It’s great that the Bank of England has finally deigned to admit that women have had a major positive impact on British history, and that we do, in fact, exist outside the kitchen. However, we have to remember that we want more from our struggle than the scraps that we are handed down from On High.
When we are given relatively small victories, such as this we forget about the bigger picture, the larger fight. We perceive something which is not a change (we had Elizabeth Fry on a banknote for years) just the prevention of regression; not progress.
Did that need saying? Well, I said it anyway. Nor is blocking porn. When David Cameron is against good old-fashioned smut but not Page 3 it only says one thing- that he is pleading for the female vote.
In the same way, when the Powers That Be pat themselves on the back with a smirk, toast each other with a glass of Dom Perignon for their hard work towards equality, and have their self-satisfied smug stories splashed across every paper in the land, we will be blinded to the fact that women only own 1% of the world’s assets.
In fact, it will probably actually damage the cause a little, as when we argue with people who aren’t enamoured with the idea that women don’t have equal rights and that we need to fight to persuade society to treat them as equals, they can hold up this small psuedo-victory as a bastion of equality, ‘proof’ that society really, really cares about the plight of the Second Sex.
Forgive me if I dispute this well-crafted point when a majority of the people in the public sector jobs which are being cut are, you guessed it, women. Only a few days ago our Government decided that the best way to combat the deficit is to target young single mothers – arguably some of the most disadvantaged members of our ‘Big’ society.
Come to think of it, who are these people who are our supposed benefactors, and the apparent new Emmeline Pankhursts? The citizens who we should be pathetically grateful to for handing us this immense privilege?
Oh, you guessed it again! Men! Why are we not fighting to get more women in banks, instead of on banknotes? There are a mere 17.5% of women on the top 100 boards in the UK. That’s less than the proportion of female Conservative MPs. Does having the face of a long dead woman on a ten pound note counteract this?
It seems incredibly ironic that they think that we will forget our struggles for equality, especially when it comes to money, by putting one of our faces on a banknote.
Come to think of it, it is an incredibly white, middle class face that is being emblazoned on our tenners. Yes, you all knew that I was going to say this. And you will probably reply with the weary; “But something is better than nothing!” This phrase has been used by our oppressors for centuries, a small step towards victory is better than nothing, so shut up, bitch, and stop complaining. You get what you’re given and that’s it.
Don’t get me wrong, the campaign was led by some amazingly strong women and faced massive opposition in a valiant effort to get women’s issues in the national spotlight. But this spotlight focuses on the wrong facets of our movement, the material, superficial, showy side rather than the human one. It is telling that we are focussing on banknotes instead of people. It tells us something crucial about the priorities of the media, and of our government.
I don’t want to pour cold water on the efforts of these fantastic women and the hours they spent campaigning, but we need to stop focusing on the big, showy ‘advances’ that make good news stories and t-shirt slogans and start thinking about the humans whose rights we are fighting for.
I like it.
Let’s be honest this “campaign” was conducted by a handful feminists with too much time on their hands and a large degree of over thinking. I like the vast majority of people couldn’t careless whose face is on it, I am yet to come across someone screaming about it. What people do care about however is its value and buying power. You could print Bin Laden’s backside on it for all I care but I do care that my weekly shop 2 years ago came to £18.34 but the same items in the same volume now cost £25.89. Now that is something to get angry about.
Ever thought that the people in a job are there because they were the best candidate for the role? We have less women in boadrooms because either less women applied for those positions, or they just weren’t good enough
Good article, some great points! But just FYI, you might want to read this regarding the myth that women only own 1% of the world’s assets.
link: http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/03/women-own-1-of-world-property-a-feminist-myth-that-wont-die/273840/
I know the real number would still be shockingly low, and obviously less than 50%, but hey, we don’t do feminism any favours by perpetuating things that are wrong, however valid the point is.
“Don’t get me wrong, the campaign was lead by some amazingly strong women…”
It’s “led”. Can nobody spell these days?
‘Hmm’, I’ve heard that argument a lot before! And there are a whole host of reasons why. In particular I’ve had this argument suggested in relation to the question of why there are so many white actors in television and movies – the argument being that non-white actors either aren’t good enough or didn’t apply.
In terms of not being good enough, I think you are overlooking the fact that there are perceptions deeply embedded in the social mindset of who does and doesn’t belong. People already in power – who as I think you’ve already agreed, are indeed, as Helena points out, middle class white men – have a huge amount of say in who else gets into any new roles opening up. Have you ever heard the saying ‘a woman has to do something twice as well as a man to be considered half as good’? Certainly I don’t think most people think like that. But I think it would be foolish to overlook the fact that a lot of the elite probably do!
And that’s before we consider self-selecting bias :) If all you ever see are white, middle class, male bankers, as a woman or POC you don’t really grow up ‘seeing’ yourself in that role. Everything in society – from the history we study to the books that are promoted to us – promote the idea that the white male middle classes not only are on top and will continue to be, but that they SHOULD be. And self-selecting bias doesn’t always just occur at the point of application! If a young woman doesn’t see any future for herself in a career, especially when is too young to begin critically analysing social structures, she may not apply herself to pursuits that further her in that way. Every “get back in the kitchen” comment furthers the idea that there is a PLACE for women, and that notion underlies much of our everyday society in a huge number of ways. There are fewer women in certain fields of study because it’s made very clear to women that they aren’t wanted there.
I agree that in some cases, when a man and a woman both apply for a job, the man may be better. Much better, in fact! And maybe he’s hopeless, and the woman is better! The point is that a lot of the time, the people in charge don’t care. And that does a disservice to everyone – including society as a whole.
Helena, great article! I do agree with you that it’s important not to see this as a ‘great victory’. Commentators have said that they wouldn’t care who was on the bills and that’s a good point…and also goes to show how ‘normal’ the idea of 4 men on 4 bills would be. Imagine if it was 4 women – feminism gone mad, I tells ya ;) (I also quite liked on one news report the female reported added a quip about it all being well and good but now let’s get a woman into the Bank of England’s interest rates board).