Thursday, December 13, 2012

Women's Views on News

Women's Views on News

The Leveson Inquiry: we were there

Posted: 12 Dec 2012 09:20 AM PST

How women's groups forced themselves on the Leveson agenda and to what effect.

Guest post by Heather Harvey, research and development manager with Eaves.

Many of you will be aware that End Violence Against Women, Equality Now,  Object jointly with Turn your back on p3 and Eaves gave evidence to the Leveson Inquiry in January 2012.

And equally, you probably know we recently released our own media monitoring report, "Just the Women", the title for which was taken from the words of Peter Rippon explaining that they dropped the Savile Newsnight programme as the evidence they had was from "just the women".

We thought we'd share with you some of this experience.

Lord Justice Leveson was appointed to head the inquiry ‘into the culture, practices and ethics of the press’ by PM David Cameron with broad terms of reference and was to take evidence from January 2012 onwards.

In about November last year, we women's groups were meeting on quite a different issue. While chatting, we raised the idea of maybe sending something in to Leveson about the representation of women in the media.

After all, from the UN CEDAW convention to "Page 3 girls" and the use of headlines like "Midnight Orgy in the Park" to describe gang rape of 12 year old girls or "Lolitas", women have been raising concern about the media sexism for many years – indeed that's what WVoN is all about.

So we sent in submissions.

And we were both surprised and terrified to be formally invited to give evidence in January.

Our presentations attracted some media attention and this tweet from journalist Deborah Orr: ‘It’s cheering, in a limited way, just to hear critiques of the press’s portrayal of women without them [women] being sighed or sneered at.’

For us, this tweet sums up exactly why we wanted to give evidence.

When women speak out on issues of public policy, and particularly issues about women or violence against women and girls, they are attacked online and in print – not just with dismissive carping but with misogynistic, gendered, sexualised attacks.

While all of our organisations believe in the freedom of the press and the public interest exemption, we feel there is a serious "democratic deficit" where women are concerned.

We are silenced, humiliated and rendered invisible – unless we are "pretty" and preferably naked when we are used as objects for decoration or entertainment.

The way in which violence against women is reported, usually as trivial or titillating, and often demonstrating perpetrator empathy and victim blaming, and through constant reinforcement of myths and stereotypes, can directly impact on access to justice.

This is clearly acknowledged at official level with Alison Saunders, head of the Crown Prosecution Service in London, highlighting in this an article earlier this year saying that jurors have preconceptions about rape and victims often fear to report for fear of these preconceptions.

In an attempt to keep women on the agenda once Leveson reported back, we undertook a two-week media monitoring project and produced a short report of our own on 25 November.

"Just the Women" covered all the above issues, and we have been pleased with the media coverage it has attracted to date.

But more importantly, we were pleased to see that Leveson's report acknowledged our concerns and provided useful material to support some of our recommendations on p664.

Bold mine.

‘The evidence as a whole suggested that there is force in the trenchant views expressed… that the Page 3 tabloid press often failed to show consistent respect for the dignity and equality of women generally, and that there was a tendency to sexualise and demean women…

‘…The impact of discriminatory or prejudicial representations of women in the Page 3 tabloids is difficult to judge.

‘There is credible evidence that it has a broader impact on the perception and role of women in society, and the sexualisation of society generally’.

‘What is clearly required is that any such regulator has the power to take complaints from representative women's groups.

‘Consideration should also be given to Code amendments which, while protecting freedom of speech and the freedom of the press, would equip that body with the power to intervene in cases of allegedly discriminatory reporting and in so doing reflect the spirit of equalities legislation’.

With reports that editors are close to an agreement as to how they intend to respond to Leveson, we await with interest to see whether they too are prepared to acknowledge and act against media sexism.

In the meantime, we urge you all to support our campaign against media sexism – and you can start by uploading your own examples at everyday media sexism.

 

Author Heather Harvey is research and development manager with Eaves, a London-based registered charity providing support and associated services for women who have experienced violence to enable them to recover and regain independence.

Eaves aims to give women their lives back; to make them independent, and give them the skills they need to take their rightful places back in society, contribute to the economy and the communities around them, and live happy, fulfilled lives.

Eaves also carries out extensive research which provides crucial evidence of the nature and scale of violence against women.

Playing with little girls’ lives

Posted: 12 Dec 2012 06:49 AM PST

Still fretting about toys and stereotyping? Let's stop it for next year.

In the run up to Christmas, parents from campaign group Let Toys Be Toys hit the high street to examine how the larger retailers promote toys to girls and boys.

They wanted to find out which of the national shops use gender stereotyping the most in their marketing.

Their survey found that of branches visited, the shops with the strongest boy – girl divide included Marks and Spencers, Tesco, Asda, Boots, Wilkinsons and TK Maxx.

Let Toys Be Toys' mystery shoppers said they were particularly saddened to find all science toys in the section labelled "boys" in the Boots branches they visited in Eastbourne, England and Cork, Ireland.

Meanwhile Marks & Spencers was criticised for highly gendered own-brand ranges, with toys such as marble runs and walkie-talkies only available in "boy stuff" packaging, and microphones only in pink "Lil' Miss Arty" boxes.

In many shops, construction toys such as Lego were only found in the "boys" sections, and arts and crafts toys only in "girls".

So you get the ridiculous situation where a girl gets self conscious walking into the ‘boys’ section to get her favourite things, losing her independence as she waits for someone to go get it for her, and narrowing down her 'life choice' options, her life skills, and if no one does.

And imagine a boy who had always wanted a dolls' house too embarrassed to ask for one because he thought they were just for girls; and we lose an architect, an interior designer, a plumber, electrician, an avant-garde housing officer – all the other 'house' focussed futures.

The group congratulated Hamley's for having done away with entire floors dedicated to "boys" and "girls" toys and instead reorganising its departments into toy-based themes.

They also commended Sainsbury's for marketing domestic role-play items like kitchen toys and tool sets side-by-side in gender neutral packaging.

Let Toys Be Toys is a parent-led grass roots campaign which is calling for retailers to stop limiting children’s imaginations and interests by promoting some toys as only suitable for girls, and others only for boys.

The Let Toys Be Toys campaign arose from discussions on the website Mumsnet, where parents shared experiences of shopping for children who don't fit the retailers' ideas of what girls and boys should like.

Kerry Brennan, a founding member of Let Toys Be Toys, said, "Everyone agrees that children should be free to choose to play with any kind of toy, but this is difficult if toys are strongly marketed with pictures, labels and descriptions that focus on one gender or the other, and if they are displayed in separate sections in the shop".

Another founding member, Maya Forstater, said, "We are calling on these stores to take down their signs and rethink the way they organise and promote their toys.

It wouldn't be acceptable to advertise an astrophysicist role as a "man's job" or an art teacher job as "for women", so why are shops promoting science sets to boys and arts and crafts to girls?"

The campaigners are asking retailers to stop limiting children’s imaginations and interests by promoting some toys as only suitable for girls, and others only for boys, and instead categorise toys by theme or category.

They have launched a petition asking toy retailers in UK and Ireland to stop promoting toys as only for boys, or only for girls.

Toys are for fun, for learning, for stoking imagination and encouraging creativity. Children should feel free to play with the toys that most interest them.

Please sign the petition and see what you can get changed for 2013.

And join Let Toys Be Toys on Facebook.

Christian union bans women speaking at meetings

Posted: 12 Dec 2012 02:00 AM PST

Women banned from speaking at meetings sparks discrimination debate.

Once upon a time there was a Christian Union at a British University which couldn’t decide whether women were equal to men or not.

As openings go, it may not be the most traditional, but the views of the group at Bristol University certainly appear to be, and it’s a story with at least as many twists and turns as your average fairy tale.

Last week, it was reported that Bristol University Christian Union (BUCU) had banned women from speaking in their weekly meetings or on weekends away, unless their husbands were present.

An email from BUCU president Matt Oliver was at the centre of the furore, referencing the ‘difficult issue’ for some men who felt forced to take religious instruction from a female.

Unsurprisingly, when news of the email got out, it was met with widespread condemnation, including from the university’s own Student Union’s Welfare and Equality committee.

Vice President, Alessandra Berti said: “We have been made aware of a communication from the University of Bristol Christian Union, and we would like to assure our members and the general public that UBU and the full-time elected officers are investigating the issue further,” she said.

“In particular we will be making certain that our Equality Policy is properly adhered to in all cases.”

Subsequently, a u-turn on the part of the Christian Union was reported, with an official statement from the group quoting: “Bristol University Christian Union (BUCU) deplores the recent exaggerations and misrepresentations in some parts of the media of its position on women’s ministry in the church.

“BUCU is not a church, but a student society, so it has never had a formal policy on women’s ministry.

“In recent months, the Executive Committee have been exploring ways in which BUCU can best accommodate members with divergent and strongly held convictions, while expressing our unity as Christian believers.”

It went on to say they will extend speaker invitations to both men and women without exception.

A fairy tale with a happy ending then? A move to limit women’s ability to participate fully in their faith intercepted and the status quo of equality restored?

Except that sadly, it would appear not.

Conservatism, sexism and discrimination seem to have been around since the inception of the group, according to former BUCU member Joel Lewis.

Writing in the Guardian, he suggests that the BUCU has always enforced a ban on women speakers, though it was never explicitly stated before.

Lewis points out that: “The recent statement on the matter issued by BUCU answers only the question that they would like to be asked rather than the ones that they should be asked.

“Of course, it is very welcome that they will invite female speakers – and this is indeed a step forward from the position 15 years ago.

“However the current controversy was not about whether female speakers would be invited, but whether they would be permitted to speak and teach without a male chaperone.

“On this matter the BUCU statement is silent.”

BUCU’s parent organisation, the Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship, (UCCF), doesn’t enforce explicit viewpoints for either argument.

A recent update to their statement on the situation reads: “UCCF should [sic] like to stress that the choice of any speaker is made by each individual student-run Christian Union.

“UCCF does not have preferred speaker lists or undesirable speaker lists.”

The statement went on to say: “UCCF has staff and students in both camps and everywhere in between; we therefore cannot have a policy of 'No women speakers' nor a policy of you must have women speakers.”

And without an official policy in favour of equality, unofficial expressions of discrimination are free to thrive.

The problem is of course, is that it is rather difficult to insist on equality in a university’s Christian organisation, when the Church of England – for example - itself upholds inequality.

After the Church of England’s General Synod voted against women bishops last month, perhaps we are unrealistic to expect BUCU to behave any better.

And if you are not a Christian yourself, does it even matter what the church and its associated organisations get up to?

If you’re a woman – or a man who cares about women being treated fairly -  then it absolutely does.

There are young girls being brought up within these certain Christian traditions that tell them they are less capable, less able to reach sensible conclusions and in more need of guidance than the young boys around them.

And just as you don’t have to live in Afghanistan or China to care about the women who do, you equally do not need to hold Christian beliefs yourself to want Christian women to be treated with fairness and respect.

Conversations about bishops and Christian Union policies are not just Christian issues, they are feminist issues too.

And we have a responsibility to fight discrimination and misogyny here as much as anywhere.

That’s the only way for this particular ‘fairy tale’ to have a truly happy ending.