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.
HEY MAN GUESS WHO FOUND YOUR BLOG. I agree all the way, UNTIL…
ReplyDeleteWhile interests in a sportsperson’s personal life are legitimate, I agree, wasn’t the accusation of sexism more stemming from the problem of the way sportspeople’s girlfriends are represented in the media? There’s a tendency to represent the girlfriends/wives as accessories who blindly follow their partner around and want nothing more than to be proposed to and look pretty on their arm. The press insisted on pitting Sears and her appearance against the girlfriend of whoever Murray happened to playing that day, for example. The marriage question wasn’t directly offensive, but it did seem to reinforce the media trope of sporting girlfriends as desperate to be married. Holly was assuming, first of all, that Sears wanted to get married in the first place! It could be seen as sexist because it assumed that the only aspect of Murray’s victory that was relevant to Sears was whether he’d go on to propose to her, reinforcing a media trend of patronising women and portraying them as desperate and superficial. Maybe it was a genuine question based on interest in his personal life, but it happened to coincide with a saddening media trend.
Also just a POI, but would Holly really have asked a woman that same question, seeing as society does seem to place responsibility for marriage proposals on the man? Doesn’t make it a sexist question but it does make for an interesting discussion.