Death of the Lady: why 'ladylike' is a sexist term

'If we bury the turkey in sprouts, no will notice the burnt bits.'

Bent over a saucepan of Brussels sprouts on BBC Breakfast this morning, Gordon Ramsay raised the problem that plagues many of us this year: “They will make you fart,” he warned. His interviewer, presenter Susanna Reid, immediately brought him up on this, quickly claiming in outraged tones that women don’t fart, sweat, burp or swear. I hate to break it to you Susanna, but if this true, you should really seek medical advice. For the rest of the unenlightened out there, women do, indeed, fart, sweat, burp, swear, urinate and defecate. Sometimes, I expect, all at once. Unfortunately, Susanna is not alone in her attempt to deny us these basic bodily functions; I have heard several friends protest in horror that they would never dream of performing any of these acts.

This is pathetic, ridiculous and maddening. By placing women on a fart-free pedestal, we are chaining ourselves to an archaic presentation of women as perfect porcelain dolls, whose only purpose in life is to be pretty decorations that are seen and not heard. Or smelled. The unenlightened should prepare themselves for a bold claim: to perpetuate this view is to present ourselves as inhuman. Yes, that’s right. Before you roll your eyes and return to polishing your club, let’s remind ourselves that this claim denies women the basic functions of human anatomy. For anyone who thinks that no one could be quite so stupid as to really believe this, I would refer them to a particularly ignorant ex-housemate, who had such trouble coming to terms with this notion that he chose to ignore clear evidence and to simply deny it. Mind you, he also believed that all women began menstruation on the first day of every month.

Clearly, gentlemen, it’s not just what we say that some of you struggle to comprehend; many of you have a lot to learn when it comes to female anatomy. Think about it, boys: if women are physically incapable of defecation (translation: pooing, shitting, taking a dump), why are we so frequently the subjects of adverts for diarrhoea medication?

Of course, all this reverts back to the notion of what is and is not considered ladylike. Traits in that first category include lipstick, needlework and child-bearing, while tattoos, swearing and an avid dislike of children would probably fall into the latter. To label the term ‘ladylike’ as restrictive is not to say that any of the activities which are given this description are innately wrong. It is more important to focus on what this term intends to prevent us from doing.

To draw on the example of the Olympics, sports such as boxing, judo and football are still held as pursuits more suited to men. To follow national television coverage would be to believe that no woman has ever so much as looked at a football, let alone competed in an international tournament. Boxing coach Hal Adonis (surely an ironic surname if ever there was one) commented that female boxers who haven’t been hit by their parents ‘don’t belong in boxing’, since women apparently need some form of motivation other than sporting prowess to get our pretty little heads angry enough to want to fight. On watching Gemma Gibbons win her Judo silver medal in London 2012, Andrew M Brown wrote that he 'couldn't help wondering about their soft limbs battered black and blue with bruises,' not something he apparently concerns himself with when it comes to competitions between men.

These examples demonstrate that many still distinguish between activities which are acceptable for men and women based on the archaic notion that women are inherently flimsy, fragile creatures. Like it or not, the word ‘ladylike’ is a sexist term because it allows people to restrict what women do purely because of the fact we have vaginas instead of penises. Of course, this type of gender-based classifications affects men too; how many have ever felt pressured to take up one sport over another ‘feminine’ one or to use terms which intentionally subjugate women in order to appear manly?

No one wants to be surrounded by a farting family post-Christmas dinner. But ladies, if you do let out a belter, don’t blame the man sat next to you: you’re only human, embrace it.

Someone save us from our national anthem

No one had told Katherine about the group gym session.

During the weeks of the games, as is customary, those who were able found themselves standing for a variety of national anthems. From the unapologetically sentimental ‘Stars and Stripes’ of the USA, to Israel’s sombre ‘Hatikvah’ and the cheerfully resilient Polish 'Dabrowski's Mazurka', we have experienced a wonderful variety of anthems. Of course, for most of the spectators, the greatest enthusiasm was retained for the British national anthem.

Like everyone else, I was proud to honour all of the athletes, and particularly our own. I was lucky enough to watch Mickey Bushell speed to victory in the T53 100m race on 3rd September. Watching him on the podium receiving his gold medal, surrounded by thousands of fans abandoning British reserve and going absolutely beserk, was one of the most touching moments of the games. Like everyone else, I cheered, stamped, clapped and rose for our national anthem. However, while everyone else sung along with gusto, I remained resolutely silent.

It is not that I have anything against the Queen. In fact, I think she does a rather good job, particularly for someone who was born when cigarettes were good for you, cars were a luxury, and 'Wall Street Crash' sounded like a bizarre new dance craze. She even has a sense of humour, as shown by her recent Bond-inspired helicopter stunt and her taste in hats. I am sure that she is, as the anthem proclaims, also gracious, noble, happy and glorious. But I refuse to accept that one woman, no matter how elegantly poised and crown-bedecked, should be raised above the people in a nation simply because she was born into a family of unimaginable privilege.

A national anthem should represent the nation. The queen is not the nation. Although she is part of it, the people are a much greater part, and since this is a democracy, size matters. While the monarchy is seen as a symbol of Britain by the rest of the world, to praise them, and only them, in a song which stands for us all is inherently wrong. By requesting that she be 'Long to reign over us', we reduce ourselves to mindless, powerless subjects. The religious aspect of the anthem is also problematic, given that Britain prides itself on being multicultural and welcoming to people of all or no beliefs. We all deserve an anthem that includes us.

Our national anthem is over four hundred years old, meaning it was introduced when most British people believed that the monarch had a divine right to the throne, while they had been born into a life of poverty because God ordained it. This type of thinking has no place in what is supposed to be a modern, democratic and free-thinking society.

Of course, there are many who would purse their lips and shake their heads at such a flagrant disregard for Tradition and The Way Things Are. ‘Political correctness gone made,’ they would say, the hand clutching their bone china Diamond Jubilee mug visibly trembling in outrage. ‘It's been around for four hundred years. We can't just change it.’ To which I respond that while tradition has a time and place, such as around a May Pole, it is also important for us to recognise the changing times and move with them, particularly when the tradition in question affects the entire nation.

Four hundred years ago, people believed that women were intellectually inferior to men, the Earth was the centre of the universe, and that a little blood-letting was an all-purpose cure. We now know that these assumptions are wrong, and we have altered our thinking and actions accordingly. Our current anthem is a relic of the past and has an important place in history; let’s leave it there when we take our newfound patriotism and move into a future of inclusion and equality.