Five top tips for getting a job

You've finally graduated, with a good combined degree in Humanities and Other Useless Studies. You spent your university years relatively well. You played sport for a team, you joined an orchestra. You had a social life. You're reasonably well rounded, and entirely sure that you can a: answer the telephone, b: send an "email" and c: talk to people without accidentally saying "cunt". Ready to take on the adult world of employment.

But the glorious, hopeful summer has now turned to October, and you're sitting in your parents' kitchen in yesterday's pants with a mysterious crust on your face (this bears no relation to my own life, I'm totally fine. Having a great time, actually). You're on your fifth cup of instant coffee and its only ten in the morning. You're flicking through the same unpromising job ads that you've seen every day this week. Most of them tell you neither what the job is nor who it would be for, but they do use plenty of fun, meaningless phrases like "self starter".

The fortnightly trips to the job centre take on a nightmarish air. The night before sign-on day you wake up in your sleep, soaked in sweat. Will you be able to convince the sceptical woman behind the desk that you are worthy of this week's £56.25? Difficult to say, when passing the test to keep your benefits depends on you accepting individual blame for the failings of the political system.

Of course, there's always an opening in recruitment consulting, bribing other people into becoming recruitment consultants. If you don't think about it hard enough, maybe you won't notice that its an empty, self-perpetuating job cycle created to give desperate graduates something to do. Sometimes these consultants even call you up, deliberately ignoring whatever sector it is you marked as desirable on your CV:

Consultant: "Would you like a mind-numbingly boring job that you have absolutely no interest in?"

You: "No, thank you kindly"

Consultant: "You are clearly a benefits scrounging loser. I read about your kind in the Telegraph."


I've never had a conversation like that, but it's only a matter of time.


In any case, from one work-shy feckless job-seeker to another, here are my five top tips for getting a job. They have served me admirably well in the past:


1. Start your cover letter thus:

"Dear Company,

I have no idea who you are or what you do, but frankly the position advertised is an insult to someone of my abilities. Obviously I am capable of filing, answering the telephone, and making tea. During my degree I had to write essays about dialectical materialism, for fuck's sake. Please, please, please give me this job, I really need the money."


2. Apply for unpaid internships. When they offer them to you ask if they'll pay you. If not, turn them down in an outraged email railing against slave labour, linking them to the wikipedia page for the principle of "a fair day's wage for a fair day's work". Repeat.


3. Turn down any job offers you receive. If they're offering you a job, it can't be that great a job. What's wrong with them? (See: Groucho Marx)


4. Write intimidating speculative applications to companies who don't have job openings. Threaten to leave the country if they don't create a job for you. Why should multi-billion pound businesses receive favorable treatment?


5. Whenever friends, parents, partners or bloggers try to give you well-meant job advice, laugh long and loudly. You have no need of their advice! Have you not sent five thousand applications this very week! Do you not have as much chance as anyone else of landing the BBC Director-General job (as and when George Entwistle vacates it)? Shout all these things aggressively, then cry and run out of the room.


Good luck! You'll need it! 

The lesbian adverts that "One Million Moms" should be protesting

Mothers beware! This advert could influence your teenager to purchase tie-die.  

Urban Outfitters has been in the news as the target of a campaign by homophobic, optimistically titled hate group "One Million" Moms. The reason? A catalogue photo depicting this exceptionally chaste kiss between two flouncily-clad women. I hate the idea that tie-die is in fashion again, but apparently that's not the reason for the protest. Apparently One Million Moms campaign against "immorality, violence, vulgarity and profanity." That they have decided to make this ad a focal point for a campaign suggests that this "picture of two women kissing in a face holding embrace!" (as they call it, complete with exclamation mark) falls short on one or more of these points. It must be the old "immorality" chestnut.

As queer adverts go, though, "two women kissing in a face holding embrace!"is pretty tame on the immorality scale. Not even a 2 out of 10. Its nice to see some lesbian-ish (who knows, they could even be bisexual, or just good friends) action, but it's not inflammatory enough to get me out on the streets looking for the nearest straight child to forcibly convert. Of all the queer adverts that One Million Moms could have picked on, some are far more risque.

Relatively few adverts depicting same-sex attraction between women exist, but those that do seem to fall broadly into two categories. The first, and this is by far the biggest, is the shameless lesploitation genre. These adverts may feature same-sex activity between women, but they have about as much to do with self-defining queer women as Margaret Thatcher has to do with feminism. This ostensibly-lesbian-but-actually-lesbophobic-and-misogynist Jim Beam ad - which makes me want to sick in my mouth - is a prime lesploitation candidate.

Ignoring the poor dress choice, I think that the Urban Outfitters' "face holding embrace!" advert falls into another, second category. Its a normal scene (if your version of normal heavily involves Urban Outfitters Spring/Summer 2012), in a normal room, between two normal (if exceedingly slim, white and pretty) women. Unabashedly, it's a consumer capitalist image, but at least for once the content is aimed at the demographic it depicts. It's pleasingly devoid of gratuitously oiled-up nudity. It's a women's same-sex image, aimed primarily at women. 

Unfortunately, One Million Moms' immorality klaxon doesn't seem so tolerant as to enable any consideration of subtlety in intent or representation. Obviously not. If their main worry is that their kids might catch gay from a picture, or that they might be influenced by some queer subliminal messaging sneakily inserted into a handbag advert, then of course they couldn't care less whether the imagery does anything good for queer visibility or not. 

All the same, if they're looking for some other quite nice representations of queer women in advertising to protest, I've found my favourite five: 

1. KY scoops the lesbian audience

Ok look, I obviously hate the idea of orgasms as "that big moment", but actually this is pretty cute observational comedy. There's even a sneaky cat in the top left corner. I can imagine lesbian couples seeing this, then buying lube. Works for me (the depiction, not the lube itself. I haven't tried the lube. Yet).  

2. Lesbian cruises for lesbians: "It truly does change your life." 

An ad made by queer women, for queer women, featuring queer women? Also advertising an niche lesbian service, I know, so not attempting to corner a widely commercial market. But still, stop the press, butch lesbians have made it into an advert! 

3. Martina Navratilova: can't see past her incredible arms to work out what she's selling

Something to do with the supposed "pink pound"? I don't know. It's got Martina Navratilova in. 

4. H&M does ambiguity 

H&M are prime offenders in the sexism stakes, not least for their propensity to photoshop models' heads onto computer generated, identikit mannequin bodies. This ad, however, is part of a series of beautifully constructed ads using intimacy between women to sell to women. 

5. Devin & Glenn: Overturn Prop 8 and Make Homosexuals Marry!

Self-evidently this has little to do with lesbianism, but it is my favourite gay ad ever. If One Million Mom's were to protest anything, it should surely be this. Join them and let them know here: http://www.onemillionmoms.com/register.asp

Familes are not factories

I'm guest blogging at The F Word this December! This is the first post, published last week: http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2011/12/post_6

Good question. Tangentially relevant to this post.

My parents have been married for thirty years. I grew up in a semi-detached house in a suburb, one of three kids. The only surprise in the set-up is that we don’t have a picket fence. It was a Tory government’s wet dream of an upbringing. 

Somewhere along the line, though, something went wrong. The conveyer-belt churning out endless, identical replications of this ideal kinship model hit a snag, shuddered and stopped. It turned out one of the slightly-more-than-2.4 kids was queer and at least one of the others didn’t really give a damn about marriage. Our predicted stable, nuclear futures wobbled as reality, in all its glorious diversity, failed to conform to ideology.  

Thank god, then, for the government, who have announced the return, albeit in diluted form, of Thatcher’s Clause 28. Children in free schools or academies will in future be receiving heterosexist brainwashing instead of Sex and Relationships Education. Perhaps they can halt the cultural decline in straight people buying into holy matrimony by literally legislating for its ideological imposition? 

How obnoxiously weird that a practice designed to institutionalise the exchange of women-as-commodities should, in 2011, be being brought back as if it’s the only excellent kinship model. Over one third of marriages end in divorce, we know that only about 50% of people get married anyway - why do conservatives insist on touting the myth that marriage provides a stability that other forms of relationship don’t? Could they actually believe it, or is this a Dorries-esque way of grooming the next generation’s prejudices against the rights of those who threateningly queer the picture? 

Against all the evidence suggesting that other relationship models are also great, we are hugely invested in the ideal of marriage, in particular, in the importance of marriage to women. Popular, mildly-misogynist TV shows Don’t Tell the Bride and Four Weddings (both guilty pleasures, I admit) speak to this, camping up the ‘greatest-day-of-her-life’ aesthetic until it is too absurd to take seriously. Unless you’re Michael Gove, who presumably resolved to bring back Clause 28 during the Don’t Tell the Bride adverts. 

Given how much pro-marriage marketing we receive, perhaps it is not surprising that our common cultural conception is that it is vaguely ‘best for children’ if they grow up with married hetero-parents. The viciousness of anti-single-mother rhetoric, returning time again to narratives of blame and failure, only compounds this problem. The government spectacularly fails to consider the possible impact of such negative socialisation on children growing up in single-parent households. 

No matter. It is best for children to be brought up by married heterosexual couples , apparently, because two parents provide more stability than one. If an extra parent is so great, why wouldn’t it be better to have more than two? Why not four? Or ten? Why don’t we bring children up in communes, as envisaged by our feminist foremothers? 

I want to know why a marriage certificate makes a difference, if it is not just to get couples bogged down in financial commitments to each other so that they can’t separate. I’d like to know, moreover, how it could be better for children to grow up the company of two parents who would really rather have gone their separate ways, and why it is thought to be right that parents abnegate those - potentially eighteen - years of their lives ‘for the sake of the children’. I’d like to know why gender is presumed to make a difference to that equation, why God is genuinely believed to have given a shit about anybody’s chromosomes. 

Clause 28 is a case of cart-before-horse. There is nothing inherently better about nuclear families except the belief that they are better (coupled with tax breaks). If the children of hetero-marriages turn out to be better adjusted, whatever the hell that means, than those from other families, we need to look at the ways in which the former set of children are systematically culturally privileged and change the system accordingly. To conclude that therefore marriage is best and should be preached to kids is question-beggingly circular. It perpetuates the cycle, excluding those who can’t or won’t fit. 

I have seen at first hand that a heterosexual marriage can provide a stable upbringing in which children can grow. But I would contend that if there is anything about my orientation which would prevent me from bringing up kids in just as good a manner, it is the attitude of Gove and co, who, through Clause 28, will attempt to make sure that the society my children will grow up in will be even more full of hate than the society we have now. Thanks Gove, you utter wanker. 

The Awesome/Outrageous Roundup

Oh hi there. I am now back from my sojourn in San Francisco. In honour of a return to the mundane, here are some interesting bits and pieces I've picked up over the last month.

The oldies are the goodies, right? Right?

Awesome:

Stuart Hall gives the best journalistic analysis of the rise of of neoliberalism in British politics that I have read: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/sep/12/march-of-the-neoliberals

Heart playing Crazy On You live in 1977. Everything about this is incredible. The intense fingerpicking solo intro, the singer's voice, the lead guitarist in open chested white silk blouse and wiggling snake hips, the bit where they unexpectedly all start singing together, the triple harmonized solo, and to top it all THE FUCKING HIGH KICK AT THE END. I can't get over how great this is, must be one of the greatest performances of all time. I have to watch it again right now.

Well interesting piece by Maeghan Winter about hair covering amongst Orthodox Jewish women: http://www.believermag.com/issues/201109/?read=article_winter

My piece on transphobia in radical feminism was cross-posted at The Transadvocate: http://www.transadvocate.com/you-cant-smash-patriarchy-with-transphobia.htm

Awesome/Outrageous:

Awesome - action from Amnesty/Change.org attempting to save life of Troy Davis, a man sentenced to execution despite considerable evidence in his favour. Outrageous - case of justice miscarriage and legal unfairness. http://action.amnesty.org.uk/ea-action/action?ea.client.id=1194&ea.campaign.id=11962&utm_source=social&utm_medium=share&utm_campaign=deathpenalty&utm_content=troy_sharefb

This: http://www.stylist.co.uk/stylist-network/why-having-a-penis-is-worth-10000#image-rotator-2

Jenna Marbles chats shit for a while, on the topic of "How to trick people into thinking you're good looking". I like her unashamed brashness. Recommended to me by a friend I made in San Francisco: http://youtu.be/OYpwAtnywTk


Outrageous:

Links to info about arsecrack nonsense-peddler Tom Martin suing LSE's gender department for 'anti-male bias' (the silly season is officially open):
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23983895-former-student-sues-lse-over-its-gender-bias-against-men.do
http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2011/09/on_tom_martins_
http://toomuchtosayformyself.com/2011/09/17/tom-martin-the-lse-and-the-missing-minister/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/07/gender-studies-anti-discrimination-case

I mean, what? Just... what?! If this comes off I'm totally suing African Studies courses for discrimination against white people and stuff.

The Awesome/Outrageous Roundup

Today's Awesome/Outrageous Roundup has a general sex-positivity theme. Coz I'm in San Francisco, and stuff. Did I mention I'm in San Francisco?*

Fagget Fairys. They epitomise awesome.


Awesome:

Carol Queen pleasantly mocking an old British study on G-Spots

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cocktail-party-physics/2011/07/20/is-it-cold-in-here/

Cool thing about underrated actresses: click here!

I met the author of this blog about male submission the other day at a sex discussion group (I'm that cool) at the Center for Sex and Culture, also run by Carol Queen, who is clearly a fixture of this sex-positivity theme. Here it is: click! Warning: NSFW, depending on your place of work.

Can't wait to see Meryl Streep taking on Thatcher in this. Who wants to come and see it with me?

Finally, it just popped up on my twitter that Brody Dalle has given birth.

Awesome/Outrageous:

One of the only articles I have ever read where I agreed with every word more than life itself. This is a victory for common sense, feminism, standards in academia, and not reporting slavishly when someone is clearly wrong. Have already tweeted it, but here again: click here

Lady Gaga's new video: You and I. Awesome only for the presence of Lady G in drag, then Lady G in drag making out with Lady G not in drag. Outrageous outfits, some of them. I would recommend watching it with the sound off.

Outrageous:

http://isdorriesoutyet.com/. Outrageous only because of the answer.

I can't even begin to deal with the stupidity of this: http://www.springerlink.com/content/w6t8284q7123w214/. Please pay particular attention to the last sentence of the abstract. If it makes you want to run through the streets screaming and banging your forehead with an anvil, well, me too.


*Comments like: 'Yeah you may be in San Francisco but why are you sitting in your hostel blogging and waiting for your laundry when you could be out having fun?' will not be appreciated. Or even acknowledged.

Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik's anti-feminist manifesto

I've just been having a browse through Anders Breivik's seminal work of hateful schlock, 2083: A Declaration of European Independence. Taking into account the murder of so many people, it makes for even more depressing reading than the usual internet bile. Unsurprisingly, alongside multiple expressions of racism, fascism, Islamophobia, white supremacism, etc. etc., we have good old anti-feminism. Misogyny. Anti-womanism.

A good job has already been done over at 'Manboobz' (I don't like the name but in this case I think the posts are worth linking to), extracting some of the particularly nasty anti-women sentiments. The resident blogger also points out, most pertinently, that these sentiments aren't at all out of place in the cluster of 'Men's Rights' websites and forums that fester all over the internet.

Tributes in Norway

Here, for your delectation, are a couple of beauties from the manifesto:

"Ladies should be wives and homemakers, not cops or soldiers, and men should still hold doors open for ladies. Children should not be born out of wedlock. Glorification of homosexuality should be shunned. Jurors should not accept Islam as an excuse for murder."

"Where do we see radical feminism ascendant? It is on television, where nearly every major offering has a female “power figure” and the plots and characters emphasise inferiority of the male and superiority of the female. It is in the military, where expanding opportunity for women, even in combat positions, has been accompanied by double standards and then lowered standards, as well as by a decline in enlistment of young men, while “warriors” in the services are leaving in droves. It is in government-mandated employment preferences and practices that benefit women and use “sexual harassment” charges to keep men in line. It is in colleges where women’s gender studies proliferate and “affirmative action” is applied in admissions and employment..." etc etc.

Like - I wish radical feminism was so powerful as Breivik believes? Actually, I can't be bothered to look for any more extracts. It goes on in much the same vein for 1518 pages.

Ok so the point is that this isn't just the work of one 'madman'. Breivik obviously had plenty of support from numerous others with the same ideas as him. He believed in his worldview, and he isn't the only one who does. The amount of rabid anti-feminism on the internet is shocking, and that's just the internet. I rarely meet committed anti-feminists in person (or at least, they don't tend to admit it to me) - but I know that plenty of them exist.

It is maybe the lesser of two evils that misogynists are permitted to reinforce their prejudices and disseminate their anti-woman ideology through the internet. But much, much more needs to be done before there is a widespread cultural recognition that (if you think it is helpful to speak of 'extremists' at all) anti-feminism is an extremist ideology just like racism, Islamophobia and all the rest. Its no coincidence that Breivik held all these beliefs concurrently. They're all connected.

Apologies for broken record-itis, but kids should really be taught this stuff in schools. I think that that is one of the most important steps forward for women's equality that could be made at present. It's only too obvious that where there is no education otherwise, there will be a bedrock of committed misogynists that bolster the ideas of those, like Breivik, who will go on to commit violent terror. Of course there isn't a catch-all solution to these problems, and maybe there will always be retrograde extremists who slip through the net. But it would be nice to see open sexism reduced to the same sort of level as, let's say, holocaust denial. That won't happen until we recognise the extent of the problem.

Real villains and film villains. More Rebekah Brooks please.

Even though she's basically the anti-christ of the world, Rebekah Brooks is a little bit cool, isn't she? Isn't she though? She's brilliant but evil. Talented but ruthless. Relentlessly successful, she conveys remorse without feeling the slightest shred of it. Possibly a domestic abuser, homophobe, racist, and/or sexist. I'll say it for her, her brand of villainy has panache. If wearing a T-shirt saying 'I heart Rebekah Brooks' wasn't the public equivalent of wrist slitting, I'd probably do it.

Massive badass

Phone hacking is only the icing on the cake of Brooks' malevolence. As Chief Exec of News Corp, she was perfectly happy to oversee the hate-n-prejudice projectile vomit that is constantly spewed out by The Sun, The NOTW, and their ilk. I heard that she had once complained about page 3, but as editor of The Sun, let's face it, she only had to stretch out her little finger to eradicate it to the folder marked 'embarrassing blights on World history'. She didn't give a damn. Instead she picked an enemy; peodophiles, and whipped up a national preoccupation; scaremongering about peodophilia.

Even when sitting in front of the Select Committee to answer for her crimes this week, she exuded an untouchable superiority that Murdoch-squared could only dream of. She combines not giving a shit with the skill of understanding just how to tap into public hysteria. It's lethal.

In fact, she's the perfect film baddie. Cast your mind up to the 130th floor of News Corp Towers. Imagine a black leather rotating chair, a gigantic semi-circle desk, and Brooks holding a massive ginger cat. You have the scene.

Except, I have a sneaking suspicion that if/when any major film company gets their dirty little hands on this story, everything I like about Rebekah Brooks will be written out. Its just too obvious that instead of a powerful evil badass, Rebekah Brooks would become a shrieking harridan straight out of the Glenn Close school of female stereotypes. Possibly played by Mick Hucknall, if the spoof videos floating around are anything to go by.

One of my favourite artworks by the Guerilla Girls sums up this trend perfectly >>

Its true. Not that Hollywood would ever do a film about one of the most important human rights movements ever, but if they did, it would look like this.

And though real life female baddies exist, in Hollywood they invariably become a: sexy skin-tight leather aficionados (not that I have anything against skin-tight leather, just, you know), b: (sexy) psycho bitches who just want to be loved by a man or c: ugly, two-dimensional objects of pity.

That's not to say that female actresses haven't, over the years, put in unspeakably strong performances as villains. Kathy Bates in Misery is incredible, for example. But she still falls under category b: evil psycho man-love-needing bitch. I can't think of any proper female film baddies who get to be powerful, where their power isn't their sexuality. Where are the female villains who get to do the awesome speech at the end about how extensively they've planned for this moment? What about the female masterminds who work out convoluted schemes for world domination? We've got real life female villains, how about celluloid ones? If Hollywood are stuck for inspiration, I suggest starting with our friend Rebekah.

The Sunday Morning Awesome/Outrageous Roundup

Here for your wordly delectation and delight, a selection of things I have found that are either Awesome, Outrageous, or Awesome/Outrageous.

Here it goes

This is an image that illustrates awesomeness.

AWESOME:

A new take on why not to tell rape jokes...

Nineteen Percent takes Beyonce on for lying. This is so worth watching.

The Women's Budget Group - http://www.wbg.org.uk/. Report on 2011 Budget on first page.

Wonderful article by Peggy Orenstein about pink, girlhood and consumer culture: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jun/19/peggy-orenstein-pink-conspiracy-cinderella

OUTRAGEOUS:

Number 1 on this list is so outrageous I won't even link to it. Go to google and type in 'Dietlieb Felderer'. Go to his website. WARNING - holocaust denial, graphic pornography, denial of all other reasonable truths, etc. But it's so outrageous that it becomes funny. In some ways. Like, it's so awful it's interesting.

Report on worst places in the world for women - for any of you that haven't seen this already: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/15/worst-place-women-afghanistan-india

AWESOME/OUTRAGEOUS:

Petition for Betty Tibakawa, to stop her being deported back to Uganda. Where she will be persecuted. If you haven't signed already: http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/stop-the-deportation-of-betty-tibakawa-home-office-ref.html

Slipknot vs Justin Bieber. Works surprisingly well. Will put hair on your nipples.

The Female Characters in Films Flowchart: http://www.overthinkingit.com/2010/10/11/female-character-flowchart/