+
Sign up for
The Upworthiest
Our top stories of the day delivered straight to your inbox.
upworthy

gender discrimination

popular

Jennifer Nettles' CMA dress called attention to the fact female country artists don't get 'equal play'

Wikipedia

Women in country music are fighting to be heard. Literally. A study found that between 2000 and 2018, the amount of country songs on the radio by women had fallen by 66%. In 2018, just 11.3% of country songs on the radio were by women. The statistics don't exist in a vacuum. There are misogynistic attitudes behind them. Anyone remember the time radio consultant Keith Hill compared country radio stations to a salad, saying male artists are the lettuce and women are "the tomatoes of our salad"...? Air play of female country artists fell from 19% of songs on the radio to 10.4% of songs on the radio in the three years after he said that.

Not everyone thinks that women are tomatoes. This year's CMA Awards celebrated women, and Sugarland's Jennifer Nettles saw the opportunity to bring awareness to this issue and "inspire conversation about country music's need to play more women artists on radio and play listings," as Nettles put it on her Instagram. She did it in a uniquely feminine way – by making a fashion statement that also made a statement-statement.


The outfit, designed by Christian Siriano and Alice Mizrachi, had a pink train and/or superhero cape with the words, "Play Our F*@#!in Records Please & Thank You!" written on it. The words "Equal Play" were written on her back.

RELATED: Snoop Dogg championing equal pay for women: 'Pay them ladies, man'

Nettles drew attention to the importance of playing women on the radio. When women don't get opportunities to succeed, people begin to believe that women can't succeed. "Some of you big country fans may have heard of this problem over the past few years. 16% of the top 500 songs over the last 4 years (2014-2018) were women. 16% of the top 500!!!!! 16%!!!!," Nettles wrote in an Instagram post. "This is unacceptable."

"We need the celebration and support of women to move into country radio and country play listing. We want our songs to be played and our stories to be heard. The more our songs are played, the more women get to hear their own stories, challenges and triumphs reflected," she said.

Nettles' outfit was well-received on Twitter.




More importantly, the message of the outfit was also well-received.





RELATED: Watch Michelle Williams' positive, impassioned Emmy speech on women and equal pay

If Nettles' dress didn't do enough to call attention to gender disparity in country music, the CMA Awards inadvertently did. Garth Brooks won Entertainer of the Year. Carrie Underwood was the only woman nominated for the award. Some fans claimed Underwood worked her butt off only to be snubbed in favor of a man.


Women are working hard to both succeed in our fields and break the bias against women. Imagine how much more we could do if the bias was removed?

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
More

One woman's furious response to Uber's new deal with the Saudi government.

Every day, Salwa wakes up at 5 a.m. to catch the bus to her college, but most days, her first class isn't until noon.

She can't take a later bus because there is no later bus.

She can't drive herself to school either. She's not allowed.

So when she arrives on campus hours before her class? She waits.

Salwa lives in Saudi Arabia, where women have been banned from driving cars for decades.

Saudi women are forced to rely on rides from friends, family, and "male guardians." Photo by Fayez Nureldine/AFP/Getty Images.

There's no actual law on the books banning women from driving; it's against the social values set by religious clerics who advise the king and can ban pretty much whatever they want. They've argued that allowing women to drive would have serious negative impacts on society — everything from a "chaotic" mixing of genders in public to claiming that somehow the act of driving pushes up on the pelvis in a way that would cause birth defects. Which is, you know ... insane.

So Salwa is left taking the bus.

Leaving school to get to her internship at a nearby hospital is no picnic either.

"Female students are not allowed to exit the university without permission from a male guardian," Salwa told Upworthy through a translator. "This male guardian can be a father, brother, uncle, or even a cousin. So every time I want to leave the university, I must have two copies of a paper containing my male guardian's signature. I have to give the female security a copy so she'll let me leave, then I must give another copy to a security man who is always standing at the bus door. He doesn't let any girl ride the bus without this paper."

King Saud University, where Salwa goes to school. Photo by Basil Al Bayati/Wikimedia Commons.

Even though she has to plan her entire day navigating around these rules, Salwa is getting her education.

She's a senior majoring in clinical laboratory science at King Saud University in Riyadh: a city that once banned women from entering a certain Starbucks after a wall fell down that had previously separated families from single people.

(Other things banned in Saudi Arabia include Pokemon and cat selfies. Not just cats or selfies, but cat selfies: pictures of one's self with a cat or cats ... or anything else.)

Understandably, it's the strict prohibitions put upon women that anger Salwa the most.

Photo by Fayez Nureldine/AFP/Getty Images.

"I'm really annoyed because I'm not a minor [who should] be treated like this," she told Upworthy. "I'm an adult girl who's reached the legal age. But they treat us like kids."

Recently, Uber announced a deal with the government in Saudi Arabia. Could this be the answer for women like Salwa who need to get around?

The ride-hailing service just announced a $3.5 billion investment the Saudi government, which marks the biggest single source overseas investment in the company's history and possibly a new chapter for Silicon Valley tech. Given that Uber has experienced some recent regulatory issues in parts of Europe, including the conviction of two of its French executives, it makes sense they are more aggressively pursuing markets elsewhere, like the Middle East and Asia.

Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images.

But it's not as simple as it sounds. Uber has partnered with a government that banned half its population from driving.

So when Saudi women utilize Uber, they're now giving the government a financial incentive not to lift the driving ban. Many of them, including Salwa, find that insulting and exploitative.

"Saudi Arabia is now taking benefits from Uber economically," she told Upworthy. "Thus, the government won't give us our rights since they are earning huge amounts of money due to this partnership. I'm here as a Saudi women calling for the withdrawal of Uber since it is the cause of a lot of suffering for us and makes our rights delayed."

Photo by Fayez Nureldine/AFP/Getty Images.

She's not alone. Saudi women recently took to Twitter in big numbers to announce a boycott.

Before long, the hashtag "Saudi women announce Uber boycott," (which, yes, is shorter in Arabic) had 8,500 mentions in a week.

Uber spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker responded to criticism of the deal saying, "Of course we think women should be allowed to drive. In the absence of that, we have been able to provide extraordinary mobility that didn’t exist before — and we’re incredibly proud of that.”

But for Saudi women like Salwa, the driving ban isn't just a matter of getting around. It's about fairness.

"The clerics here are against women working, driving, or being independent," Salwa told Upworthy. "They claim that men's prestige will be lost if women did all that... Girls here are considered property."

Women attending a spring festival in Riyadh. Photo by Hassan Ammar/AFP/Getty Images.

Since speaking out against Uber and her government, Salwa says she has been harassed and threatened on social media. She's not afraid, but she is angry. "If I could leave Saudi Arabia without getting permission from my male guardian, I would leave," she says.

Tomorrow, when Salwa wakes up at 5 a.m. to begin her commute, she still won't have the right to drive.

But she'll continue pursuing her education. She'll continue building her career, and she'll continue speaking her mind, fighting to be a person in a world that tells her she's property.

Maybe one day when the anger and courage of women like Salwa forces Saudi Arabia to a tipping point, she'll be free to walk, drive, take the bus, or take a cat selfie — whenever she wants.

For now though, she has to get to school.

Why would any state pass an invasive bill like South Dakota did?

Dear South Dakota,

I heard you recently passed a bill to help ensure students have their privacy respected, and I wanted to say "thanks!"

I do, however, have a few concerns I hope you can help me with. I was reading through the bill, appropriately titled, "An Act to restrict access to certain restrooms and locker rooms in public schools," and while it’s not the sexiest title (you can’t even make an acronym out of it — I mean … AATRATCRALRIPS?), that’s not really the focus. The important thing is that it ensures student privacy and, as Republican state Sen. David Omdahl said, "to preserve the innocence of our young people."

Photos via iStock.

I, too, think it’s important that we preserve the innocence of our young people, which is why I wanted to ask a few things about the bill before the governor decides whether he'll sign or veto. Let’s start with the obvious questions.

If you define "biological sex" as "the physical condition of being male or female as determined by a person’s chromosomes and anatomy as identified at birth," I have to ask what category you place people who either haven’t had their chromosomes tested (which, I don’t know about you, but I certainly haven’t; that’s not something they do to newborns) or people with "anatomy" (very vague) that falls somewhere outside the male/female binary (as much as 1% of the population)?

Here's that section from your bill:

"BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:

Section 1. That chapter 13–24 be amended by adding a NEW SECTION to read:

The term, biological sex, as used in this Act, means the physical condition of being male or female as determined by a person’s chromosomes and anatomy as identified at birth."



This next part came to my attention because, well, I’m just curious what this has to do with "preserving innocence" or privacy? Do kids still take showers in schools? That don’t have private stalls? It’s been a while since I was in school, but I can’t remember a single time anybody in my grade school or high school used the showers after gym class. Most people just showered at home, I think.

I decided to run a very informal poll, and yep, it seems as though open showers are a thing of the past.


And when it comes to restrooms, I’ve never seen anybody’s genitals (nor had the opportunity to test their DNA) while using the bathroom. I’m a firm believer that if you’re seeing others’ genitals while you use the bathroom, then you’re, well, bathrooming wrong.

And I’m curious how you plan to test students’ anatomy and/or chromosomes. That is, how will you enforce this new law? Will there be genital checks upon entering locker rooms? Do students need to give a blood sample? Surely you have some system in place. I’m sure you wouldn’t pass a law without  —  well, who knows?

But again, from your bill:

"Section 2. That the code be amended by adding a NEW SECTION to read:

Every restroom, locker room, and shower room located in a public elementary or secondary school that is designated for student use and is accessible by multiple students at the same time shall be designated for and used only by students of the same biological sex. In addition, any public school student participating in a school sponsored activity off school premises which includes being in a state of undress in the presence of other students shall use those rooms designated for and used only by students of the same biological sex."

Actually, the more I think about it, the more it seems like this bill actively wipes away innocence. I mean, I wouldn’t want a teacher looking at my junk. I wouldn’t feel as though my privacy is protected any better if a public school (which is essentially the government) had access to my DNA. That’d actually make me feel a whole lot less protected. I’d feel violated, even.

It seems to me that this bill wasn’t properly thought through. It sounds expensive (if you’re going to ensure people are in the "right" restroom and locker room, this’ll be pricey!), and it sounds like — well, I’m no lawyer, but — it sounds to me like this invites lawsuits. I could be wrong.

But can you tell me how knowing what students’ genitals look like helps ensure their privacy? It seems to me like this bill is a solution in search of a problem; sadly, that "solution" will only cause more problems.

Best,

Parker

More

Ever heard of the 'pink tax'? It's real and cutting into women's finances in a big way.

Many products cost more for women than men. We call bull.

A few years ago, a girlfriend took the pack of women’s razors from my cart and switched them out for the brand’s men’s razors.

Why? Because they were almost a dollar cheaper.

Photo via kropekk_pl/Pixabay.

It’s a little lifehack that lots of women use: If it’s pink, the men’s version is probably less expensive. But now, we have some hard data to prove just how prevalent the problem is.

This month, the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs confirmed what most women already know to be true: Women pay more than men for a lot of the same products.

The study compared women’s and men’s versions of almost 400 products for sale in the city or online, and they found that 42% of the time, women’s products — products that were exactly the same as men’s — cost more.

It may not seem like a huge deal, an extra 50 cents here or there maybe, but it adds up. A similar study in California from 1994 found that this "gender pricing" led women to spend $1,351 more than men every single year for the same stuff. Not cool.

Now, factor in that women earn less than men … AND they sometimes get saddled with "luxury" taxes for tampons and pads … AND they are usually expected to purchase and wear cosmetics almost every day...

I’m gonna guess that your face looks like this right now:

GIF from "Orange Is the New Black."

According to the NYC Consumer Affairs report, women pay an average of 7% more than men for the same product.

Some of the worst offenders: shampoo, razors, and lotion.

It turns out that women pay 48% more for similar shampoo and conditioner just because they’re branded for women. Lotion for women had about an 11% markup. And razor cartridges like these on average cost 11% more for women than men, too.


All screenshots from the NYC Consumer Affairs report.

Toys and accessories for kids were also pretty heavily marked up.

The report found that one type of scooter sold by Target was $25 more, just because it was pink.


Something tells me that pink coat of paint did not cost 25 bucks.

The gender divide in toys is already pretty messed up as it is, even without gender pricing.

Clothing costs women more, too.

Similar articles of clothing are more pricey for women about 40% of the time.


It’s not just the obvious stuff, either. A back brace (!) for a woman costs about 17% more than a man’s back brace.


Women also pay about 12% more for canes than men.

This "pink tax" doesn’t make sense, and over time, it can seriously cut into women’s finances.

Luckily, consumers are already fighting back. After the report came out, people started tweeting about the cost of gender pricing and calling out unfairly priced products.

If you find products with a "gender tax" on the women’s version, you can call them out by tweeting the item with the hashtag #genderpricing.

Let’s make sure that retailers and manufacturers get the message.

Trending Stories