Women's Views on News |
- Cancer campaigners question supporter
- Serena and her quest to be the best
- We need to talk about free speech
| Cancer campaigners question supporter Posted: 05 Nov 2013 08:35 AM PST
Lots of companies support breast cancer awareness causes, but one company flashing the pink ribbon is actually part of the problem. Revlon – one of the biggest cosmetics manufacturers in the USA – has been running advertisements promoting their support for breast cancer awareness while selling products to women that actually contain cancer-causing chemicals. A new survey by The Breast Cancer Fund and the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, two US campaign groups, says Revlon cosmetics contain cancer-causing and hormone-disrupting chemicals. The two groups, in partnership with the online women's group UltraViolet, are now demanding the cosmetics manufacturer stop using cancer-causing chemicals and other dangerous substances in its products. Revlon uses cancer-causing chemicals like carbon black and formaldehyde-releasers, plus chemicals like parabens, octinoxate, and others linked to hormone disruption and thyroid problems in their hair care products, makeup, and facial/hand creams. Revlon’s major competitors – including brands like Cover Girl, Neutrogena, and Clean & Clear – are, UltraViolet points out, removing toxic chemicals from their products, thanks to the efforts of campaigners at the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and the Breast Cancer Fund. If tens of thousands of us, UltraViolet continues, call on Revlon to join them and put women’s health ahead of marketing, we can convince Revlon to take these hazardous ingredients out of their products, too. Can you sign the petition? Tell Revlon to be part of the solution to breast cancer and other diseases. Tell Revlon to join their competitors in the cosmetics industry and put the health of women and their families first. Tell Revlon to remove toxic chemicals from their products. Revlon says it cares about women affected by cancer, and through its Revlon Cares program, the company supports breast cancer causes. So why then, asks the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, do Revlon products contain cancer-causing chemicals? After conducting a survey of Revlon products on store shelves, campaigners say they learned that chemicals linked to cancer are used in products ranging from eyeliners and mascara to foundation makeup and hair dyes. For example, they found carbon black in eyeliners and BHT in lip glosses and hair dyes. In addition, we found mascaras, pressed powders, and eyeliners containing quaternium-15 and other related chemicals that all release formaldehyde – a known human carcinogen. But that's just the tip of the iceberg. They also report finding parabens in eyeliners and hair dyes. And they ask if a company promoting breast cancer awareness should really be selling products that contain these hormone-disrupting chemicals, which can disrupt normal breast development and increase your risk for later life breast cancer? Tell Revlon if it really cares about women's health, stop selling products that have cancer-causing chemicals. |
| Serena and her quest to be the best Posted: 05 Nov 2013 04:30 AM PST
She's too aggressive, too focused, not focused enough, too strong, too forthright, too selfish, too boorish – you name it, she's it. Many commentators on the game dismiss her as a one-trick pony, all power and no finesse. But I have to disagree. No player could maintain Williams' consistency in ranking without a complete game. She is indeed aggressive, focused and strong, but surely these are qualities to admire in a serious sportswoman? However, there I fear we have the nub of the issue. Could the problem be that the (mostly) male commentators can’t handle a woman displaying these characteristics? There is no doubt that Serena can be a difficult person to warm to. At the 2009 US Open she allegedly threatened to shove the ball down the throat of the line judge when she called her on a foot fault. In the 2011 US final she was docked a point for "intentional hindrance" after she gave herself a "come on" on break point in the first game of the second set. Sam Stosur took the game, and eventually the match, but not before Williams had compounded her bad behaviour by calling the umpire a "loser". This behaviour cannot be condoned. But John McEnroe behaved no better, and it was put down to his aggressive determination or his “loveable rogue” persona. In the last few years Williams seemed to have fallen out of love with tennis. She was missing tournaments, some through injury, and was tetchy both on court and off. There were even murmurings that she may retire. But in 2013 she has come back with a vengeance. Simon Austin of the BBC thinks he knows the reason for Williams' rejuvenation. Apparently, it's all down to Williams' new coach, Patrick Mouratoglou. Mouratoglou started working with Williams after her first round defeat at the 2012 French Open. Since becoming her coach she has won 74 out of 77 matches, including an unbeaten run of 31. He has obviously instilled a new confidence in Williams. She has trained harder and longer and got even stronger, re-igniting her passion for the sport. However, it's not that passion that has got Austin in a tizzy. Apparently Williams and her coach are involved in something more personal. The couple have been seen out together arm in arm and Williams has made a few less than guarded comments on Twitter. Mouratoglou, however, has consistently refused to be drawn on questions about their personal relationship. And why should he be drawn? If they are in a relationship, that's up to them. But to put Williams' new-found vigour entirely down to this is laughable. We all work, play and interact better if our personal lives are happy and stable, but she is a professional sportswoman. Her whole life will not be governed by hormones. Meanwhile, this year Serena has won eleven tournaments, culminating in the retention of her WTA title in Istanbul last month. Her other successes were at the Brisbane International, Sony Open (Miami), Family Circle Cup, Madrid Open, Italian Open, French Open, Swedish Open, Rogers Cup, US Open and China Open. Not bad for a seemingly disillusioned 32 year old on the brink of retirement. Williams' two grand slams this year leave her one short of her next target: Martina Navratilova and Chris Evert, who are on 18. We hear a lot about Serena and her sister Venus’ love of jewellery and clothing, and their forays into design. We don't hear so much about the two secondary schools in Kenya that Serena has founded or the sisters' tour of Lagos and Johannesburg in 2012 as part of the "Breaking the Mould" scheme. Serena also makes countless appearances at schools and community groups, particularly those helping at-risk young people in the wake of her sister Yetunde's murder in 2003. But very often the media needs a pantomime villain and Serena fits the bill. She's not a weak and feeble woman, nor a pretty little thing in need of protection, and so is seen as a legitimate target for sexist abuse. I'm hoping this article helps to redress the balance a bit. If more young girls aspire to be Serena rather than an airbrushed models, I'm all for it. When it comes to watching Serena we should all be saying, as she surely must, "bring on 2014!" |
| We need to talk about free speech Posted: 05 Nov 2013 01:09 AM PST
The University of East Anglia (UEA) recently became the 21st University in the UK to remove The Sun from their union shops. This was passed democratically by a vote of Union Council. The uproar about this has been large to say the least, and for a long time I didn't see the point in adding my voice to the mix (especially as "SHE DOESN'T EVEN GO HERE"). I don't want to talk about whether Union Council is representing students properly (my gut feeling is it isn't, and a lot of work has to be done, but I'm not sure that if it were the outcome of this decision would have changed much – the majority of UEA students are female, after all, and all the dissent I've seen has come from men, and at the end of the day The Shop only sell around 30 copies, most of which don't go to students). Nor do I want to debate about objectification and sexism, 'cause my gals have got that covered. And in fact the majority of people who opposed this motion will openly state that they don't like Page 3 (whether or not that's true, UEA is a campus where people are at least a little worried about appearing sexist). No, I think we need to talk about Free Speech. That's another reason why I was hesitant to blog. This isn't really my area – I mean, I read a lot of current affairs and I have a politics A level and I am very politically active, but I'm not a journalist or anything and for some reason I don't feel as comfortable in this territory as I do when talking about feminism. But then I realised that the majority of men who are speaking up against this don't know what they are talking about either, and it doesn't seem to stop them. I don't want to argue semantic differences between a ban and a boycott, and the implications of that difference in a capitalist society. My point is much simpler. If you truly support freedom of the press, you should be supporting the boycott of The Sun. Can we talk about why we need a right to free press in a free society? It's because we need to be able to scrutinise those who hold power. That is most obviously scrutiny of the government, but it should also be scrutiny of those with financial influence and the ability to affect society and our lives. We need a free press so that we the people can see when someone is screwing us over, and so that no one with too much power can pull the wool over our eyes. The Sun is owned by Rupert Murdoch. He owns News Corporation which is the second biggest media conglomerate in the world. As well as owning Twentieth Century Fox and Wall Street Journal and Harpercollins, in the UK he owns News UK which comprises of The Sun and The Times, two of the countries bestselling papers, as well as having a controlling stake BskyB. I'm not a business expert, I don't really fully understand the structure of all this, so don't pull me up too much if I've got something slightly wrong – my point is that he has a huge monopoly over the media we in the UK consume. Let's not forget "It's The Sun Wot Won It" – this is a paper that potentially has the power to change the outcome of our elections. I'm not saying that the Government should ban The Sun or all Murdoch papers until Page 3 is gone, but there is a massive difference in scale here. The Sun is not scrutinising the UEA student union, and so by boycotting it, the union are not in any way preventing us from finding out information about its inner workings. I am opposed to the Government banning the sun, and I would be opposed should the union motion to boycott The Tab (as much as I dislike a lot about it) – that's an equivalent scale decision. By boycotting The Sun, the union are not stamping on freedom of the press – you can buy The Sun anywhere else after all. We need freedom of the Press in order to scrutinise power, so that those with less power in society are not persecuted. In this situation – Page 3 – one of the most powerful men in the world (Rupert Murdoch) is exploiting a minority group (women). Women don't want to be objectified, and there are far more of them than Rupert Murdoch, but the power imbalance is so great that Rupert Murdoch still gets his way. Freedom of the Press exists to give the disempowered the ability to empower themselves – through information. If we have reached the point where we are so disempowered that we cannot stop one man from exploiting and objectifying women in the most-read UK paper, then what do we have Freedom of the Press for? Seriously? We need this boycott, we need it on a much much wider scale, we need to do it to prove that we still have the power to stop something we don't like. You've already admitted you don't like Page 3. We need to boycott The Sun in order to prove to ourselves that we are free, that we don't have to do what one very rich and very powerful man says. If we are really happy for our media to form such a monopoly, we should at least be able to stop it when it does something we all agree is very very wrong. And all this is without even touching on the phone-hacking scandal. So don't tell me you oppose the boycott because free speech. Because you clearly don't understand what Free Speech is even for. If you oppose this boycott, it's because you're in favour of Page 3. I won't take any other explanation. |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Women's Views on News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |