Call the Feminists Indeed...

I was reading the RadioTimes the other day when I came across an article by Alison Graham. She was talking (or rather writing) about how young girls should watch Call the Midwife because of it's feminist principles. I completely agree with her, however I feel that by getting her views across she expressed quite a lot of agesim in the article. So I decided to write a letter to the RadioTimes in response to the article.

Here is the article mentioned, you can read it online - http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2013-02-24/call-the-midwife-is-the-torchbearer-of-feminism-on-television


And here is a typed-up version of my response letter:


Dear Miss Graham,

I saw your article in the Radio Times – “Call the Feminists” and although I completely agree with you that the series (Call the Midwife) both book and TV-wise, should be used as a exemplementry model for young people; I don’t believe that by being ageist we can combat other prejudices like sexism.

Believe me when I say the intention of this letter is not to argue, I just want to revise your opinion of us youngsters. After all, I believe we never stop learning and we can learn anything from anyone, no matter what their age is!

I am 17 years old and proud to call myself a feminist! I understand that not everyone identifies as this but I’d like to give you hope that I know a fair amount of young people who want to change this world for the better!

I also understand the humour in your article. Like when you say ‘spoilt young things’, I fully understand that we are privileged in so many ways because of all the wonderful people; both men and women, who have fought for our equality, resources and liberty.

But every generation has their problems. Forgive me if I sound terribly ignorant but I believe there is a wider range and percentage (or at least awareness) of mental illnesses nowadays. Indeed, if I were to tell you all of my mental illnesses, you (and anyone else for that matter) would think me a hypochondriac – and I wouldn’t blame you one bit for it!

And in regards to the Facebook thing; I’m pretty sure that If Facebook was around 60 years ago, there would still be just as many drunk photographs circulating around newsfeeds!

Though I do agree with you about the playing music out-loud on buses thing! But I suppose I’m only subjective because I never like the stuff that gets played. If they swapped N-Dubz for something more to my liking then I’m sure I would selfishly encourage it! Though I suppose you could say music has been played out-loud to the annoyance of the public ever since portable record players were invented!

Thank you for taking the time to read this letter and I sincerely hope that I did indeed manage to revision your opinions on the youth of today. I believe that on the inside – we're all still children!

With the best of wishes and kindest of regards,

     Megan Rose

Young Helen Mirren – The Sexist 1975 Parkinson’s Interview (Response Essay)

- With thanks to the very talented miss Stella Vine who  gave me some very interesting points to include! -

 

 

 

 

Of all the glamorous and intriguing of introductions, poor Helen got the short straw in this interview. Before the actress even appears on the screen, let alone sits down – she is subjected do a rather callous and sexist display of crude reviews and comments Parkinson felt at liberty to digress for the sake of entertainment and personal smugness.

It doesn’t take much thought to understand the kind of impression Parkinson tried to make when he ended the introduction by mentioning the words ‘sluttish eroticism’ in context with Helen. I think even the most reserved and politest of people would have had trouble trying to dismiss that kind of remark. However, Helen remained in a calm and gentle manner throughout the interview - a rather nice contradiction to the smug and patronising Parkinson.

It seemed to me that he was hiding behind the words of others at first, possibly to give him courage and an excuse to voice his own sexist opinions. As he did so, he seemed to dismiss Helen’s ironic comments regarding his own statements and questions. Perhaps he has a problem with strong women?

Let’s not forget what the main purpose of this interview seemed to be about – sex. Everything was about sex. Sex scenes, sexual body parts or ‘equipment’ as he liked to say, sex sex sex. You would have thought that in 1975 people would have gotten over the fact that sex happens? And instead of focusing on the most primal and controversial of sexual nature, why do we dismiss the liberating independence that can also be gained from using sexual content in film? I’ll tell you why – sexism. There is no such thing as sexual liberation when women are involved. Parkinson played on this to his little hearts content. Helen’s personality, confidence and not being afraid to stay true to herself is what ultimately makes her sexy, not the media’s sexual exploitation of her.

I have to admit, I did get a little angry when he asked Helen; “Do you think you are ‘in quotes’ – a serious actress?” It was after this patronising question that I thought Helen really decided to stand up and take herself off the sexist pedestal and put Parkinson himself on it; questioning his digression and allowing him to make a fool out of himself. Oh what calm control and wit she had!

When Parkinson asked Helen about her ‘physical attributes’ I did rather love how she played around with that ambiguous description of certain body parts. “You mean my fingers” (a line that seems almost Shakespearean) was a rather wonderful response as was ‘serious actors can’t have big bosoms?” – pointing out Parkinson’s cheap way of interviewing and sly leading questions. I’d also like to think the audience were on her side with this one!

It is obvious that Helen knew she was blatantly being attacked but did not fight back with the same aggression, rather with a more gentle and democratic approach. She came across as being deliberately vulnerable but at the same time in full control of the situation. Perhaps she recognised his obvious attraction to her but knows it was purely aesthetic and media-influenced. He was more interested in the pornographic aspects of her career rather than the true nature of herself and profession. Nevertheless her free-spirit and laid-back attitude made her a natural protagonist who definitely had the upper hand in this situation.

I also thought that throughout the interview Helen made some extremely interesting and rather observational points. Even questioning the school system, saying “lack of liberty is what happens to people’s minds in schools’” and how it is “very dangerous to stick labels”. It seems a shame that these comments were left to fade away as the interview went straight back to a more sexual direction again. An absolute waste of an interview I can honestly say with that being the case. And all because he couldn’t have what he wanted... I mean his desire for her was obvious and purely sexual, you could see it in his eyes the whole way through the interview… if he were a dog (and believe me I think there’s a very thin line there) he would have been foaming at the mouth for sure.

Anyway, that concludes my rather brief essay on the interview. I should like to end it with Helen’s own words – “You are what you are and you are what people think you are”.