From the category archives:
Sex & gender
It’s just been reported on the Ms. Magazine website that the BC Appeal Court has released its written report explaining why there will be no Olympic ski jumping event this winter–for women, at least. The report reads:
The British Columbia Appeal Court provided written rationale for it’s ruling that will allow Olympic organizers to hold a men’s ski jumping event, but not a women’s event in the upcoming Vancouver Olympic games. According to the Associated Press, the Court wrote in its decision that “It is a case in which a non-governmental body (VANOC) is brought before the court as a result of policies which neither it nor any Canadian authority has the power to change,” the justices wrote in the ruling…VANOC simply does not have the power to determine what events are included in the 2010 Olympic program.”
After the International Olympic Committee (IOC) rejected the inclusion of women’s ski jumping in the 2010 games, fourteen athletes brought the issue to court as a sex discrimination case. They argued that the Vancouver Organizing Committee (VANOC) is subject to Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and therefore should not allow sex discrimination in the Olympic events it will host. The British Columbia Supreme Court ruled in July that while the exclusion of women’s ski jumping is discriminatory, only the IOC has the authority to determine which events are included.
Now, what’s the rationale here, you ask, for the exclusion of this event? Could there be some kind logic at work here that would not point to good old sexism? Sadly, no:
The IOC says it will not stage a women’s ski jump event because there are not enough women competing at the highest levels of the sport. However, men’s ski jumping also does not fully meet the IOC’s criteria for inclusion but has been an Olympic sport since 1924 and was grandfathered into the 2010 games. Even if the current case is appealed to the Canadian Supreme Court, it will not be heard prior to the 2010 Olympic Games.
Okay, Confabulistas. I’ve got a question for you: has this somehow been the worst summer on record in which to be a woman? It seems as though there has recently been an intense wave of crazy bad news in the media related to all kinds horrible things befalling womankind. To be honest, it makes it difficult to be a blogger writing about politics and pop culture when it feels like all there really is to say is, “Well, another day of violence and atrocities for the fairer sex!”
Need some examples? Well, there was this story about tens of thousands of protesters in Mali’s capital city who congregated to oppose a law granting women equal rights in marriage. There’s Bill C-422, a private member’s bill to amend the Canadian Divorce Act, which Antonia Zerbisias suggests could possibly be dangerous to women and children if passed. There’s Amnesty International’s statement about the rape and torture of men and women in Iranian detention centres. You with me here? Let’s not forget about a Marriott hotel in Connecticut who blamed (and then backed off) a rape victim for her own assault. Carleton University pulled the same stunt (as we reported last week), and then settled with the victim. The Quebec government threatened to mess with access to abortion. And, to top it all off, Muriel Duckworth died.
Okay, okay, there were some positive developments–or at least, things that hit the feminist radar that didn’t make you want to cringe. There was an election in Afghanistan, and this account talks about observing women voting (though the whole thing is still shaking down, and of course, the overall situation in Afghanistan is absolutely nothing to cheer about. It’s not clear if the articles about women not voting, expressed in this piece, have manifested themselves). The New York Times Magazine issue dedicated to women’s rights was cool. Shirley Greenberg was awarded the Order of Canada.
I’m a natural optimist and a strong believer for balance in life; I get my daily diet of news and public affairs and season it with pop culture silliness, if only for my own sanity. But this steady campaign of horror makes it difficult to cut the violence in the world with a little bit of So You Think You Can Dance Canada.
{ 1 comment }
A savvy Confabulous reader recently sent me a link to this BBC slideshow entitled “In Pictures: Natural African Beauty.” The slideshow, oddly enough, has no story running alongside it. But there are captions indicating that the photos are from a beauty contest held in the Ivory Coast called Miss Authentica. Contestants are only allowed to enter if their skin is untreated by bleaching products, as determined by some “experts” the pageant has on hand.
I had a few mixed reactions to seeing this story. The first was a criticism of the BBC site that hosts the slideshow in the first place. If this event is newsworthy, why are these images running on their own with only some brief captions to provide context? There was kind of a discombobulating effect of having just pictures and no story about an event that is supposed to be about challenging conventional standards of beauty. In other words, without a story, the pictures on their own kind of defy the whole point of the pageant–celebrating black women’s natural beauty on a continent where, according to one caption, “Skin bleaching is big business.”
It was also unclear to me who organized the Miss Authentica contest. It does sound like it’s people who don’t necessarily have anyone’s profit margin in mind, as the captions indicate that cosmetics companies are starting to sweat as a result of the contest. Moreover, organizers say, apparently, that 75% of women in Cote d’Ivoire use skin-whitening products. This is disturbing, to say the least (and again, I’m thinking, why not write up a story on this? I’ve never heard of an African country where a skin-bleaching product was that popular and I’m sure I’m not the only one. Not to mention the fact that these products and their use are not only politically troubling, but may potentially be carcinogenic).
It was only when I went over to the Miss Authentica website that I started thinking that maybe the whole thing wasn’t such a great idea after all. All right, my French is pretty rusty, so my head began to ache as I tried reading it. But I did glean enough information to start working on my frown lines. Here are the participation criteria:
* Nationalité : toute nationalité (fournir une pièce d’identité et un extrait de naissance)
* Avoir un teint naturel clair ou noir
* Etre âgée de 17 à 25 ans (celles ayant 17 ans devront présenter une autorisation parentale)
* Taille minimum environ 1,65m
* Poids, 70 Kgs maximum
* Niveau d’études : classe troisième (fournir une attestation de scolarité)
* Doit pouvoir expliquer les méfaits de la dépigmentation, et du vagabondage sexuel en français, en un dialecte Ivoirien et en une langue étrangère de son choix
* Doit savoir faire la cuisine ivoirienne (une épreuve de cuisine aura lieu la veille de la finale)
* Répondre aux critères de très bonne moralité
* Etre célibataire
Turns out that in order to enter the Miss Authentica contest, you have to be between the ages of 17 and 25, you have to be a minimum of 1.65 metres and a maximum of 70 kilos. So much for natural beauty, you short fatties! And wait a minute, here. Contestants have to be able to explain (in an Ivorian dialect and a foreign language) the detrimental effects of skin-bleaching…and also le “vagabondage sexuel”? Meaning sluttiness? Also, what’s with the mandatory knowledge of the cuisine of the Ivory Coast? Am I misreading that? Or is being handy in the kitchen another standard by which women are to be judged? And waitwaitwait a minute, does that second last one say something about responding to questions with high morality? Ooooh, no loose women invited here! Speaking of high morals, contestants must be single (”Etre célibataire,” yes?). Or is that meant to be read as “celibate”? Either way, NOT HAVING SEX, I believe, is the code, n’est-ce pas? Read: um, wha…?
Sounds to me like what the west (or white western liberals, I suppose) would want to celebrate (”Oh, that’s terrible that women from the Ivory Coast want to bleach their skin! What a great idea to try to combat that!”) is actually more of a replication of western practices: regulating women’s beauty AND morality through the cattle call that is a beauty pageant.
See what I mean about the need for a bit more context, BBC?
{ 3 comments }
Okay, here’s the deal. I did actually create this week’s Feminist Friday vid on Friday…but time, time, time, see what’s become of me? At least I’m getting the damn thing up. Here’s our votes for what’s thumbs up and thumbs down in the world this week.
Feminist Friday June 19, 2009 from Sabine Hikel on Vimeo.
{ 1 comment }
Bad news. This is from The Institute for Women’s Policy Research:
A new analysis released by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR) today on Equal Pay Day shows that men out-earn women in nearly every occupation for which data are available.
Of the more than 500 occupational categories for which sufficient data are provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in only 5 occupations do women earn the same or more than men.
Why is this still happening in the 21st century? Part of the explanation is that “pink collar” jobs (nurses, teachers, social workers) pay less. But part of it is also that, according to Ariane Hegewisch,
“Women tend to be in the minority of workers in the occupations with the highest earnings. We need to ensure that women are fully informed about the earnings potential of an occupation before they
choose their careers.”
When you were a kid and the topic of careers came up, did anybody ever talk to you about income earning potential? Would it have made a difference, do you think?
A couple of months ago, we bore witness to a vintage Spanx for men ad and had a good old laugh about it. But don’t be surprised when I tell you that the modern-day equivalent has now arrived. Introducing the Core Precision undershirt, a body-shaping undergarment designed for men. The “man-girdle,” as it has been colloquially referred to, will sell for about $90 to $98 and is designed to create a sleek and slender male form, taking inches off the waistline. Now, if men want to jump on board the body-slimming-garment bandwagon, who am I to stop them? But, really, why the hell would they want to? This is where some handy marketing comes into play.
Strangely (and yet not surprisingly), while the Core Precision undershirt and Spanx (the designed-for-women kind) were created for similar purposes (i.e., to squeeze the body into a smaller size and different shape than it actually is), the two products are marketed quite differently. The male version promises to “improve posture, support core muscles, visibly streamline and slim, control body temperature, and promote circulation.” This description appeals to one’s sense of logic and the desire to improve one’s form in a good-for-your-body kind of way. Improves posture and promotes circulation? Sign me up! On the other hand, women’s Spanx claims to “shape problem areas, accentuate your waistline, minimize your tummy and thighs, lift your rear, and make inches seem to disappear.” The focus here is on aesthetics, implying that women are actually concerned only with appearance and can’t be bothered to contemplate more practical matters such as core muscles.
Of course, women have a long history of wearing undergarments that slim down (and sometimes harm) the body. (Corsets, anyone?) And the fact that these types of products continue to sell well (I’m assuming the Spanx people make a pretty penny), means that the marketing they use must work. However, when a similar shape-adjusting product is created for men, it needs to be advertised as actually improving one’s physical form and health. (And people say sexism is dead. Ha!)
Good for the body or not, the one thing that the Core Precision undershirt and Spanx do have in common is their ability to cause discomfort. However, as a male journalist for the Times Online describes after his one-day test of the Core Precision undershirt, although the garment is rather restrictive, it does still render the wearer capable of breathing. And I’m sure many women who have squeezed themselves into corsets, Spanx, control-top pantyhose, and other body-smooshing undergarments have used the ability to breathe as a basic criterion for wearability.
Hell, if manufacturers of body shapers are looking for an advertising hook, why not go with this one: “Allows you to slim down while still retaining the ability to take shallow breaths.” But I guess this is why I never went into advertising.
{ 4 comments }
I’m really pleased to announce that Confabulous has teamed up with the mighty Antigone Magazine to bring you the Dreams for Women project. Dreams for Women is an amazing postcard project, along the lines of Postsecret, where men and women paint, write or do a collage on a postcard, answering the question: what is your dream for women? It’s also a calendar, a series of videos, and exhibit in the International Museum of Women. Want to send in your submission? Go to it!
Antigone Magazine
C/O WILLA
Box 61 – 6138 SUB Blvd
Vancouver, BC Canada V6T 1Z1
OR antigonemagazine(at)hotmail.com
And now, here are this week’s postcards. Let them inspire you to make your own!
PS: The last 3 cards are from Anne Prampart, a Paris artist who makes the most amazing postal art. Check out her site: your jaw will drop and your mouth will water, guaranteed.
{ 1 comment }
Confabulous badges!
