When the BBC Radio 4 proclaimed on the news this morning that people who volunteer could be rewarded with credit to their own care-time accounts, I thought I had woken up in a dystopic nightmare.
I completely advocate volunteering, probably spending more of my freed time doing it than paid work, and I am a trustee for the Volunteering Bureau in my home town. But to capitalise on "rewarding" volunteering is a diabolical proposition.
The very proposal negates the responsibility of family, neighbours and the state to protect older and disabled persons.
We are fast approaching a 50/50 divide of retired and employed persons in the UK, and in spite of this, older people and disabled people are getting less and less funding on a local level.
I have applauded the coalition's approach to raising the pension, maintaining free bus passes and universal winter fuel allowance. But this does not mean they can justify removing care systems that are integral to old age and replace it with volunteers.
Regular readers know that Wardens and their demise are a bugbear of mine. There is evidence to show Councils and Housing Associations are not consulting their tenants properly or legally, and yet Older people are still abused by process.
Now we are supposed to accept volunteers to maintain community care?
"Hureai Kippu", the Japanese scheme to support older people, translates into "Caring Relationship Tickets". Tickets for what exactly?
How exactly do we propose to measure this? I am disabled and my husband technically cares for me*. Does this mean he has an enormous account, or does he have to care for strangers to accrue this valueless reward system?
Firstly, how do we define care? From personal experience, care can range from washing my hair for me through to carrying my shopping. However, I know a great deal of non disabled couples where the husband will carry the shopping. Do they all register as carers?
Alternatively, will they declare on 1st January 2011 that all "carers" accrue credit for the hours they give. They must register these hours how exactly? My husband hoovers as I cannot lift the appliance, why does he not gather a backlog of accrued hours?
Are we not, in fact, discriminating against future generations of Older People by introducing this scheme? By stating that Pensioners and Disabled persons of today are entitled to more support than those in 2020 or 2040? [a digressive post on inchoate discriination is well overdue I feel].
Ultimately Volunteers are no substitute for trained care. They are not accountable to employment regulations, nor are they bound by them. To introduce such regulation would negate the very word "volunteer".
Where would the proposed scheme draw the line between trained staff and volunteers?
I could go on.
Now for the Sarcastic Bit
In my understanding of society we have a system of credit for work done, I believe we call it pound sterling.
* I have arthritis, this means I cannot do some things, like peel vegetables or carry more than 2kg. Sometimes I cannot cut up my own food. However, I still work full time and although I am awarded DLA, I do not claim for my husband as my carer, nor does he claim. We see it as part of our relationship.
Showing posts with label Discrimination. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Discrimination. Show all posts
25 Oct 2010
Why the Fawsett Society Challenge Actually Discriminates Against Women Further
The Fawcett Society has launched a major, high press challenge against the government's spending cuts to child benefit and benefit cuts in general.
Controversially, as a feminist, I disagree with this action.
Ultimately, I feel this hinders the gender equality debate, is a poor use of legislation and does not represent a true equality impact assessment of the spending cuts in line with other legislation.
Do the Spending Cuts Disproportionally Discriminate against Women?
Flexible Working and the Public Sector
The Fawcett Society states that "65% of public sector employees are women". It then goes on to illustrate why two thirds of civil servant employees are in fact female. Firstly, it is because the public sector has far more stringent flexible working schemes, equal opportunities governance and care related policies than the private sector.
By campaigning against the spending cuts to the public sector, all the Fawcett Society appears to be achieving, to me, is preserving the public sector as the best equal opportunities employer in the country. This immediately implies that these women would be unlikely to seek employment opportunities outside the public sector because practices are not as adequate.
Therefore, the debate is not about the cuts to the public sector, but in fact about how inadequate private corporations in the UK are at providing equal opportunities in employment for women, caregivers and those who seek flexible working schemes.
By enforcing major budget cuts on the public sector, this would significantly increase job seekers into the market who do not just seek flexible working, but insist upon flexible working. This would force companies into applying more suitable flexible working policies, and seek better ways of functioning with a level playing field of diversity strands.
The Fawcett Society may succeed in their legal challenge, but all this would do with secure a narrow field in which women can work and allow private companies to continue to discriminate against women and diversity strands.
Child Rearing
The Fawcett Society is responding to the sociological issue that women are, in the majority of cases, the main child rearers.
This is not a response to the amount of money these women receive, whether from benefits or employment, but in fact a response to the entrenched notion of discrimination within the family unit that the society has failed to address since the onset of second wave feminism in the 1960s.
Gender discrimination and patriarchy remain truly embedded within society through a variety of means. All the time we allow women to be considered as the "caring, mother figure" stereotype, we persist in the notion that women nest and men build.
Sexual liberation in the 1960s allowed women to have sex with a much lower risk of pregnancy thereby allowing them a far greater choice of partner prior to embracing family life.
However, the barriers still exist post commencing that relationship. Once she selected her partner, she is still expected to undertake certain roles within that relationship. This includes being the one to take leave for nine months to two years when a child enters the relationship. While a leave of absence is reasonable for women that have given birth, the assumptions of "biological destiny", "bonding" and the interdependent relationships indicated within society between mother and child ensure that the woman feels guilty for not taking for maternity leave, feels guilty when she is struggling with a variety of related child rearing issues, feels secondary to her child and is obligated by the sociopolitical landscape to fulfil these roles.
The Fawcett Society challenge to spending cuts perpetuates the concept of the woman of the child rearer, thereby inadvertently preventing the positions of women within society from changing to a more equal stance within the workplace.
The limiting of child benefit may in fact assist to reposition the role of the female as a potential to be an equal or main earner within the family; dependent on meritocracy and not upon negative and perceived social roles.
Legislative Tools
There is an entire range of gender equality legislation now available for use within the UK. But all the time that negative sociopolitical concepts of the roles of women within the home, the workplace, or career style, persists, all challengers are effectively moot.
Legislation from the EU indicates that you cannot discriminate against gender on the basis of goods and services. However, we still see gender stereotyping in marketing, advertising and merchandise as well as in the services surrounding capitalism in the UK.
The legislation should be strategic and proactive, enforcing companies and service providers to take into account equality impact on gender.
However, persistent messages such as "men are from Mars, women are from Venus" in advertising, education, and social media seem to be so entrenched, that no one even considered challenging them.
I recently submitted a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority with regards to an advert for Dove on the television. This is particularly targeted at men with a voice over detailing how fantastic it was to be male, including lifting the entitlements of the man within society and the role and gender rise masculinity that he should fulfil. I was informed by the Advertising Standard Authority that my complaint was not valid as I was the only person to complain.
What is the point of legislation if it does not exist to combat discrimination in these areas?
Instead, the Fawcett Society are using it as a reactive tool to discrimination. To combat discrimination against women based on these entrenched rules without both advising, consulting and instigating steps to erase such embedded notions from society, is what I consider to be a misuse of the legislation.
I'll go further, saying that it helps perpetuate negative connotations of "feminists" as angry, reactive, aggressive groups that do not put steps in place to rectify mistakes but simply battle against them when the impulse takes them.
Controversially, as a feminist, I disagree with this action.
Ultimately, I feel this hinders the gender equality debate, is a poor use of legislation and does not represent a true equality impact assessment of the spending cuts in line with other legislation.
Do the Spending Cuts Disproportionally Discriminate against Women?
Flexible Working and the Public Sector
The Fawcett Society states that "65% of public sector employees are women". It then goes on to illustrate why two thirds of civil servant employees are in fact female. Firstly, it is because the public sector has far more stringent flexible working schemes, equal opportunities governance and care related policies than the private sector.
By campaigning against the spending cuts to the public sector, all the Fawcett Society appears to be achieving, to me, is preserving the public sector as the best equal opportunities employer in the country. This immediately implies that these women would be unlikely to seek employment opportunities outside the public sector because practices are not as adequate.
Therefore, the debate is not about the cuts to the public sector, but in fact about how inadequate private corporations in the UK are at providing equal opportunities in employment for women, caregivers and those who seek flexible working schemes.
By enforcing major budget cuts on the public sector, this would significantly increase job seekers into the market who do not just seek flexible working, but insist upon flexible working. This would force companies into applying more suitable flexible working policies, and seek better ways of functioning with a level playing field of diversity strands.
The Fawcett Society may succeed in their legal challenge, but all this would do with secure a narrow field in which women can work and allow private companies to continue to discriminate against women and diversity strands.
Child Rearing
The Fawcett Society is responding to the sociological issue that women are, in the majority of cases, the main child rearers.
This is not a response to the amount of money these women receive, whether from benefits or employment, but in fact a response to the entrenched notion of discrimination within the family unit that the society has failed to address since the onset of second wave feminism in the 1960s.
Gender discrimination and patriarchy remain truly embedded within society through a variety of means. All the time we allow women to be considered as the "caring, mother figure" stereotype, we persist in the notion that women nest and men build.
Sexual liberation in the 1960s allowed women to have sex with a much lower risk of pregnancy thereby allowing them a far greater choice of partner prior to embracing family life.
However, the barriers still exist post commencing that relationship. Once she selected her partner, she is still expected to undertake certain roles within that relationship. This includes being the one to take leave for nine months to two years when a child enters the relationship. While a leave of absence is reasonable for women that have given birth, the assumptions of "biological destiny", "bonding" and the interdependent relationships indicated within society between mother and child ensure that the woman feels guilty for not taking for maternity leave, feels guilty when she is struggling with a variety of related child rearing issues, feels secondary to her child and is obligated by the sociopolitical landscape to fulfil these roles.
The Fawcett Society challenge to spending cuts perpetuates the concept of the woman of the child rearer, thereby inadvertently preventing the positions of women within society from changing to a more equal stance within the workplace.
The limiting of child benefit may in fact assist to reposition the role of the female as a potential to be an equal or main earner within the family; dependent on meritocracy and not upon negative and perceived social roles.
Legislative Tools
There is an entire range of gender equality legislation now available for use within the UK. But all the time that negative sociopolitical concepts of the roles of women within the home, the workplace, or career style, persists, all challengers are effectively moot.
Legislation from the EU indicates that you cannot discriminate against gender on the basis of goods and services. However, we still see gender stereotyping in marketing, advertising and merchandise as well as in the services surrounding capitalism in the UK.
The legislation should be strategic and proactive, enforcing companies and service providers to take into account equality impact on gender.
However, persistent messages such as "men are from Mars, women are from Venus" in advertising, education, and social media seem to be so entrenched, that no one even considered challenging them.
I recently submitted a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority with regards to an advert for Dove on the television. This is particularly targeted at men with a voice over detailing how fantastic it was to be male, including lifting the entitlements of the man within society and the role and gender rise masculinity that he should fulfil. I was informed by the Advertising Standard Authority that my complaint was not valid as I was the only person to complain.
What is the point of legislation if it does not exist to combat discrimination in these areas?
Instead, the Fawcett Society are using it as a reactive tool to discrimination. To combat discrimination against women based on these entrenched rules without both advising, consulting and instigating steps to erase such embedded notions from society, is what I consider to be a misuse of the legislation.
I'll go further, saying that it helps perpetuate negative connotations of "feminists" as angry, reactive, aggressive groups that do not put steps in place to rectify mistakes but simply battle against them when the impulse takes them.
1 Aug 2010
Part Time MPs and Gender Equality
Much discussion has been had recently within the party about the potential for part time MPs to allow women between 30 and 50 to enter the proffession while raising children.
For more information see Lib Dem Voice's view on "Make politics fit women’s lives, not vice-versa".
However, while I applaud this debate happening, I have always felt that the issues with gender stereotypes are addressed reactively.
This therefore provides me with the perfect opportunity to undertake an entire discursive on gender stereotyping from birth to the grave.
Gender inequality may be entrenched but even this word does not synopsify the extent to which it infiltrates all areas of life. While parents may raise children to respect gender equality, the issues of femininity and masculinity are thrust upon children from the moment they can interact. Pink clothes and teddies verus blue teddies and dolls. Schools project the concepts of marriage and child-rearing, (and there is a different interwoven discursive here on relgion and class issues), children are stereotyped by the media that targets them and this embraced at large. Common issues are the merchandise aimed at children, from Barbies and Power Rangers to magazines and tv shows.
In order to unify a concept of gender equality all areas need to be tackled. Not just the concepts of the employment sector, but schooling, media, education at large, television etc. This will in turn take a generation (10 years) to filter through and if continued derrogative images of feminism (being shaved headed, braless lesbians, for example) are allowed to continue then the same negativity will prevail.
I also feel that the issue of "science" and media projected scientific fact ought to be regulated. We have reached a point in society where the word "hormonal" has become synonymous with "Hysterical" (overlaying from Freud's degredation of women) and as the media continues to publish ill founded reserach into the stereotypes of women, childrearing and breast feeding too, the idea of "Superwoman" (as "having it all" translates into, meaning woman are expected to have children, jobs and housework) will continue to pertain. For example the recent European studies on childcare stated that children benefit from staying at home until 3 years of age with their mother than going to a communal unit. This study failed to address single care givers such as fathers or nannies or au pairs, or the result may have been differently presented.
There are significant issues with gender inequality in employment. The reason that the paid divide maintains a wide gap is due to poor regulation of contracts of employment law. In a great deal of employment situations people with unequal wages have contracts stipulating they will be fired if they discuss their salaries with other employees. There should be greater regulation on this through the Tribunals to ensure wage discrimination can be addressed sensibly.
There is also a great deal of poor management which allows empoyees to blame part time and flexi workers. In a recent radio discussion on Radio 5 Live members of the public complained they had to "pick up slack" off of part time female employees. This is a management and regulation issue. While companies are encouraged to allow flexible working to encourage more women in the work place, they are not adotping a sensible approach to job shares and responsibilities. This is in turn caising resentment in those who work full time, and this is not just limited to men, but women without children too. this is clearly a result of European directives on equal opportunity in employment and gender discrimination being implemented too fast and without regulation in this country. This needs to be reviewed in depth and more care needs to be taken when implementing similar strategies in the future.
When looking at money, there is still the presumption of a single person dependent nuclear family, which are only in not viable in the current economic state, but also seeks to maintain the woman is the primary care giver and the man as the primary wage earner.
There are significant issues relating to legal status and women attempting to exit relationships. Not only charities such as the Citizens Advice Bureau not well marketed nor well identifiable as leaders in the advice in this area, but also there appears to be a lack of education at school level with regard to managing finances when exiting relationships. Considering the amount of media discussion on relationships in themselves, it's very strange that there are not more articles and motivation for this area.
In a patriarchal society, as unfortunately we still are, the idea that a man supports the woman and the ideal position for a woman is to be a wife who lunches prevails. Combined with sitcoms such as Sex in the City, the idea of feminist independence has become skewered and seems to be interpreted as being a WAG. an obvious discursive here is the female roles within the celebrity society are not particularly admirable nor provide good structures for women to aspire to.
There needs to be a reasonably thorough education policy implemented, not only to existing adults, but also to parents and children within schools identifying the positives in female independence, reversing the "Bridget Jones syndrome", identifying how to manage finances and reasonable aspirations in this area. it appears that fundamental to this idea is the concept that a woman cannot exist without a man, all exist outside of the partnership. There would, of course, the negative implications with regard to the welfare state. With the implementation of the new Well form Act, it is expected that there will be a baby boom as women who wish to remain on benefits continue to have children to ensure that they have a child under the age of seven is that they do not have to actively seek work. Therefore, along with the education policy on the ideas of monetary financing, independence and strong role models, the idea of supporting yourself should also be pushed to the overwhelming majority of schoolchildren to create a more stable society in the future.
As a final point, the concept of a civil partnership only being available to single sex/homosexual couples is abominable where we have legislation protecting people from discrimination. This is a form of discrimination in itself. If you combine this with the concept that there is legislation in place to protect us from religious discrimination, it is almost a parody that the only legitimate contract for a man and woman has bases under religious order! From my own perspective, I feel that civil partnerships ought to be available to heterosexual couples as well, but the civil partnership should also have the same recognizable rights as those in marriage, which is currently not true. Perhaps a more sensible way to go and would be to establish, as in America, prenuptial agreement style contracts between people that move in together. Currently assets are protected if you can prove ownership, deposits etc, but this is still a woefully weak area of law. rather than establishing prenuptial agreements in marriage, which under British law is completely futile, perhaps the system of contractual agreements the people cohabiting would allow people to feel more secure and at the same time benefit people when exiting relationships. Common areas of complaint included where one partner has the credit card and one partner has a car loan and when they separate the debts are not equally assigned. Rather than this being promoted as another way for lawyers to make money, there should be an acceptable pro forma pack, not unlike a tenancy contract or similar,but not complicated as the housing pack is locked by the current government. This would be completely enforceable within a fast track claims for financial recuperation. It will also protect rights with regards to when apartment becomes terminally ill, a partner dies, separation, children, assets, debts and future commitments.
Ultimately I feel very strongly about the gender equality in society in the UK.
For more information see Lib Dem Voice's view on "Make politics fit women’s lives, not vice-versa".
However, while I applaud this debate happening, I have always felt that the issues with gender stereotypes are addressed reactively.
This therefore provides me with the perfect opportunity to undertake an entire discursive on gender stereotyping from birth to the grave.
Gender inequality may be entrenched but even this word does not synopsify the extent to which it infiltrates all areas of life. While parents may raise children to respect gender equality, the issues of femininity and masculinity are thrust upon children from the moment they can interact. Pink clothes and teddies verus blue teddies and dolls. Schools project the concepts of marriage and child-rearing, (and there is a different interwoven discursive here on relgion and class issues), children are stereotyped by the media that targets them and this embraced at large. Common issues are the merchandise aimed at children, from Barbies and Power Rangers to magazines and tv shows.
In order to unify a concept of gender equality all areas need to be tackled. Not just the concepts of the employment sector, but schooling, media, education at large, television etc. This will in turn take a generation (10 years) to filter through and if continued derrogative images of feminism (being shaved headed, braless lesbians, for example) are allowed to continue then the same negativity will prevail.
I also feel that the issue of "science" and media projected scientific fact ought to be regulated. We have reached a point in society where the word "hormonal" has become synonymous with "Hysterical" (overlaying from Freud's degredation of women) and as the media continues to publish ill founded reserach into the stereotypes of women, childrearing and breast feeding too, the idea of "Superwoman" (as "having it all" translates into, meaning woman are expected to have children, jobs and housework) will continue to pertain. For example the recent European studies on childcare stated that children benefit from staying at home until 3 years of age with their mother than going to a communal unit. This study failed to address single care givers such as fathers or nannies or au pairs, or the result may have been differently presented.
There are significant issues with gender inequality in employment. The reason that the paid divide maintains a wide gap is due to poor regulation of contracts of employment law. In a great deal of employment situations people with unequal wages have contracts stipulating they will be fired if they discuss their salaries with other employees. There should be greater regulation on this through the Tribunals to ensure wage discrimination can be addressed sensibly.
There is also a great deal of poor management which allows empoyees to blame part time and flexi workers. In a recent radio discussion on Radio 5 Live members of the public complained they had to "pick up slack" off of part time female employees. This is a management and regulation issue. While companies are encouraged to allow flexible working to encourage more women in the work place, they are not adotping a sensible approach to job shares and responsibilities. This is in turn caising resentment in those who work full time, and this is not just limited to men, but women without children too. this is clearly a result of European directives on equal opportunity in employment and gender discrimination being implemented too fast and without regulation in this country. This needs to be reviewed in depth and more care needs to be taken when implementing similar strategies in the future.
When looking at money, there is still the presumption of a single person dependent nuclear family, which are only in not viable in the current economic state, but also seeks to maintain the woman is the primary care giver and the man as the primary wage earner.
There are significant issues relating to legal status and women attempting to exit relationships. Not only charities such as the Citizens Advice Bureau not well marketed nor well identifiable as leaders in the advice in this area, but also there appears to be a lack of education at school level with regard to managing finances when exiting relationships. Considering the amount of media discussion on relationships in themselves, it's very strange that there are not more articles and motivation for this area.
In a patriarchal society, as unfortunately we still are, the idea that a man supports the woman and the ideal position for a woman is to be a wife who lunches prevails. Combined with sitcoms such as Sex in the City, the idea of feminist independence has become skewered and seems to be interpreted as being a WAG. an obvious discursive here is the female roles within the celebrity society are not particularly admirable nor provide good structures for women to aspire to.
There needs to be a reasonably thorough education policy implemented, not only to existing adults, but also to parents and children within schools identifying the positives in female independence, reversing the "Bridget Jones syndrome", identifying how to manage finances and reasonable aspirations in this area. it appears that fundamental to this idea is the concept that a woman cannot exist without a man, all exist outside of the partnership. There would, of course, the negative implications with regard to the welfare state. With the implementation of the new Well form Act, it is expected that there will be a baby boom as women who wish to remain on benefits continue to have children to ensure that they have a child under the age of seven is that they do not have to actively seek work. Therefore, along with the education policy on the ideas of monetary financing, independence and strong role models, the idea of supporting yourself should also be pushed to the overwhelming majority of schoolchildren to create a more stable society in the future.
As a final point, the concept of a civil partnership only being available to single sex/homosexual couples is abominable where we have legislation protecting people from discrimination. This is a form of discrimination in itself. If you combine this with the concept that there is legislation in place to protect us from religious discrimination, it is almost a parody that the only legitimate contract for a man and woman has bases under religious order! From my own perspective, I feel that civil partnerships ought to be available to heterosexual couples as well, but the civil partnership should also have the same recognizable rights as those in marriage, which is currently not true. Perhaps a more sensible way to go and would be to establish, as in America, prenuptial agreement style contracts between people that move in together. Currently assets are protected if you can prove ownership, deposits etc, but this is still a woefully weak area of law. rather than establishing prenuptial agreements in marriage, which under British law is completely futile, perhaps the system of contractual agreements the people cohabiting would allow people to feel more secure and at the same time benefit people when exiting relationships. Common areas of complaint included where one partner has the credit card and one partner has a car loan and when they separate the debts are not equally assigned. Rather than this being promoted as another way for lawyers to make money, there should be an acceptable pro forma pack, not unlike a tenancy contract or similar,but not complicated as the housing pack is locked by the current government. This would be completely enforceable within a fast track claims for financial recuperation. It will also protect rights with regards to when apartment becomes terminally ill, a partner dies, separation, children, assets, debts and future commitments.
Ultimately I feel very strongly about the gender equality in society in the UK.
9 Mar 2010
National Women's Day Thoughts
I may a bit late in blogging on this, but another blog caught my attention on the phrase "I'm not a feminist but...".
The role of the Primary Care Giver
But feminism is also about the right to make your own intelligent choices: it's about saying that nurturing other people shouldn't be regarded as 'lesser' than paid work, just because it's women who more often do it.
The crux of the argument is that the role of a mother/housewife *should be valued as highly as* full time employment and warrant the same respect for that choice.
However, there should also be an awareness that it is not a compulsory role.
I will also say, the recession of the 1980s has had a significant blow for feminism in the UK because it is no longer possible for one person to support a family of 3 on one wage. This means that the primary care giver, male or female, turns to dependancy on the state.
This, of course, translates into the glass ceiling, Men are better paid so stay at work, and so the myths perpetuate.
Disparities Continue
Battles are still to be had over how the term "hormones" has replaced the term "hysteria" in female subjucation. With "science" promoted as the whole truth, people put too much faith in article that lack scientific warrant - one recent example http://bit.ly/9Ky1A0 details alleged reasons why women cannot park based on gender differences. When you look into the study you realise it was a study of 500 people, all of whom were white, middle class British and the study loses all substance.
Chuck disasterous fiction such as Bridget Jones and Sex in the City in to the mix and it becomes clear why people have coined the term "feminazi" and most people will avoid the subject.
And finally...
I am proud to be a feminist, refer everyone I meet who is unsure to Marilyn French and continue to fight oppression where I see it. And yes, some people think I am "dull" or lack a "sense of humour" when I take offence if referred to as "chick" or "girlie" but I continue regardless.
The role of the Primary Care Giver
But feminism is also about the right to make your own intelligent choices: it's about saying that nurturing other people shouldn't be regarded as 'lesser' than paid work, just because it's women who more often do it.
The crux of the argument is that the role of a mother/housewife *should be valued as highly as* full time employment and warrant the same respect for that choice.
However, there should also be an awareness that it is not a compulsory role.
I will also say, the recession of the 1980s has had a significant blow for feminism in the UK because it is no longer possible for one person to support a family of 3 on one wage. This means that the primary care giver, male or female, turns to dependancy on the state.
This, of course, translates into the glass ceiling, Men are better paid so stay at work, and so the myths perpetuate.
Disparities Continue
Battles are still to be had over how the term "hormones" has replaced the term "hysteria" in female subjucation. With "science" promoted as the whole truth, people put too much faith in article that lack scientific warrant - one recent example http://bit.ly/9Ky1A0 details alleged reasons why women cannot park based on gender differences. When you look into the study you realise it was a study of 500 people, all of whom were white, middle class British and the study loses all substance.
Chuck disasterous fiction such as Bridget Jones and Sex in the City in to the mix and it becomes clear why people have coined the term "feminazi" and most people will avoid the subject.
And finally...
I am proud to be a feminist, refer everyone I meet who is unsure to Marilyn French and continue to fight oppression where I see it. And yes, some people think I am "dull" or lack a "sense of humour" when I take offence if referred to as "chick" or "girlie" but I continue regardless.
16 Oct 2009
"Gay bashing" Accusations
While I would never miss an opportunity to slate the Daily Mail and the bigoted, biased approach to reporting it takes, the recent furore over this comment on Stephen Gately does not seem entirely justified.
Charlie Brooker of The Guardian has provided an even more sensationalist diatribe on Jan Moir than the Daily Mail was ever achieved on refugees and asylum seekers.
The entire media coverage of Gately's death has been immense, you only have to look at news results on google to ascertain that. But the key facts are hard to find and there is a vast amount of speculation without basis.
He died from a pulmonary oedema. Fluid on the lungs. But the cause of the fluid of the lungs has been associated with a variety of nefarious activities, from mild drug use and drinking to, in Jan Moir's case, alleged, speculated hedonistic sexual acts.
I agree that her comment is presumptuous and entrenched with misconceptions of homosexuals, celebrities and a consiracy mentality an American would be proud of. Not to mention being a poorly structured, nonsensical argument that would have been slated by any GCSE teacher. Or utilised by Brown as a constructive argument at the Labour conference (the structure, not the content).
But in the true essence of the hyperreality media constructs such as twittter, the issue has been blown into a state of apoplexy where the true meaning has been lost.
I think more people should remove their advertising from the Daily Mail, and leave those who read the extremist waste of print to look at pictures of vinegar cures and plates with dead celebrities on them. But they should do so because the majority of the paper is prejudiced, partisan and entrenched with rightwing exclusion propaganda, not because of a poorly executed column that most people only read because they have Stephen Fry on Twitter.
Rant over.
Charlie Brooker of The Guardian has provided an even more sensationalist diatribe on Jan Moir than the Daily Mail was ever achieved on refugees and asylum seekers.
The entire media coverage of Gately's death has been immense, you only have to look at news results on google to ascertain that. But the key facts are hard to find and there is a vast amount of speculation without basis.
He died from a pulmonary oedema. Fluid on the lungs. But the cause of the fluid of the lungs has been associated with a variety of nefarious activities, from mild drug use and drinking to, in Jan Moir's case, alleged, speculated hedonistic sexual acts.
I agree that her comment is presumptuous and entrenched with misconceptions of homosexuals, celebrities and a consiracy mentality an American would be proud of. Not to mention being a poorly structured, nonsensical argument that would have been slated by any GCSE teacher. Or utilised by Brown as a constructive argument at the Labour conference (the structure, not the content).
But in the true essence of the hyperreality media constructs such as twittter, the issue has been blown into a state of apoplexy where the true meaning has been lost.
I think more people should remove their advertising from the Daily Mail, and leave those who read the extremist waste of print to look at pictures of vinegar cures and plates with dead celebrities on them. But they should do so because the majority of the paper is prejudiced, partisan and entrenched with rightwing exclusion propaganda, not because of a poorly executed column that most people only read because they have Stephen Fry on Twitter.
Rant over.
29 Sept 2009
Insert Anti Feminism Attention Grabbing Headline Here
The assertion today that mothers damage their children by working is another blow to feminism and equality in this country.
Alongside ludicrous assertions of what does and does not cause cancer, attention grabbing headlines like this continuously undermine the hard work done in the last century.
There is a significant outcry about people misinterpreting reporting on health scares. But there is far less publicity about how the media translates to gender equality accross the nation. The obvious exception is the "plus size model" and anorexia debate, but very rarely are there comments on how studies into child rearing cause and effect detrimentalise women everywhere.
I could spend a day linking statistics that highlight how few people read an actual article, yet still respond to headlines. This will influence so many more women to return to some archaic misrepresntation of cave wife status; uneducated, lonely, socially enept and preoccupied with consumerism to project image and fallibility.
More and more young women are asserting that they have no significant role models outside of popular culture and modernity. Therefore the concept that women ideally want to shop, stay at home and gossip prevails.
Girls in secondary school planning careers have an nurture idea of acheivement followed by childbirth followed by some fairy tale concept of being a stay at home mother.
One thing that changed gender equality was the union battles in 1980s. By stepping down, unions prevented a person from demanding the right to be able to support a famiy on one wage. This means, whether you agree women should or should not work, they have to work in order to manage a family. But it is the WOMEN who get the short straw, as they are the ones made to feel guilty for "abandoning" their children.
Studies into this kind of childrearing debate never discuss whether a child with a saty at home DAD is healthier. Or whether children in nurseries and young education programmes are healthier. The onus is on the woman to fulfil her projected role as a care giver and home maker.
We need to get rid of this repressive and ludicrous ideology before we erase all of the social equality evolution steps.
Alongside ludicrous assertions of what does and does not cause cancer, attention grabbing headlines like this continuously undermine the hard work done in the last century.
There is a significant outcry about people misinterpreting reporting on health scares. But there is far less publicity about how the media translates to gender equality accross the nation. The obvious exception is the "plus size model" and anorexia debate, but very rarely are there comments on how studies into child rearing cause and effect detrimentalise women everywhere.
I could spend a day linking statistics that highlight how few people read an actual article, yet still respond to headlines. This will influence so many more women to return to some archaic misrepresntation of cave wife status; uneducated, lonely, socially enept and preoccupied with consumerism to project image and fallibility.
More and more young women are asserting that they have no significant role models outside of popular culture and modernity. Therefore the concept that women ideally want to shop, stay at home and gossip prevails.
Girls in secondary school planning careers have an nurture idea of acheivement followed by childbirth followed by some fairy tale concept of being a stay at home mother.
One thing that changed gender equality was the union battles in 1980s. By stepping down, unions prevented a person from demanding the right to be able to support a famiy on one wage. This means, whether you agree women should or should not work, they have to work in order to manage a family. But it is the WOMEN who get the short straw, as they are the ones made to feel guilty for "abandoning" their children.
Studies into this kind of childrearing debate never discuss whether a child with a saty at home DAD is healthier. Or whether children in nurseries and young education programmes are healthier. The onus is on the woman to fulfil her projected role as a care giver and home maker.
We need to get rid of this repressive and ludicrous ideology before we erase all of the social equality evolution steps.
15 Apr 2009
Trains and Disability
As an impaired person myself, I frequently suffer discrimination that I consider people without impairments wouldn't even consider.
The details on accessibility to trains today on You & Yours come under this category.
I have problems with my hands. Carrying, lifting and stability are paramount to me. The obvious things to effect me in public are shopping, driving, typing, etc. So what, you may ask, is affected at Train Stations?
When I first graduated I had to go to a remote station for work. I needed to take my laptop and files. But the train station had an over pass with stairs. No slopes. I developed a good relationship with the guard and he would carry my case over for me. But He was only in place from 6am to 2pm. So when I finished work I was effectively discriminated against as I could not get my case home.
Current legislation on UK trains are to allow impaired customers to prebook and therefore have accesibility needs met when arriving. I consider that this in itself is discrimination. Why should I have to be treated differently? It prevents me from spontenaity, attending meetings by public transport and makes me feel isolated in the presence of able bodied passengers.
Fascinatingly the EU does not impose legislation on this, merely advises. But if you compare, the UK is far behind services in other countries.
Not only that, but a number of charities and committees on the behalf of disability and accessibility quote statistics as high as a third of customers are failed by rail services, including being left on trains, left on empty platforms and generally not receiving the required assistance.
Take into account the highest train fares in Europe I do wonder what exactly customers are paying for, disabled or otherwise.
An aside, yes there are disability concessions IF you are the highest mobility rate but this actually means you need a 24hr carer and cannot be alone; so the likelihood of rail travel is greatly decreased.
It would be wonderful to see this changed, but the bitter truth is unless it is a pledge of a potential government, impaired persons do not have the demonstrative impact of other minority groups, let alone the energy.
The details on accessibility to trains today on You & Yours come under this category.
I have problems with my hands. Carrying, lifting and stability are paramount to me. The obvious things to effect me in public are shopping, driving, typing, etc. So what, you may ask, is affected at Train Stations?
When I first graduated I had to go to a remote station for work. I needed to take my laptop and files. But the train station had an over pass with stairs. No slopes. I developed a good relationship with the guard and he would carry my case over for me. But He was only in place from 6am to 2pm. So when I finished work I was effectively discriminated against as I could not get my case home.
Current legislation on UK trains are to allow impaired customers to prebook and therefore have accesibility needs met when arriving. I consider that this in itself is discrimination. Why should I have to be treated differently? It prevents me from spontenaity, attending meetings by public transport and makes me feel isolated in the presence of able bodied passengers.
Fascinatingly the EU does not impose legislation on this, merely advises. But if you compare, the UK is far behind services in other countries.
Not only that, but a number of charities and committees on the behalf of disability and accessibility quote statistics as high as a third of customers are failed by rail services, including being left on trains, left on empty platforms and generally not receiving the required assistance.
Take into account the highest train fares in Europe I do wonder what exactly customers are paying for, disabled or otherwise.
An aside, yes there are disability concessions IF you are the highest mobility rate but this actually means you need a 24hr carer and cannot be alone; so the likelihood of rail travel is greatly decreased.
It would be wonderful to see this changed, but the bitter truth is unless it is a pledge of a potential government, impaired persons do not have the demonstrative impact of other minority groups, let alone the energy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
