Cupcake Fascism

I haven't published a blog post in quite some time because I have been unexpectedly busy over the last month. Since my schedule is yet to alleviate I thought it might be some time before I was able to write something. However, today I came across an article that enraged me to such an extent that I cannot possibly restrain myself from writing a rebuttal. 

What, you may wonder, could have evoked such apoplectic rage in this gentle soul? The Guardian today published an article portraying cupcakes as abominable and decrying their ubiquity as a form of fascism. As someone who bloody loves a good cupcake, I could not in good conscience let such a slander go unchallenged.

To start, author Tom Whyman pronounces that the cupcake "possesses none of the ideal essence of cakiness"; it is "neat, precise and uniform... dry, polite and low-fat." That is indeed a disparaging list of adjectives and I am left wondering where this poor sod has been acquiring his cupcakes. A good cupcake is absolutely smashing. Festooned with a crown of buttery, creamy magnificence, a cupcake is just as decadent as its full-sized brethren, just travel sized for your convenience. I know many splendid perveyors of baked goods who produce glorious concoctions stuffed full of jam, chocolate mousse, praline, gooey salted caramel, nuts and generously sized chocolate chunks. These gastronomical masterpieces are not uniform or polite and they are certainly not low-fat. 

I think poor Tom Whyman may have let his inexplicble bias against cupcakes blind him from their numerous advantages. He misconstrues their size as an attempt for "flat-stomached people who think consuming sweet things is 'a bit naughty'" to stop themselves from over-indulging. I don't eat cupcakes because I am under some illusion that they are somehow healthier due to their diminutive size. I don't eat cupcakes because I am trying to count calories or watch my figure. If I want to consume a whole, full-sized cake, I will do so. Unfortunately, cakes can be somewhat cumbersome and, luckily for me, cupcakes offer a far more convenient and portable alternative. I don't have the time to faff around acquiring crockery, cutlery and, ideally, a table every time I want to enjoy some sugary, spongey goodness. The cupcake, with its little paper cup negating the need for a plate, can be consumed anywhere and at any time.

Another advantage to the humble cupcake is the opportunity for variety. Tom Whyman seems to think that there is something inherently limiting about the cupcake. He dscribes them as "restrictive", "uniform" and "neat and predictable." But cupcakes are the very opposite of limiting and restrictive. The variety of available cupcake flavours these days is frankly mind-boggling. And, due to their small size, one is able to partake of a myriad of flavours in one go. If I eat a full-sized cake, I'm stuck with the same flavour from start to finish. If I eat four cupcakes (which, as friends and family will testify, I regularly do), I get a plethora of creative and varied flavours in one sitting! 

Tom Whyman goes on to argue that the "austerity of the cupcake-form" supposedly prevents us from embracing "the joy of being open to genuinely alternative possibilities." It utterly baffles me how anyone could argue that cupcakes prevent us from embracing alternative possibilities. The small size of the cupcake actually encourages risk taking. You might not be entirely convinced by a bacon, walnut and maple syrup cupcake, but you might as well give it a go since it's only little! Nothing encourages gastronomical discovery quite like the humble cupcake.

So, my poor Tom Whyman, I almost feel sorry for you for having evidently endured an entire lifetime of underwhelming cupcakes. I say 'almost' because once you are done disparaging the tiny but mighty cupcake, you then go on to disparage those who enjoy cupcakes and then I loose all sympathy for your plight; I will defend my fellow cupcake lovers with all the linguistic fortitude I can muster. 

Whyman's most damning criticism of cupcakes is that they are infantillising. The cupcake is for "never-never-land" adults; if you enjoy cupcakes you are "a cognitive child... drily conforming to a prescribed set of rules." Apparently my love for cupcakes has revealed me to be cognitively impaired and unable to "engage with the world in a way characterised by the joy of possibility." People who enjoy cupcakes are seemingly both stupid and narrow-minded; how infuriatingly patronising.

Tom Whyman's article is not the first time I have come across the argument that cupcakes are infantillising. It seems to be a pretty common opinion that those who enjoy cupcakes are developmentally regressive and desperately trying to cling on to an idealised childhood devoid of intellectual challenges or cognitive burdens.

Cupcakes are apparently infantallising because they are enjoyed by children. But there is something somewhat insidious with this argument. Fish and chips are enjoyed by children. As is mac and cheese. And yet these foods are not labelled as infantallising and those that enjoy them are not accused of "neurotically trying to remain a child." Why do cupcakes inspire such a fervently negative reaction compared to other beloved childhood foods?  Cupcakes are distinguished from other childish foods in that they are intrinsically feminine; cupcakes are not overwhelmingly associated with children but with women. Cupcakes have therefore been deemed by some people as childish and silly because women are still seen as childish and silly. The backlash against cupcakes is just part of a bigger problem in which anything associated with women or 'girliness' (the colour pink, dresses, the nursing profession) is seen as inferior or frivolous. 

I am an ambitious, intelligent, career-driven woman. My love of cupcakes is not an anathema to this. In fact, the conveniently portable cupcake fits perfectly into my busy, hectic, mentally stimulating lifestyle. So can people please stop denigrating things which are overtly 'girly' or feminine. It's not girliness which is the problem; it's the perception of girliness as inferior which is problematic. And someone please get Tom Whyman a good cupcake, maybe four...

Bits and Bobs

It's been a while since I've made a Bits and Bobs post which means I have loads of interesting links to share. Hope you all had a lovely Valentine's Day - mine was spent eating ice cream and watching Star Wars. I regret nothing...

- Have you seen those articles making fun of stock images? Now Sheryl Sandberg's Lean In movement is partnering with Getty to make a collection of feminist friendly stock images.

- Screw expensive couple's therapy - apparently watching and discussing rom coms is good for your marriage.

- Check out this incredible article about a woman living with retrograde amnesia. 

- I don't believe that violent films make people violent but I do ponder whether films are, in general, getting more violent and what this says about our society. I therefore found it interesting when Harvey Weinstein recently announced that he's going to back away from making violent films - here's an interesting article discussing his decision and violent films in general. 

- Apparently the most successful online dating profiles are the ones that defy gender norms. Thank god I have a masters in war, making me the most desirable person on the internet.

- the weather has been crazy recently! Polar vortexes in the US, snow in Cairo, flooding in the UK - I'm pretty certain a weather-borne apocalypse is just round the corner. It's so bad, the penguins are apparently on anti-depressents. 

- I love this 1866 pamphlet arguing for female suffrage.

- Want to listen to an incredible jazz cover of Guns N' Roses' Sweet Child o' Mine? Damn straight you do!

Have a wonderful week and stay safe with the weather. Maybe watch a couple of Roland Emmerich films and take some notes.

Barbies and Disney and Vogue! Oh my!

Photo credit: Robert Sabitzer

Last week, Vice President of design for Barbie, Kim Culmone, was interviewed by Fast Company about why Mattel retains Barbie’s impossible hourglass figure despite decades of criticism. It has been frequently argued that Barbie’s dimensions set an extreme body standard which little girls can never achieve, thus undermining their self-esteem and making them susceptible to eating disorders. Culmone responds to criticism by arguing that Barbie’s body was never intended to be realistic and was designed in such a way primarily to be easily dressed and undressed. Her design is apparently purely functional.

The interview isn’t particularly sensational: Culmone’s answers seem reasonable enough and Fast Company is hardly the first website to voice criticisms of Barbie’s figure. And yet the interview, and the articles it has spawned, has nevertheless left me contemplating whether or not my most beloved childhood toy has had a lasting psychological impact.   

I loved Barbies as a child. Being a thoroughly spoiled youngest child, I had nearly a hundred dolls and a bewildering array of accessories. I had the Dream House, several modes of transportation and, of course, an incredible collection of clothing. I would spend hours and hours acting out outrageous stories with my plastic, compliant minions.

So am I crippled with self-esteem issues? Well I’m a 20-something woman living in a society which places an excessive amount of importance on the physical characteristics of woman, so of course. But I don’t blame Barbie for this unfortunate turn of events. As a child I never once looked at Barbie and wanted to look like her because, you know, she’s a hunk of plastic. Barbie may be an unrealistic and impossibly proportioned representation of the female form but that never bothered me as a child because she’s a doll. I never expected realism from my toys; a child’s toy chest would be a miserable place if all toys had to conform to reality.

In fact Barbie’s figure may have been one of the reasons I loved her so much. More than anything else, what every little girl wants to be is a grown-up. I always preferred Barbies over all other dolls because, to me, she seemed the most womanly. Her ample breasts and hips were clear indicators that she was an adult and not a child. She was a grown, adult woman, with complicated relationships, a demanding profession (maybe a spy, maybe the president, maybe a ballet dancer, maybe all at once) and an enviable wardrobe. The stories I wanted to play out required adult characters and Barbie fit that role perfectly.

The criticisms made against Barbie’s figure are the same as those made frequently against the Disney heroines and their impossible waistlines. Ariel from The Little Mermaid seems to get picked on the most in this regard, perhaps because she was the first of the Disney renaissance princesses or because she spends a considerable amount of the film showing off her impossible figure in only a bikini top. But, again, I never once as a child thought that Ariel was a realistic portrayal of a woman because of course she’s not; she’s a mermaid. The figures of the Disney heroines are impossible – the same is true of talking crockery, flying horses, pumpkin carriages, and hyenas capable of learning meticulously choreographed dance routines.

Womanhood as depicted by Barbie and Disney has not left my self-esteem in tatters because what they’re depicting is self-consciously a fantasy – everyone is aware that toys and animated musicals are not real. But the women on the cover of Vogue, they are flesh and blood; they are ‘real’. Of course I know on an intellectual level that they have been airbrushed to the point of impossibility but my immediate emotional reaction to those glossy images is that the cover model looks fantastic and I probably didn’t need that 5^th Krispy Kreme. The same is true of the models gliding down the runway in their impeccably tailored couture. Or even the street-style blogs and their constantly updated stream of super skinny (and overwhelmingly white, but that’s a point for another blog) women seemingly plucked from the streets in their day-to-day attire. If these living, breathing women can look so effortlessly fantastic just walking down the street, maybe I should put in a bit more effort before popping to the corner shop. Street-style blogs, the runway and Vogue are of course just as much a fantasy as Disney and Barbie but they masquerade as real and attainable in a way that I just don’t think Disney and Barbie does.

Of course it’s possible that Disney and Barbie have had an impact on my self-esteem and I’m just in denial. Research has been done which shows that Barbie does indeed have an impact on body satisfaction among 5-8 year olds (though I’m not entirely convinced by the rigorousness of the methodology). If Mattel decided to completely revamp Barbie to make her more realistically proportioned, then fair play to them. But it would be naïve to think that such a move would signal a revolution in portrayals of the female form, ushering in a new age of body acceptance. There are far too many other sources of negative body images, ones far more powerful than Mattel’s iconic doll.

Bits and Bobs

I hope everyone has had a lovely weekend. I went rock climbing earlier today and I'm now in a whole world of pain. I have never been so grateful that I live in a ground floor flat before - my thighs do not enjoy staircases right now.

I'm afraid I'm a bit sparse on reading suggestions this week.

- Here's an interesting article looking at Downton Abbey and how it punishes the female characters any time they attempt to do something that subverts gender expectations.

- 3D printed cake?! My mind has been thoroughly blown.

- All my friends seem to be either getting married or attending a lot of weddings/ wedding-related gatherings. This all sounds like a lot of effort and is proving ridiculously expensive. Here's a very witty article talking about what it's like attending 18 weddings in one year.

- If I watch a tv programme or a film in which some computer genius must hack a computer system or otherwise do something clever with computers, I always wonder whether the text on the screen actually means anything or whether it's just been made up. My brother is a huge computer nerd and he always mutters grumpily under his breath when computers are depicted inaccurately on screen. I therefore found this article, deciphering the computer code shown in popular films, really interesting. 

Warning of What?

I recently read an interesting article over at Slate about 'trigger warnings'. Trigger warnings are tags included at the top of articles warning readers that the article may contain content that could trigger known mental illnesses, such as an eating disorder or post traumatic stress disorder. The trigger warnings allow the reader to decide whether they want to proceed with reading the article or give it a miss to avoid painful relapse or flashback.

The article specifically links these trigger warnings to feminist blogs. I'm not sure why such a correlation would exist (do feminists have more mental disorders or are feminist bloggers just more considerate to those who do?) but I think Slate is wrong to focus just on warnings on feminist blogs without considering the prevalence of warnings on all sorts of media.

Usually, I don't mind a warning when perusing the internet. I appreciate it when fashion blogs warn me whether a particular editorial contains nudity (particularly when I'm perusing while at work) and I appreciate it when news organisations warn me about particularly gory video content before I accidentally traumatise myself. And of course, warnings are not limited to the internet: most murder/ crime shows are accompanied by warnings pertaining to their graphic nature to warn off those with a delicate constitution. However, there are occasions when I'm confronted with a warning which makes me feel somewhat uneasy.

I was recently watching a documentary about Christianity, specifically it was debunking a number of myths about Jesus (for example, the shroud of Turin). The documentary was not particularly salacious or controversial and, to be honest, I probably would have forgotten about the whole thing if the documentary had not been accompanied by a somewhat peculiar warning. At the start of the documentary, and repeated after each ad break, was a title card reading something along the lines of, "warning: contains talk of Jesus." What mental disorder could possible be triggered by discussions of Jesus? Who was this warning supposed to benefit?

If you're non-Christian, you probably don't care what this documentary has to say about Jesus. If you are Christian, you're hopefully unafraid to engage with an academic debate that challenges your beliefs. And if you're Christian but also narrow-minded and uncritical, then you're probably exactly the kind of person who should be watching an informative documentary about theology. People should not be pilloried for their beliefs but neither should those beliefs go unquestioned and no-one should shy away from the opportunity to reassess or reaffirm their opinions. Warning people that there is healthy debate on religion afoot is not indicative of a thriving intellectual discourse in our media.

So, by all means, keep your trigger warnings on your blog posts if you want to discuss eating disorders or rape without exacerbating the trauma of those who have endured them. But we shouldn't have to warn people against intelligent or sensitive debate. When we start seeing warnings like, "warning: contains political views contrary to your own", or, "warning: champions minority opinions", then we know something has gone seriously awry.

Bits and Bobs

I moved flat this weekend - for the fourth time this year! But this time it's for good (at least for a very, very long time). All this moving is exhausting. I'm glad to have moved in time for Christmas though - it means I can enjoy Christmas day with my family without worrying about flat stuff. The new flat doesn't have the internet though which is pretty painful for me. How am I supposed to know what's going on in the world without the internet?

Well, here's what I've been reading this last week:

- This live, worldwide wind simulation is pretty awesome (and oddly therapeutic). Position the globe so that the Antarctic is in the centre of your screen and it looks pretty cool.

- Here's a fascinating article about putting a sculpture on the moon. It's a shame that the whole endeavour became marred with politics, money and scandal because I love art and I love the idea of art being a part of the space programme.

- Life-size Origami elephant?! Yes please!

- This article articulates what I have thought for a long time regarding the Lord of the Rings and, more recently, the Hobbit films - New Zealand, while beautiful, doesn't look like the Middle Earth that I had in mind when reading the books. Peter Jackson should have stuck with the landscapes that Tolkien had in mind when filming: the dank and old countryside of Yorkshire and Ireland.

- I love this article about writing about women in science. By focusing on their gender, we do a disservice to their contributions to science. This is obviously applicable to women in all male-dominated fields but this article is wonderfully argued.

- I've often heard/ read that Marilyn Monroe was a size 14. Usually this little factoid is trotted out every time someone wants to say something about body acceptance or the need for greater diversity in Hollywood or fashion. However, as someone who has seen numerous Marilyn outfits at assorted Hollywood costume exhibitions, I know that this is a lie. Marilyn Monroe was tiny! Here's an article looking at the myth of Marilyn's body size and why her love of books is more important than her dress size.

- There are so, so many articles every week about Millenials. However these articles are always about the Millenials living in the Western, liberal world (mostly America) and lack any kind of global context. This great (and somewhat depressing) article tries to remedy this oversight by looking at the Millenials coming of age in Syria.

Hope you all have a wonderful Christmas!

Criticising the Hobbit and Exploring Tolkien's Feminist Credentials

 

I saw the new Hobbit film, The Desolation of Smaug, yesterday and I, unsurprisingly, have opinions. I’m a huge fan of Tolkien’s books and I think when you’re a fan of a book you can have two responses when that book is then adapted into a film: either you hate it irrespective of quality because no film can ever compare to the film that played out in your head when you were reading OR you love it despite its flaws because you’re just so pleased to return to a world that engrossed you for hours. I suspect that I probably fall into the latter category because I could tell that the film was flawed (so very, very flawed) but I still found myself enjoying it.

The first Hobbit film was infamous for making people sick with its super high definition, frenetic camera work and its frantically paced action scenes. This film is definitely an improvement in this regard but Peter Jackson still makes some odd choices with the shooting of certain scenes.

The constantly moving camera in some sections is disorientating. The camera will sweep, while pivoting, over characters as they move through scenes, making it virtually impossible to follow the characters or the action. I don’t remember this being a problem for the Lord of the Things trilogy but the swooshing, swirling camera is frustratingly persistent here. Why has Peter Jackson suddenly decided that dizzying camera movements are the way forward?

And when did Peter Jackson get so keen on close-ups? There are so many shots of people’s faces really, really up close and I can’t quite figure out what these shots are supposed to show except that Peter Jackson has a really nifty camera.

Cinematographic criticism aside, what about the actual story? After the first Hobbit, I don’t think anyone was really surprised that this second film is not particularly faithful to the book. I personally don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing. The 1999 film adaptation of Mansfield Park, starring Frances O’Connor and Jonny Lee Miller, is such a poor adaptation of Jane Austen's novel that I tend to think of it as ‘inspired by’ the novel rather than an actual adaptation. I can still enjoy it as an Austen-inspired, regency romp, just not as a book adaptation.

I think it’s best to view the Hobbit films in the same way. The original book is pretty short so by making the decision to turn it into three films, it is inevitable that there’s going to be a lot of additional stuff thrown in there. Most obviously, a lot of characters that were not in the original book have been added to the films, like Radagast the Brown, Galadriel and Legolas. But for the Desolution of Smaug they have not only added Tolkein characters where they don’t belong, they’ve invented a whole new character! A lady elf!

The introduction of a new female character was a welcome move to me. As much as I love Tolkien’s books, they are woefully devoid of female characters. I was really surprised while reading an interview with Hobbit screenwriter, Philippa Boyens, when she said that, “Tolkien writes brilliantly for women.” Really?! Has Philippa Boyens actually read Tolkien?

When the Lord of the Rings books were made into a film trilogy, the female characters of the books were all substantially bolstered. This makes sense because modern audiences and critics expect the inclusion of female characters, even if they are often rather shallow. A lot of time and energy is spent dissecting the portrayal of women in films and Swedish cinemas have just introduced a film rating that judges a film on its gender bias. So Peter Jackson wisely took the virtually non-existent female characters from the books and made them into actual characters.

Out of all the female characters, Arwen is the one that is altered the most from books to films. That epic horse chase with Arwen carrying an ailing Frodo away from the Nazgul? Not in the book. Arwen’s internal conflict over whether she should go with her fellow elves to Valinor or stay in Middle Earth? Also no. Arwen is a complete non-entity in the books. Other characters mention her and how beautiful she is but that’s pretty much it. So I have no problem with Peter Jackson plonking her in an action sequence and giving her an internal conflict over her future.

Galadriel’s role is essentially the same in the books and the film. Galadriel is adored because she’s beautiful – that’s pretty much it.

And then of course we have Eowyn. Eowyn is a sword wielding, Witch-King killing badass in both the books and the films, it’s just that her part is obviously bolstered in the films. Eowyn feels stifled by the gender expectations of her society, she’s good with a sword, and she defies her father to go to battle. So you could perhaps argue that Eowyn shows that Tolkein can write feminist characters but you would be wrong. At the end of Return of the King, Eowyn meets Faramir, they fall hastily in love, and Eowyn declares that her days of shield maiden-ing are over. The book makes it sound like being a badass is just a phase that women go through while waiting for the perfect man to turn up.

Peter Jackson made the right choices in the Lord of the Rings films in bolstering the roles of the female characters and I think the introduction of the female elf character, Tauriel, in the Desolation of Smaug was a good idea as well. And they haven’t just added a token female character; she’s actually quite interesting. She’s a competent fighter who can hold her own like any of the male characters and she’s conflicted in her responsibility to her people vs her desire to help the people beyond the borders of her home. Since the Hobbit films have A LOT of characters, she’s about as developed as she could be. I just hope she’s developed through the next film and not just sidelined and forgotten.

Bits and Bobs

This Bits and Bobs post is a little late because I spent the weekend with friends in Nottingham and didn't touch a laptop or peruse the internet once (which was nice for a change). It is perilously close to Christmas - trying not to panic about all the things I still need to do. Here are some interesting things from the last week to check out:

- This 1993 article about Osama Bin Laden is mental. 

- Here's a fascinating article looking at male friendship and why men don't have close friends in the same way that women do.

- These ice sculptures and ice buildings are amazing!

- I love these very classy, very French posters giving instructions on how not to be insufferable on the underground

- Read this article if you've ever told anyone that the Oxford comma is unnecessary.

- This folk cover of Katy Perry's 'Roar' is great - I wish it was the whole song and not just the first verse.

- Perusing the Everyday Sexism Project website can be pretty disheartening but these comebacks to harassment are hilarious. I am definitely going to try the last one.

Bits and Bobs

This last week has been pretty grim but I'm sure next week will be better. I have my first ever Office Christmas party, which I think will be fun (free food!), and then I've taken the second half of the week off so I can frolic in London's fairy-light festooned streets. I am yet to start Christmas shopping - beginning to panic a little.

- Want to see famous art galleries recreated in gingerbread? Yeah you do! Traditional gingerbread houses will now forever disappoint you.

- Check out these amazing photos of the Grand Canyon filled with fog - apparently a pretty rare occurrence requiring very specific weather conditions.

- Here's an interesting article about fact checking online media and whether we are seeing a drop in journalistic standards now that new sites are just copying stuff off twitter rather than carrying out traditional investigative journalism.

- I thought this was an interesting comparison: over at The Cut they have photos of women draped and camouflaged in their homes whereas at The Guardian, they have photos of women hidden behind curtains to get their children to stay still for photos. I thought it was interesting how very similar these two sets of photos are despite having two very different intents. Maybe it shows that homes and children are both equally capable of making women invisible.

- You have to see these photos of monkeys relaxing in a hot spring in Japan - genuinely made my week.

- Why are computer games the domain of men? Slate looks at home limited marketing budgets in the early days of computer consoles forced companies to focus on only one demographic and so they emphasised the masculinity of games. Now that women are increasingly playing computer games, marketing is having to change to accommodate this change.

- This report about so-called 'natural' differences in the brains of men and women has been popping up all over the internet this week. This article is probably the best critique of the report I've come across. It's always good to remember not to just accept scientific reports as fact just because we put a lot of stock in the infallibility of scientists.

War Between Women

 Don't be fooled by the smiles; we all hate each other...sluts...

A study was recently published in the journal, Aggressive Behaviour, which apparently shows that women will act bitchy towards other women they see as promiscuous. Several websites have reported on the study but, disappointingly, haven't pointed out how epicly flawed it is. In the study, 86 participants were left in a room with another woman (either a friend or a stranger) and told they would be contributing to a study on friendship. Instead they were interrupted by another woman. Half the women encountered a pretty, blonde woman in a blue t-shirt and sensible chinos. The other half encountered the same woman in a hot-pink, low-cut top, mini-skirt and knee-high boots.

The participants' reactions to this interloper were assessed according to a 'bitchiness' score of 1-10.  The authors of the study, Vaillancourt and Sharma, found that the participants were more likely to be bitchy when the 'sexy' woman walked into the room and that their bitchiness was more pronounced when the participants were with friends, rather than strangers. The authors concluded that women stifle each other's sexuality through indirect aggression, bitchiness, because women use sex to negotiate with men and it is therefore in their best interest to punish promiscuous women to maintain a limited supply of sex. Vaillancourt's study is small but supposedly demonstrates slut-shaming in an experimental context.

To me, the first, and most obvious, criticism is the very concept of a 'bitchiness score'. Observing someone's reactions and placing them on a 'scale of bitch' seems preposterously unscientific, even by psychology's standards. Is an eye-roll more bitchy than a laugh? Is a smirk more bitchy than a glare? And facial expressions may not always accurately portray someone's opinions. A participant may have an excellent poker face - that doesn't mean she's not thinking bitchy things. Given psychologists' propensity for questionnaires, why not use a carefully crafted questionnaire to quantify the participants' opinions rather than the far less rigourous method of observation? Of course observation can be an invaluable tool for scientists in experiments but you can't arbitrarily assign numbers to vague observations and then think you can make meaningful conclusions from an analysis of those numbers. 

I also question whether the woman's differing outfits really convey what the authors want them to convey to the participants. 'Sexiness' is an incredibly subjective attribute. I don't think her outfit looks sexy, I think it looks immensely unflattering (hot-pink is no one's friend). And even if we were to decide that there is only one universally recognised standard of 'sexiness', sexy is not coterminous with promiscuous. I can think that someone is sexy and not think of them as a potential home-wrecker.

Even if we were to accept that bitchiness can be objectively measured, and that 'sexiness' and 'promiscuity' were both coterminous and universally recognised, the study still fails to show that women slut-shame other women because it excludes men. Various news sites have picked up on this study to conclude that there exists a war between women. But if men also show this same behaviour against people they perceive to be their sexual rivals, clearly we don't have a war between women but just war between people. Other studies have in fact shown that both men and women display competitive behaviour, using strategies of self-promotion and competitor derogation. This experiment is only half of the story and any conclusions about female behaviour, as separate from human behaviour more generally, are completely unfounded.

Bits and Bobs

Hello interweb! Hope you're having a lovely weekend. Here are some interesting things I've read in the last week - enjoy!

- The increased emphasis on organised clubs, the lack of appropriate outdoor spaces in our cities and the fear of predators means that children now spend less and less time just playing. Here's an interesting link at why a more structured life is not necessarily better for children.

- An awesome graffiti-covered building is about to be demolished to make space for a soulless apartment block in New York. Sad times! Check out the amazing photos here!

- Musician James Murphy wants to make the turnstiles on the New York subway play music. Sounds awesome to me but then I don't have to work in the stations and listen to the cacophony of rush hour.

- Photos of a beautiful abandoned Art Nouveau casino.

- This journalist manages to discuss both the McDonald's Chicken McNugget and the work of Holbein in one article - genius!

- Check out how to make the perfect buttercream icing here.

- I recently wrote about how women in politics are unfairly judged on their sartorial choices. This article on Janet Yellen's wardrobe seems to validate everything I said.

In Defence of the Disney Princess

I've written about Disney princesses before but I'm writing about them again because the vitriol they seem to inspire in people annoys me. People are often incredulous that I both love Disney and consider myself a feminist. But Disney and feminism are not mutually exclusive! Of course there is a lot to find objectionable in Disney, particularly the classic films from the 40s and 50s: the princesses are far too passive in their stories; they spend too much time pining after men; and older women are portrayed as evil, manipulative witches. But there is also a lot to commend. 

The fact that Disney has been championing female leads since the '30s is itself commendable. I have come across many statistical analyses of female characters in films (most recently, here) and none of them have been encouraging. Films with female main characters are still depressingly rare. In fact, films are woefully devoid of female characters altogether, whether they are in the lead role or not. The fact that Disney is repeatedly showcasing female stories is laudable. It's important to show that women's stories and women's lives are important enough to be put into film. 

The most well-known method for determining whether a film is feminist is the Bechdel test. To pass the Bechdel test, a film must feature two or more female characters who talk to each other about something other than a man. Off the top of my head, most Disney films do not pass this test (although Sleeping Beauty does despite being frequently lambasted as the most anti-feminist of the Disney opus). In fact, depressingly, most films fail this test so it would be unfair to pick on Disney specifically for this failing. But there are other ways of determining how pro-women a film is. For example, a character can be feminist while the film is not. Like the Bechdel test, there is also the Mako Mori test, which asks whether a film has at least one female character who has a narrative arc that does not support a man's story. A female character with an independent narrative arc is the subject rather than the object of the story, capable of having her own thoughts and desires. In this regard, Disney princesses fare much better. Mulan, Cinderella, Ariel, Snow White (perhaps surprisingly) and Brave's Merida all pass the Mako Mori test.

However it is pretty widely recognised that these tests are flawed when it comes to determining whether or not a film is feminist or sexist. Beauty and the Beast fails both the Bechdel test and the Mako Mori test and yet Belle is often championed as a feminist role model. I adored Belle as a child because I was incredibly nerdy (and, obviously, still am) and loved to read; to watch a heroine who unabashedly loves books and mocks men for being ignorant tosspots was incredibly liberating for me. Belle taught me that it was ok to go against other people's expectations.

Of course I also desperately wanted Belle's magnificently puffy ballgown. But wanting to flounce around in a flamboyantly impractical dress is not anti-feminist! There seems to be the pervasive attitude that overtly feminine clothing (floral, fluffy, sparkly) somehow undermines a woman's strength or achievements. David Trumble recently posted several pictures to his Tumblr depicting famous female role-models in poofy, glittery dresses. His intention was to show that strong, inspiring role models don't need to be princesses and that putting them in ultra-girly princess attire trivialises them. I find this incredibly patronising. I like wearing skirts, I like sparkly jewellery and my love of floral print is bordering on the obsessive. But my fashion choices do not negate the fact that I am also an intelligent, argumentative and opinionated young woman. I am not trivial, shallow or stupid because I like to wear the occasional ballgown.

It's not feminist to attack those things traditionally considered feminine - like pink, glitter, flowers or kittens. We need to stop seeing femininity as silly or frivolous in contrast to the strong and stoic masculinity. Both are equally valid.

Tips for Women

Me as a Parliamentary intern, brazenly sporting long hair.

Law firm Clifford Chance recently sent out a 163-point memo entitled 'Presentation Tips for Women'. Its contents are both hilarious and immensely depressing. Advice ranges from the mundane ("don't use a draggy pace") to the bizarre ("move your mouth when you speak" - how else does one speak?). But mostly the document is patronising and offensive; women are told not to giggle, not to wear party dresses, and to lower the pitch of their voice (those shrill, inappropriately-attired harpies). Well thank goodness the women of Clifford Chance now know to put their cleavage away and "watch out for the urinal position" - I can practically hear the glass ceiling breaking from here.

Reading this memo reminded me of when I attended a training session held as part of the Lib Dem Party Conference entitled "What to Wear as a Woman in Politics". Alas, the men were not privy to a similar training session and their sartorial blunders are undoubtedly thwarting their political careers as we speak. 

Candy, the Lib Dem image consultant, imparted us with such timeless words of wisdom as "no knee-high boots" and "no animal print". She also instructed us how best to tie a scarf depending on the situation (use the Slip Knot while canvassing door-to-door but the more flamboyant Ascot Wrap for a hustings) and which colours to avoid (pretty much anything bright).

After giving general advice, Candy then went around the room and pointed out the myriad ways in which the women in attendance were wrong. I was praised for my deployment of opaque tights (never go below 70 denier) and sensible flat shoes. Unfortunately I undid all my fine work in the tights-department by being in possession of long hair which I - foolishly! - was wearing loose around my shoulders. I was told that I should either get a haircut or tie my hair up or else men would be encouraged to stroke me. If the male denizens of the Houses of Parliament are so devoid of self-control that they are powerless to resist stroking young, female interns, might I suggest that we have bigger things to worry about than my hair.

I obviously found the suggestion that my hair was an invocation for gentle petting from my male colleagues utterly hilarious. But at the same time it's disheartening that the conference organisers thought that a training session on female politicians' fashion-sense was necessary. I can understand the thinking behind it. I once had a conversation with former Lib Dem MP Sarah Teather in which she complained that whenever she said anything in Parliament, the media only ever reported on what she was wearing, not what she was saying. This was undoubtedly very frustrating for her and it makes me angry to think that female politicians' sartorial choices are being given more media attention that their opinions. But I don't think opaque tights and a pixie cut are the solution. 

Parliament is woefully devoid of women, particularly young women, and telling current MPs to avoid colour or pattern or anything that might suggest they have a personality is not the way to encourage young women to get involved in politics. If we want the media to stop reporting every time a female minister sports ostentatious footwear, we shouldn't force her into sensible grey pumps, we should flood the Houses of Parliament with so many pairs of fabulous heels that it is no longer worthy of note. When the halls of power and the boardrooms of law firm are replete with leopard-print clad women - expressing their opinions in their shrill, nasally voices - then perhaps we can finally dispense of all the silly advice.

Alcohol and Sexual Violence

On Tuesday, Slate's Emily Yoffe wrote an article about the link between alcohol consumption and rape. The internet did not take it well.

Yoffe's article starts by summarising a number of studies regarding sexual assault and rape on college campuses. The findings of these studies are pretty grim: by the time they are seniors, 20% of college women will have been victims of sexual assault; very few of these assaults are ever reported. Yoffe then goes on to discuss the numerous studies that have linked sexual violence at college campuses to significant alcohol consumption. 80% of campus sexual assaults involve alcohol. Frequently both the man and woman have been drinking. Yoffe concludes from these studies that women should curtail their alcohol consumption in order to protect themselves.

It's at this point that Yoffe starts to earn the ire of the internet. Yoffe's recommendation that women limit their alcohol intake has been interpreted by numerous writers as victim-blaming. Instead of telling women to stop drinking, we should be telling men to stop raping.

However, Yoffe also has her defenders. Emily Matchar of The Atlantic Wire argues that Yoffe makes a valid point: alcohol and sexual violence is intimately linked. However Yoffe's error was in directing her advice only to women; men too should be educated on the links between alcohol and sexual violence. Yoffe's article links to a really fascinating survey by Antonia Abbey of Wayne State University which brings together the findings of numerous studies on sexual violence on college campuses. These studies show that: college men frequently view drunk women as being sexually promiscuous and therefore appropriate targets for sexual aggression; men who have consumed large amounts of alcohol are more likely to misinterpret social cues from women (viewing simple friendliness as sexual advances); and college men frequently believe that alcohol consumption is a justification for socially aggressive behaviour. Instead of telling women to protect themselves from rape by not drinking, we should be countering these disturbing and depressingly common beliefs about alcohol. Alcohol does not absolve you from responsibility for your actions. And a drunk woman is not 'asking for it'.

After reading the original studies to which Yoffe's article refers, I can understand how Yoffe has come to the conclusion that women should be educated on the importance on limiting their drinking. However from reading the studies it's also clear that educating men is similarly as important.

What the Fashion Industry Could Learn from the US Military

A petition on Change.org, requesting the restriction of ‘thinspiration’ language on twitter, has just reached 1,781 signatures. Thinspiration is a portmanteau meaning ‘inspiration to be thin’, which has become associated with pro-anorexia and pro-bulimia communities on several popular social media sites. The petition argues that permitting thinspiration language and imagery to proliferate on social media sites results in the promotion of unhealthy body types and encourages young women to develop eating disorders. Pinterest and Tumblr have already taken steps to remove thinspiration content; now twitter is being pressured to do the same.

Reading about this petition has brought me back to thinking about the ongoing discussion of the size zero phenomenon. The debate on size zero reached frenzied heights in 2006 when models Luisel Ramos and Ana Carolina Reston died from anorexia, resulting in Madrid Fashion Show banning size zero models. Milan Fashion Week followed suit shortly after, prohibiting models with a Body Mass Index lower than 18. The frenzy seems to have abated somewhat in recent years but the gaunt models, and the followings they have online, remain. 

Those opposed to size zero have long bandied around names of who is to blame. It’s the model agencies’ fault for hiring only unhealthily skinny girls. It’s the fashion magazine industry’s fault for publishing photos of visibly bony models. Now it’s social media’s fault for not banning the language used to promote unhealthy body ideals.

But for me this debate ultimately comes down to design because, at essence, that is surely what fashion is all about. Strip away the magazines, the photographers, the stylists and the model agencies, and what you’re left with is the designers… designing. If we want to ensure that women in the fashion industry are a healthy size, we need to start designing clothes for healthy-sized women. It’s here that the fashion industry could learn a lot from the US military.

Pentagon officials and engineers have historically built a bias against women’s bodies into military technologies through the use of restrictive design guidelines. Military Standard 1472 suggests the use of 95^th and 5^th percentile male dimensions when designing military systems. By using this standard, only 10% of the male population cannot be accommodated by a given design feature. Unfortunately, the gap between a 5^th percentile woman and a 95^th percentile man is vast. A significant number of women are thus deemed ineligible to use a variety of military systems.

The most well-known case of bias against women’s bodies in military design is the Joint Primary Aircraft Training System (JPATS). Originally, the JPATS specifications included a 34-inch minimum sitting height in order to operate cockpit controls effectively and eject from the aircraft safely. However, at 34 inches, around 50-65% of the American female population was excluded. As a result, a significant number of women were prevented from pursuing aviation careers by prohibiting them from JPATS training.

Change was eventually achieved through government interference. Former Secretary of Defense, Les Aspin, publicly recognised that women should play a greater role in the military through a directive issued in April 1993. Then, in 1994, the Defense Authorisation Bill was passed, including a provision which prevented the Air Force from spending $40 million of its $41.6 million trainer budget unless the Pentagon altered the cockpit design for the JPATS (Weber, 1997; 245). The Clinton Administration, reeling from the embarrassment of its poor handling of gays in the military and trying to make a stand against an increasingly confrontational Pentagon, was the driving force behind innovation in cockpit design.

Excluding women from air combat because they couldn’t fit into cockpits was deemed unacceptable. Excluding healthy women from the fashion industry because they can’t fit into the clothes should be deemed similarly intolerable. 

Of course the pressures applied to the military cannot be applied to commercial companies. With military procurement, the state is the consumer and thus the issue of design is political, making it open to discussion from interest groups and control from legislation (Weber, 1997; 236). With commercial production, design remains an economic issue, viewed in terms of managerial preference and profit calculus. Thus, commercial cockpit design lags significantly behind the military in addressing problems in accommodating women’s bodies.

But it shouldn’t be assumed that fashion houses are immune to pressure. Prada, Versace and Armani all agreed to stop using stick-thin models when faced with criticism from the Italian Government and general public following the two models’ deaths in 2006. And design innovation can be financially rewarding as well. Todashi Shoji has built his career on designing for all ages, ethnicities and figures. His numerous dresses designed for voluptuous actress Octavia Spencer’s red carpet appearances, including the stunning sparkling number she wore to receive her Oscar for Best Supporting Actress in 2012, are always at the top of best dressed lists.

If we want to combat the idolisation of unhealthy body types, limiting what can be said on social media is only going to achieve so much. Instead, as with combating bias against female bodies in military technology, we need to go to the heart of the problem, and that means compelling innovation in design. 

Bibliography

Weber, R N (1997) 'Manufacturing Gender in Commercial and Military Cockpit Design' in Science, Technology & Human Values, Vol 22/2

If you want to read more about gender and military technology...

Golstein, J F (2001) War and Gender: How Gender Shapes the War System and Vice Versa

Richman-Loo, N and Weber, R (1996) 'Gender and Weapons Design' in It's Our Military Too! WOmen and the US Military, ed. Judith Hicks Stein

Smart, T L (1998) 'Fast Women: Or why women who fly high performance aircraft are fast but not loose', in Australian Military Medicine, Vol 7

Role Models

I recently read a report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics which stated that young women in the US were now significantly outperforming young men in education. For example, by 25-years-old, 30% of women have a bachelor’s degree, compared to 22% for men. 

Bloomberg Businessweek have an interesting (and short) article in which DiPrete, a sociology professor at Columbia University, suggests a few reasons to explain this performance gap. One of his points suggests that, “unlike young women, many young men try to emulate their fathers or grandfathers, who succeeded in blue-collar jobs without college educations.” Since these jobs don’t exist anymore, this ‘echo of an older generation’ could potentially prove to be a hindrance to men’s eventual success (since college graduates still have better employment, health, and marriage prospects).

In the ‘90s, numerous sociologists started writing about modernity and the ‘modern’ society, characterised largely by the breakdown of traditional structures such as religion, class, the nuclear family and gender roles. In Beck’s Risk Society, he talks about a “social transformation within modernity” which has resulted in people being “set free from the social forms of industrial society.” This detraditionalisation brought about a surge of individualism. Rather than following the path expected of them based on their membership of a particular class, religious group or gender, individuals were now expected to forge their own, unique path.

While this freedom from traditional life-paths was in many ways liberating, it was also disorienting. Beck and Beck-Gernsheim, in their book Individualisation, explain how routines and traditional institutions “have an unburdening function which renders individuality and decision-making possible.” By removing the structures of tradition and routine, individuals are left with a bewildering number of options; choice becomes stressful and encumbering rather than freeing.

This burden is, according to these sociologists, exacerbated for women. Young men can look to their fathers and grandfathers as role models for how to forge a life-path through education and career. However for young women, whose mothers and grandmothers were restricted to the house or low-level professions, they are faced with a bewildering world of choice with few individuals to offer a road map. Young women have to make their own projects and work out their own ideas about the future, with little support from any role model.

Beck and Beck-Gernsheim were writing in the ‘90s so it’s interesting to read this Bloomberg article and consider that perhaps the lack of role models has in fact been more beneficial for women than sociologists assumed 20 years ago. Lacking in professional role models, young women have turned to education in an attempt to improve their chances in a baffling world of choice. It will be interesting to see whether women’s increasing success in education translates to increasing success in the workplace.

Bibliography

Beck U (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, London: Sage

Beck U and Beck-Gernsheim E (2002) Individualization, London: Sage

Going Dutch

During my three years as an undergraduate student I was not once asked out on a date, leading me to come to the conclusion that I was to live my life as some crazy hermit. I had even started picking out names for the hundreds of cats I was inevitably going to acquire. I was thus taken a bit by surprise when I moved to London just over a year ago and suddenly found myself the regular recipient of dinner invitations (probably facilitated by the fact that I was now taking a Masters course that was over 80% male). However while one would expect this turn of events to be warmly welcomed, I instead find myself getting frustrated on a regular basis due to altercations when it comes to paying the bill. When eating out with friends, paying the bill is a relatively simple affair with the total amount being split equally between the diners. This seems a perfectly sensible and efficient way of divvying up a bill and I am left perplexed as to why the men I have dated this last year have been so belligerently averse to such a system.

At the end of almost every date I go on, I am left fighting over the bill. I am frequently surprised with just how irate my date gets during these disputes. On one particular occasion, when I insisted that I pay for my own food, my date replied that he gets offended when a girl wants to pay for her bill. This sentiment particularly irked me; he’s allowed to be offended when a woman offers to pay, but when a man offers to pay I’m supposed to feel grateful? Why am I not allowed to be offended?

I always insist on paying for my half of the bill. Often the man responds by saying that he’s ‘old-fashioned’ (which I have come to realise is code for chauvinist and backwards) and that he considers it gentlemanly to pay the bill. But a man paying the bill for a woman is not gentlemanly. Frankly, it is somewhat insidious. Reading any anthropology or sociology text on reciprocity makes it pretty clear that nothing comes for free. When someone pays for you, you are then bound to that person. You don’t have to repay that person immediately but there is an obligation of reciprocity inherent in any seeming ‘gift’. In Mauss’ eponymous study on exchange, he argues that while gifts appear voluntary, “in fact they are given and repaid under obligation.” Gift-giving forms relationships that join people to each other. As an example, he discusses the Maori concept of hau, the ‘spirit’ of a gift which creates a link between the giver and the receiver. If the gift is not reciprocated, the spirit will make the receiver ill.

Like Mauss, Malinowski emphasises the importance of reciprocity in his analysis of the Kula of the Trobriand Islands. Kula (literally meaning ‘ring’) is a form of exchange linking islands and communities in an unbreakable circuit. Soulava, long necklaces made from red shells, and mwali, bracelets made from white shells, are constantly exchanged in opposite directions around the circuit. The Kula serves many purposes: it fosters inter-tribal cooperation; facilitates trade; cements social hierarchies; and denotes personal honour. The exchange of soulava and mwali forms a “lifelong relationship,” which ”implies various mutual duties.”

Some may argue that I am overreacting with my opposition to having my meals paid for by a man. But these studies, and others like them, demonstrate that reciprocity, and the links it creates between individuals, is a powerful social force that may lead women into future actions that they are not comfortable with. A university friend of mine was once given a highly sought-after ticket to a ball by a male friend and her first comment was, “oh great… now I’m going to have to have sex with him.”

I don’t mind being treated every once in a while and I don’t think that the men I have dated over the last year were necessarily trying to entrap me into some future promise of sex. But constantly being paid for is degrading and humiliating. Healthy relationships require an equal distribution of power and this is impossible when one individual is indebted to another.

Bibliography

Malinowski B (1922) Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An Account of Native Enterprise and Adventure in the Archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea, George Routledge & Sons, Ltd

 Mauss M (1950) The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies, London: Routledge