Mary Beard on Radio 4 now with Point of View about Miss World 2011

thanks for that ES

Why can't Miss Venezuela be the enemy? (when Caitlin Moran referred to Jordan/Katie Price as Vichy France with Tits surely it's fair to see that Jordan is an enemy of feminism)

Yes, the women's colleges at Cambridge are wonderful bases from which to go forth and do battle against the sexism in the rest of the university but because of the way the university is organised (it is made up of colleges, which are a social/residential base, and faculties, which organise teaching) being in a women's college doesn't protect you from the sexism.

anyway MB still fights actively on the sexism in academia front (eg recently on proposed research assessment changes which would have shafted women who had babies).

But clearly we will have to disagree about anger, objectification and the point of Miss World protests.
I never expected to be having the 'No you can't wear make-up to school' argument with my daughter in Reception. This stuff is going to take a lot of fighting, on a number of fronts. If we ignore the return of Miss World to London this time round they will think it's ok and it will only be a few years before it is so mainstream again that all the little girls will be going round each other's houses for a Miss World watching and makeover party.

There is a reason why this time round, so much of the energy of the re-emergent feminist activist movement is coming from mothers. (And why you are having this conversation on Mumsnet rather than UK Feminista.)

@chickenlickn

you wrote: " perhaps through studying and working in a womens college you have been shielded from sexism. For example, your career has not been destroyed by sexism."

I think that I had better clear this one up. I am very grateful to have studied at and been a fellow of a women's college.. it has given me huge support.. but 'shielded' isnt quite it. My main paid employment is not, nor ever has been, with Newnham, but with the Classics Faculty of the University of Cambridge. And that is NOT a female environment (as I am sure Elderberry Syrup will confirm). In fact for several years there were 26 male academics and me, as the only woman. (There are now 6 of us..which is at least better, though there is a long way to go...progress not entirely to do with me, but I have done my bit here). So yes, I have been fortunate in all kinds of ways, I readily acknowledge.. but there were also years when I often went home exhausted and in tears (sure I'm not unusual), and nearly gave it all up. Men talked about my career then as a 'tragedy' and I felt that I was working amidst a bunch of (more or less) friendly aliens...and if you want the stories of sexism, I can give you lists!

It may look from 2011 as if my career has been gilded; it damn well didn't look like that in 1989. So please dont think of me as having been shielded!

I don't think we have to admit that there are feminists who were less tolerant of what constituted a feminist in the past.

We still hear this "you're telling me I can't be a feminist because I wear lipstick and high-heeled shoes" so what's the betting that that's what was going on then too.

The first Miss World protesters attacked the men - Bob Hope, the journalists and the bouncers, not the beauty queens.

Radical feminism came pretty much fully formed. It hasn't needed to be improved because it hasn't needed to be. All the analytical tools are there already for us to defeat the patriarchy.

I think Mary thought that beauty queens were the enemy because she hasn't quite grasped what radical feminism is all about.

But Mary's exact words are: "I don't any longer feel that Miss Venezuela is much of an enemy", not "Miss Venezuela is to blame". This choice of words does suggest that either Mary used to feel that Miss Venezuela was an enemy (whether of the women's movement, or of her own capacity to feel good about herself isn't clear), or that those protesting outside Earl's Court the other weekend see Miss Venezuela as an enemy whereas Mary no longer does (and therefore sees the protest as unnecessary).

Miss Venezuela is not and has never been the bloody enemy!

I don't agree that it's not worth saying Eleanor - surely we are always saying it, for a start, because there is popular view that feminists are going around telling people they have got to wear dungarees and are excluded from feminism if they wear high heels, and that view is very damaging.
I think my problem was more with the implication that other feminists are going around berating women for what they wear (blaming Miss Venezuela, if you like.)

BTW I had an interesting conversation with one of the older women at my feminist group on Sunday as a result of this - I wanted to know if she thought feminists in the 70s really had been 'blaming Miss Venezuela' (because I couldn't work out if Mary really meant that - see Mary, it is not all as clear what you were saying as you might think it is) and she said that she remembered lots of earnest discussions about whether it was ok to do stuff like Miss World protests in case they came across as blaming the women involved, but also (and this was the interesting bit she said there was a strain of intolerance among some feminists about dress, heterosexuality etc, and that (for example) the person in the group who was there in a pretty flowery shirt with long hair and her newborn baby and her husband waiting just out of sight, would not have been welcome at some of the meetings she had been to then.

I think this is an important point - one of the things the new wave of feminist activists are very clear about (and it came up in that thing last year where a women's magazine (incredibly) interviewed a bunch of people like Kat Banyard and Finn Mackay about stuff like 'Is Jordan a feminist?') is that you CAN make whatever choices you want over stuff like dress and religion and careers and still be a feminist (although this must of course always be distinguished from 'I am a woman ergo all my choices are feminist ones'). It is, in fact, our party line . But we have to admit there have been feminists in the past who have taken a less tolerant view of what constitutes a feminist, even if we don't know any of them now.

And I think MB's article makes more sense when you put it in that context. In our context - where everyone is going around saying 'hey we all do what we have to do to survive in the patriarchy, course you can be a feminist even though you are a SAHM with a Cath Kidston obsession and a lovely vintage 50s wardrobe!' and we take that for granted, MB saying 'actually I don't blame Miss Venezuela' comes across to us as 'I don't blame Miss Venezuela unlike those angry women over there'.

Does this make sense?

MsAnnTeak I did say 'generally'. I don't think seeing other women as 'competitors' for the commercialised sexual attention of men offers any hope of progress. In fact, the commercial sex industry is both a cause and an effect of women's oppression.

But Mary, you spoke of your reluctance to 'interfere' with the bodily choices of other women, saying "if they want to parade themselves in bikinis, or shroud themselves in burqas, then so be it". Talking of the burqa (not 'veiling' or 'covering': the burqa) in terms of 'choice' and 'pleasure' is problematic (to put it mildly).

Prolesworth - yes I found it offensive too. Im afraid I erupted like a volcano.

Mary - I wonder what you consider to be the important issues facing women today?
I wonder if you have considered your fortunate career also - for example, perhaps through studying and working in a womens college you have been shielded from sexism. For example, your career has not been destroyed by sexism.

Julia Scurr, "Yes, that is the vanguard of the proletariat I meant. I think it's safe to say the commercial value of the female body generally declines with age in the sex industry"

Vintagevamps.co.uk look as though they are holding their prices well against the younger competitors.

thanks for that..Prolesworth. I hope I wasnt berating other women (diagreeing, not berating), and have been a bit surprised by some of these responses.
can I just say that (as I guess you may know) there is quite a lot written on the 'pleasures' of veiling... of course, the practice can be appallingly oppressive, that is clear; but there is a considerable amount of anthropological literature (and not by men) that unpacks such customs in a very different way -- and one that is worth reflecting on, even if one doesnt agree. My comment didnt come out of nowhere!

Coming to this a bit late: I've only just listened to the programme. As others have already pointed out, the 'dirigiste' charge is out of order. Feminism has never been about berating women.

One thing I really did find offensive though was the reference to the 'pleasures' involved in women's 'choice' to wear the burqa. That quite took my breath away.

Thing is I don't think you can take the areas of agreement for granted, when the word feminist has been used/hijacked by so many groups. Sarah Palin and her Momma Grizzlies for instance. You will hear plenty of people these days saying 'I am a feminist and I think abortion should be completely illegal/poledancing is empowering/there isn't any discrimination against women any more/women are more equal than men and the pendulum's swung too far.'
So you can't expect it to be obvious that you're not criticising the protesters just because you have also said good things about feminism, we can only go by what you actually say about them.

@Thunderboltsandlightning. Of course you have a point, that's not what at issue.. and it is one well worth discussing. Which is not to say that I agree (of course, there is the question of what I am agreeing with... there are some basics on which I am absolutely sure we do agree).

My reference to the BBC website was simply to underline how differently the same piece of writing can be taken...

Brief reminder - Scurr and Rathbone weren't 'only' sufragettes - they were both active in getting public spending for women. The fawcettsociety.co.uk have a day of action this Saturday, 19 Nov on that very topic.

Well the BBC site isn't generally peopled by feminists whereas this part of Mumnset is. So probably non-feminists or people who don't spend too much time thinking about feminism would have a different response to your piece than a group of feminists who stand against the objectification of women and who support organisations like Object and the Miss World protestors.

Have you considered that we might have a point yet Mary?

Well pronouns are complicated things aren't they.. and the slippage from 'I' to 'we' particularly so!
I am very happy to discuss any of this in these terms (without the slagging off), because I don't think that the issues are simple and thrashing them out (and disagreeing) is useful...
But the internet is never a private conversation unless it is on a members only site....

If you look at the BBC site, you'll see that other people took the Tendenz of my piece very differently. But that's fine: the programme is meant to be (usefully) provaocative.. and personal and topical...

Well yes, certainly the internet does give people a space to say things they wouldn't say to someone's face - you probably haven't missed the furore over women bloggers and rape threats (discussed here for example).

And you're right, I wouldn't have said something you wrote was 'pretty rubbish' to your face; I apologise for that. It was my idiocy in forgetting Mary Beard was likely to pop along to have a look at what I was stupidly thinking was just a late night conversation with a mate rather than a deliberate 'Heh, I'm anonymous, I'll tell Mary Beard her talk was rubbish!' (Even I am not stupid enough to think you wouldn't make the connection once I posted an identical line on your blog.)

I've re-read the talk very carefully, though, and I still find your points about the Miss World protest itself strange. As a talk about ageing it is interesting (and I agree it's something that urgently needs talking about and I'm glad you're busting taboos about thickening toenails etc) but it does come across as you firstly, not being that bothered about objectification any more, and secondly, thinking the protest was pointless. I didn't WANT to disagree on this, I didn't come to this wanting to pick holes, and I more or less kept hope alive right up to the very moment where you say 'Don't get me wrong. We certainly needed that demonstration (my italics) in 1970.'
It is impossible NOT to read that as us NOT needing the demonstration now, and hence, despite what you say here, as you being critical of the protesters.

And you keep saying it is just about the fact you personally don't feel as angry as you used to about the body issues, but you are not just using the language of of 'I feel....', you shift into the language of big magisterial sweeping statements: 'where we should be protesting', 'we needed that demonstration....'

"Tut tut, silly ol' Mary, getting Feminism WRONG"

Hmmm, I think you'll find that it was Mary who was saying that it was feminists who were getting it wrong by protesting Miss World. Apparently there are more important things to address with political activism - like Britain's got Talent.

I expect to see Mary there with her placard next week. And I'll support her in that.

Thank you Helvetica... my worry is that the pseudonyms give people the freedom to 'talk' to others, as they would never do to their face... which seems to me to be the basic rule (if you wouldn't say it to them like that in person, dont plaster it over the web).

IN my recollection.. long time back.. motherhood was much more divisive than I had been expecting (not only between the "working" and the "home working" mothers, but partly that of course)