Can you believe this image

[modargh]

So the MOD commissioned a report to look into the needs of military families today, it's called "Living in our shoes" www.gov.uk/government/publications/living-in-our-shoes-understanding-the-needs-of-uk-armed-forces-families

If you have a quick look at the link and see the front page of the report, you'll see the image they decided to use to represent the report that is supposed to review the needs of the modern MOD family, it is an image of scruffy boots, pristine pointed heels, some dishevelled looking converse and pretty polished ballet pumps. Ah yes, the M, F, M, F household with the man slaving away in the military with the delicate wife in her pretty heels with nothing important to do in her impractical footwear. The neatly presented little girl shoes, and mischievously placed boys converse....ok I appreciate I'm interpreting this with a specific agenda, but can you see what I mean?

An image that should encapsulate what the MOD is today looks like something out of 1970. Where does it leave female serving personnel, or homosexual households, or anyone that doesn't prescribe to this outdated vision of the family. I appreciate there is not one image to represent a family, which is why they shouldn't have even tried especially given the context of the report.

As a military spouse who has encountered sexism, regularly, as a result of my husband's career choice, in trying to pursue my career and have my husband's employer understand his career does not always need to take precedence and that our childcare responsibilities are shared (within reason, obviously it is a different lifestyle with a certain level of understanding of the commitment it involves from both of us) it is just incredibly frustrating. How can they understand our "needs" if they are still advertising the military family in this way.

So I complained to the review panel, and said I really didn't think it was an appropriate image for the report and asked them to re-consider, because it is not very inviting and ostracises a lot of their employees and families- in direct conflict with the point of the report.

The MP Andrew Selous who sat on the panel, replied to my complaint. You may want to have a quick look at his Wiki page to see if you can preempt his reply, if you're not familiar with him already as I wasn't. Needless to say the crux of his reply was that I was wrong, that the image was "deliberately" picked because the boots could be worn by both and it could be a lesbian household. This from the man who wouldn't vote for same sex marriage because "Jesus disagrees".

I just need to vent, I don't know what I'm looking for. I sent a very long response to him to explain why the image isn't appropriate and the response I had gotten on my social media from military employees and spouses, male and female, but I suspect I will be placed in the offended snowflake bucket.

Why can't people just LISTEN.

(Name changed as I wrote about it on my social media so don't want people linking me up to my previous posts if they're on here).

Oh gosh sorry that was longer than intended, the risk of writing a post on a PC rather than on my phone!

So he's replied again basically saying they did a really good job on the report and it's a shame I don't appreciate it. I'm so angry, I just don't know how to channel it. I'm thinking of emailing Jess Philips, I'm not in her constituency but I'm just wondering if a female opposition MP could raise it as an issue? My MP is just another Tory that embodies everything Andrew Selous stands for.

If you do want to peruse I'd suggest writing directly to the female members of the review board explaining what you feel is wrong with the image. I suspect they'll fob you off as well unless you can get some other complaints or publicity.
Realistically they aren't going to change the image now so maybe ask them to consider the imagery for future reports

@StillNotAGirl thank you for replying, I did cc in the female academics who worked on the report but haven't had a response from anyone except the MP. It's been suggested to me to take to twitter but I'm so thin skinned, it would consume my every thought and would upset me a ridiculous amount to be belittled and called a millennial snowflake which would be inevitable.

I’m with you - I find that image massively annoying. The neat little girl shoes next to the sexy impractical lady shoes are very grating.

Tbh I’m not sure I agree with you. I also work in defence if it’s relevant. The boots could be worn by either a male or a female soldier and the converse by either a boy or a girl. I guess it’s very hard to depict an image of family when there are so many different types of family, so they went with a rather boring one which most people would understand.
I’m always happy to take up the cudgels on behalf of women - after all i am one - but not sure this is the hill I would choose to die on

I was actually prepared to think you were overreacting. Then I saw the image Lesbian household, my arse. Do you know any woman who wears pale pink stilettos regularly enough that they need to be left by the front door?? Seriously shocking stereotyping.

@dementedma that was his justification, that it could be interpreted differently, but traditionally we know what they represent. I showed my sons and the first thing they said was they were a daddy's boots and a mummy's shoes.

Absolutely there is no image to represent a military family, that's why you don't go for the most dated stereotyped image and you just bloody avoid it!

If the report was about anything else I could just rolls my eyes, but look at the premise of the report! It's utterly ridiculous a report that's looking to better engage with military families and recognise their diverse needs in 2020 has gone for this image.

It is the definition of irony.

Maybe someone needs to tell Andrew Selous that lesbians don't have man sized feet...

I can see why it's irritating, sometimes it feels as though we're fighting a losing battle and this stuff will never change. It's the constant drip, drip, drip of sexism all day every day.

I don't blame you - this is appalling.

Surely if they were trying to convey the idea that in a family in the forces, everyone is affected by the job they should have just put several army boots in small/medium/large/children's sizes.

@twoHopes that's it exactly, the drip,
I know it's not criminal or worth too much time complaining, but it's just what the whole thing represents. The military community is a particularly backward community in this regard I'm not afraid to say, so I welcome a report that tries to acknowledge its need to modernise. But I just look at that image and I think whatever is in that report just doesn't matter, I don't care if it took 18 months, if that was the image they picked to package it then they really just don't get it.

It stinks, OP. Will send an email tomorrow asking to speak to their PR/ Press department and asking what kind of message they are sending out.

I agree with you - neither of the pink (coded female) shoes (adult or child) are at all practical or for everyday wear. Whereas the boots and the converse are. The image is very stereotypical and regressive.

And sorry, I am not sure how he could say the image was picked because it could be a lesbian household with a straight face.

Jesus, just had a look, that is so sexist and ridiculous!

Wish I had as much spare time as you do opie

@jassa090 I work full time with 2 children currently at home and a husband working away, I assure you I am not time rich, but being someone with principles it does mean I carve out time to call something out that I think is wrong. Let the irony not be lost on you that you just took the time to comment on my thread with nothing more worthwhile than to tell me how much time I have on my hands. I know an MP you'd get on really well with.

What’s with the Cons being off to one side? Are there regular issues of teen estrangement or going off the rails or something? I thought the placing of the Cons away from the tight knit nuclear family shoes was odd too.

Rebellious teenage boy who won't line his Converse up with the rest of the family. Or probably it just makes a better picture like that. But it's really sexist and regressive and it makes a mockery of previous attempts to attract female recruits.

No teen estrangement, the Converse are a messy, independent teenager and the ballet shoes a neat child close to mum. The boots have some independence and autonomy too, being at a more jaunty angle. The pink heels know their place, again neatly.

Everyone know that all the best pilots fly their fighter jets in spike heels, eh?

I agree OP, it definitely grates on me. No woman straight or lesbian is going to be wearing pink stilettos as a daily shoe. And lined up with the other neat little pink shoes beside it, it’s obvious what that’s meant to be representing.

Or course the boots could belong to a ginormous lesbian and the converse could be her wife’s and the pink stilettos could belong to their gender non-conforming teenage son and the pink ballet flats could be the dogs but that is obviously not what they’re going for.

The boots and converse could be worn by a woman, but we all know the pink shoes won't be worn by a man don't we.

I was a military spouse and these images that are rife served to alienate me from what is seen as the 'typical' military family. It can be a very lonely life and this only made me feel more so since such sexist stereotypes pervaded all such publications.
I hated it. Clearly they've learnt nothing.

Katysun that’s what irritates me about it - the neat pink, decorative shoes tidied away, a women’s touch.

I’m lucky if both of whatever DD has on her feet make it back through the door at all, they are strewn far and wide. She certainly wouldn’t be lining them up neatly beside my shoes, not to mention I haven’t worn a pair of high heels in over ten years.

They could’ve easily done eg. two pairs of adult, androgynous boots/converse and two pairs of colourful wellies/trainers for the kids. And whatever jaunty angles they wanted on whichever shoe to make the picture more interesting and show the different personalities in the house. Personalities which are likely nothing to do with the gender of those people.