Category Archives: feminism

16 Days

Posted on by
Reply

November is a busy time for feminists.  It is, of course, 16 Days For The Elimination Of Violence Against Women, when more events than you can shake a (non-phallic?) stick at are on across the country.

This year, GFN kicked off the 16 Days of Action with a planned candle-lit vigil in the city centre.  Sex crime in Glasgow has now reached a 5 year high, and over the period 2010-11, more than 910 sex-related crimes were reported.  The rape conviction rate remains at a horrifyingly low 3% (which, in itself is less that half the UK average).

Unfortunately, turn-out at this vigil (our second) was very low and I think we didn’t make anywhere near as much of an impact as we would have liked.  We did have a speech made by the lovely Sandy Brindley of Rape Crisis Scotland (you can watch it here, on our official YouTube channel), and then we handed out flyers and info cards.

Following our event, there was the annual Reclaim The Night walk, organised by Rape Crisis.  This got a good turn-out and we walked to the sound of Sheboom and then gathered to hear some from Rape Crisis talk and then a short feminist sing-along with the Rape Crisis choir!

Today, of course, is the strike and picket-line action, so good luck to all of you who’re out there.  The cuts that are being brought in, and those that have already been implemented, routinely hit women hardest, so if you can go along and show some support, please do it.  And if you can’t make it, then respect any picket lines you come across!

 

You can find a full list of Glasgow’s 16 Days events here.

 

Why we’ll march

Posted on by
1

On October the 1st the Scottish Trade Union Congress will be holding ‘Put people first’ march and rally in Glasgow city centre. This event invites an alliance of ‘trade unions, faith, equality, anti-poverty and campaign organisations’ to march together to demand three key things:

  • Redistribute wealth through fair taxes and living wages.
  • Protect the hardest hit through decent services and fair benefits.
  • Build stronger communities for all.

The key concern for feminists everywhere is that the global climate of recessions and austerity cuts to public spending unfairly and disproportionality effects women.

The Fawcett Society has been a campaign leader on this issue for some time. They rightly highlight that women in the UK already face economic inequality through the persistent pay gap, receiving less money over their life-time through things like pensions and being more likely to work in a low paid sector. Austerity cuts to reduce the UK’s deficit would further entrench women’s economic inequality. According to the Fawcett Society public sector spending cuts have a ‘triple jeopardy’ effect on women: Economic inequality is compounded by more women working in the increasingly underfunded public sector, more women accessing public services and benefits that are being cut and women being more likely to ‘plug the gaps’ left behind by funding cuts, such as informal and unpaid caring responsibilities. Read more about the Fawcett’s Society analysis of public spending cuts here: http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=1235

GFN should support and endorse the People First rally as a way to highlight the feminist message that women are being disproportionately hit by the current government’s austerity measures. However we should also be part of a wide alliance of other groups with the larger message that the current government’s policy of spending cuts to public services is unfair and should be challenged.

Find out more about the October 1st rally here: http://www.peoplefirstoctoberfirst.org/

What Women Want….

Posted on by
1

This week a government memo detailing plans for women-friendly policies was leaked to the media. This document considered plans to make changes to benefits so that women would be the sole receiver in a household of universal credit payments and front-loaded child benefit so that more money is given when children are younger. Other suggestions included banning advertising to children; introducing personal budgets to enable women to choose their own maternity services; criminalising forced marriage and holding a summit for women in business. While some of these suggestions reek of tokenism and others have a disagreeable ideology behind them (shopping around for health services?), the emphasis on women tailored policy is welcome, or at least would be welcome if it wasn’t so blatantly a cynical exercise in vote-chasing.

This memo follows the realisation by the government that recent cutbacks had hit women disproportionately hard as well as a previously leaked memo from the government which called for abolishing maternity payments on the basis that it hindered economic recovery. These have conspired to hit the government where it hurts the most: right in the votes. Recent polls have put support amongst young women for the Conservatives falling from 30% to 18% over the last year.

Although some of these suggested polices are objectively pro-women, the vote-grabbing impetus for them makes me slightly uneasy. I seriously doubt these are well thought out ideas that act against entrenched gender equality but are instead big on rhetoric and short on impact.

Improving the position of women involves a lot more than dis-jointed policies about school holidays and child benefit. Empowering women and making our country a more equal place is an incremental process that involves fundamental changes about who we are as a society.

So, in the spirit of JFK’s “think not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country” shtick I have graciously offered my services by devising my own list of women-focused polices. In post-devolution Scotland this wish list is better directed at our very own SNP majority government. Please join me in writing an open letter to the Scottish government as to what changes we would like to see change in our country. Answers on a postcard so far:

  • Safety: last year a deplorable number of sexual assaults took place in Glasgow city centre. Action is needed to make all city centres safer for everyone. More police, better transport links and lighting could also contribute to this.
  • Rape conviction rate: is still lingering around the 3% mark. A lack of reporting, difficulty in prosecution, persistent rape myths affecting perceptions on what rape actually is all contribute to this. Scotland’s record on rape conviction is worse than the UK’s and any other crime which had this low a conviction rape would be an outrage. Changes to the law can move the burden of proof from the victim and an information campaign should challenge rape myths and perceptions which could encourage more reporting.
  • Domestic Abuse: one in five women in Scotland will experience domestic abuse. During old firm matches the number of domestic violence incidences can go up by as much as 138%. The Scottish Government should fund women’s refuges and promote the message that domestic abuse is always inexcusable.
  • Pay Inequality: Women are paid, on average, 12% less than men. Action could be taken by implementing transparent pay structures, increasing women’s representation in company top management, increasing affordable child care and give families the ability to share maternity leave.
  • No recourse to public funds: Women coming to Scotland as asylum seekers, refugees, on student and spousal visas often fall prey to this rule which would deny them support and the ability to escape an abusive relationship. This rule should be overturned or there at least should be a fund of money available to help women in these circumstances.
  • Limit lap dancing clubs: Lap dancing clubs contribute to the commercialisation of sex, the perception of women as sexual objects, creates ‘no go’ areas for women in city centres and financially exploit women who work in these clubs. Local councils should be given more powers to reject applications from lap dancing clubs.
  • Resist cuts to services, especially for vulnerable groups: Women’s Aid reported in April that 60% of refuges and 72% of out-reach services had no agreed funding. The Women’s Support Project in Glasgow will receive no funding from Glasgow City Council. More women work in the increasingly underfunded public sector. Funding cuts are having a disproportionate effect on women and the Scottish Government should ensure that any cuts to funding do not have a discriminating effect on women.

Abortion amendments voted down

Posted on by
1

Presumably you can’t have missed the rumblings from the Houses of Commons about amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill which would impact on abortion policy.

In a nutshell, a socially conservative bank bench Tory MP, one Nadine Dorries, suggested amendments to this bill which would mean that pre-abortion counselling had to be delivered by independent providers as opposed to the charities that provide the procedure on behalf of the NHS. In reality this would mean that counselling women receive before having an abortion would be provided by another organisation which may or not have a religious bent, as it is those organisations that are best placed to step into a funding vacuum. Some of the ‘counselling’ of these religiously minded charities were found in a mystery shopper exercise to include scaremongering tactics, such as claiming that abortion would lead to a higher risk of breast cancer or plain emotive bullying, such as referring to foetus as a ‘baby’ and latterly as ‘the corpse’ (You can read more detail about the research here, http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/aug/02/abortion-pregnancy-counselling-found-wanting).

The problems with this amendment were blindingly obvious: the ridiculous idea that abortion providers offer anything less than independent counselling or have a vested money-driven interest in performing abortions; letting organisations provide counselling on contentious issues without vetting or checking that there might be a conflict of interest; Dorries’ claim that such measures could ‘prevent’ 60,000 abortions a year, seeming to imply that women are goaded or tricked into having a procedure that they have no agency to really demand. However, I think perhaps the most frightening thing about this amendment was the way it was designed to sound so innocuous. ‘Women’s health’ and ‘independence’ was the convincing sounding rhetoric that accompanied it. The true result that this amendment would have had was never highlighted. Maybe it’s out of fashion to simply state that you don’t agree with abortion so instead anti-abortion policies get dressed up in the language of empowerment in an underhand insult to the electorate.

To me there is something deeply perverse about a group of people, a massively homogenous group of people, with only 142 women amongst them, making crucial and life changing decisions on what is, by definition, a women’s issue. It offends me greatly that the difficult decision to have an abortion is something that will never cross the minds of the vast majority of these ‘representatives’ and yet there the ones that get to decide on how you can access this crucial service.

Last week this amendment was voted down after a screeching U-turn by the government as the Prime Minister and key Cabinet members had previously backed the proposal.

Worryingly, after the vote the health minister said that she would see that a consultation in the ‘spirit’ of the suggested amendments would take place in view of new legislation. Under the last government a vote to reduce the abortion time limit from 24 weeks to either 22 or 20 weeks was defeated. There appears to be incessant pressure on entrenched abortion rights which I would expect to see continue from this government (or at least one very specific side of this government). Abortion is always a contentious issue and not all feminists may be on a pro-choice side of the debate. However, those of us that are should be vigil of abortion rights we’ve had for the last 40 years or we may see them gradually and relentlessly eroded.

Summer School: Take Two

Posted on by
2
There were many fantastic things about UK Feminista Summer School but my personal favourite was feeling like a student, but only this time at the world’s best University. Between rushing to a workshop on running campaigns whilst cramming a sandwich in my face, getting lost on campus, taking illegible notes, playing ridiculous drinking games in student halls, mainlining coffee, introducing myself to absolutely everyone, requesting early 90’s CHOONS in an old man’s pub and using monster munch as a hangover cure and then trying not to chunder in a seminar, it was like the good part of being at University, right before the bit you had to go move into the library and do some proper work.Student nostalgia aside, UK Feminista Summer School will probably be the most valuable thing I do all year.

The best way to describe Summer School is activist training. Basically, ‘How to be a better feminist’ in two short days. Workshops included: running a feminist organisation, effective campaigning, consensus making, how to influence MPs, using the media and taking non-violent direct action. Alongside the workshops were seminars on current feminist issues such as Women’s role in the Arab spring, abortion rights, the sex industry and how the public spending cuts affect Women. These seminars uniformly ended with a section on ‘what to do next’ or ‘how to take action’. The tone of these workshops and seminars is always an active one with the emphasis on concrete, completely achievable ideas of what we could, or should, be doing as feminists who want to influence the world around us.
Empowering: that’s how would I sum up Feminist Fantasy University- Here’s what the problem is and here is how to we can try and solve it. The amount of ideas that was presented to me as something which GFN could feasibly, easily infact, be doing was unbelievable. Add in knowing that perhaps everyone else in the room felt they were also champing at the activist bit made for a very powerful feeling.Sometimes, it can be difficult being an ‘ardent feminist’ (as I was introduced as earlier this weekend). Feminism is a label that some women still shy away from, or some people don’t get (‘ahhh you hate MEN’) and feeling like you’re the only person aware of blindingly obvious sexism is an advert or TV show that everyone else perceives as perfectly benign, can feel isolating. Summer School was like the antithesis of this feeling. The social event on a Saturday was like feminist respite. Taking over an old man’s pub with a feminist disco (mostly Blondie), finding someone else to discuss Bikini Kill vs. L7 with, and feeling like everyone was ready to be your friend instead of the competition was in a word: awesome. More feminist discos says I. See one of my co-students blogs what on socialising without a male objectifying gaze is like: http://petitefeministe.wordpress.com/2011/08/18/you-oughta-know/

Will I be back next year? So much so I’ve written to ask if Glasgow Feminist Network could host Summer School next year. I am sometimes aware that organisations use the label ‘UK’ but are in fact quite Anglo-centric. So I told them to come up to Glasgow, if they think their hard enough ;)

Hazel x

needle and the damage done

Posted on by
Reply

It is safe to say that of all the women in our society those who are drug addicts and the severely mentally ill are perceived to be the lowest common denominators. When one considers how these two groups are represented in the tabloid media then there are some parallels that can be drawn between them:

  • reliance upon the public purse and cost to the tax payer
  • threat to the lives of the typical British citizen be it drug addicts stealing purses or the mentally ill causing violence
  • that they are unfit to raise a family and intervention from social work is required
I personally think that those with addictions fair the worst in the media, partly because there are precious few organisations campaigning on their behalf. (at least for us nutters there are a plethora of anti stigma campaigns) According to Action On Addiction, one of the few registered charities dealing with substance abusers, addiction affects 1 in 3 people at any given time. I found this surprising as unlike mental health, where the 1 in 4 statistic has been well publicised, addiction is both more common place (even with many drug users having mental health issues as a co morbidity) and much less discussed.
Unlike mental health (where I am well versed as a service user) I know very little about drug addiction beyond the negative slant that is reported in the newspapers. Addiction is a powerful force that breaks up families, damages communities and ruins lives. How can I know so little about it? Firstly there is not much in the way of balanced reporting – I am well aware that addicts steal, contract diseases and cost the taxpayer millions each year. However as a liberal feminist I want to go beyond the headlines, I want to know what factors led to these women making this horrible choice. I want to know the true statistics of cost and crime. I also want to know what the hell the government is doing to help them and their families.
First of all we need to address what inspires people to abuse? In amongst the tabloid bile, it must be remembered that no drug user sets out to become an addict. People start using drugs for reasons such as to escape problems they are having in their lives, to fit in amongst their peers and simple curiosity regarding their effects. Women today face major issues such as sexual exportation, reduced earnings and the bulk of parental responsibility. All of which are majorly stressful and can be implicated in the use of drugs.
Women, in the past, faced special stigmatization in regards to receiving treatment for their addictions. According to research from America until the 1970s drug therapy was designed with mainly men in mind and little in the way of studies concerned women’s issues. Whilst drug treatment has now mainly caught up between the genders: women are still unique in that their relationship with drugs is linked to experiences such as domestic violence and the raising of children. Drug using women who fall pregnant are demonised to an extent never felt by a man. Such is the rights of the unborn child placed over the mother, an angle the media are often only too happy to take.
This follows onto the reproductive rights row. In October last year the BBC reported that Project Prevention (an American charity) was offering £200 to addicts in exchange for their sterilisation. Personally I find this move horrifying and that discouraging the less desirable members of our society from bearing children amounts to little more than eugenics. I find that the offering of a cash reward is exploitative and with many drug addicts desperate for cash many may be led down this route without having the freedom to consider the implications of their actions. Whilst I believe that no-one wants a child to be brought up by drug addicted parents I am also of the firm opinion that humans should not be selectively bred like cattle.
In regards to what might make life a little easier for drug affected families scrapping the illegality of drugs is an option. Prohibition does not work, prohibition has never worked. We only have to look to America at the start of the last century and the Volstead act to see this. Many parallels can be drawn between society’s attitude to alcohol back then and to illegal drugs just now. The anti saloon league who heralded in the changes saw alcohol has a destructive force for families and marriages. When the ban first came in it appeared to work at first arrests for drunken disorder fell but it was not to last. The illegal production and distribution of alcohol rose and was in the hands of often violent criminals from organised crime. Sound familiar?
Releasing drugs from the hands of organised gangs would prevent exposure to the vast criminal underworld by drug users – saving them from harm. Prescribing drugs to addicts would decrease demand from the streets, effectively putting drug pushers out of business. It would also decrease prostitution as women would no longer have to sell their bodies to finance their addiction. It would encourage them to be better parents as they would no longer be prowling the streets after their next fix. Prescribing drugs with clean needles could also lower rates of blood transmitted infections and thus save the NHS thousands each year. A pilot study by King’s college found that :
“Of 127 users involved in the pilots, three-quarters “substantially reduced” their use of street drugs, while their spending on drugs fell from £300 to £50 a week. The number of crimes they committed fell from 1,731 in three months to 547 in six months.”
It also revealed a financial saving, where the project cost £15,000 per addict per year compared to prison costs of £44,000. This does not go anywhere near solving all the issues connected to drugs but as stated by Julian Critchley (former director of the UK Anti-Drug Co-Ordination Unit) :
“Ultimately, people will make choices which harm themselves, whether they involve diet, smoking, drinking, lack of exercise, sexual activity or pursuit of extreme sports. In all these instances, the Government rightly takes the line that if these activities are to be pursued, society will ensure that those who pursue them have access to accurate information about the risks; can access assistance to change their harmful habits should they so wish; are protected by a legal standards regime; are taxed accordingly; and – crucially – do not harm other people. Only in the field of drugs does the Government take a different line”
To further prove the point the government like to run their drug policy to appease the average tabloid reader, though as can be seen even the tabloids are now moving with the times, the government are now looking to cut benefits from addicts who refuse treatment. The Daily Mail, whilst they are at pains to point out that “£1.2billion of taxpayers’ money “ is spent on addicts annually they also report in the article that cutting benefits from addicts will drive the market further underground, result in an increase in crime and prostitution as individuals finance their supply. Making the situation worse for drug abuser and non drug abuser alike. I find this a very positive line of reporting from a tabloid newspaper. The article goes on to quote Professor Sir Ian Gilmore, former president of the Royal College of Physicians who believes that there is a strong case for putting a regulatory framework around illicit drugs, rather than the current blanket ban.


Only when the government admits that the “war on drugs” is making things worse and listen to the gathering voices of experts in the field will much needed reform take place. Until then our most vulnerable women will roam the streets risking murder and rape to fuel their addictions.

Steff xxx