Accepted Social Situations

You are currently browsing the archive for the Accepted Social Situations category.

Stranger Danger, People-Pleasing and Neurosis

Tuesday 9th March, 2010 in Accepted Social Situations, Politics, Violence Against Women, feminism by Melaszka | No comments

I recently advertised for a language exchange partner on the internet. You probably know the kind of set-up I mean – they are native speakers of the foreign language I’m trying to learn who live in my town and want to improve their English, and the idea is that we meet up on a regular basis to practise our conversational skills in each other’s language. I soon received a number of replies to my ad, including one from a couple in their 20s who seemed very friendly, lived close to me, and it didn’t take us long to set up a date to meet.

The thing is, I’m well-versed in internet safety etiquette. I know all the rules backwards: don’t give away too much personal information about yourself online, never give out your home address, never take what strangers say about themselves online at face value and, above all, never meet up with someone you’ve met online in real life in a private home. Always set up the first meeting in a public space, like a pub or café. And yet, when my new online pals suggested we have our first meeting at their flat, I immediately agreed, even though the idea made me feel anxious and uncomfortable.

I think one of the reasons I didn’t insist on meeting on neutral ground is that I do tend to be a tad on the neurotic side – I’m the kind of person who goes through a nightly ritual of checking the inside of the wardrobe and under the bed for intruders and regularly exits an Underground carriage the minute a young man carrying a rucksack gets on, just in case he happens to have a bomb in it. It’s a side of myself I’m trying to battle with, so I didn’t want to indulge my paranoia here.

And maybe I was being overcautious – after all, while my love life is solidly vanilla, my more sexually adventurous friends seem to spend half their time in the bedrooms of people they’ve only just met and no-one’s taken an axe to them yet.

But deep down, I suspect that the real reasons I completely ignored the ground rules I’d decided to set were because:

(a) like – I’m guessing – a lot of women, I have a horror of seeming rude, of putting people to any inconvenience. They preferred to meet at their home – who was I to say different?

(b) I am also reluctant to be viewed as the local nutter. I know through personal experience that women who insist on taking taxis short distances at night instead of walking, refuse to open the door to strangers or demand to see IDs from tradesmen, tend to get treated like they have acute psychiatric problems, even those are all things which we are officially advised to do.

On my way over to my language partners’ place, my anxiety grew. As I walked the couple of miles to their address, I mentally replayed what I knew about this couple and all sorts of innocent things they’d mentioned in their e-mails suddenly seemed to take on a sinister significance. They’d seemed very eager – suspiciously eager? – to set up a meeting as soon as possible. They’d made a big deal about the fact that they were a couple and had attached a photo, but that’s exactly the kind of thing a solitary rapist or people-trafficker would say to try and put his potential victim at ease and the photo could have been of anybody – any idiot with a search engine could find a picture of A Random Couple and pass it off as himself and his non-existent wife. After my first e-mail, they’d Googled me and found my Facebook page, which hadn’t seemed odd at the time, but now started to appear macabrely stalkerish. And, come to think of it, all their e-mails had been in English, so I had no proof that they even spoke a word of the language which they claimed was their native tongue. Before long, I could hear Kirsty Young’s voice in my head, appealing to the public to help solve my murder on Crimewatch.

Well, I eventually reached their block of flats and, as you’ve probably gathered from the fact that I’m here writing this blog, they weren’t axe murderers: fortunately, they were exactly who they said they were. They were, in fact, utterly charming, I spent a highly enjoyable couple of hours with them and I’m hopeful that the language exchange partnership will go swimmingly.

But this experience has, yet again, underlined for me how, despite talking the feminist talk and knowing the theory, in actuality I’m incredibly easily swayed by media crime scaremongering, yet equally easily convinced that, as a woman, my right to set boundaries which make feel safe and comfortable is negligible and that I am obliged at all times and in all places to accommodate others.

I wonder how many other women feel continually torn between two totally unreasonable and utterly conflicting societal dictats – on the one hand, we’re taught to be people-pleasers who shouldn’t inconvenience others with “selfish”, “neurotic”, “rude” demands, on the other we’re bombarded with victim-blaming propaganda that suggests that if we fail to observe a 24-hour curfew and apply for a full CRB check on anyone we speak to, should something untoward happen to us, it is somehow entirely our fault.

I’ve ad enough

Tuesday 9th March, 2010 in Accepted Social Situations, Media by Melaszka | No comments

As an avid Spotify user, I am currently being subjected to the Dell Mini 10 Notebook advert several times a day and with every listen I am increasingly awestruck by how many crass stereotypes they manage to conflate into one short audio ad.

For those of you fortunate enough not to have heard it, it’s promoting a new mini-computer (I think) which comes in a range of pretty colours. And that’s the main angle they’re putting on it – the colour choice. So far, so inoffensive. Doesn’t seem much of a USP for a piece of technical kit, but that’s up to them. To demonstrate the different colours, they play the same song in various styles. Black is a male singer fronting a metal band. Blue is a laidback, male blues singer. Pink is…and I’m sure you guessed this… synthetic-sounding girl-fronted bubble-gum pop.

To give them their credit, it is a resourceful attempt to solve the difficult problem of how to convey colours in an audio ad.

BUT, they’ve confronted us with a whole ganglion of simplistic equations. Pink = female = in the minority = cheesy bubblegum pop = fluffy = not serious…

Maybe I read too much into this. After all, it’s just one tiny drop in the ocean of patronising gender stereotypes that constitutes modern advertising. And, in any case, I almost prefer totally blatantly sexist ads to the kind of faux feminism of adverts like that one they had on before Christmas (I completely forget what was being advertised, but I’ve a feeling it could have been a supermarket? or perhaps a stock cube?), where the man was left flummoxed, faced with the arduous task of serving dinner to his children one evening, while his partner went out to a party/evening class/some other social event, calling “You’re babysitting!” with a cheeky wink as she sashayed out of the front door. Fortunately, help was at hand, as here’s one she had prepared earlier – said partner had put a shepherd’s pie/casserole/whatsoever in the oven before she went. But the hapless chap’s troubles with assertive women aren’t over, as, when he tries to pass the dinner off as the work of his own fair hands, his primary-age daughter rolls her eyes and looks at him patronisingly. “Wow!” We’re obviously supposed to think. “Girl power! Feisty mother and kick-ass daughter shoved it to him good and proper!”

Except, hang on a minute…since when has LOOKING AFTER YOUR OWN CHILDREN constituted “babysitting”? The advert seems to posit as some kind of glorious, amusing victory for womankind the fact that they can cajole/manipulate/order their menfolk into taking on domestic responsibilities once in every blue moon. And once again, in an apparent compliment to women’s capabilities, male uselessness at domestic tasks is constructed as a basic fact of biology – flattering women into believing that unpaid domestic work will inevitably always be their job, because they possess a shepherd’s pie gene which men sadly lack.

Still, for me, the nadir of bone-headed advertising has to be the Christmas 2008 campaign for an allegedly low-calorie (=small) chocolate bar under the charming tagline “Goodwill to all women”. Right, Because ALL women are always permanently on a diet and NO men ever are? And ALL women adore chocolate? Tossers.

Returning the compliment

Tuesday 5th January, 2010 in Accepted Social Situations, Sexual Violence by Melaszka | No comments

“Hello, darling!”

The dishevelled man of about 60 years, obviously a little the worse for drink at 3 o’clock in the afternoon, wending his way towards me through the Christmas shopping crowds in the precinct, greeted me like an old friend, despite the fact that he was a complete stranger. As he neared me, he gestured at my feet: “Wow! Lovely shoes!”

I thanked him, admittedly a little apprehensively, in case this turned out to be the warm-up to a sleazy pick-up line. But he’d already moved on down the street. He obviously wasn’t a harassing slimeball – he really had just liked my shoes.

I shouldn’t have been surprised. Several strangers have in the past come up and complimented me on that particular pair of shoes. They’re not Manolos or Jimmy Choos or any other designer. They’re not particularly expensive. They’re not fashionable, They’re certainly not sexy. They’re just a bit flamboyant and theatrical and I must admit I rather like them myself. But usually the strangers who comment on them are female. I always find it pleasant and flattering. Should I feel differently if the complimenter is a man?

No, I don’t think I should and I’m afraid I can’t agree with some feminist definitions of “street harassment” as any man attempting to talk to any female stranger about how she is dressed, or indeed about any topic at all.

Like most (all?) women, I experience street harassment on a regular basis. The stranger who initially approaches me with a reasonable request for directions or the time, but then follows up with a chat-up line and tries to keep a conversation going long after I’ve made it clear that I’m not interested. The stranger who shouts “You’re a dog!” at me as I’m quietly going about my business (as if my only purpose in life is to look sexy for strangers, and if I fail to do that, I have no right to walk on a public street). The stranger who walks very close behind me and whispers “You’re gorgeous and I’m going to fuck you” in my ear. It’s nasty, it’s on occasions extremely frightening, and it’s depressingly indicative of the fact that too many men still view women’s bodies as public property.

And I can understand why some feminists find strangers making any comment on women’s appearance problematic. Women are too often treated as though their looks are the only thing on which they should be valued and perhaps the assumption that female strangers will be pleased if you tell them they’re pretty reinforces that. And women are often brought up to believe they are being “rude” or “nasty” if they don’t reply politely to strangers, no matter whether the comment is welcome or not. Plus, of course, apparently innocent compliments can often be precursors to verbal harassment or sexual assault.

One of the problems is that it seems to me that men in the UK rarely do talk to women they don’t know well unless they’re coming on to them. When I used to live in continental Europe, I was struck by how male colleagues and slight acquaintances would compliment me on my hair and clothes in much the same way as their female counterparts would. There was never any sinister or sleazy subtext – they were just being friendly and polite. Whereas, in England, if a man who’s not a close friend makes remarks about my appearance, it usually does mean he’s trying to chat me up. Or he’s gay. Heterosexual British men do seem remarkably scared of being nice to women they don’t fancy. That’s why I find it so refreshing when a man does approach me to say something nice, obviously with no sexual intent, like the time a middle-aged man stopped me on the street to tell me how lovely my 1940s retro dress was and how I reminded him of his mother.

Another issue is that it’s usually only considered socially acceptable for women to be the recipient of these types of compliment. A woman who tells a male stranger that he looks nice will usually be ignored or treated with bafflement or contempt. If a man tells another man on the street he looks nice, he’ll probably get decked.

As a society, I think we’re already far too buttoned up and insular. In my opinion, we should all talk to complete strangers a lot more, not less. So, as long as they’re polite, avoid physical contact and overtly sexual language and back off if I make it clear their attentions are no longer welcome, I love it when strangers, male or female, comment on what I’m wearing in the street.

But I think we’ll only have true equality when I can go up to a boy half my age and tell him he’s got lovely shoes without being treated like a nymphomaniac or the local nutter.

Conformist contest?

Monday 7th September, 2009 in Accepted Social Situations, Popular Culture by andieberry | No comments

As regular readers may know I detest the term “Yummy Mummy” and prefer to use the acronym MILF (Mother I’d Like to Fuck).  I’d like to state that even though I say I ‘prefer’ the term MILF, I do not condone the use of,  or the  connotations associated with the phrase . I do, however, believe its more honest than the ’she does it all and still looks shaggable great’ spin, which seems almost friendly and complimentary when not analysed beyond face value.  A perfect example of the advertisers nous, with using MILF stereotypes comes in the form  of this years winner of  a  ‘Yummy mummy’ competition organized by ASDA .

The lucky winner is indeed the very model of hetro-normative western loveliness.  She’s married, she’s a mother, and she works full time (but only during school hours) … but more importantly in this age of image obsessed culture, she’s blonde, she’s skinny and look at that big smile!  Will anyone who sees the advertising campaign she stars in seriously think “they look good on her… I must have them!” or are they going to think “She’s my age but look at her figure I must lose weight, I have to have those jeans!”.

In today’s image obsessed society, both women and men are increasingly being bombarded with “what you must buy look like”  images telling them how to be identified as a worthy citizen. “Don’t like what you see in the mirror? Choose the calorie counted diet meals. Choose to undergo unnecessary surgery in order to correct your face. Choose to buy that must-have pair of jeans and sod the bill. Choose advertising industry images to be your example. Choose Life….”  I say choose something else…individuality.

Breastfeeding in Public- Indecent Exposure?

Wednesday 2nd September, 2009 in Accepted Social Situations, Education, Parenting, feminism by Suzi | No comments

So tonight after reading some stuff posted on a friends Facebook wall, I went and had a look at  a Poll on Breastfeeding. The questions asks ‘Do you think women should be forced to cover up when breastfeeding in public?’. I’m was somewhat pleased to see that of eveyone who had answered the poll, 56% said no.  However, what really troubled me was a) the fact that this is even a question that needs asking at all and b) the comments section which was full of glorious examples of mysogyny such as men telling women that breastfeeding in public without covering up was ‘indecent exposure’.

So let’s deal with point a) first- the fact this question even needed to be asked. I’m against the use of the word ‘forced’ in the question. No woman should be ‘forced’ to do anything, especially not when feeding her child. Let’s all just take a moment here to remember that breasts, contrary to popular myth, exist so that women can breastfeed. It is in fact, the primary function of the mammary gland to produce milk in order to nourish infants. I suspect that the reason this question gets asked is because in our modern, western, over sexualised culture we seem to have completely forgotten that  breasts are not sexual objects designed to titillate and pleasure men.

Moving onto point b)- the misogyny in a lot of the comments. There were of course several comments from people pointing out the sheer ridiculousness of expecting Mothers to feed their babies in toilets or  under blankets etc – when Michael Jackson stuck his kids heads under blankets in public we called it child abuse. How  is it suddenly okay when the parent is a Mother who is FEEDING her child? There were several comments from people asking what all the fuss was about, when breastfeeding is a perfectly natural thing. And then there were the comments where people argued that urination is natural, but that doesn’t mean they do it in the street. Here’s the thing- babies need feeding. Babies, when not fed become quite upset. I am fairly certain, the same people who call ‘disgusting’ upon seeing the tiniest hint of flesh in a breastfeeding mother, are the same people who ‘tut’ and mutter ‘ can’t they shut that child up? shocking’ under their breath when confronted with a Mother who is attempting to soothe her hungry child when she is too anxious to feed in public because of people’s reaction.

Also- how do these people think women breastfeed? Having breastfed one baby, bottlefed another (for long and complex reasons),  and in about 6 months time I’ll be breastfeeding a third, I’m desperately trying to work out how on earth anyone is ‘exposing’ themselves enough to warrant being stared at by people in public. It’s not as if one flops one’s breasts onto a table while the child uses a straw or something! Breastfeeding requires a baby to be latched on so closely to the breast in order to suck, that unless you’re feeding over a vest top or topless it’s nigh on impossible to see any flesh. Ifyour an inexperienced breastfeeder, who’s just getting into her routine, then yes you might ‘expose’ a bit of flesh whilst latching on, but seriously ‘indecent exposure’? That’s a bit much really.

It seems to me that there are many things tied up in this question and the attotudes the poll has revealed. Primarily there’s an issue about women and their use of public spaces- these people feel women should not feel comfortable or able to use public spaces to feed their children and that their behaviour and autonomy should be censured for ‘moral’ reasons. Those moral reasons rest on notions of womens bodies and body parts as sexual objects designed to bring pleasure to men, but not to carry out their primary function- that of feeding babies. Then their an issue about ‘forcing’ women to comply with a ‘rule’ which is based on fallacious arguments and a dominant male based oppressive power structure.

I’m not that fussed about how or where women choose to feed their babies. Breastfeeding from many points of view is prefferable to bottlefeeding,  but  for many women it isn’t a practical, medical or cultural option, and  either way it shouldn’t matter. We need to support women and their partners and families to be comfortable with their feeding choices- this means access to breastfeeding cafes, and clinics and lactation consultants. This means access to peer supporters, and proper, accurate information about both breast and bottle feeding.  This means being able to feed your baby in public in any way you damn please without fear of censure or disapproval or abuse.

And it means that as onlookers, as other humans using a public space, we do not judge. We do not comment, becuase whether supportive or not, we are intruding. We do not ‘tut’ or mutter ’shocking’. We recognize that what we see is not indecent exposure, or bad parenting or shamelessness or a woman flaunting herself. What we see is a child being given it’s meal by it’s caregiver, and that is a perfectly normal, perfectly natural thing.

Standing Up To Offensive Comments

Friday 8th May, 2009 in Accepted Social Situations, Feminist Allies, feminism by admin | No comments

I work in Customer Services for a London-based company, taking calls and answering emails. The calls range from easy to difficult, from complicated to simple and from happy to intensely frustrating.

Yesterday I had a conversation on the phone with a customer who was looking to obtain a refund. He’s been given some wrong information by staff at the company, had experienced some problems, but by and large had behaved himself well. After our phone conversation, I realised I had made a mistake in what I was saying and emailed him to correct my error and clarify exactly what I was going to be doing next.

I received in reply a long and rambling email in which he went over all the points we had talked about again and complained about them. Most interesting, though, was the point at which he said:

“so in essence. i have gotten more different answers than brittney spears has sexual transmitted diseases”

I stopped reading and spoke to my manager, stating that I did not think I could reply to this email in a professional manner. For someone to write that, no matter how frustrated or annoyed they were, pretty much makes my blood boil. I appreciated that the customer wanted to get a point across, and that may have been trying to be humorous, but still.

Happily, my manager read the email and completely agreed that I should not have to respond to that email. He took on the response himself and put in the phrase:

“I absolutely accept that you find the situation frustrating, and am of course willing to believe that your comments regarding diseases etc were intended to be humorous, however in this instance they caused offence and upset to a colleague and I feel it is important to remind you that colleges expect their students to conduct themselves, and to correspond, in a professional manner at all times and I feel on reflection you would agree that this correspondence fell short of that standard.”

Now, I have slightly mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, he has told the student that his language “fell short of a professional standard” and that it caused offence.

On the other hand, he has not quite gone as far as I would have liked, in that in that a later email he did end up giving the student what he wanted. I personally felt that using this sort of language should effectively take you out of any chance of getting something that it wasn’t clear was yours to get.

Suzi asked me to blog about how it feels to be a pro-feminist man, and this is one of those times it becomes relevant. I can’t help but feel that many of my work colleagues would have shrugged that comment from the customer off without mentioning it, rather than challenging it and asking for it to be noted. Whilst I’m happy that it was noted and addressed, I also certainly feel that the response was not quite what I had hoped for.