by Laura Bates
The instances vary, but only slightly. In most cases, the exchange is strikingly uniform. The message, in almost every case, is crystal clear: as a woman, your body is public property and fair game for comment, instruction and policing.
This was so blatant, in fact, that in some cases the men even cited specific societal ‘requirements’ and assumptions about women’s bodies in their comments:
@Mari_Fflur: Months before my wedding, I fill my plate at a salad bar. Male colleague says ‘Don’t you have a wedding dress to fit into?’
@spunkyblah: I get told I ‘don’t need to drink diet soda’, as if being skinny is the only reason to drink it.
Others quite openly made it clear that they felt a woman’s food consumption should be based entirely around how it might impact on her attractiveness to men:
@chiara84: Have been told several times I should eat more ’cause I’m too thin, and men like to have ‘something to squeeze’.
@THATissooAshley: was told to ‘tone down’ concerning my taking plates full of food at a buffet because ‘boys won’t like me’. MANY TIMES.
This, really, is the key. That so many women have reported this frankly quite incredibly patronizing experience is testament to the strength of the myth that a woman’s physical form exists, above all else, to titillate men. It’s the same mistaken assumption that lies behind the command to ‘give us a smile’, or the belief that a woman in a low-cut top must be looking for male attention.
As incredible as it seems, some women actually experience moments in their lives when their entire sentient being isn’t focused exclusively on providing men pleasure. They might wear a strappy top because they are hot, for example; eat a burger because they are hungry; or drink a diet soda because they quite like the taste. Explosive revelations, I know.
You might laugh, but for some, the belief that a man has an automatic ‘right’ over the body of any woman he encounters in a public space is worryingly ingrained. Take, for example, this woman’s account:
@Molotovchicke: I was eating pasta salad on train. Guy walks over, grabs my food and throws it into bin. ‘You shouldn’t be eating that.’
This issue may not sound like a big one, but in fact it is closely interwoven with deeply damaging societal norms about women’s bodies. The unrealistic and objectified images of women we are bombarded with daily already have a huge impact on women’s body image and self-esteem. In a world in which many women experience near-constant anxiety about their bodies, having somebody you have never met before make a loaded comment about your weight just as you are on the point of eating something can be horribly unsettling. Several people tweeted that such encounters can trigger people who have had eating disorders. Others said it left them feeling too judged and uncomfortable to eat in public.
Even when the comment doesn’t directly reference weight, there is a heavily implied sort of disgust or shock at the idea of a woman eating:
@chazma85: all the time, eating chips recently and a man said ‘Bloody hell, you can’t get them down you quick enough can you?’
And, of course, as with so many other impossible standards, women simply can’t win:
@flumpmistress: Yes! Vending machines – so often a random male stranger around to ask: ‘Should you be eating that?’ #EverydaySexism
@nicnaclala: And sometimes the opposite if I’m eating a salad – you need more than that, have a cake!
The normalization of this bizarre belief that a woman’s choice of lunch is a public matter is exacerbated by its reflection in the media. ‘Not a model meal’ crowed one Daily Mail headline, after Helena Christensen had been caught in the shocking act of eating a sandwich. ‘Pregnant Kim Kardashian succumbs to cravings and gorges on burger and chips’ shrieked another headline, after the then-pregnant reality star stopped the press by having lunch. And of course, the words drip with the implicit greed of the women – Christensen ‘feasts’, Kardashian ‘gorges’. The close connections with body-shaming are there too – the Mail solemnly warns that Christensen ‘had better be careful with her eating habits in the future’ in case she ruins her model figure (reminder: she ate a sandwich). And in case we weren’t all completely clear that attracting men is a woman’s sole function, and that it’s only our bodies men are interested in, it even continues: ‘She could end up losing the famous 35–24–35 measurements that have made her the toast of men everywhere, including her current partner, Interpol frontman Paul Banks.’ Summary: woman eats sandwich, may get dumped by husband for getting fat.
One can only hope that the world will eventually come to terms with the shocking revelation that women do, in fact, eat meals, so that such vital headlines may one day become a thing of the past. In the meantime, I’d suggest following the excellent example of these tweeters:
@PyroClaire: A colleague criticized my food for a couple of months. I asked him if [it] was because I’m office junior or a woman. He stopped.
@LinziSue: Bloke: I find women who drink pints unattractive. Me: Great, I didn’t want to attract you. *buys another pint*
Originally published 24 July 2014
WHY SHOULD WOMEN RUN THE GAUNTLET OF HARASSMENT WHILE OUT JOGGING?
When out jogging, leering and lewd comments from men you’ve never met, as they whizz by in their cars, is exactly the kind of ‘encouragement’ that women dread. Yet, despite the fairly obvious fact that none of us appreciates harassment at the best of times, let alone when we’re gasping up a steep incline or making our way around a deserted park, it is at precisely these moments that many women find themselves the target of it.
For those who haven’t experienced sexual harassment this might sound shocking, but to many women it is the price they pay for simply choosing to jog, cycle or exercise outside. Plenty of women have posted on Everyday Sexism with similar experiences:
‘As I was running to my local swimming pool, a car slowed down beside me and a guy shouted “whore” at me.’
‘Was outside trying to enjoy a run, and in the hour I spent in public, got honked and/or shouted at no less than three times.’
‘I do exercise classes outside in a public park. Teenagers on bicycles yelling obscenities. Middle-aged men leering openly as I stretch. Men old enough to be my father saying things that make it clear that I’m obviously only there for them to look at.’
‘Cycling up Stamford Hill last Friday, a man grins at me, saying “lucky saddle”. I’m forty-one, and heard exactly the same phrase when I was cycling to school at sixteen.’
From comments about weight loss and women’s figures to sexually explicit invitations and aggressive verbal abuse, women find themselves facing a veritable barrage of unwanted attention. And the problem doesn’t stop there; in many instances it escalates further:
‘Just had my crotch grabbed at by man on bike whilst I was jogging in north London.’
‘I was cycling alone on a secluded road near my house a few years ago, I was about fourteen. A car drove up beside me, at speed and less than a foot away and a man reached out and grabbed my bum, nearly pushing me off the bike.’
‘I was out running by a canal recently. I ran past a man walking in the other direction who used the narrow path to his advantage and managed to grab a feel of my bum as I ran past.’
The problem is so bad that many women describe the coping mechanisms they adopt, from avoiding certain routes, to playing loud music through headphones to avoid hearing harassment. Many even said they had given up on exercise altogether in order to avoid it.
‘I live in north London. I used to run on a regular basis but no longer enjoy going because of the number of comments I receive.’
‘I want to take up jogging but without a buddy too intimidated due to previous experience of heckling.’
‘Just had to cut my run short & go home as felt very unsafe due to men driving past and slowing down, beeping and shouting obscenities at me out the window. I was out for five minutes. How is this fair?’
According to Sport England,
2 million more men than women play regular sport. Meanwhile only 31 per cent of 14-year-old girls do regular exercise, compared to 50 per cent of boys the same age.
The good news is that a number of women have described positive experiences after choosing to report incidents. The runner whose bottom was grabbed as she ran along the canal, wrote: ‘A few days later I called the police as I couldn’t get it out of my head that he had been there to prey on women, using the narrow path to his advantage. I thought the police would laugh at me for reporting something so minor, but they took it very seriously. They were even a bit cross I hadn’t called it in at the time. They came and took a full statement and will now have more officers out on the canal path to watch out for the joggers.’
Another said: ‘While out running on a reasonably busy street in broad daylight, I was stopped and asked for directions . . . I obliged and as I showed him on the map on my phone he looked down my top, made a sleazy remark then grabbed my breast . . . I calmly took his registration and went straight to the police. I was surprised by how seriously they took it. They thanked me for coming in! They agreed with me: this guy was out of order and his behaviour was not okay! He’s been charged.’
However, not everybody feels able to report incidents to the police, and it would be helpful to see more bystanders stepping in to challenge harassment, as they are often in a stronger position to do so than the victim. It is ludicrous that women are still made to feel scared, hounded and unsafe exercising in public spaces. And for anyone who thinks that harassing a jogger is a great romantic approach, this runner has the perfect response:
@deepoceandive: Big thanks to the guy who decided to follow, imitate & mock me whilst I was running :):) I now want to have your babies!!! #everydaysexism
Originally published 20 August 2015
THE MORNING-AFTER PILL IS SAFE. SO WHY IS IT SO DIFFICULT TO ACCESS?
A new campaign from the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) is calling for emergency contraception, commonly known as the morning-after pill, to be sold directly from pharmacy shelves without a mandatory consultation. The campaign highlights the fact that the pill can cost British women up to £30, as much as five times higher than in other European countries, meaning that it could even be cheaper to fly to France and buy it there than to visit a local pharmacy.
A 2003 report published in the Pharmaceutical Journal revealed that the high price – described by BPAS chief executive Ann Furedi as a ‘sexist surcharge’ – was a deliberate attempt to prevent women from taking it too often. As a spokesperson for Levonelle, a manufacturer of the pill, said: ‘The price has been set, in part, to ensure that EHC [emergency hormonal contraception] is not used as a regular method of contraception.’
BPAS also argues that the mandatory consultation women must go through with a pharmacist may be part of the reason it is so costly in the UK, compared with other countries where such consultations are not required. Given that the medication is considered very safe, even compared with other medications sold off the shelf, and that the NHS says it has no serious side effects, it seems likely that this is a means of influencing women’s sexual and reproductive decisions, rather than a requirement for safety reasons.
The comments of one spokesman from the Family Education Trust exemplified this rationale: ‘With no questions asked about previous medical history or previous use of the drug, there is a very real danger that it could be misused or overused.’ The same could be said of countless other off-the-shelf products, but the extra barriers only seem to come into play when a product is associated with female sexuality. And considering the lack of medical dangers associated with the morning-after pill, the ‘misuse’ or ‘overuse’ seems likely to be a moral, rather than medical, judgement.
So the major arguments both for the sky-high cost and the mandatory consultation seem closely tied to the idea that women cannot be trusted to make their own decisions about their bodies and sex lives. Not to mention the terrifying risk that, should the situation change, immoral, promiscuous women might run amok, foregoing other forms of contraception, indulging in countless one-night stands and choosing to pop morning-after pills instead of taking any other precautions.
Of course, it makes sense for a consultation to be available for those who choose it, as with any other product purchased in a pharmacy. Some people might want to ask about the efficacy of the medication within a given timeframe, or seek further information about issues such as sexually transmitted diseases. But this is a decision an individual is capable of making herself – not every person taking emergency contraception needs to be subjected to these interactions, often described as ‘embarrassing’ and ‘shaming’.
The moralistic overtones of this debate are the same ones that emerge during any discussion relating to women’s reproductive health – as if male lawmakers and commentators feel the need to wrestle women’s autonomy from them because ‘we know best’.
As a healthcare option for those who wish to avoid unwanted pregnancy, it is important that women should be able to access the morning-after pill as easily and cheaply as possible. But a 2014 study published in the European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care found that women in the UK were nearly twice as unlikely to use emergency contraception because they were ‘embarrassed to ask for it’ than women in other European countries. Nearly a third of all the women surveyed who used emergency contraception said they felt uncomfortable or judged when obtaining it.
That women have to jump through hoops because they aren’t trusted to use it responsibly is reminiscent of the ongoing Victorian-era legislation that means abortion is still technically illegal in mainland Britain. Rather than overturning the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act, the 1967 Abortion Act essentially created a loophole allowing the procedure only after two doctors have agreed that a woman’s mental or physical health would be harmed by continuing with the pregnancy. The law hasn’t been changed since.
Like the idea that a woman’s decision isn’t valid until two doctors have agreed to ‘let her off’ prosecution, the notion that we need a consultation before being allowed to take emergency contraception is outdated and patronizing. Isn’t it time we moved away from the Victorian notion that women can’t be trusted to make their own choices about their health, bodies and sex lives?
Originally published 30 November 2016
IT’S NOT GROPING OR FONDLING – IT IS SEXUAL ASSAULT
Numerous high-profile cases of sexual violence and abuse have been exposed in recent years, with the same words cropping up again and again: ‘groping’, ‘fondling’, ‘inappropriate touching’. What each of these terms usually means is sexual assault. But both in casual conversation and in the press, we will go to almost any lengths to avoid saying it.
According to the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the elements of the offence of sexual assault are:
• A person (A) intentionally touches another person (B)
• The touching is sexual
• (B) does not consent to the touching, and (A) does not reasonably believe that (B) consents.
The Crown Prosecution Service guidelines further clarify that ‘touching is widely defined and includes with any part of the body, or with anything else, and can be through clothing’.
Sometimes, the reason behind a reluctance to use accurate language is more compassionate than malicious – an attempt to avoid the reality of what happens to girls and women on a regular basis. It is easier to rely on euphemistic language, such as ‘groping’ or ‘fondling’, than to talk about sexual assault. But that doesn’t help, because we inadvertently end up downgrading the severity of the offence, which, in turn, helps to normalize it.
Undermining sexual violence through diminishing language is prevalent but not new. Consider, for example, the popular online meme that states: ‘It’s not rape, it’s a struggle snuggle.’ It’s a trivialization that leads to a culture where victims are doubted and/or blamed. Was it really sexual assault, or just a quick cares
s? Are you honestly going to make a fuss about a pat on the bottom? Sure, he’s the president-elect, but lighten up, he was only joking about grabbing women by the pussy! It’s the sort of language that allows a mainstream television programme to ‘debate’ the acceptability of sexual assault using a question such as: ‘Is a bum pinch harmless fun?’
By not pointing out how unacceptable this culture is, we become complicit in the message that victims are already receiving loud and clear: this isn’t really a big deal, you won’t be taken seriously, it’s not worth going to the police. According to aggregated data from the Crime Survey for England and Wales between 2009 and 2012, one of the most frequently cited reasons for not reporting sexual offences is that they seemed ‘too trivial’ to report.
It is a message so entrenched in society that the vast majority of women and girls are completely unaware that being touched on the breasts, grabbed between the legs or squeezed on the bottom, among other common experiences, could constitute sexual assault. Many girls come to see this behaviour as normal – expected even – and simply the price you pay for being a woman. This not only means that victims are much less likely to report what has happened (or feel able to complain in a workplace, nightclub or school setting), but also that perpetrators are unaware of the severity of committing such offences.
Unfortunately, the term ‘sexual assault’ has become so little understood that it is sometimes necessary to talk about ‘touching’ or ‘grabbing’ in order to elicit accurate responses. Far fewer people might report ‘sexual assault’ in a survey, for example, than would describe having been touched without their consent.
