World AIDS Day

Just recently I finished reading a biography of Elizabeth Taylor.  A fascinating woman no matter how you look at it.  But more than her jewels, her marriages, her violet eyes… the biggest thing about Elizabeth Taylorthat should always be remembered, is the work she did to raise money and awareness for HIV/AIDS.

When AIDS first came to public, it was shunned and unmentionable: even the President of the USA refused to mention it in public, and when Elizabeth Taylor first tried to organise a fundraiser she had to beat down the doors of Hollywood to get people to attend.  She worked tirelessly throughout the latter part of her life – despite her own terrible health problems – to raise awareness of AIDS and reduce its stigma.  She also raised millions of dollars for research and, through the Elizabeth Taylor AIDS Foundation, gave money directly to people with AIDS and HIV to buy food, medicine, and medical treatment.

~~~~~

Today is World AIDS Day, and according to a recent article in The Guardian, we could do with having Elizabeth Taylor around now, too.  On the one hand, massive steps forward have been made in the treatment of AIDS, and it is now possible to prevent contamination using the same medicines that are used to suppress the symptoms of AIDS.

On the other hand, to keep these drugs and progress coming, to keep people receiving the drugs they need, and to keep mothers from passing AIDS on to their babies, or people passing it on to their partners, one thing is needed: Money.

Without money, the research won’t continue; progress won’t be made; and people with AIDS won’t get the already-existing treatments they need.  The Global Fund To Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria has cancelled its next round of funding.  Without this money, developing countries have no hope of affording the drugs which are widely available in first world countries.  This means that contamination will increase, and people already on the medication will stop taking it, letting AIDS run rampant through their bodies again: a stronger, resistant strain that will in turn require much stronger drugs to be managed, assuming they could be afforded.

AIDS now straddles a startling fault-line: one side has no money, no research, no drugs, no prevention.  The other side has progress so huge that Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State, has spoken about the possibility of an ‘AIDS-free generation.’

Money is the one thing that stops a U-turn in the progress of AIDS treatment and prevention.  When the Global Fund asked for US$20 billion last year, they received only US$11.7 billion.  The truth is, AIDS isn’t as popular as it used to be.  When such progress has been made that levels of contamination in developed countries fall low, the cash stops flowing.

People argue that AIDS has had too much of the money allocated for World Health.  And people argue that in times of economic crisis, everything takes a hit and health funds are no different.  But AIDS has taken so much money because that’s what it needs to be beaten.  People in the world don’t stop having AIDS or lower their risk of infection because they can’t afford the drugs any more.

Now is the time to give one final push – and yes, a big cash injection – to the Global Fund. The endline could be in sight, and to falter at the last fence could be to reverse all that has been achieved so far.  Putting up the funds now could make all the money and work of the last 40 years worth it.  Stopping the money now could mean everything that’s been spent so far was just money down the drain.

Nobel Peace Prize

This year’s Nobel Peace Prize has been jointly awarded to three women for their “non-violent struggle for the safety of women and for women’s rights to full participation in peace-building work.”

Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf is Africa’s first woman elected head of state, Leymah Gbowee is a Liberian peace activist, and Tawakul Karman is part of Yemen’spro-democracy movement.

The chairman of the Nobel committee, Thorbjorn Jagland, said:

“We cannot achieve democracy and lasting peace in the world unless women achieve
the same opportunities as men to influence developments at all levels of society.”

 

The women will share the £1 million prize that accompanies the award.

 

Saudi Arabia

A Saudi woman – named as Shaima Jastaina – was recently sentenced to be lashed 10 times for driving without permission.  I thought that women not driving was a case of strictly upheld social custom rather than actually being prohibited by law, and it seems that Jastaina is the first women to have been sentenced to a formal punishment for driving.

Just this week, it was annoounced that King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia had overturned the sentence and the whipping was not to go ahead.  King Abdullah is apparently known as a reformer who is trying to push for ‘cautious reform’ whilst not antagonising the clergy and conservatives of Saudi Arabia.  I’m not sure how possible this is when the issues are overturning archaic laws and traditions.

The day after Jastaina was sentenced, women were given the right to vote and run for election in 2015 – though they will still be banned from voting in elections being held today.

King Abdullah said:

“Because we refuse to marginalise women in society in all roles that comply with sharia, we have decided, after deliberation with our senior ulama (clerics) and others … to involve women in the shura council as members, starting from the next term,” he said in a speech…Women will be able to run as candidates in the municipal election and will even have a right to vote.”

The irony of this is, of course, that although a woman could theoretically vote in the next elections, they would be unable to drive themselves there to excercise their right and could therefore miss out on casting a vote if her father/husband/brother/son refused to drive her there.

It remains to be seen if the changes in law and policy will be implemented in time for the next elections in Saudi Arabia.  Although affording women the right to vote is a good step forward, the actual impact this will have on Saudi women’s lives pales in comparison to other changes occuring in the Arab Spring.

UK to introduce ‘sexless’ passport

The British Home Office has begun a consultation on changing the format and rules of British passports.  Following pressure from the Liberal Democrats, who declare themselves to be ‘firece champions of equality,’ new British passports will not contain details of the holders sex.  The passports will still contain a field names ‘Sex’ but will contain an X for everyone.

Home Office Minister Lynne Featherstone says, “We need concerted government action to tear down barriers and help to build a fairer society for transgender people.”

Supporters say this will save embarrasment or confusion for those who identify as transgender, or who are intersex – currently, potential problems can arise when a person passes through customs who does not appear to match the sex stated on their passport.  This can result in long periods of questioning and detainment by officials at passport control.

The new-style passport would follow the example set by new Australian passports which now allow applicants to register their gender as male, female or indeterminate.

Detractors from the proposed changes say it will be problematic for the UK Border Agency to have one less field of information to identify people by.

 

Here’s a link to an article on this in The Telegraph.

 

 

Topman’s Misogynistic T-shirts

I’m quite fond of a slogan t-shirt.  I don’t like ones that try to be witty or ‘out there’, but I think a lot of men could do worse than a T with a wee cartoon or a big slogan stamped on the front.  Topsman used to do a good line in these T-shirts; my brother has several and they’re usually in nice bright colours withsomething random written across the chest.

But it would seem that several people in Topman’s design sector have lost the plot, as two of their latest ‘funny t-shirt’ offerings are these:

 

 

The first thing that came to my mind after seeing these was: who the hell designed them?!  Closely followed by wondering who at Topman approved them and decided they should be printed and released for sale?

The first one, giving a list of excuses/reasons/justifications for what one presumes to be domestic violence, is not merely unfunny, but dangerous and irresponsible in a country where two women a week are still dying at the hands of their abusive partners, who no doubt offer up a list of excuses similar to the one Topshop has promoted.  You can’t even work on the assumption that this t-shirt is meant to be ironic, as, if it were, surely the one box ticked would not be ‘I was drunk’ but rather ‘I hate you?’

The second t-shirt, comparing your girlfriend to a dog or other animal of your choice, is almost worthy of PETA in its ‘women-as-less-than-animals’ theme (check this out for more information on various PETA promotions and adverts).

After these t-shirts first appeared on the shelves people began expressing their distaste at the slogans, and STopman page was set up on Topshop’s Facebook page, calling on Topman to remove these items.

Sure enough, Topman quickly withdrew the t-shirts (including from their online store) and issued this statement:

“We have received some negative feedback regarding two of our printed T-shirts. Whilst we would like to stress that these T-shirts were meant to be light-hearted and carried no serious meaning, we have made the decision to remove these from store and online as soon as possible.  We would like to apologise to those who may have been offended by these designs.”

 

The speed of their withdrawal shows that Topman were worried about sales and bad publicity as a result of the backlash against these t-shirts, but also begs the questions: Why were they ever released in the first place?  Were they initially expected to sell well? Did Topshop as a company think they were funny?

The idea that these carried ‘no serious meaning’ is an affront to anyone who has suffered domestic violence, and to all the people out there who work with victims of domestic abuse and sexual assault.

Might I suggest, Topshop, that the next time you consider a slogan t-shirt, you might stick a White Ribbon on the front and donate some of your profits to the White Ribbon Campaign.  It should look better on your PR profile, if nothing else.

Withhold the sex of an unborn baby?

A draft resolution passed by the Council of Europe equal opportunities committee could see doctors and midwives banned from telling pregnant women the sex of their unborn baby.  As this resolution would cover the 47 member states, it would be applied to the NHS here in Britain.  The idea behind this resolution is that it would stop ‘selective abortions’ based on gender.

The first question to this is whether gender-based abortion an issue in Europe, as it is in other countries, where aborting girls is commonplace and boys are much more desired and valued?  I don’t have statistics for European abortion rates, but I wouldn’t have thought that it was anywhere near as prevalent here as it is in other parts of the world.

Another question raised is this:  will not finding out the sex of your baby before birth acutally make any difference to people’s gender-focused prejudices, or would it instead lead to an increase in infant mortality as girl babies are killed shortly after birth, by parents who were hoping she were a boy?  Wouldn’t it be better to try to change the attitudes of people, and fight to make sure that girl babies were valued as much as boys, so that pregnant women could know the sex of their unborn child without it making a difference as to much the child was wanted?  The problem is not with individual mothers and what they do with the information they are given, but rather with the societies surrounding them which ingrain the idea that boy babies are more worthy than girls.

This resolution threatens to be nothing more than another limit on the reproductive rights of women (already currently under attack in Britain, thanks to Dorries and her proposals).  Why should a doctor or nurse (or, more accurately, a committee in the European Union) be allowed to withhold information about a woman’s pregnancy?

This kind of resolution is short-sighted and does nothing to challenge the embedded social problems and gender-stereotypes that are the real issue in gender-based abortions: the problem is not that the expectant mother is allowed to know she is having a girl, but rather that having a girl should be seen as a problem or a burden.  In any society where a boy baby is preferred to a girl, waiting until the moment of birth to find out the sex is not going to change any feeling of disappointment or burden associated with having a girl.

What do you think?  Is withholding the sex of the baby until birth a good idea – will it make a difference to how people in male-focused societies view their new-born daughters, and is this a resolution we need in Europe?  Please feel free to comment below, we’d love to know your thoughts.

Norway

I’m sure there’s not a reader who hasn’t heard about the massacre in Norway recently so I don’t need to go into details…
But some of you might not have heard about the two women who saved 40 people from the gunman, at huge risk to themselves. They heard the gunshots and saw people running away towards a lake, so they jumped in their own boat and went over to fish people out of the water and take them away to safety. As if this wasn’t enough, they then made 4 trips taking survivors back and forth, whilst their boat was hit by bullets.
You can read the story here, and please do. I don’t understand why this has not been more widely publicised and why these women have not been hailed as the heroes they are. I’d like to hope that it is not because of their sex and sexuality, but unfortunately I think this may well be the case.
Sorry to direct you to the Daily Mail (!) but I couldn’t actually find articles on this story in any other newspaper when I just did a quick search, which helps prove how under-reported this story is.
Read it and pass it on. These women acted with incredible bravery and humanity and deserve recognition for risking their own lives to save so many others.

Calm Down, Dear

If you haven’t heard by now that David Cameron told Labour front-bencher Angela Eagle to ‘calm down, dear,’ when she argued with him in the House of Commons…well, you must have been living under a rock. Follow the link to see it now.
Mr Cameron has eleceted not to apologise for his comment, and his Tory buddies think it was a joke, and he was ‘mocking a popular TV advert.’ Presumably the peeving Michael Winner adverts, which are condescending enough on their own.

The jeers and sneers from the rest of the Conservatives just add to the overall feeling of derision. Interesting to note, though, if you watch a video of it, that you can see Ed Miliband having a good chuckle, whilst Nick Clegg sits next to Cameron without cracking a smile, looking distinctly uncomfortable.

They’re talking about this on the Wright Stuff just now, and the overall feeling seems to be that Cameron was offensive, condescending, and patronising. Natalie Pinkham pointed out that UK Parliament is hardly a women-friendly place anyway, with women being seriously outnumbered in the Commons, and under-represented in the Cabinet. Having ridiculous remarks like this being fired at you across the House of Commons is another way of undermining women’s authority, and, consequently implying that they have no business being there.

Ms Eagle herself had this to say:

“[Cameron has] done it before in the House of Commons,
especially when he’s been on the back foot…
when you are the prime minister, that kind of behaviour to women members of the Commons isn’t exactly what you’d like to see, is it?…It’s kind of par for the course for me.
I expect him to do that. I’ve seen him do it before.”

The fact that this behaviour from Cameron is not new and, in fact, seems to be quite common practice surely shows that this was not some pop culture reference/joke but in fact just another women-bashing remark founded on deep-rooted sexism.

As Harriet Harman said:

“Women in Britain in the 21st century do not expect to be told to
‘calm down dear’ by their Prime Minister.”

Ms Harman is one of the few women MPs who really stands up for, and champions, women’s rights and equality. Thus her ridiculous epithet, Harriet Har-person – nothing more than a way of undermining her and everything she stands for every time her very name is mentioned.

Politics in this country has a long, long way to go before we reach any kind of real equality and respect. So if this story made you mad, or even uncomfortable- – get out there on 5th May and show it in your vote!