Recently in Sexism Category
Twenty-three year old Giorgia Boscolo just became the first female gondolier after nine centuries of exclusively male rowing in the canal in Venice. Boscolo had to pass a grueling six-month, 400 hour course, but told reporters that she had no fear that she couldn't handle the physicality of the job: "Childbirth is much more difficult." Boscolo is the mother of two.
Her father, also a gondolier, has doubts about her participation in this historically male tradition: "I still think being a gondolier is a man's job, but I am sure that with experience Giorgia will be able to do it easily," he said.
Damn skippy Papa Boscolo. Better get used to waving across the canal at your diesel daughter.
Thanks to Tiffany for the heads up.
Conservative Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) in Canada Doug Elniski has been catching a ton of shit for posting the text of a speech that he gave a couple of weeks ago to junior high school students on his blog, where he supposedly told the girls that "men are attracted to smiles":
Part of the posting included advice to girls saying, "Ladies, always smile when you walk into a room, there is nothing a man wants less than a woman scowling because he thinks he is going to get s--t for something and has no idea what."It continues, "Men are attracted to smiles, so smile, don't give me that 'treated equal' stuff. If you want Equal, it comes in little packages at Starbucks."
Elniski's blog was taken down on Monday afternoon.
Blog gone or not, the real damage was done to the female students he reached that day. While Elniski clarified that the comparison between equality and a sweetener wasn't actually said at the speech and publicly apologized for the "stupid, inappropriate" comment on his blog, his creepy reference to smiles was said. He actually defends that one, claiming he was merely trying to say that "men and women should be friendly and approachable in dealing with others."
Nice try, dude.
The National Council for Research on Women has a new report out called, Women in Fund Management: A Road Map for Achieving Critical Mass - and Why it Matters, that argues that diversifying the leadership at the highest levels of the financial sector will ensure a more secure financial future for everyone. They call it the "critical mass principle." The report's lead sponsor was long time financial superwoman Jacki Zehner, who wrote a really interesting commentary on her experiences in the sector and her hopes for the future on Huffington Post when the economy sunk.
It's hard to argue with the notion that diversity raises the quality of leadership in any organization, financial included. As women on the panel this morning articulated, it's not about being nice to women; it's about better business, more responsible investing, and a more transparent financial sector overall. The world would simply be more fair were there a more diverse group of people making powerful decisions about how capital is invested. (And of course there is a HUGE conversation to be had about the potential for equity in a system that, in its very structure, encourages class inequality, but that's for another day...)
Where the NCRW treads on controversial ground is in their aggregation of research indicating essential gender differences in investment style and decision-making:
A 2005 study from the Center for Financial Research at the University of Cologne documented differences between male and female fund managers: Women managers tended to take less extreme risk and to adopt more measured investment styles (which perform well over time). And according to research published in 2002 in the International Journal of Bank Marketing, women tend to make investment-related decisions with a detailed, comprehensive approach, while men are more likely to simplify data and make decisions based on an overall schema.
I always get nervous when scientists or sociologists start making wide-sweeping gender claims, but I'm also not scientifically sophisticated enough to evaluate whether these studies are valid.
Anyone have any thoughts?
Not sure what to think about this one. Zack's story, revealed to be a new ad campaign from Tampax (parent company Proctor and Gamble) is accompanied by a website, blog and Twitterfeed in the voice of 16 year old Zack, who supposedly wakes up with a vagina one day.
Besides doing things like making fun of V-Day (the name of the video above) which is traditionally known as a day to combat violence against women and girls, something about this series does not sit right.
The question of using stealth ad campaigns aside, I can't echo Double XX's sentiment that it's just a fun humorous video series. Maybe it's the employment of every gender related stereotype imaginable.
As Ann pointed out, it is also not a good portrayal of men. It makes them seem like they have no idea what women go through--totally the "men are from mars women are from venus" trope. Not all men are grossed out by female anatomy or as clueless about women as Zack seems to be.
The series also over-emphasizes the differences between men and women--all of sudden because of a vagina he sees the world totally differently. Starts eating yogurt, yells at his friend, changes his sense of humor, can't find anything to wear. All of this ignores the years of gendered socialization that a boy like him would have experienced. It essentially makes an argument that anatomy or biology are what affect these behaviors, not society.
One interesting twist though, is that despite Zack's genital switch, he still seems to identify strongly as male. Is there is a trans friendly message to be found buried here? Possibly the idea that genitalia doesn't determine your gender identity--although all his observations about the changes he experiences are incredibly gendered. Now I can't really argue that this message comes across through all the other super-gendered concepts and messaging, but one could hope.
What do you all think?
You can watch all four of the episodes out so far here.
I would LOVE to have been a fly on the wall in the ad meeting that choose this beauty of a campaign. Disgusting.
Unfortunately this isn't the first offensive ad campaign for BK--check out Ann's post about a previous incident in 2008, over the "Whopper Virgin" campaign.
You can contact Burger King's corporate offices here.
It is your official midday fluff post. But isn't it funny?!
Oh wait this isn't vintage, this company exists today. Sociological Images (which is increasingly my go-to place for great break-downs of visual sexism) has a great breakdown of their not-so-funny marketing claims.
...but is he really the only one? Public moral outcries of elected officials sexual behavior is complex, often tedious and not really in the name of justice. The prime minister of Italy, Silvio Berlusconi, likes to hire woman to attend parties and do who knows what else. Barbara Montereale, one of the women in the much reprinted picture of two women photographing each other in Berlusconi's bathroom sent the pictures to the press to be published for the truth to come out. She was paid and flown down to spend time with him. The Italian authorities are starting an investigation according to the Telegraph UK.
The three women, whose accounts of their evening with Mr Berlusconi apparently largely corroborate each other, have been questioned by police in Bari who are investigating Mr Tarantini for allegedly inciting prostitution.Mr Berlusconi faces increasing pressure to explain whether he knew if the women were being paid to attend his parties and whether he slept with a prostitute.
He is under attack not only from the press and the opposition but also the Roman Catholic Church.
I don't actually care what the Catholic church deems moral and immoral, or what makes them upset. This is not a matter of morality, but a question of exploitation and the use of women by men in power. And this is not the only story, it is a trend with men in power to hire women to do whatever they want with and their bloated sense of self and ego that comes with having so much power creates a vacuum where anything is for sale and purchase. Isn't that what happened with Eliot Spitzer?
I find moral panic and outrage over the often grotesque, exploitative sexual behavior of politicians hilarious. My instinct is to suggest that it is a private matter, just as I don't want you to talk about my private sex life, I don't think anyone's should be fodder for news material. On the other hand, that fact that stories like this come up over and over again merely shows us what men in power think is legitimate behavior. This is not a matter of "i gotcha," but more about the ways entitlement plays out with our beloved "statesmen."
Shoulder-baring brides with jaunty hats are clearly strumpets.
Calling young women who are getting married "MySpace generation brides," Newsweek complains that brides today are "like a virgin no more." (I'd be outraged, but this is just too fun for me to post about to be all that angry.)
Two decades ago, when young girls wondered how brides were supposed to look and behave, they'd most likely conclude--with some prompting from Cinderella--that on their big day they'd be a princess. They'd be blushing, virginal and wrapped from head to toe in tulle and lace.So why is it that these days, some brides seem to be taking their cues more from Jessica Rabbit than Cinderella? More vamp than virgin, they're having bachelorette parties that are as raunchy as their fiancés' sendoffs. They're selecting cleavage- or lower-back-baring bridal gowns that might get a gasp from conservative relatives.
Are we seriously supposed to be scandalized by back-bearing dresses and cheesy bachelorette parties with penis straws? Come on now. But apparently this article is less about how immodest brides are, and more about moral panic over women in general.
This is, after all, is a generation that is comfortable with "sexting" and posting provocative pictures of themselves on Facebook and MySpace.
Wow, MySpace and sexting in one sentence - impressive! The article goes on to point out (smugly) that women are getting married later, having raunchier bachelorette parties, having their ceremonies in locations other than churches, and living with their significant others before getting married. And we're supposed to think, I guess, that these are all bad things.
What's really interesting to me is how the media is able to frame anything as women being slutty. Fun.
(Naturally, you can find out more what I think about sex and sexism in The Purity Myth.)
