I feel like a Fraud not a Froude! Marriage and changing your name

The nuptials are impending and soon I must choose a moniker. Or not.

Simpson VS Froude : The 2012 surname showdown.

Do I give up my surname and take his when we get married? Name and sense of identity are often intertwined.

Changing your surname or family name to that of your husband’s is generally the tradition for women in the UK when they get married. It does denote a historical gender hierarchy between men and women but discussions over whether to change names or not happen within gay partnerships too. These can become especially ‘heated’ when a couple plans to have children.

I’ve certainly read plenty of comments and articles by married women who have kept their own name/their partner changed/they both hyphenated, but in practise the majority of people I know have chosen to give up their surname in favour of his and most I speak to are expecting me to do the same.

I have already decided I shall be Ms not Mrs because I always have been and agree with the French stance that it’s unnecessary to constantly state whether or not someone is married.

A friend told me she was taught as a child that ‘Ms’ directly translated as ‘divorced’, I never learned that when I was a kid but if that is the case it’s a completely outdated term, we should be well past a time of constantly making mention of women’s marital status – widowed, single, co-habiting, married, divorced, separated, blahblahblah – perhaps necessary for insurance forms not necessary for filling in a magazine subscription or booking a taxi or a million other things. Men don’t have to continually establish their marital status and we shouldn’t either.

For those in defence of ‘Mrs’ – fair enough, it’s completely up to you what you call yourself, I’m just saying people who don’t need to know shouldn’t insist I tell them.

The most common reason the women I know have cited as their reason for changing their name to their husbands has been that they want their children to have the same name. I understand the principle of a family united under one banner (Stark, Lannister, Baretheon, Greyjoy, Targaryen…) but surely he could change his name just as easily? Seemingly this is where tradition/habit takes over.

The next reason is that they don’t like their own surname and prefer his. OK, but why wait to get married to change it? In Scotland you can call yourself whatever you like and the paper work involved in changing to a married name is no less than that of deed poll action. Plus then you could choose whatever name you like… Princess Consuela Banana-Hammock…

For some it is a romantic gesture displaying affection for your partner and the casting off of an old life for a new one. Which is also a nice idea but I’ve been with my partner for ten years, our life married will not be so very different I imagine (I’m willing to wait and see on that one of course). Often living together is the biggest change, but we already do, so I think if/when we have kids would be the game changer. And that’s a whole other discussion.

So I seem to be falling on the no change side – but why do I still feel so conflicted? Is it the expectation of society or do I just think Froude might be cooler than Simpson? (We’ve thought of Frimpson, which I’m coming round to but he really isn’t). Plus Froude is much rarer than Simpson which is a point in its favour because everyone loves an underdog. He’s very fond of Froude and not keen to change his name.

Of course your family name isn’t the name which defines your place within a family, you are daughter, sister, mother, cousin, aunt, grandmother, niece (or in a non-traditional family you can be the no less important friend) and to my partner I will continue to be his best friend, therapist, lover, care-giver, head chef, holiday/party planner and financial advisor but all under the new headline of ‘wife’.

For now at least I’ll stay a Simpson because that’s who I am (plus I don’t want to have to change my passport pre-honeymoon).

Ultimately if I know who I am then my husband will too, name change or no name change.

Cause and Effect: Why We Need to Tell Herstory

Sharing a post by Miss Representation on how media consumption affects young women.

Young ladies, please don’t give up hope, you can be a leader too!

And remember those photos in the magazines are just edited pixels – you are real and you’re worthy of your dreams. Work hard, think big and look after each other.

 

 

See the full infographic at the link below

Cause and Effect: Why We Need to Tell Herstory.

 

 

Look Listen Experience: Glasgow Media Hub

The first of a week of the Look Listen Experience events was held at the Pacific Quay Media Hub on Tuesday 13th March. On site were lots of fantastic toys – cameras, mixers and production technology galore.

The aim of the expo/seminar road-show is for those working in the field of video production to meet, share knowledge and find out about the latest trends and gear in the broadcast industry.

I know the Hub well (as I often eat lunch there) and the venue is well located for a large part of Glasgow’s TV industry workers. The indoor courtyard had ample room to house the monster camera set up and it was standing room only in seminars which were packed to the rafters.

Live Streaming

I went along to a talk by Jon Pratchett, a specialist in Live Streaming Encoding and Project management who for the last two years has been the Streaming manager for the latest two Call Of Duty (COD) Game Release events.  As those in the gaming community will know these are absolutely colossal events.

Jon talked about how to achieve successful live streaming outlining some of his team’s favourite tech and sharing stories about the COD events.

Breaking it down there are two key things to think about when planning your live stream: sources and solutions.

Sources – how many are coming in, are they stable, what kind of feeds are they, what features do you need, and do they suit the location?

Solutions – In terms of software versus hardware Jon said both have pros and cons, while software may offer an easier, cheaper and more variable fix hardware can be a lot more reliable – again it’s about individual needs.

Other things to think about – When live streaming you need to think about your Content Distribution Network (CDN) and what you need from them. Jon also advised backing up your streams, making good friends with the local IT crew and double checking your broadband connection.

You can still catch Jon’s talk this week (which has all the tech specs and the descriptions on how he coped with two totally different COD launches) as well as the other seminars and video production exhibitions in Manchester on the 15^th, Cardiff on the 20^th, Bristol on the 22^nd and London on the 27^th of March. (click here for venue details)

You can sign up for free on the Look Listen Experience website.

The State of Women in the World [Infographic]

The State of Women in the World [Infographic].

via The State of Women in the World [Infographic].

Sex! Now I have your attention: Linkbaiting, what’s the deal?

Link-baiting can be anything ‘eye-catching’ on a website but here I’m talking about the ‘art’ of putting provocative pictures next to articles to increase websites views.

It’s becoming more and more common for these kinds of images to be depictions of violence, humour or overwhelmingly – women. When women are used in these images they are usually highly sexualised and objectified. The picture, in most cases, is only tenuously linked to the article.

The concept of using women to grab attention is not a new one. Woman as object, woman as plaything or toy, woman as decoration or adornment, woman as other not normal, not the default etc.

We’ve heard it a lot but just because we’ve heard something a lot doesn’t make it less true.

Certain sites are incredibly successful at this – the Daily Mail in particular is guilty (especially with celebrity stories) of this and of just seeming to dislike women in general. The Daily Mail was originally created as a female focused newspaper, actually driving towards a female demographic – which is still rare for a paper. Today the way they achieve high viewing numbers is often by appealing to insecurities and the worst parts of human nature (for both genders).

Scorn, judgement, derision, objectification, demonization, spiteful gossip (there are other kinds of beneficial bonding gossip) are all too often the Daily Mail’s bread and butter. Their website design is hugely image based with much less written content than the print version. They do have a higher number of female writers but the quality of some of those writers leaves much to be desired.

The DM online is a different creature than the print version and online it is a cluttered photo-centric celebrity obsessed nightmare. Their five photo per story model works – The Daily Mail has been trumping other sites over the states. The site is new to Americans and the design does succeed at drawing you in. During my own journalism studies at university we reviewed several newspaper websites and judged the Daily Mail’s layout to be the most visually striking and engaging because it is the most eye-catching. For all the wrong reasons.

To elaborate good reasons for a news site to be visually engaging include – insightful well written headlines, clear prose, user friendly layout and good quality photo journalism.

Increasingly news agencies are finding it much cheaper to buy a ‘bank’ of images to use for articles instead of paying real photo journalists to take photos and picture editors to work on layout. This is a backwards step as the more we move on to online versions, the more layout and visual editing becomes important. Action is needed to save the photo journalist, their skills are valuable.

In the same way ‘citizen journalism’ is a good starting point for news sourcing and creating awareness – it is not a replacement for trained journalists who have (or should have) the depth and breadth of knowledge and interest, writing and presentation skills, technical skills and ethical foundations to report news in a way that is valuable to society.

Feminist Frequency has this to say on Linkbaiting (this video is from August 2010) -

I write blog posts (unpaid) for HuffPoUK and I do find their use of linkbaiting problematic but, and this is not a defence, they need more female voices which is one of the reasons I plan to keep posting there.

As for other sites – I actually in a way give credit to porn sites because at least the link-baiting is honest, it directly links you to the subject of the image, usually. I have complicated nuanced views on pornography which I’m sure I’ll get into blogging about at some point in the future.

News based link-baiting is however a very base practise. There are literally millions of images and thousands of talented photographers and photo editors out there which can engage you with stories without resorting to some over sexualised part of a woman’s body.

Roughly 50% of the world population is female. Women have bodies, they walk about and live their lives and while a healthy, active, safe and consensual sex life is great it is only one aspect of a whole human life.

Sex driven linkbaiting continues to reinforce the ‘woman is object’ fallacy. It’s lazy, damaging, misleading and selling short your audience.

The big bonus problem: can we use competitive altruism?

BONUS, SCORE, 1UP! 

The kind of corporate culture we’ve steadily created over the last 50 years has us prizing wealth above all else. We like visual displays of wealth but we also like numbers, and best of all we want our numbers to be higher than the person next to us.

At the higher end of earning, humans like to show off with big bonuses. Bonuses are usually cash based or (or sometimes shares based) and they can also be things like gym membership, cars, exclusive event seating etc.

Bonuses have risen and risen. We kept creeping things up and now we have a HUGE wealth gap between the richest and poorest. Right now we’re very close to a Victorian model of wealth division.

Part of the reason this happened (along with the massive property value jump) was a response to a growing global market, companies might not just be fighting to recruit talent from other businesses in their city but from other continents. Bonuses became less and less about value or success attribution and more and more about status, what can we afford to pay our top dog – well they must be worth it and we must be succesful.

The whole bonus idea got stuck in reverse, we were valuing people based on what they were paid instead of basing what they were paid on what they actually achieved.

There’s an argument that after a certain point bonuses don’t actually drive people, when the money gets too much (or too little – tokenism) you just don’t respond to it. Particularly if you’re already earning enough and have a high stress job – you’re already stressed and the bonus drive just adds to it.

*See also Maslowe’s need hierarchy and Herzberg’s two-factor theory on motivation and job satisfaction.

Taking away the whole system of bonus leaves us with a gap, what will we do without job incentives for the best talent? There is a growing criticism that says getting rid of bonuses is ‘anti-business’ while those at the bottom end not getting big bonuses feel the injustice of ‘fat cats’ getting ‘money for nothing’.

So I have a suggestion  - charity bonuses!

The Rules: You can choose the charity (but you can’t run it) and that’s where your bonus goes. All of it. And it’s a matter of public record. That’s it.

I believe it could catch on. Make bonuses a matter of pride, of recognition for hard work. Create a culture of helping those in need over satisfying greed. It all sounds a bit too good to be true…

Here’s why it could work – Conspicuous consumption.

People love to show off stuff that establishes their status. And that isn’t always a bad thing.

In the case of Hybrid cars, economists found that people are more willing to buy a car which is obviously and visually a ‘green eco’ car  - in this case the Prius – than one which does the same environmentally friendly things but looks like a regular car. So maybe it’s kind of daft but people if it gets people to do a good thing then why not?

We like to be seen to be doing good. We love it. If our bonus numbers suddenly became about very public third sector altruism there’s a good chance we’d become incredibly competitive about it. This also helps remove some of the socially negative impact caused  by wealth gaps and cuts down on the overuse of bonus focused denouncements from politicians to distract the public from other important issues.

Some firms are already starting to do this.  But in times of panic some companies – like Goldman Sachs - have cut their charitable donations again because of the recession.

Could increased corporate social responsibility build a better business? I believe it could. It’s worth thinking about. I’ve no doubt it’s a model which needs fine-tuning but let’s open the discussion – what do you think?

Companies should also be putting some real effort into being ethical businesses that treat their employees well to retain & attract staff - that’s never a bad move.

Words

My new favourite creative thing on the web. To make your own click the image below -

Scottish Press Club Jan 2012: First of the season

The Scottish Press Club met for the first time in 2012 this January at Glasgow’s Griffin Bar. Many of the usual suspects were in attendance to hear Professor Greg Philo,(Communications and Social Change, Sociology Dept) of Glasgow University and Glasgow Media Group, talk. Another speaker was scheduled for this meeting but was unable to attend.

Background on the club – anyone is welcome to attend the monthly events but they are of particular interest to journalists, media workers and those who toil in the field of PR.

Set up by journalists Cristiana Theodoli and Martin Graham, the nights are FREE and are hosted in either Glasgow or Edinburgh. Possibly they may expand out the Dundee in the future. You can follow the exploits of the Scottish Press Club on the Facebook page.

JANUARY

Philo, author of many books including ‘Really Bad News’ asked a question we should always ask ourselves when reading the news – what is being left out?

He began by outlining the coverage of Thatcher and the Leyland union strikes and how both of those things have now been made mythical by the press. I was born under Thatcher’s reign of Iron. Growing up in a very Labour anti-tory, pro-union household, certainly my own views about politics were forged in the socialist left-wing fires of indignation and social injustice. The 80’s unions were definitely the stuff of legends to me. And a milk stealing Thatcher figure took her place alongside my childhood imaginations dragons, ghouls and monsters…

In this era the media were very focused on violence - when and where they could find it, violence was the biggest story. Not the shocking disparity between inflation and wages, not the points the unions were trying to get across, not the promises broken but the violence which is far more sensational and interesting (if indeed you underestimate your reader).

The conservatives and right leaning media did and still do describe the unions as lazy, greedy and violent because it justifies their own position. They do not report on their own shortcomings but on those of their opposers. (Of course this can be true of the left too – but the right can be much more brazen about burying inconvenient facts among sensationalism, perhaps they’re just better at it.)

In this kind of reporting something is missing – the other side. Facts and figures are mislaid or ignored in pursuit of presenting a single ‘truth’, a one-sided version of events. The choice of words matters hugely – ‘terrorist’ or ‘freedom fighter’? ‘protest’ or ‘riot’? ‘brutal cuts’ or ‘efficiency savings’?

Philo examined this point across reporting and how important this leaving out of things can be in swaying public opinion (and the significance it can have on war reporting). The pressure on reporters to choose the right words can come from their agency, their editor, or from much, much higher up.

The struggle between Thatcher and the unions has a special resonance today as we have a tory led coalition who have a huge amount of public sector cuts to justify.

The Glasgow Media Group have made done some incredible research and come up with some very positive solutions to our current recession situation - which I’m going to blog about separately because there is a lot to cover – in the mean time check out their work HERE and watch the video below where Philo speaks to George Galloway about the debt crisis.

“JOIN THE CLUB!” -

I’ve spoken to a couple of journalists who haven’t been to the Scottish Press Club (perhaps burned by years of bitter hacks in the pub and pretentious pr heavy networking events in the past) and have been a bit put off by a possible ‘self aggrandising journalism salon’ idea of the club – but this image could not be further from truth.

I’ve been to most (I think I’ve missed two) of the events and the speakers have been excellent, the audience polite and the discussion erudite and intelligent. Generally the topics have been far too interesting and relevant for anyone to waste time on talking about themselves too much to the group (although private individual conversations may be another matter!)

The Scottish Press is in dire need of standing and working together as a community which is why the Club is vital at this time. I honestly believe a lot of the future of journalism in Scotland will depend very much on grassroots projects, innovation and good strong local coverage. Also it’s a nice, sociable and stimulating evening out. Hope to see you at the next one!

 

Miss Representation

Miss Representation is an American project aimed at challenging the way women are portrayed culturally. Although from the U.S. the idea is universal -

 ”American youth are being sold the concept that women and girls’ value lies in their youth, beauty and sexuality. It’s time to break that cycle of mistruths.  Miss Representation.org believes that all people should be equally represented in our media, that our voices should be heard and that we should all be valued for our talents, capacity as leaders, and ability to contribute to the world at large.”

This video by Tati Kalveks about how women would like to be represented in the media says it best in song -

I do believe that I’m living in a time and place (present day Scotland) where I have more opportunities and freedoms than at any other point in history. I’m educated, have a job and the freedom to write, vote, change my appearance, marry or not marry, work and interact with whoever I wish to whenever I wish to – however I still feel at times unsafe and I have known women not be taken seriously purely because they happen to be female. I’ve definitely felt the pressure of ‘not being pretty enough’. I’ve worked with young people in schools and observed their desire to change so much about themselves to please a media ideal in the short-term. We have not yet solved our gender problems, I believe we have a long way to go.

In my own life and career I’ve thought about doing more video reporting but shied away from it because of worries about my appearance. I’m also getting married this year and have worried about how I’ll look on the day – but I should  be worried about whether what I’m reporting is accurate and clear on video and not if I look pretty enough on my wedding day but that I look (and am) happy.

Around the world there are many places where the restrictions placed on women are far greater than here. I would say in the UK we have dealt/are dealing with a lot of legal issues but we have a long way to go on dealing with the entrenched culture, bad media hyped science (lots of questionable data and myths out there about gender) and taking down the Daily Mail’s morally bankrupt and hypocritical side bar of shame.

As a species we should be past focusing on gender (or race, or age) - its holding us back.

There’s all these great minds out there, male and female, and we need to just get on with things – science, invention, renewables, cures for diseases, philosophy, art, community – instead of wasting all this time and energy trying to put men and women  in separate boxes and judging them not on their actions but on their basic biology and the fabricated web of pre-ordained sexual destiny.

All this time preaching about the perfect woman in magazines could be spent on something more interesting and less fictional.

It’s not wrong to call someone beautiful if you think they are but it is wrong and very dangerous to make that the most important thing about them.

Find out more about Miss Representation on their website http://www.missrepresentation.org/ and on their Facebook page.

The day Scotrail changed my life

That day was today.

They’ve inspired me to no longer use them to get to work. This morning I arrived at work late and depressed, trains were cancelled due to bad weather – nobodys fault, it happens, this is Scotland, I accept and love it. Bad weather I can write off to being an ‘act of God’ type situation, rude people however are definitely not divine.

There’s always a few rude customers on public transport but the last few weeks the number I have encountered has rocketed. Unfortunately the number of rude Scotrail staff has increased too – I think these things may be related…

I’m always polite on trains and at stations. I queue and try my best to have the right money. In the last couple of days I’ve had people barge in front of me, staff shout at me when I’m trying to buy a ticket (with the exact change, please and thanks yous) and someone yell at me for letting a six year old child whose family were ahead of me go in front of me through a station door first. Perhaps that person would have liked me to shove the kid aside so they could rush on by to their important business – one presumes the very important and time-consuming business of being an arse, clearly it’s a full time job.

So I was full of despair when I finally reached the office but as the sun shone for the first time this year I thought sod it, Scotrail – today you change my life!

I live about 3.5 miles from work, not too far but I’d always considered the 7 mile round trip to be too long for walking (1. on a dodgy ankle & 2. the effect of the exposure to the elements on office wear).

For the first 25 years or so of my life I used to walk everywhere all the time. Then a combination of things - post-grad stress, broken ankle (which took about a year to walk on without pain) followed by my sedentary desk job meant I kind of forgot I could just walk places. Stupid I know but life is distracting like that.

So I walked home today. It took me just over an hour and had all kinds of side-effects I wasn’t expecting…

Walking through the Southside of Glasgow when you usually commute is like moving to a different city. I have lived in Glasgow for almost 4 years and this evening was like discovering it all over again. It was beautiful, full of great architecture, cool wee shops, pubs and restaurants and views I’d never seen before. Lights, trees, steeples…

I felt serene and awake when I got home. I felt a bit of achievement. I felt good I’d burned off a few calories (I certainly have plenty to be burned off).

The biggest thing though is the confidence I felt. Since the injury and stresses about home, family, work, the future etc, the usual things everyone worries about – I just haven’t felt like myself in a long time. I’ve felt afraid and insecure, not at home in my city, not confident of my body and what it’s capable of. Walking home is one small thing but it was something.

I walked through a few streets I’ve never been down and got home ok, a wee mini-triumph over being a big old scardey-cat.

So thats it. Now I shall walk to and from work each day. I’m sure my health will benefit from it both mentally and physically. The money I save on train fare will be great and I won’t have to worry about cancellations.

I would like to say many Scotrail staff have been great and are lovely people and I’ll continue to use the service for longer journeys.

I don’t usually blog about personal stuff but today feels a bit special.