Leveson inquiry addresses representations of women

Photo via The Guardian.

British media ethics are on trial thanks to the ongoing Leveson Inquiry,  a response to the recent News International phone-hacking scandal that shocked the world.

Representatives of women’s groups including Equality Now, Eaves, Object and End Violence Against Women (a coalition of 40 organizations) have come forward to demand that media outlets be held accountable for “attitudes which condone violence against women or girls.”

Their complaints are not limited to the topless models on page 3 of a popular British tabloid, but include ongoing news coverage that routinely dismisses and trivializes violence against women.

From the Guardian:

The Daily Telegraph was criticised for a report which they said suggested a man had murdered his wife after she changed her Facebook status to “single”, and said too often media reports of violence against women focused on the behaviour of the victim.

A Daily Mail report about six footballers being jailed after gang raping 12-year-old girls in a “midnight park orgy” was criticised for the use of the word “orgy” and for referring to the victims as “Lolitas”.

Establishing that sexism is a widespread problem in Britain’s media culture would be a big step, and it could have far-reaching implications beyond the UK.

Read more on this story:

Leveson inquiry must address sexist media stereotypes, say women’s groups
The Guardian – January 24, 2012

Leveson inquiry: Sun editor recalled for questioning on Page 3
The Guardian – Feb 2, 2012

Feminist “hypocrisy” isn’t the problem

BY KATHERINE TOMS

 

This is a response to Feminist hypocrisy on honour killings published in the National Post Jan 31, 2012.

 


Geeti, Zainab and Sahar Shafia plus Rona Amir Mohammad, found dead in June 2009 (Trial evidence via CBC)

 

Apologies, Barbara Kay, but let me count the ways your article about “feminist hypocracy” misses the mark. Your article suggests that:


1. Domestic violence in the West is “individual domestic partners who have a problem on an individual level,” whereas honor killings are culturally based.

North Americans do live in a sexist culture. Violence against women here doesn’t just consist of individual men and women fighting in the privacy of their homes. There are ingrained, systemic, deep-rooted assumptions and practices within our culture that make abuse, rape and murder of women so prevalent in our news, entertainment, language, and daily realities.


2. Honour killings force Feminists to choose between defending abused women or defending multiculturalism.

Although many reporters have turned the Shafia murder trial into another post-9/11 contemplation about violent Muslims, honor killings need not be an issue of religion. Islam is no more about the abuse of women than Christianity is about war, or Catholicism is about child abuse. Let’s not “throw the baby out with the bath water,” as you put it.
Let’s not bury our heads either. As with recent controversy over a high rate of sex-selective abortions among certain populations, denying there is a problem is pointless. Solutions need to come from within the community.


3. Feminists think violence against women is “an inherent impulse in men” and not “contingent on historical and cultural circumstances.”

See number 1. (And thanks for re-hashing the classic man-hating feminist stereotype – that never gets old!)
Violence is not an inherent impulse in men. Anger is an inherent instinct in all humans, and unfortunately, our historical and cultural pattern is to punish men who show emotion that isn’t anger, or take action that isn’t aggressive. This is damaging to everyone, men included.


4. Western Feminists want to rescue women from their cultures, and liberate them from their families.

There’s a misconception, even in North America, that you can’t be a liberated woman and a wife or mother at the same time. Staying home with kids means giving up your career, and leaving your kids in daycare means giving up your kids. Women are constantly judged for their life choices. But we at least have those choices.
One aim of feminism is to ensure that women have control over their own destinies. Women should feel safe from violence whether they decide to wear hijab, bottle-feed their children, opt for an arranged marriage, pursue a career – or decide not to.
Diversity isn’t just about race; it means that we are all different, and have value as unique individuals even when our choices and lifestyles differ.
That diversity applies to feminists, also. Despite the differences between radical SlutWalk supporters and the socially conservative “family feminists” you identify with, we can all agree that what happened to the Shafia women was horrifying and wrong.
Violence against anyone must not be tolerated, whether it’s an honour killing, or another form of spousal abuse. There are many explanations for why it happens, but there is no excuse for letting it continue.
—–
Katherine Toms is a member of Media Action’s Board of Directors. She earned a degree in Information and Media Studies from the University of Western Ontario with a focus on gender studies and identity.

Girls missing from kid’s movie posters

This blog post by Margot Magowan on ReelGirl shows that movie posters aimed at kids send a strong message to young girls about how they are valued in the media:

 

“In your world, boys are front and center. You are a sidekick or just not there at all.

When kids see, again and again and again, that girls are relegated to supporting roles, both genders learn that girls are less important than boys. This is a terrible lesson for a new generation of children to be learning.”

 

Here are a few of Magowan’s examples from 2011 kid’s films:

 

 

 

 

 Click here to see the full post.

‘Miss Representation’ a wake-up call for teen girls

 

Here’s a movie Review of “Miss Representation” via the Seattle Times:

Jennifer Siebel Newsom’s documentary “Miss Representation” is peppered with statistics and anecdotes, many of them alarming: American teenagers spend nearly 11 hours a day in front of a television, computer or other media device. Seventy-eight percent of 17-year-old girls are unhappy with their bodies. Some state’s medical programs won’t cover domestic abuse if it’s considered to be a pre-existing condition. Nancy Pelosi tells the camera that when she first ran for public office, her youngest child was a senior in high school; yet, interviewers kept asking her who would take care of her children if she were elected.

That’s just the tip of the iceberg in a film that’s frustratingly wide-ranging; “Miss Representation” hops from body-image issues to the lack of women in higher office in the U.S. to TV violence to women directors to Katie Couric’s skirt lengths (discussed by Couric herself), all in a quick 90 minutes.

Read the full review here.

To learn more about the film, visit MissRepresentation.org

Radio host rebuked for derogatory comments

Photo via (TorontoElectionNews.com)

 

Edge 102.1 morning show host Dean Blundell is in hot water for making discriminatory and degrading comments about women during a May 2011 broadcast.

From the Toronto Star:

Jokes about women closing their mouths and doing chores, going to war and faking wounds while menstruating and engaging in lesbian activity, and using “trenches” and “foxholes” as euphemisms for female genitalia “was unduly discriminatory, negative, stereotypical and degrading,” the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council ruled in a decision released Wednesday.

“It just crossed a line. It went from joking to being abusive,” John MacNab, CBSC executive director, said in an interview.

 

Read the full story at TheStar.com.

Why aren’t more women in punditry?

Thought Out Loud by Kate Heartfield 10 January 2012

A few weeks ago, I met another female writer for lunch in downtown Ottawa. Before we’d finished with the menus, we were talking about a column that ran in The Globe and Mail a few days before, by Tabatha Southey. It was a column about sexual harassment, and was the kind of piece that could only be written by a woman.

That’s not to say that a man couldn’t have written a great column on the same subject, even with the same thesis. But it’s hard to imagine a man using this particular ironic slant on this particular topic: “So here’s my proposal: women, we need to start finding sexual harassment a lot funnier… No, I don’t understand why some men want us to find anything involving their penises so funny. But work with me, womankind, lest it ever be said again that we can’t take a joke.”

I am a feminist, but not a maternal feminist. The reason I wish more women wrote opinion is not that I believe women as a bloc have something to say, or that they can or should have some kind of improving influence on the discourse. It does matter, though, that female writers account for only about 15 to 25 per cent of the typical newspaper opinion section in North America. (See the “research” tab at informedopinions.org for some of the research that gives us those numbers.)

The first reason why it matters is that a person’s gender is one of the elements of their experience. Experience doesn’t determine a person’s opinions, but it does inform them. Sometimes, the value of including both men and women in a conversation becomes apparent in small (even silly) but practical ways. Sometimes it even comes down to simple matters of sex and biology.

There was a time when I was the only woman on the Ottawa Citizen’s editorial board – though that’s no longer the case. I remember one discussion about the boom in popularity of a certain yoga clothing manufacturer. (It must have been a slow news day.) There had to be some cultural significance to the tightness of the shirts, some of my colleagues thought; they figured the phenomenon was a sign of how much women would pay, or thought they should pay, to indulge their vanity. I listened for a while, trying to come up with a way to explain, in words that wouldn’t make my colleagues too uncomfortable, that if you’re a woman doing exercises in public that require you to be upside down, tight shirts are essential to the preservation of modesty – not to mention, for some of us, the ability to breathe.

There are all kinds of topics in the public interest to which a woman might bring valuable personal experience that would differ from that of a man – from the federal government’s maternal health initiatives abroad to the question of whether a victim’s clothing is relevant in sexual assault cases.

The second reason the gender gap matters is that any needless limitation on the pool of available opinion writers is bad for Canada. There are not so many brilliant analysts in this country that we can’t afford to let any of them hold back out of a lack of confidence or training or habit.

And it is very clear that the problem is that women, themselves, are holding back. Many opinion editors will tell you that they’d love to run more articles by women, but that they just aren’t getting enough submissions from them.

Six years ago, a very public and nasty spat between a couple of journalists in the United States led to a massive navel-gazing exercise across North American punditry, especially among female pundits. Everybody and their mother weighed in about why women are less inclined to write opinion, and then everybody forgot about it. Everybody except Katie Orenstein, an American writer who decided to do something about it. She started The OpEd Project, which teaches women how to write and pitch opinion articles and take part in the public conversation. In Canada, the writer Shari Graydon runs a similar project called *Informed Opinions. I know both Orenstein and Graydon a little and volunteer as a mentor-editor for both projects. Both have told me that the first step in the process is convincing women to think of themselves as experts – convincing them they have something valuable to say.

There are other structural reasons for the gender gap in political commentary. One is that some of the pools from which op-ed writers tend to come are themselves places where women are underrepresented. Female writers are notably rare in the submissions the Citizen gets on defence, security, and foreign policy – an important area for all opinion sections, but especially for an opinion section in the national capital. We get a lot of submissions from retired members of the Canadian forces, former diplomats, and professors. A quick glance at the faculty page of, say, the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs at Carleton University shows that men significantly outnumber women. That’s still common in some academic fields, and it’s not a surprise that these proportions are reflected in opinion sections. I don’t think that means women don’t care what happens in Syria, but rather that they don’t think they’re qualified to comment. Of course, if you’re going to pitch an op-ed about conflict in Syria, you should have (or should develop) some relevant expertise. But that doesn’t mean you have to be a professor or a former diplomat.

The good news is that whenever a woman like Michelle Shephard or Erna Paris demonstrates that women can become authorities on stereotypically male-dominated topics, other women might have an easier time putting up their hands when they have something to say.

Early this year, Katha Pollitt wrote in Slate that all this talk about getting women to submit opinion has been missing the point. Look to the editors, she argued. Get more women onto the mastheads and get them working to increase the numbers of women they publish. “The phone works both ways,” she pointed out.

It does indeed. If editors want things to change, they must remember to think of women whenever they’re casting around for an expert to write or to comment.

But that’s not going to be enough to close the gender gap. For that to happen, women have to pitch and submit opinion articles.

Consider the following scenario. You’re an opinion editor at a major daily newspaper. The big news of the day is that Moammar Gadhafi might have been killed. When you get into your office in the morning, you’ve got three emails waiting from male experts who are keen to write about the subject – experts who have written for you before, who understand how to write for newspapers, whose copy is clean, whose research is sound. You go to the editorial board meeting; by the time you get back, two more of your favourite writers have submitted complete, clean op-eds making interesting points.

You’ve got an editorial to write, columns to edit, a web chat to moderate and an inbox that gets more demanding with each passing minute. Are you really going to seek out a woman to write on a topic for which you already have a selection of fine op-eds in hand?

Sure, editors can choose to do the extra work it takes to seek out new voices; many do. But as editors get busier – and it seems unlikely they’re going to get any less busy – the appeal of the usual suspects gets stronger. In newspaper opinion sections, the usual suspects tend to be men. If women want that to change, they have to stop making it hard for editors to find them and publish their work.

Kate Heartfield (@kateheartfield) is the deputy editorial pages editor of the Ottawa Citizen. Pitch her op-eds any time. We’re looking at you, ladies.

*Informed Opinions is a project by Media Action Média that is bridging the gender gap in public discourse by training and supporting experts in making their ideas and knowledge more accessible to print, broadcast and online information media.

10 Media Trends We’d Like To See

Because it’s so much easier (not to mention more entertaining) to make New Year’s resolutions for other people, Media Action* has crafted a wish list out of ten trends that we’re hoping to encourage our friends in the media and marketing industries to consider embracing in 2012.

Resolution #1
That manufacturers and retailers abandon the making, advertising or selling of push-up bras, slutty t-shirts or crotchless underwear for little girls. (In the words of Amanda Parriag, Media Action’s new president, “My daughter and son aren’t old enough to floss their teeth unsupervised, but already they’re getting the message — from music TV, video games and the internet — that boys grow up to be movers and shakers, while girls grow up to be shimmiers and shavers.”)

Resolution #2
That media coverage of women’s professional sports is increased from its current 1.6% (pathetic afterthought) to at least 10% (but televising the Lingerie Football League doesn’t count.) And that the female athletes involved aren’t pressured to compete while wearing bar clothes or bikinis. (Because, when you think about it, how many major league ball players would agree to dress like Chippendales? Just asking.)

Resolution #3
That car makers remember the lessons they learned in the 1990s (hint: women direct or influence the purchase decisions behind 80% of cars sold – and yes, we did see that ad in which the emergency medical attendant and husband of the woman on the verge of giving birth were more concerned with the technological features of the new Passat than with the dilating, contracting woman in need of help. Thankfully, the ad was pulled due to complaints.)

Resolution #4
That the geniuses who produce Jersey Shore and The Real Housewives give up shooting fish in a barrel and do the world a favour: trade in the constructed scenarios that reward desperate opportunists for drunken behaviour and pre-scripted catfights, and instead apply their talents to developing entertaining TV shows that celebrate women’s capacity to create and contribute.

Resolution #5
That fashion photographers stop glamourizing violence against women by taking photos of female models who appear to have been beaten, thrown down the stairs or stuffed into a garbage can, and passing them off as “artistic”. (We can even suggest a helpful resource that makes the point in pictures: cue hilarious video “Poses” by Yolanda Dominguez.)

Resolution #6
That members of the multi-billion-dollar beauty industry just say “no” to invasive Photoshopping (which now extends to grafting models’ heads onto virtual female bodies ), and take responsibility for their part in perpetuating rampant body image issues among women and girls.

Resolution #7
That journalists reporting on female politicians and candidates refrain from referring to their hair, clothing and personal relationship status, and avoid classic stereotypes (assertive man = decisive leader; assertive woman = shrill bitch) to focus more on their experience, capacity and proposed policies. (Because if we selected all politicians on the basis of the criteria often applied to women, we might end up with that guy from the Twilight series as Prime Minister…).

Resolution #8
That school boards and parents everywhere (regardless of their religious affiliations or convictions) realize that if they’re not providing sex education to the kids they care for and about, they’ve abdicated the job to online porn (and its curriculum pretty much skips caring relationships and safe sex).

Resolution #9
That columnist Tabatha Southey – she of the brilliantly satirical send-up of sexual harassment (“If a superior whispers to you that he has a hotel room and an enormous penis, lighten up and laugh with him!”) – be moved to the higher
profile (i.e. read by women AND men) editorial pages of the Globe and Mail.

Resolution #10
That all news media work harder to provide a wider diversity of sources – expert and otherwise – for their stories to better serve and reflect their communities. (Not that we don’t care what older white men think – but even many of them agree that we’d all benefit if the stage was shared!)

*Media Action is national non-profit organization that promotes gender equity through media analysis and action.

We seek to:

  • raise public awareness of the impact of media portrayals and practices on social attitudes and behaviour;
  • engage consumers in constructive dialogue with media producers about their desire to see more responsible practice;
  • challenge socially destructive myths; and
  • replace denigrating portrayals with realistic and inspiring ones.

For more information about Media Action and our Informed Opinions project, visit us online.