Sexism is a pernicious undercurrent in our society that is exacerbated by the fact that significant amounts of such sexist behaviour are either not observed as such or are somehow deemed acceptable (or at least more acceptable than an equivalent racial slur).
One only has to look at 'Everday Sexism' on Twitter to see the countless examples of such flagrant sexism. The most recent high-profile case of the latter is John Inverdale's ill-thought out remark on this year's Wimbledon champion, Bartoli. The BBC issued a short written apology for a sexist remark that arguably warranted further disciplinary action.
As abhorrent as sexism is, however, there is a tendency in some circles to use the term too loosely. The Guardian claimed that Holly Willoughby's question to Andy Murray, about whether he would now propose to Kim Sears given that he had now won Wimbledon, was a sexist question. They claimed that since one has nothing to do with the other, asking such a question was evidently sexist.
This is wrong on two levels. Firstly, winning Wimbledon could easily have implications for whether the winner then goes on to get married. Achieving a career goal, or reaching a milestone in one's career, is often seen as heralding an appropriate time to tie the knot. Holly Willoughby's question is thus nothing to do with sexism - her question is founded on an entirely legitimate basis and would equally have been asked to a female winner. Secondly, even if 'one has nothing to do with the other', it is a misguided logical leap to then claim that this means the question is sexist. It is a baseless claim to suggest that a question about Murray's private life has sexist motivations. Given the adulation and adoration that surrounds Britain's hero, Andy Murray, it would be more sensible to conclude that the question was asked because the British are naturally interested in his private life.
One only has to look at 'Everday Sexism' on Twitter to see the countless examples of such flagrant sexism. The most recent high-profile case of the latter is John Inverdale's ill-thought out remark on this year's Wimbledon champion, Bartoli. The BBC issued a short written apology for a sexist remark that arguably warranted further disciplinary action.
As abhorrent as sexism is, however, there is a tendency in some circles to use the term too loosely. The Guardian claimed that Holly Willoughby's question to Andy Murray, about whether he would now propose to Kim Sears given that he had now won Wimbledon, was a sexist question. They claimed that since one has nothing to do with the other, asking such a question was evidently sexist.
This is wrong on two levels. Firstly, winning Wimbledon could easily have implications for whether the winner then goes on to get married. Achieving a career goal, or reaching a milestone in one's career, is often seen as heralding an appropriate time to tie the knot. Holly Willoughby's question is thus nothing to do with sexism - her question is founded on an entirely legitimate basis and would equally have been asked to a female winner. Secondly, even if 'one has nothing to do with the other', it is a misguided logical leap to then claim that this means the question is sexist. It is a baseless claim to suggest that a question about Murray's private life has sexist motivations. Given the adulation and adoration that surrounds Britain's hero, Andy Murray, it would be more sensible to conclude that the question was asked because the British are naturally interested in his private life.
