Women's Views on News |
- Chinese sixth richest woman facing death row over fundraising from private investors
- Fifty people, one question – women in Irish politics
- The Boris and Ken show – have your say on April 17
- Earning hundreds to “talk dirty” in “My Phone Sex Secrets”
- World Water Day celebrated by women around the globe
- British actor thinks it is ok to hit his wife – and the Daily Mail agrees
| Chinese sixth richest woman facing death row over fundraising from private investors Posted: 23 Mar 2012 12:30 PM PDT Ivana Davidovic Several years ago Wu Ying embodied the Chinese version of the rags-to-riches dream. The daughter of an illiterate farmer she opened her first business venture, a hair salon, at 15. In just over a decade she created a business empire that made her the country’s sixth richest woman. But now, 31-year-old Wu’s fortunes have reversed. She is on death row, facing execution for fraud and raising money outside the banking system. When her businesses ran into trouble following an over-investment in 2006, she turned to private investors to ease her cashflow problems. But in 2007 she was arrested because fundraising from private lenders, although commonplace, is illegal in China. Wu’s case has provoked huge controversy and shone a light on the difficulties facing enterpreneurs in China. Banks prefer and are sometimes encouraged to lend only to state-owned enterprises, leaving private companies with very few options when they need capital. A provincial court upheld Wu’s death sentence in January, saying that she had “brought huge losses to the nation and people with her severe crimes, and should therefore be severely punished”. Human rights groups have criticised the ruling, especially since China recently abolished capital punishment for 13 financial crimes. Human rights executive John Kamm from US-based Dui Hua Foundation said Wu Ying’s was a “wedge case.” “Even for people who support the death penalty, there is a strong feeling that you shouldn’t kill people for economic crimes,” he said. “That is simply barbaric.” Wu’s cause has won the backing of members of China’s business community, which normally steers clear of politically sensitive human rights issues. Some of her creditors testified on her behalf. “This whole case is not Wu Ying’s fault. She borrowed money to do business, not to spend on luxuries. “If they hadn’t toppled her we would have made more money,” said one, who lost more than 15m yuan (£1.5m). In a country where citizens do not enjoy many freedoms on the internet, support from the blogging community has been significant. Those who have rushed to defend Wu include well-known tycoons, academics and Zhang Sizhi, the 85-year-old defence lawyer of Mao Zedong’s widow Jiang Qing. Zhang argued that Wu did not defraud investors because she did not flee or “squander” the funds and that she invested in hotels, advertising, wedding planning and transport companies with money from friends and family, not the general public. “To save Wu Ying is to save ourselves,” real estate magnate Ren Zhiqiang wrote in his Tweeter-like microblog. “Spare (her) from the (executioner’s) blade!” property tycoon Pan Shiyi used an ancient saying in his blog. Some supporters think Wu was singled out because she lacked connections, others believe that she upset some influential creditors or refused to pay bribes. They argue that the law is enforced selectively and excessively when the interests of money and power intertwine. Stephen Green, chief China economist for Standard Chartered bank, suggests a major economic overhaul could be on its way as a consequence of the case. “That something is going wrong is an ever-more common feeling. Second, the belief that a huge crisis is inevitable without serious reform appears to be gaining ground.” The supreme people’s court is currently reviewing Wu’s sentence. The strength of public outcry has forced them to issue a rare public statement promising to "abide strictly by the truth"  |
| Fifty people, one question – women in Irish politics Posted: 23 Mar 2012 10:30 AM PDT Eoin Murray As part of the campaign to get more women involved in politics, the National Women's Council of Ireland (NWCI) took to the streets of Dublin at the end of January. They asked 50 unsuspecting people one fundamental question: would Ireland be different if it was run by women. The results were entertaining, engaging and thoughtful. The question was particularly timely as this week the Irish parliament moved to the next stage of passing a bill introducing minimum female/male candidate targets for political parties at the next general election. Having more women involved in Irish politics is crucial to correct the historical injustice – but we also need to make sure we have more women who will make a difference to the lives of other women – across a range of issues. We'd love you to join in the conversation and help us imagine how different the world would be if it was run by women…www.nwci.ie.  |
| The Boris and Ken show – have your say on April 17 Posted: 23 Mar 2012 08:30 AM PDT
The London mayoral election will take place on Thursday, May 3. The two main contenders are both big political hitters who have been on the London scene for many years: Boris Johnson, the current mayor; and Ken Livingstone, the ex-mayor. It won’t have escaped your notice that both of them are men. The Ken versus Boris re-match is a sad reminder of the lack of female representation in UK politics. And at a time when women are facing higher unemployment than men, and parts of London are facing some of the highest unemployment rates in the UK, the question is sadly pertinent to women in the capital. To shed some light on these issues, the campaigning organisation, Progressive Women, are holding an event in Westminster on April 17 to ask the following questions: - Can women be fairly represented in London when the main contenders are men? - What are their campaigns doing to win the "female vote"? - Is creating a "female voting bloc" a reductive way of doing politics? - Do "women's issues" exist and if so, what are they? They have invited women from each campaign to set out why their candidate is the best one for the job and to give you an opportunity to ask your own questions. Speakers Mary Macleod MP (Conservative) Caroline Pidgeon AM (Lib Dem) Siobhan Benita (Independent Candidate) Natalie Bennett (Green) Labour speaker (tbc) Time: 18:30 – 20:00 Spaces are limited, so please RSVP to progress@progressivewomen.org.uk as soon as possible.  |
| Earning hundreds to “talk dirty” in “My Phone Sex Secrets” Posted: 23 Mar 2012 06:30 AM PDT Aisling Marks I thought I had ceased to be shocked by the low calibre of television that Channel Four in the UK continues to churn out. But last week, something caught my attention which proved me wrong. 'My Phone Sex Secrets': the story of five different women who, trapped in the economic crisis just like everyone else, turn to their phone lines as a way of making ends meet. The documentary follows them as they "talk dirty"to lonely and willing males who require their services. Is this sex work? Yes, I suppose it is. But the documentary glorifies it in much the same way as the portrayal of a London 'Call Girl' by British actress Billie Piper. The documentary presents phone sex as an easy way to get money while keeping your knickers on. Is this degrading? Can it be compared to the harsh realities of sex work? Anneka, a young, chatty woman, “talks dirty” to help fund a healthy vegan lifestyle. As the camera follows her into the kitchen, she slices through two juicy cucumbers. It's as if she's never working, she says, although she can earn up to £500 from one phone conversation alone. Blimey. We then meet the sexually overt Jenny. At 56, she is portrayed as a sort of "mother superior" who had clearly been in the business for some time. In stark contrast was 18-year old Rosa, a straight-laced maths student who works the phone-lines to fund her education. The call centre is run by middle-aged Trisha and her husband, who act almost like pimps, engaging smartly-dressed women to answer the phone with the chatty line: 'Welcome to The Pleasuredome, what age lady would you like to speak to..?' But what about the men? The documentary portrays them as weak individuals, being exploited by women because of their need for illicit sexual activity. And right enough, some of the conversations are just ludicrous. Nevertheless, the implications for women are disturbing in that we are represented as unable to recognise our worth beyond our sexuality. The documentary provides a casually postfeminist approach to strong-minded, healthy women who are actively exploiting their own ability to pander to this assumed "male deficiency". Whether taken seriously or not, it trivialises the wider harsh realities of selling sex. It’s not difficult to figure out that the journey from phone sex to lap-dancing to prostitution to trafficking is not that long. Just read Jennifer Hayashi Danns' recent book, Stripped: The Bare Reality of Lap Dancing, for a pithy portrayal of the traumatic realities of sex-work. As I watched women blithely marketing themselves to sexually defunct men looking for a new kick, I had to wonder how Channel Four could pass this off as "good television" and whether it had plumbed new depths in trying to do so.  |
| World Water Day celebrated by women around the globe Posted: 23 Mar 2012 04:30 AM PDT
Today is UN World Water Day (WWD). A day which campaigners around the globe are using to raise awareness of the role of women in maintaining and sustaining access to water and sanitation. WWD highlights the threats posed by growing populations and climate change to our water and food resources, and how this is likely to increase over the next 50 years. Water shortages are fundamentally connected with women and gender equality around the globe, as these stories illustrate:
To find out more about World Water Day 2012, visit the United Nations or Wateraid websites.  |
| British actor thinks it is ok to hit his wife – and the Daily Mail agrees Posted: 23 Mar 2012 02:24 AM PDT
British actor Dennis Waterman has finally owned up to hitting his former wife, actress Rula Lenska, 15 years after she first accused him. Ms Lenska has expressed surprise and relief at his admission after enduring years of being called a liar. Sadly Waterman still doesn’t seem to appreciate what he has done, defending himself by saying that: "She wasn't a beaten wife, she was hit and that's different." He then continued to dig a larger hole by explaining that the only reason he hit her was because she was more intelligent than him and he had no option but to lash out (yes, he really did say that). Needless to say, his badly observed comments have provoked outrage from women's groups and charities. Sandra Horley, chief executive of the domestic violence charity Refuge said: "I am appalled by Dennis Waterman's comments about his violence towards Rula Lenska, which trivialise the abuse he inflicted on her. "No one can make their partner hit them. However angry or frustrated Dennis felt, he could have chosen to deal with those feelings another way but he chose violence. He alone is responsible for his behaviour. "It doesn't matter whether he hit her once, twice or a dozen times – no man is entitled to hit his wife." However, as day follows night, you can bet your bottom dollar that a woman columnist from the Daily Mail will wade in. Enter Carol Sarler, who has used Waterman’s admission to open a discussion on those "moments" when hitting your partner might be acceptable (yes, you read that right). Using evidence from a very suspect interview with an unnamed 'psychologist', she expresses full sympathy for Waterman's claim that his wife's superior intelligence led him to be so frustrated that he was forced to hit her: "In most cases where a man 'lashes out', regardless of age, class, wealth or background, the one thing the women have in common is an IQ at least ten points higher than their partners'…which means they can win verbal arguments with ease. “When push — quite literally — comes to shove, these women prefer to have a dominant man to whom they might defer as an authority figure…while these women might rebel against it constantly, and push that rebellion to the brink, in the end they want a man to dominate them." In fact, according to Ms Sarler, it is only the serial wife-beaters that ruin it for those more occasional purveyors of Actual Bodily Harm whose casual abuse of women is, apparently, perfectly socially unacceptable. There's even an outright dig in there for long-term victims of domestic violence: "At the first sign of the first raised fist, sensible women do what sensible women have always done: they walk away" Sarler says, completely writing off the trauma of abuse and the hugely difficult choices that face women who have been hit by their partner. This is incredibly insulting to the hundreds of thousands of women who are or have been victims of domestic abuse – in 2010 alone it was estimated that over 17,500 women were living in refuge housing. To give an idea of the real danger surrounding this crime: on average, two women a week are killed at the hands of their partner or an ex-partner. Publishing Sarler’s article on the website of a national newspaper (or any media, for that matter) is irresponsible and dangerous to women everywhere. Furthermore, it threatens to reverse years of hard work by campaigners to change attitudes to violence against women who Sarler also disparages. This article could almost be a caricature of what is wrong with some sections of our media were it not so tragic, and it is deeply saddening and shameful that her opinion has made it in to mainstream British news in 2012. Thankfully, other news sources have not used the story as an opportunity to condone domestic violence, and even the commenters (albeit heavily moderated) on the Daily Mail site have by and large been critical of her. Indeed, the Mail itself has since run another piece condemningWaterman. The Daily Mail is utterly wrong to publish any piece which in any way condones domestic violence. Let them know what you think here. You can find out more about domestic violence and the campaign to end it on the Women’s Aid site and Refuge.  |
| 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 | |