It’s a long way, to the top…
June 2, 2012
As I was cooking last week, I caught the tail end of the show, The Project. I have to say that one of their last stories drove home some simple truths about women in the work force. I found myself shouting, “YES!” in the kitchen…on my own, haha!
Because what they discussed so simply; so succinctly; is an issue that – I believe – hits the core of how we can possibly make change.
The story discussed the microscopic representation of women in clout positions ‘at the top’ and the glass ceiling women hit – something I’ve been discussing for a while. In a nut shell – we barely a voice in the running of this world.
Statistics they presented:
- In Australia, the percentage of women at the top (Female Chairs and CEOs of ASX 200 companies)… 2.75% less than three percent!
- Australia is equal 1st, in the world, with women’s education AND we’re better educated than men – 87/100 women enrolled in tertiary education compared to 67/100 men. Irony number one.
- Advertising man, Todd Sampson, who was on the panel, said that women represent 5% of top advertising positions, although women constitute 80% of buying power. Massively HUGE bit of irony there.
Natasha Stott Despoja even says, “What’s it going to take?”
I’ve always discussed these issues in the past, with a gargantuan sense of frustration. We’re equally as smart, we have the buying power…and yet…
They said that in Norway (if my hearing over the extractor fan was good), they put a quota on getting women in the boardroom (currently at 11% in Australia) – up to 40% – by law.
Many countries have listened and are already following suit.
It’s huge.
Here in Australia there’s discussion about putting in a temporary quota system, aiming at 40%, to inject women into more clout positions.
I think this is a fantastic idea.
Of course, there is an objection – as one woman said, she didn’t want to get a job because of a quota she wanted to get it on her own merits. There’s one colossal flaw with this…if we have the brains (and then some), why aren’t we there already? As Dr Phil likes to say, “How’s that working for ya?”
Seeing as the current system isn’t remotely representing women adequately:
Question #50: Do you think a quota is the way to go? If not, how?
The following picture is from an article from The Guardian (UK), where the following was written:
Britain’s economic recovery is being held back by a lack of women in the boardroom, David Cameron has warned.
The prime minister said there was clear evidence that ending Britain’s male-dominated business culture would improve performance.
Thoughts?
Deep Breath
x
This is a great post about The Lingerie Football League coming to Australia. Not only is this as sexist as it gets – they are enticing families to take the kiddies along. We must all stand up and say “NO” to this.
Deep Breath
x
Today’s Herald Sun featured an article by Australian women’s activist and www.collectiveshout.org co-founder Melinda Tankard Reist, reiterating all the reasons we should not let Lingerie Football League (LFL) come to Australia.
WHEN a man plays gridiron – or American football – he is dressed for maximum protection to ensure safety in a game known for its raw physicality. His body is covered, with little exposed flesh, to minimise injury.
It’s not the kind of game a man would consider playing in his underwear. That would just be dumb, right? But it seems rules are different if you are a woman playing for the Lingerie Football League (LFL). The less clothing the better. In fact, it’s a requirement of the game.
LFL is blatant sexualisation and sexism, while promoting violence towards near naked, physically unprotected women, with outrageous clauses for maximum boob and bum exposure with little or no pay and the whole…
View original post 312 more words
Just sayin’ – #2
May 10, 2012
It’s Mothers’ Day this Sunday and I saw a lingerie catalogue for mums…using very young, ‘hot’ women.
Lingerie for mothers – who have had humans exit their womb – being modelled by hotties.
This brought me to ask:
Question #44: Who is making the decision to use these types of unrealistic images – men or women?
Because whichever way you look at WHATEVER image you’re looking at – you can’t escape one undeniable and deflating fact:
You can’t have these unrealistic, fake, plastic, hyper-sexaulised images of women…without women.
…Just sayin’.
Deep Breath.
x
Sex…education?
May 9, 2012
In Australia, we have a show called Insight, where a panel of relevant people are assembled and, together with the audience, discuss a contemporary topic. The topic last night (Tue 8th May) was how easily children/teenagers are accessing porn and the effect it’s having on them.
It was fascinating and terrifying to watch, all at the same time. The panelists, consisting of three young adults (around 18-20 yrs old), discussed their first experience with porn – which was around ten yrs old for the boys and the girl said she was eleven.
ELEVEN. I have a daughter who’s nine. That’s one of the terrifying parts. One of the earliest images this girl remembers seeing, which affected her deeply at the time, was one of The Simpsons family…having sex with each other. To her young mind, this was disturbing.
Another scary part, obviously, is the explicit nature of what can be found – or worse, pop up. One of the boys said a pop-up gave him his first taste of porn, which in turn sparked the curiosity. They all said it was curiosity that kept them going back for more, as well as starting to learn ‘what to do’ during sex.
Unfortunately, due to that part of human nature that wants to be noticed/watched and ‘top’ what has already been done (plus the fact there are people out there who enjoy raunchier/kinkier sexual behaviour), what can be accessed can be anything and everything…and that’s where some kids are ‘learning’ about sex.
And kids are seeing it because, in this technologically savvy time, once one child sees it – they share it. Instantly. That’s the scariest part of all.
I’m sure there are some young people who may read this and think, “It’s OK – it’s not that bad,” but I’m not as convinced.
Mainly because, as ‘aware’ as I am about what’s available now – it’s still brand new territory for me as a parent. I have nothing to relate back to because, as I’ve mentioned before, when I was a child, the only really accessible porn was in magazines. Until the mid-80s, adults had to go to small, dingy XXX movie theatres – after that, it was in the comfort of their own home with the arrival of the video.
But now you can find whatever you want on the Internet because anyone can record anything and at any time – from something as small as their phone.
John Stoltenberg, a male feminist ally from the 70s, is credited with the quote:
“Pornography tells lies about women. But pornography tells the truth about men.”
This is the part that concerns me enormously because surely this would mean our boys/men will look for the level of sexual excitement they see in the porn they watch, in their real-life sexual encounters…and hope to get the hyper-sexualised woman to match.
Question #43: Does porn and images of hyper-sexualised women, affect the healthy, natural development of sexuality in both sexes?
I think it absolutely does…doesn’t it?
Worse still, how are women supposed to live up to all this? The statistic that 100% of boys have watched porn by their mid-teens is staggering. Couple this with the way young girls are dressing now – emulating this culture…it’s an unhealthy mix.
But the thing that young women may not realise, is that many pornographic films have women doing things – that most, real women don’t like.
Whatever the reasons the women being filmed have for doing it, has nothing to do with representing reality…it’s predominantly for pleasing the sexual urges of MEN.
I seriously believe that the percentage of women who TRULY want a sexual encounter with four men – with one penis in her vagina, another in her anus, another in her mouth, while masturbating the last – has to be microscopic. But I have seen an image of this – I didn’t just make that up. That woman is nothing and noone to the men she’s with.
As huge as the battle will be – we must be in our kids’ ears about the value of relationships and the wonderful connection that a sexual relationship can offer – to counteract the toxic nature of porn.
Deep Breath.
x
A small morsel to chew over…
May 6, 2012
Yesterday (Saturday), on the cover of The Sydney Morning Herald was an article about the top 5 things Australian men and women worry about:
MEN:
1. My future career 2. My achievements 3. The future 4. What people thought of me 5. Doing well at work or school.
WOMEN:
1. My future career 2. The future 3. My weight 4. My achievements 5. What people thought of me.
Although both sexes worry about their career first – it’s curious to see the women’s third concern.
It reads: “Worries about weight ranked highly for women only. That was not surprising, given the cultural obsession with the appearance of women, Professor Hudson said. ”But it is really alarming that 60 per cent of women said they worried about appearance at levels that interfered with their quality of life.”
60%!
Are you one of the 60%?
The fact is that men do not have this worry and we really have to ask ourselves WHY?
Question #42: How are we, as women, contributing to this problem?
That weight worry is ‘interfering with their quality of life’ – is a gloomy statistic.
Is there any hope for change in how we see ourselves?
In regards to worrying, there is a quote I always use with my students:
Worrying, is praying for what you don’t want.
Deep Breath.
x
Full article: Whttp://www.smh.com.au/national/top-of-worry-list-work-work-work-20120504-1y47u.html#ixzz1u5WZW03W
Reality TV – friend or foe?
May 2, 2012
The other night, they showed The Truman Show on TV. I love that movie and as it had been a while since I last watched it – I settled in for another viewing.
I used to teach it as part of the HSC, years ago when I had Senior English classes – around 2005/2006 – so I know it very well.
As I’m watching it, this time around, I realise that I really am seeing this film, all these years later, through new eyes. In the film we see everybody glued to their sets, even attending The Truman Bar, to watch this one man who was not performing, but was simply himself.
Was it through this movie that the idea was hatched for reality TV?
The Truman Show came out in 1998. The first two BIG reality shows to hit our TVs were Big Brother and Survivor and they both started a year and two years (respectively) after this movie was released.
So here we are now and look at how our TV viewing has drastically changed – especially the shows that appeal to our younger people.
I have to admit that when Big Brother first started, I did find it compelling – well, the concept anyway. To get an actual mix of people and put them together to see what happens – fascinating. Of course, the fundamental flaw (which doesn’t occur in The Truman Show) is that everyone knows they’re being watched. But still, who needs scriptwriters when you have real life, right?
But, unfortunately, this digital, reality obsessed (and apparently sex-starved) population needed more. So the producers started just putting in young, attractive (?), single people – with a sprinkling of ‘older’ here and there – to create a new type of Big Brother: “Let’s see who hooks up.” It got so bad, here in Australia, that it got axed a few years ago. It was no longer a family show – although it was being shown in the early evening – it just became one that was ‘on heat.’
And what notoriety did some of the female contestants, in the latter shows, end up getting? Oooh, they got to pose for men’s magazines. How classy. Validation? – check. Fade into obscurity with the gazillion girls who would do the same? – check.
Funnily enough, a new network has picked up Big Brother here in Oz and they’re currently asking people to register to be in the house…I wonder if they need a feminist…No, just kidding!
Let’s jump to a fairly recent reality show that’s (I’m assuming), still popular among the young ones – Jersey Shore. I watched my second episode ever today…for research. *wink*
For those of you who don’t know about this show – they’re a bunch of 20 somethings put into a house together and cameras follow them around. This is a photo of them:
Well, what can I say. This episode had Snooki (girl in orange) recovering from being punched in the face, when partying in a bar, in the previous episode. Later, we see another punch up between JWoww (this is the girl in white with the very large chest – which is out on show every time she goes out) and another girl in the bar…because the girl called her ‘fat’ – and it was ON for young and old. Snooki’s response to seeing the fight was: “I just thought, how can I get in there?” There were a few hook-ups…
….and that was it.
For the next episode, they previewed two punch-ups – one between Snooki and another girl she called a ‘Rhino who attacked me’ and another between one of the male housemates and some other guy, on the Boardwalk…and some more hook-ups.
Well, titillating stuff, I tell you. Morons who eat, hook-up and fight – who are being watched and worst of all revered – well, maybe not revered, but they’re famous, making more money than people who do good and for what? Just entertainment?
It’s such gutter behaviour and it scares me to think that these people can be a benchmark – in any way – to normal behaviour. I appreciate that, of course, there are people who think and behave this way, but:
Question #39: Where are the shows to counter balance this perception of youth?
I’ll leave you with the wise words of Snooki, who said on today’s show, “I can’t eat that – it’s alive when they kill it.” (insert cricket noise)
Hmmmm…I think there’s something in that for all of us…
Deep Breath
x
No question – just a success story.
April 29, 2012
Due to the complaints of MANY, including Melinda Tankard Reist, Telstra has now changed their policy towards their pornographic apps and are removing them.
This following post is from Melinda’s site:
Telstra agrees with us: ‘Women at work’ page and ‘Dirty Housewives’ porn incompatible.
People power has effect.
Deep Breath
x
Just sayin’ – #1
April 28, 2012
I’m watching the news and I see Gai Waterhouse winning big at the races. As a part of the story, they’re interviewing the jockeys…and they’re all male.
Question #38: Why aren’t there any female jockeys?
Regardless of sex, wouldn’t the physique of jockeys be about the same?
…Just sayin’.
PLUS:
Please read the wonderful comment left by Lily, as a response to my last post. She also wants a culture free from porn and her comment is succinct.
Best of all, she’s started to take action by writing many letters to all political avenues, including our Prime Minister – to raise her voice against this Lingerie Football League starting in Australia. We’ve teamed up together and have started looking at different approaches to take – to be heard.
JOIN US…Men too! We need all you dads, uncles, brothers and sons who can see this toxic culture manifesting in front of your eyes.
Our democracy votes in politicians of all levels – so contact your Federal Representative. It doesn’t matter whether they’re your party or not – they’re there – and it’s time to ask them to act for the people of the electorate…who got them their job (majority rules!). After that, it will work its way up.
Use WHOEVER’S representing us. The more of you use, the better.
It’s time to be the village.
…and you know what ladies? Wouldn’t you want to put that ‘nagging’ label towards some good?
Now THAT’S empowering!
Deep Breath
…and GO!
x
![feminism31[1]](https://questionsforus.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/feminism3111.jpg)
Just a quick hello.
April 26, 2012
Well, the finalists for the blog writing competition I entered were listed today – no, I didn’t make it.
Ooooh weeeell. Better luck next year, I say. *full of optimism*
To be honest, I’m not really sure if I’m doing it ‘right’ – like the fact that since writing the word ‘porn’ (oops – did it again) – I receive SO much more spam…getting close to 200 spam comments so far. Boo! I’m not even sure if this is normal – I assume it is. Any other bloggers have the same problems?
But as long as I keep meeting like-minded people, as well as people who challenge what I’m writing, then that makes me a happy camper.
Today I just wanted to share a little cartoon I put on my Facebook page last week:
Question #36: Thoughts?
x
A response – #2
April 23, 2012
I’ve received another great perspective (thank you), in response to my last post and I thought that seeing as I want to encourage a conversation – I’ll answer it here.
One part read:
I think as well part of the reason women wear such revealing clothes is because we can now, we have reached a stage where we have a right to wear revealing clothes and be in charge of our own bodies, there shouldn’t be anything shameful in wearing something flattering for your body. I don’t think that girls wearing short skirts or dresses is a *pick me* situation at all, in fact most wear them simply because they are in style not because they want to be picked by a man.
I completely agree that women have come such a looong way in being able to choose how to dress and being in control of their own lives – as well as many other advancements. But what I saw on Saturday Night was young women choosing to have a look that has, throughout the decades been equated to one word – SEX.
And that’s OK. I’m not a prude – I think it’s great that women also have more control over their sexual decisions.
BUT, this is the moment where I wonder where the empowerment is – because this look is purely to sexually arouse (heterosexual) men…
…it’s the image attached to porn – something created to service men’s desires; an image that has saturated our world, as shown in A visual presentation, since the internet truly hit our shores.
The word ‘flattering’ is the last word that comes to mind (for me) when I see this look because there’s nothing left to the imagination, nothing for the guy to discover – it’s fully out there.
Whatever happened to mystery? Showing a hint of the sexual woman inside, to engage a man?
I have seen VERY sexually alluring women with beautiful and stylish clothing; a low v-neck top, showing a long neckline or a short skirt to show off great legs – but a bit more conservative with the rest.
A taste.
What’s out there appears to be something tacky – when it’s every sexual looked rolled into one. There’s only one message. My husband, a very hot-blooded male, agreed with me – it was a visual candy shop for guys.
Is that it? Can’t we do better?
The reason I ask is because this fashion is filtering down to our young girls – as young as Primary School. We all know that’s true and for the most part, I think people are concerned about this. Why? Because it’s a sexual look and it primarily attracts and arouses men. *massive concern*
Another part read:
I really don’t understand what you mean by girls looking the same while boys all look different, as far as I can tell when it comes to clothes men have a far smaller variety of choice than women.
Men have always used the same clothes for well over a century – as I wrote before – pants, shirt, flat shoes. I was refering to the ‘type’ of guy we saw – not what they were wearing. When it comes to clothes, they don’t have to really make a choice.
But women do. So why not choose a fashion that has sexual allure, steeped in style and mystery?
Again, I really would like to repeat – I’m not criticising these women. I just think they’re worth more than their ‘appearance’ of a stereotypical, male sexual fantasy. Whether girls dress like that for fashion or not – it’s what the guys are interpreting, about women, that matters…
Question #35 …and in this man’s world (which it is) how can we EVER gain empowerment from this look?
We are giving them the look THEY like and, more importantly, the look they chose for us through shows, music videos, men’s magazines etc. etc.
Deep Breath
x
Questions for Us 