Women's Views on News |
| No More Page 3 demos UK-wide on Saturday Posted: 16 Nov 2012 02:00 AM PST
Lucy has been asking very politely. She still is. This Saturday marks the 42nd anniversary of the Sun’s ‘Page 3′. People are meeting in various places around the country to politely protest, engage with the people and gain signatures. The No More Page 3 campaign is clearly getting some traction, because the Sun is getting more and more defensive. For example, in the discarded copy picked up in a tube station recently, the Sun insists that ‘Page 3′ girls are "the healthiest media role models for young Britons". Really? We keep asking ourselves, what do children think when they see page after page of men in clothes, doing things, and one huge picture of a woman just standing there, in her pants? ‘Page 3′-type portrayals of women would not be broadcast on TV, and they are prohibited from the workplace because they are considered a form of sexual harassment. Yet newspapers are free to print these discriminatory images on a daily basis. We object! And we will be objecting on Saturday 17 November at 12 noon, outside the London News International HQ. Along with No More Page 3 supporters, the Turn Your Back on Page 3 (TYBOP3) campaign and other feminist groups, OBJECT will be marking the anniversary of ’Page 3′ with a protest outside the London News International HQ calling for an end to sexist misrepresentations of women in our press. OBJECT was one of several other women’s organisations including TYBOP3, End Violence Against Women Coalition, EAVES, and Equality Now which gave evidence to the Leveson Inquiry calling for an end to this form of institutional sexism, institutional sexism which directly links to the discriminatory ways in which women and girls are viewed and treated in our society. OBJECT and TYBOP3's submission focused on the sexual objectification of women in our red top tabloids, providing a snapshot of the sexist/misogynistic content that permeates these daily newspapers. This, in the context of what is still a grossly unequal society, and in which violence against women is endemic, should be of urgent concern to our government and indeed, society as a whole. This blatant sexist/misogynistic portrayal of women within the UK's mainstream press is perpetuating and fuelling sexism by, at best; encouraging and endorsing negative attitudes towards us and within us, and, at worst, acts of violence committed against us. All of which grossly limit our choices, stall our progress and violate our human rights. The Sun is the UK's most popular newspaper and the existence of the 40-year-old ’Page 3′ within it symbolises the acceptance and normalisation of sexism still rife in the UK and ultimately, symbolises a government that doesn't care about changing this. And our politicians continue to turn a blind eye to this mistreatment of women within the press and in doing so they are turning a blind eye to sexism in general. We cannot let this happen. If you really don't think there's anything healthy about ‘Page 3′, November 17 is a chance to join up and take to the streets to call for an end to this outdated feature and sexual objectification of women in our press. Join us to challenge media sexism, and to call for an end to the ’Page 3′ portrayal of women! If you are not in London you can still join in. Look on Facebook to see if there is something going on near you. Take photos of where you see Page 3 and other sexist images (on the bus, on the tube, in a cafe, on a park bench, in your local newsagent or supermarket) and tweet them to @objectupdate #NowhereFreeFromPage3 (include as much context as possible). Share why you object to Page 3 – tweet @objectupdate #IObject2Page3 or email campaigns@object.org.uk and if you’d like to do a video blog on this issue for our blog get in touch! Send your MP the OBJECT/Turn Your Back on Page 3 evidence to the Leveson Inquiry asking for support, and email any responses to campaigns@object.org.uk Email the Leveson Inquiry at generalenquiries@levesoninquiry.org.uk asking that the issue of the portrayal of women in the press, and of prejudicial reporting of violence against women and girls, is addressed in their recommendations. You can refer them to the joint submission by OBJECT, Eaves, Equality Now and the End Violence Against Women Coalition. Or join the event on Facebook and share the information with your network. We hope you will join us for a rousing chorus of "NEWS NOT BOOBS!" from your particular part of the UK.  |
| Women and Politics: Real ‘Girl Power’ Posted: 16 Nov 2012 01:00 AM PST
Following Barack Obama’s recent re-election for a second term as US President, many commentators in the UK are talking about lessons UK politicians could learn from his victory. Could I suggest that the biggest lesson would be to have an opponent who forgets that women can vote? Because Republican nominee Romney certainly appeared to, and he wasn’t alone. Ridiculous numbers of Republican politicians suffered from this collective amnesia. From Todd Akin who believed that pregnancy resulting from a ‘legitimate rape’ was a biological impossibility, to Richard Mourdock who believed it was not only possible but positively ‘intended by God’ (fight it out between yourselves, boys; the Almighty will be your referee). Via all the other stuff various Republicans felt we needed to know about all kinds of rape. All the way through to Rick Santorum, who wanted individual US states to have the power to make birth control illegal, because, you know, it allows women to have (shh!) sex outside marriage without being punished with pregnancy, it was clear that the fact that women actually had a vote - one whole one each! – had entirely slipped their minds. Bless. Thankfully, women themselves didn’t forget, turning out to vote for Obama in huge numbers. A small number of women, obviously confused, voted for Romney, but they were mostly married and we know what that can do to a woman’s brain. It makes them more likely to vote Conservative. Is this why David Cameron is so ‘pro-family’? And so supportive of gay marriage? Whatever the reasons, Obama’s victory and the decisive role women played in it, should give the Prime Minister pause for thought when it comes to his own party’s relationship with women. Because Cameron doesn’t like women. Oh, he likes some women, sure. His wife and Rebekah Brooks, for example. He’s probably also – although this is pure speculation – found a little bit of love for Nadine Dorries now she’s 10,000 miles away. I know I have. But collectively? As an entire, seething mass? Not so much. He started well when he won the Conservative leadership election, declaring up front that the party needed ‘to change the scandalous under-representation of women in the Conservative party…’, and introducing the party’s ‘A-list‘, his big idea for increasing not only the number of female Tory MPs, but also the number of ethnic minority MPs. However, the A-list has recently been dropped, officially on the basis that it has ‘done its job‘. Apparently an increase in ethnic minority MPs from 2 to 11 is job done. As is having a huge 47 female MPs out of a total of 304. Last time I looked, 47 was some way off being half of 304. In the same election in 2012, Labour lost 90 MPs, but of the 251 it kept, 84 were female, which is still not within shouting distance of half, but at least looks as if it’s trying. But maybe I’m just being picky. Cameron can make efforts to increase female candidates, but he can’t ensure they all get elected, can he? But he can decide what happens to them when they do. And for all his talk, Cameron’s cabinet initially included just five female members, a truly pathetic number for a man who professes to want to ‘change [women's] scandalous under-representation’. Even better, after being told his party had a ‘woman problem‘ and was shedding female voters faster than an alopecic cat sheds hair, his next Cabinet re-shuffle kicked two of them out and made a third, Baroness Warsi ’(female, Asian and, my God, working class) even more the Tory token that she is by keeping her in the Cabinet but without a proper job.’ And let’s not even talk about his ‘Calm down, dear‘ type-gaffes. Or the fact that, earlier this month, Dame Helen Ghosh, the former Home Office permanent secretary, launched a withering attack on Cameron and his dude-centric clique, made up of friends from Eton and the Bullingdon Club. Dame Helen made the point that the clique was not exactly filled with, nor welcoming to, women. But maybe all this doesn’t matter. Maybe there are simply not enough women in the UK who care about female representation enough to make it matter. The Conservative party is not, after all, the Republican party. Conservative MPs, even the worst of them, know better than to stray into discussions about rape (for which we can thank Ken Clarke), and the thought that any of them would wade in on the morality of – or NHS provision of – birth control seems, well, bizarre. Recent pronouncements by various MPs about abortion time limits are worrying, but these can potentially be written off as ‘personal’ statements by those involved. Even without the outright war on women fought by the Republicans that ‘woman problem we were talking about before? It’s still there. And it isn’t still here because of anything as esoteric as a lack of female MPs. Women, especially single women, supported Obama in droves not because they voted with their ‘lady parts‘, but because they found themselves being disproportionately affected by the downturn in the US economy. And in a time of such economic hardship, threats to take away women’s rights to vital stuff like Planned Parenthood and affordable healthcare mattered, ultimately, more than Republican idiocies on rape because these were things that were enabling many, many women to keep their heads above water. Women just couldn’t afford to have them taken away. And this is where Cameron really does need to take notice. Because women in the UK find themselves in a very similar position to those in the US. Following its 2012 budget announcing swathes of cuts, Cameron’s government was subject to a legal challenge by the Fawcett Society for its failure to conduct a gender equality impact assessment on the effect of those cuts, which it was legally required to do. Fawcett asserted that of the £8bn of savings outlined in the budget, £5.8bn would come from women. Fawcett’s challenge was unsuccessful, on the basis – reading between the lines – that the judge found the whole thing a bit silly. But for women now living through the brunt of government cuts, the outcome of the challenge is academic, and it’s no surprise that women started turning say from the Conservative party from early 2011, as the reality of the cuts started to hit home. And women are not taking this lightly. Pollster Deborah Mattinson noted as much: ‘I have rarely experienced such anger . . . These women were all working very hard. Several were juggling family and more than one job. They all feared losing those jobs in the coming months. ‘Most had endured pay freezes while simultaneously coping with rising bills, especially on essentials like gas, electricity and food. ‘Those with younger kids felt that their ambitions for university had been dashed. Those with older kids wondered if they would ever get a job. ‘While the men were more tolerant of the government’s economic strategy the women were personally affronted.’ As well they might be. When a government refuses to recognise that its cuts have a massively disproportionate impact on women, it is personal. So the next election in the UK will not be decided on ‘women’s issues’. It will be all about ‘the economy, stupid’ - how could it be otherwise? But until the Tories realise that the economy is, increasingly, the women’s issue, they’ll continue to personally affront women. And that’s a bad idea. Because women can vote. Remember?  |
| 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 | |