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

@Kritiq Yes -- exactly what I was getting at ; thanks, m

Very much agree TheButterflyEffect. The intergenerational aspect of feminism is very important.

Wholly, I do have to take issue with the assumption that older women enjoy relative privilege, particularly the statement "almost all of them enjoy secure accommodation that young women can only dream of."

Many women in their 50's plus that have married young, been caregivers for their children (and perhaps grandchildren), haven't worked much outside the home and/or sacrificed their careers to support those of their husbands. That means that if their relationships break down, they have few options for employment, have fewer resources to call up on for legal support, could find themselves homeless and isolated, particularly if their support network was linked to support for their husband.

Older women are more likely to be financially disadvantaged in terms of pensions because they are likely to have made lower and fewer contributions than men of a comparable age. If their spouses were the same age or older, they are likely to find themselves in the position of caregiver if their husbands become ill or infirm and/or be widowed by the time they get to the point that they need care themselves. And, age is no barrier to experiencing sexual violence or domestic abuse, but they may be less well equipped to do something about it, due to the stigma of admitting it that hangs over from social values when they were younger. And, will they believed? Even if they seek help, most women's refuges and rape support services are geared up for the needs of younger women, women with children, etc. Then of course there is the emotional, financial, physical and sexual abuse they can experience from carers.

I've done alot of work with charities that benefit older people (e.g. Care & Repair, Age Concern/Age UK, Action on Elder Abuse, etc.) and when they speak of marginalisation and disadvantage of older people, they are really talking about women in the main because women ARE over-represented amongst the elder population and ARE socio-economically disadvantaged over the men in their age group. In my view, issues affecting older people ARE feminists issues in the same way that say access to quality, affordable childcare is a feminist issue because it impacts most on women as parents.

I do think there is an issue of older women becoming "invisible" in society, but also their issues being invisible particularly to younger women and specifically to younger feminists. Maybe some of that comes from the perception that older women aren't so affected by sexism or exploitation or abuse than girls or young women. Maybe it's the thought that "they've had their innings," and attention should be focussed on younger women and girls with a future ahead of them. Maybe it's from frustration that older generations didn't do enough to challenge the institutions of patriarchy or the belief that they colluded with it, contributing to the disadvantage still experienced by younger women today. Maybe it stems from the fear that we're going to be old one day and not wanting to be reminded by the experiences of older women today of things that will happen to our bodies, our minds, our sense of self, our safety, our support networks, our place in society one day.

Several members here have said that they didn't really "get" feminism until they became mothers. For others, the penny-drop moment might have been getting passed over for a promotion in favour of a less-qualified man or experiencing a sexual assault. I think our life experiences are bound to shape what we see as priorities in our own lives and for feminism as a movement. I dunno, maybe that is what Mary Beard meant about her personally not getting as worked up about beauty contests as she did 40 years ago because other issues have come to the fore for her as she has progressed through life. Maybe not that's not it, I don't know.

I do think that there is more that unites us than divides us, regardless of age, ethnicity, sexual orientation, with children or childless, whatever our class, health, etc., whatever additional label we attach to our experience of feminism and whether we see ourselves as academics, activists or advocates. There are rigorous discussions to be had, but I wish more energies could be ploughed into collaborating to make a difference, in whatever sphere we occupy, to tackle the mechanisms of oppression and patriarchy itself.

But maybe I'm a pie eyed optimist! :)

Hmmm, my understanding is that while the personal is political included violence, assault and exploitation, it was not limited to these areas. It also very much included personal appearance, the 'male gaze' and its effects on women etc. Haven't got time to dig out references right now, but I am thinking of bits of Greer, Rowbotham, etc.

I don't think it ever meant, 'it's only political if it's personal to me', and I agree that whether or not something makes you personally angry is an imperfect way to judge whether it's worth protesting against.

Maybe it is because older women, in many ways, enjoy relative privilege. Almost all of them enjoy secure accommodation that young women can only dream of. When we grow older, we will also be invisible, and we will generally have to strive harder, for longer. We may also face isolation and a lack of access to care and support. And still the sexual objectification that oppresses us and our dds seems more urgent.

If you campaign about issues specific to older women, I will support you. But I am going to direct my energy to those issues that will impact on my dc and theirs.

Apologies if this seems to be a tangent, but it's something I do find interesting.

In relation to the term, "the personal is political," I agree that this includes the recognition amongst feminists in the late 60's and 70's that the experiences of abuse, control and discrimination individually were part of a collective "whole" of oppression perpetrated through the institution and values of a patriarchy.

However, I don't think it's limited to that. For example, I've heard Ellen Pence (who led up the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project in Duluth, Minnesota in the late 80's early 90's time,) speak of exercises with women who've experienced partner abuse where they, too, are able to cite their experiences of abuse within the wider context of gender oppression (and other forms of oppression like racism, homophobia, class prejudice, etc.)

And, having led similar workshops myself, particularly with volunteers working in domestic abuse, I've seen the pennies drop as well. That's when people recognise that domestic abuse doesn't happen in isolation. The "personal" model tells us that abuse is perpetrated by rare and random crazy/drunk/especially controlling/lower class/foreign/whatever-makes-them-different-from-'normal'-guys men. It also implies that there could be things the individual victim does that invites/colludes with/perpetuates the abuse.

When one starts to see this as part of an overall pattern of oppression of women, the personal, individual "model" gets busted. In my view, once the personal is set in the wider political (and economic and social), context, it makes one more "attuned" to spotting systemic oppression in other spheres as well, like institutionalised racism.

So it doesn't mean that one protests against only the things that affect them most (although often in practice that is what happens because folks may have a greater personal interest in specific issues,) but that they are able to SEE the impact of wider political influences on personal and individual spheres.

Having said that, I do believe that issues affecting older women aren't always "top priority" amongst feminists, whether that is because they are often not yet older women themselves, because it's not an issue that is likely to grab the headlines or (dare I say it) because even feminists can be ageist.

In my view, speaking out about issues specific to older women, whether it's the societal belief that older women are invisible or dismissable because they are no longer attractive/good for childbearing, the pressure on older women to appear youthful to retain any kind of societal value, or other issues that impact disproportionately on older women (e.g. pension poverty, living in isolation, abuse by carers, lack of access to care and support, etc.) is just as important for feminism as addressing more "visible" issues like say sexual objectification or gender-based violence.

Perhaps it's the demographics of Mumsnet membership that mean come feminist issues seem to be discussed more than others? Dunno.

Well said butterfly!

That's not what the phrase the personal is political meant though.

The phrase the personal is political was about women's relationships with men and the abuse that went on in private, along with the exploitation. Like the fact that many women are subject to domestic violence or have been raped or sexually assaulted, or that women have traditionally been exploited in heterosexual relationships. It's only when women got together during the second wave to talk about what they thought were their own personal problems, that they realised there was a pattern behind these things and that they were deliberate.

Reducing it down to be able to talk about toenails is depoliticisation. Which I think was the underlying theme of Mary's talk - ignore systematic analysis, ignore sexism and just take a scatter gun approach. And why it's odd to hear her referring to Roman rhetoricians to justify her approach who were in fact all about the politics.

It is interesting (to me at least!) how far current feminism has moved away from 'the personal is the political'. For somebody like me (30s, but very much steeped in second wave feminism rather than present-day feminist activism - although I am a supporter), that is where Mary's toenails fit in.

And I would see that as part and parcel of defeating the patriarchy - in the sense that it puts women's experiences (as a whole, not just of violent oppression, although of course that is important) at the centre, and also undermines the media assumption that women's bodies are smooth, hairless and size 10, and if not there is something terrible and disgusting about them.

... sorry, double-posting ... I think the thing with men not talking about toenails or whatever reminds me of something Milly (I think) has said in the past, about how the patriarchy also tells people it's manly not to talk about feelings, and this is actually really shitty (partly for men of course, but crucially for women who end up with the sort of men who won't talk about feelings). I think maybe talking about bodies is similar - maybe the fact that men don't talk about these things isn't necessarily a privilege but more of a mixed blessing?

Anyway, as I say I am very unsure about this, which is why I keep putting question marks as I am questioning my own thoughts!

It's probably not worth following, don't worry about it.

I think you're right that it's difficult, with the way women's bodies are expected to be public property and men's are not, to negotiate any space where we can talk about women's bodies in a positive, honest way, without feeling we're adding more fuel to the objectifiers. My feeling is just that I do think we need to find that space - maybe this is actually another argument for women-only spaces? I'm not sure.

I"m not following your argument there LRD.

It's pretty obvious that male classics professors don't go on the radio and talk about their toenails. As Liz Jones points out, it's women who are expected to lay themselves bare in that manner (she helped lead the way after all).

If men could talk about their toenails and women couldn't, I'd agree with you, but actually I think this is more of the same old exposure of women versus the privacy and dignity of men, rather than anything progressive.

I don't think so.

I don't think that saying feminism could be about women getting older makes sense to me. That's not really something deciding 'what they think feminism is for', that's a characterisation of something that isn't feminism. But feminism is about defeating the patriarchy, and IMO women's bodies, and reclaiming a healthy image of women's bodies, is important there.

I'll shut up now though because I don't know what Mary was thinking about and it may be I'm getting away the discussion.

Get over - get older even.

It depends what you think feminism is for. If it's to acknowledge that women get older, then fine, talking about aging toenails and bodies would be part of that.

If it's about defeating the patriarchy and ending sexist and misogynistic oppression of women, then I think it's going to be a harder argument to make that toenail talk has anything to offer politically to that end.

Just to add, I don't agree with Mary's analysis that her loss of interest in protesting a sexist event is necessarily connected with age. It's possible not to support feminist action at any age. As Julia Long pointed out there were veterans from the first protest at the most recent protest. Many women become more, not less radical as they get over. I wasn't a radical feminist until my 30s. Second wave feminists like Catharine MacKinnon, Sheila Jeffreys, Andrea Dworkin, Mary Daly, Kate Millet who would be Mary's contemporaries or a little older, did not lose/have not lost their radicalism or their fire. Dworkin and Daly kept their analysis of and outrage against male supremacy right up to the end.

Cross-post - but Kritiq well said.

I don't think anyone should have to talk about their body, and it's true men are usually accorded the freedom to not think or talk about their bodies. But I think women talking honestly about women's bodies is an important thing. Whether you can think of it in battle-terminology like 'striking a blow' I don't know, but it's better than the idea that not talking about bodies at all should be the ideal for both sexes, I think.

I've peeked in and out of this thread, but haven't felt I've had much to add. I'm not an academic but have been doing "practical feminist" stuff at the coalface for getting on for 30 years now.

I just wanted to expand on something said by messyisthenewtidy (Sat 19-Nov-11 01:06:55) which might get lost in the conversation. I agree that there have been significant gains in the rights of women and addressing sexism since 1970 - particularly overt examples of this. We've had acts on equal pay, sex discrimination, divorce reform, criminalisation of rape in marriage, etc. and yes, 70's feminism gave us the language to describe gender oppression that wasn't there before. Subordination of women was just a "given" where as now, it's not - sort of.

But, what I think messy was referring to is that while the most overt examples of oppression are either illegal or not readily "tolerated" even by fairly moderate folks, its the indirect, institutionalised examples of sexism that are more pervasive now than ever before. So, while you can't say advertise a job as just for men, you can put enough features in the job spec so it effectively is for men only and/or have a culture that makes the role intolerable for women. You get the same effect without being obvious about it. It's like nailing jelly to the wall because those who perpetuate it can deny and deny that they are doing anything wrong, and even appropriate the "language of equality" to try and demonstrate how fair they are being, (e.g. but it happens to men, too.)

And more recently, gender oppression has been dressed up in the language of "choice" and even of "empowerment," which I find even more insidious than old fashioned, "women are this, men are that, that's just how it is." So, we're told now that there aren't many women in boardrooms because actually, they are better at striking a work-life balance than men and don't particularly want to be in senior management. We are told that young women take up activities like beauty contests, topless waitressing, stripping, etc., because they like it, it makes good money, causes no one any harm, is something that "empowers them," and we shouldn't criticise their personal choices.

By insisting these are "choices," it serves to shut down the debate. And, there is that extra layer that if you are a woman who has "chosen" something and you then don't feel happy/fulfilled/safe/etc., then you only have yourself to blame because YOU made that choice.

I sort of agree with Liz Jones. Talking about thickening toenails isn't striking any kind of a blow for womenkind. I'm not seeing male professors of classics at Oxford lining up to talk about their aging bodies. Men are offered the right of privacy unlike women.

If you're sticking around though Mary, a documentary on Andrea Dworkin and her work on pornography has recently been put up on YouTube. I've started a thread about it in this section and i'd be interested to hear your thoughts, given that you were a radical feminist back in the day.

Pan - would you really have said to a bunch of men discussing politics:

Lordy. Have you heard yourselves? Non-issue aggression? Personal undermining.? Wild deliberate misinterpretation. It reads like a feeding frenzy on another man as if he had poo-ed on your best-drawn picture at primary school. One or two of you really need to grow up."

Plenty of heated debates between eg men in the Labour party and men in the Tory party or just men in general.

There are some different views being discussed on this thread re objectification etc - no need for anyone to "grow up". I see no frenzy.

Your comment has really really thrown me. I can think of no reason for you to make it (despite your self-confessed like of this place) and other more measured posts - apart from unidentified male priviledge - and an unwillingness to consider your position as a man in a feminist space.

Book recommendation for you.