 |
Simone de Beauvoir - the high priestess
of feminism - one of the very few people
who changed the world in her own lifetime
|
I am very well aware that in writing the last sentence I run
the risk of falling foul of many justifiable criticisms by women in general and
feminists in particular – indeed that was why I returned from the philosophy
meeting feeling rather at odds with the world: I felt as if I had been “mugged”
by several feminist members of the group who took exception to what they perceived as my
“oversimplification” and “stereotypical” male comments and prejudices. If there
was any solace for me it was the fact that I was not alone – indeed, some of
the women members of the group were also similarly chastised for expressing views such as
“Well, I enjoy being as woman and don’t feel dictated to by men at all”. Don’t
get me wrong – the group as a whole and each of us as individuals were in total
agreement with de Beauvour’s analysis – it was just that some very passionate
views came to the fore and suddenly, from my perspective, rational and
thoughtful inquiry was sidelined in favour of emotive comment and sometimes angry
personalised criticism.
Simone de Beauvoir’s ideas gave the intellectual
underpinning and undoubted “weight” to the feminist movement dating from the
1960s and is today perhaps even more relevant than ever in this ever changing
world. At their base, these ideas identify how women can understand themselves,
their relationships, their place in society, and the wider social construction
of gender. Further, de Beauvoir suggested three strategies to aid and guide women in
their quest, namely: women must go to work, women must pursue and participate
in intellectual activity (leading to change for women) and, finally, women
must strive to transform society into a society – de Beauvoir says a socialist
society – which seeks economic justice as the key factor in women’s liberation.
Looking from our 21st century perspective I would think that few in
modern western societies would have reason to disagree with those goals but at
the time that de Beauvoir made her views public this was revolutionary talk.
 |
Chelsea Clinton - an astute young woman.
Born with many advantages but who has,
I think, made her own mark.
|
In these early years of the 21st century hardly
day or a week goes by without some report of the shifting nature of our modern
world. Our increasingly diverse societies, changed expectations of individuals
and groups, the decline in the old order – the Church, the class system, the "establishment" – mass migration, globalisation, the step change in
the economic life of nations which mean that old family certainties are
breaking down as women wish to have, or need to have, earning capacity and
careers outside the home, the impact of social media and the internet mean that
society is changing at an ever increasing pace. Suddenly, it often seems to me,
and as someone in their eighth decade, that the old certainties are no longer there; as
Bob Dylan reminded us “The Times They Are
a Changin’ – how much more true is that today than when he penned those
immortal words over half a century ago! Now, we have great quasi-politico/social
movements often finding their voice through the internet and social media: the #metoo movement, the Occupy, the Black Lives Matter
campaign, various forms of the LGBT movements,
BME ideas.......and a thousand other campaigns,
movements, ideologies, and political belief systems that would have been quite unthinkable
only a few years ago. They all demand their rightful place in the sun where their needs and rights are established and sustained and the feminist movement in general and Simone de Beauvoir in particular are at the heart of this.
It is exactly a hundred years since the suffragette movement
won their first big victory by forcing the political establishment of the UK to
allow some women of property to vote in an election and as a result the first
woman, Constance Markievicz, was elected an MP. She didn’t take her seat, however, since
she was elected as a Sinn Féin politician. Like her fellow Irish Republicans
she did not go to Westminster but was
also the first woman in the world to hold a cabinet position (Minister for
Labour of the Irish Republic, 1919–1922). We have come a very long way since then
but for women and for many other underrepresented, disenfranchised or minority groups, I would suggest, not nearly far enough. It came as a surprise – a shock even - to me a week or
two ago when I read, as I did some preparatory reading for my philosophy group,
to learn that it was only in my life time when women were allowed for the first
time to sit in our House of Lords. In
this context the story of Margaret Haig Mackworth – known as Lady Rhondda - is
illuminating. After her father's death, Lady Rhondda inherited his title and tried to take his seat in the House of Lords,
citing the Sex Disqualification Act 1919
which allowed women to exercise "any public office". The Committee of
Privileges, however, voted strongly against
her plea. Lady Rhondda had earned a reputation as a suffragette and had become notorious
in her south Wales home area for blowing up post office boxes to highlight the suffragette
cause. She was supported for many years
by Lord Astor, whose wife Nancy had been the first woman to actually take her seat in
the House of Commons, but Lady Rhondda never entered the Lords. She was, however, nothing if not a fighter; despite failing to take her seat in the Lords, in
1926 she was elected as the Institute of Directors' first female president in and
in 2015, the annual Mackworth Lecture was launched by the Institute of
Directors in her honour. It was 1958, less than a month after Lady Rhondda died aged 75 that women were at last allowed to take their seat in the Lords and an unbelievable 1963 (I was by then in my late teens, so this is not ancient history!) before hereditary peeresses were also allowed to enter the Lords. To mark her role and long campaign for this simple and just recognition of what now we might call basic "human rights" her portrait now hangs in the Members’ Dining Room of the House of Lords. But to me it is a just, if sad, recognition of something that should never have happened in the first place. For, me just to think about it makes me cringe, at how society can so easily posture and hold beliefs that are so obviously contrary to basic humanity and justice. And the worrying thing is that we cannot assume that in our modern world our contemporary society would never act so - of course we could and do. Just like our forefathers we make assumptions about people, we dislike change and fairness and justice quickly go out of the window when privilege, greed and power raise their heads. Society doesn't like its cage to be rattled - especially if that means sharing what we have with someone else! Everyone is "for" minorities or the disadvantaged until it means that we have to give something up; to give one example, we all want affordable housing for our children, our key workers, the disadvantaged and the like.............but please can it be built somewhere other than at the end of my garden!
 |
Lady Rhondda - she never saw her dream realised
but has left an indelible mark on her country.
|
Today we might look back on Lady Rhondda’s story with unbelieving
eyes that something so grossly unfair and unjust was once considered acceptable
but it serves as a reminder, perhaps, that the things that we take for granted
today might well be tomorrow’s unacceptable practices and beliefs. Sadly, it also underlines the fact that all societies, to some degree or other, display a tendency to be unwilling to share with others what those in power already have. And their inability to cope with proposed change consistently institutionalizes the static and rejects of progress. Finally, it underlines the fact that although much progress has been made – there is
certainly a long way to go. Change is slow, and although we live in a rapidly
changing world I suspect that the dreams and demands that women might have for
(say) equality of pay with men or a removal of what is seen as the “glass
ceiling” preventing women rising up the career ladder of their chosen
profession will sadly not be easily won or quickly obtained. The ideas of Simone de Beauvoir set the ball rolling and fundamentally changed
the mind set – but sadly, I am of the view that women still have an uphill fight and that there is still a very long way to go to achieve what they seek.
I thought back to that existentialist philosophy afternoon
when I read this weekend a comment which, like the best, is both simple and perceptive pointing out in a few words what might take a philosopher several volumes to
say. The quote was used by Chelsea
Clinton the daughter of two of the world’s great “shakers and movers” – ex-US
President Bill Clinton and his wife the powerful US politician Hilary Clinton.
I’ve often thought it that it must be very difficult for a child growing up as
the offspring of famous and powerful people – after all if you succeed then
people argue that you had all the advantages and if you don’t succeed then
you might be condemned as someone who failed to make the best of the wonderful
opportunities that you were born with. Chelsea Clinton, a bright young woman, I
understand, has carved out her own career far removed from that of her parents
and in her thoughtful article she referred to a quote from the late US
physicist and astronaut Sally Ride who commented that “You can’t be what you can’t see” .
 |
Sally Ride - a trailblazer who opened the path
for others to follow
|
As I read this I was struck with what a simple but so
profound comment it was. I don’t have the context in which Sally Ride said this
but I don’t think that matters. I suspect she may have said it in relation to
her role in the US space programme as a female physicist and astronaut – she became
the first American woman in space in 1983. Maybe (I believe) she was saying
that if girls and young women don’t have women scientists and astronauts like
her to look up to – to “see”- then how can they themselves easily imagine or aspire themselves to be
one. To have a goal you have to have something to aim for and if that goal is
not obvious, visible, realistic then it is likely that your ambition or desire
may remain just an unfulfilled day dream, a step too far, something unheard of in society as a whole. To return for a moment to de Beauvoir she argued that
what girls and young women are presented with from their earliest times is a
perception of woman via motherhood, homemaking, caring and so on and this
largely defines their future goals and roles – in short, and as de Beauvoir
said, “One is not born but becomes a
woman” one learns it by the experiences that you have and the opportunities
that you perceive.
I don’t believe that this is peculiar to women – it applies
in much the same way with men or with any other member of society – we learn to
be and become what we are – we “become
what we see” to paraphrase Sally Ride’s comment. This lunch time and in
today’s Guardian I learned that the University of Cambridge is under scrutiny
and some criticism because, allegedly, it takes very few entrants from black
minority backgrounds. Now, there might be many reasons for this – the
University might argue that insufficient people from that background get the
very high academic qualifications required for entry or it might be (as I think
has been suggested by the University) that it depends on the courses one is
considering. But, as my wife pointed out as we ate our lunchtime sandwich while
watching the TV news it might also be a factor that if you are black and
considering university you might not wish or feel confident enough to attend a university where everyone
else appears to be white. So the whole thing becomes self perpetuating – and
spawns the belief that black youngsters are not good enough for or “don’t do”
Cambridge. I have no way of knowing if that is a valid point but just maybe it’s
another perspective on “You can’t be what
you can’t see” ....... “Cambridge
University isn’t for people like me” a young black student might say rather
than “I want to be like him/her.....they are my black role model......they’ve done it
and got to Cambridge so I can be part of that too.” Trailblazers in any walk of
life are crucial – they are heroes and show new opportunities but, more importantly perhaps, they mark the path for others to follow.
I have a personal view that an important element in all this
is how opportunities and goals can be presented to young people – be they girls
or boys. We live in a world where the media is all powerful – 24 hour news,
global advertising, social media – an endless list of entities all striving to
grab the attention and the mind set of people – especially the young and
vulnerable. I never cease to be horrified at how advertising of all kind seeks
to manipulate the minds of those that it is aimed at: the fashion industry
striving to manipulate the minds (and often bodies) of women, the way that in
the UK the betting industry seeks to promote itself and insert itself into the
mindset of young men, the way, as Christmas approaches young children’s minds
are considered fair game by toy manufacturers as they seek to sell the latest
must have toy. The list is endless and the common factor is that all these
companies and organisations know that it is very easy to influence the mind
given the right opportunities; it’s an inversion of Sally Ride’s comment – it is “You
can be what you can see” – buy this perfume, dress, car, toy, hairstyle, mobile
phone...... – and you will be the successful, good looking , envy of all your
friends, the person that you see in our advert! When the advertisers try to sell us
an item they are in fact trying to sell us a life style, holding up a kind of
perverse mirror image of what we can be if only we will buy into their product.
And the worrying thing is that they know it works.
 |
Constance Markievicz - the first
elected woman MP
|
So, given that I wonder why in our TV programmes, our
adverts, our magazines, our Hollywood blockbusters and so on we are not further
exposed to these life style “opportunities” – girls becoming spacewomen, black
boys being seen as High Court Judges, maybe a Muslim Prime Minister in our
Parliament. I know that we are already a long way along this path – we’ve had a
black man as the President of the most powerful nation on earth, and goodness
gracious me, I think many would like him back rather than the present incumbent – but it seems to me there is still a very long way to go. I do not believe, however, that this is an option that we
can consider and then reject. If we don’t grasp this idea and go along this path of what I will call the "positive promotion" (of, say women in previously unheard of professional roles) then, not only are we denying
people (young women) the opportunity to attain their dreams or fulfil their ambitions simply
because the court of public opinion deems otherwise, but we are wasting so
much talent and human resources that in these fast moving and shifting times we ill afford. In denying or restricting the talents and dreams of a significant portion of the population – whoever
they - we are also in the longer term likely to deny our own
futures - economically, politically, socially and ethically society will
stagnate and turn in on itself. A society that fails to change is a society doomed to die - it's as simple as that. And in our society the role of women is one of the important issues that demands addressing - it is not an "optional extra" - it is a moral imperative and essential for society's and every individual's economic, social, cultural, welfare and sake.
 |
| Nancy Astor - the first woman elected and to take her seat in the House of Commons |
I want my two teenage granddaughters to grow up knowing that
they have realistic options and goals to aim for, that they can see what they
might want to be and know that anything and everything is possible, that in
existentialist terms they have the freedom to choose, the ball is in their
court. I want them to have a fair and just "crack of the whip". I don’t want them to get an easy ride just because they are girls but
nor do I want them to feel that because they are girls this is not for them. I want them to earn society's praise and financial and social rewards fairly and equally with everyone else - and these not to hindered limited just because they happened to be born with certain physical characteristics. I don't want them to be judged worthy or unworthy because of those same physical characteristics or for society to make judgements as to their wider ability or worth with physical characteristics as a deciding factor. They
might not achieve their goals but I want them to feel that it is reasonable
that they work towards them and not be put off by simple gender prejudice or societal constraints.
I want them to be able to read great novels like Pride and Prejudice which through fiction and imagination give one
view of womanhood and society but I also want them to read others that set out
a different and other equally attainable and desirable paths to a different set of goals, values and
outcomes. In short, I want them to know what the options are and not to feel,
what I suspect many young women have felt over millennia, that they can’t be
what they want to be because they can’t see, or even imagine someone
like them achieving such a dream or ambition. As Sally Ride said "You can't be what you can't see".
No comments:
Post a Comment