On Appearances

“After all, I know I’m no match for This Morning’s pulchritudinous host Holly Willoughby, nor are male politicians spared ridicule about their looks (even I have noted David Cameron’s startling resemblance to Henry from Thomas the Tank Engine.)

But there is a difference in the treatment of men and women here.

A A Gill didn’t just mock Mary Beard’s hair, he suggested she shouldn’t be on our screens at all. Similarly, my not looking like Rosie Huntington-Whiteley was seen as a weapon to invalidate my opinions — something that doesn’t happen to equally genetically challenged male commentators. Beard has given a perfect illustration of how to handle such criticism, though: women mustn’t let the b******s win.”

 

Yes! This is exactly the difference between the way that women’s appearance is commented on and the way that men’s is. There was an article by Bryony Gordon in The Telegraph arguing that men are judged on their looks as well, it’s just that we choose to ignore it. This argument misses the point entirely. If a comment is made on a man’s appearance, such as the example she used about David Cameron looking like ham, then it doesn’t imply that because of the way they look, they are not qualified to do their job or have an opinion. However, if a woman’s appearance is commented on, such Rosamund Urwin who wrote this article being called too ugly to be a stripper, then it is a way to bar them from having an opinion. It shuts them up, undermines them, and implies that they are not qualified to be in the position they are in. That is the difference between commenting on a man’s appearance and commenting on a woman’s.

Guardian Articles

So many good articles in The Guardian today!

Feminists can be Christians, too

Victoria Coren - it's the Church's job to stand up for the poor

Julie Burchill on moaning women giving feminism a bad name

This last one is particularly interesting... and controversial.

"But moaning about men doesn't make you a feminist – it just makes you a moaner who can't get along with men for reasons that are probably at least as much to do with your failings, flaws and foibles as they are with some imagined horridness on the part of men."

'Why Men Hate Women'

Time to dump another interesting article! This time it's from one of my favourite magazines, the New Internationalist, but from way back in their archives. Slightly inflammatory title but interesting reading.

 Insert inflammatory article name here

Here's a little extract that does a good job of explaining why forcing men into a hyper-masculine role is so damaging for both men and women:

"Why do men express such hatred of women? Psychoanalysts suggest that men's gender identity is very fragile because, within typical child-rearing practices, girls can identify with their primary care-taker while boys have to separate themselves from their mother in order to achieve and assert their masculinity.

'The whole process of becoming masculine is at risk in the little boy from the date of his birth on; his still-to-be-created masculinity is endangered by the primary, profound, primeval oneness with the mother.'⁶ It is only by setting woman apart as Other, by resisting intimacy with her, by treating her with contempt and aggression, that men assert their own independent and fragile masculinity.

And because men have distanced themselves from 'the weaker sex' over the ages, setting themselves up as superior, it must be unbearably humiliating to need and desire women so much. [...] In heterosexual intercourse men risk discovering in women an unsettling power which contradicts and undermines their own more obvious social, political and physical power. No wonder male sexual desire is so desperately tormented and full of conflict"

Yay for challenging stereotypes!

Jezebel article

This is good news!

Stuff I found interesting after staring at a screen all day

During what technically counts as research for the 4,000 word report on a publishing company I'm supposed to be writing, I came across this little article on Amnesty's website. It's from their magazine in 2006 and is an article by Patrick Stewart (Sir Patrick Stewart now, I think) on his experience of domestic violence as a child and why he supports Amnesty's campaign to end violence against women. I have to say, I was a bit surprised by this - I think subconsciously assumed that famous actors that have got to the 'national treasure' stage must have had perfect lives, with no problems whatsoever, even though consciously, I know that's not true at all. Here's an extract:

"As far as the authorities are concerned there have been great advances - and there needed to be, because as a child I heard police officers in my own home saying 'well, she must have provoked him', and doctors saying 'well, Mrs Stewart, it takes two to make a fight'. Well, they had no idea."

One of the reasons I keep this blog is to have a record of articles I come across that are inspiring or interesting, and I think this one covers both. Patrick Stewart is pretty damn cool.

Also, did you know that today is International Men's Day? I didn't until about 10 o'clock this evening, having spent all day on the computer inbetween doing work and milling around on the internet and not heard anything about it. Why is this event so low profile when International Women's Day seems to be a lot better known? I guess it hasn't had as long to build up a following. Anyway, their aims sound pretty interesting:

• To promote positive male role models; not just movie stars and sportsmen but everyday, working class men who are living decent, honest lives.
• To celebrate men's positive contributions to society, community, family, marriage, child care, and to the environment.
• To focus on men's health and wellbeing; social, emotional, physical and spiritual.
• To highlight discrimination against men; in areas of social services, social attitudes and expectations, and law.
• To improve gender relations and promote gender equality.

Right, I'm off to bed, and hope I can finish off this awful report sometime tomorrow.