Page 3 of yesterday's Evening Standard was a pioneering exercise in journalistic integrity. It seems that topless pictures of an art teacher named Miss Salley had been spread among students at Harrow, a public boy's school. The coverage dwelled simultaneously on Miss Salley's distress at the sharing of the pictures among pupils, and her status as a former model and 'Miss Ireland'. In other words, first, Miss Salley is a woman for whom having topless pictures is just about understandable (as models do that kind of thing). Second, because she is sexy it is understandable that the boy that found the pictures passed them around to his friends, who passed them around to their friends, and so on (because young humans with penises naturally do that kind of thing). Third, because she was upset, she was slightly redeemed. Slightly.
The articles in the Evening Standard, Daily Telegraph, and (unsurprisingly) the Daily Hate could have been broken down in this manner:
1. LOOK AT THIS PICTURE OF A HOT SMOKING WOMAN!
2. Guess what happened, another teacher took some pictures of her with her tits out and all the boys saw! How shameful!
3. But it's ok, she isn't a slut, she's actually a model and they were artistic photos.
4. Also, boys at the school confirm that she is sexy. For example, one eloquently described her as a 'total babe'!
5. And don't worry, she repented. She was really upset and had to go home. Natural balance restored!
p.s. She used to go out with a rugby player!
The reasons why this story is abhorrent are almost too numerous to count. It is not just that we are supposed to look upon the schoolboy's behaviour as naughty yet permissible, it is that at the same time we are encouraged to find it all a bit titillating - reinforcing the idea (as if it needed reinforcing) that a woman's sexual shame is erotic, and that more, female sexuality is in itself shameful when not officially mediated by male permissions. In this story, the story of many women and girls, Miss Salley is the one shamed for sluttishly allowing a semi-naked representation to be taken of her, to be stolen by others. She redeems herself only by being attractive, and by being rightfully upset when others find out what she has done. Heaven help Miss Salley if she is ugly, or if she dares to not recognise her shame. This story has been told a million times and it is rarely, if ever, questioned, particularly not in the schools where it so often takes place.
I will always remember the multiple ways in which girls at my school were sexually bullied. On just one of the many occasions I could pick from, I remember hearing a conversation about the existence of a video of a girl fellating a boy in a toilet. Apparently whilst this was going on the boy's friends had taken the video over the wall of the toilet door. Just rumours about this video were enough to make me feel shocked at the temerity of the girl in question, and thoroughly embarrassed for her. What was she thinking, to give a boy head in a toilet?! How bad she must feel! What a slut! I would never do anything so base! The idea that if she should feel ashamed, the boy receiving head should also feel ashamed was never even mentioned. Nor, for that matter, was it seen to be at all embarassing or shameful to be hanging over a toilet stall door video-ing a couple having sex.
Lets take it as read that there is a massively gendered heterosexual double standard at play here, presenting the idea that it is in some way shameful to give head, but not shameful to receive it. Aside from this, it is highly strange that at no point in teenagers' lives does anybody usually sit them down and explain that this is wrong.
(Imagine you are sitting in a class full of thirteen year olds. Your teacher, a Miss Jean Brodie soundalike, stands up and says this): 'Contrary to everything else you will have probably have learned from films, television, books, parents, friends, and other aspects of our society, it is normal and ok for people to have sex. Women are not sluts for having sex, nor are they prudish for not having sex. Men are not studs for having sex, nor are they losers for not having sex. It is ok to have sex, or to not have sex. Anybody who uses the word 'slut' will henceforth be called to the Head's Office (ha) for a full explanation of their actions.'
In my feminist utopia, this lesson is read instead of morning prayers. Except, this doesn't happen, and instead sexual bullying happens time and time and time again. Obviously girls will take naked images of themselves to send to boyfriends, or friends, when the most prevalent, obvious outlet for burgeoning sexual desire is misogynist heterosexual porn, and when there is no education to suggest otherwise. Whilst young people are growing and developing their sexualities, there is little to nothing taught about gender equality, about sex being compatible with humanity, or about sex being positive and normal. Waving a condom around during one biology class is not sex education.
At what point do we begin to question where the blame really lies? Is it on the woman who experiences her sexuality in such a way as to create a naked image, or is it on a cultural attitude to the female body and to female sexuality which sexualises, commodifies and controls, whilst also blaming, shaming and denigrating? It is scandalous that the British education system is still too embarrassed, too naive, or too outright sexist to talk about sex and relationships to those who need to hear about it most. How long will it be seen as better for sexual bullying, rape, domestic violence and male-centric sex to prevail than for teachers to spend a bit of time teaching children what they don't learn elsewhere?
Here, to my mind, is how the story should have been reported:
1. Picture of public school boys.
2. Boys at Harrow public school were suspended today for attempting to bully a teacher, sexual shaming and property theft.
3. This kind of thing really shouldn't happen any more. How unfortunate. Why weren't those students educated better?
4. X, the photography teacher whose photos were stolen, is pressing charges.
5. We hope that prestigious Harrow school will recover from the shock of such behaviour, and implement better education to make sure it won't happen again.

I have not read the story as I have no interest in seeing, accidentally or otherwise, the topless pictures of the unfortunate teacher in question. However, at first you state they were passed around by boys who had "found" the pictures. How is this classed as theft? Why didn't you say a boy had stolen the pictures from the photographer (presumably from his house? Locked drawer? What, they broke in?). If the digital material (I'm assuming it was digital) is in one's possession, and there's no copyright, then it is perfectly legal to send it forward (although it is despicable and I personally would not do such a thing). It is not a paper's position to pontificate and moralise, leave that to the editorials, it is their duty to report.
ReplyDeleteI do not understand, if she had not wanted her semi-naked pictures to be seen by other people, then why take them in the first place and give them for someone else to keep, when you have no idea where they could end up? Moreover, if it isn't illegal then why blame the boys for something which, while morally reprehensible, is not in the least bit unexpected nor illegal? I could and would say the exact same thing for female pupils sharing nude pictures of a male teacher so don't for one second accuse me of being sexist. How on earth is this bullying? And sexual shaming? What on earth does this even mean? How about exposing the truth? It is her foolish actions which led her to this unfortunate situation. She should know that once she has started taking risqué pictures, she must be prepared to face the consequences if it ever arises, of other people coming across those photos, and choose her future career, friends and partners appropriately. Basic common sense.
And why weren't those pupils "educated better" you say? Well, it's nothing to do with school education, but everything to do with morals, something which can only be taught, or rather instilled, when being brought up, and is the duty of the parents, not the school. I would instead ask why wasn't the teacher educated not to make silly decisions which she'll regret in later life.
ReplyDeleteI would also like to comment on that awful event which occurred at your school. You assert that "nor...was it seen to be at all embarassing or shameful to be hanging over a toilet stall door video-ing a couple having sex." I am absolutely aghast at this statement! You really didn't find this action shameful? (You didn't seem to comment on it.) Neither did anyone you know? How old were you? I am thoroughly grateful I did not know or was myself such an appalling character that I would not find this most disgusting. That was clearly the worst action here, I would have thought everyone can see that.
Secondly, I am confused as to which view you now take. Is it still a shameful act to give head in a toilet? If so, then your admonishment is no less now then it was before. OK, that makes sense, then why bring it up? Oh yes, because you also feel that the boy *should also* feel ashamed at receiving head. Why are you forcing this feeling of shame on another person? What they feel is shameful is entirely up to them so who are you to decide? Is it not a free society any more? (I feel I must point out I would not even think of doing such a thing so I'm not "defending" the boy here.) What they get up to is their own decision. As it happened, the boy was a morally reprehensible creature who thought nothing of getting his friends to film it. He and his friends were clearly in the wrong, they did it because they are sick perverts and got away with it because they could. If she didn't want the risk of being filmed, then she shouldn't have given head in a (boys'?) toilet. It was up to her to make the judgement call on whether her boyfriend is of a decent character, and whether giving head in a school toilet is private enough.
I also cannot believe you still haven't got your head around this "massively gendered heterosexual double standard", and the reasons behind it. Just because you think something is wrong, you cannot teach half the world's population to believe it is wrong. Men, especially boys, as a rule, in Western society, will always value and pursue sleeping with as many different girls as possible (again, I do not agree with this). This is not going to change any time soon so I don't know how you can teach anyone any different. Or conversely (as I'm not sure which view you take), if you think it's completely fine to give head freely to as many boys as you want, then by all means think this, but don't expect anyone to fall into your line of thinking. Ask anyone, especially your fellow women. It is the view of society, you know, what the collective opinion is, not something which you can change because you feel it is unfair. There is a fairly lengthy but simple enough reasoning behind this, regarding differing attitudes to sex, willingness to have sex, psychological effects, etc, which I'm not bothered to get into right now. Whatever it is, you just better get used to the idea that women who sleep around will be looked down upon and guys who sleep around, will generally be looked up to.
You make some valid points but your anger at the world for its sexism and misogyny colours your judgement and makes for some ill-thought-out rhetoric.