially constructed gender roles. Here is a woman taking a similar view to me, but having taken a different path to get here.
I was in trouble. My previous rejection of transgender people as little more than sexually motivated men was being challenged. Long held beliefs were being challenged. But I was soon to learn that one person is just that: one person...
Tuesday, 10 August 2010
Brighton Pride!
I spent a wonderful few days in Brighton, giving me a chance to experience the incredible festival that is Brighton Pride. Hotel prices were ridiculous, and we nearly didn’t have a campsite either! Luckily, a group of us managed to get in one tent.
As a group, we were a little varied: lesbian, straight and gay; cis gendered and trans gendered.
This gave me a unique opportunity to study people. In fact, I gave up the opportunity of over indulging so that I could just watch.
Why was I looking? Gender is a social construction, so I was questioning whether such a diverse group was breaking down this construction. And so it appears. It was wonderful: women that looked like men; men that looked like women. In fact, there were one or two people that I remain unsure about.
The most glamorous dress I saw all weekend was a silver evening gown. It was magnificent and flowing over six feet down from the shoulders of a man. It was perhaps one of the more extreme gender expressions, but there were others. I loved the women who had gone for the traditional smart casual male look – straight shirts tucked into belted trousers. Short well kept hair. But that is my type of woman. Then there were those of us who went for leggings and feminine tops, added makeup and styled long hair.
These gender roles set out so clearly how we are supposed to appear based on our genitals. The clothes we should wear and the way in which we should present to the world. Each of us different and by seeing so many of us refusing to accept the gender expression required for our assigned sex or to conforming to any stereotype, we are breaking down those gender boundaries.
Of course, it is not just about clothing, but about all the other aspects of how we are supposed to act as set out by these socially constructed gender roles. Aspects that we could, perhaps, call masculine or feminine. Some aspects were simple to identify, such as masculinity requires aggressiveness and femininity requires passiveness. Even these features were being transgressed. The way people moved and the body language they displayed.
It is important to realise that just because someone took on a masculine appearance, they did not necessarily fully do so, nor did they necessarily adopt other male gender role traits. In fact, more important than anything was the mixing of these traits.
I lost sense of the gender divide. Finally I had seen how it is possible for these gender roles to be deconstructed and reconstructed into personal gender roles: that is a role that suites the individual rather than one that suites society.
As a group, we were a little varied: lesbian, straight and gay; cis gendered and trans gendered.
This gave me a unique opportunity to study people. In fact, I gave up the opportunity of over indulging so that I could just watch.
Why was I looking? Gender is a social construction, so I was questioning whether such a diverse group was breaking down this construction. And so it appears. It was wonderful: women that looked like men; men that looked like women. In fact, there were one or two people that I remain unsure about.
The most glamorous dress I saw all weekend was a silver evening gown. It was magnificent and flowing over six feet down from the shoulders of a man. It was perhaps one of the more extreme gender expressions, but there were others. I loved the women who had gone for the traditional smart casual male look – straight shirts tucked into belted trousers. Short well kept hair. But that is my type of woman. Then there were those of us who went for leggings and feminine tops, added makeup and styled long hair.
These gender roles set out so clearly how we are supposed to appear based on our genitals. The clothes we should wear and the way in which we should present to the world. Each of us different and by seeing so many of us refusing to accept the gender expression required for our assigned sex or to conforming to any stereotype, we are breaking down those gender boundaries.
Of course, it is not just about clothing, but about all the other aspects of how we are supposed to act as set out by these socially constructed gender roles. Aspects that we could, perhaps, call masculine or feminine. Some aspects were simple to identify, such as masculinity requires aggressiveness and femininity requires passiveness. Even these features were being transgressed. The way people moved and the body language they displayed.
It is important to realise that just because someone took on a masculine appearance, they did not necessarily fully do so, nor did they necessarily adopt other male gender role traits. In fact, more important than anything was the mixing of these traits.
I lost sense of the gender divide. Finally I had seen how it is possible for these gender roles to be deconstructed and reconstructed into personal gender roles: that is a role that suites the individual rather than one that suites society.
Monday, 2 August 2010
What is wrong with the clothes I wear?
I was surprised a while ago to find that, on first meeting me, many people do not take me seriously. Why? It appears it is because of what I wear.
Appearance defines us.
What is wrong with my appearance? I have long dark blond hair, I often wear makeup (although not all the time). Sometimes I wear skirts and dresses and even high heeled shoes. Other times, no make, hair swept back, comfy shoes, jeans and tee shirt. I thought that was pretty ordinary, but a couple of incidents made me question how I have chosen to look.
In a gay pub, holding my partners hand and a man in there insisted that we could not possibly be gay, simply because we do not look like lesbians! What did he expect lesbians to look like exactly? Are we all supposed to look like a stereotype?
Then there was the woman who refused to even acknowledge me at a feminist meeting, sitting in a defensive posture and ignoring my general chatter. Then I started to talk about feminism. I watched the arms unfold and the eyes open. Now she is one of my greatest friends – a friendship nearly denied because of my appearance.
I am, of course, not the only lesbian to notice this problem. I came across a great article and particularly liked: "And you know what? I'm not alone. I know a lot of LBGT people who don't "look" gay or transgendered."
I cannot claim credit for her conclusion, but wish I could: "But now, it's time to take the next step. It's time for everyone—gay and straight—to set stereotypes about sexuality on a high, dusty shelf and forget them. Forever."
Appearance defines us.
What is wrong with my appearance? I have long dark blond hair, I often wear makeup (although not all the time). Sometimes I wear skirts and dresses and even high heeled shoes. Other times, no make, hair swept back, comfy shoes, jeans and tee shirt. I thought that was pretty ordinary, but a couple of incidents made me question how I have chosen to look.
In a gay pub, holding my partners hand and a man in there insisted that we could not possibly be gay, simply because we do not look like lesbians! What did he expect lesbians to look like exactly? Are we all supposed to look like a stereotype?
Then there was the woman who refused to even acknowledge me at a feminist meeting, sitting in a defensive posture and ignoring my general chatter. Then I started to talk about feminism. I watched the arms unfold and the eyes open. Now she is one of my greatest friends – a friendship nearly denied because of my appearance.
I am, of course, not the only lesbian to notice this problem. I came across a great article and particularly liked: "And you know what? I'm not alone. I know a lot of LBGT people who don't "look" gay or transgendered."
I cannot claim credit for her conclusion, but wish I could: "But now, it's time to take the next step. It's time for everyone—gay and straight—to set stereotypes about sexuality on a high, dusty shelf and forget them. Forever."
Sunday, 1 August 2010
Thoughts on Gender Part 2
What is gender?
I wrote some initial thoughts about looking at gender from different ways and this seems to have caused a little bit of a stir. Perhaps some expansion of those ideas is needed.
I mentioned looking at the experiences of transgendered people as a group that have experienced living in different gender roles. This means that they have taken on the presentation associated with different roles and/or sought to be perceived by other people as being of different gender roles. In no way was this meant to demean their personal self-identity. I suspect it is a failing to agree on the meaning of one word: GENDER.
Gender is a socially constructed
Now I came into conflict because of this point. It was perhaps not expressed in this way, but this is what was objected to. My definition of gender is entirely based on the social construct of gender, and not on the physical body or a person’s self identity.
So let us explore why gender is socially constructed.
When a child is born, it is assigned as male or female. This assignment is rarely done on anything more than the length of the phallus. It does not look at many other factors which may affect the biological construction of the body. This is not usually referred to as gender, but as sex. I am not concerned about the physical body. We are all highly conscious that there are physical differences between different people, but this is not gender. The one connection is that a child is defined at that very moment of birth as being expected to comply with the gender role accorded to those who share the same physical sex.
Of course, one criticism thrown at my post Thoughts on Gender Part 1 was that Male to Female have a brain of a woman and the body of a man. Female to male have a brain of a man and the body of a woman. Once again, this is full of disagreement with the term gender. In fact, what they are doing is talking about their personal self-identity. This is not something I particularly wish to get into, other than to say I respect each individual to define as they so wish but this is not gender. It is gender identity, but not gender.
The cause of it is also irrelevant in my consideration of gender. I am highly aware of various studies into pre-natal sex determination. The 2-4 digit studies apparently indicate testosterone exposure in the womb and this has been used to explain brain differentiation development. These may explain drain development, but it is not gender.
I came across an article about the radical feminist definition that gender "is a term which describes the systematic oppression of women, as a subordinate group, for the advantage of the dominant group, men. This is not an abstract concept – it describes the material circumstances of oppression, including institutionalised male power and power within personal relationships – for example, the unequal division of labour, the criminal justice system, motherhood, the family, sexual violence… and so on."
This much more fits with my own view of what gender is, although it is something of a complex description. Breaking it down into slightly different terms, there are expectations placed on what it is to be male or female. These are often in conflict, so it is expected that masculinity includes features such as being hard, strong, the provider, the breadwinner, the protector and so on. Femininity is defined in terms of weaknesses, softness, empathy, caring and nurturing.
Masculinity does not allow skirts or makeup and expects short hair and so forth whereas femininity includes wearing makeup, skirts and is heavily about a certain appearance.
Femininity includes an expectation of skin care and looking radiant and young, whereas masculinity does not.
Feminine traits include being cook, housekeeper, childminder and so forth, but masculinity is the breadwinner, the hunter, the protector.
Those with male physical form are expected to be masculine and those with female physical form are expected to be feminine.
Where do such assumptions come from? Throughout history, what is expected of masculinity or femininity has changed. Across different cultures there are different expectations. If this is the case, then clearly, masculine and feminine are not some magical biological element, leaving only one possibility: gender is socialised.
Of course, there is one point I want to return to:
Male = masculine
Female = feminine
What makes this the case? Why can females not be masculine and men feminine?
I wrote some initial thoughts about looking at gender from different ways and this seems to have caused a little bit of a stir. Perhaps some expansion of those ideas is needed.
I mentioned looking at the experiences of transgendered people as a group that have experienced living in different gender roles. This means that they have taken on the presentation associated with different roles and/or sought to be perceived by other people as being of different gender roles. In no way was this meant to demean their personal self-identity. I suspect it is a failing to agree on the meaning of one word: GENDER.
Gender is a socially constructed
Now I came into conflict because of this point. It was perhaps not expressed in this way, but this is what was objected to. My definition of gender is entirely based on the social construct of gender, and not on the physical body or a person’s self identity.
So let us explore why gender is socially constructed.
When a child is born, it is assigned as male or female. This assignment is rarely done on anything more than the length of the phallus. It does not look at many other factors which may affect the biological construction of the body. This is not usually referred to as gender, but as sex. I am not concerned about the physical body. We are all highly conscious that there are physical differences between different people, but this is not gender. The one connection is that a child is defined at that very moment of birth as being expected to comply with the gender role accorded to those who share the same physical sex.
Of course, one criticism thrown at my post Thoughts on Gender Part 1 was that Male to Female have a brain of a woman and the body of a man. Female to male have a brain of a man and the body of a woman. Once again, this is full of disagreement with the term gender. In fact, what they are doing is talking about their personal self-identity. This is not something I particularly wish to get into, other than to say I respect each individual to define as they so wish but this is not gender. It is gender identity, but not gender.
The cause of it is also irrelevant in my consideration of gender. I am highly aware of various studies into pre-natal sex determination. The 2-4 digit studies apparently indicate testosterone exposure in the womb and this has been used to explain brain differentiation development. These may explain drain development, but it is not gender.
I came across an article about the radical feminist definition that gender "is a term which describes the systematic oppression of women, as a subordinate group, for the advantage of the dominant group, men. This is not an abstract concept – it describes the material circumstances of oppression, including institutionalised male power and power within personal relationships – for example, the unequal division of labour, the criminal justice system, motherhood, the family, sexual violence… and so on."
This much more fits with my own view of what gender is, although it is something of a complex description. Breaking it down into slightly different terms, there are expectations placed on what it is to be male or female. These are often in conflict, so it is expected that masculinity includes features such as being hard, strong, the provider, the breadwinner, the protector and so on. Femininity is defined in terms of weaknesses, softness, empathy, caring and nurturing.
Masculinity does not allow skirts or makeup and expects short hair and so forth whereas femininity includes wearing makeup, skirts and is heavily about a certain appearance.
Femininity includes an expectation of skin care and looking radiant and young, whereas masculinity does not.
Feminine traits include being cook, housekeeper, childminder and so forth, but masculinity is the breadwinner, the hunter, the protector.
Those with male physical form are expected to be masculine and those with female physical form are expected to be feminine.
Where do such assumptions come from? Throughout history, what is expected of masculinity or femininity has changed. Across different cultures there are different expectations. If this is the case, then clearly, masculine and feminine are not some magical biological element, leaving only one possibility: gender is socialised.
Of course, there is one point I want to return to:
Male = masculine
Female = feminine
What makes this the case? Why can females not be masculine and men feminine?
Friday, 30 July 2010
It's my fault, because I am a woman
It just never fails to amaze me the depths that newspapers go to in blaming women. I did not even need to search to come up with the following: "The scorching heatwave in early July caused road accidents to soar because male drivers were distracted by womens' skimpy outfits, according to insurance claim figures.". The emphasis is mine to highlight how they are blaming women for distracting men and therefore causing the accidents. Perhaps it is just the construction of the language, but surely these accidents are caused by men’s failure to concentrate on the road rather than because of what women are wearing?
At the same time, I discovered another article thanks to a Facebook friend. "Casual sexism is nothing but misogyny". This give a number of examples of behaviour and language that just shows the level of misogyny that exists. The next to last paragraph really says it all:
“There is a final, huge, virtually universal form of casual sexism which is expressed in nearly every house. Any man who thinks it's OK to live in a household where the woman does the overwhelming majority of all the housework, childcare and family admin is a woman-hater. If he weren't, it would agonise him to live in such an unequal and exploitative setup.”
Of course, some could argue that the following headline shows responsible action "Council bans mini-skirts in crackdown on 'inappropriate' clothing in the office" but when I reached the end of the article, I became concerned at a comment from a council spokesman: “We do not have lots of staff at the council wearing mini-skirts - that was just picked as an example of what would be inappropriate.” Why not pick on men’s clothing? Why pick on women? Once again, it is women that are put down.
"There aren't many women who can pull off looking equally as stunning off-duty as she does at a formal ‘do’.". At what point is a woman required to dress in a certain way? Why do newspapers demand that any woman should look as good off-duty as she does on-duty? What gives them a right to even comment on a woman’s clothes?
Perhaps I have come full circle: the media demands that women dress in a particular way and as a result, this cause them to become a distraction for male drivers, causing them to have more accidents. So it is not women who are to blame for men having accidents, but the media; a sector dominated by ... men!
At the same time, I discovered another article thanks to a Facebook friend. "Casual sexism is nothing but misogyny". This give a number of examples of behaviour and language that just shows the level of misogyny that exists. The next to last paragraph really says it all:
“There is a final, huge, virtually universal form of casual sexism which is expressed in nearly every house. Any man who thinks it's OK to live in a household where the woman does the overwhelming majority of all the housework, childcare and family admin is a woman-hater. If he weren't, it would agonise him to live in such an unequal and exploitative setup.”
Of course, some could argue that the following headline shows responsible action "Council bans mini-skirts in crackdown on 'inappropriate' clothing in the office" but when I reached the end of the article, I became concerned at a comment from a council spokesman: “We do not have lots of staff at the council wearing mini-skirts - that was just picked as an example of what would be inappropriate.” Why not pick on men’s clothing? Why pick on women? Once again, it is women that are put down.
"There aren't many women who can pull off looking equally as stunning off-duty as she does at a formal ‘do’.". At what point is a woman required to dress in a certain way? Why do newspapers demand that any woman should look as good off-duty as she does on-duty? What gives them a right to even comment on a woman’s clothes?
Perhaps I have come full circle: the media demands that women dress in a particular way and as a result, this cause them to become a distraction for male drivers, causing them to have more accidents. So it is not women who are to blame for men having accidents, but the media; a sector dominated by ... men!
Wednesday, 28 July 2010
Why are women blamed for getting themselves raped?
The two rape incidents at the Latitude festival sparked a response from both the organisers and the press.
Two women in two different incidents were raped – a 19-year-old woman told police she had been attacked by a group of men on Thursday, after becoming lost while looking for the toilets in her campsite and a 17-year-old girl then said on Saturday that she had been raped in a tent on the campsite the previous night. The incidents do not appear to be connected so we are talking about at least two men attacking two women.
Two criminals loose amongst us.
So a reaction from the organisers and the media was undoubtedly warranted and sure enough, there was a response. Melvyn Benn, the chief executive of Festival Republic which runs Latitude, said, "it is fair to say that in the future we will be making much more high profile the issues of being alone at night, particularly if you are a girl – definitely".
"Police have urged people to stay with friends while at the event"
"We are also reminding individuals to be vigilant and are advising groups of friends to stick together and look out for each other."
These were comments included in the newspaper reports, but then there were comments left by some readers:
"The rules for ladies/girls at festivals is that you never go anywhere alone after dark. I'm sorry but if you were at home would you seriously ask a bunch of guys for directions? So why would you you do it at a festival? Poor incredibly naive girl."
"They should understand that they should not put themselves at risk - you just can't trust others to look after you and behave well."
These are just a couple of the multitude of comments.
I could not even bring myself to put my thoughts down about these at first because of how angry I am. A week has now passed and I have had time to be more considered in my feelings.
As I said earlier, two criminals are wandering around, but it seems the organisers, the police, the newspapers and the readers have decided who the criminals are: the two women!
Yes, they are blaming the two women. If they had followed the rules “that you never go anywhere alone after dark” or if they hadn’t “put themselves at risk” or if they had “stay[ed] with friends” and, of course, if they were more aware of “the issues of being alone at night, particularly if you are a girl” then they would not have been raped.
HELLO!!!!
Who is at fault? The women? I don’t think so. Let’s think again.
Two separate incidents in which men used their strength (and numbers) to pick out a lone female and rape her.
Who did what to who?
The MEN raped the women. The MEN are responsible.
It is not the responsibility of women to prevent men from raping them; it is the responsibility of men NOT TO RAPE!
There is nothing complicated about it. Men should not rape. Blaming the victim shows how low our society has sunk.
Two women in two different incidents were raped – a 19-year-old woman told police she had been attacked by a group of men on Thursday, after becoming lost while looking for the toilets in her campsite and a 17-year-old girl then said on Saturday that she had been raped in a tent on the campsite the previous night. The incidents do not appear to be connected so we are talking about at least two men attacking two women.
Two criminals loose amongst us.
So a reaction from the organisers and the media was undoubtedly warranted and sure enough, there was a response. Melvyn Benn, the chief executive of Festival Republic which runs Latitude, said, "it is fair to say that in the future we will be making much more high profile the issues of being alone at night, particularly if you are a girl – definitely".
"Police have urged people to stay with friends while at the event"
"We are also reminding individuals to be vigilant and are advising groups of friends to stick together and look out for each other."
These were comments included in the newspaper reports, but then there were comments left by some readers:
"The rules for ladies/girls at festivals is that you never go anywhere alone after dark. I'm sorry but if you were at home would you seriously ask a bunch of guys for directions? So why would you you do it at a festival? Poor incredibly naive girl."
"They should understand that they should not put themselves at risk - you just can't trust others to look after you and behave well."
These are just a couple of the multitude of comments.
I could not even bring myself to put my thoughts down about these at first because of how angry I am. A week has now passed and I have had time to be more considered in my feelings.
As I said earlier, two criminals are wandering around, but it seems the organisers, the police, the newspapers and the readers have decided who the criminals are: the two women!
Yes, they are blaming the two women. If they had followed the rules “that you never go anywhere alone after dark” or if they hadn’t “put themselves at risk” or if they had “stay[ed] with friends” and, of course, if they were more aware of “the issues of being alone at night, particularly if you are a girl” then they would not have been raped.
HELLO!!!!
Who is at fault? The women? I don’t think so. Let’s think again.
Two separate incidents in which men used their strength (and numbers) to pick out a lone female and rape her.
Who did what to who?
The MEN raped the women. The MEN are responsible.
It is not the responsibility of women to prevent men from raping them; it is the responsibility of men NOT TO RAPE!
There is nothing complicated about it. Men should not rape. Blaming the victim shows how low our society has sunk.
Thursday, 1 July 2010
Thoughts on Gender Part 1
When I decided to study gender, I thought that looking at transsexual people would provide some insight into what we mean by gender. The reasoning for this is that such people are starting in one gender and then moving to the other gender. I gained access to a number of transsexual spaces and observed, in most cases being accepted as transsexual. The acceptance happened because I have allowed people to believe that I am in the same position as them.
The more I have observed, the more confused I have become. I plan to use this blog to capture much of my rambling thoughts. Consequently, there will be conflicts between different posts as I develop the ideas. At this stage, it occurs to me that transgender people have merely confused the whole gender issue. For reasons I will go into another day, gender is complex, including internal feelings, external perception, personal presentation and, of course, biology.
I was fortunate in having a good friend who was undergoing transition, providing me with a very intimate insight into the process of transition (the actual process of crossing the gender “divide”). I was fortunate to watch her from prior to transition through the social and medical aspects of her transition. I was also able to attend a number of the medical appointments she went to and was with her when she underwent sex reassignment surgery (SRS). The actual term for the genital surgery is hotly debated by transsexuals, but I use this as a factual term: Sex refers to the bodily definition of gender based upon genitals; reassignment because the genitals are being reconstructed to the gender they identify with and surgery is obvious. The dual meaning of the word sex is part of the rejection of this term, but the same people also reject the term transsexual as it also includes the same word. The problem is that there is confusion over sex referring to the act of sex as well as referring to the genital configuration.
As I became more involved in these groups, I was amazed to discover a massive range of people, covered by a more general term transgender. This covers not only transsexuals, but also transvestites, cross dressers and so on. In fact, it has been used to define anyone who does not wholly identify with the gender assigned to them at birth. Looking more deeply, I discovered that there were people who merely adopt female presentation, but in a generally exaggerated mode. I initially defined this as being people who part time adopt a female gender role, however, I rapidly discovered that this was not strictly correct. In fact, they do not tend to adopt a complete female gender role, but only certain elements. I will consider this in more detail later, however, it appeared that they used clothes, hair and make-up in an exaggerated manner to counter an inability to accurately adopt other elements of the female gender role, such as mannerisms. I had identified a group of people whose experience of moving to the female gender was entirely based on appearance. What was more surprising was that they adopted the appearance generally used by young women as seen in many popular magazines. This was at odds with their own bodily structure and also their age. They were not seeking to blend with women of their own age and social grouping, but were attempting to adopt the hyper sexualised images presented through the media.
This was not what I was looking for. These people generally did not adopt the other gender full time and this was a position unique to men: I did not find any women who adopted a male appearance part time in the same manner. So I decided to limit my observations to those who live in the other gender to their birth gender full time. But this proved difficult. I came across a number of people who decided that they would not undergo any medical transition, but would live in the other gender full time. In the case of a number of trans men, I discovered that they were unimpressed with the surgery available to them and consequently decided to avoid phallus construction, but did undergo processes such as mastectomy to create a more male chest. But I found a group, primarily trans women, who had made a conscious choice not to undertake hormone or surgical treatments.
I had found various groups:
• Those who seek to adopt a female gender appearance part time
• Those who seek to live their lives full time without any medical treatment
• Those who seek to live their lives wholly in the other gender, undergoing medical treatment.
It is this final group that I was most interested in. The idea was that by analysing the gender experience of these people both before and after transition, it would be possible to gain an insight into the differences by analysing the changes they had undergone.
Even then, it got more complicated. I had assumed that a trans woman was a person assigned male at birth who wished to be accepted by society as a woman, but I was wrong.
In fact, I found that a number of such people did not consider that they were wholly female, but a combination of both male and female and they wished to be acknowledged outside the gender binary. This was illustrated by an Australian case of "norrie mAy-Welby" (http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/03/11/australia-is-first-to-recognise-non-specified-gender/) where, following transition and SRS, Norrie decided zie was neither male nor female and sought to have this legally recognised. Zie is not the only person who expressed this view, although no other cases have been legally pursued that I could identify at this stage. A number of people expressed their view that they were 60/40 female/male or 80/20 female/male, but that they were not 100% female or male.
That latter point is one that I have always believed: we are not all entirely male or female, but I would have put it slightly differently by stating that we all display a range of stereotypical male and female gender role elements.
This left me rather confused. I had made an assumption that transsexual people would experience gender in a much more intense manner than most other people. The reasoning for this, was that the process of changing from one gender to the other is so complex and emotional that there would need to be an extreme issue to cause someone to undertake such a change. To discover that some people are undertaking this course of action because they simply do not feel wholly of their birth gender seemed somehow to contradict their expressed reasoning.
This made me consider further what people were actually doing.
My experience of the gay scene back in the 1980s & 1990s saw me mixing with a massive variety of different lesbians and gay men. What I was amazed at was a certain group who took everything to total extremes. There was a pretty universal understanding that these people were actually taking these extreme positions just to gain attention. By shocking people, they were achieving a personal aim. The people they set out to shock were often their own family, but also included the general public. I have seen the same techniques within the general population, but it was extreme within these the gay scene. I knew people who were unhappy if they had gone to all that trouble and people just ignored them.
I called upon this idea and questioned if this “shock” desire may be behind the behaviour of some transgender people. Is the actual aim of their behaviour to be the ultimate in shock to their family, or to the public at large? An interesting idea, adding yet another dimension to what is going on.
The more I have observed, the more confused I have become. I plan to use this blog to capture much of my rambling thoughts. Consequently, there will be conflicts between different posts as I develop the ideas. At this stage, it occurs to me that transgender people have merely confused the whole gender issue. For reasons I will go into another day, gender is complex, including internal feelings, external perception, personal presentation and, of course, biology.
I was fortunate in having a good friend who was undergoing transition, providing me with a very intimate insight into the process of transition (the actual process of crossing the gender “divide”). I was fortunate to watch her from prior to transition through the social and medical aspects of her transition. I was also able to attend a number of the medical appointments she went to and was with her when she underwent sex reassignment surgery (SRS). The actual term for the genital surgery is hotly debated by transsexuals, but I use this as a factual term: Sex refers to the bodily definition of gender based upon genitals; reassignment because the genitals are being reconstructed to the gender they identify with and surgery is obvious. The dual meaning of the word sex is part of the rejection of this term, but the same people also reject the term transsexual as it also includes the same word. The problem is that there is confusion over sex referring to the act of sex as well as referring to the genital configuration.
As I became more involved in these groups, I was amazed to discover a massive range of people, covered by a more general term transgender. This covers not only transsexuals, but also transvestites, cross dressers and so on. In fact, it has been used to define anyone who does not wholly identify with the gender assigned to them at birth. Looking more deeply, I discovered that there were people who merely adopt female presentation, but in a generally exaggerated mode. I initially defined this as being people who part time adopt a female gender role, however, I rapidly discovered that this was not strictly correct. In fact, they do not tend to adopt a complete female gender role, but only certain elements. I will consider this in more detail later, however, it appeared that they used clothes, hair and make-up in an exaggerated manner to counter an inability to accurately adopt other elements of the female gender role, such as mannerisms. I had identified a group of people whose experience of moving to the female gender was entirely based on appearance. What was more surprising was that they adopted the appearance generally used by young women as seen in many popular magazines. This was at odds with their own bodily structure and also their age. They were not seeking to blend with women of their own age and social grouping, but were attempting to adopt the hyper sexualised images presented through the media.
This was not what I was looking for. These people generally did not adopt the other gender full time and this was a position unique to men: I did not find any women who adopted a male appearance part time in the same manner. So I decided to limit my observations to those who live in the other gender to their birth gender full time. But this proved difficult. I came across a number of people who decided that they would not undergo any medical transition, but would live in the other gender full time. In the case of a number of trans men, I discovered that they were unimpressed with the surgery available to them and consequently decided to avoid phallus construction, but did undergo processes such as mastectomy to create a more male chest. But I found a group, primarily trans women, who had made a conscious choice not to undertake hormone or surgical treatments.
I had found various groups:
• Those who seek to adopt a female gender appearance part time
• Those who seek to live their lives full time without any medical treatment
• Those who seek to live their lives wholly in the other gender, undergoing medical treatment.
It is this final group that I was most interested in. The idea was that by analysing the gender experience of these people both before and after transition, it would be possible to gain an insight into the differences by analysing the changes they had undergone.
Even then, it got more complicated. I had assumed that a trans woman was a person assigned male at birth who wished to be accepted by society as a woman, but I was wrong.
In fact, I found that a number of such people did not consider that they were wholly female, but a combination of both male and female and they wished to be acknowledged outside the gender binary. This was illustrated by an Australian case of "norrie mAy-Welby" (http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/03/11/australia-is-first-to-recognise-non-specified-gender/) where, following transition and SRS, Norrie decided zie was neither male nor female and sought to have this legally recognised. Zie is not the only person who expressed this view, although no other cases have been legally pursued that I could identify at this stage. A number of people expressed their view that they were 60/40 female/male or 80/20 female/male, but that they were not 100% female or male.
That latter point is one that I have always believed: we are not all entirely male or female, but I would have put it slightly differently by stating that we all display a range of stereotypical male and female gender role elements.
This left me rather confused. I had made an assumption that transsexual people would experience gender in a much more intense manner than most other people. The reasoning for this, was that the process of changing from one gender to the other is so complex and emotional that there would need to be an extreme issue to cause someone to undertake such a change. To discover that some people are undertaking this course of action because they simply do not feel wholly of their birth gender seemed somehow to contradict their expressed reasoning.
This made me consider further what people were actually doing.
My experience of the gay scene back in the 1980s & 1990s saw me mixing with a massive variety of different lesbians and gay men. What I was amazed at was a certain group who took everything to total extremes. There was a pretty universal understanding that these people were actually taking these extreme positions just to gain attention. By shocking people, they were achieving a personal aim. The people they set out to shock were often their own family, but also included the general public. I have seen the same techniques within the general population, but it was extreme within these the gay scene. I knew people who were unhappy if they had gone to all that trouble and people just ignored them.
I called upon this idea and questioned if this “shock” desire may be behind the behaviour of some transgender people. Is the actual aim of their behaviour to be the ultimate in shock to their family, or to the public at large? An interesting idea, adding yet another dimension to what is going on.
Thursday, 10 June 2010
Is feminism wrong?
I have been challenged a few times recently about feminism. Firstly I was being told that feminism is a thing of the past and then I was told that feminism is wrong. Wrong, because equality has already been enshrined in law. Women have achieved equality and there is, therefore, nothing left to fight for.
I don’t see it that way. In fact, I see quite a few other things, but not that the fight is over.
There has been something of a resurgence of feminism recently, perhaps highlighted by the number of books recently released. I must admit to not being fully up to date on these yet, but there has been:
Living Dolls, Natasha Walter
The Equality Illusion, Kat Banyard
Reclaiming the F Word, Catherine Redfern and Kristin Aune
I know that I allowed my career to interrupt my feminist activity and I suspect with a number of others have done the same. After all, a great deal of change has been legislated for. So why is there suddenly a resurgence in feminism?
I have been chatting with various different people from all sorts of different backgrounds about this and have been amazed at the varying views. My views are simply that some things have been changed, but we have not changed the hearts and minds of the world yet. But a few views do differ from mine:
Women are equal to men, but the only people who haven’t realised it are feminists.
I love doing all the female things for my man.
It empowers a woman to be able to take control of her own sexuality by working in the sex industry as a lap dancer or prostitute. Providing they have chosen to do it, why should they not?
Women can easily achieve the same as men, after all they have the same opportunities and laws to protect them.
So why then is there a gender pay gap and a gender opportunity gap? Why are so many women abused? Why are so many women trafficked into prostitution?
Here is a list from Women for Women International where women are disadvantaged:
• Women bear a disproportionate burden of the world's poverty (They represent 70 percent of the world's poor)
• Women’s ability to have a decent life is limited (they perform 66 percent of the world's work and produce 50 percent of the food but they only earn 10 percent of the income and own 1 percent of the property)
• Investment in women is inadequate (recent data shows that only 3.6% of overseas development assistance was earmarked for gender equality (UNIFEM). And for every dollar of development assistance, two cents goes to girls (Girl Effect).
• During and after conflict, women are particularly vulnerable to violence and exploitation (About 70% of casualties in recent conflicts are women and children (UNIFEM) and the forms of violence they experience include torture, rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution and mutilation
(http://www.womenforwomen.org/about-women-for-women/victims-to-survivors.php )
)
There are others not covered in that list; rape, domestic abuse, sexual abuse, employment to name just a few more.
I am only going to look at one are any further for now, after all, it is 40 years since the Equal Pay Act was made law, but the gender pay gap still exists and, in 2010, the Government introduced even more legislation to address this inequality.
The 2009 Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings(1) revealed a 25% difference in average full time earnings for male and female employees. A carer benchmarking survey in the Accountancy profession published in 2010(3) revealed that males earn 60% more than their female counterparts.
The pay gap is not, however, the full story. A survey for the Guardian Newspaper in August 2009(2) revealed that, while 90% of companies surveyed had an equality policy, only 3% of executive directors are female. This suggests that opportunities for female employees are less than for their male counterparts. The Bow Group produced a report(7) claiming that 36% of boys stay on at school to take GCE/A levels compared with 44% of girls. This difference questions why there are fewer women making it the highest levels of business.
There are claims that the gender pay gap is not the result of discrimination, but due to other factors such as qualifications, work experience, values and preferences. Shackleton states that “Employer discrimination is not a major factor: the size of the pay gap depends on a range of factors, many of which are probably beyond the influence of government as they depend on the values, preferences and choices of individual men and women.”(4). He goes on to say that “When attitudes and preferences, as well as objective characteristics such as work experience and qualifications, are brought into the picture, however, most of the pay gap can be explained without reference to discrimination”(5). The higher number of women that are part time employees may contribute to the apparent reduced opportunities available to them. In the 2009 Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings(1), 89% of male employees worked full time compared to 59% of females.
Other research by the Fawcett Society “shows that whilst legislation has eradicated some of the most blatant forms of discrimination, it has not been entirely successful in changing hearts and minds. The widening pay gap, decline in women leaders, and resurgence in workplace ‘sex-object culture’ are all testament to the fact that equal opportunity policies and discrimination legislation alone are ill-equipped to close the gender equality gap”(6).
Is feminism wrong? I certainly hope I have shown that there is much still to be done and that can only be achieved through feminism.
References:
(1) http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/ashe1109.pdf
(2) http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/aug/23/women-business-harriet-harman-equality
(3) a Career Benchmarking Study released by the ICAEW and recruiters Robert Half. http://www.financialdirector.co.uk/accountancyage/news/2258629/female-accountants-paid-less
http://www.roberthalf.co.uk/portal/site/rh-uk/menuitem.b0a52206b89cee97e7dfed10c3809fa0/?vgnextoid=8a43852d76d17210VgnVCM1000003c08f90aRCRD&vgnextchannel=0198ad657c762110VgnVCM1000000100007fRCRD
(4) J R Shackleton (p104) Should We Mind the Gap? http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-book442pdf?.pdf
(5) J R Shackleton (p12) http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-book442pdf?.pdf
(6) Just Below the Surface: gender stereotyping, the silent barrier to equality in the modern workplace? http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/documents/Just%20Below%20the%20Surface.pdf
(7) Boys: A School Report by Chris Skidmore http://www.bowgroup.org/harriercollectionitems/BoysASchoolReport%5B1%5D.doc
I don’t see it that way. In fact, I see quite a few other things, but not that the fight is over.
There has been something of a resurgence of feminism recently, perhaps highlighted by the number of books recently released. I must admit to not being fully up to date on these yet, but there has been:
Living Dolls, Natasha Walter
The Equality Illusion, Kat Banyard
Reclaiming the F Word, Catherine Redfern and Kristin Aune
I know that I allowed my career to interrupt my feminist activity and I suspect with a number of others have done the same. After all, a great deal of change has been legislated for. So why is there suddenly a resurgence in feminism?
I have been chatting with various different people from all sorts of different backgrounds about this and have been amazed at the varying views. My views are simply that some things have been changed, but we have not changed the hearts and minds of the world yet. But a few views do differ from mine:
Women are equal to men, but the only people who haven’t realised it are feminists.
I love doing all the female things for my man.
It empowers a woman to be able to take control of her own sexuality by working in the sex industry as a lap dancer or prostitute. Providing they have chosen to do it, why should they not?
Women can easily achieve the same as men, after all they have the same opportunities and laws to protect them.
So why then is there a gender pay gap and a gender opportunity gap? Why are so many women abused? Why are so many women trafficked into prostitution?
Here is a list from Women for Women International where women are disadvantaged:
• Women bear a disproportionate burden of the world's poverty (They represent 70 percent of the world's poor)
• Women’s ability to have a decent life is limited (they perform 66 percent of the world's work and produce 50 percent of the food but they only earn 10 percent of the income and own 1 percent of the property)
• Investment in women is inadequate (recent data shows that only 3.6% of overseas development assistance was earmarked for gender equality (UNIFEM). And for every dollar of development assistance, two cents goes to girls (Girl Effect).
• During and after conflict, women are particularly vulnerable to violence and exploitation (About 70% of casualties in recent conflicts are women and children (UNIFEM) and the forms of violence they experience include torture, rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution and mutilation
(http://www.womenforwomen.org/about-women-for-women/victims-to-survivors.php )
)
There are others not covered in that list; rape, domestic abuse, sexual abuse, employment to name just a few more.
I am only going to look at one are any further for now, after all, it is 40 years since the Equal Pay Act was made law, but the gender pay gap still exists and, in 2010, the Government introduced even more legislation to address this inequality.
The 2009 Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings(1) revealed a 25% difference in average full time earnings for male and female employees. A carer benchmarking survey in the Accountancy profession published in 2010(3) revealed that males earn 60% more than their female counterparts.
The pay gap is not, however, the full story. A survey for the Guardian Newspaper in August 2009(2) revealed that, while 90% of companies surveyed had an equality policy, only 3% of executive directors are female. This suggests that opportunities for female employees are less than for their male counterparts. The Bow Group produced a report(7) claiming that 36% of boys stay on at school to take GCE/A levels compared with 44% of girls. This difference questions why there are fewer women making it the highest levels of business.
There are claims that the gender pay gap is not the result of discrimination, but due to other factors such as qualifications, work experience, values and preferences. Shackleton states that “Employer discrimination is not a major factor: the size of the pay gap depends on a range of factors, many of which are probably beyond the influence of government as they depend on the values, preferences and choices of individual men and women.”(4). He goes on to say that “When attitudes and preferences, as well as objective characteristics such as work experience and qualifications, are brought into the picture, however, most of the pay gap can be explained without reference to discrimination”(5). The higher number of women that are part time employees may contribute to the apparent reduced opportunities available to them. In the 2009 Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings(1), 89% of male employees worked full time compared to 59% of females.
Other research by the Fawcett Society “shows that whilst legislation has eradicated some of the most blatant forms of discrimination, it has not been entirely successful in changing hearts and minds. The widening pay gap, decline in women leaders, and resurgence in workplace ‘sex-object culture’ are all testament to the fact that equal opportunity policies and discrimination legislation alone are ill-equipped to close the gender equality gap”(6).
Is feminism wrong? I certainly hope I have shown that there is much still to be done and that can only be achieved through feminism.
References:
(1) http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/ashe1109.pdf
(2) http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/aug/23/women-business-harriet-harman-equality
(3) a Career Benchmarking Study released by the ICAEW and recruiters Robert Half. http://www.financialdirector.co.uk/accountancyage/news/2258629/female-accountants-paid-less
http://www.roberthalf.co.uk/portal/site/rh-uk/menuitem.b0a52206b89cee97e7dfed10c3809fa0/?vgnextoid=8a43852d76d17210VgnVCM1000003c08f90aRCRD&vgnextchannel=0198ad657c762110VgnVCM1000000100007fRCRD
(4) J R Shackleton (p104) Should We Mind the Gap? http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-book442pdf?.pdf
(5) J R Shackleton (p12) http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-book442pdf?.pdf
(6) Just Below the Surface: gender stereotyping, the silent barrier to equality in the modern workplace? http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/documents/Just%20Below%20the%20Surface.pdf
(7) Boys: A School Report by Chris Skidmore http://www.bowgroup.org/harriercollectionitems/BoysASchoolReport%5B1%5D.doc
Thursday, 18 March 2010
While studying creative writing I came across Billy Tipton. I love jazz and his work has is light enough to really enjoy, without the melancholy of the blues. A good example on Youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3JAAxFYEws .
But what struck me more than anything s that Billy Tipton was born Dorothy Lucille Tipton in 1914.
As a woman, it is unlikely that he would have been allowed success in his chosen field, as a man he enjoyed a successful career.
He even adopted three sons with his partner Kitty Oakes and they did not realise he was born female until his death.
He explained his anatomy as being because of an accident that damaged his genitals and broke some ribs requiring the binding of his chest.
I cannot answer the reasoning behind his apparent transition as that is information known only to him. There are questions:
• Was it to improve his career position? – although, during his early career, he only appeared as male to perform, and was seen as lesbian.
• Was it to enable a more publicly acceptable 'lesbian' relationship, by appearing as a man with a woman?
Is there really more to it than that, or did he transition just for economic advantage and/or for his relationship with women to be more acceptable.
Of course, that then raises questions about why, as woman, she could not have the career that he could have as a man. It also raises questions about why a lesbian relationship may have been unacceptable.
But what struck me more than anything s that Billy Tipton was born Dorothy Lucille Tipton in 1914.
As a woman, it is unlikely that he would have been allowed success in his chosen field, as a man he enjoyed a successful career.
He even adopted three sons with his partner Kitty Oakes and they did not realise he was born female until his death.
He explained his anatomy as being because of an accident that damaged his genitals and broke some ribs requiring the binding of his chest.
I cannot answer the reasoning behind his apparent transition as that is information known only to him. There are questions:
• Was it to improve his career position? – although, during his early career, he only appeared as male to perform, and was seen as lesbian.
• Was it to enable a more publicly acceptable 'lesbian' relationship, by appearing as a man with a woman?
Is there really more to it than that, or did he transition just for economic advantage and/or for his relationship with women to be more acceptable.
Of course, that then raises questions about why, as woman, she could not have the career that he could have as a man. It also raises questions about why a lesbian relationship may have been unacceptable.
Wednesday, 3 February 2010
Is feminism at an end?
In the UK, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 brought major changes to the legal position for men and women, but there were still differences – not least that until 6 April 1990, a man was responsible for taxation on his wife’s income. Revisions of the law have improved the situation and the current Equality Bill going through parliament will provide more legislation to deal with the continuing differences. One is that gender pay gap information may be required to be published. If equality had been achieved, why would this be necessary?
Is the gender pay gap fuelled by direct discrimination in pay rates, or is it more complex and linked to more complex patterns such as career aspirations, family life and so on?
Starting at the very highest levels in business, an Observer survey showed that “Only four chairmanships are held by women, equivalent to 1.3% of the total, and just nine women serve as chief executives, or 3%.
No fewer than 132 of the companies surveyed, including Barclays Bank and Royal Bank of Scotland, are men-only zones, without a single woman at board level.”
What is frightening is that this survey was published on 23rd August 2009.
One company where I have more detail, shows that 46% of the total workforce is female, but just 11% of the most senior roles are filled by women.
This raises the question as to why there is an inequality between management grades and the overall workforce?
The workplace follows a hierarchical structure with males predominantly filling the highest levels – a patriarchal structure.
More and more questions arise.
But what about outside the work place?
Marriage still perpetuates the hierarchical structure – the man being the breadwinner and the wife in the dependent role. Many women accept the idea of being a homemaker supported by their husband.
Of course, giving birth is something that a lot of women do, and this offers an opportunity for men to place women in a dependent situation. Even today, it is mainly women that look after children. I know of couples who tried the man looking after the children while the wife worked and this failed. The relationship eventually broke down through domestic violence and the man having been subjected to harassment by his male friends. Once again, patriarchy rules.
There are many more cases as well.
The question of the individual does need to be addressed, after all, there are many women who embrace the patriarchal society – relishing in their dependence on men.
Returning to the original question, there is much more that needs to be done. Feminism is not at an end.
Is the gender pay gap fuelled by direct discrimination in pay rates, or is it more complex and linked to more complex patterns such as career aspirations, family life and so on?
Starting at the very highest levels in business, an Observer survey showed that “Only four chairmanships are held by women, equivalent to 1.3% of the total, and just nine women serve as chief executives, or 3%.
No fewer than 132 of the companies surveyed, including Barclays Bank and Royal Bank of Scotland, are men-only zones, without a single woman at board level.”
What is frightening is that this survey was published on 23rd August 2009.
One company where I have more detail, shows that 46% of the total workforce is female, but just 11% of the most senior roles are filled by women.
This raises the question as to why there is an inequality between management grades and the overall workforce?
The workplace follows a hierarchical structure with males predominantly filling the highest levels – a patriarchal structure.
More and more questions arise.
But what about outside the work place?
Marriage still perpetuates the hierarchical structure – the man being the breadwinner and the wife in the dependent role. Many women accept the idea of being a homemaker supported by their husband.
Of course, giving birth is something that a lot of women do, and this offers an opportunity for men to place women in a dependent situation. Even today, it is mainly women that look after children. I know of couples who tried the man looking after the children while the wife worked and this failed. The relationship eventually broke down through domestic violence and the man having been subjected to harassment by his male friends. Once again, patriarchy rules.
There are many more cases as well.
The question of the individual does need to be addressed, after all, there are many women who embrace the patriarchal society – relishing in their dependence on men.
Returning to the original question, there is much more that needs to be done. Feminism is not at an end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)