Earlier this week the BBC reported on a study of chimps in the Ivory Coast that apparently showed them entering “into ‘deals’ whereby they exchange meat for sex.”
Twisty Faster: “I wonder if the researchers will draw any conclusions about human behavior based on these patriarchy-informed observations of an isolated primate population belonging to a totally different genus?”
Helen Rumbelow (ok, so she’s not a researcher she’s a journalist, but in my book that makes her even less qualified to draw conclusions about human behaviour based on these patriarchy-informed observations of an isolated primate population belonging to a totally different genus): “Chimpanzees can teach us a lesson. To reach the top in a man’s world women must choose femininity or success.”
As far as I can make out, Rumbelow’s chimp-study-induced theory is that the reason women get paid less than men, and are taken less seriously in the workplace than men, is not because this is a man’s world and it’s in the patriarchy’s interests to keep women down and firmly in their place at the bottom of the gender hierarchy: it’s quite simply because women wear the wrong bloody clothes to work!
According to Rumbelow, thanks to the efforts of the first wave of feminists “the late 1970s was full of women aping men” with their “trousers” and their “cropped hair”, but now, in our bid to shake off that hairy-legged wanna-be-men stereotype we’ve inadvertently taken things too far the other way. She’s not suggesting that we go back to the 70s of course (although she does acknowledge that “70s feminism may have had a point“), or suggesting we turn up at work looking “too ridiculously mannish” but she is proposing that we turn “down the volume on all the display girliness – the big hair, tight wiggle-bum skirt and high heels,” and go for a more unisex working wardrobe instead.
There’s a really intriguing bit in the middle of this piece where Rumbelow talks about the dangers of race and gender stereotyping, and then cites some research that I’d really love to be able to link to, but which I haven’t been able to find anywhere:
“Because black people are rarely lauded for their academic ability, simply making a black student more aware of his race is enough to lower his academic performance. All it takes to lower a bright black child’s test scores is to first ask him to tick a box identifying his race. The same for women – because it is taken as a truism that girls are less good at “hard subjects” like maths and science, all it takes to lower a girl’s score on a maths exam is first to ask her to state her gender.”
Is that true? That girls perform worse in maths exams when they’re reminded that they’re girls, and black children score worse when they’re reminded that they’re black?
Anyway, you may well be wondering by now how Rumbelow got from Ivory Coast chimps to women needing to wear more unisex clothes at work if they want to see an end to both workplace discrimination and the ever persistent gender pay gap…
It’s because when women wear dresses or look too girly, we’re apparently signalling that we want to be provided for, just like the female chimps in the study (who weren’t wearing dresses as far as I’m aware, but why let that little detail get in the way?). If we look too female, we remind everyone that we’re women, and then that reminds them that we’re crap at maths and science and we need looking after. Or something like that.
Do you think the Equality and Human Rights Commission are aware of this amazing break through in the pay gap dilemma? Do you think they’ve sussed by now that rather than introducing equal pay audits or trying to enforce anti-discriminatory legislation they should instead be focusing on the contents of women’s wardrobes?
If not, I think they should be told.
PS And there’s now a special place in feminist hell reserved for Britt Lintner, Sarah Brown’s dress designer: “Is she a feminist? “No!” she shrieks. “I’m not trying to act like a man.”
Too Much To Say For Myself 
It’s because when women wear dresses or look too girly, we’re apparently signalling that we want to be provided for, just like the female chimps in the study (who weren’t wearing dresses as far as I’m aware, but why let that little detail get in the way?).
Bloody leapfrog logic. It burns.
As for the “tick the box” bit of research, it likely does not exist. *Somehow* as if by magic, I can remember that I am female all the time, without the aid of box-ticking. Imagine that! Also rather strangely, my womany breasts and vagina don’t seem to hamper my ability in maths and engineering. Perhaps I just forgot to tick the female box before the exams, and accidentally excelled in a mannish manner?
Larissa of Leeds apparently found Rumbelow’s article thought-provoking:
“The concepts of “feminity” and “masculinity” are obsolete. We all must make a compromise between the two. The uniformity of men’s business wear as much too utilitarian and practical. Why don’t we modernise menswear and introduce new cuts and colours to the business suits?”
I am unclear as to whether Lara thinks that women are like female chimps, but she apparently thinks men might be monkeys (cue Victorian imagery of small dressed-up primates, either alive and dancing or stuffed). I am also unsure as to whether this is a GOOD THING. Please advise.
Rumblelow (whilst I don’t agree with her conclusions) is nevertheless referring to some real research, namely the ‘Stereotype Effect’:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat
As a female mathematician and radical feminist, I was very relieved when I first read about these studies a few years back. It confirmed what I thought causes women’s underperformance – the patriarchy.
“Is that true? That girls perform worse in maths exams when they’re reminded that they’re girls, and black children score worse when they’re reminded that they’re black?”
Apparently so. Google ‘stereotype threat’. There’s a wiki page on it and I remember several entries at Scienceblogs that discussed it. I’m not really qualified to comment on the quality of the research though.
Many thanks for the wiki link Snk, and to both you and mabat for putting a name to this interesting phenomenon.
Having had a brief read through it,I suspect Ms Rumbelow’s interpretation is slightly simplistic, but then I can appreciate the difficulties of trying to fit something like that in to a 700/800 word article.
But changing the subject completely, does anyone have any ideas as to how this new pay-gap beating unisex wardrobe should look?
I was thinking something like this maybe….
This may also explain why humans drink PG Tips…Yeah I read that Times article but I found myself completely unable to say anything about it.
Here’s the deal Helen. Men rule the roost. If you don’t fit in with whatever rule they invented five minutes ago, forget it. But FWIW, I have observed that unthreatening women do best. Which means not being sexxayy, unsexxayy, clever or assertive basically. Dull, doesn’t argue and wears “modest, yet feminine” clothing (Jehovah’s witness stylee) seems to be the way to the top. Cos menz are easily threatened.
But the evol can use that to their advantage of course….
This chimp story is a classic example of both evpsych stupidity and deceitful media reporting.
1) The original study did NOT show a “meat for sex” correlation.
2) However, because that is what the researchers went looking for, they tried to fit that in as an half-assed explanation anyway.
3) The press took that angle of it, and despite the original resercher saying “don’t call it prostitution”, those are exactly the headlines that appeared
4) further stories like this one in the Times appear to build on the nonsense about nonsense about something they didnt even find !
Perhaps Helen Rumbow was thinking of this book ‘Failing At Fairness: How Schools Cheat Girls by Myra and David Sadker. The two authors are experts in educational research and one chapter in their book covers ‘self esteem’ in relation to girls, boys and differing racial groups.
The two authors have conducted decades of research on the US educational system but always from a feminist and gender nuanced perspective. So, chapter on self-esteem states that once girls enter adolescence their self-esteem drops rapidly and most importantly self-belief in their academic abilities. Boys however, do not experience any reduction in their self-esteem because in general boys tend to over-estimate their abilities and girls under-estimate.
The authors state that overall ‘teachers give boys extended directions on how to accomplish tasks themselves whereas girls are less likely to be offered explanations and directions on how to accomplish task because the teacher would do it for them. Another example: a girl is having trouble working out a math problem, so the teacher quickly does the problem for her. Boys however, are shown how to solve problems or accomplish tasks. What happens why many girls believe they are incapable of doing well because they have not been taught how to solve problems but rather the problems/tasks are done for them.
A common mis-perception is that maths is hard for girls but fact it is not what happens is girls are constantly told certain subjects are masculine whereas others are feminine. Maths is supposedly masculine so only boys are supposedly able to master maths not girls. So, it is not just stereotypical messages being directed at both girls and boys but how girls and boys continue to be taught differently which negatively affects girls self-esteem and confidence in their abilities.
As regards race these authors say biological sex is more important within the school environment. Time and again researchers noted how classrooms are split in two on one side sit the girls and on the other sit boys. Contained within these groups are black, asian and white and Hispanic but they are all either girls or boys sitting together.
Helen Rumbow’s article is yet another article claiming specialist knowledge and understanding when quite obviously there is none. I suggest reading the above book if anyone is interested in how education continues to be gendered with stereotypes concerning girls and boys achievement abounding. If girls are constantly told ‘maths is a very difficult subject for girls’ or ‘IT is not suitable for girls because girls won’t understand’ then no wonder girls as a group do not believe in themselves. Boys however, are socialised into believing they can achieve anything and of course such achievements are due to their innate intelligence whereas girls’ achievements are ‘luck’ not a female’s intelligence.
I am still mystified however as to why Ms Rumbelow thinks the answer to unfairness is just to play along with it. As opposed to e.g. exposing it.
Actually I have read that research – not bothered to find a link right now, but it is true. It makes sense, actually, that reminding black and female students of their race/ gender would lower achievement.
Where Helen Rumbelow is wrong is this: the solution is not a ‘unisex’ dress code. Nor does every woman like wearing skirts and high heels, either. Would she suggest black people don’t dress stereotypically ‘black’ (a la Ali G, I suppose?) to get ahead? Do all black people dress in this manner? No, and no.
Also, the idea that dressing in a certain way influences our own self-perception is wrong; it is about others’ self-perception, and there is no research showing that perceived ‘femininity’ of dress affects others’ perception of a woman (let alone that people get the signal ‘I want to be provided for’). While dress can certainly affect behaviour, most of the time when I’m absorbed in a task (such as an exam, or report) I couldn’t tell you what I’m wearing. Not only that, but there is no evidence it would affect my performance if I could. Asking someone to indicate their gender and asking them what they are wearing – not the same thing.
And, women face pressure to look appropriately feminine. Dressing in a ‘masculine’ way makes a woman be seen as a ‘ballbreaker’, too masculine, a ‘bitch’ and so on, which doesn’t help her get ahead either. Not that dressing in too pink and fluffy a way does either. As with so many things, it’s a fine line women must walk.
How about the radical idea that both/ all genders should be free to wear what they like, and should be judged on their performance, not how they look?
“Anyway, you may well be wondering by now how Rumbelow got from Ivory Coast chimps to women needing to wear more unisex clothes at work if they want to see an end to both workplace discrimination and the ever persistent gender pay gap…”
I refer you to my zero-gendering dress code campaigns, oh, has anybody seen Vera Baird recently?
The forced trousering of schoolgirls to make them look like Jacqui & co, is a Blair Babe project.
and a violation of UNCRC & CEDAW
So there
“Do you think the Equality and Human Rights Commission are aware of this amazing break through in the pay gap dilemma? Do you think they’ve sussed by now that rather than introducing equal pay audits or trying to enforce anti-discriminatory legislation they should instead be focusing on the contents of women’s wardrobes?”
I think you will find that they were negotiating with the govt. along those lines.
Gregory
God, that Rumbelow piece is a load of egregious nonsense. “We can’t be full-time mothers and have full-time careers” – well, you know, *obviously*, unless feminism has given me access to magicky extra time. And I think you’ll find that sentence works just as well if you switch out “mothers” for “fathers”.
“Cath has been explaining that chimp behaviour can’t actually lead to the conclusion that women should wear unisex clothes at work.”
The Blair babes on the other hand…
if I’d been Tony, I’d have just Chairman Mao suited them up with BB on the back.
Gregory
“Exchange meat for sex” – makes it sound like a sordid proto-prostitution-esque trade. Which is odd because I can’t help thinking it makes complete evolutionary sense for a creature to wish to ensure a healthy diet for the mother or potential mother of it’s offspring. To share your meat with the female you’ve probably just impregnated is a way of ensuring the continuation of your genes. It’s got nothing to do with the pay gap.
As for the “tick the box” bit of research, it likely does not exist. *Somehow* as if by magic, I can remember that I am female all the time, without the aid of box-ticking. Imagine that!
damn straight! i don’t have to look stop and think and check that i’m a woman every time i fill out a form funnily enough!
Ooh, I was going to say that the stereotype threat is real too, but others beat to it.
Anyway, I don’t think dressing in a girly manner is the same as being reminded one is female (thus dressing ‘feminine’ is detrimental to performance), if Rumbelow was trying to argue that? I am confused as to what she is trying to argue, since it seems to involve little actual logic, and a bunch of stereotypes.
Cruella, stop applying logic to the evo psych dudes’ nonsense! They are right, you know your lady brain is just inferior and all women are prostitutes or something (/sarcasm).