Placeholder Content Image

Is traditional heterosexual romance sexist?

<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/beatrice-alba-126402">Beatrice Alba</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/deakin-university-757">Deakin University</a></em></p> <p>Despite progress towards greater gender equality, many people remain stubbornly attached to <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0891243218809604">old-fashioned</a> gender roles in romantic relationships between women and men.</p> <p>Conventions around heterosexual romance dictate that men should <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12144-019-00298-7">approach</a> women to initiate romantic interactions, ask women out on <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-019-01056-6">dates</a>, pay on <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00332941211057144">dates</a>, make marriage <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0743558412447871">proposals</a>, and that women should take their husband’s <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-016-0628-8?fd=5847139347577468%7C5071078435750678&amp;lp=/dating-women">surname</a> after marriage.</p> <p>While some might view these conventions as sexist and anachronistic, others find them captivating and romantic.</p> <p>They reflect differentiated gender roles in which men take the lead and women follow. Feminist <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/if-you-want-marriage-equals-then-date-equals/606568/">critiques</a> of such practices argue that they reinforce male <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0192513x10391045">dominance</a> over women in intimate relationships.</p> <p>So we set out to find out why women might still be attracted to these conventions in the modern world. We <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-023-01405-6">surveyed</a> 458 single women in Australia on their preference for these conventions, as well as a range of other attitudes and desires.</p> <p>The study examined whether these conventions might simply be a benign reflection of women’s personal preferences for partners and relationships. But we also considered the possibility that they might be underpinned by sexist attitudes.</p> <h2>What do women want from men?</h2> <p>One possible reason women prefer these romance conventions is simply because they are traditional, and people like traditions. However, many of these conventions only really took hold in the <a href="https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Labor_of_Love/nqTPCgAAQBAJ?hl=en&amp;gbpv=0">20th century</a>.</p> <p>Some provide a handy script that we can follow in romantic interactions. They help us to navigate the uncertainty of the situation by removing some of the guess work about who should do what.</p> <p>Another possibility is that men’s enactment of these romance conventions indicates their likelihood of being a committed and invested <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0891243213503899">partner</a>. It may also <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-women-including-feminists-are-still-attracted-to-benevolently-sexist-men-101067">signal</a> he has resources available to invest in a relationship (and family), which research shows women find <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797620904154">appealing</a> in a partner.</p> <h2>Women like ‘nice’ men</h2> <p>We <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-023-01405-6">considered</a> whether women’s endorsement of these romance conventions might be explained by their personal preferences for partners and relationships. Specifically, we predicted that the preference for these conventions would be greater among women with a stronger desire to find a committed and invested partner.</p> <p>We found women’s desire for an invested partner was indeed correlated with a greater preference for these conventions. This preference was also stronger among those who favoured a long-term committed relationship and disfavoured short-term casual sexual relationships.</p> <p>We also investigated women’s attraction to dominant men, since these conventions require men to take the lead and play a more active role in romantic encounters. As predicted, women’s attraction to more dominant characteristics in a partner – such as being assertive and powerful – was also correlated with a greater preference for these conventions.</p> <h2>But is it sexist?</h2> <p><a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-016-0628-8?fd=5847139347577468%7C5071078435750678&amp;lp=/dating-women">Previous research</a> has found that sexist attitudes and feminist identity are also relevant.</p> <p>We found women who preferred these romance conventions were less likely to identify as a feminist. They were also higher on <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2001-00159-001">benevolent sexism</a>, which is a chivalrous form of sexism that idealises women, but also views them as less competent and needing men’s protection. We even found that they were higher on hostile sexism, which is a more overt form of sexism towards women.</p> <p>Importantly, we analysed all these variables together to reveal the strongest predictor of the preference for these romance conventions.</p> <p>We found women’s desire for an invested partner and a long-term relationship no longer accounted for women’s preference for these conventions. However, women who were less inclined to short-term casual sexual relationships were still more likely to prefer these conventions.</p> <p>The strongest predictor of the preference for these conventions was benevolent sexism. This is somewhat unsurprising, since these conventions look very much like expressions of benevolent sexism in a romantic context.</p> <p>Most strikingly, overt or hostile sexism still predicted women’s preference for these conventions.</p> <p>In short, sexism stood out beyond women’s personal preferences for partners and relationships. This ultimately supports this idea that these conventions may be underpinned by sexist attitudes.</p> <h2>Is romance incompatible with gender equality?</h2> <p>Old-fashioned romance might seem benign and even enchanting. But some might find it problematic if it reinforces inequality between women and men in romantic <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0963721416686213">relationships</a>. We know that even subtle forms of <a href="https://theconversation.com/still-serving-guests-while-your-male-relatives-relax-everyday-sexism-like-this-hurts-womens-mental-health-116728">everyday sexism</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/no-chivalry-is-not-dead-but-its-about-time-it-was-174197">benevolent sexism</a> are harmful to women’s wellbeing and success.</p> <p>As society moves towards greater gender equality, we may become increasingly aware of how rigid and restrictive gender roles play out in the context of private relationships.</p> <p>Some might fear that increasing gender equality means the death of romance. But romance among those with diverse genders and sexualities should reassure us that it doesn’t require a universal and pre-determined script.</p> <p>Perhaps a more critical understanding of ourselves might help us relinquish our attachment to following a simplistic formula set by others.</p> <p>Embracing individual differences over inflexible conventions may also allow us the freedom to explore alternatives. We might start to see more egalitarian, or even female-led, romance.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/210546/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /></p> <p><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/beatrice-alba-126402"><em>Beatrice Alba</em></a><em>, Lecturer, School of Psychology, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/deakin-university-757">Deakin University</a></em></p> <p><em>Image credits: Getty Images</em></p> <p><em>This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-traditional-heterosexual-romance-sexist-210546">original article</a>.</em></p>

Relationships

Placeholder Content Image

Another sexist biological hypothesis debunked

<p>For over a century, the idea of ‘<a rel="noopener" href="https://www.pnas.org/content/118/23/e2026112118" target="_blank">greater male variability</a>’ has been used by some biologists to explain why there are more male CEOs and political leaders than female, among other things. But a <a rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12818" target="_blank">meta-analysis</a> in <em>Biological Reviews</em> has challenged this idea, finding that, in animals, greater male variability doesn’t seem to exist at all.</p> <p>“It’s easier to think of variability as like a spectrum or range,” explains lead author Lauren Harrison, a PhD student in biology at the Australian National University.</p> <p>“If you think about personalities, for example, we all fall somewhere along a spectrum that ranges from very introverted at one end, to very extroverted at the other. And so, variability is a measure of how spread out our values are altogether.”</p> <p>In 1871, Charles Darwin suggested that, in general, male animals had more variability in their traits than female animals, possibly because of sexual selection.</p> <p>The idea was almost immediately adopted by some scientists and non-scientists to explain that, because males were more variable than females, there must therefore be more ‘exceptional’ men, justifying their superior role in society. The concept has never been without its challengers, particularly among female scientists, but it’s remained pervasive.</p> <p>Harrison, along with colleagues at ANU, went looking for evidence of this hypothesis. She examined over 10,000 published papers from database searches on the topic, eventually narrowing the field down to 204 relevant studies on animal behaviour, covering 220 species (but not humans).</p> <p>Simply finding these 204 relevant studies was an effort. “I think it took me the better part of three months,” says Harrison. “And that was all that I was doing.”</p> <p>Once these papers were collected, the researchers used their data to examine five key behavioural traits in animals: boldness, aggressiveness, exploration, sociability and activity.</p> <div class="newsletter-box"> <div id="wpcf7-f6-p178706-o1" class="wpcf7"> <p style="display: none !important;"> </p> <!-- Chimpmail extension by Renzo Johnson --></div> </div> <p>And their results? “We found no evidence of greater male variability,” says Harrison.</p> <p>“So really, is it as general as we think? No, it’s not. So maybe it is easier to disprove than we think.”</p> <p>While their research didn’t include humans, Harrison says they’d be surprised to find the results differed there.</p> <p>“Our species covered things from dolphins to little beetles and everything in between. Fish, reptiles, birds, and even primates.</p> <p>“Finding no greater male variability across such a broad number of species shows that, well, in animals, we don’t really see this trend. So if we do see a trend in humans, maybe we need to ask ourselves why we’re so different – what would be causing these differences between men and women?”</p> <p>Current research on human variability hasn’t yielded heaps of evidence for this trend.</p> <p>“It’s all quite conflicting,” says Harrison.</p> <p>“Sometimes they find greater female variability [in humans], greater male variability or no differences. So I wouldn’t really say it’s a very well proven hypothesis at all.”</p> <p>She adds that this research is another indicator that social differences between men and women are more likely to have <a rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/people/culture/gender-stereotypes-stem-girls-participation/" target="_blank">cultural</a>, than biological, origins.</p> <p>“Instead of using biology to explain why there are more male CEOs or professors, we have to ask what role culture and upbringing play in pushing men and women down different pathways.”</p> <p><!-- Start of tracking content syndication. Please do not remove this section as it allows us to keep track of republished articles --></p> <p><img id="cosmos-post-tracker" style="opacity: 0; height: 1px!important; width: 1px!important; border: 0!important; position: absolute!important; z-index: -1!important;" src="https://syndication.cosmosmagazine.com/?id=178706&amp;title=Greater+Male+Variability+hypothesis+challenged" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></p> <p><!-- End of tracking content syndication --></p> <div id="contributors"> <p><em><a rel="noopener" href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/biology/greater-male-variability-hypothesis-challenged-in-new-meta-study/" target="_blank">This article</a> was originally published on <a rel="noopener" href="https://cosmosmagazine.com" target="_blank">Cosmos Magazine</a> and was written by <a rel="noopener" href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/contributor/ellen-phiddian" target="_blank">Ellen Phiddian</a>. Ellen Phiddian is a science journalist at Cosmos. She has a BSc (Honours) in chemistry and science communication, and an MSc in science communication, both from the Australian National University.</em></p> <p><em>Image: Getty Images</em></p> </div>

Relationships

Placeholder Content Image

Julianne Moore calls for “sexist” term to be scrapped

<p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Actress Julianne Moore is questioning how women are viewed and talked about as they age, calling for one particular term to be dropped completely.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Moore, who turned 60 in December, criticised those who use the phrase “ageing gracefully” in the latest issue of </span><em><span style="font-weight: 400;">As If</span></em><span style="font-weight: 400;"> magazine, according to </span><em><span style="font-weight: 400;">People</span></em><span style="font-weight: 400;">.</span></p> <blockquote style="background: #FFF; border: 0; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: 0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width: 540px; min-width: 326px; padding: 0; width: calc(100% - 2px);" class="instagram-media" data-instgrm-captioned="" data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/p/CQ03jz0DeEw/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="13"> <div style="padding: 16px;"> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"></div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"></div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"></div> </div> </div> <div style="padding: 19% 0;"></div> <div style="display: block; height: 50px; margin: 0 auto 12px; width: 50px;"></div> <div style="padding-top: 8px;"> <div style="color: #3897f0; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 550; line-height: 18px;">View this post on Instagram</div> </div> <p style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 17px; margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 8px; overflow: hidden; padding: 8px 0 7px; text-align: center; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;"><a style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 17px; text-decoration: none;" rel="noopener" href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CQ03jz0DeEw/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" target="_blank">A post shared by Julianne Moore (@juliannemoore)</a></p> </div> </blockquote> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">he described the term, especially when used while speaking about women, as “totally sexist”.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">“There’s so much judgement inherent in the term ‘ageing gracefully’,” Moore told the publication.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">“Is there an ungraceful way to age? We don’t have an option of course. No one has an option about ageing, so it’s not a positive or negative thing, it just is,” she said.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Moore questioned the perception that women in particular had some kind of influence over, so they could opt in or out of doing it “gracefully”.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">“It’s part of the human condition, so why are we always talking about it as if it is something that we have control over?” she asked.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Stressing the value of “inner growth”, Moore argued that people should be more concerned with how they continue to evolve as they age instead.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">“We are given a narrative as children that we keep growing through school, maybe go to college then, after school is finished, the idea of growth is done … But we have all this life left to live,” she said.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">“How do we continue to challenge ourselves, to interest ourselves, learn new things, be more helpful to other people, be the person that your friends and family need or want? How do we continue to evolve? How do we navigate life to have even deeper experiences?”</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Moore also endorsed a comment Helen Mirren made last year during an interview for O, The Oprah Magazine, where she hit back against the phrase “anti-ageing”.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">“Ageing is a requirement of life: You either grow old or die young,” Mirren said during the interview.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">“I take great issue with the term, actually. You can’t avoid ageing. The way I see it, you have two choices in life: You can either get older, or die,” the 75-year-old said at the time.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">“And I want to continue to see what life has in store. I think about Kurt Cobain and all that he missed. I mean, how sad is it that he never knew about GPS.”</span></p> <p><em><span style="font-weight: 400;">Image: Julianne Moore / Instagram</span></em></p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

Real estate agent forced to apologise for offensive, sexist post

<p>A blog post on an Australian real estate website targeting single women buying properties has gone viral for all the wrong reasons.</p> <p>The article titled "Buying as a single lady" was published on Bathurst Real Estate's website and was quickly removed after backlash on social media claimed the post was "sexist" and "misogynistic".</p> <p>The piece started off on a positive note, empowering women who are planning on purchasing a property: “You’re a single lady and you’re content not (to) have a ring on your finger”. But it then took a sharp turn that angered many people online.</p> <p>“You may prefer the emotional and financial back-up of a spouse,” the post reads.</p> <p>The article continues to suggest single women can "go wild when buying" as they are "responsible only for themselves".</p> <p>It also says women “are well known for reasoning with their hearts, not their heads - and many of us love to nest.”</p> <p>Women are then issued a warning, saying property buying can quickly go south “especially if there is no man beside you to offer logic to the situation”.</p> <p>The real estate agency swiftly removed the post from their website and apologised on Facebook.</p> <p>“This is so misogynistic it’s almost comical,” one woman who reposted the article on Facebook wrote.</p> <p>“Thanks so much for this super helpful blog post Bathurst Real Estate! I can’t wait for your next post on ‘Buying as a Single man’, Oh wait...</p> <p>“Next time I go to purchase anything I’ll be sure to bring a man with me to both pay for it and also offer logic, because as you said, women are well known for not using their head and I guess none of us have any money of our own!” the bemused woman continued.</p> <p>“This is the most offensive piece of s**t I have ever read,” another person wrote.</p> <p>“Holy s**t it had never occurred to me that buying a property would represent a big proportion of my hard work and savings! I thought it would be like buying a new eyebrow pencil or baking a cake!” another woman wrote sarcastically.</p> <p>“Does this mean that me and my partner aren’t able to buy a house because we are both women and don’t know how to use our heads?” a user asked.</p> <p>Men also seemed to be equally offended by the article.</p> <p>“I think they need a new password… surely this has got to be a hack from a sacked staff member,” one man suggested.</p> <p>Bathurst Real Estate claimed the post was written by a female from a content marketing agency who was outsourced to create content.</p> <p>The real estate agent apologised for any offence that was caused, claiming the article had gone live without their knowledge and they removed it as soon as they were aware of it.</p>

Real Estate

Placeholder Content Image

11 everyday expressions you didn’t realise were sexist

<p><strong>Words matter</strong><br />As humans, we speak approximately 16,000 words each day. That’s a lot of talking. Unless we’re learning a new language, by the time we’re adults, we do a lot of it without thinking. There are so many factors contributing to why we use the words, phrases and expressions that come out of our mouths on a daily basis, including differences in generation, geographic location, culture and education. Sometimes you may find yourself using a certain word or expression that now, in 2020, may seem archaic or insensitive. And though there is likely no malintent behind your word choice, it might have questionable origins or applications that you’re completely unaware of – like these 12 common expressions that have surprisingly dark origins.</p> <p>Considering that much of western culture and civilisation was built upon the assumption (by men) of male superiority, it makes sense that our language reflects that. For centuries, words and phrases have been used as a way to control women and dictate their behaviour. Here are 12 everyday expressions you didn’t realise were sexist.</p> <p><strong>Hysterical/in hysterics</strong><br />Have you ever described someone as being “in hysterics” or crying “hysterically”? Now, it’s just part of our everyday vocabulary, but its origin story is probably the best example of the multiple ways women have been silenced and dismissed throughout history. It starts with the ancient Greeks, who thought that a woman’s uterus could wander throughout the rest of her body, causing a number of medical and psychological problems, including, but not limited to weakness, shortness of breath, fragility, fainting and general “madness.”</p> <p>Centuries later, Victorian doctors (who were, of course, almost exclusively male) really latched onto the idea that the uterus was the source of essentially any health or psychological problems a woman may face. The diagnosis? Hysteria, based on “hystera,” the Greek word for womb. Female hysteria, as it was known, was a catch-all term for anything men didn’t understand or couldn’t manage relating to women, and was a valid excuse for institutionalising them. There is so much more to this story, but even though “female hysteria” was discredited as a condition – which, by the way, didn’t happen until 1980 – the word and its variations continue to be used to refer to someone who displays extreme and exaggerated excitement or behaviour. “Hysteria” can also mean a period where people are extremely crazed about something, not unlike the coronavirus panic buying earlier this year.</p> <p><strong>Feisty</strong><br />According to Karla Mastracchio, PhD, a rhetorician specialising in gender, politics, and language, the etymology of some words – like feisty – may not include a connection to gender, but the cultural history of the word shows that it has been used almost exclusively along gender lines. “A lot of the words that are particularly gendered have animalistic connotations – feisty being one of them,” she tells Reader’s Digest. “It’s usually used to talk about two things: an unruly animal, or an unruly woman.” But, it’s unlikely to hear an unruly man referred to as being “feisty,” Mastracchio explains, because the word has feline connotations, and it’s typically women who are associated with cats.</p> <p><strong>Career woman</strong><br />A good way to check whether a word or expression is inherently sexist is to ask whether a male equivalent of the word exists. Two of the most prominent examples are “career woman” and “working mother.” Ever heard of a “career man” or “working father”? Of course not. This harkens back to the Victorian ideology of “separate spheres,” meaning that a woman’s domain is the home, while men are in charge of the rest of the world and society, including working. So even 100 years later, when women ventured outside of the home to work, it was considered the exception, not the rule. And of course, if a woman has a career, there was the assumption that she cared about it more than having a family. Remarkably, the expression is still with us today, despite the vast number of women in the workforce.</p> <p><strong>Bubbly</strong><br />In addition to animals, women are also associated with carbonated or otherwise fizzy beverages – usually in reference to their personality. According to Mastracchio, the use of the word “bubbly” to describe women began in the 1920s during the flapper era and Prohibition. Though a popular beverage of the time, champagne – thanks to its bubbles – was seen as frivolous, light and not something that is taken seriously (despite actually having a relatively high alcohol content of 12 percent). As women were making social gains during the era (everything from shorter haircuts and hemlines, to voting rights), referring to them as “bubbly” was a seemingly endearing (though clearly sexist) way of diminishing their intelligence. And as Mastracchio points out, “bubbly” is also used to describe the sound of a woman’s voice, while men’s voices were “booming,” “deep,” or “rich.”</p> <p><strong>Perky</strong><br />As long as we’re on the topic of cute-sounding names that are only applied to women as a method of keeping them in their place, let’s talk about “perky.” Beginning in the 1930s, “perky” was a vulgar term used to describe the physical characteristics of a woman’s breasts, Mastracchio explains. From there, the word evolved to describe someone with a “lighthearted, young, plucky” personality (which, naturally, only applied to women). Interestingly, Mastracchio points out that both “plucky” and “perky” – along with other words like “chirpy,” “perch,” and, of course, “chick” – are examples of using bird imagery to describe women. Although there are both male and female birds in the wild, they are almost exclusively feminised in language and culture.</p> <p><strong>Shrew</strong><br />Most famously used in the Shakespearean play, The Taming of the Shrew, a shrew is a small rodent with a pointy snout which it uses to gnaw things like wood. But men couldn’t resist another opportunity to use an animal to describe women, and the word later came to mean a “peevish, malignant, clamorous, spiteful, vexatious, turbulent woman,” according to a 1755 dictionary written by Samuel Johnson. The reason for this association is thought to be the belief that shrews (the rodent) had a venomous bite, which played a role in various superstitions. A woman considered a “shrew” may also be described using another term reserved for women: shrill.</p> <p><strong>Frigid</strong><br />Yes, “frigid” means “cold,” but there’s a lot more to the story. As Mastracchio points out, this is another example of the Victorian perception of women as being frail and fragile beings, because as a woman, if you got cold, it means you’d be seen as particularly weak. “It’s gendered in the sense that you would never call a male ‘frigid,’ because being cold is not something that is detrimental to one’s masculinity,” she explains. On top of that, “frigidity” was formerly the medical term for a woman who has no interest in being intimate with her husband, or any other type of dysfunction (real or perceived) in that area.</p> <p><strong>Ditzy</strong><br />Though the exact origin of the word “ditzy” remains unknown, it’s another one that is exclusively used to describe a woman’s perceived intelligence (or rather, the lack thereof). “It’s another example of this intrinsic idea that women have their head somewhere else,” Mastracchio says. “You wouldn’t call a man ‘ditzy,’ because men are not categorised in those kinds of boxes. So it’s tapping into the idea that a woman’s physical head is not necessarily always on her shoulders.” Interestingly, the word “ditz” to describe someone who is ditzy, didn’t enter our vocabulary until 1982. Calling someone a “ditz” or “ditzy” immediately frames them as someone who is scatterbrained and not very smart.</p> <p><strong>Hussy</strong><br />Although the word “hussy” has always referred to women, it’s the change in connotation over time that makes it problematic today. Originally, “hussy” was a neutral term used to describe a female head of the household. This makes sense, given that it is a deformed contraction of the Middle English word “husewif,” which, you guessed it, is “housewife.” Traditionally, it was pronounced “huzzy,” but by the 20th century, the pronunciation shifted to match the spelling of the word. And while it started out meaning a housewife, soon “hussy” was used to describe any woman or girl. By 1650, the term was narrowed even further, and used primarily to mean a woman who engages in questionable behaviour.</p> <p><strong>Spinster</strong><br />In yet another example of inequivalent words for men and women in the same position, we have “spinster.” Unmarried adult women are pitiful “spinsters,” while unmarried adult men are eligible “bachelors.” As the name suggests, a “spinster” is a person who spins thread, and originally, it applied to both men and women in that profession. Eventually, it evolved to refer to an unmarried woman who had to occupy her time or financially support herself by spinning thread or yarn. In fact, it became the official legal term for a single woman starting in the 1600s. This remained the case in England and Wales until 2005, when they also retired the word “bachelor” for a single man, according to a 2017 article in Smithsonian Magazine.</p> <p><strong>Governess</strong><br />Hearing the word “governess” may conjure images of the classic 1964 movie, The Sound of Music, and Julie Andrews, who played a nun-turned-governess in the musical. This context – a governess as a woman who takes care of children – is actually pretty sexist when you look back at its origins. Unsurprisingly, it is the female equivalent of a “governor,” or someone who rules or governs over a place or group of people. At least it was in the 15th century. But as time went on, the domain of a governess went from having authority a territory or jurisdiction (in the geographic and political sense) to supervising and caring for children. Yet again, it reinforces the idea that women can be in charge of children and household duties, while men oversee everything else.</p> <p><em>Written by Elizabeth Yuko. This article first appeared on <a href="https://www.readersdigest.co.nz/true-stories-lifestyle/our-language/11-everyday-expressions-you-didnt-realise-were-sexist?pages=1">Reader’s Digest</a>. For more of what you love from the world’s best-loved magazine, <a href="http://readersdigest.co.nz/subscribe"><span class="s1">here’s our best subscription offer</span></a>.</em></p>

Books

Placeholder Content Image

James Bond is more than a (sexist) secret agent. He is a fertility god, a Dionysus of the modern era

<p>James Bond is more than a (sexist) secret agent. He is a fertility god, a Dionysus of the modern era</p> <p>“History isn’t kind to people who play God,” quips James Bond to supervillain Safin in the trailer for No Time to Die.</p> <p>The film’s release has been delayed yet again, to April 2021. It will mark Daniel Craig’s swansong as 007 and speculation continues as to who will be the next Bond. Will it be Idris Elba, Tom Hardy or perhaps a woman?</p> <p>Bond has long been criticised for his sexist attitudes, with even Judi Dench’s M in GoldenEye (1995) dubbing him a “sexist, misogynist dinosaur” . But what if we view him through the prism of Greek mythology? Is Bond, in fact, a contemporary incarnation of Dionysus, the god of wine, pleasure and fertility?</p> <p>In Greek mythology, the gods punish mortals for the sin of hubris. In our pop-culture pantheon, Bond is a deity.</p> <p>Dionysus travelled throughout the ancient world, sometimes by boat in the Aegean islands, sometimes in a winged chariot. Bond also circumnavigates the globe, equally at home on yachts or in helicopters. But his chariot of choice is an Aston Martin.</p> <p>Its logo? A pair of wings.</p> <p><strong>Secrets of wine – and martinis</strong><br />Wherever Dionysus went he initiated his followers in the secrets of wine-making. Wherever Bond goes he initiates the mixologist in the secrets of making the perfect Vesper martini.</p> <p>In Ian Fleming’s Diamonds are Forever (1956), Bond tells the bartender to combine three measures of Gordon’s gin, one of vodka and half a measure of Kina Lillet with a thick slice of lemon peel and poured into a deep champagne goblet. In Casino Royale (2006), he adds the martini must be shaken “until it’s ice cold.”</p> <p>Unlike mortals, Bond’s prodigious consumption of alcohol does him no harm, indeed he is hailed as “the best shot in the Secret Service.”</p> <p>In a study of the novels published in the British Medical Journal in 2013, researchers estimated Bond consumed an average of 92 units of alcohol per week with a maximum daily intake peaking at 49.8 units.</p> <p>There were days when Bond abstained – 12.5 out of a total 87.5 days – but mostly because he was being held prisoner.</p> <p><strong>Weapons of disguise</strong><br />Dionysus carries a thyrsus: a sacred pinecone-tipped staff wreathed in vines. The thyrus is a phallic symbol, sometimes displayed with a kantharos wine cup, denoting female sexuality.</p> <p>The union of the two created a powerful representation of fertility and rebirth. Dionysus also turned his thyrsus into a dangerous weapon by secreting an iron tip in its point.</p> <p>As a secret agent, Bond conceals his Walther PPK pistol in a hidden holster, but one of his most lethal weapons is disguised as a cigarette – a potent symbol of sexual union in cinema, where smoking a cigarette signifies the completion of copulation.</p> <p>In You Only Live Twice (1967) the villain makes the fatal mistake of allowing Bond “one last fag.” It turns out to be tipped with a rocket-propelled bullet, proving that cigarettes aren’t just lethal for smokers.</p> <p><strong>Gods of possession</strong><br />Dionysus was deeply attractive to his female followers, Maenads, who would drink themselves into a frenzy to be possessed by the god. Likewise, Bond is pursued by a bevy of beautiful women – Pussy Galore, Plenty O’Toole and Honey Rider – panting to be possessed.</p> <p>As with the Maenads, devotion to Bond comes with its perils. In Live and Let Die (1973), Bond girl, Solitaire loses her psychic powers after a close encounter of the passionate kind with Bond and becomes a target for heroin baron, Dr Kananga.</p> <p>In Goldfinger (1964), Jill Masterton is punished by the eponymous villain for betraying him to Bond, dying of skin suffocation when he covers her in gold paint.</p> <p>This puts a new spin on the Midas myth in which Dionysus granted the king’s wish to be blessed with the golden touch, only to discover that it is a curse making it impossible to eat or even embrace his daughter without turning her into metal.</p> <p><strong>Ecstasy and death</strong><br />In ancient Greece, the number seven was sacred and composed of the number three (the heavenly male) and the number four (the heavenly female). Bond’s number in the secret service – Agent 007 – is thus the perfect number to represent a modern-day fertility god.</p> <p>Like Dionysus who is depicted in a number of forms which range from an older, bearded god to a long-haired youth, Bond has appeared in a variety of guises from the debonair David Niven to the strapping Daniel Craig.</p> <p>Yet regardless of his age and physique, Bond’s dual Dionysian nature brings either divine ecstasy in bed, or brutal death to his foes.</p> <p>Dionysus almost dies before he is born but his father Zeus saves him. Later he returns from the dead after he is dismembered by the Titans.</p> <p>Bond says, “You only live twice: once when you are born and once when you look death in the face.”</p> <p>Like Dionysus, Bond is resurrected in Skyfall (2012) after he is accidentally shot by Moneypenny. The bullet penetrates his body causing him to fall off a train and into a waterfall where he sinks to the bottom. But Bond is immortal. He returns to save another day.</p> <p>When it finally reaches cinemas, No Time to Die will be the last hurrah for Craig, but gods do not die. Bond will live on.</p> <p><em>Written by Nicole Lenoir-Jourdan. This article first appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/james-bond-is-more-than-a-sexist-secret-agent-he-is-a-fertility-god-a-dionysus-of-the-modern-era-131040">The Conversation</a>.</em></p>

Movies

Placeholder Content Image

Mum's outrage over offensive washing label

<p>Missguided, an online retailer of young women’s fashion, appears to be living up to its name after a woman discovered a tone-deaf message on the washing instructions of her teenage daughter’s beanie.</p> <p>University manager Sian Robson from Ashford, England, took to Twitter to share her outrage after finding “sexist” washing instructions on the care label of her 13-year-old daughter’s hat.</p> <p>The label instructs the wearer to “Give this to your mum, she’ll wash it”.</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> <p dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/everydaysexism?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#everydaysexism</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/Missguided?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Missguided</a> Maybe it's just possible Dad is capable of putting on a wash too!? <a href="https://t.co/TgCXM8giqr">pic.twitter.com/TgCXM8giqr</a></p> — sian robson (@sianrobson) <a href="https://twitter.com/sianrobson/status/948470847731314688?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 3, 2018</a></blockquote> <p>“At first I didn’t believe that a female fashion brand would put something like that on a product,” Sian told <a href="https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5275205/mothers-horror-at-finding-sexist-washing-instructions-in-daughters-hat-saying-give-it-to-mum/" target="_blank"><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><em>The Sun</em></span></strong></a>.</p> <p>“My daughter told me to look at the washing instructions in her hat because they are awful. It’s not something you would expect to see.</p> <p>“I know they’re trying to be funny but it’s a bit naff. It just didn’t sit right with me. I looked on the Missguided website and I noticed they were all for promoting girl power.</p> <p>“They seem like a brand that want to encourage young women to break stereotypes so I’m not sure why they would have something like this in their clothing.</p> <p>“Although the hat is for adults a lot of their customers are young teens, they should be encouraging them and showing them that men can also do the household chores.”</p> <p>Sian said she understands the note was “probably just a joke”, but that in this day and age, it’s inappropriate.</p> <p>“It isn’t the sixties anymore,” she fumed. “I’m sure that a lot of men and dads would admit that they also help with the washing, it isn’t something to be embarrassed about.</p> <p>“I’m not a person who complains a lot about things being sexist but I can see that these instructions aren’t right.”</p> <p>She also expressed concern that the label could upset young women who might not have a mum or parents to do the washing for them.</p> <p>“I’d just rather they remove it from the hat, it isn’t needed.”</p> <p>Tell us in the comments below, do you think the label is sexist and discriminatory?</p>

Beauty & Style

Placeholder Content Image

Bored? Wine is the cure according to these vintage ads

<p>It’s 1961. You’ve slaved in the kitchen to make breakfast, sent the hubby off to work and finished all the housework like any good wife should. Time for some wine. Well, that’s what these vintage ads for Sanatogen “Tonic Wine” recommend!</p> <p><span><img width="600" height="814" src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/44243/image__600x814.jpg" alt="Image_ (28)" style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"/></span></p> <p>Twitter user Richard Littler recently rediscovered the sexist alcohol-peddling ad and <a href="https://twitter.com/richard_littler/status/916238277442760704" target="_blank"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>shared it online</strong></span></a> with the caption, “I’ve always loved this ad. ‘Bored when your husband is out at work? Drink wine! We’ve even added the word ‘tonic’ to make it sound healthy!’”</p> <p>Another of the company’s ads, headlined “Kids are murder!” claims the wine makes life “much more bearable” for mums with rambunctious little ones.</p> <p><span><img width="600" height="804" src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/44244/image__600x804.jpg" alt="Image_ (29)" style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"/></span></p> <p>But what if you’re unmarried and childless with a sprinkling of depression? Don’t you deserve some wine too? Don’t fret – there’s something just for you. Phosferine Tonic Wine has ditched the housewife angle to tout its booze as a cure for depression and anxiety.</p> <p><span><img width="600" height="801" src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/44245/image__600x801.jpg" alt="Image_ (30)" style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"/></span></p> <p>“If you are rundown, anxious or worried, this splendid tonic fortifies you and restores vitality,” the ad reads.</p> <p>Thankfully, these days you don’t need a reason to pour out a nice glass of vino!</p>

Art

Placeholder Content Image

Andy Murray hits back at reporter’s sexist remarks

<p><span>He might’ve lost his match, but tennis ace Andy Murray has won praise from all corners after interrupting a reporter’s question to make an important distinction during a post-match news conference at Wimbledon. </span></p> <p><span>After losing to Sam Querrey in the quarterfinals, Murray was faced with a question that referred to Querrey as the “first US player” to reach a major semi-final since 2009. </span></p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> <p dir="ltr">Sir Andrew Murray is NOT amused with your casual sexism! <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/wimbledon?src=hash">#wimbledon</a> <a href="https://t.co/a6pTpHCFSr">pic.twitter.com/a6pTpHCFSr</a></p> — Jamie (@_JamieMac_) <a href="https://twitter.com/_JamieMac_/status/885189154128224257">July 12, 2017</a></blockquote> <p><span>“Male player,” Murray pointed out.</span></p> <p><span>“I beg your pardon,” the reporter responded.</span></p> <p><span>“Male player,” Murray repeated.</span></p> <p><span>Querrey is the first American man to make the semi-finals at a Grand Slam in eight years, but this disregards the achievements of Serena Williams who has won more than 10 majors since 2009 and her sister Venus who was a Wimbledon semi-finalist this year and last.  </span></p> <p><span>Murray’s mother Jane posted on Twitter, affirming support of her son. </span></p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> <p dir="ltr">That's my boy. ❤️ <a href="https://t.co/ldZUQ2wbZj">https://t.co/ldZUQ2wbZj</a></p> — judy murray (@JudyMurray) <a href="https://twitter.com/JudyMurray/status/885181694319484929">July 12, 2017</a></blockquote> <p><span>What’s your take on this story? Was it an overreaction from Murray? Or was the reporter well out of line? <span>Share your thoughts in the comments below.</span></span></p> <p><em>Image credit: Twitter / BBC</em></p>

News

Placeholder Content Image

Helen Mirren stands up to Parkinson in sexist interview from the ‘70s

<p>Dame Helen Mirren has never been one to shy away from letting her opinion be known, and it seems her passion for gender equality is nothing new, as we can see in this unearthed footage of an interview she did with Michael Parkinson back in 1975.</p> <p>The then-30-year-old Mirren sat down with the legendary interviewer in 1975 to talk about her upcoming role as Lady Macbeth and endured a rather chauvinistic exchange (Parkinson introduced her as a “sex queen” and mentioned her “sluttish eroticism”), handling it with all the poise and class we’ve come to expect from the screen star.</p> <p>Of course, the world was a much different place 40 years ago, but Mirren’s attitude and beliefs are just as relevant today. Good on her!</p> <p>Take a look for yourself and tell us in the comments below, what did you think of the interview? Was Parkinson being sexist? Or is it just a reflection of the times?</p> <p><strong>Related links:</strong></p> <p><a href="/news/news/2016/02/helen-mirren-slams-drunk-drivers-in-super-bowl-ad/"><strong><em><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Helen Mirren has a stern message for drunk drivers in new ad</span></em></strong></a></p> <p><a href="/lifestyle/relationships/2015/11/helen-mirren-marries-later-in-life/"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><em><strong>Helen Mirren encourages everyone to marry later in life</strong></em></span></a></p> <p><a href="/news/news/2016/08/celine-dion-hit-by-another-cancer-tragedy/"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><em><strong>Celine Dion hit by another cancer tragedy</strong></em></span></a></p>

News