The duality of being an academic badass and a track goddess; or of other similar types

Listen to article here. 

 

March was a month that saw major global sporting events taking place, such as the Winter Paralympics in Italy, and the World Athletics Indoor Championships in Poland. In the latter, the Great Britain team put in a well-deserved performance and went on to secure four gold medals from athletes including Keely Hodgkinson in the 800m, Georgia Bell in the 1500m, Josh Kerr in the 3000m and Molly Caudery in the pole vault. Whilst not featuring in this year’s medals table, Amy Hunt the 200m silver medallist at last year’s World Championships, has been the subject of discussion in the run up to the games, as journalists looked to reflect on her career amidst the impact of the spontaneous statement she made that went viral:

“You can be an academic badass and a track goddess.”

Slightly out of breath at the time, a jubilant Hunt said these words in the spur of the moment, during a post-race interview with a BBC journalist. According to Hunt, she immediately believed that she would be bleeped out of the live recording following what she had said, but luckily, it was not. This was not a question of foul language, especially where the word badass could be considered as a low-level inappropriate slang word with negative connotations, however in this context, it was used in quite the opposite. Using badass is similar to the term “baddie”, a popular cultural vernacular term, which refers to ‘someone, usually a woman, who is confident, stylish, and attractive.’

So here we can see a gendered connection through the use of the term, and to the fact that Hunt is speaking about women in the sport. Another gendered association, and a reason why the statement may have gone viral, could have been that making such a comment, was akin to seeing female footballers like the England Lioness Chloe Kelly celebrating her winning goal in the 2022 Euro’s and taking off her shirt, whipping it around, and running in her sports bra, as something that is typically seen of players in the men’s game? It just doesn’t happen. When it does, it’s so absurd, that in that absurdity, it sticks in one’s mind. Making strange was a strategy that I have used in my practice as a visual artist, when challenging ideas around the construction of whiteness, building on the words of the American art historian Amelia Jones, when she says in order to make it visible, we need to render it ‘ethnic’ and bring it out of its invisibility (1).

But perhaps that level of strangeness and absurdity, links to something beyond gender as it were, to ideals that many of us can relate to. The first one being around the multiple hats or faces that we all wear in our waking life. As a former university Academic, I was often told that I didn’t look like your typical lecturer, granted that I was quite young when I took on my first role. This was not the norm, where the image of a lecturer is typically perceived as being older, whiter, male, and coming from a particular middle to higher socio-economic class. Admittedly, I was also very conscious that I didn’t want to come across as your typical Academic, because I was fully aware of the responsibility that came with me being in my position, and that for some students, I would be seen as a role model. Echoing Hunt’s words, I was fully aware of being young, Black, female, queer, doing a PhD and looking good whilst doing it! In this case, representation matters in terms of what others looking in could see and achieve, but with this, also came the burden of what social psychologist Dr. Claude Steele, termed as ‘stereotype threat’, as the fear of confirming a negative stereotype about one’s group. Because of my multiple identities outside of the norm, I was all too aware of having to prove that I was as good as anyone else in my role.

 

This article was written by Dr Ope Lori, Founder and CEO of Pre-Image Learning and Action.

(1) Whiteness, A Wayward Construction (2003) Tyler Stallings

 

To read the full article, you must be a PILAA Member.

More female doctors than male doctors in the UK for the first time: Why diversifying matters

 

“Increasing representation begins at the roots

– with children and young people – and is a process

that continues throughout education, applications

and interviewing, employment and promotion. “

Last month, some exciting news was published that shows that for the first time, there are more female doctors than male ones and also more ethnic minority doctors than white ones. It may go without saying that no one is claiming that white people and/or males shouldn’t be doctors or aren’t good ones; rather, the point is that a field that was often closed to certain groups of people, is now more diverse and inclusive and more reflective of society, which is something to celebrate.

These new statistics lead to some interesting questions that all workplaces can learn from. For instance, how do you increase the representation of underrepresented groups in certain industries (such as women in male-dominated fields)? How can we break down these systemic barriers? What do traditionally underrepresented groups offer and, therefore, why and how should workplaces look to hire them? These are, of course, huge and challenging questions, but they’re worth talking about in brief here.

In terms of increasing representation, some of the main methods include encouraging underrepresented groups to study and join that field and also to develop inclusive hiring and promotion practices. When it comes to doctors, for example, women have traditionally been encouraged to be nurses rather than doctors (i.e. to have the lower-ranking and more “caring” roles) or to think that studying STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) wasn’t for them. To help combat this, more schools have implemented stronger STEM curricula and have developed ways of ensuring that girls are also engaged in these subjects, and that has led, down the line, to more young women choosing to study medicine or other STEM areas later in their school years and at university. They have also had more talks in schools by women who are doctors, so that the role models are visible and younger females can be inspired by them. These sorts of activities should be continued and expanded where possible.

Simultaneously, workplaces, including hospitals or doctors’ practices, have made an effort to take female candidates seriously, whereas in years past, they might have automatically dismissed them. This means making application processes transparent and fair for everyone, and also ensuring that all applications are treated equally. Then, once women are employed, those same workplaces might provide programmes such as mentoring, support groups, further professional development, awareness-raising training, courses in confidence or combatting imposter syndrome, and other such activities, in order to help that group of employees feel confident at work and to have the skills they need to succeed. Human resources managers also have to make an effort to encourage underrepresented groups, such as women in this example, to apply for promotion, and they need to offer unconscious bias training to all who review applications for employment or promotion so that such processes are fair.

All this is to say that increasing representation begins at the roots – with children and young people – and is a process that continues throughout education, applications and interviewing, employment and promotion.

 

Written by B.J Woodstein, PhD

To read the full article, you must be a PILAA Member.

Next in Line: Gender roles, values and worth

Last month we saw the landmark ruling in favour of more than 3,500 employees, who had taken their employer Next, the multinational clothing, footwear and home products retailer, to an employment tribunal, over a six-year battle for equal pay. The case found that staff who worked in the stores, predominantly women, were paid less than warehouse operatives, who were predominantly men. The argument made by the employer, was that the women were paid less in accordance with the ‘market rate’, where warehouse workers are paid more than retail workers, to reflect the labour market.

Next employee Helen Scarsbrook told the press:

“Anyone who works in retail knows that it is a physically and emotionally tough job.”
“We do lots of heavy lifting, the same as the men do in the warehouse. We lift the same boxes they lift.” (1)

And here in lies part of the rub. The image of either men or women working in the warehouse or in the stores respectively, is part of an age-old problem that highlights the difference between stereotypical assumptions on gender roles and the actual lived reality, which we’ll come back to later. It is also a matter of perception, and how we have been conditioned to see such roles and give value to them, based on inherent gender norms. However, the ruling panel stated that this was not the case, and that the difference of pay allocation was purely financial. They said that “direct discrimination” in relation to gender was not at play, and that “there was no conscious or sub-conscious gender influence in the way Next set pay rates” (2). Despite this ruling, in this article we suggest otherwise.

What we are seeing are the effects of social conditioning, and how we have been conditioned to see sex, gender and associated gender roles. They are so engrained that that they become the norm. As the employer stated, this is the first ruling of its kind, which doesn’t mean that it wasn’t an issue before, but that this is the first time that a microscope has been held up to the situation. As we know with the way microscopes work, sometimes you have to adjust the wheel to position the lens and bring into focus what was hidden before.

It’s about choosing to see things differently, hence why the tribunal also stated that the employer hadn’t given enough evidence to show that the lower pay discrepancy, wasn’t due to gender-based discrimination. It was inconclusive. No evidence to prove it and similarly, non to disprove it. I say choose to see things differently, because in order to address the constant battle of awarding equal pay to women and men, we need to actively engage and reflect on our decision-making processes. This is at the heart of mitigating unconscious bias. In fact, we suggest that because gender bias is so engrained in the way that women are seen as the lesser sex, it becomes unthinkable, that such a case could be directly related to gender discrimination.

 

Written by Dr Ope Lori, PhD

To read the full article, you must be a PILAA Member.