Tuesday, April 24, 2012

Women's Views on News

Women's Views on News

Disability and the Welfare Reform Bill: one woman’s story

Posted: 23 Apr 2012 09:30 AM PDT

Courtesy of Pete Riches

Jane Osmond
WVoN co-editor

Nancy, who suffers from anxiety-based depression, has been unable to work for nearly ten years because of her condition.

She is one of many women who suffer from depressive-type illnesses.

Figures provided by the Mental Health Foundation in the UK show that women are more likely to be treated for a mental health problem than men (29% compared to 17%); depression is more common in women than men (one in four against one in 10); and women are twice as likely to experience anxiety.

Last Wednesday, however, Nancy overcame her anxiety – often she can’t leave the house for long periods – to attend a demonstration in London, organised by DPAC (Disabled People Against the Cuts), to protest against the introduction of the recent Welfare Reform Bill.

Asked why she participated in the protest, Nancy said:

‘Because of the Bill, I am expecting to be put on the new Employment Support Allowance (ESA) scheme which will mean if I don't find a job in a year, I will be moved to Job Seeker's Allowance (JSA) which is less money.

‘Once on JSA, if I still don't get a job, I am afraid all my benefits will stop – including housing benefit – and I will end up homeless.’

Her worry about not getting a job is a legitimate one as far as Nancy is concerned.  As she points out, even filling in an application form will be problematic as she has a ten-year career gap to explain, but more than this, she is worried about the overall job shortage:

‘The changes are happening too fast and being rushed through without enough thought.

‘There are not enough jobs for people without disabilities, and this, coupled with a lack of money for workplace modifications means that I, and other disabled people, have little chance of getting a job.

‘That isn't to say that disabled people shouldn’t work if they can: but society is not ready.’

All this worry has had a negative effect on Nancy's condition: her medication has recently been increased by her doctor who recognises that this added stress is not helping her.

‘Every time I go to my doctor, he asks me if I am still worrying about the situation, and I tell him yes, of course.  He finds it difficult to know what to say to me – it seems that doctors’ opinions on people's medical conditions are being ignored completely.

‘The ATOS assessment test which decides if you are fit to work is a tick-box form on a computer, often implemented by people who may not have the relevant expertise in my type of condition.’

Nancy's worry is well founded, as evidenced by the recent resignation of Paul Farmer, Chief Executive of mental health charity MIND. He felt that the government was not listening to concerns about a flawed test that was assessing 11,000 people a week.

As it stands, the test results are routinely challenged by 50% of those taking it, and of those, 40% of appeals are upheld.  However, even when an appeal is successful, people are apparently being put through the test again, told they are fit to work and have to re-appeal.

But not only is it stressful for claimants, it is also costing a lot of money.  According to the Guardian newspaper, the government is paying ATOS £100m to carry out the test, but the appeals are costing around £50m a year,  with tribunal courts having to open on a Saturday and increase staffing levels by 30%.

As the government does not appear to be listening, Jaspa Dhani, chief executive of the UK Disabled People's Council has made clear that legal action is now being contemplated.

It almost seems that the government, in its zeal to save money, is calling the disability lobby's bluff, and I am beginning to feel that only those who shout the loudest – disabled or not – have any chance of stopping them from enforcing a benefit regime that has the potential to result in people’s deaths.

There is a growing clamour about the fact that some people have suffered fatal heart attacks or committed suicide as a result of the test, such as this heart breaking letter written by the National Protest Against Benefit Cuts, signed by doctors, nurses, protest groups and individuals.

Further, it is quite possible that women may not be equipped to shout at all, let alone loudly, which is why Nancy is to be applauded for having the courage to get to the protest, bolstered by an extra dose of antidepressant tablets and Valium.

This allowed her to cope with some of the negative comments directed at her during the protest:

‘Several people asked the police why they couldn't stop us blocking the road and I had a man saying ‘people are walking round so they obviously aren't disabled’.

‘People don't understand, wider society just doesn't understand what disability means, they think 'disabled' is a wheelchair and that is it.

‘That is why the Bill went through so easily because people aren't aware how many people are disabled, what disability means and the impact it will have if the government stop our benefits.’

Nancy points out that her travel payment was funded by donations, so, if you can, please donate here.  Also please sign this petition: it is currently at 36,000 signatures and needs 100,000 to have a hope of instigating a debate about the Bill’s impact in the House of Commons.

As the petition points out:

‘Illness or disability could affect any one of us at any time, while many more of us are potential carers.’

Exactly.

“Alpha male” preferred over “weak feminist” in Mexican presidential elections

Posted: 23 Apr 2012 07:30 AM PDT

Alice Rodgers
WVoN co-editor 

Mexican voters are more likely to back Enrique Peña Nieto, of the opposition Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) over the only female candidate in the presidential race.

The July 1 elections will be the first time a female candidate, Josefina Vazquez Mota, of the Conservative National Action Party (or PAN), will feature as one of the main candidates.

Vazquez Mota was secretary of Education and Development in the last two governments and her appointment is seen as a big step for women in Mexican politics.

Women make up the majority of eligible voters in the country, but according to a poll carried out by Mitofsky last week voters have failed to warm to Vazquez Mota. Female voters are more likely to back Peña Nieto by a ratio of eight to five.

She has struggled to reconcile PAN infighting and to mend the wounds of the party's past, something that is known in Mexico as 'Operación Cicatriz', or Operation Scar.

PAN's opposition have criticised the party leader for her lack of concrete proposals for the future. More importantly, analysts say that her feminist message lacks depth.

“She hasn’t talked openly about gender equality, or reproductive rights,” said political analyst Fernando Dworak.

“Images of Peña Nieto hugging all the women in town weigh a lot more for the female vote than empty talk. The alpha male is preferred over the weak feminist.”

Voters believe that Peña Nieto is more likely to put an end to the drug-related violence in the country, which has claimed more than 50,000 lives in the past five years.

They also believe him to be more capable of creating jobs for the country's growing population.

The PRI's party campaign has played on its presidential candidate's good looks in the election race, something that has helped to cover up his numerous public blunders in the past.

Peña Nieto's popularity seems to be unfazed by incidences such as being unable to name a single book that had influenced him in December of last year and the revelation that he had cheated on his first wife and fathered two children out of wedlock.

His ignorance was further compounded when he was unable to quote the price of a kilo of tortillas, a Mexican staple.

He explained that he couldn't be expected to know because he was "not a lady of the house", a comment seen as sexist and insensitive.

According to Alberto Tavira, author of "The Women of Peña Nieto", the presidential candidate has "the ability to seduce both men and women", a gift that he has "developed and maximised with a lot of coaching".

Meanwhile Vazquez Mota is still battling with social conservatism in Mexico, a country where suffrage was only granted to women in 1953.

Her candidacy is "an important step but her being a woman is not going to be a definitive factor" said Rodolfo de la Garza, a political scientist at Columbia University.

Women’s boxing first for Olympics 2012

Posted: 23 Apr 2012 05:30 AM PDT

Penny Hopkins
WVoN co-editor

In 2009 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) announced that for the first time women's boxing would form a part of the Olympics and that the first bouts would take place in London in 2012.

With that decision, the IOC ensured there would no longer be any Olympic sports practised solely by men.

However, progress does not mean complete equality.  There are 10 weight divisions in the men's competition compared to a mere three in the women's. In all, 250 male boxers will compete, but only 36 women.

Boxing has always been one of the more contentious sports.  Can it ever be right that the purpose of a sport should be to hurt an opponent, preferably until they are unable to go on?

Does boxing really help to dispel aggression or does it foster aggression?  And what about the socio-economic factors that compel people to take up boxing?

I don’t intend to go into the ethics behind the sport, but one thing is sure, if we add the participation of women into the mix the controversy deepens and opinion is divided even further.

The popular conception is that, historically, women’s only role in boxing was to parade  around the ring skimpily-clad with a sign letting the punters know what round it is.   But, in truth, it has been around for much longer than you might think.

Women's boxing was first included as an Olympic demonstration sport in 1904, although the sport was still banned throughout Europe for most of the 20 century.

The Amateur International Boxing Association recognised women's boxing in 1994, but the professional sport, especially in Britain, lagged behind.

The British Boxing Board of Control (BBBC) continued to refuse to issue professional licences to women until 1998, and only then because it lost a sex discrimination case brought by boxer Jane Couch.

There has, however, been a steady increase in the interest in women's boxing over the last few years,  perhaps fuelled and reflected by the success of Clint Eastwood's 2004 film "Million Dollar Baby."

Frustratingly, much of the discussion about it at the Olympics has revolved around whether the boxers should be wearing skirts rather than shorts.

As British lightweight champion, Natasha Jones, put it: "The only people who would want to see women in skirts are men."

The problem necessitated an amendment to the Amateur International Boxing Association's rules which now state: "For all AIBA approved events, women boxers must wear…either shorts or the option of a skirt."

There will be only one qualification event for the Games.  This will be the Women's World Championship, to be held in Qinhuangdao, China, from 9 to 20 May.  The final 24 Olympic places will be up for grabs in three weight categories; 48-51 kg, 57-60 kg and 69-75 kg.

Whatever your views, it seems that a true validation of the sport is only a few months away with the advent of its first Olympic appearance.

Should you wish to, you can catch women's boxing at the Olympics from Saturday 28 July to Sunday 12 August at the ExCel Centre in London's Docklands.

Facebook, nude photos and online harassment

Posted: 23 Apr 2012 03:24 AM PDT

Jane Osmond
WVoN co-editor

Last year, Women's Views on News went into battle with Facebook because it would not remove a page containing rape jokes, stating that 'just as telling a rude joke won't get you thrown out of your local pub, it won't get you thrown off Facebook'.

After four months, during which time the campaign went global, Facebook finally capitulated and took the offending page down in December 2011.

However, instead of adhering to its own terms and conditions, Facebook merely changed the guidelines, stating that if they were tagged as humorous, they could stay up (haha Facebook, rape is completely funny, NOT).

During the campaign, I came across instances where Facebook, whilst allowing rape jokes to stay up, would move swiftly to take down breast-feeding pictures.

I know, right?

Most recently this policy was used in February to take down photos of Canadian mother Emma Kwasnica who said that about 30 photos in which she was breastfeeding her children had been labelled as 'obscene' and ‘sexually explicit'.

A closer look at Facebook’s image and post-approval system was discussed by the writer Rowan Davies in the Guardian, who pointed out, sandwiched between “depiction of sexual assault or rape” and “bestiality, necrophilia and paedophilia” is “breastfeeding photos showing other nudity, or nipple clearly exposed”.

So, rape jokes can stay up, but pictures of nipples, especially if those nipples are being used to feed a baby cannot.  However, nipples used as sexual objects can: a quick search of Facebook revealed hundreds of pictures of breasts and nipples, with the latter often barely covered with a wet t-shirt, and sometimes not covered at all.

In fact, the search revealed numerous images of women in sexual poses all over Facebook, which is possibly why a woman in Australia had to run to an ex-boyfriend's flat and demand that he take down pictures of her which he had posted to Facebook, pictures that included her in ‘nude in certain positions and clearly showing her breasts and genitalia’.

When he refused, she called the police, possibly her only option because contacting Facebook would be a complete waste of time.

Amazingly, in this case, the ex-boyfriend was taken to court, prosecuted and sent to prison for six months. This has been hailed 'as a landmark social media-related conviction for Australia and one of just a handful in the world'.

This type of case demonstrates how the disregard of women's rights online is legion, and is evidenced by the Twitter furore over a hashtag containing vile comments against the rape victim of UK footballer Ched Evans, as this post on the F-Word outlines.

Even more disturbing than the comments, which I will not repeat here, is the suggestion that the woman's identity has been outed.

Comments from a spokesperson at the cyberspace law and policy centre at the University of New South Wales underlines how online harassment is not seen as serious when compared to physical offences, and that current laws are insufficient when applied to cyberspace.

It seems to me that Facebook, which reported 845 million monthly active users at the end of December 2011, is in a unique position to work with the law to address the very real harm that people can suffer through harassment on its platform.

Further, it could also develop a coherent online policy on sexual violence and the objectification of women and thus set the standard for what will and will not be acceptable for ALL online platforms.

But no, instead let's take down some more breastfeeding pictures, because showing breasts for their natural purpose is obviously obscene, while showing them for sexual titillation is not.

Given that this dichotomy reflects the sexual objectification of women all over the world, I think we can all guess how many women are in charge at Facebook.

That’s right - NONE.

Saudis should be banned from Olympic Games

Posted: 23 Apr 2012 01:30 AM PDT

Penny Hopkins
WVoN co-editor

It seems that I was a bit too optimistic when I posted my article, "Pressure pays off – at least one Saudi woman will take part at 2012 Olympics" just under a month ago.

The Saudis seemed to have turned a corner when they announced that there would be female representation in their team.

Crown Prince Nayef bin Abdul Aziz had said that female athletes would be allowed to go provided that "their sports meet the standards of women's decency and don't contradict Islamic laws."

And then came the spectacular u-turn.

On 4 April, Prince Nawaf al-Faisal announced that "At present, we are not embracing any female Saudi participation in the Olympics or other international championships,"

He continued: "Female Saudi participation will be according to the wishes of students and others living abroad.  All we are doing is to ensure that participation is in the proper framework and in conformity with sharia."

In other words, no woman would be included in the official team, but they could compete as private citizens if they so wished.

This harks back to the situation in 2010 when equestrienne, Dalma Rushdi Malhas, competed in the World Youth Games under her own initiative, winning a bronze medal in Singapore.

It was thought that Malhas had the best chance of competing this year as an official member of the team, but now it seems that even equestrian dress falls foul of the Saudi idea of "appropriate" clothing.

There are now calls for the Saudi Arabian team to be banned altogether from this year's Olympic Games.

It would not be the first time for the committee to impose a ban on a country, the best-known being the one against South Africa from 1964-1992 due to continued operation of the apartheid system.

Afghanistan was also banned from the 2000 Games in Sydney, partly because of the Taliban's discrimination against women.

There is no doubt that the Saudi Arabian policy is in direct contravention of the Olympic Charter which states: "Any form of discrimination with regard to a country or a person on grounds of race, religion, politics, gender or otherwise is incompatible with belonging to the Olympic movement."

So why isn’t the International Olympic Committee (IOC) threatening to ban the Saudis?

It has uttered some strong words, notably from Australian member, Kevan Gosper, who called it "imperative" that women should be included in the team.  But the IOC has stopped short of issuing the ultimate threat of exclusion.

Other organisations are not so reticent.  The Women's Sport and Fitness Foundation has called for the IOC to seriously consider a ban.

On 5th April its chief executive, Sue Tibballs issued a press release saying that:"Saudi Arabia's current refusal to send sportswomen to the Olympics puts them directly at odds with one of the IOC's Fundamental Principles….

“If today's reports are to be believed the Women's Sport and Fitness Foundation would expect the IOC to defend the Olympic Charter and exclude Saudi Arabia from IOC membership and the London 2012 Games."

But the IOC is still backing diplomatic efforts.  Its president, Jacques Rogge, said at a news conference on Friday: "We're still discussing (this) with our colleague on the Saudi national Olympic committee. This is an ongoing discussion, but it is a bit too soon to come to conclusions."

Too soon?  With fewer than 100 days to go before the start of the Games the decision makers are seriously running out of time.

One thing is for sure – if the IOC has any chance of avoiding the charge of hypocrisy in the choice of who they ban and who they don't, it needs to persuade the Saudi authorities to include a woman or take a stand and ban the country from competing in the 2012 Olympics in London.

And soon.