The mini-skirt of the Internet?

I’m going to attempt to live blog from the Social Media Week London “Women In A Room” event. When I say live blog, I really only mean “write while it happens so my laziness and short-timedness don’t mean I never write at all”. I will then, should this go ito plan, upload it pretty much straight after the event. You will of course then be captivated and simultaneously feel like you’ve been here all the time, while wishing you had been.

Great huh?

Well let’s just see how we go…

A hush descends … (Too theatrical?)

….

And now I’m on my train home. I didn’t write a jot of this during the event (I posted a few tweets though). Reason was, the event was excellent and I was too busy being a Woman In A Room. Plus there was much more participation than I’d anticipated and very little sit-back-and-think-of-feminism.

So here are my post-event thoughts.

Format: excellent. A couple of panellists, no presentations, just some questions to get them talking and to get the room warmed up. The wine was good too, for making friends. We then had a few questions (actually really informed comments more than questions) from the floor, before swiftly breaking into discussion groups. Brilliant chat followed, then more informal continuation of discussion and (ironically?) the socially normal closure by twitter name exchange.

Discussion: while the Laurie Penny article ostensibly started us off, the evening centred more on social media than I had anticipated. I was expecting something more broadly looking at women commenting and receiving comment online. I was imagining a couple of recent bad experiences I’d had commenting on articles in right leaning online papers.

So at first I confess to thinking the evening would be more basic, topic-wise, than I’d hoped. Oh ego-laden me…

The group I was part of included a community manager/PR person, a UI specialist and a feminist YouTube channel owner. And the topics we covered ranged from:

- the threat of the anonymous commenter, and the opportunities when using anonymity yourself

- the responsibility of media and community managers around moderation

- the ‘genderisation’ of language, tone and approach in social media

- the usefulness of multiple, disparate and fragmented social media channels to attempt to represent the many faces of a modern human (& the journeys they may be on)

The memorable bit: a question asking for the panellists’ opinions on a social meme which saw women tweeting and calling out abusive and rude names they are called under the #thingsyoucallme hashtag. One of the panellists said she’d be cautious of bringing attention to negativity and negative persons (disclaimer: I’m massively paraphrasing), and that by using their language (e.g. The C word) it reflects on you. Memorable? Yes, coz I got a bit angry and shakily told the room it reminded me of women rape victims being told that public knowledge of the rape will reflect badly on them. I stand by my comment and essentially….

Conclusion: …. I loved the event because it *wasnt* a bunch of women agreeing. Noone had an air of feeling they needed to agree for solidarity. We disagreed (often the commenting audience disagreeing with the panel) without aggression or accusation. But in the spirit of discussion and thought.

Well done Women In A Room. I’ll be back!

I’ll edit to add links when on a computer. Just google Women in a room for now!

Is it our mums’ fault?

A survey from Netmums was splashed all over the papers in the UK on Wednesday: mums are more critical of their daughters than their sons, it said.

There are some pretty interesting discussions that could be had around the research, drawing links to the one feminist tome I have actually read (Germaine Greer’s The Female Eunuch).  In TFE, Greer reckons it is mothers who unconsciously create “female” attributes in the next generation of women – being more protective of them which makes them averse to taking risks, and teaching them enjoyment in looking pretty etc.   These “female” attributes are then banded around and used to beat women into submission when they dare suggest that our biological make up does NOT predispose us to “female” (read: underpaid, undervalued) roles in society.

But, believe it or not, this wasn’t the thing that struck me the most. This was:

“The 2,500-strong survey by parenting website Netmums found that although almost one half of mothers say they know it is wrong to treat boys and girls differently, almost 90% admit they do exactly that” (quoted from The Guardian).

No it’s not the 90% figure… look again…

ALMOST A HALF of mothers say they know its wrong to treat boys and girls differently? Do more than half of UK mothers REALLY think it’s right and proper to treat their children differently depending on gender? That worries me.

Jimmy Carter and The Elders

Former US president Jimmy Carter wrote an editorial a couple of weeks ago that rocked my world in a fabulous way.  I wanted to share it with you all.

I wonder whether some of the more regular readers here at AWW thought I had missed it.  I hadn’t, I was just trying to decide what to write about it that could appropriately introduce such a great sentiment. In the end I decided to keep it brief and let his article speak for itself.

Jimmy Carter has severed his ties with the Southern Baptist Convention due to its refusal to acknowledge equality of women.  He says that after six decades of involvement it was a difficult and painful decision;

“It was, however, an unavoidable decision when the convention’s leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses and claiming that Eve was created second to Adam and was responsible for original sin, ordained that women must be “subservient” to their husbands and prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors or chaplains in the military service.”

Who knows what he, and the other Elders (including Nelson Mandela, Kofi Annan, Desmond Tutu and Aung San Suu Kyi) actually plan to do to pursue their opinions through into tangiable actions.  For now, I am just over the moon to see such highly regarded individuals focusing on global equality for women. 

You can read Jimmy Carter’s feminist editorial here.  Highly recommended reading.

How much equality can women deal with?

This morning’s Australian Financial Review features a column by Catherine Fox (online is subscription or purchase only) reflecting on comments made by Stuart Rose, MD of UK retail giant Marks and Spencer.

I don’t know much about the guy, but his efforts in recent years to revive the struggling iconic British brand earned a certain level of general respect from me.  What I read today has totally undone all that respect.

In an interview with British Sunday paper The Observer, Rose asserted that ‘girls’ “have never had it so good.”

He makes many throw away comments which I perhaps wouldn’t even notice in a pub, delivered in person, with a smile.  However he was giving a press interview and thought it acceptable to call the interviewer (Elizabeth Day) ‘Darling’.  Quotes include:

“Apart from the fact that you’ve got more equality than you ever can deal with, the fact of the matter is that you’ve got real democracy and there are really no glass ceilings, despite the fact that some of you moan about it all the time. Women can get to the top of any single job that they want to in the UK. You’ve got a woman fighter pilot who went in to join the Red Arrows yesterday. I mean, what else do you want to do, for God’s sake? Women astronauts. Women miners. Women dentists. Women doctors. Women managing directors. What is it you haven’t got?”

In The Observer Elizabeth Day suggests there aren’t very many female CEOs and in the AFR Fox rightly adds that we would like equal pay, promotions… My own addition would be a little respect from business leaders.

Day comments that she thinks he might just be trying to wind her up, but is that really appropriate from someone in his position?

The bit that really sticks in my throat is the idea that we have more equality than we can ever deal with.  Even if he is joking about this (and I suspect he isn’t really) it is a thought held by many men.  We are pretty equal now, aren’t we?  Surely thats a nice big tick on the whole women’s rights check list?

But can equality come in half measures?

More than we can deal with?  Sorry Mr Rose… I can assure you I am very ready to handle total equality.  We aren’t there yet and I will settle for nothing less.

Some heartening news

This post was originally published on Thoughts On Everything.

Usually better known for feminist rants, today I have some positive news for you on the status of women in Australia.

According to an article in Dynamic Business, womens’ status in the Australian workforce has significantly advanced since this time last year. While still not equal to men, in Australia:

The proportion of women to men in managerial positions increased to 74 women per 100 men, up from 41 women on the previous year

The number of women earning above the median income increased from 59 women per 100 men, to 92

While stunned that in 2008 the figures were *so* disgusting, I have to admit this is great progress. Big claps to Australian employers.