Back to normal?
Had enough of the special women's editions or episodes that have been on the screens, pages and airwaves for the past week? Then don't despair — with International Women's Day out of the way, you won't see them for another year.
Now, there's nothing wrong with having a special edition focusing more than usual on issues of women's rights. But the tokenism of some of the establishment media specials of the past week has been appalling.
The Sydney Morning Herald made no bones about its tokenism, calling their March 4 edition of Good Weekend the "Annual Women's Issue". In it, women were treated to a once-a-year feast of stories supposedly of interest to women. These included the success secrets of three women millionaires, an analysis of the "envy myth" (do mothers really envy their daughters?) and a feature on women who "come out" about their hobby of embroidering.
There was even a forum on body image featuring seven women (including Joan Kirner and Helen Garner) discussing dieting, cosmetic surgery and how women perceive and are perceived. This piece had its moments, but those participating spent quite a lot of time speaking about the appearance of other women in the news.
Unusually, this "women's edition" had a very good article on media and entertainment directed specifically at women. Francine Prose examined the content of material produced to tap into the "female market" and concludes that it is, in most cases, "drivel". Prose writes that, while greater inclusion of women is not a bad idea in itself, most of the actual results are patronising, stereotyped and profit-driven.
"Were it not for the promise of money to be made", she writes, "women's culture would be arousing about as much attention as, say, Uzbek culture. This may explain why marketers tend to adopt an anthropological tone, implying that women represent an alien species, mystifying yet tractable if approached correctly."
But doesn't this also apply to annual media specials targeted at women?
The other useful piece was a selection of statistics from around the globe showing that, in almost every aspect of women's lives, they are far from being equal with men. While the situation for women is without doubt comparatively better in the wealthier First World countries, inequality between the sexes is still rampant and systemic.
But that, too, proved that more is needed than an annual women's edition.
While International Women's Day is as important as ever for demanding the changes that still must happen rather than merely celebrating "womanhood", the establishment media still marks this day with a rash of tokenism sometimes bordering on the obscene.
Not that long ago, a media person whose name unfortunately escapes me, suggested that on IWD, all television and radio stations should hand over the reins completely to women for the day. The assumption that women do not already play a role in radio and television (albeit not usually in the top jobs) is almost as bad as the "let the girls have a go for the day" attitude.
But perhaps those of us who want more than tokenism are fighting a losing battle, or are fighting the wrong battle. Maybe we should stop this silly nonsense about wanting equal rights and urge "our Aussie men" to take a leaf out of Russian president-elect Vladimir Putin's book.
No doubt mindful of the fact that the situation of women in Russia and the former eastern bloc countries is worsening, Putin decided to take action on International Women's Day. He instructed Russian men to give compliments to women and arranged for cosmetic packs to be sent to Russian women soldiers fighting in Chechnya.
I don't know about you, but if I were a member of an army engaged in a dirty, not very successful war against my neighbours, and if I hadn't been paid for much of the last five or so years, I'd be mighty glad for a bit of lippy and a frosted blue eyeshadow to buck up my morale.
No, come to think of it, I think we are engaged in the right battle. While at times it can seem daunting, when we work together we can build a world in which women are valued for their contribution to society as human beings, not just as mothers, wives, unpaid domestic workers and objects of lust.
By Margaret Allum