LRCC STAMP

By Katie D

Michelle Obama is a compelling woman not to be underestimated.  She is not simply the wife of the United States’ 44th Commander-in-Chief. [1] She is a highly intelligent woman who has maintained her integrity and compassion after facing up to eight years’ worth of political spin and media scrutiny as her husband fulfilled his duty as President of the USA.  She used her new-found platform as First-Lady to highlight important issues including equality.  Michelle Obama is a force to be reckoned with, she is a feminist icon.

Michelle Obama is an inspiration for many reasons.  She obtained a degree from the prestigious Harvard School of Law and worked for a Chicago law firm before meeting her husband, Barack Obama. This clearly demonstrates she is a woman with determination and high potential who has the confidence to pursue endeavours which may at times seem fanciful (such as graduating from an institution with such a reputation and taking up such a respected profession).  If this does not illuminate that anyone from any background can do anything then surely nothing else will.  Furthermore, Michelle Obama is known to describe herself as a mother before describing herself as anything else, including a lawyer or former First-Lady. [2] She is therefore breaking down the stereotype that depicts a woman as unable to balance a family and a high-flying career.  She has displayed the perfect equilibrium of a devoted and loving mother and cheer-leader to her husband, as well as a compassionate and strong public figure.  She has never shown any signs of ‘distraction’ from the job at hand and her dedication to her family have never made her seem ‘weak’, ‘vulnerable’ or ‘volatile’.  She undoubtedly shows how strong a woman can be.  Furthermore, she has used her public platform to raise many issues related to equality, particularly the importance of educating girls across the globe.  She shows that feminism knows no borders or boundaries as it is beneficial to all, no matter race, gender, age or religion.

Michelle Obama’s ambitions and ultimate successes are a true inspiration, not only to women but to anyone who is ever in doubt of their own ability. She has never let gender stereotypes or media scrutiny impact her confidence or values.  In her own words: ‘as women we must stand up for ourselves, for each other, for justice, for all’. [3] It could not be made plainer that feminism is for everyone.

 1.       https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/first-ladies/michelle-obama/

2.       https://www.whitehousehistory.org/bios/michelle-obama

By Niamh McG

Feminism means a lot to me. I find it very difficult to express my feelings towards it without ending up very excited and emotional, which in itself is not a bad thing. I see it for what it’s done for women throughout history.

I identify as a feminist and I see myself standing there amongst the suffragettes and suffragists demanding the vote. I can see myself walking out of the Ford car factory and demanding equal pay. I can see myself in the UN and the human rights organisations and the rape crisis centres and the offices and the businesses and the farms and the cars and the schools and the homes of all women who have done what they can for equality, be it as simple as joining a youth group in your sixth year of school in the hope that you’re going to change the world.

Feminism brings me a sense of uncontaminated joy; a real sense of community and it gives me something to strive for. I want to make the world a better place because of what feminism has taught me. I want to make life better for the people that come after me. Feminism gave me drive for what I want to do with my life after my degree. I entered my Psychology degree with the notion that I want to understand people, and I’ll be leaving it with the determination to make life for better for those people. I want to work in giving women and girls the rights and the equalities and the opportunities that they deserve. I want to help integrate the notion of intersectionality into human rights and women’s rights work, race, class, disability, privilege it all coexists, and it needs to be tackled accordingly.

And sometimes when I’m sitting there and I’m talking about diversity quotas or the language in which young women, or women of any age, are spoken about, and someone pipes up with “What about child marriages? What about real oppression? You’ve got it easy!” I want to scream because I’m 20 years old, I can’t just click my fingers and expect all the wrong in the world to be overturned, but what I can do is talk and explore and educate and fight for what I believe in. Because ultimately it all works together, it all coexists. The way we treat each other, and the way society interacts at even the base levels influences our actions. Calling a 40-year-old female neurosurgeon a girl, undermines her, it undermines her effort, it ultimately changes how she feels about herself and it changes how she works. Calling women girls, infantilises them, takes away their agency and changes the way they are perceived, and furthermore the way their voices are listened to. So just because right at this minute I’m not talking about forced marriage, does not mean that I am not also concerned about this issue too. It is all connected, and being able to explore these issues and think about how they are connected is part of what intersectional feminism is. Feminism which is not intersectional is not feminism in my book.

By Katie D

Colours are powerful tools.  Certain hues can evoke specific emotions or can associate themselves with particular meanings.  For example, the colour red has several meanings to society.  On one hand it is the colour of love and passion, it is the ‘go-to’ colour for Valentine’s Day.  On the other hand, it is the colour of danger, hazards and a signal to stop. Conversely, green is the signal to go, it implies what is correct, it has strong associations with nature and of being environmentally friendly.  Specific colours have established links to countries, football teams and even political parties.  Almost all shades of the visible light spectrum have some sort of deeper meaning to the human brain, but two particular colours carry extremely strong associations with them.  Pink and blue.  Pink as a princess, the colour holds with it all that is feminine.  Blue for the boys, the shade signifies surging testosterone levels.  The use of these colours to label gender is stringent.  The thought of a baby boy wearing pink or a baby girl wearing blue is utterly baffling.  But these links society has made between gender and colour go deeper than a simple mechanism for identifying the sex of a newly born infant.  In fact, what has been created is a toxic environment in which any individual wearing the colour that ‘logically’ does not align with their gender has opened themselves up to ridicule.

The assignment of the colour pink to female and the colour blue to male in the brain is almost certainly a result of societal conditioning.  The findings from a study conducted in 2011 found that when boys and girls aged one-year-old were shown identical objects, one pink and one of a different colour, they were no more likely to choose the pink object over the object of another hue.  However, girls over the age of two began to prefer the objects coloured pink and at the age of four boys were much more likely to cast-off the pink coloured objects in favour of the items of a different hue.  This demonstrates that the association between colours and gender is learnt by children as they mature because it is at this critical stage in development where infants begin to become aware of their own gender and what characterises different sexes [1].  The problem is that not only do the pigments of pink and blue have associations with gender, they also have associations with certain gender stereotypes which are damaging and limiting.  The colour pink is undoubtedly considered feminine, but if a man was to link himself to a shade of pink, he would perhaps be considered as girly, silly and weak. Additionally, the colour blue is without question assumed to be a masculine colour, and if a woman was to strongly relate herself with this hue, she could be deemed to be manly, boisterous and intimidating.  This concept is quite frankly ridiculous.  Furthermore, the sexuality is questioned of individuals who wear the opposite colour to the shade that their gender suggests they should.  Men wearing pink are often labelled as ‘gay’ and the fact that this is intended as an insult and therefore attaches a negative connotation to the word ‘gay’, is a whole other problem within itself.  It is simply a colour.

Of course, the problem of associations connected to certain pigments that give rise to negative behaviours is not limited to the realm of gender stereotypes.  Intense sporting rivalries, often in football, has seen the ban of football colours in places such as pubs or even school non-uniform days.  However, the use of colour association is also a highly positive device.  It can evoke a sense of belonging and pride as people can represent their passions such as their sporting teams, country or political movements.  Additionally, there have been improvements in the issue of gender stereotyping and the role of colours in this issue.  A woman would most likely not be seen any differently if she chose to wear blue clothing in today’s world.  However, a younger girl wearing blue would perhaps still be considered a tomboy and there is still a clear divide in children’s clothing and toy shops where the girls’ and boys’ sections are clearly marked by their predominant colour. A lot of advancements have been made in terms of eradicating the stigma attached to men wearing pink.  The promotion of the men’s fragrance ‘Joop! Homme’ gave rise to the strapline of ‘real men wear pink’, however these advertisements were often met with hilarity.  Additionally, the men’s Scotland national football team 2018 away strip is a vibrant shade of pink.  Although initially met with criticism, it is an excellent showcase of the efforts made to demolish the stigma linked to men wearing pink.  The men’s Scotland national football team is not unique in this respect with other football teams such as Celtic FC, Everton FC and Juventus FC all having adopted a pink strip at some point and with other male sporting icons including Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal often seen confidently wear pink.  Steps are continuously being taken to eradicate this delusional insistence of men and women to comply with gender stereotypes.

By Fiona

 A feminist journey isn’t a pleasant stroll, it often feels like an impossible struggle, an exhausting never ending climb towards some vague goal sitting unreachable in the distance. Every time you feel like you’re finally approaching the peak another, taller, steeper obstacle appears out of the clouds. All the while people stand by and watch you struggle adamant that we’re already at the top. Or better yet that we’re really on flat ground and everyone trying to hill climb is merely imagining the mountain.

But the mountain is real. No matter what any angry man on the internet or in a pub tries to tell you. Because we need feminism. We need a movement for the empowerment and safety of all genders. We need engagement with politics and general society to promote diversity and inclusion. And we need active feminism. Not feminism that’s merely a label, a passive brand people give themselves to be down with the kids. But feminism that is a way of thinking, a way of behaving. Activism in all of its forms, from massive protest marches and political influence right the way down to changing how we talk to other women and how we think about fashion. Feminism should be constantly evolving and can play a part in everything that we do.

I often find this knowledge reassuring.  Bringing my morals into everyday activities solidifies my identity as a feminist and allows me to feel a part of that community. It allows me to feel directly involved in a movement I care deeply about but that can often seem overwhelming. Knowing that small changes are worthwhile is often the thing that gives me the strength to make those changes.

But this can also make this struggle all the more exhausting. The knowledge that I can bring my feminism into literally everything I do brings with it the crushing responsibility to bring feminism into literally everything I do. And that’s not possible.

Sometimes feminism has to take a backseat. For the sake of a job, for a stress-free family dinner, for self-preservation. Don’t get me wrong it can be difficult, draining. To stand by and watch prejudice occur right before my eyes, from people I care about. But knowing when to stay quiet is sometimes just as helpful as knowing when to speak up. You need to know when you’re not going to make a difference, when you need to conserve your energy. It’s great to be woke, but sometimes what you really need is a nap.

It’s taken me a while to come to terms with this, to allow myself to be selfish.  But sometimes selfish is what you need. My self-preservation can also be beneficial to everyone, I am no use to anyone or any movement if I’m so exhausted that I don’t care anymore. You need to ensure your own mask is secure before helping others.

By Niamh McG

I would like to put to bed the idea that feminism is about ‘man-hating’. I understand that it’s a big ask, and it will definitely either make or break my faith in humanity at this point but I personally feels as if it really has to be done.

Earlier this year, we at STAMP, made a video with BBC The Social about what it means to be a feminist. It’s a short video; barely a minute long, and we were so excited about it. We were getting shared on a much larger media platform than what we were used to and as much as we were warned that some people (‘trolls’) would not exactly appreciate our view point, reading the comment section is driving me to comfort eat.

The content of the video is fairly straight forward; various members say a trait that we as a whole project (and Lanarkshire Rape Crisis Centre) believe to be inherently feminist. For example: using activism to change the world; ending sexual violence; the freedom of identity expression and being judged on your merits as opposed to anything else. At the end of the video the ensemble cast wrap up by nonchalantly suggesting that if you believe in all of this then, well, you’re probably a feminist too.

As far as I can tell, the video was short and sweet and could maybe get people, who previously would not consider themselves feminist, to consider the possibility that they could become involved in the movement. As a feminist (shocker, I know) it was a fairly simple and un-offensive expression of the kind of activism that is partaken in  the feminist community.

The video has been (at the point of writing this piece) been shared on BBC The Social’s Facebook page three times; each of the comment sections getting worse each time. At first, we received widely positive views and comments, although some may have been from biased family and friends, and there was the odd individual shouting in all caps about how it was a ridiculous concept and that they believe in equality and not feminism (more on that later). And of course the trolls complaining that it was a fundamentally man-hating movement. At this time however, we were all running on the adrenaline that we had just created this amazing content and that people were actually coming into contact with our work; so we argued our case, we replied with vigour and some exceptionally witty repartee, if we do say so ourselves.

And that was that until it got posted again, and people were still reacting positively by liking and sharing it which was always fabulous, and there was again a few more cries of disdain that it shouldn’t be called feminism, and that men had it worse because of high suicide rights, and that we are an equal society in the west. Again we fought back, maybe with a little less vivacity, but we argued our case. Feminism is called as it is, because at the grassroots of the movement and ideology, it was the intrinsically feminine and female attributes that were seen as second to traditionally male ones; and yes unfortunately men are statistically more likely to commit suicide due to the over bearing social pressures of toxic masculinity and the patriarchy, something that the feminist movement is very interested in changing, and does the last one really warrant a reply? Because no, just because there is a female Prime Minister does not mean that we are an equal society.

The third time the video was posted, it blew up. There were over 700 comments, over 60 thousand views, it was mind-blowing. However, as we later found out; a suspected men’s rights activist group had found our delightful video, and descended with their pitchforks and demanding us witch feminists to burn at the stake (I paraphrased). At this point I would just really like to talk to these so called ‘men’s-rights’ activists, just to tell them how much feminism does not hate men and that they are actually very welcome to our movement, if they undergo a slight attitude change of course.

Because, I hate to break it to you, but feminism helps men too. The movement does strive for equality, it doesn’t want to crush men down to bring up women (it actually understands that there are more than two genders) and it really will be beneficial to understand this.

Feminism wants to end the patriarchy. STAMP in particular are interested in using the media to question the patriarchy present in media specifically, but there are many other forms that it takes. for example, the gender roles that we are placed into from such a young age; that boys can’t play with dolls unless they have toy guns as an extra limb?, that they can’t wear pink, that they can only play football or rugby; that they can’t dance or play with Barbies or wear dresses even if they wanted to. Because these are seen as feminine traits. To take this further, the patriarchy decrees that men can’t be emotional, because again that would be too feminine, they can only express anger, they can’t talk about their feelings, or their mental health and because of this; the male suicide rate is so high.

The patriarchy means that so often, men don’t get an equal chance when it comes to parental care for their children. In the form of parental leave, or in cases of child custody; because it is not seen to be the men’s job to look after their own children, that would be far too motherly; even though many men say that they would happily stay at home with their children if they got decent paid leave to do so. In line with the roles in the family, the patriarchy makes sure that men feel like failures when they are not  providing for their family or that they feel 'less of a man’ if they have a female partner that earns more than them.

These are only a few examples of the detrimental effects of the patriarchy but I’d like to think that you get my train of thought, because as much as feminism is fighting to end violence against women, it also wants to help male victims of abuse, by getting their trauma recognised and heard. Intersectional feminism is about recognising and challenging gender inequality as it intersects with other forms of discrimination such as racism, transphobia, homophobia and ableism. In short, feminism wants to stamp out the hatred and crush the patriarchy.

By Hannah H

The pressure that the media puts on adolescent girls to look a certain way is no secret. As young girls we are told we should be a certain weight, height, should do our makeup a certain way, and wear our hair like this or that so that boys ‘like’ us. I can see it as a ploy to make us buy things and fuel the cosmetic market, but when I was just beginning high school, my self-confidence was pretty low. Our patriarchal society bases our worth on our looks and very little else, and at a young age, it is difficult to understand that how you look is totally natural, and that you won’t look like that forever.

I was shocked to see the BBC headline: “Vagina surgery 'sought by girls as young as nine'” on 03/07/17. A new trend is seemingly haunting young girls now: that their vagina does not look as it should. An unfathomable concept for some, but the reality is that children are being exposed to porn from such a young age, that they believe there is a ‘one size fits all’ formula for their genitals, and that their own does not look as it should.

Labiaplasty, as defined by the NHS, is ‘surgery to reduce the size of the labia minora – the flaps of skin either side of the vaginal opening.’ Women may request this surgery if their labia minora causes them discomfort when sitting normally, when doing sport, or when having sex. Within the UK, labiaplasty surgery is rarely done under the NHS, and is generally a cosmetic surgery, unless the labia is ‘obviously abnormal’, or causing the woman large amounts of distress.

Dr Gail Busby, an adolescent gynaecologist, says that for a girl younger than 18, it is a different reality. Their body is still forming, and their genitals can still drastically change in appearance. A labiaplasty could hinder the development of her vagina, and cause her further medical issues as her body continues to develop.

For me, what is equally as concerning is the psychological impact of feeling that this surgery is necessary. For a girl as young as 9 to feel that her vagina ‘doesn’t look right’ is awful because it means that at some point in her short life she has already been exposed to the sexualisation and objectification of women and girls, and to the idea that her own body’s aesthetic is more important than its function. Today’s society and economy is fuelled by self-conscious individuals who are constantly investing in themselves and how they look, and this same world is creating a generation of girls who want to alter their body because they think it is necessary to be liked; or even loved. And that is not okay.

The chairman of British Society for Paediatric and Adolescent Gynaecology, Dr Crouch, weighed in on this issue in an interview with BBC news. She commented on the ‘uncomfortable parallels’ between labiaplasty and Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). FGM – which is illegal in the UK – is ‘the removal or cutting of the clitoris and/or labia for non-medical reasons.’ In some countries, there is a strong belief that FGM increases a woman’s fertility, and strengthens their relationship with their God. It is important to note that within Christianity, Judaism and Islam, they do not advocate for FGM, and so this idea is more tradition than scripture. The vast majority of medical practitioners have condemned FGM and those that practice it, and say that the procedure has no health benefits whatsoever.  

The parallels that Dr Crouch speaks of become apparent when you consider that FGM is a cultural issue: In some cultures that practice FGM, it is sometimes seen as a rite of passage into becoming a woman, and that she is only ‘able to be married’ after having the procedure. In this case, FGM is fuelled by opinion and culture. Similarly, in western culture, porn and other sources has created the idea that vaginas should look a certain way, and so impressionable girls are seeking surgery to keep in line with cultural beliefs and expectations. And while, unlike FGM, it is the girl’s own choice to request the surgery, there is evidently hidden influences affecting her ability to make the decision.

Girls under 18 who seek labiaplasty are strongly discouraged from going through with the procedure, and the fact that the NHS will not fund this surgery goes a long way in persuading young girls to wait until they are older to make their decision. It is clear, however, that this simply isn’t enough. The idea and possibility of a cosmetic labiaplasty should not even occur to young girls; their thoughts should not need to go so far. More needs to be done to educate teenagers from a young age, and to explain that genitals are often unique, just like the rest of their body, and regardless of how they look, there is nothing to be ashamed of.  

As the average age of young people watching porn for the first-time lowers, the number of young girls seeking out surgery on their genitals increases; this much is evident. What is not evident is the if the media and porn industry have accepted that this is their responsibility to try and combat what young people are exposed to, and how this affects them. With the government having recently announced their plans to safeguard under 18s watching porn, steps are being made to try and decrease the effects of early exposure to porn. However, the social responsibility without doubt also lies within the porn industry, and the mainstreaming of porn within our society today.

  If you would like to read more about the issues discussed in this blog please look to:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40410459 

By Katie Davies

Starmus, founded by astrophysicist Dr. Garik Israelian, is known as ‘the world’s most ambitious science festival’ and was held in Trondheim, Norway in 2017(1).  It aims to fuse together the arts and the sciences as well as inspire interests in space exploration.  Among the many speakers delivering presentations were huge names in science including Professor Stephen Hawking, astronauts Charlie Duke, Dr. Harrison Schmidtt, Buzz Aldrin, Dr. Sandra Magnus and Colonel Terry Virts, as well as quite possibly the world’s only quantum mind reader, David Zambuka. Eleven Nobel Laureates also united to have a panel discussion and the week-long festival was nothing short of outstanding.  However, the lack of women in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) workforce was an issue highlighted numerous times throughout the event.  In fact, the festival became a very positive platform for the encouragement of gender equality in the sciences as the week progressed.

Of the fifty listed speakers at Starmus, thirteen were female and thirty-seven were male.  In addition, there is only one female member of the ten-people Starmus Executive Board (which includes big names such as Dr. Garik Israelian, Professor Stephen Hawking and Dr. Brian May).  Furthermore, of the panel of eleven Nobel Laureates only one was female - Professor May-Britt Moser, who received her Nobel Prize for her work in physiology.  When asked what she thought about the fact that roughly 95% of Nobel Prize winners are men, Professor Moser shared her hopes for the near future where gender of scientists will be completely irrelevant.  She said, ‘This is how it should be - if a scientist makes a discovery and that scientist is a woman, then that is fine.  And if the scientist is a man, then that is fine too’. However, it was not all doom and gloom. Throughout the event, a stand showcasing the wonderful technologies of virtual reality (VR) was present. According to Jannicke Mikkelsen, Starmus 2017 director of VR, the percentage of speakers presenting on the VR stage that were women was 70%.  She was delighted about this, saying ‘when I first started out [in the STEM workforce] I was the only girl on the team’.  One of the presentations on the VR stage was delivered by two female students from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) about their involvement in the Formula Student project.  This is a competition which universities across Europe take part in and in which teams of students must design and create a prototype for a race car with a single seat which can be used for autocross or sprint racing purposes and present it to a hypothetical manufacturing firm(2).  As the two students explained, this year’s NTNU team is the first to have a female team leader and the number of female participants has increased by 600%.  Therefore, the Starmus 2017 festival has in many ways become an excellent ambassador for increased involvement of women in STEM subjects while acknowledging there is still work to be done.

A word which was said often throughout the festival was ‘inspiration’.  In fact, Buzz Aldrin, the second man on the moon, stated that the future of space exploration is dependent upon inspiration.  He conveyed that it is of critical importance to inspire the next generations to pursue careers in the STEM workforces.  Dr. Sandra Magnus, astronaut and director of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics - the world’s largest technical society dedicated to the global aerospace profession - is a great example of how inspiration is vital(1).  Dr. Magnus was always interested in STEM subjects and space exploration however when she was a child, the space programme was still not accepting women. She went on to study physics and ‘didn't even know engineering existed’.  When she discovered the vocation of engineering she furthered her studies, reading electrical engineering and eventually materials science too.  As she completed her studies, the first women were accepted onto the space programme and Dr. Magnus saw a path for her future career.  This highlights how awareness of STEM careers must be increased across all genders and how the future of space exploration relies upon making sure everyone understands that opportunities in STEM subjects are available for them. Clear role models make the sciences much more accessible for prospective members of this workforce.  In attendance of Starmus 2017 were many members of the Norwegian Air Force.  Of about twenty representatives of the Air Force, only two women were present.  Upon a discussion with one of the Airwomen, she revealed that approximately 20% of the Norwegian Air Force are women and that this is relatively high compared to the rest of Europe.  When asked about why she applied to be part of the Air Force, she said ‘I had a sister that went before me, she went through the Army and worked as an engineer’.  This illuminates the huge importance of positive female role models in inspiring women to explore heavily male dominated career areas.

When chatting with some of the female speakers, it seemed so irrational that women were ever doubted on their ability to comprehend the sciences in the past.  Professor Sara Seager, planetary scientist and astrophysicist known as the ‘astronomical Indiana Jones’, is a prime example of this. When asked to elaborate on her work with cubesats (miniature satellites usually weighing less than 1.33kg)(3) she spoke eloquently and was able to convey a large volume of information in a concise manner.  Professor Seager was very evidently an absolute expert in her field. Furthermore, the Airwoman described her responsibilities within the Air Force saying ‘I can fly but my speciality is in surveillance so I am the one who tells the pilot if they should engage their weapons if the enemy is present’.  These women are both clearly highly intelligent and knowledgeable people so it is absolutely bewildering that their gender would take away opportunities from them as it would have in the past.  Dr. Nick Lane, a biochemist, brought up a particular incidence in history concerning the work of Jennifer Moyle and Dr. Peter Mitchell.  The scientists were research colleagues who worked together on Dr. Mitchell’s hypothesis on Chemiosmotic Theory.  Jennifer Moyle was responsible for designing a large quantity of the experimental procedures necessary to test the hypothesis, however, only Dr. Mitchell was awarded with the Nobel Prize in 1978 for their collaborative scientific research(4).  Despite this disheartening historical anecdote, this highlights the extremely positive influence Starmus is having on the attempts to address the issue of the lack of women in science.  Dr. Lane’s condemning of the lack of credit Jennifer Moyle received from the Nobel Prize Committee garnered huge applause as did many other speakers when they discussed the need for more women in the STEM workforce.  With both male and female speakers challenging sexism in STEM subjects, steps are clearly being taken towards gender equality as both men and women are equally angered by discrimination on the basis of gender.

Finally, Starmus also provided possible ways forward to further promote gender equality and participation of women in the STEM workforce.  On the penultimate day, a panel discussion on outreach and education took place which included many influential voices including Dr. Magnus, Professor Moser, ESA astronaut Claude Nicollier, and science writer David Eicher.  The discussion concluded with the panel explaining advice that they would give to a girl aged ten who was desperate to pursue a career in science.  The panel all agreed that the girl must believe in herself and never give up. However, what was more interesting is that they advised the girl to remain curious and be creative and playful. Play is known to be a huge part of a child's development so perhaps it is the kind of toys that are given to young girls which is leading to this lack of women pursuing scientific careers. Girls are encouraged to mature early on, they are given baby dolls when they themselves are still young children, implying to them that they must start to learn to care for children from the offset - as if this is still seen as ‘a woman’s job’ and their role in society. Boys are often allowed to keep their youthfulness much longer than girls, they are encouraged to play at older ages - an Xbox is seen as the typical toy of a teenage boy while girls are expected to go out shopping - and boys are expected to be energetic and boisterous when young, contributing to the ‘boys will be boys’ mentality. Furthermore, toy cars, trucks, planes and perhaps even Lego, stereotypical toys a boy may own, allow for much more curiosity than typical toys a girl may have.  A toy car opens up questions like: ‘How does this work?’ ‘What is inside this?’  ‘How do you build an engine?’  ‘How can I make a more effective vehicle?’  ‘How can this be more environmentally friendly?’ A Barbie doll cannot offer the same opportunity for curiosity.  Therefore it can be argued that the way forward for science is in the way in which we let our children play and develop their own curiosities.

To conclude, the Starmus 2017 festival in Trondheim became an excellent advocate for advancement in gender equality in the STEM workforce.  Dr. Magnus gave fantastic advice to any woman embarking on a scientific career.  She spoke from experience, recounting times where as the only woman on her space team she questioned whether or not she was intelligent enough to be there.  She advised to always believe in yourself and never doubt your intelligence.  The week-long festival was a once in a lifetime opportunity to meet many incredibly interesting and inspirational people, not to mention astronaut Colonel Terry Virtz who travelled with his Italian crewmate Samantha Cristoforetti to meet and receive a tutorial from her hairdresser so he could cut her hair properly during their mission up in space.  The Starmus festival is a credit to the way in which science knows no borders and how scientists all over the world are part of an international community rather than just a figure head for their own countries.  The quality of presentations were outstanding and overall, Starmus IV seems to be the feminist edition of science festivals.

1.      www.starmus.com

2.      www.imeche.org

3.      www.nasa.gov

By Erin S.

There has been a lot of controversy about the act of ‘stealthing’ lately. ‘Stealthing’ is when men remove their condoms during sex whilst their partner is lead to believe contraception is still being used. There are a few problematic things worth noting about this act and the attention it has gained recently.

Firstly, referring to the act as ‘stealthing’ is harmful. It carries a tone which suggests it is a trend and public figures and journalists who refer to this betrayal of trust as a ‘movement’ also amplify this idea.

Secondly, it is rape.

There has been a lot of debate in the public eye and on social media lately about whether ‘stealthing’ is a form of sexual assault or rape. ‘Stealthing’ is rape because of the nature of consent in the situation. Consent in any sexual act is conditional. A person will give consent first and foremost if they want to partake in any sexual act. However, this consent can also be influenced by the conditions under which it’s going to happen – for example, whether it is protected. When the conditions of consent change without knowledge of either partner, the consent is no longer valid.

The health risks must also be recognised. There is an increased risk of spreading and catching sexually transmitted infections (STI’s), some of which will perhaps go undetected. A lot of STI’s don’t have any physical symptoms, so if an individual appears to be in good health and has trusted his/her partner they could be living with a sexually transmitted disease and have no idea. In addition, another almost obvious risk is pregnancy. If a man removes his condom during sex with a woman who isn’t on any other form of contraception, he risks impregnating the woman who believes they are taking measures to prevent pregnancy – so against her will. This is especially relevant when examined in the context of social structures and gender roles. It is up to women to decide whether to raise a child or have an abortion, and traditionally women are expected to take more responsibility for childcare. They are often assigned domestic roles which focus on staying at home and raising the children, which can be economically challenging for many women who are already paid less then their male counterparts in work. These social structures and expectations of women are oppressive tools and men that perpetrate this type of sexual assault are utilising these systems to further oppress women.

Overall, it’s almost easy to understand why people are struggling to recognise this act as sexual assault or rape as the way it’s being reported is so trivial in comparison to the stereotypical portrayal of rape and sexual assault in the media. For those who do recognise ‘stealthing’ as a violation of trust and intimacy, it is our almost duty to be increasingly vocal and educate others about why consent and it’s nature cannot continue to be trivialised. Stealthing is an act where consent is absent, and such an act is identified as rape.

By Hannah H.

The run up to this snap election next week has been crazy. I don’t know about you but it has totally thrown my political views into turmoil, and all I seem to hear is Brexit Brexit Brexit.  Of course, the way in which Brexit is handled is ridiculously important for the UK, but we can’t forget that there are other factors to take into consideration when you step into that polling booth on the 8th of June.

Firstly, I want to address something I have seen cropping up a lot on social media in the run up, not only to our own general election, but also during the French presidential election too. There are many aspects to a party that forms their manifesto, and their party views. Having a female leader does not mean a party is a feminist party. A feminist vote is not a vote for a party only because their leader is female, a feminist vote considers what a party promises in their manifesto, and the work they plan to do to combat the gender imbalances across our society. The age old saying ‘actions speak louder than words’ is definitely appropriate here. It is less about your gender and more about what you and your party stand for.

Another important point to note is that a lot of women’s rights are safeguarded under EU law, and once Brexit is complete, we will lose these rights unless our government create UK replacements. While the UK does already have similar laws in place, there is nothing to completely protect them from deregulation; unless we have a government who is dedicated to doing so.

Below is my feminist analysis of some of the party manifestos, and my thoughts

Conservatives

Theresa May, even since she became Home Secretary, has been very adamant about her feminist views, yet in the time so far in which she has been prime minister has been surprisingly quiet about the matter. A quick google search goes to show that the conservatives, being right wing, don’t exactly have the best rep for being a feminist party. In their manifesto, their intentions to specifically help women are mentioned four times:

To ‘continue to lead a global campaign for the education of women and girls’

To ‘introduce dedicated provision for women offenders’ in the prison service

To ‘help women in the workplace’

To ‘increase the number of women sitting on boards of companies’

Undoubtedly, all four points detailed above are important, and do need to be worked upon. However, in comparison to other aspects of their manifesto, women’s rights are surprisingly generalised, and are lacking in detail. It was surprising for myself to find that the conservatives had mentioned women’s rights a similar amount of times as the Green Party had – and their manifesto was a quarter of the size. I understand that there is many different aspects of our society to take into account when it comes to publishing a manifesto, but I am shocked to know that our current government appears to have no interest in the gender pay gap or support for domestic abuse victims. Not ok.

Labour

Labour have never had a woman leader, and that’s fine. While it would be awesome to see a strong woman stand in opposition to Theresa May, it seems 2017 just is not the time. Looking to their manifesto, woman’s rights are mentioned several times. They also have a full subsection dedicated to women within Chapter 11: A More Equal Society. This includes:

At work, ‘strengthen protections for women against unfair redundancy – because no one should be penalised for having children’

Address the issue that: ‘Over 2.5 million women born in the 1950s have had their state pension age changed without fair notification,’ and act on this

Emphasising the reporting of violence against women with disabilities

‘The level of violence against women and girls is not acceptable. Labour ‘will emphasise the safety of women and girls by appointing a commissioner to set new standards for tackling domestic and sexual violence.’

Being prochoice.

It is also noted within their manifesto that: ‘Under the Conservatives, progress is being rolled back for women, people with disabilities, LGBT people and BME communities. Cuts to public services and social security are landing disproportionately on women and ethnic minorities, with 86 per cent of the money raised from the Tories’ tax and social security changes coming from women’s pockets.’

Additionally, their manifesto notes: ‘Violence against women and girls continues to be a global epidemic, affecting an estimated one in three women worldwide. In the UK, on average two women are killed by their current or a former partner every week. Under the Conservatives, over a third of all local authority funding to domestic and sexual violence services was already cut by 2012.’  

Appointing A Violence Against Women Commissioner to assure ‘stable central funding for women’s refuges and rape crisis centres.’

Review support for women who have miscarriages

Labour also have a full section for LGBT Equality, Diverse Communities and People with Disabilities. Their manifesto is very clearly laid out for minorities who are looking to see what a Labour government could do for them, and it is evident that they would be striving for equality as a left wing parliament. From a feminist perspective, Labour does tick a lot of boxes. I think that in practice, Labour could do wonders for gender equality if they stayed true to their manifesto.

Liberal Democrats

When it comes to the Liberal Democrats, there is a whole backstory to where they stand politically in 2017, and it is safe to say their popularity has rapidly decreased since the coalition government of 2012. Looking to their manifesto, it is not convincing to a feminist. Women’s rights are mentioned just 5 times:

To reach a goal of one million women in work by 2025. This will be done by funding more childcare and providing better back to work support

Pushing for 40% of board members in FTSE 350 companies to be female.

Establishing a Women’s Justice Board in order to meet the needs of women offenders

Protecting ‘vaccination and family planning’ internationally in the wake of the ant-vaccination trend in the USA

‘Prioritise support, protection and equal rights for women and girls, which is both right and essential for effective, sustainable economic development.  We will aim to end female genital mutilation worldwide within a generation.’

The mention of combatting female genital mutilation is one that is all but unique to the Lib Dem’s manifesto thus far. In comparison to Labour, their promises when it comes to feminism and LGBT rights are very general, with no specific implications.

Scottish National Party

When hearing of the SNP’s, it is quickly to be caught up in the independence debate, but there is a lot more to Sturgeon and her party. Their manifesto states firstly how they have lobbied against the rape clause, and against the injustice that arose from women born in the 1950s having their state pension age raised. They also had a Private Member’s Bill passed, which required the UK government to do more to end domestic violence.  In the next 4 years, they are promising to:

Axe the tampon tax, and until it is done so, for Scotland’s share of the tax fund to be transferred to the Scottish Government to be distributed amongst organisations working with and for women in Scotland

Pressure the UK government to limit immigration detention. ‘We continue to oppose the detention of children and vulnerable people, including pregnant women and people with mental illnesses.’

Continue the process of their Private Member’s Bill, which will commit the UK government to fund women’s refuges and rape crisis centres.

Continue to pressure the UK government to drop the rape clause.

SNP back the Women an Equalities Committee’s ‘recommendation to strengthen the law to protect women from discriminatory redundancies and practices.’

Combatting the gender pay gap in several ways:

1) ‘We will seek to ensure that any employer who loses an equal pay claim conducts and publishes an equal pay audit and then takes appropriate action on the results.’

2)’ Equal pay audits should cover gender, race and disability. SNP MPs will support lowering the threshold to 150 employees, from the current level of 250 employees, and the introduction of sanctions, including fines, for employers that fail to comply with the law.’

3) ‘We will also call on the UK government to follow the lead of the SNP Scottish Government by ensuring all public authorities with more than 20 employees provide gender pay gap reports every two years. We will also call for equal pay statements every four years, which provide policies on equal pay and occupational segregation and include reporting on gender, disability and race.’

‘To tackle workplace discrimination and sexist dress codes, SNP MPs will vote for a change in the Equality Act to strengthen and change the law that currently allows employers to have different dress codes for men and women.’

SNP promise to protect new mother’s rights currently protected under EU law, ensuring that ‘No-one should face discrimination at work because of pregnancy or childbirth.’

SNP will also rally the UK government to introduce the legal right to breastfeeding the workplace, like most other countries in the world do.

‘Building on the experience of the Scottish Government’s partnership with the United Nations to empower the women of Syria and promote Scotland as a centre for training of female peacemakers, the SNP will continue to support UN Security Council Resolution 1325 reaffirming the important role of women in the prevention and resolution of conflicts.’

 SNP’s manifesto is promising from a feminist perspective. No other manifesto specifically opposes the rape clause, and promises to rally against this in parliament. They are also unique in setting out a plan to combat the gender pay gap, as well as in looking for policy with recognises and works to combat sexist dress codes. In comparison to the other manifestos, I love how SNP are actively setting out plans within their manifesto and directly explaining how they plan to put their promises into action. Similarly to Labour, they do tick a lot of the feminist boxes

Green Party

The Green’s are a small party, with a very small manifesto. Within their manifesto, they promise to:

‘Implement a UK-wide strategy to tackle gender based violence, including domestic violence, rape and sexual abuse, FGM and trafficking’

Implement a UK-wide strategy to tackle gender based violence, including domestic violence, rape and sexual abuse, FGM and trafficking

End the gender pay gap, and require a minimum 40% of all members of public company and public sector boards to be women.

The Green party’s manifesto is very generalised, and while they do follow similar policies as Labour and SNP, their manifesto lacks action or information on how they will achieve these targets. As I said earlier, the volume of information on women’s rights in their manifesto is on par with the conservatives, which says more about the conservatives than the green’s when it comes to prioritising women’s rights.

Having completed my small analysis of all the main manifestos, I have to say my vote has changed. While I absolutely understand there is more to this election than feminism, feminism is something that is so important to me that it does influence my vote a lot. I urge you to have a little read of what is most important to you, and vote based on that. It is OK not to understand fully the jargon and the figures but please please please PLEASE VOTE! Your vote matters so much, even if you don’t think it does. I hope this little summary has been useful for you out there who are still perhaps on the fence, unsure of your vote. Politics can be overwhelming, set out your priorities, do a little research if you get a moment, and put a bit of education behind your vote. “Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education.” Franklin D. Roosevelt. This Thursday, 8th June, VOTE!

  The Manifestos

Conservative: https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/manifesto2017/Manifesto2017.pdf

Labour: http://www.labour.org.uk/page/-/Images/manifesto-2017/labour-manifesto-2017.pdf

Lib Dems: http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/5909d4366ad575794c000000/attachments/original/1495020157/Manifesto-Final.pdf?1495020157

SNP: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/thesnp/pages/9544/attachments/original/1496139998/Manifesto_2017.pdf?1496139998

By Katie

The very first International Women’s Day was celebrated on the 28th of February, 1909 in the United States of America.  It was a movement in in support of the New York garment workers’ strike in 1908 where women united to protest against their appalling working conditions.[1]  Now, International Women’s Day is celebrated every year on the 8th of March, marking the positive changes which have been made towards gender equality as well as the work that still has to be done.

South Lanarkshire Council marked International Women’s Day with the ‘100 Voices Event’ which had the central theme of how women are portrayed by the media. Guest speakers, Elizabeth McLaughlan and Dani Garavelli, are both highly experienced women in the field of journalism who shared both personal reflections of working for the media and also spoke about the way in which women are depicted by the media.  Both women delivered inspiring speeches and highlighted key points about the media’s failings to help achieve gender equality.

Ms McLaughlan spoke firstly about her journey into journalism.  She recounted her experiences of being interviewed by all-male panels, who assumed she would want to write about fashion rather than politics, science and technology or health.  Although she admitted that she was lucky in that she experienced little discrimination due to her gender in her early years as a journalist, she was left shocked by the sexism she was victim of as her career progressed.  Seven months into her second pregnancy, she was made redundant by the newspaper she had spent much of her working life serving.  This is not an uncommon occurrence.  Approximately one in nine women are either dismissed, forced to take compulsory redundancy or treated so badly that they have to leave their job during their pregnancy or early years of motherhood.[2]  A possible reason for this is the way in which employers are led to believe by the media that pregnant women are incapable of completing their job because of new priorities or that they are emotionally and physically weak or unstable.  The media often fails to represent the role of men in raising children.  Most advertisements that feature products for children or new-born babies show women attending to the infants.  Men are rarely present in these adverts.  In fact, so many of these adverts feature a woman, assumed to be the mother, and her female friends, nourishing the traditional idea of the women caring for the children while the men go out to work.

Ms Garavelli developed on the idea of how motherhood is portrayed by the media.  She referred to the front page of ‘The Statesman’[3] featuring female world leaders including Nicola Sturgeon and Angela Merkel, drawing attention to the fact that none of the women have children.  The journalist makes it clear that a women’s sense of validation still comes from her family – does she have a successful husband to attend to and multiple adoring children?  Whether a male politician has children or not is still considered completely irrelevant.  What is most disappointing about this headline is that it was written by a woman, playing into the stereotype that women are ‘catty’ and desperate to tear each other down for their own success.  Ms Garavelli went on to discuss her own experience of a time as a freelance journalist where, despite writing the lengthiest articles for a newspaper, her name failed to make it to the front page where numerous male journalists who had not written as much as her were listed.  In addition, she reflected upon the reluctance of women to take part in televised debates due to the fact that most comments will be about their appearance rather than their performance.  She admitted that she would also be reluctant to go on television without having her hair dyed.  Perhaps this reluctance and pressure stems from the fact that in films and programmes, women are always perfect beyond the bounds of realism, with hair and makeup attended to by professionals, designer labels worn and nails always manicured – even if the setting is a post-apocalyptic world with little hope of survival.  Even older women in the over-sixty age range are now feeling the pressure to look their best at all times.  They are flooded by adverts featuring Helen Mirren and Andie MacDowell telling them all about how wrinkles need to be sorted and grey hair fixed. Women are made to feel self-conscious so that companies can exploit this to make money.

The event ended with reflections upon the future for both journalism and International Women’s Day.  As everything is moving digital, there could be concerns over the loss of women working in journalism.  With only 13% of the UK STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) workforce being women[4], and therefore even fewer working in technology exclusively, there could be a lack of women working in journalism as the profession moves into a technology based sector.  In addition, it was highlighted that as the female cosmetic market has become saturated, there has been a spike in the number of ‘healthcare’ products aimed at men as the Superdrug and Boots men’s section almost rivals that of their women’s section.  Hair dyes, hair loss prevention shampoos and revitalising skin creams which Gerard Butler and Hugh Laurie apparently swear by, have all become regular features on television and shelves.  Therefore, feminism is as much for the little girl who wants to be a scientist as it is for the little boy who feels like he needs to have a ‘six-pack’.  Feminism is about equality and breaking down gender stereotypes.  Feminism is for everyone.  Finally, there were hopes stated of there being no need for an International Women’s Day in ten years’ time as equality will have been achieved and the media will no longer dictate the way in which we view men and women.  However, as the panellists were thanked for giving up their time to be there, they were each presented with a beautiful bouquet of flowers. A very nice gesture but inherently sexist.  They did however assure us that if there was a male panellist he would have also received flowers, without a doubt.

  1.        www.un.org/en/events/womensday/history.shtml

2.        www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/managing-pregnancy-and-maternity-workplace/pregnancy-and-maternity-discrimination-research-findings

3.        www.thestatesman.com

By Hannah H.

The 13/03/2017 was a pretty historic day for the SNP government and our First Minister Nicola Sturgeon. I could tell by Sturgeon’s stance as she took to the podium with the announcement that there is to be a second Scottish Referendum that she was nervous, but as she began to talk, I was reminded of what makes her one of the best politicians Scotland has seen since the formation of our government in 1999.

We are living through an amazing time for political change right now: the percentage of under 25s voting has never been higher, and I love the debate and the buzz that comes with the mere mention of the word ‘referendum’. My peers who have never had an interest in politics are suddenly interested, and those who I was sure I could call who they were voting for, have surprised me. For a 19 year old girl, it is pretty cool to see this happen in front of my eyes, knowing I am a part of this historical political movement.

Nicola Sturgeon, regardless of one’s own views, is an amazing role model for all young girls out there, displaying that she can be powerful, despite prescriptive gender stereotypes and the sexism that exists within politics.

And so imagine my dismay, in fact, my rage, to see your headline “Have you not got anything else to wear, Nicola? First Minister Sturgeon dons her favourite red suit twice in one week (and it is a very familiar outfit)” 

At first, I was pretty shocked to read this headline, and be faced with the fact that in this time of great optimism and political change that our First Minister would be subjected to such blatant sexism. I felt more upset as I realised that this article was written by a woman, Keiligh Baker.

Sexism from a man is frustrating, but from a woman, it is hurtful. Keiligh, to address you personally, I want to ask, how would you have felt if you handed in your best piece of journalism, something that you had been working on for years, that you had painstakingly edited day in and day out, hoping it was to be your big break. You hand it over to your boss for publication, and they say ‘are you wearing that red suit again?’ They do not even look at your proposal, but look at you up and down in disgust.

That is how you have treated Sturgeon. A role model for young girls and grown women alike; you have dismissed all of her hard work in favour of criticizing her outfit, and reinforcing the gender stereotype that if you are a man, your opinion and your work matters, but if you are a woman, first and foremost it is how you present yourself, and how many times you have worn a certain outfit that really matters.

It isn’t okay. You wouldn’t expect a male politician to be treated this way. In this amazing period of political change, why do we gossip over Theresa May’s trousers and Nicola’s Sturgeon’s suits? These are the politicians that our children and teenagers look up to. Do you want them to be self-conscious, scared that they will be judged for wearing their favourite t-shirt twice in one week? These are the ideals you are encouraging, and we at STAMP are fighting. I will hear Nicola Sturgeon’s words and I will not even consider what she is wearing. And I will judge the SNP party on their message, and on nothing else. You should too, because sexism has no place in politics, and we can only progress, can only promote the equality that will benefit us all, if we are all on board.

Help us STAMP it out, one article at a time.

By Morgan

Feminism has been a hot topic over the past couple of years, getting lots of attention (negative and positive) from celebrities and the media. There has been a push for companies to not conform to gender stereotypes and to stop trying to perpetuate the idea that there are only two genders and that men have to be aggressive and masculine while women have to be submissive and feminine. With this pressure, there has been an influx of ‘feminist’ advertising campaigns by numerous companies which, at first, seems to be a positive outcome for feminists everywhere. However, we have to ask ourselves how much do these campaigns actually represent feminism and to what extent are they just being used to sell more products?

 Last year H&M were widely complimented for their advertisement for the autumn/winter collection. It was praised for including women of many different body types, ages and ethnicities, who were depicted picking food out from their teeth, in a boardroom and sitting with their legs spread (all done in a very glamorous way of course). If you haven’t seen it, you can watch it here. In doing this, H&M gained buckets full of free publicity while people all over the internet praise them for their ‘masterpiece’, all the while raking in the money from the belief that they are empowering women. The thing is though, H&M aren’t empowering women. While their ads claim to support women their factories and shop floors tell a different story. H&M supplier factories often terminate a women’s employment during pregnancy[1]. A report stated that 11 out of 12 supplier factories in Cambodia witnessed employment termination during pregnancy. Furthermore, many H&M stores don’t stock a plus size range claiming there is no room for it and when they do it is extremely limited. I’m also sure you’ve read the hundreds of posts and articles calling out this company for their unrealistic clothing sizes with their size 14 clothes often being smaller than other retailers size 12. It seems like H&M want to be able to bring out an advert and brand themselves as a feminist organization, however, maybe they should start accommodating for the variety of women they featured in their advert before we start to praise them.

 What about the ongoing #LikeAGirl always campaign? On the surface, it seems to be a positive campaign about breaking down gender stereotypes and telling young girls they can do anything. We’ve also seen other period product companies, like Bodyform, jump on the bandwagon of girls being able to do anything even on their period. While this is true, the only reason these companies are backing this is because it makes them seem like advocates for women’s empowerment and this is especially important to their market when selling sanitary products. Neither of these companies have tried to further any other positive messages after their initial campaigns were such a hit, they stuck with the same thing because it was successful. They could have used this initial publicity to put out other positive messages to further equality, such as; you don’t have to be born female to be a girl or that people who don’t identify as women may also have periods. The problem with this though is that it wouldn’t help these companies sell products and therefore they do not perceive these issues as being worth their while promoting. There hasn’t even been any attempt to combat the inequalities for women within the sanitary products market, relating to period taboos. Many sanitary product companies still use the blue liquid[2] to depict period blood in their adverts. No, they haven’t gone near these subjects because this is controversial and controversy, even in the name of equality, is too much of a risk to product sales.

 Even, magazines are attempting to jump on the feminist trend. I’m sure you don’t need me to explain the hypocrisy of magazines, that spend the majority of their publishing space making women feel bad in an attempt to sell products, whilst simultaneously claiming to be champions of women’s rights.  Vogue’s upcoming March addition is claiming to be celebrating women and in doing so has included a ‘diverse’ range of women on their cover. They have included a range of women of different ethnicities (that all coincidently have facial structure that we would associate with white beauty) and one ‘Plus size model’ (Ashley Graham who is a size 14). To add to this poor attempt at diversity the magazine was criticized as people noticed that their only plus size model was the only one to be wearing all black, with one of her hands over her thigh. It was claimed all of this was to make her try and appear smaller, in addition to the obvious photoshopping of another model’s arm in an attempt to also make Ashley’s waist seem smaller. Yet despite all of this the magazine was applauded for celebrating women and for including their first plus size model on their cover. Without a mention of the fact that it has been their choice not to put a plus size model on the cover until 2017, and that one plus size model amongst seven seems just to be a feeble way to claim diversity and to slap on the feminist badge.

 While these campaigns can seem empowering and seem like a forward step for the corporate industry, we have to be careful when praising them. Ironically, the only reason they seem so great to us, is because the same people have been enforcing the opposite idea for generations that being  a woman means you have to be feminine and that the default women is thin, white and straight. They are capitalizing on ‘breaking down’ social constructs that they built in the first place and being praised for it, without really doing anything to further the equality they claim to be supporting.

[1] http://asia.floorwage.org/workersvoices/reports/precarious-work-in-the-h-m-global-value-chain

 [2] Although Bodyform did attempt to challenge this in their ‘Blood Campaign’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q1GVOYIcKc

By Gabby

 The South-African track and field athlete Caster Semenya performed amazingly in this years Olympics, but the media is focusing less on Semenya’s gold-medal winning performance, and more on the fact that the testosterone levels in her body are higher than average. The athlete has come under intense scrutiny both in the press and online, simply because she doesn’t fit society’s strict idea of what a “woman” should be. Both athletes and judges alike feel that due to Caster’s muscular appearance, commendable strength and top ranking speed and stamina, that it was “unfair” on other competitors to make them compete against Semenya. One team GB athlete felt that Semenya shouldn’t have even been allowed to compete in the women’s team.

 So if Semenya is being scrutinized for purely playing to her strengths, surely this should be the case for all athletes? Basketball players over 6ft should have to play without shoes, so shorter players don’t feel small. Runners should have their legs measured and put into different teams, and stronger gymnasts shouldn’t be allowed to train until weaker gymnasts have caught up with them. Of course, this sounds ridiculous, and so it should. Surely athletes, or anyone for that matter, shouldn’t have their successes taken from them purely for being good at what they do? The strict policing of femininity which we see daily makes people believe that Caster is less of a woman because she is strong, fast and successful.

 Dean Eastmond from The Independent recently summed this up as “Caster Semenya’s problem isn’t that she’s intersex-it’s that her femininity doesn’t look how we want it to”.  The ignorant attitudes that have flown around the internet show that there is still a long way to go when it comes to educating people on different genders. Semenya’s story asks questions about transgender athletes, and gender non-conforming athletes, who now feel as though there is no place for them in the Olympics. She has been victim of a misogynistic witch hunt where, no matter her achievements or successes, she will be constantly questioned. We do not attack male athletes who have higher testosterone levels than other male athletes, instead we praise them. It is about time we started treating Semenya like the star she is. For young LGBTQI individuals, Semenya is a light at the end of the tunnel for what they can achieve, but as far as media representation, we still have some way to go.  

By Katie

There is no doubt that women have many more career opportunities in the 21st century than they did a few decades ago. However, society still upholds a fairly traditional ideology when it comes to the role of women in the workplace. For example, a woman working as a builder, plumber or joiner seems a bit alien, does it not?  Flip the coin, and a man working as a nursery teacher, receptionist or perhaps even a hospital nurse, still appears slightly extraordinary. This highlights the clear gender roles within the job market that still exist despite our advancements in gender equality.  And a lot of this is down to the media.

To set the scene, of all the doctors on the specialist register in the UK, 67% are male and 33% are female. (2)  The specialist register is a register for doctors who are eligible to become consultants. (1)  To make consultancy is often the goal of most doctors and the lack of females on this register is depressing.  However, when the nursing profession is considered, 91% of nurses were female with only 9% male as of 2011. (3)  This clearly conveys society’s traditional view of the role of both men and women in the workplace.  Moving onto another profession – teaching.  Women are often associated with teaching in primary schools, perhaps because of the idea that a gentle nature is required to work with younger children and gentleness is often deemed to be a feminine trait.  Men are usually associated with working in secondary schools where it is thought a more commanding and authoritative personality is necessary, often a personality assumed to belong to men.  A quick survey of the South Lanarkshire area showed that of the twenty high schools, 60% had a male head teacher while only 40% had a female head teacher.  A random sample of twenty primary schools revealed that 100% - all twenty – had a female head teacher.  This strongly implies that gender has a lot to do with the job one ends up in, as society dictates which roles are appropriate for each gender.

The media enforces these ideas of gender roles in the workplace.  One needs to look no further than the world of tennis.  Following much success as Andy Murray’s coach, Ivan Lendl stepped down, giving way for Amelie Mauresmo to take his place as Murray’s head coach. Andy Murray’s decision to appoint Mauresmo was met with outrage despite the fact that Mauresmo, much like Lendl, was former world number one and has two grand slam titles (the holy grail of tennis) to add to her name.  The backlash from the media was so severe that Murray had to defend Mauresmo in interviews and subsequently branded himself as a feminist.  In recent weeks, Mauresmo has given up her post as Murray’s coach and Lendl has once again been appointed to this position.  There has been much excitement over this announcement, so much so that Mauresmo’s achievements with Murray, including his first ever careers title on clay and first defeat of Rafael Nadal (King of clay) on clay(4), have been somewhat overlooked for the prospect of another highly successful partnership between Lendl and Murray.  Sticking to the world of tennis, a much loved metaphor of the media is to describe someone or perhaps even something as the ‘Kate Middleton of tennis’.  But why Kate Middleton and not Andy Murray’s wife Kim? This is by no means an attack on Kate Middleton but after the royal wedding, Kate Middleton quit her job while Kim Murray continues to run her own business after her marriage.  Admittedly, Kim Murray’s career is a lot more relaxed than that of the average worker – she paints portraits of pets.  However, it is the idea that the media prefers the woman who married Prince Charming and never worked for another day of her life.  Andy Murray has commented on this idea, saying: ‘She (Kim) wants to have her own career, not just pose in Hello! Magazine’.(5)  This is admirable as the media often sets such unattainable standards for society to live up to, whereas in reality it is only the more wealthy and privileged who can afford to stay at home, so this lifestyle is unachievable for the majority of working class women.

The role of the media in setting standards for the job market is undoubtedly related to the lack of women in science.  Only 13% of the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths) workforce are women in the UK.  Even in the classroom, there is a significant lack of women engaged in science with 79% of candidates sitting A-level physics in 2014 being male. (6)  This is a huge problem as some of the brightest minds in all fields are lost due to the fact that they may believe a particular career path is not an option for them due to their gender.

Strides are still being made to eradicate the gender gap in all professions, particularly in the field of science.  Some of the most uplifting advancements are the WISE campaign (Women in STEM) and closer to home, the Interconnect society at Strathclyde University for women studying science and engineering.  Eventually, the stringent, traditional views of society which are promoted by the media will be overcome, unlocking the potential for a much more diverse, skilled and exciting workforce in all professions.  And importantly, Wimbledon could become much more wonderful.

1.        www.gmc-uk.org/doctors/register/information_on_the_specialist_register.asp

2.        www.gmc-uk.org/doctors/register/searcj_stats.asp

3.        https://www.census.gov/people/io/files/Men_in_Nursing_Occupations,pdf

4.        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amelie_Mauresmo

5.        www.independent.co.uk/news/people/kim-sears-sexism-row-why-andy-murrays-partner-doesnt-deserve-the-kate-middleton-of-tennis-rep-10012627.html

6.        https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2015/jun/13/how-well-are-women-represented-in-uk-science

By George

If you grew up in the past last two decades you probably already heard of The Sims. I always loved to explore a world beyond the computer screen and create a character who is a true sprawl of my imagination. Now with a new free update the fourth game in the series, Maxis developers have made the very positive amendment which means Sims are no longer restricted to gender norms.

The update allows a sim to be no longer bound to their social constructs, like it wasn’t in the first place. In fact, in The Sims 2: Family Fun Stuff game designers allowed children to wear any outfit they wanted from a dress-up box, such as princess or a dinosaur. Since the dawn of The Sims in the year 2000 same-sex relationships have always been existent in game, it is almost like EA games just brushed this off with no fear of controversy.

The new update allowed gamers to make their Sims have a masculine or feminine body or clothing preference. There is also a chance to allow both men and women to choose to become pregnant and even the option to go to the toilet standing or sitting.

The new increment fell in line with the current debate of gender neutral bathrooms, revealing The Sims 4 developers at Maxis strongly support this cause. As well as this, pride month is taking place furthering support for those in the LGBTQIA+ community. The patch definitely gives those who are gender neutral/fluid, transgender or questioning a comforting impact to extend their lifestyle into gameplay. Most importantly it gives many others a better understanding of gender who are maybe unaware towards this, especially the younger generation who the game is targeted for. The feature also just makes the game more enjoyable as it expands upon the “sandbox” idea the game is going for.

The game is very progressive as LGBT+ themes are often discarded. In popular games characters are often tied down to their stereotypes such as over-sexualised females and hyper-aggressive males found in games such as Grand Theft Auto, instead, The Sims offers gamers the option to make their own protagonist(or antagonist seeming as how the game holds no boundaries). One other game that has explored LGBT+ themes is The Last of Us: Left Behind, where Ellie, a teenager in a post-apocalyptic zombie driven world, finds love with another girl. This can be truly refreshing to see and really inspiring as it can reach a very large fan base.

However, there has been backlash towards this, Russia have chosen to give the game an 18+ rating, due to their anti-LGBT+ laws as they find this game is “harmful” towards the people in their country. Some YouTube gamers have also criticised the game by calling it a “stupid update” and others making a spoof/funny video of it which is rather triggering towards those in the community. Also some comments that have been deemed irresponsible have been removed from forums.

By Niamh

I feel for Taylor Swift I really do. She has worked incredibly hard to get where she is; she's not just a Nashville created singer/song writer, she's a business woman, taking the corrupt and, at times, troubling music industry by storm, but for all the praise that she gets for her endeavours, she gets some amount of abuse.

Mainly in the taunts of "don't go out with her.... oh watch out for her...they better worry, she'll write a song about it". And yes I'm a fan, all the way back to the days of Teardrops on my Guitar, I paid a ridiculous amount of money to see her live last summer and I don't regret it. She's renowned for using her personal experiences to write her music, like many other artists out there, for fans like myself it gives the songs a further level of reliability because she's talking about the things that we go through in our lives, however she's not the only artist in the world that does this - so why all the hate?

Women are told all their lives not to be so emotional, personally I don't understand why - emotion is what makes us who we are. Swift is ridiculed and taunted for her song writing ability because our society is so fundamentally doused in a sexist attitude that we can't appreciate an individual's talent, because whether you like her music or not, it takes some gift to be as successful and to win as many highly regarded awards in your field as she has.

Bob Dylan famously wrote songs about his feelings for his friend's girlfriend and about his own marriage to his wife; The Smiths released some of the most emotional songs of their time ranging from sexuality to past lovers; Ed Sheeran and Catfish and the Bottlemen are praised relentlessly for their songs on relationships and growing up. So how is it okay to judge and make fun of Taylor Swift who is doing the exact same thing?

This double standard is allowing the archaic attitude that women should be seen and not heard to prevail. The aforementioned male dominated artists (that I again am a major fan of) are seen to be innovative and sensitive in their ability to capture something as complex as the spectrum of human emotion and put it into words alongside a beat, whereas Swift is seen as a whiney, overly emotional annoyance.

It was made public not too long ago that Swift had split with her boyfriend Calvin Harris, and the immediate reaction was internet memes warning him of her song writing capabilities and tendency to write about her relationships. It's insulting to her. All she is doing is writing what she knows- so many are quick to judge the change in the music industry to manufactured pop songs with lyrics that don't mean anything at all, and then seem ready to ridicule a woman who is doing her best to make herself stand out as unique. Where men are praised for being able to write about their broken  hearts, she is shunned and made a mockery of, as if as a woman, what she has to say is not of importance.

By Erin.

Oppression. What do women owe the world? It is instilled into us from a young age that finding yourself in financial debt is dangerous and scary. We are advised to avoid borrowing large sums of money, cautioned about high interest rates and told to steer clear of store credit cards. However, the real tragic debt is the alleged debt of women. There is a growing perception that the women of the world owe the world something more than money. Their bodies, their identities, their ideas. In a society were the male is still often recognised as the “breadwinner” it still appears to be the women that find themselves trapped in the red at the hand of the rest of the world.

Bodies. At which point in the cycle of life did our bodies change from being ours to being objects owed out to men? So our skirt might be short and our shoulders might be bare so this means that we owe you compensation. That we have to pay for revealing our skin to men who can’t control their thoughts. Even in schools we are cautioned about the clothes we should wear, a place were you are meant to feel protected and safe yet are warned to dress with care so to avoid the distraction and tempting of the deluded who think they have rights to your body.

Advertisement. Companies are tactical with the presentation of their products making them seem appealing to the consumer. When did the body of the female become a crucial component in the sales of food and drink and clothing? These products are of disposable use and to correlate this with the temple of the female body is objectification. Food and drink are easily accessed and can be consumed by all – our body isn’t of the same nature and it isn’t owed to the consumer, sucked in by advertisements covered in the chests and legs of a female.

Identity. Women are slotted into categories. Straight/Gay/Bisexual, Virgin/Slut. But why do we have to confine ourselves into restrictive categories? So we can be categorised based on appeal or fetish by the society which so desires the capital of our autonomy? It is ironic how we are quick to be slotted into these labels by men who think they can be the one person to change it all for say a virgin or a lesbian, but these same people do not hesitate to use terms like slut as a weapon against females who don’t comply with their misguided ideas about what is owed to them by women.