Women's Views on News |
| Backward, primitive and sexist attitudes Posted: 13 Dec 2012 07:46 AM PST A Guest post by Heather Harvey, research and development manager with Eaves. At Eaves we do a weekly newsletter about violence against women around the world. I can reliably find the most detailed and violent stories at a couple of media outlets to which, in many other ways, I might feel personally hostile. In one such media outline I recently noticed a story, for once, not about violence against women, with the headline:"Little boy who held the fort while Daddy went to war: the diary of how Kieran, 6, held his family together until that special homecoming." I am not usually very drawn to armed forces stories, but I wanted to read this one because I couldn't imagine what a 6 year-old child – or specifically in this case, boy - had done to merit this headline. I thought maybe he'd deterred an intruder or called the hospital when someone fell sick or sold all his toys to raise money for the family. Maybe he'd cooked dinner, put the rubbish out, mopped up, done the washing, looked after his siblings and his grandmother, remembered everyone's birthdays. I wouldn't expect any 6 year-old child to do that, no reason why they should, but I assumed it was something of that order given this headline. But funnily enough, as we might expect, of course he didn't do any of that. She did. You know, the wife/mother person. It is clear from her really quite poignant diary what a struggle it has been, particularly to keep cheerful and get through all the significant dates of the year and not let her own sadness and frustrations impact on her son and daughter. There is a daughter too in the story, though you wouldn't immediately know that. Apparently, on the phone to his Dad the little boy said something like, "I'm looking after the family" – as they do of course. No doubt Daddy said something like, "now you're the man of the house and you need to look after the girls, your mum and your sister". It's a very common, if in my mind irritating and sexist, turn of phrase in such a scenario and it has its role in motivating kids, or in this case the boy, to get through a difficult time. If that is all it is then I can let it pass – but when the Mail seeks to literally enforce it, I get annoyed. It is clearly too agonisingly painful to the Mail to give any credit to a woman – even the Daily Mail ideal, white, middle-class, stay-at-home, army wife Mum, doing exactly what the Mail requires of women – but still the credit has to go to something male, even if he's only 6! It's a reminder that for those women and girls who still foolishly strive to jump through the ever more hurdles that society sets for us, we will never succeed – we are women we will always fall short in their eyes – let's just stop trying and start fighting on our own terms. In some parts of the world, if the male "head of the family" figure dies then either the woman is inherited by a brother of her husband or the "head of the family" role and the power and decision making is passed to the nearest surviving male family member – even if that is the woman's own 6 year old son. The Mail would condemn such cultures as backward, primitive, sexist and barbaric. The Mail might like to look in a mirror.
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.  |
| Posted: 13 Dec 2012 04:39 AM PST
They say you can tell next season’s hottest trend by looking at the colour of the rivers in Mexico and China. That’s because global fashion brands are using hazardous chemicals and dyes to make our clothes. These chemicals poison our rivers, and traces of these hazardous chemicals also end up remaining in many of the garments people buy. Environmetal protection group Greenpeace is campaigning to stop industry poisoning waterways around the world with hazardous, persistent and hormone-disrupting chemicals. Initially launched in July 2011, Greenpeace’s ‘Detox’ campaign has exposed links between textile manufacturing facilities causing toxic water pollution in China, and many of the world’s top clothing brands. And since then, H&M, M&S, Nike, Adidas, Puma, C&A, Li-Ning and Zara have committed to Detox, in response to the – still growing – international campaign. But while some companies have joined us, other top clothing companies still need to get a move on, to Detox their brands and help Detox our future. Clothes, Greenpace point out, don't need to come with toxic accessories such as hazardous chemicals that enter the environment both as discharges from the manufacturing facilities, but also potentially as residue that is washed out when we clean our clothes at home. There are alternatives. The real challenge, they say, is the complete lack of public information available at the moment, and the manufacturing facilities, suppliers and fashion brands have to commit to transparency. China, for example, has a large and thriving textile industry which supplies both the domestic and the international market with clothes, but there is a severe lack of information about the kinds of chemicals being used and released into environment there. There is also very little information about how the hazardous chemicals used to make our clothes are dealt with. Toxic chemicals such as many PFCs are especially dangerous because they can survive the treatment system meant to clean the water and pass directly out into the environment. Pollution of water is happening on a massive scale, with almost 70 per cent of Chinese lakes, rivers, waterways and reservoirs affected by some kind of water pollution. But there is no excuse for toxic pollution to continue. Global brands have been able to hide behind industrial smokescreens and public ignorance and ineffectiveness for decades and continue to make their products against a backdrop of toxic water pollution. But then you get to the point where enough is enough. Around the world, consumers, activists and fashionistas are uniting behind the idea that the clothes we buy should carry a story we can be proud of, not the residues of hazardous chemicals. Brands that want to keep their customers therefore need to do more than make a positive statement or write a policy – they need to be seen and heard publicly talking about the problem and solutions, publicly disclose information about exactly what chemicals are being released throughout their supply chains, and actively work for toxic-free fashion. And you can help. Help Greenpeace gets its new video "Detox Fashion", on as many screens as possible. Because of course, every time you like, share, comment on, or promote this video, it increases the pressure on the companies to change their ways: to stop poisoning rivers in the countries where their products are made, and stop shipping hazardous chemicals all over the world in their clothes. And then watch this for good measure: The Secret Lives of Our Clothes.  |
| 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 | |