Women's Views on News |
- Page Three: the ‘fashionista’ variation?
- Do the pension reforms penalise women?
- Daybreak missing the point
- Brits more accepting of abortion
| Page Three: the ‘fashionista’ variation? Posted: 20 Feb 2013 09:21 AM PST
Newspaper proprietor Rupert Murdoch recently hinted for the first time that the days of Page Three of his Sun newspaper may be numbered. The admission from the chairman of News Corporation came in a reply to a tweet from a British woman who supports the ongoing No More Page Three campaign. Karen Mason @kazipooh fired a tweet last week to Murdoch saying: "Seriously, we are all so over page three – it is so last century". Less than an hour later, Murdoch replied: "page three so last century! You maybe right, don’t know but considering. Perhaps halfway house with glamorous fashionistas." To which Mason replied: "Glamorous fashionistas? Boring! Go for broke and feature independent, interesting, relevant women from all walks of life?". Fuel to the fire was added by a former News International executive chairman, Les Hinton, who, according to The Telegraph, when asked about Murdoch’s comments, replied: "Great but page three has jarred for ages." As The Guardian pointed out, Mason has succeeded where Clare Short and Germaine Greer (before she changed her mind about it) had not – in getting some response from senior officials at News Corp. However it seems any decision to put news instead of nipples on Page Three won’t be anything to do with a Damascene moment of realising the sexualisation of women is wrong. A later tweet from Murdoch, in reaction to the response his maybe off-the-cuff mark provoked, said: "So Page 3 tweet is breaking news… Typical OTT reaction by the UK PC crew. Just considering, as we do every page daily Buy it and see…" But if Page Three is dropped, it will only be for commercial reasons. For the fact is that nipples are now common currency in many media publications – perhaps thanks in part to Page Three’s intransigent presence over the last 40 years. Readers now have a plethora of breasts to goggle at – not only in lads mags but in mainstream press. A journalism student on work experience at one of these lads mags once revealed he had the job of counting the nipples, to ensure the number stayed within legal limits. Too many and it would stray into porn territory. Where once the Page Three girl was seen as ‘unobtainable’, now every "attractive" woman faces being viewed a potential glamour model – hence the hint that The Sun may go upmarket to the "glamorous fashionista" . The nipples will still be there, too posh for Sun readers to meet and touch, but available to slaver over in their dreams. To date more than 80,000 people have signed a petition calling for the end of Page Three. Thousands added their names after Mason’s tweet. Hadley Freeman argued in The Guardian that while she supports the ripping up of Page Three, there is more pernicious sexism going on elsewhere, such as the Daily Mail’s obsession with female celebrities flaunting their legs, their breasts, and – last week – even their ears. No one is disputing that. But as Twitter user Becca Reilly-Cooper @boodleoops said: "Sun readers/journalists won’t see women as worthy of equal respect overnight. But getting rid of Page 3 might nudge in right direction."  |
| Do the pension reforms penalise women? Posted: 20 Feb 2013 04:19 AM PST
In press releases which were recently issued and published online, various Labour MPs have reiterated claims made in January by Shadow Pensions Minister Gregg McClymont. After the pension reforms were announced on 14 January, McClymont said: "This government's pension changes have hit hard-working women time and again and these reforms are no different. "Almost half a million women will be nearly £2000 worse off compared to men, but instead of being honest with the women who will lose out this government tried to bury the truth." The coalition government is planning to introduce a flat-rate state pension from April 2017 onwards. Instead of a basic pension of £107.45 per week, pensioners would receive £144 in today's money. The three million people due to retire before April 2017 will stay on the current system, meaning that they could be worse off by £36.55 per week or £1900.60 over the course of one year. Around 430,000 women born between 6 April 1952 and 6 July 1953 will not qualify for the new pension. Yet men born during the same period will be eligible, as men currently retire later than women. When McClymont brought up this discrepancy on 14 January in the House of Commons, Pensions Minister Steve Webb responded: "The changes are based on state pension age, and as he knows, that is different for men and women so the implications are also different." In another debate on 28 January, Webb further explained that the changes cannot be implemented earlier because it will be 2018 by the time women retire at age 65, the same age as men. "The only way we could treat men and women identically would be to delay until 2019, but if we did that many more women would be excluded," he said. The reforms will come as a further blow for women who have been affected by the government's aim to increase the retirement age for women from 60 to 65 by 2018. Many women have had to wait longer for their pension but will retire before the changes are made. Women who retire after April 2017 may also be negatively impacted by the new system. In order to receive the £144-a-week pension in full, recipients must have 35 years of National Insurance contributions. This is five more than currently needed to receive the full state pension. Additional years can be gained by making voluntary contributions, but women may find this difficult to afford as they tend to earn less than men and work less so that they can look after their children. The government claims that mothers who have stayed at home will benefit from the revised system. "This reform is good news for women who for too long have been effectively punished by the current system," said Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith. "The single tier will mean that more women can get a full state pension in their own right, and stop this shameful situation where they are let down by the system when it comes to retirement because they have taken time out to care for their family." The Institute for Fiscal Studies has found that these women will actually only benefit in the short run. Initially, mothers will have a higher pension, as the state pension amount will increase and the number of years spent raising children will count towards National Insurance contributions. However, mothers will end up worse off in the long run as the government intends to decrease the amount of extra pension income that is currently allocated to certain groups of people. The Institute for Fiscal Studies concluded: 'In the long run, the reform will not increase pension accrual for part time workers and women who take time out to care for children. 'In fact, in common with almost everyone else, these groups would end up with a lower pension at the state pension age under the new system than they would do under the current system.' The Work and Pensions Committee will review the government's proposals and their implications for women over the next few weeks.  |
| Posted: 20 Feb 2013 04:18 AM PST
Did you know that very close to 1 in 12 people believe victims of sexual assault can sometimes be held responsible for their own assault? According to a recent paper from the Office of National Statistics (ONS) on the latest Crime Survey for England and Wales, that many believed that victims bear most or total responsibility if they were drunk, taken drugs or had flirted with their attacker beforehand. This worrying finding must be publicly discussed. However, the television breakfast show Daybreak approached the finding and indeed the whole paper with a question that reduced both to a rehash of the sexist prejudice that women in particular can sometimes be blamed when they are assaulted. Before an episode of the ITV show on 15 February, Daybreak's official Twitter account tweeted: "Controversial question – can women who are drunk or flirty ever be blamed for being attacked? Some viewers said yes in survey, yr thoughts?" A very similar status question was posted on its Facebook page. Many viewers hit back angrily, pointing out that it is downright illegal, rather than merely ‘controversial’, to attack women and the question implied that blaming female victims of sexual assault is sometimes legitimate. One reply to Daybreak’s tweet said: “@Daybreak Attacking women is illegal. Just FYI. Doesn’t actually matter what your viewers think. #everydaysexism #ffs” Another commented: “@Daybreak by asking the question rather than condemning the answers you made your position really clear… and that’s what’s so troubling” What was Daybreak's response? It "clarified" that it chose to ask the question "based on the results of a survey conducted by the Office of National Statistics (ONS) last week which were widely reported in the media." However, what Daybreak doesn't seem to have attempted to clarify was why on earth it chose to focus on the responsibility of female sexual assault victims in particular. It is true that the ONS paper reported that around 1 in 12 of the people surveyed thought that the victim is mostly or even completely responsible for someone sexually assaulting or raping them in certain circumstances. And the report said 5.8 per cent thought the victim to blame if they were drunk, 7.7 per cent if the victim was under the influence of drugs and 7.1 if the victim had been flirting heavily with their attacker beforehand. But the gender of the victim was not specified in the question asked by the ONS survey. Why then did Daybreak decide to focus its question on female victims' behaviour before they were sexually assaulted? Although women are much more likely than men to be sexually assaulted – 3 per cent of women in the survey reported being sexually assaulted last year, compared to 0.3 per cent of men – the gender of the victim is irrelevant to whether or not they are to blame. The only person to blame for sexual assault is the attacker. By responding to the survey by focusing on female victims' contested responsibility, Daybreak only succeeded in trotting out the tired prejudices that the – female – victim can be blamed and that the female victim’s behaviour before being sexually assaulted deserves particular attention. There were many other troubling findings Daybreak could have highlighted from the survey. Is it more important to construct a damaging debate asking if women can ever be blamed for being attacked than to ask why there has been no statistically significant change in sexual assault figures between surveys carried out in 2004/05 and 2010/11? And what about the fact that 38 per cent of victims of serious sexual assault – with sexual assault defined as rape or assault by penetration and including attempts – questioned had not previously told anyone about it, while only 13 per cent had told the police? Or that over half of the victims of serious sexual assault suffer mental or emotional problems? There is a lot that needs to be examined from the findings, and many issues about which everyone needs to be made more aware. But if responses to such findings merely ask if we can ever blame women who are sexually assaulted, all that starts is an argument that at worst will mean the statistics are bleaker next time around.  |
| Brits more accepting of abortion Posted: 20 Feb 2013 02:05 AM PST
Despite several prominent MPs recently speaking out in favour of lowering the abortion time limit, it would appear that public attitudes towards abortion in Britain have become more accepting, not less. A recent YouGov poll found that only 7 per cent of respondents wanted a ban on abortion, down from 12 per cent in 2005. The poll also saw support for the current law rise by about one third, to 57 per cent of those who expressed a view. Last October supporters of abortion rights were dismayed to see Minister for Women and Equalities Maria Miller advocate for a reduction in the abortion time limit. Miller claimed that "medical science has moved on". It seems the public might be better educated than one of their MPs, as advances in medical science have in fact had no effect on the survival rate of babies born under 24 weeks. Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt went even further a few days later by saying: "My own view is that 12 weeks is the right point" to reduce the abortion limit to. Fortunately for pro-choice campaigners, it appears Hunt's views do not align with those of the people. The time limit on abortion has remained static since the Human Embryology and Human Fertilisation Act passed in 1990. The time limit was reduced from 28 weeks, which it had been set at when abortion was decriminalised by the 1967 Abortion Act, as there was new evidence that babies were now surviving after 24 weeks. Abortions may still be performed after 24 weeks if there is a serious risk to the life of the mother. The issue was last officially reviewed in parliament in 2008 when there was a free vote in the Commons over the abortion time limit. David Cameron, then the Opposition Leader, backed a reduction to 20 weeks, as did Conservative MP Nadine Dorries, who has been notoriously outspoken on the issue. Other MPs wanted to go further and reduce the limit to 12 weeks, MPs including three senior Catholic MPs. Interestingly, a 2011 poll of the public which looked at both attitudes towards abortion and voting intentions found little correlation between the two, with Labour supporters as likely to be for or against abortion as Conservatives. The recent survey of public attitudes towards abortion stated that "people who were most likely to be hostile towards [abortion] were those who … rely most strongly on scripture or religious teaching, and whose religion has a strong anti-abortion message". It counts "Catholics, Muslims and Baptists" among those most hostile towards abortion. However, despite Catholic teaching that abortion is always wrong, only 14 per cent of Catholics supported an outright ban on abortion. Let's hope that despite their own personal politics, our government listens to a public which largely believes the UK’s abortion law is fine as it is.  |
Trotting out the tired prejudice that the – female – victim of an assault can be blamed.
| 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 | |