Ladies That Tweet...may want to think about it first.

Last Tuesday I attended an event in Bristol Called ‘Ladies that Tweet’ - one of those networking evenings for women who use social media in business to meet, discuss, be inspired and learn some helpful tips about the use of social media in business and marketing.

Obviously, being a women’s event, there was bound to be some talk of the difficulties women face in the workplace, and I realise there are many. There are still huge pay differences between men and women, there is also an enormous difference between the number of men and women in managerial and directorial positions - and this is especially true in the world of marketing.

Before attending the event, I had been reading a report by McKinsey & Company entitled ‘Women at the Top of Corporations: Making it Happen’ (available online) which found, among many worrying statistics regarding employment for women that ‘women are still underrepresented in corporate boards and barely present in executive communities’. Having previously worked for the Equality and Human Rights commission, I have read many such reports.

The issue of gender inequality is a troubling one, not just in management and marketing, but across many career sectors, right across Europe. After the networking (and cocktails - always a bonus!) there were three female speakers from various media backgrounds; an email marketer who runs workshops about online marketing and social media, a sex blogger turned novelist who had been horribly and unfairly hounded and bullied by the press after they publicly revealed her identity, and a woman who had recently started a company to try and change the male dominated marketing world, after being inspired by the hit series, Mad Men (which I am currently obsessed with by the way, and has raised many a gender related debate between me and my partner).

So far, so good.

The email marketer and blogger were both eloquent, professional, and raised some valid points for debate, as well as giving some great advice about handling the media, and making the most out of social media in the world of business, which is, after all, what the event was all about.

However, the speaker from the world of marketing, for want of a better word, shocked me. As did the reactions from other attendees on Twitter after the event, although, given we had just been told about the pitfalls of non-polite social media interaction, maybe they were simply worried about the repercussions of critical comment - as in fact I am in publishing this piece on-line.

I did pause to think about it, especially after the advice given in the event about the dangers of opinion pieces on the web. Also, as it was a networking function, I suppose it would be safer and less hassle to keep my opinion to myself.

However, I am a writer, and the issues raised by this speaker really did both trouble and anger me. I fully expect that many people will disagree, which they are completely free to do, in the same way that I am free to express my opinion. So here it is.

In a word, this woman was simply sexist. Initially, I could see her point. She had worked in marketing companies that were male dominated, and where, as in many marketing agencies, the content produced had been decided, in the main, by men. And regarding Mad Men, I have read some genuinely interesting and well researched discussions on the topic surrounding whether the world of advertising has really changed since Don Draper’s (the main character, if you haven’t seen it, and I recommend you do!) day, i.e., the early sixties.

As a topic of discussion, it was potentially an interesting one. But researched and structured debate this was not.

She opened by asking everyone in the room to raise their hand if they were a feminist. Bearing in mind this is a bunch of women who have come straight from work, who don’t know each other, and, if they were anything like me, currently quite focussed on the bowls of sweets on the table, (I would like to point out the event was brilliantly organised, the venue was lovely, and the other speakers, as well as the attendees were very interesting. It was largely a great event) so, for whatever reason you care to choose, only half the room put their hands up.

 Thus began the casual sexism, man bashing, bad research and patronising of women. In my view anyway, as I said, many of the comments on twitter implied that lots of the attendees agreed, and didn’t have a problem with it at all.

The half of the room who didn’t raise a hand were met with the comment; ‘Well that’s just sad. Didn’t you want us to get the vote?’ The speaker then proceeded to profess the freedom of modern women to shout C***, which yes, is true, but totally inappropriate in a meeting about social media, as it would have been if a man had said the same thing.

She also showed a succession of slides which patronised the crap out of men in the same way that she complains they do to women. You know the type of thing, the funny pictures people post of Facebook, like a man has one button you push to get all his behaviours, we have lots. Wonderfully illustrated with a photo of one button, with the word ‘Man’ under it, and a photo of lots of buttons, with the word ‘Woman’ under it. Hilarious and informative, right?

She continued to speak about the way we should market to women because when a man goes in a shop, it’s to get one item, but women like to go with their friends, wander around in a haphazard fashion, like some neon-light befuzzled moth with a credit card, and always ‘with friends so they can ask each other, does my bum look big in this?’

This was illustrated with a floor-plan of a shop and a straight line mapping a man’s linear movement towards his item of choice, juxtaposed with a big wobbly squiggle to illustrate a woman wandering here there and everywhere, distracted, presumably by all the bags, shoes and other pretty, irresistible trinkets.

 I’m sure there is some truth to this, but how can you moan about sexist stereotypes and put that up?

This was followed by an image of Mel Gibson shaving his legs in the film ‘What Women Want’. Another great and reliable source to illustrate the real problems women face concerning inequality.

There was also scientific reference, again backed up with a lovely illustration. ‘Men and women use different parts of their brain’.
So far so psychologically tested to be true, in some ways.
‘Men use the right side, and women use the whole thing’.

 Hmm, not so well researched.

The problem I had with this whole discussion, and the reason why I felt the need to write something about it, is that it was badly researched, totally contradictory, and belittled the genuine inequality that both women and men face at the hands of sexist, capitalist marketing structures.

In my opinion, many women have an aversion to shouting about being a feminist because it conjures up this sort of thing. Angry, irrational women shouting, stereotyping and man bashing. There is no reasoned debate, little research and a lot of sexism and female chauvinism. And that hurts the cause of real feminists.

I understand feminism to be the desire for equality. And whatever your gender, and however passionate you are about a topic, you should be fair, and assess the evidence. Then you should rationally go about solving the problem.

Marketing is always going to portray people, men and women, in an unrealistic light because it aims to sell you a lifestyle you don’t already have. It also aims to sell you things you don’t need and an image of someone else, who’s prettier/thinner/ healthier/more organised/more stylish/whatever.

That’s capitalism for you.

It also sells to you in the same way this woman did, so I guess judging from the many positive reactions afterward, she’s very good at her job. It bombards you with pictures, distractions, half-baked studies and fictional or misrepresented statistics presented as ‘proper’ science. It also sells you things using catchy little hooks - like calling your company MadWomen, and offering to measure market trends with the patronisingly named ‘Femometer’.

Consistently fair market research should look at and measure the audience over-all  and use those stats to target efficiently.  However, a biased marketer will be able to sell just as well with this kind of quirky crap.

You can’t condemn one kind of sexist selling and simultaneously replace it with another and expound it as moral and a push for equality.

It is this kind of thing that ensures the difficulties women encounter due to gender stay as they are, or swing entirely the other way so we take over and gain the unfair advantage in the workplace that men currently occupy.

And neither of those options is good enough.

I hope Ladies that Tweet enjoys much future success, as there really were some interesting points raised. I just think they should be careful who they put up to speak, or what was otherwise an interesting evening full of intelligent, interesting and talented women will descend into nonsense.

And that would really be a shame.

The GB Theatre Company's Production of The Tempest

Great Performance by a very talented company at Ashton Court for Bristol's annual Shakespeare Festival! Click Here to Read my Review

Play Dead - Horror Circus Theatre!

Weird, fun and creepy - Circomedia's first theatrical offering! Click here for Review

Voices from Another Part of Town - Celebrating 50 years of Caribbean Independence @Watershed Bristol

I had a great time last night at Watershed’s ‘Voices from Another Part of Town’ event!

The evening was organised to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Trinidad, Tobago and Jamaica’s Independence, and comprised of extracts from a documentary film about St. Pauls - ‘Voices from Another Part of Town’, produced for the BBC by Gavin Barrie in 1981 following the infamous St. Pauls Riots. The documentary recorded the thoughts and opinions of both young and old Caribbean residents in the area.

My Mother came over to England from Trinidad in the seventies, like many other women, to train as a nurse. I now live in St. Pauls, and it was really fascinating to see just how far the area has come since the eighties.

It was also really interesting to see how attitudes have changed, and how Caribbean culture has infiltrated Bristol’s urban culture and been adopted by the city's young people, down to the many white youths who live in the area that have adopted a sort of amalgam of Caribbean and British accents. The arrival of Cabot Circus has also made a difference to the area in recent years, which has done a lot for the housing prices and the desirability of the area.

There were numerous complaints from the older generation in the film about the difficulty for Caribbean residents in finding work, and the assertion that putting your address down as St. Pauls on job applications was inclined to lead to immediate rejection.

This situation has no doubt improved in St. Pauls, and attitudes towards Caribbean immigrants have changed. The film made me realise just how difficult it must have been for my mother when she first came to England, being in a completely foreign country, initially without friends or family. You can see why St. Pauls is still such a predominantly Caribbean area; it’s nice to feel at home, and it’s easiest to do that if you are with people who share similar experiences and backgrounds. It was very moving to hear fathers speaking of the dream that maybe their children could one day have a job in the area, and employ some of their friends.

The documentary showed a garage in St. Pauls, run by Caribbean residents, which was, at the time, the only business of its kind in the area. It is still there, and running as such, but thankfully there are now many businesses run by, and for, the areas Caribbean residents.

 The other amazing part of the documentary was the musical performances by Bunny Marrett (whose launch party for his new record ‘I’m Free’ followed the event) and the spoken word performances by some of the youth in the area.

It was the passion and frustration about their inability to find work, and the judgements passed on them by British residents following the riots that I found really interesting. The anger that drove the improvisation and beat spoke volumes, and spoken word is now something that has passed well into the Bristol underground music scene, with English youths mimicking the accent and style in performances all around the city. The purpose of the genre is still to vent frustrations and anger towards society and it is fitting that this accent and performance style has now been picked up by youth from other cultures in the UK. With recession, cuts to benefits, youth advice centres and facilities as well as high levels of unemployment, their frustrations are very similar to those experienced by Caribbean residents in St. Pauls 30 years ago.

‘Voices from Another Part of Town’ included a very interesting interview with a young man who spoke about the Caribbean community in Bristol feeling like the lowest of the low. He said he felt their only purpose was to make the working -class feel better, mentioning comments by the poorest members of British society at the time that relayed the attitude, ‘well at least we aren’t like these boys’.

Many of those interviewed also felt sure that it was society’s expectations, or lack of, that led to the anger and aggression of the Caribbean youth, and in part, to the riots. It is difficult not to draw a parallel between the situation in St. Pauls in the eighties, and the similar aggression and low expectation of the disenfranchised and often impoverished inner city youth today, (and the nations fear of ‘hoodies’ and the like) which many have implied may have led in part to last year’s riots.

The importance of race in that sentiment may have mellowed, but with unemployment so high, and so many of what were the working class now unable to find work, claiming benefits and living in the cheaper areas of Bristol with a reputation for trouble, the problem itself hasn’t disappeared. British youth are just as angry as the residents of St. Pauls were in the eighties. And with the government continually and increasingly penalising the poorest, the problem is shifting from racism to classism, and that isn’t an improvement at all.

It was great seeing so many people of Caribbean descent in the audience, as well as people of other cultures, all enjoying the film, and the great music afterwards. Bristol is a beautifully multicultural city, and everyone at the event seemed to be having a great time. There was an amazing atmosphere, and it was a wonderful experience to be able to celebrate my culture at such an event. It also reminded me just what an amazing and brave woman my mother is to have taken the leap of faith to come over here forty years ago.

 Despite its problems, I am very proud to be British, I’m proud of my Caribbean heritage, and I love the lively, friendly and vibrant atmosphere of St. Pauls. It’s our parent’s determination, optimism, sense of humour and hard work that has made that possible, and had made St. Pauls, and the change in attitudes towards people of Caribbean descent what they are today.

'Voices from Another Part of Town' was part of 'Radical Bristol', Celebrating Watershed's  30th Birthday. As ever, there are lots of interesting events on at Watershed, check it out! Visit Watershed Bristol

Sorry Ma...

I just wanted to make a quick comment about my previous post - 'Come on Gove - Give the Poor Kids a Chance', June 18th 2012. Apparently I offended my Mother, so I'm sorry Mum! And I would like to make clear that I would not change my wonderful, mad family for the world.

Play Dead - Horror, Circus & Theatre combine!

Preview of 'Play Dead', the first horrible offering from Circomeadia Graduate company...Looks Great! Click Here for Preview

Come on Gove - Give the poor kids a chance.

I am having a lovely weekend away in Cambridge, staying with the fella's parents. I'm currently sitting in his living room drinking red wine and listening to him and his brother talk about philosophy in the garden, which is why I have time to write!

It's been a good week all in all; work has been hectic, but in a good way.

I started my new job as a part-time administrator at the end of April, but have since been working my arse off to get involved in everything I can within the company in order to prove myself as someone who is useful in areas other than filing.

This has both been great fun, and has gladly paid off. I've been doing a lot of writing work for a couple of new campaigns for the company, as well as blog posts, articles and web re-writes, and it's the first time I have really had the opportunity, thanks to my very supportive bosses, to really get my teeth into a job I enjoy.

I had a meeting on Friday which resulted in me being offered a full-time position. A 'proper' grown up job, as it were. So this week, I am very happy. I've never been one of those five-year-plan types, but I suppose it's all about the big three. You know, a flat I like, a bloke I like, and now, a job I really enjoy. And anyone who is a regular reader of this blog (I think I flatter myself there, but self-delusion helps!) will know I have been looking for a job I like for a long time.

As I'm sure is the case for many, many graduates, the search has been interesting. And irritating. And at points downright depressing. However, I am finally working for a lovely company where people actually treat you like you may have a brain in your head. Unlike the various pub jobs I have had over the last ten years, (shit. ten years.) people actually ask your opinion about things, listen to you when you suggest something, and they don't expect you to flirt with them while they make annoying, and usually crap innuendos in front of their mates. And it's even paying above the minimum wage, which to me is bloody spectacular!

I actually managed to suggest, research and write an article for a HR Magazine (the previous post to this if you're interested) about appraisal in secondary education. After my meeting on Friday, I headed off to Cambridge to stay with my boyfriend's parents for the weekend with the intention of picking his Dad's brain on the subject. He is the headmaster of a very good private school in Cambridge, and I thought he would be a great person to speak to, who was bound to have an interesting and informed perspective. However, it's been a battle to get up the confidence to even ask.

You see, the thing that I have found, (although I'm slowly getting better at it) is that no matter what job you are doing, or your knowledge of the subject in question, if you're from a working-class background, academics are intimidating. And it's frustrating. It's just that their whole lifestyle, accent, way of speaking to each other (and incalculable other little things) are so different from what I'm used to that I still feel like I'm faking it.

My fella has come home to (among other things, Father's Day etc.) help his little brother with his A-Level revision. He is about to sit a philosophy exam, and my partner is training to be a Philosophy Lecturer at Bristol University, so it's good practice for them both.

However, the thing that amazes me every time I venture to Cambridge to meet the family, (who are always lovely and welcoming, by the way) is our irreconcilable difference in attitudes, and consequently, the difference in not just academic attainment, but in the confidence you need in order to feel entitled to it. And this is not just me, it's a difference in attitude I share with many of the people I know.

Cambridge is an obvious place for educational aspiration, being a world renowned centre for academic pursuit, but it's not just the setting. All members of the family speak to each other. And I'm not judging my family here, we do speak, but we also shout, disagree, talk over each other, and nine times out of ten, miss the point of what each other are saying. I still don't think my parents know what job I am doing, or what I did at Uni. And don't get me wrong, I wouldn't have it any other way. My point is simply that there certainly weren't any in depth discussions about that sort of thing when I was growing up.

However, in my fella's family, they sit together – quietly – and read the paper. They have discussions about art, literature, philosophy and politics. And this includes the little brother. I don't think I really spoke to my parents at all (unless you count numerous arguments, but that's normal, right?) when I was a teenager, and certainly none of those topics would have even vaguely entered the discussion, but that was normal for most people I knew. But the real difference is in the way they talk. It's grown up, civilised, encourages debate. The little brother speaks fluently, eloquently, about his subjects, and the rest of the family join in, inviting discussion and consideration.

This is where I struggle. Despite being having started my A – levels ten years ago, and having done a degree since then, I can't help feeling like a little kid, and totally unable to join in. Because coming from where I did, I never had discussions like that. And in Lincolnshire, if you did it was likely to get you taken the piss out of at the very least. This is something I don't think I have ever shaken off. If I'm around people who have lots of money and a good education I panic. And I think this is a huge problem, (ignoring money for the moment) with the classist system in British education.

Had I been encouraged to speak like this, to discuss things in this way, at school or at home, I don't think I would have this problem. I think it is part of the reason I'm a writer (I can't see the reactions of people if they're just reading what I've written down, and therefore I don't feel intimidated) and I really believe it's the reason many less well-off children struggle. I don't believe that grades reflect the intelligence of an individual in many cases. And they often don't reflect that person’s ability to perform well in various types of employment. They simply reflect their environment, upbringing and approach to academic work. In the main, they reflect the opportunities people have been given, and the money they have.

The way my partner's little brother talks, even at eighteen, is bound to gain him an exam pass, as long as he can articulate himself the same way in writing. But it's the confidence behind his speech that surprises me. It is the confidence of someone who has always been encouraged to express his opinion, and to discuss his knowledge in an adult way. It is the confidence of someone who has been supported to re-think when mistakes are made, rather than encouraged not to try. And this is what money (and good parenting) achieves. But if our education system was truly representative and democratic, this wouldn't be the case.

Working class kids, no matter what their level of intelligence, are never encouraged to converse in this way, and this seems to be an area in which schools are failing. I realise that many parents of working class kids don't have this level of education, and don't have the knowledge about the subjects their children are learning at school in order to get involved in this way. And that is not a failing on the parent’s part. Neither is it an unfair advantage that parents with better educational attainment encourage their kids in this way. However, what is unfair is that our education system is as such that children from better backgrounds, or those who can afford to attend private schools are being put at an unfair advantage from a very early age.

This is because schools fail to encourage poorer children to think they are capable of learning to converse in a way that encourages debate and that their opinions and knowledge can be of equal value, despite having less money or a different accent. I would like to make clear that I do not think this is the fault of the teachers. It seems to me to be a problem that has arisen because power in schools has been prescriptive and centralised, which limits teacher's freedom to do their jobs in a way that fits the pupil. And it is certainly not a way that encourages improvement.

That national curriculum is currently being reviewed, and Michael Gove has been advised by an expert panel from some of the country’s top universities, headed by Cambridge University's Tim Oates. However, Gove seems to be unwilling to take into account their findings and make changes that make the national curriculum fairer for all. Gove wrote in his letter to Oates following the consultation that he aims to;

'Raise attainment for all children and help the poorest most of all'.

But, like many other decisions under the current government, there seems to be in practice a gap between what they say and what they in fact do. The poorer people in the country, once again seem to be neglected, and are from the start at a disadvantage that the education system seems keen to perpetuate.

Gove proposes to make sure his aims 'embody our sense of ambition, a love of education for its own sake...[and a] determination to democratise knowledge'. However, he is planning a curriculum that doesn't really fit in making this the case. Andrew Pollard, one of the four education specialists recruited in the advisory expert panel described Gove's new curriculum plans as 'punitive and controlling (Guardian Article, June 17th 2012). So once again the result seems to be saying one thing and actually meaning another.

Gove consistently makes reference to giving schools greater freedoms, both in his academies and in mainstream schooling, but this freedom is yet to materialise. If schools do not give teachers the freedom to teach in a way that is fitting to their pupils, then the system that currently disadvantages those from poorer backgrounds will simply continue.

In his letter to Oates, he proposes that the new curriculum will put a stronger emphasis on 'reading widely for pleasure' […] and children will learn to 'master formal English through poetry recitation'. This is all well and good, but given that the expert panel were assembled in order to advise on the curriculum, and seem to be against these prescriptive measures, it’s odd that he has continued to forge ahead regardless.

Gove mentions in his letter that the new curriculum should allow 'as many children as possible [to] lay claim to a rich intellectual inheritance'. However, by prescribing the curriculum in this restrictive manner, he assumes all children approach academic pursuits in the same way, and from an equal footing. This simply isn't the case.

Encouraging children to learn by writ; down to prescribing them a spelling list - is not applicable, or fluid enough to engage pupils from these backgrounds. Neither does it give teachers the freedom to make education and confidence in their own intelligence accessible to working class students. For someone from a poorer background where there is not a culture of 'reading widely for pleasure', or reciting poetry, this kind of restrictive teaching makes what children learn inapplicable, outdated and potentially disengaging.

Once children have been put off or alienated by schooling, or taught by teachers who do not have the freedom to engage them in a way that they can really relate to, it is easy for their confidence to be knocked. And in my experience that can last a lifetime.

However, I would like to thank my lovely bloke for giving me the opportunity to meet many people who I would not have otherwise met, attend many academic functions and get involved in discussions that I would not have otherwise had the confidence to enter. Also, for making me realise that people from better backgrounds, with better educations are not as scary and incomprehensible as I thought. They are actually lovely, supportive, and simply often unaware that in the lower classes, any such lack of confidence exists.

Hopefully, if the people employed to improve the situation listen to advice, rather than assuming they are right and asking others simply as a token gesture, confidence will improve. Then whatever their background, children will have a little more faith in their ability.