Gender Bias
This was not one of my original topics, but as I was researching for the section on MOFGA (Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association), I came across Gene Logsden's blog, with the article 'At Last, The Plowgirl Has Arrived'; written just 1 month ago (2/1/12)
http://thecontraryfarmer.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/at-last-the-plowgirl-has-arrived/
Logsden reviews the bias against women in farming from the perspective of a journalist for "Farm Journal'. This piece is honestly so good I would love to reproduce the entire thing; you should read it. This is the 3rd paragraph;
'...At any rate, after the plow became the symbol of agriculture in America, the role of women in farming did recede from the public eye. Women were supposed to stick to the kitchen and leave the real business of farming to their menfolks. This prejudice was astonishingly apparent even at farm magazines. As a journalist working for Farm Journal magazine, I often sat in farm kitchens interviewing farmers and their wives about their business. It was amazing how often the wives answered my questions much better than their husbands and how they so often did this by diplomatically and cleverly putting words in their husbands’ mouths. It was obvious that most successful farms got that way because the wives were smarter and more articulate than the husbands. But the wives knew how to keep the male crest from falling by seeming to defer to their husbands on every occasion. The wives knew they had to make their mates look like top operators so that they could borrow the money they needed to keep on going. Bankers were no different from farm editors. They wanted to deal with men: women weren’t smart enough to run a business like farming.'
http://thecontraryfarmer.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/at-last-the-plowgirl-has-arrived/
Logsden reviews the bias against women in farming from the perspective of a journalist for "Farm Journal'. This piece is honestly so good I would love to reproduce the entire thing; you should read it. This is the 3rd paragraph;
'...At any rate, after the plow became the symbol of agriculture in America, the role of women in farming did recede from the public eye. Women were supposed to stick to the kitchen and leave the real business of farming to their menfolks. This prejudice was astonishingly apparent even at farm magazines. As a journalist working for Farm Journal magazine, I often sat in farm kitchens interviewing farmers and their wives about their business. It was amazing how often the wives answered my questions much better than their husbands and how they so often did this by diplomatically and cleverly putting words in their husbands’ mouths. It was obvious that most successful farms got that way because the wives were smarter and more articulate than the husbands. But the wives knew how to keep the male crest from falling by seeming to defer to their husbands on every occasion. The wives knew they had to make their mates look like top operators so that they could borrow the money they needed to keep on going. Bankers were no different from farm editors. They wanted to deal with men: women weren’t smart enough to run a business like farming.'
Gender Bias in the Media (warning! crude language alert..)
Occasionally I see something so egregiously offensive that my blood boils. As I was working on this web site today (3/12/12). I was listening to 'The Today Show' in the background- the 3rd hour, especially designed for women viewers. And a Vagisil ad came on with its offer of products to 'freshen' you. The message being, 'you stink'. As they referred to it in the era of the Vietnam war, 'poon tang'.
And I recalled the 'welcome home' for female soldiers from the Middle East, a few years back. A 'Welcoming Committee' had gone to great lengths to imagine what they could do to 'help' the homecoming women- make them feel welcomed and appreciated.
They brought them fresh underwear. Got that? Fresh underwear. Another lovely message to women. 'You stink.' The most important, uplifting, empowering thing we can do for you, the image that we want to portray of you, your courage, your sacrifice, your superb identity is- you are smelly.
Do they do this for homecoming male soldiers? They do not. There is story after story of the brave soldier, usually still in uniform, surprising his child at school. No where, ever, have I seen any press of these (male) heroes being welcomed home with a change of underwear. So, I guess, they must smell better. Or be assumed to have other things in mind.
This message to and about women is specifically trivializing, demeaning, and dis-empowering. The implication is that the most important thing to you, as a woman, is how you smell. Just like the ads that imply the thing nearest and dearest to your heart is the condition of your kitchen floor, or whether your family has the right toilet paper.
Give me a break.
Ads for feminine hygiene products were also very popular from the 1960's to about mid-1970s. I just did a web search, because I remember that time, with its multiple advertisements and shelves full of 'feminine deodorant spray'. Here is one article; http://oldcure.com/femininesprays.html , I reproduce 4 paragraphs.
'...In the early 1960's, the cosmetic industry expanded from the underarm
deodorant to a more private part of the body-the genital (area). By 1971 there
were thirty brands of feminine deodorant sprays on the market and
Americans were spending well over $67 million annually in an attempt to, in
some cases, satisfy a paranoia of 'do I smell good?'.
'...When genital sprays first came onto the market,some saw them as being
offensive to women. Germaine Greer, Author of "The Female
Eunuch",commented that she had never "seen anyone lying around
overcome by vaginal fumes." Other leaders of the women's movement
joined in condemning the vaginal spray as a totally useless and demeaning
product. Dr. Natalie Shainiss, a New York psychiatrist, said at a senate
hearing in 1971,"the implication of need for such a spray conveys a
message of a woman being dirty and smelly-extremely damaging to a
woman's sense of self".'
'...In October of 1972 an FDA advisory panel of
obstetricians and gynecologists voted unanimously that genital deodorants
be considered drugs and subject to extensive controlled testing for safety
and effectiveness before further marketing would be permitted." Dr.
Bernard A. Davis, a Montreal gynecologist, reported treating about thirty
cases of inflammation of the genital area following the use of feminine
sprays. "Surely," he said,"in this gadget-conscious,product-oriented
civilization,we must resist those instances where a demand is being
artificially created for a product of questionable value. This is especially
true where even the minimal advantage can be more than out-weighed by
significant complications."
'...Though many changes have been made in these products over the
years, people with allergies, and those hypersensitive to certain chemicals
will still be playing guessing games with the cosmetics they use. CU states,
"The one cosmetic consumers can surely do without-even should all its
ingredients be clearly marked on the label-is the genital spray
deodorants." '
The source web site for this article is fascinating in its own right. This is the link;
http://oldcure.com/index.html
It's on my to-do list to look into it further.
And I recalled the 'welcome home' for female soldiers from the Middle East, a few years back. A 'Welcoming Committee' had gone to great lengths to imagine what they could do to 'help' the homecoming women- make them feel welcomed and appreciated.
They brought them fresh underwear. Got that? Fresh underwear. Another lovely message to women. 'You stink.' The most important, uplifting, empowering thing we can do for you, the image that we want to portray of you, your courage, your sacrifice, your superb identity is- you are smelly.
Do they do this for homecoming male soldiers? They do not. There is story after story of the brave soldier, usually still in uniform, surprising his child at school. No where, ever, have I seen any press of these (male) heroes being welcomed home with a change of underwear. So, I guess, they must smell better. Or be assumed to have other things in mind.
This message to and about women is specifically trivializing, demeaning, and dis-empowering. The implication is that the most important thing to you, as a woman, is how you smell. Just like the ads that imply the thing nearest and dearest to your heart is the condition of your kitchen floor, or whether your family has the right toilet paper.
Give me a break.
Ads for feminine hygiene products were also very popular from the 1960's to about mid-1970s. I just did a web search, because I remember that time, with its multiple advertisements and shelves full of 'feminine deodorant spray'. Here is one article; http://oldcure.com/femininesprays.html , I reproduce 4 paragraphs.
'...In the early 1960's, the cosmetic industry expanded from the underarm
deodorant to a more private part of the body-the genital (area). By 1971 there
were thirty brands of feminine deodorant sprays on the market and
Americans were spending well over $67 million annually in an attempt to, in
some cases, satisfy a paranoia of 'do I smell good?'.
'...When genital sprays first came onto the market,some saw them as being
offensive to women. Germaine Greer, Author of "The Female
Eunuch",commented that she had never "seen anyone lying around
overcome by vaginal fumes." Other leaders of the women's movement
joined in condemning the vaginal spray as a totally useless and demeaning
product. Dr. Natalie Shainiss, a New York psychiatrist, said at a senate
hearing in 1971,"the implication of need for such a spray conveys a
message of a woman being dirty and smelly-extremely damaging to a
woman's sense of self".'
'...In October of 1972 an FDA advisory panel of
obstetricians and gynecologists voted unanimously that genital deodorants
be considered drugs and subject to extensive controlled testing for safety
and effectiveness before further marketing would be permitted." Dr.
Bernard A. Davis, a Montreal gynecologist, reported treating about thirty
cases of inflammation of the genital area following the use of feminine
sprays. "Surely," he said,"in this gadget-conscious,product-oriented
civilization,we must resist those instances where a demand is being
artificially created for a product of questionable value. This is especially
true where even the minimal advantage can be more than out-weighed by
significant complications."
'...Though many changes have been made in these products over the
years, people with allergies, and those hypersensitive to certain chemicals
will still be playing guessing games with the cosmetics they use. CU states,
"The one cosmetic consumers can surely do without-even should all its
ingredients be clearly marked on the label-is the genital spray
deodorants." '
The source web site for this article is fascinating in its own right. This is the link;
http://oldcure.com/index.html
It's on my to-do list to look into it further.