Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Flip

1 2 3

Original poster

Can you believe this image

60 replies

modargh · 29/07/2020 16:45

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 Where does it leave female serving personnel, or homosexual households, or anyone that doesn't prescribe to this outdated vision of the family.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).

OP posts:

orangenasturtium · 29/07/2020 23:42

There is no ambiguity about what that represents. The last time I saw something so ridiculously clichéed and stereotyped was when our graphic design work experience student suggested this font for our Japanese office's business cards. But that was nearly 25 years ago and they were 14 years old. Even so, we were still shocked that a 14 year old thought it was okay.

combatbarbie · 30/07/2020 00:02

Genuinely interested (as a serving woman myself) what image you think they could have used?

Yes I agree it's a stereotypical image but what image could they have used that wouldn't upset a portion of service families? With the kids shoes I get it, they could have easily used a pink and blue pair of converse to identify boy/girl children, but one pair of boots has to be there to represent the serving person.

Maybe the pink stilettos (to be honest given the uproar they clearly intended to cause, I'm shocked they didn't use white stilettos.... If you know, you know....) should have been a pair of white vans?

DidoLamenting · 30/07/2020 05:25

@dementedma

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

My thoughts exactly.

DidoLamenting · 30/07/2020 05:29

They could’ve easily done eg. two pairs of adult, androgynous boots/converse and two pairs of colourful wellies/trainers for the kids

I've never owned a pair of "adult androgynous boots" /converse" in my life. A picture like that would not suggest to me a family with a woman in it or that it was meant to represent me.

KatySun · 30/07/2020 06:59

combatbarbie I do not know any woman in my civilian life who would wear those pink shoes, aside from evening wear or similar. A pair of office work shoes or boots, trainers (these are usually quite gendered and women have smaller feet, usually), I also have a pair of flowery converse. There are many ways to make civilian shoes gendered female, without going for impractical shoes. Impractical because they would get dirty easily and you cannot run very far. Thinking about the school run, there is one mum who wears shoes equally impractical and even then not all the time.

I have a girl and a boy - my daughter has black converse but yes, as a smaller child her shoes were pink and purple and those kind of colours sometimes but they were not shiny satin. She had ballet shoes for ballet and they were not in the family shoe line.

There are many different ways to represent a family which does not fall back on restrictive gender stereotypes.

Original poster

modargh · 30/07/2020 08:02

@combatbarbie I don't think they should have tried to encapsulate the military family in one image at all. It's impossible, and again, considering the nature of the report they should step back and realise there's no way to do that inclusively so don't try. They could of had a montage of real military families, or nothing, as you serve you know the military is at least 20 years behind the rest of society. They should be taking longer to consider these decisions, not less time.

A picture paints a thousand words after all, and what that image says is in direct conflict with what the report is supposed to be doing. It's lazy, unintelligent and ignorant.

OP posts:

DidoLamenting · 30/07/2020 15:43

I do not know any woman in my civilian life who would wear those pink shoes, aside from evening wear or similar

I would wear shoes like that with day summer dresses, not always, but certainly nothing unusual.

I wouldn't be seen dead in androgynous or gender neutral footwear.

And can you cut out the "so impractical" stuff. My shoes are practical for what I need and want to do.

Original poster

modargh · 30/07/2020 15:55

@DidoLamenting the point is, they are not the working shoes of someone in the military. Let's face it, they're not a daily shoe for most women going about their everyday lives these days. It's an outdated image of a hard working man with a pretty woman, whilst of course this will fit some families, and won't be offensive to everyone, for the content of the report it is wildly inappropriate.

What does it say to young boys and girls looking at that image? It says boys become soldiers and women are about looks. That's the crux of it, you can deny it, try to colour it as something else, but that is a stereotype we have been dealing with for decades and is being used as the face of a 2020 report into military families.

OP posts:

Original poster

modargh · 30/07/2020 16:16

And let's be honest they're not working shoes end of really. How many women go to work in pink/white heels. They scream housewife to me. Which is what a military spouse traditionally was. Nothing wrong with being a housewife, but again, it's about what's appropriate for this report, moving away from stereotypes, and the MOD being equipped to support the modern family.

OP posts:

CuriousaboutSamphire · 30/07/2020 16:17

Ah, the pretty pastel female shoes, safe, neat and tidy, protected by the Boots of Man.

And the Converse of Boy, literally and figuratively, adventurous, independent and stepping out to make his own place in the world.

They chose the image, they know what they are saying. And the 1950s is strongly represented there.

Original poster

modargh · 30/07/2020 16:19

(They also scream officer family to me but that's a debate we really don't need to get into ha!)

OP posts:

maxicheddar · 30/07/2020 16:31

I agree. If you want to write a report that tries to get people to identify with each other and others embracing diversity, it strikes me as being a really thick-headed incongruous idea to then try to simplify all those people's experiences into one single photo, bettered only by picking one that is so cliched. Fail.

Timmytoo · 30/07/2020 16:37

I don't see any pictures. Could they have taken them off?

Original poster

modargh · 30/07/2020 16:39

@Timmytoo no it's still there sadly, can you see it on this link? assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/895237/Living_in_our_shoes__Summary__1__embargoed_30_June.pdf

OP posts:

DidoLamenting · 30/07/2020 16:57

@modargh

How utterly judgemental. "They scream housewife to you"

Oh how dreadful. I occasionally wear pink , heeled shoes to work. I'm a partner in one of Scotland's largest law firms but I'd "scream housewife" to you . Even if I were a housewife- so what. Try looking at your own prejudices.

CuriousaboutSamphire · 30/07/2020 17:08

Good for you. Are you defined by your shoes? Do you refute the stereotype being discussed? Do you dismiss the idea that some women wish to challenge the stereotype whilst supporting the individual choices of every woman?

Believe me, it's not all about you!

Goosefoot · 30/07/2020 17:22

The heels are a bit odd, not many people wear such things regularly. It would have been easy and more relatable to have picked more typical footware.

But as for being a husband/wife family - the fact is that heteronormativity is in fact normative, in the sense that it accounts for a strong majority of families.

Goosefoot · 30/07/2020 17:23

But I would say heels suggest a career women to me. Not a housewive. You'd need sneakers for that.

Original poster

modargh · 30/07/2020 18:32

@DidoLamenting this is report about FORCES families, amongst which there are female forces personnel, the same to @Goosefoot it's less about the fact it's a male/female couple which yes is statistically more common (although again not terribly inclusive for a report trying to support forces families in all their forms) it's the fact they've put the man in the boots and the woman in the non serving role, well that's one of the issues there are a number in the image, the fact some women wear heels like that to work does not change the ghastly stereotyping and the cringeworthy disregard for female forces personnel, AGAIN in light of the context of the report, I don't care if statistically more men serve.

@Goosefoot I wasn't thinking housewife from this decade. I don't think they look like career women's shoes personally. Even if they were black I could forgive it more (as personnel can wear black heels).

OP posts:

Original poster

modargh · 30/07/2020 18:32

Sorry not sure why that bolded part of the post

OP posts:

Matildatoldsuchdreadfullies · 30/07/2020 18:36

I’m a little bit irritated at the suggestion women (lesbian or otherwise) don’t have big feet. My feet are the same size as my DH (who is not a small man). DD (16) has even bigger feet.

JKRisagryff · 30/07/2020 21:18

Yes Matilda on average men’s feet are four sizes bigger than women’s but it goes without saying that some women have larger than average feet and some men have smaller than average feet. But does your husband wear size 5 pink stilettos? Because otherwise this image is still not representative of you and your family.

And it doesn’t seem likely either that what they’re trying to represent is a lesbian woman wearing size 12 boots. It seems pretty blatant what they’re actually going for.

TitianaTitsling · 30/07/2020 21:26

@modargh

(They also scream officer family to me but that's a debate we really don't need to get into ha!)

Really? Why not? So you don't see these shoes as representative of you therefore they can represent no-one?

DidoLamenting · 30/07/2020 22:06

I wasn't thinking housewife from this decade. I don't think they look like career women's shoes personally. Even if they were black I could forgive it more (as personnel can wear black heels)

Try broadening your mind. You are extremely judgemental

Your point about it being "service woman" is irrelevant. The picture is clearly meant to represent a household of different members. Pairs of boots won't do that.

It isn't saying female members of the army wear shoes like that on duty. You seem to have decided that no female army member would ever wear them.

You really are very patronising and narrow minded. Your ridiculous comments about housewives and what a career woman should wear are risible.

DidoLamenting · 30/07/2020 22:10

Good for you. Are you defined by your shoes?

Well according to modargh indeed I am- my shoes would scream "housewife" to her.

Aside from demonstrating her pitiful lack of imagination and rigid and judgemental application of stereotypes what exactly is wrong with being a housewife?

Flip

1 2 3