Immediate Issue 4 by Bath Spa University

Curated by Bethany Rose Lamont

Designed by Elana McCabe

glitter & gore The Last Showgirl, The Substance and Hollywood’s Gendered Aging Problem.

WRITTEN BY TILLIE HANDY

Pamela Anderson, swirling gracefully amongst the glamour and glitter of a romantic revue in Las Vegas executes a breathtaking performance as The Last Showgirl. We’re led by a motherly hand through the story of Shelly Gardner, something nostalgic emerging from the bold beauty of the tale she must tell – a tale of fighting for her livelihood as a powerful female force, not allowing her age to hinder her ambitions. This elegantly interweaves into discussions surrounding representations of ageism both on screen and in real life among actors and celebrities.

As wonderful as it would be to get lost in the alluring and exciting scene of The Las Vegas Strip, the storyline tackles the challenges of being misunderstood, discarded and replaced due to gendered ageism, drawing parallels to Coralie Fargeat’s cult classic in the making, The Substance (2024), starring Demi Moore aged 62 as Elizabeth Sparkle. Aesthetically, I have definitely got to mention the camp nature that unites both films, as much as their subject matter. I mean come on, Elizabeth ‘Sparkle’ and her Oscar winning prosthetics? Drawing upon Susan Sontag’s 1964 essay Notes On “Camp”, we can see that the artifice and exaggeration of both films, from the showgirls’ glittering feathers to the Substance’s monstrous finale, underpins the essence of camp’s love of the

unnatural, and its relationship to ageing femininity. A particular failure of seriousness, “only that which has the proper mixture of the exaggerated, the fantastic, the passionate, and the naïve”, can be labelled as truly camp. Understanding Sontag’s ideas through Fargeat’s film reveals a new layer of appreciation for the very conscious symbolism throughout the detached story of Elizabeth Sparkle. But is the very camp sensibility of the Substance suggesting that the ageing star in herself is an absurd, exaggerated spectacle of femininity? What does this mean for the all to real barriers facing women as they age in the entertainment industry?

On-screen ageism persists and is particularly evident among on-screen women aged 50+.

The Geena Davis institute on Gender in Media

Ageing is depicted to the extreme in The Substance through the personal and societal rejection of the aging body, communicated through the quite literal deterioration of Elizabeth’s identity

and her desperate clinging to youth. Fargeat per ceives her film to “serve as a form of liberation”, by creating something meaningful from the reality of “at every age, we can find something wrong with ourselves, which can make us feel like monsters.” But can this approach be labelled as liberating, es pecially when we hold it up against Coppola’s new film? As film critic Hannah Strong quite pointedly states within an opinion piece for i-D, an $800 bil lion economy exists upon the supposed solutions to the so-called problem of women being fat, ugly or old, and so of course it makes sense filmmakers seek to capitalize off of this anxiety.

Demi Moore has been subject to countless in stances of ageism within Hollywood, and potently tells Variety that she felt as though once women reach a certain age, “it was as if there was shame attached to being sexual or having desire, be cause it was only tied to it being for the purpose of it versus the independence of it.” In an inter view for CBS News following the film’s release, she describes her self-perception as “fluctuating”, some days “dissecting, hyper-focusing on, you know, things that I don’t like… but, you know, it is what it is. So, I’m gonna make the best of what is, as opposed to chasing what isn’t.” The mirror scene where Elizabeth crashes out over her ap pearance before going on a date springs to mind, creating a parallel between Moore herself and the fictional character she plays. I think it’s safe to say as women, watching this scene set off an uneasy resonance in the pits of our stomachs. As Mireia Mullor for Digital Spy writes: “In a movie filled with disgusting body horror, buckets of blood and the clear intent of shocking audiences at every turn, this understated scene becomes the most terrifying, and the most relatable.” Parallels between Pamela and Shelly can also be distinguished, which will be later discussed, but it is important to see how these relatabilities found by the actresses towards these roles is underpinned by aging.

Artwork by Tillie Handy

How would you like to see how Hollywood is acknowledging our bodies as they age –through glamour or gore?

The Substance effortlessly feeds into the trivialisation of public figures getting older, as humans naturally do. Firmly occupying itself within the horror and sci-fi genre, its purpose is to entertain, shock, disturb and play into our irrational fears surrounding age. The body horror within the film is strongly underpinned by ‘hagsploitation’, a term that was first coined in 2014, and explained well by writer Rachel Barker. The ‘hagsploitation’ genre refers to films in which the antagonist is played by an older woman, specifically playing this role based on their age. It’s a long-held trope within horror, as seen in camp classic films such as What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962). Billie Walker’s article ‘The faux feminism of the hagsploitation boom’ digs into this in more depth at lwlies.com, effortlessly underpinning key notions of performativity. Noting how “any attempt at a position that understands how misogyny affects women’s lives is brought down by their wielding of the female body as a tool to horrify” finds itself poignantly relative to imagery found throughout ‘The Substance’.

“

Women have another option. They can age naturally and without embarrassment, actively protesting.

Susan Sontag

The forlorn fears around women getting older is an anxiety as old as time, as Susan Sontag puts it way back in 1972: “One of the greatest tragedies of each women’s life is simply getting older; it is certainly the longest tragedy.” So, its relieving to see that in ‘The Last Showgirl’, Shelly doesn’t meet an untimely end by melting into the floor or grow a younger version of herself out of her own back to retain her job at Le Razzle Dazzle. Instead (and thankfully) we are gifted with, in Pamela’s words in a recent interview with DEADLINE: “a story about a woman who’s been discounted and disregarded, [but] fighting back in her own way, rethinking her choices in life.”

There’s something compelling about Gia Coppola’s casting of Pamela Anderson to play the role of Shelly based on her real experiences in relation to her former identity as a sex symbol in the 90s. These parallels between Pamela and Shelly regarding age discrimination, especially in the entertainment business, takes the film to a new level and elevates the imagery to intensely moving. A recent interview on The Last Showgirl with Paul Grimes revealed that after seeing this documentary, Coppola understood Pamela as “someone aching to express themselves artistically”, which resulted in her landing the role specifically. In this very same interview, Anderson describes her role as a “career defining performance”, which may be something rare to hear at age 57 in Hollywood considering the treatment of older women when it comes to casting. We can relate this to Sontag’s thoughts on how ‘the desire to be the “right age” has a special urgency for a woman it never has for a man’, and in retrospect to Pamela’s role, she’s going against the social norm and representing empowering, feminist ideas.

On Screen Ageism: Where Do We Go from Here?

A 2021 report from the Geena Davis institute on Gender in Media spotlighted in a Next Avenue article noted that “our analysis of the most popular films and television shows from 2010 to 2020 suggests that on-screen ageism persists and is particularly evident among on-screen women aged 50+.” Also, when these women were hired, they were “commonly cast in supporting and minor roles” and “less likely to be developed as characters in interesting ways.” The recent release of The Last Showgirl adds a sprinkle of hope against this statistic, and stars such as Meryl Streep, Helen Mirren and Diane Keaton are all maintaining their time in the spotlight by still landing main roles on screen.

When directors and show runners are making a mainstream film, the main goal is to provide entertainment, but perhaps alongside this they should be considering the effects of the work they are creating, what underlying messages may be unintentionally conveyed, and what this therefore means for the mental health of its viewers. Focusing on the female audience, opening up a conver-

sation about the ethics of on-screen representations of gendered age discrimination encourages us as consumers to think about how the constant portrayal of perfect, superficial young women is doing no favours for women of any age. Something positive that springs to mind is an America based change making organisation called ‘Age Inclusion Media’, who have a social media initiative produced with the American Society on Aging. It collects examples of age discrimination and ageist actions from each state and posts them using the sharable hashtag: #USofAge. This is just one of many ways issues surrounding ageism are being addressed and challenged. We need to see more films like The Last Showgirl that adopt a feminist lens regarding the natural changes and challenges women face to rewrite our own perceptions around them. Sticking with Sontag here with her totally necessary activist voice on the matter, “Women have another

“ ”

Stop making us women inadequate, give us more unforgettable characters like Shelly Gardner and keep casting amazing women like Pam!

option. They can age naturally and without embarrassment, actively protesting.” We need this attitude! In the 2023 Screening Older Age report, it was shown that age stereotypes conveyed by the media influence the wider view within society and alters self-perception and own behaviour, which is what makes it so important to be prioritising films and on-screen roles that display artistic and authentic representations of ageing. Stop making us women inadequate, give us more unforgettable characters like Shelly Gardner and keep casting amazing women like Pam!

THE NEW TORTURED POETS DEPARTMENT?

WRITTEN BY ALEXANDRA IBBITSON

IN DEFENCE OF LANA DEL REY

Sitting in the Ticketmaster pre-sale queue for the impromptu Lana Del Rey UK and Ireland stadium tour, buzzing to continue The Eras Tour high and female pop phenomena of 2024, I ask my number one most trusted concert-going companion (my mother) if she wanted to come with me. I hear from the other side of the room, ‘I don’t fancy being depressed for two hours.’ Now, this isn’t an uncommon statement for us Lana Del Rey fans, we are no stranger to the general pop persona of the “sad girl” and controversial romanticisation of violence, nostalgic Americana and melancholia she has accumulated into her brand aesthetics and the entirety of the “Lana Del Rey” character.

So called “sad girl” songs explore yearning, loss, dependency and love in all its forms from passionate to unrequited.

Yet, hearing the generalised idea of Del Rey’s music being categorised plainly as “depressing”, always makes me assume they’re not really listening to the songs; more just hearing them and pulling quoted lyrics rather than her full story or the song’s full artistry. But then again as a fan I could be biased. The personal grievance comes with the thematic exploration. So called “sad girl” songs

explore yearning, loss, dependency and love in all its forms from passionate to unrequited.

I found this idea of artistic compulsion, the indescribable need to share and explain your deepest emotions, summarised by Grace Burns in the introduction of one of my favourite poetry books, Derived from Us, commenting on her own reading of Patti Smith’s Devotion: Why I Write. ‘I felt so wholeheartedly present, realising I have been unattentive, wanting now to truly see the world; beautifully flawed and delicate’, and ending prolifically with, ‘It’s as if “we” are compelled to write how we witness the world through any means.’ The literal movement within a person to tell their story and be heard as a form of catharsis.

‘AND ART THOU DEAD’: BETWEEN SUFFERING & ART

From the Romantics to the New Romantics, art is intrinsically linked to the expression of emotion and the portrayal of aesthetics. Many hail a poet’s magnum opus as when they reach a level of human emotion that we, “mere mortals” can only live vicariously through. In 2005’s Is Rock Dead? Kevin Dettmar explains how ‘The death of a poet like Keats suggested quite powerfully, the equation of beauty with suffering- to be a poet one must pay

Photograph by Beatriz Alvani

the ultimate price’. And with works from Lord Byron as And Thou Art Dead, as Young and Fair, ‘And canst not alter now/ The love where Death has set his sea’, to die for art is the highest human honour. It leaves the question, with artists laying their souls bare for us and releasing that part of themselves under their own volition, is it ethical to still want more? For fans to commodify their artists beyond what they’re willing to part with? To almost be rooting for their mental health to dip, their lives to fall apart so they can return to the artistic grace they once were at their peak.

The significance of these Romantic aesthetics is embedded within the music industry and its fan cultures. The notion that lyrics, persona and fashion are as, if not, important than the music. Emma Mayhew in her chapter of Music, Space and Place, explains how this was happening within the mid2000s internet, ‘Fans also discuss the significance of this role in musical texts, and in constructing of the artistic subject’. Now, over two decades later, the foundation of this fan service remains primarily the same, especially post -Taylor Swift. In encoding and decoding meaning from lyricism, fandom becomes even more entwined with identity and a way of life.

FROM GOTH GIRLS TO ‘SAD GIRLS’

The more familiar subcultures such as, goths, rockers, punks or greasers appear to have 180’d into health conscious “clean girl”, partying “indie sleaze”, or the permanently depressed and woeful “sad girl”. The focus is intrinsically linked to being visually pleasing or overly “instagramable”. Performative aesthetic posting can be tracked back to the early 2010’s Tumblr blogs, in Christine Goding-Doty’s section of A Tumblr Book on “Pale Bloggers”, their ‘…ambiguous stance on self-harm and drug use, their erotic charge and simultaneous

gruesome content… the sense of broad white social anxiety is tacitly expressed in the presentation of the body as injured, fragile or effaced’ and being underscored with ‘…ambient, echoey and forlorn sounding music by artists like Lana Del Rey or the Arctic Monkeys’.

This is what is arguably the foundation of Lana Del Rey’s rise to fame and with 3.8M views, #sadgirl on TikTok, it is evident that artistic melancholy just moves from platform to platform, updating its pop culture references with the times. Netflix ‘s Ginny & Georgia hailed Del Rey as a ‘Queen of sadness’ after worries of her being ‘too basic’ and Disney+’s 2022 film Crush labelled Phoebe Bridgers as ‘sad lesbian music’. TikTok, as a platform, is Gen Z’s ‘Pale Blog’ Tumblr but referring to it as #sadgirl for the new generation. In short, new name-same aesthetic.

SAD, IS NOT SAD ENOUGH

New Artists such as Griff or Gracie Abrams’ sophomore record The Secret of Us (2024) are writing and producing ‘sad girl’ lyrics but with an upbeat pop melody in the background. Does this mean they’re not part of this phenomenon? Or is this just part of the genre’s evolution in the 2020s? In Griff’s track Last Night’s Mascara, she sings ‘I’m on my knees at the altar, baby/ Asking God to wash you from my soul’; or

Gracie Abrams’, I Knew it, I Know You, ‘It makes me wanna cry sometimes/ But don’t you know the deal now? / I just can’t pretend that I’m sorry’. These lines are undoubtably melancholic, yet they leave the listener euphoric through the catharsis of extraditing that sadness through the music.

From the Romantics to the New Romantics, art is intrinsically linked to the expression of emotion and the portrayal of aesthetics.

Del Rey herself with Did You Know That There’s a Tunnel Under Ocean Boulevard? (2023) and Swift’s The Tortured Poets Department (2024) are seemingly, now

Taylor Swift, Fortnight (Republic Records: YouTube)

they’ve proven themselves, seen as a step above just the “sad” music. Notoriously hard to please music reviewers such as Anthony Fantano for his channel The Needle Drop, feels the only way is up for Del Rey, she is becoming ‘...more flattering, compelling and authentic.’ And Swift, for Mark Savage for the BBC becomes, ‘...prolific to a fault and, although fans will lap up all 31 songs with salivatory excitement, the rest of us could do with a carefully edited 12-track best of’. With continuous bombardment, and a constant two-year cycle for the two. Does society start acceptance once we see results. That we will fund your sadness, now we see it sells. And how long do those conditions take?

WHERE DO WE GO NOW?

Now after exploring genre shifting moments and enduring years of public scrutiny and fan involvement over their personal lives, something seemingly unchanging has now changed. Del Rey in 2017, releases an album that was in retaliation to who she created herself to be, and wasn’t missed by reviewers, and picked apart by fans, Lust for Life. Meaghan Garvey at the time of the release set the scene in her review for Pitchfork. ‘Two things immediately set Lust for Life apart from the rest of Del Rey’s catalogue. First, that smile, beaming from the belladonna of sadness… Even stranger: the track list… This would be Del Rey’s “happy album” fans predicted – or worse, an obligatory pivot into wokeness.’ Lana Del Rey has moved on.

In encoding and decoding meaning from lyricism, fandom becomes even more entwined with identity and a way of life.

The most recent case of this is evident by the morbid excitement over Gracie Abrams recent, alleged, breakup. Many of her fans took to social media (one with 73.4k likes) to exclaim their joy that her music will return her to the previous sombre, pensive production of her debut album rather than the optimistic pop sound of her sophomore record. All this occurring before the breakup has even been confirmed based purely on media speculation. Even though it has been repeatedly

disproven to have even occurred, this all started from one picture where Abrams seemingly looking sad gave a cause for celebration.

It could be linked to this idea of music as a comfort blanket, and the personal betrayal felt when artists such as Abrams are seen to move past their sad girl roots. In a recent interview for Cosmopolitan, she only talks briefly about her earlier work when asked about her attachment style as being ‘anxious’, responding, ‘I will write until I die about feeling rejected if I don’t get a text back within five seconds of sending one- ‘. Though in the corresponding quick-fire interview for TikTok, fans online have cried in mutual outrage for her ‘ignoring her roots’ when she responds to the question ‘Lyric you most regret writing?’ with, ‘all of (her song) Best’, the first track of her debut album and the song which the name Good Riddance comes from.

Sophie Wilson for i-D even acknowledged we ‘… are all guilty… of projecting our own emotions onto people we have never met’. It’s natural to have a sense of loneliness when it feels as though your artist is moving on without you, that you’re still in the same place you’ve always been.

As the argument stands, yes, artists release music at their own discretion; knowingly opening themselves and encouraging public investment and dissection into the lore of their life. This purposely blurring of the para-social line between fan and artist; and further between persona and person, ultimately piques more interest in their music. Yet just because artists are opening their emotional state to the public, it does not automatically make us entitled to commend them to a life of misery just for our aesthetic and pleasure. And it definitely does not entitle us, as fans, to halt their evolution because we are too scared of change.

Photograph by David Lee

Vincent Van Gogh, Sunflowers (1887)

THE SILENT SUFFERING

Imagine living in chronic, debilitating pain for years, only to be told it’s all in your head.

Content note: This article discusses medical discrimination in accessing care for endometriosis, particularly for Black women, trans men, and non-binary people.

WRITTEN BY MADDIE MCKEE

Endometriosis, a condition affecting millions globally, is a glaring indictment of systemic neglec t in women’s healthcare. Its devastating impact is often minimised, misdiagnosed, or met with inadequate care—a reflection of entrenched medical, cultural, and political biases.

For countless individuals, the reality of living with endometriosis means relentless pain that disrupts every aspect of life, only to be dismissed as “normal” or “all in your head.” Despite its widespread prevalence, the condition remains shrouded in stigma and chronically underfunded in research. But why?

By delving into the science of endometriosis and the gendered inequities that perpetuate its disregard, this article argues that endometriosis is not just a medical issue – it is a feminist cause that demands justice and systemic change.

Understanding Endometriosis

As Johns Hopkins Medicine explains, endometri-

osis is a systemic inflammatory condition where tissue resembling the uterus lining— called endometrial tissue—grows outside the uterus. Think ovaries, fallopian tubes, or even the pelvic cavity. Unlike the regular endometrial tissue inside the uterus, which sheds during your period, this rogue tissue has nowhere to go. The result? A painful build-up of inflammation, scarring, and cysts. In severe cases, it even causes organs to stick together.

Endometriosis isn’t just an inconvenient period problem—it’s a life-disrupting condition. According to the NHS, symptoms go beyond pelvic pain and heavy periods; they can also include painful sex, infertility, and chronic fatigue. Alarmingly, these symptoms often begin in adolescence. The National Library of Medicine highlights than an estimated 70% of teens with persistent pelvic pain are later diagnosed with endometriosis. Yet, early warning signs are frequently brushed off as “normal” period pain.

According to Endometriosis UK, this condition affects up to 10% of women and individuals as-

signed female at birth worldwide — approximately 1.5 million people in the UK alone. Despite its prevalence, the Royal Women’s Hospital in Victoria, Australia, reports that the average time to diagnosis remains an alarming 7 to 10 years, largely due to dismissive attitudes, misdiagnoses, and systemic healthcare failures.

While hormonal therapies and surgeries are available, they are far from curative, leaving patients to navigate limited, often inadequate options. As Katherine Ellis, Deborah Munro, and Jennifer Clarke points out in their article, ‘Endometriosis Is Undervalued: A Call-to-Action’, research funding continues to be severely inadequate, which further underscores the profound and persistent undervaluation of women’s health.

Here’s the truth: endometriosis isn’t just a medical condition - it’s a feminist issue. The systemic neglect of this disease underscores how deeply women’s health is undervalued. If endometriosis primarily affected men, do you think it would take 7 to 10 years to get a diagnosis? Would research funding still be scraping the bottom of the barrel?

This fight against endometriosis isn’t just about pain relief - it’s about dismantling the biases that perpetuate this neglect. It’s about demanding better research, better treatments, and a healthcare system that takes women’s pain seriously. Recent findings confirm that endometriosis isn’t confined to the reproductive system—it affects the entire immune system. Research by Linlin Wang (The Women of Immunology: Achievements, Challenges and Perspectives) reveals that individuals with endometriosis experience heightened inflammation and altered immune responses, which not only worsen symptoms but also complicate treatment efforts. Additionally, emerging studies on the gut microbiome suggest it may play a role in the condition, offering hope for potential breakthroughs in diagnosis and treatment.

The Human Toll of Endometriosis

Endometriosis isn’t just a physical burden – it disrupts 40% of everyday life. The World Endometriosis Research Foundation’s Endo Cost Quality of Life Study paints a bleak picture; 51% of participants reported that endometriosis interfered with their

ability to work, while 50% said it strained their relationships and sex lives.

The economic toll is just as devasting. A U.S.-based survey published in the National Library of Medicine by Karin Coyne and Michael Snabes (The Effect of Endometriosis: Symptoms on Absenteeism and Presenteeism in the Workplace and at Home) found that 85% of women reported a decline in work performance due to endometriosis, while 20% were unable to work at all.

Despite this, two-thirds of participants continued working through severe pain, reflecting the societal pressures to “push through”. These numbers aren’t just statistics - they’re proof of a silent crisis that’s been ignored for far too long. Endometriosis isn’t just wreaking havoc on individual lives; its harming workplaces, economies, and entire communities.

Gender Bias In Medicine

The neglect of endometriosis is no accident – it’s deeply rooted in a history of patriarchal medicine that trivialised women’s health. As Smithsonian Magazine correspondent Livia Gershon notes, for centuries, women’s pain was dismissed as “hysteria” or “female troubles’, rather than recognised as legitimate medical conditions. Today, this dismissiveness persists as this historical neglect leaves a lasting mark on healthcare systems. One participant in a psychological based study from Manchester Metropolitan University Study shared:

“ “I was told my pain was because I was ‘fat’ or had a low pain threshold. It made me doubt myself— and avoid seeking further help.”

Such experiences are alarmingly common. As highlighted in Gender Biases in Estimation of Others’ Pain by Lanlan Zhang and Elizabeth Losin, the “pain bias” leads to the consistent underestimation of women’s pain in comparison to men’s. This bias contributes to delayed diagnosis and inad-

equate treatment, forcing countless individuals to endure unnecessary suffering before receiving proper medical attention.

Over 75% of endometriosis patients are misdiagnosed with mental illnesses or other conditions before receiving an accurate diagnosis. Meanwhile, conditions like prostate cancer receive significantly more funding, underscoring the systemic gender disparities in healthcare, as noted in the UK Parliament’s Women’s Reproductive Health Conditions report (2024-25).

The lack of research, resources, and government policy on endometriosis results from deeply ingrained structural, cultural, and political biases. Women’s pain? Historically ignored or dismissed. Menstruation? Still shrouded in stigma. These attitudes permeate our healthcare systems, forcing patients to navigate a minefield of misdiagnoses and ineffective treatments.

Increased investment could revolutionise patient outcomes by advancing less invasive, more effective diagnostic and treatment methods, such as novel biomarkers, nanomedicine, and microbiome focused therapies. As Elisabeth Mahase’s notes in her 2024 report, Endometriosis: Lack of Care Pathway and Poor Symptom Recognition Are Hindering Care, for a condition that affects millions but still steeped in neglect, this is not just a medical necessity—it’s a feminist imperative. It’s time to demand that endometriosis be treated with the urgency and respect it warrants.

The Politics of Pain

Menstrual and reproductive health have long been relegated to the margins of policymaking, dismissed as secondary concerns or ignored altogether. Legislative efforts addressing conditions like endometriosis are often superficial, limited to symbolic awareness days or inadequate funding that fails address the systemic challenges patients face.

The roots of this inequity lie in the historical entanglement of medicine and misogyny. As Caroline Criado Perez outlines in Invisible Women: Exposing Data Bias in a World Designed for Men, the healthcare system routinely neglects women’s unique needs, leaving them “chronically misun-

Vincent Van Gogh Four Withered Sunflowers (1887)

derstood, mistreated, and misdiagnosed.” Gaps in medical research and gendered biases continue to shape unequal healthcare outcomes - particularly for conditions like endometriosis, which disproportionately affect women and individuals assigned female at birth.

The UK’s stark gender health disparity was brought to the forefront during the House of Lords debate held on July 8, 2021, as detailed in the House of Lords Library’s report, Women’s Health Outcomes: Is There a Gender Gap? The debate highlighted how women consistently receive poorer care than men across a range of conditions. Yet discussions and reports alone are not enough. Endometriosis affects 1 in 10 women globally, making its neglect emblematic of a broader failure to prioritise women’s health.

To challenge this imbalance, feminist advocacy must demand systemic reform - including equitable research funding, patient-centred policies, and a commitment to eradicating the stigma surrounding menstrual and reproductive health. Women’s pain is real—and it’s time for the healthcare system to act like it.

Intersectionality & Barriers To Care

For individuals from marginalised backgrounds, accessing healthcare becomes even more of a challenge. Conditions such as uterine fibroids and endometriosis, which affect millions of people, disproportionately affect Black women. As highlighted in Racial Disparities in Uterine Fibroids and Endometriosis (2023) by Jodie Katon and Torie Plowden, systemic racism within healthcare amplifies the challenges Black women face—from delays in diagnosis to inadequate treatment. As noted by Medical News Today (2023), medically reviewed by Jenneh Rishe, highlights, this neglect demands an intersectional feminist approach –one that not only addresses medical shortcomings but also tackles the biases Black women encounter. Achieving this means ensuring equitable access to care and research for all.

Transgender and non-binary individuals often face gender bias in healthcare, leading to their pain being dismissed, delayed diagnoses, and poorer health outcomes. As discussed in Access-

ing and Utilising Gender-Affirming Healthcare in England and Wales by Talen Wright and Fiona Burns, LGBTQA+ individuals encounter unique hurdles, from gender dysphoria during medical care to outright discrimination. The Experience of Transgender and Non-Binary Adults in Primary Care (2023) by Daisy Holland highlights that a 2018 survey found one-third of transgender respondents were denied care due to their gender identity, while another third faced unwanted physical contact from healthcare providers.

Many transmasculine individuals avoid gynaecological care altogether due to the fear of discrimination. According to the Centre for American Progress, 85% of transmasculine patients prefer gender-inclusive language from healthcare providers, underscoring the urgent need for inclusive, affirming care. While initiatives like the Endometriosis Foundation of America’s LGBTQA Endo Resource Hub represent progress, systemic change is essential to ensure equitable healthcare for all.

Beyond discrimination, financial and geographic barriers further restrict access to care. The high costs of consultations, surgeries, and ongoing treatment make adequate care inaccessible for many. Additionally, those living in rural areas often face the added burden of long-distance travel, leading some to forgo care entirely.

Reclaiming the Narrative

The lived experiences of those with endometriosis highlight the urgent need for change. One young woman shared how the disease completely upended her life:

“ “It’s a full-body disease that takes away so much from your life, affecting fertility, energy, and your sense of normalcy. It even fuses your organs, like the bladder and bowel. For years, I lived in chronic pain

“ without knowing why. I was 20 when I was finally diagnosed, but I’d been silently suffering since I was 14. As women, we’re conditioned to just ‘get on with it,’ and that mindset left me stuck in agony for so long.”

Take Maya, a 35-year-old who spent over a decade seeking a diagnosis. Her symptoms began in high school with excruciating cramps that caused her to miss classes. “Every doctor told me it was just bad periods,’ Maya recalls. It wasn’t until she collapsed during a university exam that doctors discovered extensive adhesions caused by undiagnosed endometriosis. Today, Maya advocates for awareness, but she admits, “The emotional scars from years of being dismissed are just as hard to heal as the physical pain.”

Advocacy groups like Endometriosis UK are amplifying these voices, pushing for systemic reform. Grassroots organisations such as the East Sussex Community Group provide vital peer support, creating safe spaces where individuals can connect, share experience and access resources. Even small initiatives - like helplines staffed by volunteers with lived experience, make a meaningful difference.

Feminist-led advocacy campaigns have already shown that change is possible. In 2018, Australia’s national endometriosis plan prioritised healthcare by increasing provider training, public awareness campaigns, and increased research funding. This initiative led to reduced diagnosis times and expanded access to care. Imagine if every country adopted a similar approach.

In contrast, the United States continues to underfund endometriosis research, allocating a mere 0.038% of the National Institute of Health budget to the condition in 2022. This disparity highlights the urgent need for a global framework that treats menstrual health as a public health priority – not a niche concern.

Other nations are starting to act. In the UK, six groundbreaking projects were recently granted £12.4 million to investigate the workplace implications of endometriosis, including how it influences women’s career choices. Meanwhile, Labour’s budget outlines an additional £22.6 billion for healthcare, with promises to increase elective appointments and slash gynaecology waitlists that have ballooned post-pandemic.

Yet, these steps barely scratch the surface. Endometriosis UK reports that the average diagnosis time is still an agonising 8 years and 10 months. While policy wins are encouraging, true progress requires greater funding, deeper research, and cultural shifts to reframe the conversation around menstrual health.

Here’s the reality: Endometriosis is not just a “women’s issue”—it’s a public health crisis that affects nearly every aspect of life. Its ripple effects extend far beyond physical health, influencing mental well-being, relationships, and financial stability. Addressing this crisis requires a comprehensive approach, beginning with funding research prioritising patient-centred care. This means developing less invasive treatments and creating equitable policies that recognise and address the unique challenges marginalised communities face.

However, solving this issue goes beyond just funding research—it requires intersectional approaches that specifically address the unique obstacles marginalised groups face. To truly create equitable solutions, research must actively include diverse perspectives from those affected by multiple layers of marginalisation, whether based on race, class, LGBTQIA+ identity or geographical location. This ensures that no group’s needs are overlooked or underrepresented.

For Black women, the challenges of living with endometriosis are compounded by the pervasive issues of systemic racism in healthcare. Research by Olga Bougie in Influence of race/ ethnicity on prevalence and presentation of endometriosis found that Black women are 50% less likely to receive an accurate diagnosis compared to white women. Moreover, studies published in The Conversation show that Black women are less likely to be referred to specialists, leading to diagnoses delays averaging two and a half years longer than their

white counterparts. Organisations such as Black Women Reproductive Health (The Tap Project) are tackling these disparities by examining how systemic racism shapes access to care.

For trans and nonbinary individuals, the barriers are different but equally severe. The fear of discrimination often prevents transmasculine individuals from seeking care. When they do, they frequently encounter healthcare providers unfamiliar with gender- affirming reproductive care. Non-binary lesbian Kai Preston shared their experience of being misgendered and misunderstood in the context of their endometriosis diagnosis with Endometriosis.net, explaining, “All you want to do is pass and ignore the dysphoria. You must out yourself as trans every time you seek medical care.”

This underscores the urgent need for inclusive, affirming healthcare. While initiatives like the Foundation of America’s LGBTQA Endo Resource Hub are a step forward, system-wide reform is essential.

The Future of

Endometriosis Advocacy

Endometriosis UK has established a Diversity and Inclusion Committee to address the specific challenges faced by Black, South Asian, LGBTQ+, and Trans communities. These discussions end a clear call for better representation and inclusive care that acknowledges every patient’s unique needs.

For far too long, menstrual pain has been dismissed as “normal”, reinforcing that false belief that conditions like endometriosis don’t deserve serious attention. It’s time to shatter this outdated narrative.

The way forward involves open conversations to break menstrual health stigma, better education for both public and medical professionals, and policies that prioritise and protect individuals living with endometriosis.

A Framework For Change

Endometriosis is more than a health issue—it’s a justice issue. Feminist activism is crucial to dis-

mantling the systems that ignore, silence, and sideline those living with this condition.

Let’s be honest: menstruation has been shrouded for centuries, and that stigma continues to shape menstrual health policies worldwide.

A recent analysis of 34 policy documents from countries, including India, Kenya, and the United States uncovered a troubling trend. While many initiatives focus on educating people about menstruation, they often fail to address the underlying issue of stigma.

In The Persistent Power of Stigma, Mary Olson’s research reveals how these policies can inadvertently reinforce the societal narrative that menstruation is something to be concealed.

To truly combat this stigma, we need more than superficial awareness campaigns. We need cultural interventions that acknowledge how shame influences everything – from healthcare access to workplace policies.

Feminist activism is at the heart of this fight, and there are countless ways to get involved:

Demand Policy Change: Write to your MP or local representatives to push for better reproductive healthcare funding.

Support Advocacy Groups: Organisations like Endometriosis UK and grassroots collectives are leading the charge for awareness, equity, and systemic reform.

Get Involved: Participate in Endometriosis Action Month, attend community events, or share stories to amplify the voices of those impacted.

It’s time to end the silence, challenge the stigma, and demand systemic change. Endometriosis isn’t just about healthcare - it’s about dignity, equity, and justice.

The time for change? It’s now.

Vincent Van Gogh Six Sunflowers (1888)

DIET CULTURE NEEDS TO GO

how to improve your experience on social media & your relationship with food & your body

Content Guidance: The purpose of this article is to understand the ethics of social media and its presentation of beauty standards and fad diets which may have knock on effects for audiences to develop unhealthy behaviours in relation to food and their bodies.

#RIOTSNOTDIETS

It’s 2025, it’s a new year and we must avoid slipping into diet culture resolutions that consume the internet. Last year, Dr Charlotte Markey released Adultish: The Body Image Book of Life where she discussed the importance of cancelling diet culture. If you are going to strive for a resolution this year, then make it #RiotsNotDiets! We are living in an era on social media where body positive content, which entered the mainstream in the 2010s, is still being pushed aside by widespread circulation of toxic diet culture, so it is more im-

WRITTEN BY CHARLOTTE BEATTIE

portant than ever to ensure a win for body positivity. In her book, Charlotte mentions that she’s in her most healthy frame of mind when it comes to her body. She says that being rid of fitness accounts on social media played a key role in this as “most of what you’re seeing isn’t real!”

I interviewed Lancaster University student, Emily Rose, who confirmed the toxicity of social media and its impact on women’s relationships with their mental health concerning food and weight. In response to this topic, she explained- “I think when you see so much contrast online, you just naturally compare yourself”. She explained how,

Emma/Adobe Stock

instead, she follows accounts that promote a positive outlook on authentic bodies and eating habits. “I follow Bree Lenehan and Spencer Barbosa on Instagram who normalise things about your body that aren’t seen as ‘conventionally attractive’ or that fit with societal beauty standards, and they show them as a positive thing about yourself that you should feel confident and happy living with. I appreciate how they encourage a mindset of seeing insecurities as beautiful things.”

DIET CULTURE OVER THE YEARS

It is a significant time to discuss these deeply personal topics because we are seeing a decline in feminist media. In an article for NBCU Academy in 2023, Nylah Burton stressed the closing of Teen Vogue, Glamour, Self and Seventeen’s print publications and how we need to push for the publications left to write more constructive articles than bulking magazines with what she referred to as ‘fluff.’ Therefore, by writing this article for Immediate, I am trying to encourage students interested in journalism and storytelling to consider the way they write about women’s health and fitness.

Women’s beauty standards have been fluctuating for years which comes with the circulation of diet trends and fitness challenges that promise specific end goals. Research by Guillen and Barr in 1994 for the Journal of Adolescent Health has shown that popular magazines for young girls began to shift their focus more towards fitness and an ‘ideal’ body shape between 1970 and 1990 revealing how this toxicity has been prevalent for decades.

“ Stop the fluff, we want education.

FAD DIETS IN DISGUISE

In an article for The Guardian in 2017, food and culture columnist, Ruby Tandoh, explained the evolution of wellness culture as society began to realise the dangers of diet promotion in the media which encouraged influencers to promote healthier eating habits on social media. This was coined

by the media as ‘clean eating’ which developed into another fad diet in disguise as something body positive and wellness motivated.

We are subject to online harms and misinformation on social media in terms of the convincing way that fad diets are promoted online. Especially when we see ‘health professionals’ and ‘doctors’ highlighting the supposedly healthy benefits of these diets. Therefore, the Online Safety Act was passed in 2023 to encourage social media to be more regulated, and responsible in the content they publish. However, platforms still have a lot more to change in order to enforce these measures. So for now:

“ Always think twice after reading something online.

In an article for Eating Recovery Center in 2024, Rebecca Pacun explains research found that 70% of women were editing their images due to dissatisfaction with their natural appearance. A study revealed that ‘50% of its participants reported changing their diet based on a social media post’ which highlights how toxic social media has become for the vulnerable mind. When, in reality, every body is different and listening to your own body is what you should practice rather than focussing on anyone else.

In their analytical report concerning young people with eating disorders and their experiences online in 2023, the EPPI Centre concluded that online content was easily accessible for young people with eating disorders which posed a threat because this content was encouraging comparison in terms of food portions and weight loss correlated with achievement. This inflicted the feeling of failure and triggered negative thoughts and actions of these vulnerable, online consumers.

We need to normalise promoting authentic content of ourselves without labelling it under wellness, diets or as a representation of health online because physical health is individual and should correlate with a healthy mind. We need to see normal bodies; imperfections that society has created being turned into perfections by the people we consume online. No diets, no wellness culture, no clean eating- just living.

“ PASS IT ON

If you are going to strive for a resolution this year, then make it #RiotsNotDiets!

As female students in a modern culture of global technology, we are drowning in new fad diets and TikTok trends that, on the surface, seem light-hearted but they are encouraging toxicity and stigma concerning body positivity. For example, the new Sabrina Carpenter trend where girlfriends get their partners to lift them up to reveal that they are ‘jacked and kind’. It may appear to be wholesome couple content but really it feeds the stereotype that heterosexual women must be smaller than their male partners. However, we should begin to fight these stereotypes and enforce the message that being larger than your significant other doesn’t subtract from your worth as a partner. In an era of increasing social media content online we should be aware of participating in toxic trends and understanding the impact that these videos can have on audiences and their

mental health.

In an article for Saveur in 2022, Kate Nelson reveals the mindset of mothers who grew up in the 90s and 00s- “for us, the era’s long-lasting impacts—disordered eating, body dysmorphia, an affinity for packaged foods with purported perks—are the worst kind of throwback”. With this in mind, we want to ensure that our future generations, your daughters, don’t grow up consuming the toxicity that we did growing up with mothers from a period where diet culture was beginning to impact women and their mental and physical health.

During my interview with Emily Rose, I thought it would be impactful to hear what a gen z university student would have to say about the way that they aspire to raise their daughter in a world of mass technology and toxic diet culture online. She explained that:

“I would encourage her [my future daughter] to accept herself and not feel as though she needs to change to fit into a societal expectation of the ‘norm’.

If I’m struggling with something related to food then I wouldn’t express that around my daughter. And I think normalising chats about body image with her and making her feel comfortable to come and speak to me if she’s not feeling the best about her body.”

It should be your number one priority to share this positive mindset with yourself and your future children to prevent further toxicity online in future generations.

CHECKLIST

to improve your relationship with your body, mind & media experience:

Build your own healthy algorithm- evaluate your reaction to different accounts in your social media following. Unfollow the ones that are impacting you negatively and follow the ones that reinforce positive body image and accepting your ‘imperfections’.

Be aware of misinformation- research and think twice before you believe ‘facts’ online about fad diets and wellness even if they have been written by someone with a convincing title.

Remember that your relationship with food and your body is individual- as hard as it is, try not to compare your journey to others online or around you.

Report accounts on social media that promote negative eating and exercise habits or that contribute to toxic diet culture- remember #RiotsNotDiets!

If we enforce these practices in our day-to-day social media use, then we can rebuild a healthy relationship with social media and have access to a body positive algorithm.

If we start promoting body positive accounts more often and calling out friends, family and accounts that promote unhealthy habits then we can rebuild a society that strives for happiness within itself rather than always feeling as though achieving happiness is only enabled from a certain body or consumption of food. Here at Immediate, we are taking a stand

against diet culture and promoting what is real, authentic and normal for the lives of women and students in 2025.

Text Shout to 85258

To find out more: Visit Beat Eating Disorders online and donate to their charity NEED HELP NOW?

Visit your local GP and schedule a free assessment on the Eating Recovery Centre website

REFRAMING THE PICTURE:

DISABILITY, FEMININITY BEAUTY STANDARDS &

WRITTEN BY LEAH GARNETT

Content note: This article explores the subject of ableism, and misogyny. This article uses identity-first language.

While people say there is beauty in everything, society stresses the importance of beauty standards. There is an argument that beauty is one definitive thing, something which must be achieved, rather than something that is always present. The meaning of ‘beauty’ differs throughout history and across cultures, but largely these standards share one thing in common – the significance placed on women’s appearance. In her book Postfeminism, Stéphanie Genz writes that notions of femininity and beauty are culturally constructed, and women are encouraged to conform to avoid harassment, judgment and ridicule. Feminine beauty standards can be blamed for women and girl’s issues with self-esteem and facial/body dysmorphia when they do not fit into an acceptable image of beauty. In the UK and USA, the dominant ideas of what women ‘should’ aspire to look like tends to be sleek, slender and largely unattainable. Even though beauty standards have been widely discussed and criticised, disabled and disfigured women are often left out of the conversation. Writing for the Walrus, Sarah Trick explains that a woman’s looks are still considered a signifier of her worth, while ugliness is seen as a ‘deficit in character’; in many cases, ugliness and disability are even directly associated with villainy. While it’s fair to say that all women are affected by society’s demand for stereotypical beauty, disabled women are scrutinised even further and the assumption that they can and should be able to fit into this

idealised vision as much as their able-bodied peers is unrealistic and unfair.

Are beauty standards inherently ableist?

‘If a beautiful woman is a woman who controls herself – her weight, her desire, her appearance – in order to be attractive, a disabled woman loses that game from the start’

SARAH TRICK

Dismantling beauty standards has been a key focus of feminist activism for decades. Beauty standards, and the extent to which women align with them, directly tie to a woman’s worth. There is a suggestion that attractiveness can act as a measure of achievement – even today, a woman’s success may be dictated by her looks. Idealised femininity places pressure on women to conform to these norms by having a certain body type, fit a mainstream style and age gracefully. However, the idea of a ‘beautiful woman’ – and in response, individual women’s own body image – is constructed by the repetition of images conveying what is and isn’t considered attractive, it is not one set thing. This image is always changing, but conventionally attractive women tend to have the same features and traits. Any woman who doesn’t fit into this

Sarah Biffin

Portrait of a young lady

Why is the responsibility falling on disabled women to hide their ‘less desirable’ features, and not on everyone else to rethink their attitudes towards femininity and disability?

Self-portrait of Sarah Biffin, circa 1842

mould is labelled as ‘unique’ at best, ‘ugly’ at worst. It is important to understand that images of conventional beauty exclude women with disabilities because they are automatically viewed as undesirable and deviating from the normdue to their condition(s). Even disabled women who would otherwise be considered conventionally attractive may still not be perceived as such due to societal bias and preconceived attitudes around disability.

There is a stigma around all women who defy expectations, but women with disabilities in particular are not afforded the same graces that able-bodied women are. Disability Studies researcher Tara Fannon argues that there is a so called ‘area of acceptability’ when it comes to women’s appearance, and more often than not, disabled women are placed outside this area. Their bodies are instead regarded as ‘grotesque spectacles’, as described by sociologists Diane Taub, Patricia Fanflik and Penelope McLorg. Women with and without disabilities experience much of the same oppression but is vital that we acknowledge the intersection of identities that influence the treatment of the latter. Fannon writes that Disabled women’s bodies are marginalized by gender and physicality, upholding systems of ableism and misogyny. Disabled women, especially those with physical disabilities, are subject to unique circumstances when conforming to society’s ideals. Whereas able-bodied women can easily blend into a crowd of conventional beauty through their use of clothing or makeup, the movement and body of a women with a physical or visible disability complicates how she fits into ideal aesthetics. Similarly, accommodating devices such as wheelchairs, crutches or medical tech counter appearance expectations. Taub, Fanflik and McLorg state that these devices, despite their necessity, are often viewed by others as ‘hard, cold, angular, and usually ugly’, restricting the woman behind the device from being viewed as anything but disabled.

Much of the construction of beauty standards hinges on the performance of femininity. Bradley University’s ‘Body Project’ highlights how disabled women often deviate from the narrow definition of femininity displayed in the media due to the impairments of their conditions, which leads to the perception of them as unattractive, as not ‘real’ women. The idea that there is a ‘correct’ expression of femininity is entirely a social construct, rooted in sexism and stereotyping, and concerns

both a woman’s appearance and behaviour. If I asked you to picture a model, would you imagine a slender woman with perfect hair, tan skin and stylish clothes? These are all signifiers of idealised femininity, but this isn’t a realistic standard. Conditioned through repeated exposure to these images, all women are expected to dedicate their time (and money) to pursuing this look.

For disabled women, this is an entirely different struggle. “If I’m in a wheelchair, I have to be pretty…and make myself look ‘well,’” says disability and body image advocate Jayne Mattingly in an interview with Jessica Defino, describing a feeling labelled ‘cosmetic coping’ or ‘body grief’. This is a familiar feeling for many women living with disabilities. Beauty culture lists a range of socially acceptable features, and you can only deviate so much without being deemed ‘ugly’. There is an unspoken rule that disabled woman need to balance out their ‘good’ and ‘bad’ traits, a real feeling that disabled women need to compensate for their disability by following beauty standards where they can and performing ideal femininity the way society wants them to.

In no way am I trying to belittle the steps that have been made in allowing women to experiment with their looks and how they present their gender. But for disabled women, this is less realistic – if people are going to see your disability before they see you, you might as well conform to beauty standards to escape further criticism and avoid making those around you uncomfortable with your presence. The central issue here is clear: why is the responsibility falling on disabled women to hide their ‘less desirable’ features, and not on everyone else to rethink their attitudes towards femininity and disability?

Desirability & IsolationThe perception of disabled bodies.

Writing for the Sexuality and Disability blog, disability rights activist and counsellor, Abha Khetarpal Maurya quotes a disabled girl, who had reached out to her and shared that: “I have never heard from my parents that I will ever become a mother, or (that) someday I will get married. Neither of my parents ever felt that I would someday become a sexually attractive female. Marriage remains a distant dream

for me.”

There is a long history of projection of biases onto disabled people, and this is unfortunately deeply rooted in society. Disability is perceived negatively by able-bodied people, treated as a taboo or ‘something gone wrong’. Even these biases are gendered. It is taken for granted that women with disabilities will remain single, an attitude that assumes they won’t be seen as attractive. Women are already far more likely than men to be judged by their appearance and resulting sexual appeal without the additional attitudes forced on disabled women. Disabled women with able-bodied partners are viewed with pity, while their partners are praised for their kindness, as if dating a disabled woman is somehow an act of charity. Online, these couples are subject to comments speculating that disabled women must be rich to have ‘convinced’ someone to date her. Convinced, because there is no way anyone would want to date a disabled woman without gaining something from her.

The question of a disabled woman’s romantic and sexual identity has always been secondary in the eyes of the world. There is a sense here that, because these women are disabled, they do not have the agency to pursue relationships. In performing femininity and highlighting conventionally attractive traits, they may achieve some worth, but even if they do there is little point because they are already ‘othered’ by society. The dismissal of disabled women’s looks feeds into a cycle where social value is placed on their bodies. When society is constantly telling them that they are not beautiful and therefore not likely to be seen as attractive to others, disabled women are less likely to seek out romantic or sexual relationships. In the same way that beauty standards become internalised, disabled women may come to believe these views, which may prevent them from forming romantic relationships due to their own sense of self-worth.

Moving ForwardDisability Activism

& Social Media

So what is actually being done to change the disproportionate pressure disabled women face? Disability activists argue that visibility is a key step towards empowerment. Most modern disability

activism is rooted in Mike Oliver ’s ‘social model’ of disability, which reasons that disabled people are not impaired by their conditions alone, but also by the barriers of an ableist society. As we’ve already established, disabled women are expected to ‘fit in by passing as non-disabled or minimising the less attractive aspects of their disability. In fighting for better representation of disabled women – whether that’s in the fashion or beauty industries, or simply an increased presence of disabled people in the media – hopefully disabled bodies will become normalised and, as a result, disabled women will be allowed to feel beautiful. The general understanding and picture of disability needs to be reframed. Disability is not inherently a bad thing; the real problem is ableism. I think there is a real need for reflection on what we consider beautiful and why certain characteristics – certain people – do not fit into this category.

‘Disabled women’s existence is not offensive, they should not have to censor themselves for the comfort of others.’

In today’s world, the internet has become a vital space for activists to share their work and messages, shaping contemporary feminism. Social media has been a help and a hinderance in disabled women’s approach to feminist activism. On one hand, it has given them a more accessible platform, but it has also offered a new channel for hatred to spread. Instagram, for example, is dominated by ‘thinspiration’ - writing in Gender and the Digital Sphere, Media and Film Lecturer Dr Barbara Mitra criticises the thousands of images showcasing “perfect bodies, perfect lives and perfect relationships” which lead to rising issues with body dissatisfaction. These digital spaces may be user-curated, but the conventional beauty standards still dominate. Being a disabled woman on the internet can be hard. In a Refinery29 article, disability activist Carly Findlay reveals that intrusion, mock compliments and ‘freakshow-style clickbait’ are sadly not uncommon. In some cases, disabled and disfigured women have even had their photos flagged as sensitive content by platforms, just for showing disabled bodies. Disabled women’s existence is not offensive, they should not have to censor themselves for the comfort of others, but just as ableism permeates everyday opinion, it impacts disabled women’s online presence. Although harmful attitudes are prominent on

Women can be beautiful and disabled at the same time; these things are not mutually exclusive.

“

Miss Biffin. Watercolour by Miss Biffin

Sarah Biffin, ‘Portrait of a Lady’,

social media, it is also important to note the increase in content that promotes body positivity and challenges dominant idealised beauty. Social media gives disabled women a place to own the narrative of what disability looks like, rather than having to conform to ableist expectations. Online platforms allow users to exist outside the conventions of the offline world, presenting the opportunity for users to build their own identity, liberating them from the one constructed by the offline world. The accessible nature of social media has broken down barriers separating disabled people and communities and support networks have emerged as a result. One major form of activism seen frequently online is the use hashtags as a vehicle to spread awareness and show authentic disabled people without an able-bodied lens. In 2017, journalist Keah Brown established the #DisabledAndCute hashtag, intended to directly tackle the standard of beauty by placing disabled self-love at the centre. A similar hashtag celebrating the beauty and potential of disabled bodies, #DisabledPeopleAreHot, was also started by writer and activist Andrew Gurza.

What about the beauty industry?

The goal of this activism is to change the way disabled women are treated in relation to their physical appearance. One of the main culprits for the spread of this culture, both for disabled and abled women, is the beauty industry. Attempts to display body diversity, like Dove’s ‘Real Beauty’ campaign, often fall short. These campaigns still focus heavily on women’s appearance, rather than the women themselves – at the end of the day, these campaigns are made to sell products that uphold beauty standards. Despite promoting empowerment and body-acceptance, it can be argued that campaigns like this commodify the female body and use diversity as a selling point. One ‘diverse’ campaign launched by Target, for example, featured four women with different skin tones and body types, but they were all visibly able-bodied. About 15 per cent of the world’s population is disabled, according to the World Health Organisation, but this statistic is underrepresented in almost every area of the media. Beauty companies will claim to celebrate diversity but still fail to put disabled women in the spotlight.

Vogue’s Kati Chitrakorn believes that, although the industry is still mostly designed for the able-bodied, it has thankfully become more inclusive in some areas, the first signs of progress that disabled feminist activists hope for. It’s not all bad, however. Industry giants like L’Oréal, Estée Lauder and Unilever have made improvements with accessible designs and websites, and by offering platforms for the disabled community. In the last decade, the industry has increased inclusion by featuring disabled models, such as Ellie Goldstein, who has Down syndrome, and wheelchair users Jillian Mercado and Aaron Rose Philip. Aerie REAL, a campaign from American Eagle’s sub-brand Aerie, was launched in 2014 to showcase real women with real bodies, with particular focus on the disabled community. This visibility is incredibly important in deconstructing myths surrounding beauty, and was the central focus on Vogue’s May 2023 Issue. In collaboration with ‘Tilting the Lens’ CEO Sinead Burke, the issue featured 19 disabled models, athletes, artists and activists, with the goal of ‘reframing’ disability. By seeing disabled women positioned in the same roles as conventionally attractive models, ingrained ideas begin to be challenged in the minds of disabled and able-bodied women alike.

Disability isn’t some lurking monster that we should be afraid of. It is a natural part of the human experience, and yet disabled women are still being sidelined and seen as different. A disabled woman should not have to settle with being told she’s ‘pretty for a disabled woman’ or ‘beautiful, even with scars’. You should not need to see around her wheelchair to appreciate her makeup, or tiptoe around her disability to give her a compliment. Women can be beautiful and disabled at the same time; these things are not mutually exclusive. Beauty standards do not consider disabled women, but that doesn’t mean they can’t. Just as the social model outlines, one of the central beliefs of disability activism is that social justice and widespread accessibility can be achieved by changing the shape of the world, not by forcing disabled people to fit into what society deems acceptable. As Professor Rosemarie-Garland Thompson argues in her essay ‘Misfits’: disabled women should not feel the need to change themselves to appeal to an ableist standard - a standard that honestly should not exist in the first place - society needs to broaden its view of beauty to accommodate disability.

DIOR’S ATTEMPT AT FEMVERTISING:

Spring/Summer 2024

Ready-To-Wear Show

WRITTEN BY LARA MUELLER

NOT HER: Dior’s Feminist Statement

Can fashion be harnessed to pursue feminist activism? Maria Grazia Chiuri, Dior’s first female artistic director, believes it can be.

Writing in the news outlet Business of Fashion, fashion commentator Colin McDowell credits Dior’s transformative impact on women’s fashion, emphasising the brand’s revival of elegance and glamour in the aftermath of World War II. Maria Grazia Chiuri has since evolved the brand’s legacy by attempting to incorporate themes of female empowerment and feminism within the brand’s collections. The Spring-Summer 2024 Ready-toWear show (S/S’ 24) was no exception as Chirui grounded the season in her belief that ‘fashion has a responsibility to help women realise their worth and express their differences’.

The show’s garments drew specific inspiration from the rebels that have asserted their independence in the face of a masculine world and challenged its system. Here, one figure was seen to epitomise female rebellion: the witch. Dior defines witches as ‘custodians of the knowledge of

the mother-goddess, who pass on the science of plants and respect the time of nature’.

Chiuri collaborated with visual artist Elena Bellan toni to create accompanying scenography that would align with a key element of the show’s vi sion: challenging the masculine world and its sys tem. (We can confidently assume Dior is referring to the patriarchal society we live in.) The result was Bellantoni’s video installation, NOT HER, which oc cupied the entire surroundings of the show. NOT HER intended to challenge the existing cliches that confine women to predefined categories.

To illustrate this intention, Bellantoni curated 24 unique advertisements that illustrated the stereo typical aesthetics and representations of women from the 1940s to the present day. The imagery featured hyper-feminine depictions of women as passive objects of desire, often confined to do mestic or ornamental roles. Accompanying the visuals were slogans that challenged and rejected the stereotypical narratives communicated.

Examples of these slogans included:

‘I am not only a mother, wife, daughter. I am a woman’

‘Woman is an active subject of the historical process and cannot be defined to being the object of desire of patriarchy’

Dior states that NOT HER is the response to gender stereotypes, as the curated advertisements and attached slogans strikingly highlight that the stereotypes depicted are not HER. It is clear that Dior’s intentions of its scenography were to (rightfully so) communicate that we, as women, are not defined by the stereotypes that have been placed

Femvertising & Fashion

The term Femvertising was debuted in 2014 by digital media company She Knows to describe advertising efforts that directly challenge gender stereotypes depicted in advertising. Efforts of Femvertising ensures stereotypes are challenged by ensuring the use of pro-female talents, messages and imagery to create advertising that empowers women and girls. The video campaign H&M created for its 2016 Autumn season is a key Fem

vertising example due to the brands expansive and norm-challenging interpretation of femininity. Following the video’s release, Time Magazine journalist Suyin Haynes emphasised H&M’s efforts to depict women unapologetically defying traditional gender expectations through how they look and behave.

It can be said that the garments and scenography of the Dior S/S ‘24 show constituted an attempt at Femvertising. This connection can be made due to the show’s intention of inspiring women to realise their worth (aka female empowerment) whilst challenging systems and stereotypes within our patriarchal society.

The Prevailing Existence of Gender Stereotypes

To understand Dior’s attempt at Femvertising, it is important to first understand what Dior refers to when discussing stereotypes. Due to the way in which Dior connects the ideas of predefined categories and stereotypes, the company is likely referring to prescriptive gender stereotypes. Social psychology professors Manuela Barreto and

Jon Whitcomb - Valentine's Day 1950 - Whitman's Chocolates

Tetra Pak housewife with shopping net, 1950s

Naomi Ellemers define prescriptive gender stereotypes as gendered expectations placed upon men and women regarding how they are supposed to conduct themselves in society. But why would Dior challenge prescriptive gender stereotypes?

The UnStereotype Alliance is a coalition set up by UN Women aiming to remove harmful stereotypes in advertising. The Alliance has stressed the necessity of its mission given that stereotypes continue to have real-life consequences that ‘stifle progress in every society, deny human rights, and diminish entire groups of people’. The consequences identified by the Alliance may include current societal norms that are fuelled by prescriptive gender stereotypes.

In the UK, these norms include current attitudes towards the division of childcare. Whereby, attitudes towards the allocation of childcare duties between parents have meant that Centre for Progressive Policy found that in 2022 women spend almost 450 million hours per week providing childcare versus 186 million hours provided by men. This disproportionate reality may be a contributing factor as to why the centre’s recent findings indicate that women are reducing their working hours or leaving paid work to make time to care for their children. In parallel, Gender Matters 2022, a collaborative project initiated by Lancaster University Management School found that when women are pursuing paid work, the rate of progression into leadership roles continues to be slow. This has led to less than a 1/3 of the UK’s top jobs being filled by women.

‘[Stereotypes] stifle progress in every society, deny human rights, and diminish entire groups of people’.

THE UNSTEREOTYPE ALIANCE, A UNITED NATION WOMEN’S COALITION Women’s

Attitudes and expectations towards how men and women should conduct themselves in society may significantly contribute to these disproportionate societal norms women are facing. So, if prescriptive gender stereotypes can constitute

social norms that trigger gender-disproportionate experiences in different aspects of life, Dior’s intention to challenge prescriptive stereotypes is topical and necessary.

Empowerment for all? The repercussions of Dior’s model casting for S/S 2024

However, the models of the S/S ‘24 garments ironically contrasted with Dior’s intended engagement in a discussion surrounding gender stereotypes and feminism. This is because Dior fails to include a variety of models of different sizes in the show. The models of this show were likely to be predominantly straight size (UK 2-8). This assumption can be made, providing the sizing of the show’s models is similar to the S/S ‘25 runways in New York, London, Milan and Paris, where data uncovered by Vogue Business in 2024 suggested that 94.9% of the models were straight size.

Jess Cartner-Morley, The Guardian’s associate fashion editor, has previously questioned Chiuri on the brand’s poor representation of body diversity amongst its models in a 2023 interview. Chiuri defended Dior’s actions, explaining that there are apparent logistical constraints when creating multiple catwalk collections at speed. According to the creative director, these constraints confine Dior to create garment samples for fashion shows in limited sizes. This is not the first time the brand has been questioned regarding its lack of casting diversity. The Guardian’s senior fashion writer, Lauren Cochrane reported that Dior’s 2020 Autumn/ Winter Haute Couture collection, inspired by mythical creatures was modelled almost exclusively by white individuals. Consequently, the model selection and brand faced public criticism in 2020 for this collection.

Emma Davidson, fashion features director at British Lifestyle Magazine Dazed, offers an additional explanation for the size-restrictive casting identified in Dior’s S/S ‘24: budgets. Budgets are being cut within the fashion industry, which has stripped fashion show sets, invites, and campaigns. As a result, Davidson believes that fashion brands are refraining from allocating funding from already restricted budgets towards size-inclusive practic-

es, which may be costly.

Despite these logistical and financial pressures, Dior could still afford the time and financial investment to create elaborate digital scenography for the S/S ‘24 show. By selecting to place investment in the show’s scenography over size-inclusive representation, Dior is aiding the glamorisation of thinness. The notion of a practised idealisation of thinness has once again become a prevalent societal norm in the aftermath of the Body Positivity movement losing momentum. Tora Northman, head of TikTok at fashion media brand Highsnobiety, believes this lack of momentum is hindered by fashion moguls that ‘still see being thin as being beautiful and being more fashion’.

This current reality, in which thin bodies are idealised within the fashion industry, reflects the perpetuation of the thin ideal. A 2022 study on young women’s perceptions of body size in Western societies provides an effective description of the thin ideal. The authors of the study, Sean Devine, Nathalie Germain, Stefan Ehrlich and Ben Eppinger, characterise the thin ideal as a standard in media representation where women often have an ‘unrealistically slim and tall profile’. By creating garments to be predominantly fitted and showcased by straight-sized models, Dior is further illustrating a skewed ‘standard’ representation of female bodies that are unrealistically slim.

The mentioned researchers Devine et al. argue that upon repeated exposure to the thin ideal, individuals can begin to internalise, accept and endorse this beauty standard. According to Australian psychology professor Marika Tiggemann, these circumstances allow the thin ideal to become a reference point against which women judge

themselves. Tiggemann’s research conducted in the early 2000’s adds that the psychological impact of the thin ideal may trigger feelings of body inadequacy in women. Feelings of body inadequacy amongst women are not surprising given that the thin ideal does not acknowledge nor celebrate the existence of diverse body types. Therefore, by Dior further reinforcing the thin ideal, the brand may exacerbate existing negative feelings of body inadequacy amongst individuals.

If, on a mass scale, women are feeling inadequate because of their bodies, a prescriptive gendered stereotype may be established, where women believe that they should be thin in order to meet the apparent ‘standard’ of body image. Providing this is the case, Dior’s endorsement of the thin ideal may promote the formation and entrenchment of a prescriptive gender stereotype. Heading into 2025, other major fashion brands continue to endorse the thin ideal and face the reality of a similar impact and reception. For this reason, the editorial director of British Vogue, Chioma Nnadi voiced their concerns to the BBC in 2024 regarding the rising prominence of thin models in the fashion industry.

‘Dior failed to acknowledge, let alone empower, the voices of women beyond a straight size.’

Dior must critically assess how its intention to challenge stereotypes in its scenography could be undermined by the reinforcement of a prescriptive gender stereotype through the brands choice of models. This reflection would allow Dior to produce future shows that directly respond to the serious concerns over the ongoing lack of size inclusivity within the fashion industry.

Due to the reality that Dior’s models have the potential to endorse a prescriptive gender stereotype, the brand compromised the effectiveness of its Femvertisement’s intention of inspiring female empowerment. Dior could not inspire meaningful female empowerment when a large proportion of the individuals who viewed the S/S’24 show may have felt inadequate and disempowered by the lack of body diversity showcased.

Therefore, Dior could not deliver inclusive messaging that would be positively received by our diverse society. This reality conflicts with the feminist-derived foundation for the show. Feminism is rooted in the importance of acknowledging and empowering the voices of all women. bell hooks, writing in her classic text, Ain’t I a Woman? Black Women and Feminism (1981), explains that to act on feminist principles authentically involves striving to liberate all individuals from oppressive systems. Dior failed to acknowledge, let alone empower, the voices of women beyond a straight size. These individuals are very much included in a movement that advocates for all voices.

Dior’s Femvertisement strategy: empowering or profit driven?

Upon planning for the S/S ‘24 show, it can be deduced that Dior undertook decision-making with little to no regard for how the show may generate the discussed adverse effects that conflict with the event’s vision. This assumption promotes

us to question the level of authenticity behind Dior’s Femvertisement intentions. Whereby, it can be questioned whether Dior intended to place high levels of time and financial investment towards the consideration of how its Femvertisement may be received by the women it attempted to empower.

But why would Dior deliberately choose not to thoroughly consider the potential receival and impact of its Femvertisement? Perhaps the answer lies in the level of priority Dior placed on maximising profits. Profit acquisition is very likely to have been an area of focus for Dior in the past seven years due to the business now being among fashion’s most profitable brands as reported by Business of Fashion. Since 2017, Dior’s revenues have been estimated to have tripled, reaching 6.6 billion euros.

To thoroughly consider the potential nuanced reception and impact of a Femvertisement, high levels of time and financial investment may be required. This costly investment may hinder the outcome of profit maximisation strategies. Therefore, a high priority level afforded to profit maximisation may

Whitman’s Chocolates, 1950

explain why Dior did not intend to thoroughly analyse the potential varying responses and effects of the S/S’24 show.

If Dior did not intend to undertake this crucial analysis due to its potentially conflicting priorities, the brand’s intentions to deliver a meaningful Femvertisement can be challenged. Instead, it can be questioned whether S/S ’24 revealed Dior’s true intentions to commodify feminist ideals. In a 2020 article for academic journal Feminist Media Studies, Neema Varghese and Navin Kumar provide a useful definition of commodity feminism. Varghese and Kumar define commodity feminism as a concept in which businesses will appropriate the feminist discourse in order to receive profit gains.

In their 2006 study for the Journal of Business Research, Becker-Olsen et al. noted that brands who seemingly incorporated feminist principles in their marketing campaigns, often enjoyed greater commercial success. Sportswear company Under Armour is a prime example of a company that has capitalised on this success through the brands ‘I Will What I Want’ campaign released in 2014. The campaign was grounded in messages of resilience and determination in the face of societal expectations and judgements thrown at women. According to information gathered by The Washington Post in 2016, the campaign produced 5 billion media impressions worldwide and resulted in the company receiving a 28% percent increase in sales made by women. The commercial potential of depicting feminist themes within advertising may have motivated Dior to execute S/S’24 under the guise of a Femvertisement.

The complications of feminism in advertising

Integrating feminism into marketing strategies can be problematic not only as it may allow brands to commodify feminist principles, but also as it places the responsibility for societal change onto individuals. Peter Dauvergne and Genevieve LeBaron in their book The Corporatization of Activism highlight that shifting the responsibility of collective issues to individuals is in the interest of large organisations like Dior. This is because businesses can generate appeal by posing the con-

sumption of goods as a means to support societal movements and drive collective transformation.

However, as movements like feminism require wide scale structural adjustments, the capacity of individual actions is limited without the backing of organisations who have the power to drive meaningful change at scale. The problematic nature of Dior’s efforts for S/S’24 delegitimises the brands intended support in a conversation surrounding feminism and speaks to larger concerns regarding the limited impact of individualised responsibility marketed by brands for their own benefit.

‘Marketplace Feminism’ and

Dior’s act of

Femwashing

Delegitimate intentions behind Femvertisements have been associated with the term Femwashing. While the exact origin of the term Femwashing is unclear, it has been widely embraced by academics, media outlets and consumers in the last decade to describe inauthentic Femvertising.

Femwashing may be useful as a concise descriptor of Dior’s attempt at Femvertising. As mentioned, Creative Director Chiuri is known for her attempted illustration of feminist themes in the fashion shows she executes. Notable examples of these efforts have included directly quoting seminal feminist figures such as authors Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie and Linda Nochlin, on their garments with T-shirts released in 2016 and 2017 reading ‘We should all be feminists’ and ‘Why have there been no great women artists’. The former can be purchased on Dior’s online shop for £690.

‘Fashion has a responsibility to help women realise their worth and express their differences’.

MARIA GRAZIA CHIURI, DIOR’S FIRST FEMALE ARTISTIC DIRECTOR

Yet, it is apparent that the outcome of the intend-

ed depiction of feminist themes for S/S ‘24 risked the opportunity for its reception and impact to conflict with core feminist principles of female empowerment and equality for all. This identification of conflict enables us to question the authenticity of Dior’s Femvertisement. Questioning Femvertisement authenticity is important as profit-driven initiatives and the lucrative appeal of Femvertising may trigger acts of Femwashing that do not cultivate meaningful feminist activism.

By analysing the Femvertisements we consume, we can begin to assess the larger implications of popularising a mythos that presents the notion that societal change can be achieved through individual action and consumption, a perspective supported by former Bitch editor Andi Zeisler, in her 2016 study of ‘marketplace feminism’ We Were Feminists Once.

The Importance of Authenticity

If brands like Dior are to attempt incorporating feminist principles within marketing initiatives in the future, it is hoped that this incorporation will be in favour of the authentic expansion of feminist ideals. Media scholar Joel Gwynne emphasises the importance of authenticity within feminist advertising in their book The Cultural Politics of Femvertising : Selling Empowerment.

For Dior, this reality could have been achieved for S/S ‘24 if the brand had placed thorough thought and investment into ensuring that the reception and impact of the show would not compromise the stated vision for the Femvertisement. If Dior had afforded intentional planning for its Femvertisement, the brand could have provided a widescale and authentic contribution to the feminist conversation it wants to engage in.

Feminism is a crucial discussion that allows us to discuss and tackle the topical issues Dior attempted to address, such as the negative implications of prescriptive gender stereotypes and the importance of female empowerment in our patriarchal society. Therefore, moving forward, organisations like Dior must choose to engage with the feminist discussion with an authentic intention to achieve a tangible positive impact in our society.

THEY’RE ALL GOING TO LAUGH AT LISA

WRITTEN BY JAMIE WILSON

STARS, THEY COME AND GO THEY COME FAST OR SLOW THEY GO LIKE THE LAST OF THE SUN, ALL IN A BLAZE

JANIS IAN, STARS (1974)

One sensationalised break-up forwards and twenty-three chart positions back. Before JADE and Cheryl set sail into solo-pop stardom, one woman crusaded-in-vain for chart success against the shores of the British public, and all that ohso-direct laughter that accompanied began to breeze open the curtain of questions towards the treatment of popstars. Pop musician and performer Lisa Scott-Lee, best known for her time in the platinum selling nineties-noughties pop-stomper band Steps, spent the best part of 2004 vying for solo success in a post-Steps pro-Hoxton hero world. By now, the name Lisa Scott-Lee may not be so familiar, but to MTV watcher’s over two decades ago, she appeared weekly on Totally ScottLee, a fly-on-the-wall documentary that followed Scott-Lee for a year, as she and her management chased a top 10 hit; Lisa giving the ultimatum that if she failed, she’d leave music behind in its entirety.

From the get-go, the show breaks out into what could only be called a Faustian (Scottleeian?)

tragedy: a montage of ‘Steporama’ success punchlined by soundbites of Scott-Lee getting dropped by her label mixed in with Steps’ 1998 hit Tragedy. The accompanying theme tune doesn’t lend much optimism to the cause either:

‘THIS IS THE STORY OF A FAMILY IT’S A GAME OF MAKE OR BREAK’ ‘LOVELY LISA’S GOT NO SOLO SHE’S ALREADY BEEN DROPPED’ ‘IT’S A GAME OF FAME AND IT DON’T COME CHEAP DON’T COME FOR FREE NO WHEN YOU’RE TOTALLY SCOTT-LEE’

From this point onwards, a waning-star-spangled car crash rapidly unveils. Lisa’s nan revealing she only keeps Steps memorabilia as Lisa likes to ‘think we take an interest’. Lisa infamously finding out that her debut promo single Get It On has skidded to a 23 on the UK singles chart (truly dying on the vine in pop terms), with Lisa exasperatedly stuttering in confusion ‘but I’m B-List at Capital’ (the UK radio show). Nathan, Lisa’s manager, performing a hit single he had years ago at Pontins. Intertwined with this, are some even more cringe-worthy domestic moments, such as Michelle Heaton (Scott-

Lee’s brother’s fiancé, who is also in a soon-to-hiatus mixed pop group: Liberty X) sending Andy back to the jewellers to get her a bigger engagement ring. Not to mention the single release celebration party being interrupted by an upset neighbour in episode 7.

Although spectacularly cringe and entertaining. You only need to look at the bigger picture to see just how cynical the show is. Further scenes in episode 7 (really not her finest hour) such as Lisa on CD:UK and Top Of The Pops in which she reacts live to 57% of the audience saying yes, the ‘curtain should fall’ on her career, as well as being present for a countdown of the UK Single Charts top 10, in which she just falls short of entering. Harsh.

We question in our post-poptimism world just

what it is that a popstar sells us, but perhaps we do not question enough what it is that is sold to a budding musician with stars in their eyes. Perhaps even calling someone a ‘budding musician with stars in their eyes’ instead of a person is part of what allows us to laugh in their direction: dehumanising them into a talented-soon-talentless-soon-flop archetype, rather than seeing the person seeing their first jargon filled contract on the sleek black table in front of them.

So what about when the popstar – the person –begins to rattle the cage. Richard Dyer is a seminal theorist in celebrity studies; his idea towards a ‘wardrobe of identities’ aiding in imaging here how a star may try break free of labels and their constraints. Kylie Minogue’s break from the Stock Aitken and Waterman hit-factory, into indie-al-

Still from Totally Scott-Lee (2005: MTV UK)

ternative-dance informed self-analysis was quite acclaimed with the eponymous Kylie Minogue releasing in 1994, featuring the ruminative Confide In Me. However, her further departure from commercial dance-pop with her 1997 release Impossible Princess saw her critics outspeaking the commemoration towards the album. Despite the album being revered in revision, her ‘new image’ was rejected by general audiences and critics alike; an infamous anecdote indicative of the time being Virgin Radio’s hosts stating they’ve ‘’done something better to improve Kylie’s records: we’ve banned them’’.

‘YOU KNOW IT’S ALL IN YOUR HEAD YOU BETTER PUT THAT BUSINESS TO BED BY YOUR FAIR HANDS OF DESIGN, YOU MET WITH THE MONSTER IN YOUR MIND’

KYLIE MINOGUE, DID IT AGAIN (1997)

How does this tension of identity arise then? What is it to do with Scott-Lee feeling she needs a top ten hit, or Minogue fighting four versions of herself in front of a camera that each Kylie-clone takes control of (re: Did It Again, 1997 music video (also re: when she performed this alongside two Kylie-drag-queens on Top Of The Pops: truly

keeping camp alive)? Getting back on track; poptimism, perhaps, is where the feeling of fight or flight for a popstar arises.

Poptimism is an undercurrent to any nineties and noughties pop discourse – it is the yang to Rockism’s yin. To digress, Poptimism can’t exactly be used without its use as a defence to Rockism firstly being understood. To use Robert Loss’s definition (‘No Apologies: A Critique of the Rockist v. Poptimist Paradigm’) in response to Kelefa Sanneh’s essay on ‘Rap Against Rockism’ (truly the nature versus nurture debate to anyone who remembers the lyrics to Victoria Beckham’s Not Such An Innocent Girl), the rockist is ‘nostalgic – the old fart who says they don’t make good music anymore’ who ‘makes art out of popular music’ and ‘insists on serious meaning’. The poptimist however, ‘looks forward’ and ‘values the new’: The rockist is a ‘purist’ who is ‘anti-commercialist’. The poptimist is a ‘pluralist’ who couldn’t ‘care less’.

Loss pulls upon Chris Richard’s article ‘’Do you want Poptimism? Or do you want the truth’’, quoting Richards as saying that poptimism ‘’rightfully recognises the complexity of pop music, but it too often fails to generate a justly complex conversation’’. This is where the intersection of poptimism and the reality of pop stardom forms: we must utilise poptimism to rescind the imprinted notion

that popstars shouldn’t be treated with a certain, anti-parasocial, empathy. Where an artists’ forwards thinking musical output should be valued, so should the artistry and the human performer behind it. Comparing Kylie’s Impossible Princess (1997) to Scott-Lee’s Never or Now (2006) may be akin to comparing pianos to guitars, however, they both cannot be blamed nor hounded for reacting to the industry they are within. To allow their works to seep in at the surface: Scott-Lee becomes to embody the poptimist, the pluralist club-ready pop musician ‘failing’ chart wise, in turn, leads us years later to reflect on her treatment. Impossible Princess even more so: foiling any notion of pure pop, then being rejected by rockists also.

So where do we go from here? Why can’t we help but not tell the driver to slow down? Why do we let the car crash? The answer is quite simple: because we’re not in it. This isn’t some symptom of a Little Britain world; after all, some of the greatest comedies are tragedies.

‘WHAT YOU SEE AIN’T WHAT YOU ARE GETTING’

GERI HALLIWELL, LOOK AT ME (1999) “ ”

Although distant from the world of MTV, philosophy can’t be entirely separate from our habits. Aristotle denotes humour to be a ‘sort of abuse’, in which we can’t help but point and laugh at another person, going round the circle hoping that the finger doesn’t eventually fall on us. ‘’Comedy is an imitation of characters of a lower type’’, proposed Aristotle in 335 BCE. When Lisa signed onto the show, was she aware she’d be putting on the jester’s mask for a year?

Class struggle at the carnival is the byline to Professor Todd McGowan’s essay on ideology and equality, which refers to the Russian philosopher Mikhail Bahktin’s analysis of the carnival; its comedy deriving from the ‘’inversion of social relations’’ during everyday life. Bakhtin sees carnival and its humour as a ‘’temporary suspension of societal hierarchy’ - hierarchy returns once the carnival is finished. Keeping up the academics for a moment more, McGowan critiques this analogy with Brian De Palma’s 1979 retelling of Carrie. It’s an iconic symbol – one you can’t quite forget – the girlish victim drenched in blood, surrounded by a school of laughter. Essentially, this moment is the crux of Carrie’s humiliation, with McGowan concluding that this image does not disturb ‘authority at the school’. Lest we forget now, the image of Scott-Lee standing in front the CD:UK crowd, hearing that 57% of the watching, active audience, have voted for her career to end.

As has been said, philosophy cannot be entirely separated from our habits, our participation as an audience, our consumerism led relationship to celebrities. Bahktin’s carnival is our idealised attitude to comedy; Scott-lee is levelled to a joke, and once the episode is finished, we both go back to our separate lives. Only this is Scott-Lee’s life: once the show is finished and the producers have effectively drenched her in the televised blood of laughter and failure, where is she meant to go from here? The public and the producer has given up on her.

As Geri Halliwell (née Ginger Spice) quipped in her debut single Look at Me: ‘What you see ain’t what you are getting’. What was she telling us here? Although the rest of the hit points to upholding the superficiality of a star in order for them to stay on top of their game, it can’t help but be considered that perhaps, dryly, it was also a reflection on being sat in that record executive’s office and being promised continual unwavering flowers thrown to

the stage. Within the songs bridge even, it is clear that Geri understands the synergetic handshake between success and intrinsic compromise:

‘SOMETIMES I DON’T EVEN RECOGNISE MY OWN FACE I LOOK INSIDE MY EYES AND FIND DISGRACE MY LITTLE WHITE LIES TELL A STORY I SEE IT ALL, IT HAS NO GLORY’ GERI HALLIWELL, LOOK AT ME (1999)

You can almost envision the pep-talk in the mirror of her label’s office’s bathroom.

Fast-forwarding back to 2005, the series ends with Lisa and her manager discussing where to go from here: perhaps breaking into the Chinese market is their next move? Just like that, a comet passes out of eyesight; Faust’s devil walks away laughing. As easy as it is to detach from the reality of it all and sit back and laugh at it, we are effectively watching a life that has been worked hard for drop down out the charts and out of this woman’s life. Where do these stars go once they shoot on by and we’ve accidentally flicked the channel over in a laughing fit?

It (rightfully hailed as pop perfection) stalling at twenty-eight. A contemporary to Scott-Lee, and another singer shoved off of the shelf.

Holly Valance follows in Kylie’s footsteps of leaving Neighbours and swinging outwards with the number one hit Kiss Kiss in 2002 and enjoyed further success with the subsequent singles and album. Her second album saw Valance step up into cowriting and coproducing almost all of the material on the album, but yet again, 2003’s State of Mind had only ‘minor’ success with the titular single reaching number eight, ending with the second single being shelved.

So, where better to decode why this is, than looking at what pop fans have to say? Ana Matronic of Scissor Sisters fame seemed to speak for a majority when she declared that Rachel had the ‘personality of a piece of toast’. However, where the issue lays seems to be quite poignantly pointed by Popjustice forum user Mvnl: ‘

Yeah, it sounds like being nice and pleasant and smiling everything away kinda became her personality (or at least a very thorough font). That’s not something you just shake off one day if it’s all you been doing for years’.

Rachel, in a 2023 interview with The Guardian for the launch of her memoir Finding My Voice, corroborated this almost word-for-word:

‘DREAMS OF NUMBER ONE LAST FOREVER, IT’S THE ONLY WAY TO MAKE YOU FEEL BETTER’ RACHEL STEVENS, SOME

’I got so conditioned to just going, going, going, and not really acknowledging things, and not having an outlet to ask questions… I had to feel like I was in control’’.

GIRLS (2003)

It’s a well-known story: stars can’t shine forever. In Girls Aloud’s Off The Record, the group are followed by cameras as we watch how they deal with paparazzi, industry politics, and subsequent popstar life, as they promote their single Whole Lotta History. Kimberley Walsh ruminates that ‘one day you’re gonna wake up and not have anything to do’: ‘it’s a scary thought’.

Rachel Stevens wasted no time after the disbandment of S Club 7 in releasing her first single, Sweet Dreams My L.A. Ex, becoming a number two hit, yet the following 2003 album peaked at number nine. Her 2005 sophomore album Come and Get

And as for Valance, fellow user Snuff had their own perspective:

‘Holly Valance was the perfect popstar. Apart from being gorgeous she was smart, witty, charismatic and always spoke her mind… Holly was just telling some home truths she got hounded for it. She probably only flopped because she wanted to do what she wanted and wasn’t going to have a record company push her about’. Perhaps therein lies the answer:

No matter how much we can laugh at them. No matter how far they can stretch a smile. No matter how much agency they hold. We are just never satisfied.

Popstar On A String Playlist

PRESS & PREJUDICE

WRITTEN BY FREYA HEATH

How do twisted portrayals of female journalists on screen, impact societies view on women in the industry?

Content note: The article discusses sexual harassment and sexual violence in the workplace for women working in journalism.

In Hollywood, sexism sells. It’s no secret that stereotypes are often more bankable than reality, and looking back on shows like House of Cards (20132018), Sharp Objects (2018) and even Gilmore Girls (2016), the familiar trope of the unethical female journalist is no stranger to our screens.

Whilst it’s entertaining to watch female reporters clumsily following a lead or falling into bed with their boss - these sexualised depictions of female reporters only distract from the real-life success of professional female journalists. Undermining genuine skill with damaging portrayals or sexualising competent women - why can’t Hollywood resist holding onto these tired tropes?

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE TROPE

Journalism is one of the only jobs Hollywood has always let women do. Initially an attempt to break traditional, feminine casting - the fact that the role of a fictional female reporter is now represented as morally bankrupt and sexual, shows how deep-rooted the problem is. Seen since movies like Sydney Pollack’s Absence of Malice (1981) where Sally Field played a reporter that pushed a number of ethical boundaries, including having an affair with a source and publishing private information that pushed a woman to suicide, this trope has existed for decades.

Absence of Malice: Mirage Enterprises: Columbia Pictures

Warner Bros. Television [Gilmore Girls]

Sharp Objects: HBO

Established film critic and Pulitzer Prize winner Roger Ebert’s review about Absence of Malice acknowledges the film’s unethical content, stating that audiences may struggle with the portrayal of female journalism. Despite this, Ebert states ‘I liked this movie despite its factual and ethical problems, I’m not even sure they matter so much to most viewers’. Therein lies the problem; the unrealistic trope about the unethical female journalist thrived because it was entertaining.

The 2005 film Thank You for Smoking follows Heather Holloway (Katie Holmes) as she seduces protagonist Nick Naylor (Aaron Eckhart) to gain insider information. Later, in the 2016 reboot of Gilmore Girls, viewers see into the adult life of freelance journalist Rory Gilmore (Alexis Bledel), viewers are shown Rory Gilmore unprepared, carelessly following leads - and conventionally, sleeping with a source. Later in 2013, Netflix’s adaptation of the miniseries House of Cards’ controversial portrayal of female journalists as people who’d easily trade their body for professional success is certainly a memorable example.

A CLOSER LOOK...

Driving discussion amongst viewers, House of Cards’ portrayal of female reporters have sparked some heated complaints. Writing for Slate magazine, columnist Alyssa Rosenberg described the show’s depictions of female journalists as ‘promiscuous, cat-fight prone and entirely unethical’, stating that the show was ‘grotesquely insulting to the women who do serious policy and political reporting in Washington every day’. Whilst there is no problem in depicting female journalists as determined, it’s clear House of Cards has no interest in showing real journalism. As media researchers Chad Painter and Patrick Ferucci point out in their academic article ‘Gender Games: The portrayal of female journalists on House of Cards’ for Journalism Practice, the show perpetuates the idea that female journalists will do anything for a scoop, and ignores its ‘ethical responsibility to be socially responsible’. Kate Mara’s character Zoe Barnes is fiercely competitive. Amongst unprofessionally feuding with her co-worker Janine Skorsky (played by actor Constance Zimmer) or admitting that she’d ‘suck, screw or jerk anything that moved just to get a story’, the show’s contentious take on female journalism is far from realistic, the sexist stereotypes seen bound to stir controversy around

gender equality.

Headwriter and showrunner Beau Willimon insists the actions of the female journalists in the show is a question of character and not gender. When interviewed by The Hollywood Reporter, Willimon stated ‘any sort of disgust or abrasive feelings the media community may have about Zoe Barnes stems from the fact she has tossed ethics aside. That’s sort of the point though.’ he told the publication ‘If you want to judge her as a noble ethical journalist, naturally you’d have that reaction. But we’re not telling the story of a noble ethical journalist, we’re telling the story of youthful ambition. She wants access and influence, not the truth.’ We all love an entertaining story of an ambitious woman, but when the series associates journalistic success with sleeping your way to the top or wearing a low-cut top, it’s hard not to be offended by the abundance of sexist clichés.

It doesn’t stop there. The 2018 HBO miniseries Sharp Objects, follows Golden Globe winning actress Amy Adams’ character Camille Preaker, as she takes a careless approach to reporting. Unafraid to break ethical boundaries, Preaker can be seen lying to her editor and stereotypically, sleeping with an 18 year-old murder suspect and primary source. With shows like Sharp Objects, it’s clear that Hollywood is stuck on the idea that female reporters are trading their bodies for success. Not only is this untrue, but as Frost notes in his book Journalistic Ethics and Regulation (2015), journalists should ‘avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived’, following The Society of Professional Journalists’ code of conduct. Time magazine journalist Judy Berman referenced The Girls on the Bus and other shows, investigating the sexist portrayal of female journalists as people who’d trade their bodies for success, a trend that she calls a ‘Noxious Cliché’. Berman notes that the ‘sleeping with sources trope’ uses ‘time-worn formulas and sexist assumptions’, instead of ‘honoring the specificity of the characters’ experiences’. With shows like Sharp Objects, Berman points out that the entertainment industry continues to fail in reflecting the individual experiences of real women. Undermining the hard-work of real journalists by promoting stereotypes, how do these shows shape what viewers deem to be realistic? In his journal article, ‘Who Thinks that Female Journalists Have Sex with their Sources? Testing the Association Between Sexist Beliefs, Journalist Mistrust, and the Perceived Realism of Fictional Female Journalists’

(2021), researcher Franklin Waddell calls for more accurate portrayals of female journalists in film to avoid reinforcing harmful stereotypes, as he investigates how ‘perceived realism’ can negatively influence female reporters. Waddell investigates how both sexist attitudes and an overall distrust of the profession influences what viewers believe is real, driving the toxic on-screen trend of depicting female reporters as unethical and promiscuous to be perceived as accurate.

Unfortunately, undermining the profession isn’t the only consequence of this harmful stereotype. With numerous sexual misconduct allegations against powerful male names including Fox News founder Roger Ailes in 2016 and journalist Mark Halperin in 2017, the fictional trope of the female journalist as people who’d trade sex for success doesn’t only discredit hard-working women, but stirs the idea that they’ve earned their positions illegitimately or are at fault for the gender-based violence they face. According to a 2023 industry-wide survey with over 400 participants by Women in Journalism and Reach, almost a quarter experienced some kind of sexual harassment or sexual violence in connection to their work, and almost half experienced misogynistic harms or harm connected to their gender identity. With sexual misconduct cases and reported numbers of sexual harassment against women - the sexist trope of the unethical female journalist is clearly toxic.

That’s why series like SEENPM’s The Burden of Experience are a necessity. The documentary highlights the experiences of Bosnian journalist Vanja Stokic as she explains how she faces threats and harassment on a weekly basis. It’s important to note that shows that bring attention to the struggles female reporters face are relatively rare, with The Burden of Experience being an exception. Still, issues of sexual violence and harassment are what the #MeToo movement aims to tackle. Founded in 2006 by Tarana Burke, the campaign brings awareness to the systemic issues women face on a daily basis, playing a pivotal role in amplifying voices of survivors globally. As both the #MeToo movement and The Burden of Experience call for change, it’s clear that it’s time for a change in representation. Hollywood’s tired trope of the sexualised female journalist is not only inaccurate, but clearly more damaging than ever.

Hollywood’s tired trope of the sexualised female journalist is not only inaccurate, but clearly more damaging. “

Absence of Malice: Mirage Enterprises: Columbia Pictures

‘He wants to feel like she can be buried’:

The expansion of online misogyny and misogynistic smear campaigns.

Content note: This article addresses real life cases of misogynistic harassment online, including intimate image abuse (also known as revenge porn). The subjects of sexual harassment and domestic violence are also addressed in the case of Blake Lively and Amber Heard.

Centuries spanning battles against the brutality of misogyny have found themselves stunted by the manifestation of systemic inequality within cyberspace. Digital networks are amplifying this malevolence to become more aggressive and accessibleand within this expansion of female antipathy is the smear campaign, the effort to damage a figure’s reputation through the propounding of negative propaganda. These campaigns are nothing new, being omnipresent within political spaces, traditionally used to defame political campaigns, government officials and political candidates. But in light of a new digital age, these campaigns have been gro-tesquely exploited to perpetuate sexist and grossly hateful attacks against women. Attacks fuelled by blatant misogyny and discrimination are elevated by modern digital media’s inescapable proliferation. As much as the media likes to discredit this, misogyny is undeniably at the core of these online attacks. Until we confront this reality, misogynistic hate campaigns are only going to become more pervasive.

WRITTEN BY MAYA LYNCH

HOW DID WE GET HERE?

In April 2024, a humanities and social sciences communications study into misogyny in a digital age delineated that social media is the most profound new way of transmitting misogynistic content, therefore broadening misogyny’s potency. Misogyny online is not a recent phenomenon - the discrimina-tion against women has digitally manifested in hate speech, suppression, revenge porn, mockery, dispar-agement. But as explained by online safety senior policy manager Liz Reeves via an interview with The Guardian,“these views used to be confined to niche corners of the internet that you’d have to seek out. Now, they’re really in the mainstream.”

The last decade has brought an influx of online misogyny. Laura Bates, in her 2020 book Men Who Hate Women, hypothesizes this invasion; “Imagine a world in which the hatred of women is actively encouraged, with sprawling, purpose-built communities of

men dedicated to fueling and inflaming the cause”. Our digital age has allowed for this ‘world’ to become tangible, no longer an alarming, hypothetical scenar-io. Communities purely devoted to not only fuelling misogyny but literally victimising and endangering women have spawned rapidly.

There was Gamergate in 2014, an online harassment campaign that targeted women in the gaming industry under the guise of a protest movement. Self-identifying ‘hardcore’ male gamers coordinated a hate campaign that included doxxing, threats of violence, online verbal abuse. The ‘movement’ was born out of opposition toward women in the online gaming space who dared to challenge the industry

on its representation of minorities, women and other questionable cultures. The campaign became so intense that its targets had to flee their homes after threats of death and sexual assault. Zoe Quinn, the primary target in the furore, explained “How could I go back to my home? I have people bragging about putting dead animals through my mailbox… What am I going to do? Go home and just wait until someone makes good on their threats? I’m scared that what it’s going to take to stop this is the death of one of the women who’ve been targeted.”

There was the celebrity nude photo leak, also in 2014, in which a hacker targeted female celebrities and stole over five hundred intimate photos. The

Jorm Sangstorm Adobe Stock

incident was crudely labeled by the public as ‘The Fappening’ - as if the situation wasn’t degrading and violating enough. The online reaction to the hacking was repulsively misogynistic, with the victims being blamed and shamed as opposed to the hackers. In response to her photos being stolen, actress Jennifer Lawrence refused to apologise, instead condemning the perpetrators and labeled the hacking a ‘sex crime’ in her subsequent interview with Vanity Fair. In re-sponse, she was victim-blamed and ridiculed by men online for refusing to give an apology she did not owe. The victims’ bodies were treated as public prop-erty, as if they were commodities, simultaneously be-ing condemned and blamed whilst being used and violated for male pleasure. The sickening response is another example of blatant misogyny, and an online manifestation of the attitude of entitlement of many men’s belief that they have a protected right to view, touch, and comment upon women’s bodies, and women’s autonomy - and our digital age means men can band together in sick, echo chamber communi-ties that actively encourage this entitlement.

“ ”

Online misogyny will and can garner violence and misogyny outside of the digital landscapes.

misogyny will and can garner violence and misogyny outside of the digital landscapes - it is necessary to examine this as our current algorithms prioritise en-gagement, meaning they have the ability to magnify sensationalism and protest in a way that was not as feasible a decade ago.

It’s simply misogyny disguised as moral righteousness. “ ”

We have watched this slowly unfold with tragedy, such as the recent umbrella term of ‘Manosphere’ identified as connected online communities which promote anti-feminism, focusing on preserving the masculine identity to disguise disgustingly misogynistic and patriarchal rhetoric. The 2022 book Male Supremacism in the United States quotes infamous online misogynistic figure Mio Yiannopoulos, who proudly describes the ‘Manosphere’ as the combative ‘nemesis’ of left-wing feminism and the alt-right’s most distinctive constituency, inferring this sphere exists as ‘revenge’ and a ‘constituency’ aimed to attack and oppress women under the guise of reclaim-ing masculinity and activism that is rooted in male supremacy.

It’s evident that the deep-rooted hostility toward women has always pervaded digital spaces - but such expansion of this has become more intensified than ever. In Extremism and Radicalisation in the Manosphere (2024) Deniese Kennedy-Kollar notes that many people remain unaware of this online hostility as it primarily exists online, but it is crucial to bear witness as it has the potential to breed real life violence. It would be ignorant to say that incidents of the early 2010s, such as Gamergate and the photo hackings, were confined and didn’t have widespread reach. The consequences of Gamergate cost the victims their homes and security due to how extreme the threats were. The photo hacking cost the victims their safety and privacy - but moving forward to our current digital age, today’s platforms are overwhelmingly extensive; Twitter/X, Instagram and Threads amongst many others have made misogynistic narratives far more accessible, and allowed for the dispersal of this discrimination to be more rapid. As Kennedy-Kollar crucially points out, this online

In recent years, these groups have found their space within TikTok, an app where 22% of users are within the 10-19 age range, an obvious attempt to target young and impressionable spectators. An-drew Tate is perhaps the most well-known example within the ‘manosphere’ - amongst his views, Tate has commented that ‘women belong in the home, shouldn’t be able to drive and are a man’s property’. He believes that victims of sexual assault must ‘bear responsibility’ for their attack. He has spoken about hitting and choking women. Tate is currently being charged for human trafficking, rape and sexually exploiting women through forming a criminal gang. In 2023, Education Week revealed that Tate’s influence caused an uptick in male students repeating sexist vitriol in schools. This topic was tackled in the 2025 Netflix show Adolescence, the show following the deadly consequences that comes with the insidious rise of the manosphere and misogynistic content, and how this accessibility propagates violence in young people. A teacher mentioned that she doesn’t think her students are seeking Tate out but algorithms are introducing such content through TikTok

and YouTube - and that pretty much summarizes the power of our current digital landscape. If a person who has been charged as a human trafficker is able to not only broadcast his rhetoric to such an extent but have the algorithms work in his favour, then what else does our digital landscape have the power to do?

THEPOWER&INHERENT MISOGYNYOFSMEAR CAMPAIGNSAGAINST WOMEN:THECASEOF BLAKELIVELY&ITENDS WITHUS(2024)

In August 2024, It Ends With Us hit cinemas. Based on the book of the same name by Colleen Hoover, it follows a young woman called Lily Bloom as she navigates her way through an abusive relationship. The film’s leading actress, Blake Lively, was immediately faced with fervent backlash on the film’s release, and promotion. Domestic violence and abuse are a large narrative point in It Ends With Us, and this was completely disregarded by Lively throughout the press tour. Lively focused on the fact the main protagonist was a florist, telling people to ‘wear their florals’ when coming to watch the film. She spent interviews talking about her hair care line, fashion, Taylor Swift - basically anything but the film’s main central theme. A complete 360 on Lively, who was previously a beloved actress, occurred and transpired into a hate train. People started making compilation videos of Lively’s disrespectful press, and nit-picking past moments to prove she is a bad person. Journalists came out with videos exposing Lively’s rude behavior, adding onto the passionate dogpile. It appeared the entirety of the internet turned on Lively overnight, a whiplash of abhorrence that spread like a wildfire.

This kind of sudden opposition is nothing new when it comes to female celebrities; the phenomenon of the public praising and building them up, then forsaking them and pulling them down at the first opportunity to do so. In a 2022 piece for I-D, Rayne Fisher Quann coins this as being ‘Woman’d’ - the female celebrity starts off being adored, then idolised, then she becomes discarded, facing a wave of unwarranted backlash, or most often the public seems to become tired of her, which leads to a cesspool of bullying and harassment. Evidently, Lively fell victim

Jorm Sangstorm Adobe Stock

to this, in a manner so intense it seems incomparable to ‘woman’d’ celebrities of the past. Looking at public response to Lively’s controversy, it’s evident that the critique at first had a ground to stand on, then turned into a complete cesspit of hate, scapegoating and misogyny where people used it as an opportunity to spew animosity, without really having valid or moral reasoning to do so.

Amongst the public discourse to this controversy, it was noticed that the film’s director and male lead Justin Baldoni was doing press separate from the cast. Upon watching his interviews and promo-tion, Baldoni was seen as ‘appropriately’ promoting the film, discussing domestic violence and openly advocating and spreading awareness on the topic, a stark contrast to Lively. Baldoni was perceivably doing the subject matter justice, and pertaining to what Lively was dismissing, which led to the public universally favouring Baldoni at the obvious expense of Lively. Whilst she was getting dragged down, he was getting lifted up. It’s a tale as old as time and a blatant excuse for indulging in misogyny. The internet will lunge at the chance to shred apart a woman, and praise a man, not because they genuinely care for what he is doing, but because by praising him they are simultaneously undermining and defaming a woman. It’s simply misogyny disguised as moral righteousness, an almost god complex that has permeated discourse surrounding online mayhem forever. The instantaneous love for Baldoni only exacerbated the hate toward Lively, and the public divided the two as ‘Good and Bad’ as if the situation were black and white.

It is even easier to manipulate the public for your gain when who you are targeting is a woman.

In December 2024, ABC News revealed that Lively was suing Baldoni and his production company Wayfarer Studios, accusing them of sexual harassment and intimidation. A day later, The New York Times published an article breaking apart the lawsuit, revealing that Baldoni had been orchestrating a smear campaign against Lively to prevent her from speaking out against abuse she had faced on the set of It Ends With Us. If we were to properly detail

it here, we would be here all day - because the level of orchestration, coordination and sinister execution that this campaign imparted to bring down Lively is truly unfathomable, and it worked. Before press for It Ends With Us began, Baldoni hired a crisis public relation expert as he was afraid that allegations Lively had made against him would become public and taint his reputation. The PR team was hired with a specific goal to bring Lively down, and harm her reputation instead. The lawsuit displayed the playbook for waging an undetectable smear campaign in our digital age, displaying how easy it is in our current landscape to tarnish someone’s name and career, and it is even easier to manipulate the public for your gain when who you are targeting is a woman.

As previously described, the campaign worked almost immediately. Baldoni’s PR team utilised social media to push negative notions about Lively, thus preventing her from being able to speak about sexual and workplace harassment she had experienced by Baldoni. Media talking points intentionally displayed Lively in a bad light, and aimed to steer discussion on social media and manipulate the discourse to ensure Baldoni stayed in the public’s favour. The PR team planted articles in popular publications, purposely and primarily talk about domestic violence to contrast Lively. They planted posts on Reddit, Instagram and TikTok and flagged posts that could be used for their narrative and bought bots to keep up posts and comments against Lively. They booked Baldoni to speak at women’s rights events, allowing him to exploit women for his own gain, whilst simultaneously perpetuating one of the most intense acts of abuse against a woman, and oppressing a woman from being able to come out with the abuse she faced by him - all while cosplaying as a ‘women’s rights activist.’

‘ONEOFTHEMOST SEVERELYMISOGYNISTIC DIGITALATTACKSAGAINST AWOMANINHISTORY’: THECASE

OFTHEDEPPV HEARDTRIAL

The disgusting depth of the Lively smear campaign is further highlighted when you take into account that Baldoni hired the same team that smeared Amber Heard when she accused Johnny Depp of domestic abuse. The highly publicised ‘Depp V Heard’ trial remains one of the most severely misogynistic

digital attacks against a woman in history. The scale and intensity of the campaign against Amber Heard and in favour of Johnny Depp surpassed anything seen before. Just like the campaign against Blake Lively, social media played a vital role in amplifying the anti-Heard campaign, the algorithm allowing and pushing hashtags like #AmberHeardIsALiar and #JusticeForJohnnyDepp and content that painted Amber Heard poorly, like carefully curated and slanderous compilations that provided no context. The amplification of this content allowed users with no prior knowledge or information of the case to jump onto the ‘trend’ of mocking a woman who, in the 2020 Depp v Heard libel trial, was described by the judge Mr Justice Nicol, as “the victim of sustained and multiple assaults by Mr Depp.” This is exactly what smear campaigns against women bid on; the internet will take any opportunity to ridicule and slander a woman even when they have no reason to rationalise this behaviour (although this kind of vilification and discrimination is not acceptable in any context) and the teams behind these campaigns use this deeply rooted misogyny to work to their advantage. In the case of Amber Heard, the misogyny against her was acceptable because

Jorm Sangstorm Adobe Stock

she was ‘bad’ - I cannot begin to detail the amount of conversations I had during this time, where male acquaintances would openly mock Heard to me, and when I would ask what she did to warrant that mockery, I’d receive the same mindless, vacant response; “um, because she is a liar”, and I’d watch as they’d be unable to tell me how exactly she is a liar, before steadily deflecting their mockery onto me for defending Heard ‘just because I am a woman.’

Smear campaigns create digital spectacles out of abuse and misogyny and turn it into entertainment, and this is exactly what Liz Reeves was talking about when she said hateful rhetoric is no longer hidden in corners of the internet, but out in the main-stream. Amber Heard’s trial was mocked in a Satur-day Night Live sketch, cafes and restaurants put out tip jars labeled Johnny Depp and Amber Heard and encouraged people to put money in which jar they support, and public figures dressed as Amber Heard for Halloween. Both Blake Lively and Amber Heard’s campaigns show a similar sentiment; if a woman speaks out against a powerful or beloved man, she will be publically annihilated, and not only will this be normalised but it will be celebrated, and there are teams and structures that will orchestrate this. This sets a precedent that displays how easily social media can be weaponized to coordinate harassment and discrimination.

The misogyny that fuels these campaigns has always, relentlessly existed. We saw it when the victims of Gamergate spoke out against discrimination in the gaming industry, we saw it when Jennifer Lawrence spoke out against men violating her body and privacy and now we are seeing it with Blake Lively and Amber Heard. Not only is it now still pervasive but more accessible and expansive as the digital landscape develops and allows for algorithms to become easily manipulated. As noted in ‘The Palgrave Handbook of Gendered Violence and Misogyny’ - ‘the digital and physical worlds are becoming increasingly intertwined, and writing off online misconduct as an abstract of society is disingenuous’. By justifying these obvious campaigns, or deflecting from their derogatory core, we are downplaying their consequences which will only become more extreme with the inevitable digital expanse.

WHYAREWESOAFRAIDTO ADMITIT’SMISOGYNY?

To anyone with comprehension skills (and common

sense) the misogyny behind these campaigns is blatantly obvious. The complete swarm of opposition and spite I have witnessed toward those that have pointed this out just fortifies the defense that people will take any opportunity to participate in misogyny, even when confronted with rational, logical and coherent critique that calls out their behaviour. But the aggression and discrimination lies in small facets as well. As Rayne Fisher-Quann brilliantly points out in her 2022 essay for Substack ‘Who’s Afraid of Amber heard’:

“

”

‘Even if he’s not handsome anymore — even if, hypothetically, he looks like a leathery skin sack gently deflating before our eyes as he leaks grease and prescription benzos — they will remember that he once was, and it will be enough. Whether it be with Johnny Depp or Brock Turner, the fantasy of a man’s illustrious past or bright future will always take priority over a woman’s present.’

The previous love and loyalty that Blake Lively garnered was irrefutably eradicated overnight. Yet to this day, even after being sued with substantial evidence for sexual harassment, Justin Baldoni still remains standing with overwhelming support. When he is defended, the same language used in the Depp V Heard case is recycled; “because Blake Lively is a liar, Blake Lively is a bitch.” Baldoni is put on the same pedestal as Depp, with fans remaining blissfully ignorant toward his malice because he played a handsome love interest in a beloved Netflix show, thus nothing can shatter his image. When the vitriol and acrimony against Blake Lively was first coming out, you didn’t see anyone defending her and condemning the hate because she played a popular character in Gossip Girl. Is this paradox not enough to validate the fact that this online smear-ing, even just drawing from this small logical dis-crepancy, is purely misogyny?

Journalist Taylor Lorenz points out these problems in her 2024 essay for Usermag ‘Why won’t the media use the word misogyny?’ In all of the journalism surrounding Blake Lively’s campaign, including the New York Times article, the word misogyny is not used, and this erasure is a part of a pattern within media. The refusal to explicitly name misogyny when covering these campaigns minimizes the systemic hatred behind the smearing of women, thus enabling such harassment. The team behind Lively’s smear campaign literally acknowledged that misogyny was the driving force behind their success, with one of the consultants saying in a leaked text exchange “It’s actually sad because it just shows you how much people really want to hate on women.” It is so palpable, both to the people observing and participating and to the professionals behind the campaigns, that misogyny is the catalyst for this online dogpiling.

Smear campaigns create digital spectacles out of abuse and misogyny and turn it into entertainment.

The feminist activist Linda Burnham writes in her 2008 study ‘The Absence of a Gender Justice Framework in Social Justice Organising’ that there is an underestimation when it comes to recognising the sheer dominance of misogyny. It is a ‘systematic phenomenon’ with ‘tangled historical, social, economic and cultural roots and multiple manifestations’. It has been and continues to be deeply, deeply rooted within our society, and this online acrimony is just one of its manifestations. The downplay of this hate is enabling the narratives and behaviours that fuel it. It permeated the hate toward the Gamergate victims, it permeated the hate toward the victims of the nude photo leak, it is what catapulted Andrew Tate in online spaces - and it is what lead to the complete obliteration of both Amber Heard and Blake Lively.

SO, WHAT’S NEXT?

Media’s inability to name misogyny as the force that perpetuates these campaigns and harassments is an undeniable fault. Even deflecting from the word, and

reframing it as ‘controversy ’ or ‘scandal’ or ‘backlash’ (basically refusing to use words that are deemed uncomfortable or too much) further stigmatizes the women who are victimised. Our digital landscape is rapidly evolving, evidently through how Lively and Heard’s campaigns were almost completely reliant on the weaponization of social media, and with that our media and news must be evolving too and stop beating around the bush. These campaigns are gendered based attacks and should be treated as such. Until this is confronted in mainstream media, these campaigns and other forms of online harassment perpetuated by misogyny, are going to grow alongside the expansion of digital media. Nuanced and unyielding reporting regarding these attacks should be encouraged and implemented instead of avoiding to confront the prejudice that must be exposed and dismantled. Media and journalism genuinely has the ability to make a positive change and do this courageous work. If we do not allow for this complex discourse, we won’t progress and the victims of misogynistic violence will continue to be denied justice.

If a woman speaks out against a powerful or beloved man, she will be publically annihilated, and not only will this be normalised but it will be celebrated. “ ”

If you are impacted by the topics discussed within this article, here are some resources that offer help, support and guidance:

Glitch Charity: https://glitchcharity.co.uk/

Women’s Aid: https://www.womensaid.org.uk/

Refuge: https://refuge.org.uk/

Safeline: https://safeline.org.uk/

smart tech, safer streets?

WRITTEN

BY DAISY MUCHMORE

Women are increasingly turning to wearable technology for safety -alarm jewellery, GPS trackers and panic buttons. The emerging popularity of these gadgets raises a crucial question: is tech solving the problem, or masking deeper societal issues?

New research from the UK’s leading security provider, Mitie, shows that 44% of women feel unsafe when walking home, and 71% say more needs to be done to improve street safety. With the wearable technology market on a robust growth trajectory, expecting to reach USD 493.3 billion by 2029, many companies are stepping in with innovative devices aimed at addressing these fears. Whilst these companies bring promise to empower women by offering discreet and stylish safety solutions, others believe the issue of safety cannot be solved by technology alone. Farah Nazeer, chief executive at Women’s Aid, says ‘Whilst technology –such as safety apps on phones and smartwatches- can play a role in helping women feel safer on the streets, these interventions are temporary sticking plasters, which ignore the real cause of male violence against women’.

‘This is a must-have product; I haven’t even had to use it and I already feel safer on my commute to work’ is just one of many 5-star ratings left by customers about the Plegium Smart Pepper Spray. This cutting-edge device was founded in 2019 and claims to be the world’s most advanced personal safety product by combining maximum strength pepper spray with instant location-based alerts which are sent to emergency contacts via the Plegium app. While the Plegium Smart Pepper Spray undoubtedly offers a host of impressive features, devices like these aren’t without practical challenges despite their innovation. The reliance on Bluetooth connectivity and phone battery raises concerns about functionality, and beyond these practical limitations, there are also ethical and privacy concerns surrounding data security.

So, why is gender-based violence on the rise globally, even with the surge in wearable safety technology? Public policy practitioner and researcher Tracy Jooste places onus on systemic failures, particularly poor urban design, and says the government need to understand the impact of urban infrastructure on women’s safety and well-being. Key improvements include providing streets with adequate lighting, sufficient CCTV coverage and increased public transport. Without these fundamental changes, women are often forced to extra precautions, altering their routines or relying on personal safety devices instead of being able to move freely without fear.

One app that acknowledges these needs is Street Safe, launched by the Home Office as part of the

Dariachekman

Adobe Stock

Government’s strategy to tackle violence against women and girls. Street Safe enables individuals to anonymously pin-point locations where they have felt unsafe, citing factors such as poor street lighting, vandalism, harassment and abandoned areas. Police can then address vulnerabilities by increasing patrols or making structural improvements. It is extremely important to note that despite personal safety apps claiming to enhance safety, few studies have examined the usefulness of such apps in reducing public stranger violence and while the rise of wearable tech and apps like Street Safe may feel like progress, they come with a catch. They individualise the issue of safety.

"In the best of all worlds, our products wouldn't be needed. Until then, our mission is to keep developing the world's best personal safety products and services"

Carl Ljung , CEO & Founder, Plegium

By turning personal protection into a high-tech commodity, these gadgets subtly shift the responsibility onto women to navigate dangerous environments. According to the World Health Organization, 1 in 3 women globally will experience a form of violence in their lifetime, a stark reminder of the scale of gender inequality and discrimination that women still face. Feminist scholar, Naila Kabeer, tells us that ‘efforts to address women’s vulnerability must go beyond individual empowerment and situate the problem within the broader social and structural framework that perpetuates inequality’. SOS buttons and smart pepper sprays cannot fix societal norms and patriarchal structures which place women in subordinate positions which excuses violence.

This issue is compounded by consumer marketing victimisation. Safety is being commercialised and sold as a product that a woman must have in order to protect themselves. Political scientists insist that this dangerous style of marketing is weakening forms of social and political community that anchor movements and sustain campaigns for long term, systemic change. Framing safety technology as an ‘essential’ tool creates a market that profits from fear, resulting in companies exploiting women’s vulnerabilities and failing to address the

underlying societal issues. Is it right to imply that if a woman isn’t prepared with the ‘correct’tools, she is somehow at fault for putting herself in danger? Or are we due a systemic overhaul that ensures women are safe in the first place without needing to rely on a gadget?

“Until we confront the culture of male privilege enabling sexual violence, accessorising women with more tools and apps will be just another solution in search of the problem”

Emma Kaye, Founder, Walksafe

As we continue to innovate, it is crucial that we reflect on the role that these gadgets play. They provide short-term reassurance to women, but ultimately, they mask a deeper societal issue and highlight the diversion of responsibility from institutions to individuals. It is time to think beyond the gadget and demand governments, law enforcement and public institutions to address unsafe streets, inadequate infrastructure, and systemic gender inequalities. We need a cultural shift that holds perpetrators accountable as opposed to the victims and focus on addressing the root cause instead of relying on the latest tech products. Only then can we ensure a future where safety is a collective responsibility and not an individual burden.

No one should have to face violence or fear alone. If you or someone you know needs support, the following resources can provide help and guidance.

National Domestic Abuse Helpline (UK) 0808 2000 247 www.nationaldahelpline.org.uk

Women’s Aid (UK) www.womensaid.org.uk

Samaritans (UK & Ireland) 116 123 www.samaritans.org

Icons Studio Adobe Stock

GENERATION TAGGED

PARENTS FREQUENTLY OVERLOOK THE HARMFUL IMPACT OF SHARENTING ON THEIR CHILDREN’S ONLINE SAFETY.

PLEASE NOTE, THIS ARTICLE DISCUSSES REAL LIFE CASE STUDIES ON THE SUBJECT OF CHILD ABUSE AND CHILD EXPLOITATION.

"Dad! Cut that part out!" repeatedly pleads the 9-year-old daughter of famous YouTube vlogger family 'Shaytards' as she confides to her dad about a boy she has a crush on. In the age of social media, the exploitation of children has reached alarming levels, sparking significant debate and scrutiny. These children, often called 'Generation Tagged’, have grown up with the norm of being tagged online and have become the latest victims of what we now call 'sharenting.'

"Sharenting" is the practice of parents sharing their children's lives online to make a profit. This is an essential issue because society is quickly evolving into a digital era, sparking concerns that weren't an issue a decade ago, and leaving children exposed to dangers that the rest of the world is still unaware of.

Even public figures have been affected. Gwyneth Paltrow faced criticism after posting a ski trip photo featuring her daughter, Apple, while on holiday. Apple, who was wearing ski goggles, commented, “Mom, we have discussed this. You may not post anything without my consent.” Gwyneth responded, “You can’t even see your face!” The incident ignited a debate about privacy and consent in the comment section. Most commenters felt sharing

WRITTEN BY CELESTE AGBAJE

the photo violated the daughter’s privacy, with some calling Gwyneth a narcissist. While others criticized Apple for expressing discomfort, calling her a spoiled brat. Whether or not there were ill intentions involved, this would be an example of harmful Sharenting due to the parent not having consent to post the picture from their child and expose her to a larger audience. Sharing children’s lives online can encourage community, support, and document special moments. On the other hand, it raises significant concerns about privacy, consent, and exploitation. The balance depends on parents’ awareness and responsibility regarding their children’s digital footprints.

The motivations behind sharenting range from seeking validation to potential financial gains. Professors in Psychiatric Nursing, Santhosh Kumar, P.Ramachandran and Arun James state, “Parents are motivated by the desire to connect with others, seek validation, and create a digital record of their children’s lives.” This can start even before the children are born when parents share sonogram pictures online. Social Sciences professor Anna Brosch adds that most kids today will have a digital footprint by age two, which is encouraged by viewers as thousands engage with child-centred content on social media and blogs. However,

Jonathan Borba Designed by Celeste Agbaje

Annie Spratt Designed by Celeste Agbaje

Michael Podger Designed by Celeste Agbaje

the NSPCC warns of the risks of exposing children on social media, as potential identifiers like event locations and visual clues in photographs could make them vulnerable to exploitation.

Parents frequently overlook social media privacy settings, which increases the risk of digital kidnapping (the theft of private data, including images), sexualisation, and child sexual abuse. Litigator Melanie N. Fineman, writing for The Georgetown Law Review, explains that: “Data can spread widely, allowing child sexual abuse rings to exploit and comment sections of child-focused posts, leaving vulgar comments and exchanging links to child pornography”. Evening Standard reporter, Emma Loffhagen reports that France has imposed a bill to target a growing number of influencers earning fame and money by posting their children online. This is due to a large amount of these children being found and exchanged on child sexual abuse forums. “Photographs of naked babies or young girls in gym outfits, particularly interest paedophile circles”, the 2023 French bill reads. The UK’s Children’s eSafety Commissioner, Alastair MacGibbon, said his investigators had also found sites containing child exploitation material where innocent images were grouped into folders with themed names such as “kids at the beach,” “nice boys play in the river,” and “gymnasts”.

However, not all parents are willing to heed the warnings. Loffhagen revealed that in 2022,TikTok users became concerned that specific videos of three-year-old TikTok star WrenEleanor ‘were gaining a concerningly high number of saves. A video of the toddler eating a hotdog had been saved 375,000 times’ and trending searches revealed the girl eating phallic-shaped objects. Viewers were concerned that she had been put on child sexual abuse websites. Wren’s mother was made aware of this but decided not to take her daughter off social media, and she has continued to post content. Parents usually have good intentions for sharing pictures and videos of their children online, wanting to keep friends and family informed about their lives and their children. However, some parents exploit this power for social media fame and profit at the expense of their child’s safety. Unfortunately, laws like the Coogan Law, which protects young actors by requiring 15% of their earnings to be placed in a trust fund, don’t apply to child influencers or “kidfluencers.” These children appear on accounts managed by their parents, exploiting a legal loophole. Since most social media platforms

have age restrictions, the accounts technically belong to the parents, leaving the children unprotected under the Coogan Law. This also makes their risk of exploitation higher, with Marina A. Masterson’s study on child labour laws and kidfluencers, explaining that “children risk exploitation by both their parents and by the companies that sponsor them.”

One solution to address the ethical concerns surroudning sharenting involves implementing airtight social media regulations that support parents better.

Psychologists explain that sharenting is often driven by pride. A 2019 study from Social and Personality Psychology Compass explains that there are two types of pride: authentic, based on achievements and associated with self-worth, and hubristic, linked to self-enhancement and narcissism. In sharenting, some parents prioritize their need for validation and self-promotion over their children’s safety and privacy. A stark example is the September 2023 case in which Mason Franke, a 12-year-old escaped from the window of his home malnourished and with duct tape around his ankles. His mother, Ruby Franke, a well-known “momfluencer” with the YouTube channel ‘8 Passengers,’ was arrested and charged with six counts of felony child abuse. This case highlights how sharenting can enable abusers to exploit their children on social media. During the trial, the children’s identities and private lives were exposed, trending on TikTok. Ruby Franke’s actions appeared driven by hubristic pride, seeking online fame and validation at the expense of her children’s well-being. Audiences on social media platforms can also feed into this dynamic, often engaging with content that exploits children. This severe neglect and abuse emphasises the darker side of sharenting. While not all instances of sharenting lead to severe consequences, the spectrum of potential impacts is broad. Kamil Kopecky, and his team of professors in the education sector, identify several different types of Sharenting, including excessive sharing of children’s photos on social media, creating profiles without consent,detailed online diaries, and exploiting children for extremist content or commercial gain.

One solution to address the ethical concerns surrounding sharenting involves implementing

airtight social media regulations that support parents better. Expanding existing entertainment laws like the Coogan Law to cover child social media stars could provide financial protection while restricting parents’ ability to profit from sharing their children’s lives,, which might reduce the number of child influencers being exploited.

France has already introduced legislation targeting influencers who benefit from their children’s images to curb economic exploitation. Implementing this elsewhere could help the cause. Additionally, providing practical advice to parents and young people on protecting their digital footprints and promoting mindful sharenting where parents limit the exposure of personal information, use privacy settings and ask their children for consent - can safeguard children’s privacy and reduce risks like digital kidnapping. Concepts such as “privacy stewardship,” where parents take responsibility for what they share and ensure others respect these boundaries, can help people make informed decisions about digital sharing. The dangers of sharenting demand proactive solutions to protect children from potential harm. Public voices must amplify these solutions; a community effort is essential to address the issue. Those voices can drive positive change in a world where every like and share can have lasting consequences. Considering the ethical implications of sharing children’s lives online is essential. The risks associated with sharenting remind us that every click has a real-world impact on the most vulnerable members of our society. We must encourage responsible parenting within digital spaces.

If you would like further information on the issues raised, including training on online child protection, please see the NSPCC websites at:

https://www.nspcc.org.uk/

https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/

Austin Pacheco Designed by Celeste Agbaje

Tanaphong Toochinda Designed by Celeste Agbaje

UNDIGNIFIED IN DEATH:

DISCRIMINATION IN BRITAIN’S POLICE INVESTIGATIONS

Content note: This article includes discussions of murder, racism, sex work and abuse.

The discriminatory nature of Britain’s police investigations has been well documented. Over the years, consistently poor standards of policing have prompted countless reviews, studies and protests, all sharing the goal of highlighting the widespread, systemic issues within the police force, as change is demanded. The nation is witnessing the deterioration of public trust in the police, with research from the UK Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology finding nearly half of women have experienced a sharp decline in trust in recent years – and this is not without good reason. Women, particularly those from marginalised groups such as Black women, those experiencing homelessness or sex workers, frequently find themselves facing judgment and dismissal at the hands of the law. Unfortunately, these trends of judgement and dismissal extend to those who have lost their lives under circumstances that would typically warrant an investigation, if they

WRITTEN BY ELANA MCCABE

were deemed worthy of police time.

It is entirely reasonable to not live life in fear of joining the UK’s 353,000 filed ‘missing persons’ statistic. Just as we’d rather not dwell on the likelihood of being murdered, becoming homeless or getting a divorce, we tend to find comfort in thinking ‘it won’t happen to me’. This sense of immunity is only fortified by the safety net of statistics that affirm our positive biases. However, the reality for many marginalised women doesn’t allow the luxury of adopting such a mindset, as it would only take one misstep to fall victim to the police’s investigation inequalities.

It’s this ‘us vs them’ attitude that provides the police the green light to perpetuate the unsettling mentality that uses stereotypes to rank us all in a hierarchy of worth. As we find ourselves amidst what Maggie Blyth, Chief Executive of the College

of Policing, has labelled a ‘national emergency’ of violence against women and girls, difficult questions regarding police mentality must be asked. Questions such as: Is everyone considered worthy of protection and justice?

interview. But your recycling bin gets graffitied?

Expec t the SAS, four police cars and five counsellors at your door. The three weeks of local news coverage goes without saying.

Commissioned after the murder of Sarah Everard in 2021 by serving Metropolitan Police Officer, Wayne Couzens, The Baroness Casey Review (2023) takes steps to address and unravel the deep-rooted issues within London’s police force. In its findings, The Met were labelled institutionally racist, sexist and misogynistic. This is the same Metropolitan Police that, according to studies from the Policing and Society Academic Journal, have lost more women’s trust than anywhere else in England. But, given the ‘toxic culture of sexism’ that is so embedded in the institution, it is hardly surprising that the dehumanisation of women, particularly those deemed less worthy, persists.

“For women, reporting a crime is rarely as simple as recounting a traumatic event, but navigating a maze littered with dismissal and victim-blaming at every turn.”

For women, reporting a crime is rarely as simple as recounting a traumatic event, but navigating a maze littered with dismissal and victim-blaming at every turn. It has long been accepted that, when reporting a crime committed against a living, breathing member of society, you must prepare for it as if it were an extremely high-stakes job

Of course, allocating police time and money in an understaffed, underfunded police force is easier said than done and the Met Police Chief predicting ‘eye-watering cuts’ makes confidence in policing a scarce commodity. One not made any more attainable by accusations of ‘unlawful’ and ‘inhumane’ behaviour and a reluctancy to improve what they can, given the funding limitations.

CASE STUDIES: IDEAL VICTIMS, POLICE INJUSTICE & THE LESS DEAD

Considering this, it would be comforting to know the police could be avoided. However, when the Avon and Somerset Police Federation find the average person is said to experience three or four traumatic events, alongside a myriad of other issues in their lifetime, police encounters are probable. It is these encounters with the law that shape our perceptions of them. This rings true whether you encounter them after being caught tearing up the streets at 32 in a 30mph zone, or the death of a relative.

On the 29th October in 2022, I answered the door to the police and was told that my aunt, who had been missing since early October, had been found

dead in the canal, only five minutes from where I live. The initial shock left me wondering what had happened, but it felt wrong to speculate over the death of a family member, so I placed my trust in the police, thinking ‘well, this is their job.’

As it transpires, this was a misguided assumption. What had slipped my mind is that my aunt didn’t fit the profile of an ‘ideal victim’. The concept of an ‘ideal victim’, as explored by criminologist Nils Christie, refers to victims that elicit the most sympathy and subsequently the most attention in investigations. He mentions a frail old woman, attacked by a big, scary man, someone who is sick or weak and can’t protect themselves. Perhaps an innocent child who couldn’t be blamed for where they were or what they were doing.

My aunt, however, was none of these things. In the eyes of the police, she wasn’t worthy of an in-depth investigation. In the eyes of the police, a husband-less, childless woman in her fifties with mental health issues on record, is an easy case to crack. That is because, in the eyes of the police, there is no case to crack. She was drunk, she fell in. Case closed. Sorry for your loss?

tion far too often.

Writing for Feminist Legal Theory, Katie Russell highlighted an overlooked case, which is that of Sam Little, ‘one of the most prolific serial killers in U.S. history’. And yet, in spite of huge interest in the true crime genre, it is not a name you’d recognise. Despite killing up to 93 people over a span of four decades (1970-2005), Sam Little remained free until 2012. The reason being, Sam Little targeted Black sex workers. Individuals who are ignored by society, and by extension the police. Individuals that the media choose to ignore. And Sam Little knew this. To use his own words from 2018:

“I never killed no senators or governors of fancy New York journalists. Nothing like that/ I kill [a journalist],

it’d

be all over the news the next day. I stayed in the ghettos.”

Therein lies the problem. In fact, there are multiple issues at play here and it’s difficult to know which to address, as I don’t know what happened to my aunt and I never will. This uncertainty is evidence of a broader issue that many women face: being treated as subhuman based on your social position, and the circumstances of your case. By dismissing something as accidental or unimportant because they’re homeless or they’ve struggled with addictions or perhaps they’re even–God forbid–menopausal, then you find yourself on that slippery slope of placing lives in a league of importance. A slope that apparently, the police are perfectly happy to slip down, fully equipped with skis and an aerodynamic helmet.

As a result of the police’s lacklustre approach to investigating marginalised individuals, nauseating terms such as ‘less-dead’ have been created. Coined by Eric Hickey in 2003, the phrase is used to describe victims whose lives are viewed as less valuable in society. These ‘less-dead’ victims are murdered sex workers, people of colour, homeless individuals, those struggling with addiction, people from the LGBTQ+ community, among others who are deemed unworthy of thorough investiga-

This statement underlines the poisonous environment society has created. By sectioning individuals into the ‘less-dead’ category, the police themselves enable killers to kill and recent studies show little to no improvement. A 2023 study conducted by researcher, Paige Mansell, found that the police deliberately conduct poor investigations or even neglect cases entirely as the individual moves away from an ‘ideal victim’ and into the ‘less-dead’ category.

Although academic discussion often foregoes researching the ‘less dead’ entirely, comparisons can be drawn from other cases. There is a recent example of a case with a shift in attitude mid-investigation, as the individual who disappeared went from ideal to unideal victim. In 2023, Nicola Bulley went missing after walking her dog along the River Wyre. As I write this, it feels odd to introduce Nicola Bulley without prefacing her name with her age and how many children she has, just as many headlines would; because as suggested by a group of academics researching what makes a homicide newsworthy, why would we care about the disappearance of a woman who doesn’t fit the ideal victim mould?

According to the College of Policing, this case

experienced ‘unprecedented levels of mainstream and social media interest’. Yet, with all eyes on the case, the police chose to reveal her personal information in an act subsequently labelled ‘avoidable and unnecessary’. An act that was also extremely telling of just how fast the police turn to dehumanisation to reduce the importance of a case. Even if this results in a former victim’s commission er accusing their approach of being ‘as sexist as it comes’.

Is the intended effect of revealing that someone was perimenopausal and had faced issues with alcohol to detract from their status of loving mother and wife? The idea of symbolic annihila tion of women was developed by the American sociologist Gaye Tuchman in 1978 and it refers to the underrepresentation of women outside of traditional roles in the media. An issue that re mains pertinent when, due to the reinforcement of gender stereotypes, a woman’s worth in police investigations remains intrinsically linked to being the perfect mother.

INTERNAL ISSUES: VICTIM BLAMING & POLICE CULTURE

Keren Gueta and Rachel Condry’s studies on the idea of ‘mother-blaming’ offer a comparison regarding the reduction in sympathy when a mother is viewed as troubled. Although Nicola Bulley was not the mother of a victim in this case, as explored in their studies, the same principles apply. You lose mother points for having alcohol issues, then you lose your worth as a woman, then as a person, then the police no longer feel obliged to listen. But, look on the bright side, Symbolic annihilation can’t be such an issue now, some articles even felt obliged to mention that Nicola Bulley was a mortgage advisor! Progress…?

Despite being under a different guise, all case studies raised circle back to victim blaming. Victim blaming as we know it has living survivors, such as in the case of interpersonal abuse or other violent crimes, however blaming the deaths and disap pearances of individuals on their own choices is also victim blaming. According to studies, society often jumps to fault the victim in ‘particularly inju

JTana

Adobe Stock

rious’ or ‘emotionally laden’ cases. So, even if there are no survivors in the ‘emotionally laden’ case of a murder, it remains victim blaming – something still rife in modern day policing.

At a time where calls to address these issues have been raised repeatedly by organisations such as End Violence Against Women and Girls and the Centre For Women’s Justice, laying the foundations for victim-blaming by painting certain groups as unworthy of police time, long before an investigation has taken place seems dangerous. While there are undoubtedly cases with no external factors at play, shouldn’t everyone be entitled to the dignity of an investigation, rather than public humiliation in death?

ingrained as the police’s issues themselves?

Britain’s police force is stuck in what has been described as a ‘macho culture’. A crimonology study conducted by Portsmouth University in 2023 explored the barriers women face when entering a male-dominated, macho institution. It revealed that widespread gender discrimination, sexual harassment, hostile environments and the knockon effect of the ‘child tax’, were frequently faced by women officers. This is aptly backed-up by the Baroness Casey Review highlighting the gender, race and sexuality-based discrimination within the police force.

‘There is also evidence to suggest that officers’ perceptions of victim credibility and suspect blame may affect how they treat the victim and investigate the crime’.

The Independent Office for Police Conduct notes in their 2024 report Ending Victim Blaming in the Context of Violence Against Women and Girls that ‘factors such as ethnicity, disability or social circumstances can also increase the chances of victim-survivors experiencing victim blaming’. Furthermore, the College of Policing acknowledg es the bias in the initial assessment of cases and subsequent mistreatment. It states that, ‘There is also evidence to suggest that officers’ perceptions of victim credibility and suspect blame may affect how they treat the victim and investigate the crime’. Such a bias, whether unconscious or not, manifests itself in all police forces. It can be subtle or it can be glaringly obvious, but it’s always there.

It begs the question: How can the public trust the police when such bias is rife? According to a You Gov survey highlighted in End Violence Against Women and Girls’ 2021 report, following the mur der of Sarah Everard, 47% of women report de clining trust in the police. The same survey found that 76% of women think the culture of policing must change to respond better to violence against women and girls. Can this be fixed when society’s opinion of the police’s deep-rooted issues is just as

In 2024, further studies conducted by a group of social science academics continued to highlight the disparities in the force, underlining that the onus is typically on policewomen to eradicate the issue of sexism in policing themselves, despite the fact that it’s typically men perpetuating these harmful behaviours. In a job already likely to expose you to countless traumatic events, this additional burden of fixing systemic discrimination places an even larger barrier between the police and reformation.

It would be naïve to suggest all officers join the police force with ill intentions. As David Lester’s 1983 study revealed, many do, in fact, join the po -

lice force to make a positive impact fighting crime. However, this same study does indicate that a key motivator was ‘job [carrying] power and authority’. Notably, this reason was more common in men. So, yes, plenty of officers are just as brilliant and inspiring as you’d hope the police to be, but power has been known to fall into the wrong hands. You only have to look at Wayne Couzens to see just how easily this power can be abused when in a culture that infamously sweeps such matters under the rug.

This matter could be traced further, there are more cans of worms to open, issue after issue could be unveiled and linked to the less-dead, but I don’t have enough years to do this. The critical point is that the police force’s systemic issues have a scary effect on their ability to investigate fairly and this leads individuals to approach the police with trepidation. It shouldn’t be this way.

76% of women think the culture of policing must change to respond better to violence against women and girls.

Nobody wants to assume the worst about the police–I know I certainly didn’t when they knocked on the door. But as I write this, 296 days after a

complaint regarding my aunt’s investigation was filed, my family received a two-sentence, impersonal email that handily dances around offering any truth, information of any substance or admission of wrongdoings; because strangely, when the police investigate a complaint filed against the police, the police find that the police did nothing wrong.

Who gets to decide what’s most worthy when at the heart of the matter, there is always a human-sized space somewhere there shouldn’t be?

We can all acknowledge that people disappear for a variety of reasons, some less sinister than others. But, every disappearance is a story of someone not returning home. Who gets to decide whose life is more worthy when at the heart of the matter, there is always a human-sized space somewhere there shouldn’t be?

If you have been impacted by any of the matters mentioned:

Inquest:

Revolutionise how media creators communicate to audiences with our Media Communications degree.

Learn the skills to succeed across the ever-growing communications industries.

Reimagine how you use media to communicate to audiences ethically and progressivel y.

Work alongside The Studio, the University's new city-centre innovation hub for creative media technology.

Course contact: Conrad Moriarty-Cole

Email: c.moriartycole@bathspa.ac.uk

Instagram: @mediacommsbsu

Bath Spa University Newton St Loe Bath, Somerset BA2 9BN