Whether because of International Women's day or not, I have noticed more than a few references to feminism and gender imbalance in the media in recent weeks. I didn't know until this year that there was such a thing as International Women's day which probably sums up my political awareness on the subject. I was therefore a little surprised that it was an issue I found myself thinking about, and the more I thought about it, the larger the number of contexts in which it seemed to crop up. Yes I would describe myself as a feminist, who wouldn't in today's society after all, but what does that mean?
A couple of weekends ago, The Times's Saturday Magazine ran an interview with Facebook boss Sheryl Sandberg on the publication of her book Lean In. In it, she advocates that women can compete in a male dominated business environment, they just need to be tougher, stronger and more ambitious. She also goes further to say that it is perfectly possible to have a very successful high-flying career whilst raising a family, as she has done ; women can 'have it all'. Albeit, as the interviewer noted, this is no doubt much easier on a Facebook level salary which pays for an army of nannies, servants etc.
In stark contrast, in this weekend's paper was an article entitled The Rise of the Cupcake Feminist, an interview with Kelly Makino. She has made a conscious choice to be, and please excuse the expression, a stay-at-home Mum. She argues that in opting for this, a woman isn't settling for second best, or giving anything up, but that her drive and ambition can be channelled into her family for the ultimate fulfilment. She is always on hand to cook meals, help with homework, support her children. Reading between the lines, I get the distinct impression of pushy Mums at the school gate competing to prove their devotion to their family whether its making the best costumes or cupcakes, or helping with violin practice. Her husband benefits too apparently; she cites examples of devoting hours to searching for recipes for his childhood favourites, buying him clothes and giving him massages. I can't help but feel that we have come full circle.
Over the weekend, we watched Made in Dagenham, the story of the female machinists' fight for equal pay at Ford's Essex plant in 1968. They succeeded, it wouldn't be much of a film if they hadn't I suppose, and in doing so, played a large part in bringing about the Equal Pay Act of 1970. Whilst the message was very much 'you can do anything you set your mind to', I did feel that it was diluted by some of the domestic scenes. The main character's household starts to fall apart without her. Piles of dirty plates lie in the sink, and her husband runs out of clean shirts whilst she campaigns on behalf of her colleagues. On meeting Barbara Castle, the two women exchange pleasantries about where each of their dresses came from. To me these scenes almost implied, well they are women after all, they still have a significant role in the home which cannot be ignored, and are only interested in clothes and make up. This is what I mean. A few weeks ago, it would never have occurred to me to think about how these women's backstory was told, much less comment on it.
It seems as though the role that Kelly choses to define herself by, is precisely that which women have fought to liberate themselves from; her sole focus being the care of her husband and children. She describes herself as a feminist, although by doing so, radically alters what we have come to understand by that term.
We were lucky enough to go to the recording of Radio 4's Any Questions on Friday night. The woman tasked with keeping the audience entertained before going on air, a former producer of the show, apologised for the small number of women that had been selected to pose a question to the panel (two out of ten). She then went on to talk about the gender balance of the panel itself, that evening it was 50/50 but this seemed to be a fairly rare occurrence. The chair of the panel, Ritula Shah, was also introduced as being only the third woman to host the programme since its inception in the 1940s.
I noticed it again yesterday. As Clare Balding was announcing the post-boat race medal ceremony, she described Katherine Grainger as the first woman in history to present the trophy. On neither of these occasions could I see what relevance gender had. If it had been the other way around, with men presenting the programme or trophy, I can't imagine that it would have been noticed, let alone commented on.
Maybe our goal should not be gender equality as the women in Dagenham fought for, but beyond that to gender irrelevance. Being in a position where we're not fighting to be heard, or for fair representation. In my opinion, what Kelly refers to is the empowerment of women to be able to carry out the role that fulfils them most, regardless of whether that is being a competitively dedicated mother and wife or running one of the world's largest companies. It is being able to choose which matters.
No comments:
Post a Comment