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

[EleanorRathbone]

NOW!!!

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.

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.

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.

... 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 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.

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.

Well said butterfly!

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.

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.

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.

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! :)

Oh I don't know about older women enjoying relative privilege.

They do and they don't. Just as younger women do. The idea that they have security, is not true, one of my friends who is 60 is worrying about the council house changes this govt. are pushing through, she's scared that they'll force her out of her home when she's older. She's also found that her union rep, who 30 years ago would have moved hell and high water to help her because she was beautiful, is utterly uninterested in the discrimination she's facing at work. She also has to deal with the disability, ill-health, invisibility and contempt a woman with no sexual capital and no money can face. I think it's quite dangerous to think the grass is greener here and smacks of women being divided. One day, if we're lucky, we'll all be old, so I think we need to not resent the tenuous security, which is bought at a very high price, some older women have compared to younger. Besides, the security of poverty ain't that great IMO.

Oops cross posted with Kritique and something she said made me remember something: my aunt is in her eighties, living with a controlling, abusive husband who moved them out of their home into the country where she knows no-one and has no support network as she had when she was younger. It's harder to make friends, she's even more dependent on him than she was 20 years ago. He has succeeded in totally isolating here from everyone, just as he meant to. He doesn't beat her up anymore (doesn't need to, he can control her effectively without violence) and she is condemned to a life of real loneliness and depression. If he dies before her, her Stockholm Syndrome will ensure that his death won't release her.

Hey, she does have secure accomodation though.

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

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

yes, I'm not sure where the idea of 'older women enjoy more priviliges' comes from either. They will be open to as much abuse as older people do, plus more.
Having Mary talk about her thickening nails and other bits of aging isn't some kind of distraction, politically.
Inter-generational feminists? I think you mean 'older' feminists? Or those who knew their values very early in life, and 'know' much more in perspective than we do.

I really don't think you can argue that a remark about thickening toenails and making a broadcast about how Miss World doesn't bother you any more, is a thoughtful or politically accurate commentary on how male supremacy treats women as they age. There is an awful lot that needs saying about the position of older women in our culture - this broadcast wasn't it though.

And if getting older means you become less supportive of feminist actions and more willing to criticise them that's a problem. Thankfully what's true of Mary can't necessarily be extrapolated to everybody else.

Yes, I agree in context the remark came across as self-defeating, when placed against the Miss World comments. It's the whole broadcast people heard, not a little section.

I do strongly feel the rhetoric was misguided and justifying it by identifying the trope used is just not the point.

Having said, I think it might be time to accept the positives and move on from the negatives?

If you feel the need to move on do go ahead LRD.

I stand by what I said about this piece as Mary appears to stand by her undermining of the Miss World protestors.

Well, we're agreeing then. But thanks for saying I can move on the debate - what I was wondering was about what thebutterflyeffect said, about it being one of the ways of dividing women. Does anyone else find that it is really hard to judge ages by looking at women? I've noticed I can usually tell what age a man is reasonably accurately, most of the time. But not women, not at all. I think it's because of the way older women are made invisible in the media, and also because of the way some older women who are in the public eye try to look young - but also because it seems the ideal look for women in their early 20s is much more grown up (or maybe I just mean, much more expensive clothes?!) than my mum remembers it being when she was that age.

What do you think?

I think the idea that this is about ageing women is a red herring. Mary's toenails were a throwaway line, not a piece of political analysis.

This was about whether feminists should be protesting Miss World or whether the event doesn't matter now because the battles about objectification have apparently been won and the contestants are choosing to do it anyway.