Saturday, March 9, 2013

Women's Views on News

Women's Views on News

Do men really write better than women?

Posted: 08 Mar 2013 09:00 AM PST

BelljarfirsteditionThe lingering myth that women’s writing is ‘gendered’ hurts all readers.

It was the 200th anniversary of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice last month.

Austen, now one of Britain's most well known and loved authors, was very nearly overlooked – like most women writers of the 19th century… and the 20th.

Today, Austen is one of 51 female writers in our high school National English Curriculum – on a list that includes 148 men.

We teach about ten male Nobel laureates, but just two female.

When it comes to literature, we are still teaching our children that a man's voice is better.

Male writers are neutral, genderless, timeless; women writers are just that, women.

Although Norman Mailer's infamous admonishment of women's writing as 'Quaintsy… frigid… [or] stillborn' was printed in the 1950s, the sentiment is still very much alive.

In 2011, Nobel Laureate V.S. Naipaul caused a storm when he dismissed women's writing as inescapably handicapped by 'sentimentality'.

Yes, that was 2011.

In his view, no woman in history is his equal, not even Jane Austen.

From high school reading lists to leading literary magazines, the idea is reinforced that the 'heavy hitters' are men and that topics associated with men are of intrinsically more value.

Men write most literary reviews, and, unsurprisingly, they mostly review books by other men.

In last month's 50th anniversary edition of the pre-eminent New York Review of Books (NYRB) just a third of reviewers, and a quarter of the reviewed, were women.

And if this internalized perception was not enough, however, marketing does the rest.

The publishing industry suffers – badly – from an unimaginative case of "girls like pink, boys like blue".

As Fatima Ahmed of the London Review of Books recently observed, we are increasingly 'treating fiction by women as a genre, which no man could be expected to read and which women will only know is meant for them if they can see a woman on the cover'.

The idea of a gendered cover has recently received much media attention in light of the controversial rebranding of Sylvia Plath's The Bell Jar.

In this case, publishers reduced the novel from serious fiction to what is referred to as ‘chick-lit’ with a photo cover depicting a woman doing her make-up.

The book is the story of a woman’s descent into mental illness; lipstick and powder doesn’t really come into it.

In any way whatsoever.

However, Plath's book is just one of many receiving the 'pink' treatment.

Books by women are invariably marketed as romantic, domestic or ‘girly’.

Female writers regularly struggle to break through the chick-lit barrier their cover restricts them to.

These consistently include ‘effeminate’ script and domestic or romantic imagery of varying degrees of subtlety: a rose, a tea set, a girl in a garden.

Men, as a rule, still don't pick up swirly, sparkly or otherwise lady-branded books, no matter how well respected the author.

Marvel Comics, which has a largely male client base, recognises this.

Their series on 'She-Hulk', chronicling the exploits of a strong, intelligent super heroine, has long been illustrated by She-Hulk's pornified form bursting through the page.

But now there's a girls' version, adorned with a stick of lipstick.

It shouldn't be surprising then, that although women read books by both men and women, men rarely reciprocate.

Over the last twenty years, women novelists have made up 34 per cent of winners for top literary awards – namely the Nobel, Pen, Man Booker, Pulitzer, and Costa Awards.

This is a significant increase on the previous twenty years.

In 2012, all five Costa Book Prizes went to women, as did the prestigious Man Booker and Pen/Faulkner Awards. We also took home the last Pulitzer for Fiction.

These prizes show how public pressure and awareness have made it impossible for the publishing industry and its affiliates to simply overlook women's contributions.

However the continued stereotyping of female novels and their readers not only means that men are, by and large, missing out on some of the greatest fiction being produced today, but also reflects a broader perception of women and girls as simple and superficial.

We can change this.

It's estimated that women buy 60 to 70 per cent of novels, so let us speak with our feet – and our wallets.

We must champion the great works of women in schools and through prizes, encourage booksellers to carry gender-neutral covers, and make a stink when women's books are given ridiculous, reductionist covers.

That would be a good start.

What do women want tomorrow?

Posted: 08 Mar 2013 08:30 AM PST

question-markNot laws and processes which are representative of some bygone society.

Over the last few weeks some of us have been digesting its exposure to the realities of female representation in British politics.

The Counting Women In campaign released a damning report not only revealing decreasing or barely moving stats on women in politics but touched upon all industries ranging from the police and the armed forces to the media.

And the results of the Sex and Power 2013: Who runs Britain? report are in and it doesn’t look good.

Only one in four MPs are women.

In comparison to our European counterparts Britain comes in a tragic third from bottom, with only 22.5 per cent of our representatives female .

Women make up just 5 per cent of daily national newspaper editors and only 10 per cent make up the CEOs of our banks.

Last week Women's Views on News reported on the shocking statistics and reminded its readers of David Cameron's pledge that 1/3 of his ministers would be women by 2015.

This pledge seems more like a distant promise judging by the Who runs Britain? research, not to mention the latest reshuffle which saw more women axed from positions of power.

There are many things to be done such as  positive discrimination and support for the women of tomorrow.

Yet what has nt been asked in any of the media surrounding the report is, are any of these senior posts appealing to the women of tomorrow?

Looking at the working culture of Britain today we witness a strange hypocrisy peppered across the working life of a woman.

As young women we are told to reach for top and we respond by making up the majority of UCAS applications and step out into the world of work with better grades.

However, once the prep work is over here we stand in the promised land of employment and we are met with not only the cultural disparities which have followed us throughout our young lives – such as the uncensored sexualisation of women in the media – but laws and processes which are representative of some bygone society.

It feels like women are being set up to fail, as parental leave, childcare and flexible working for both men and women are almost non-starters and make equality harder – and pinning Britain to the bottom of the European league table once again.

It's true we can have it all.

No one is telling us we can't, but who wants it when modern women appear to live in limbo hovering in a state of dissatisfaction as they are now expected to do it all or drastically sacrifice personal success in order to become, professionally, who they want to be.

This isn’t just a problem women in Britain face.

The American CEO of Facebook, Sheryl Sandberg, continually reels off statistic after statistic demonstrating that modern women face a cultural working hurdle.

Sandberg points out that from being trained in self-depreciation and to attribute success to others rather than ourselves to working the same hours as men do plus completing most of the house work and child care means we are working harder just to achieve equality.

For the women of tomorrow the picture society is painting of women in power actually becomes a deterrent for aspiring women to reach the top of the career ladder thus leaving the situation unchanged.

Our needs are clearly not [re]presented where it matters.

To address the issues raised in many a statistical report we must address cultural attitudes and the laws which do not at present create an appealing picture for future leaders.

Quite simply, if they go on unchanged we will see the numbers of women in power continually decrease.

The case for naming rape defendants

Posted: 08 Mar 2013 03:58 AM PST

gavelOther victims find the courage to speak out when they know that their rape was not an isolated incident.

Head of the Bar Council, Maura McGowan QC, has said that alleged rapists should be given anonymity until they are convicted.

Raising the debate again.

Speaking on BBC Radio 5 recently, McGowan said that: “Until [defendants] have been proven to have done something as awful as this – I think there is a strong argument in cases of this sort, because they carry such a stigma with them, to maintain the defendant’s anonymity, until he is convicted.”

Under the 1976 Sexual Offences Act, rape defendants were granted anonymity, however this privilege was overturned in 1988.

When the current coalition came to power in 2010, their plans to reintroduce the measure were scrapped when they came under widespread pressure.

But an accusation of rape does not carry the damaging long-term social stigma claimed by McGowan.

Celebrities including footballers, musicians, actors and authors who have been accused of rape in the past do not seem to have suffered long term.

Robin van Persie, for example, faced rape allegations in 2006 and has since gone on to be 2012 Football Writer's Player of the Year, an honour that he is expected to win again this year.

Actor Craig Charles is now a familiar face to fans of Coronation Street. He was acquitted of rape in 1995.

And record mogul Louis Walsh won damages after a man wrongly accused him of sexual assault in a Dublin nightclub – reminding us that this issue should not be played out in simple heteronormative terms.

While false accusations don't always destroy lives, each of those named above has described the psychological impact of wrongful claims, so wouldn't McGowan's proposals just even up the situation by affording defendants the same anonymity as their accusers?

That is certainly one way of looking at it.

But why single out rape as carrying a greater social stigma than other crimes where defendants aren't privileged with anonymity, say murder or child neglect?

Holly Dustin, director of the End Violence Against Women (EVAW) campaign, argues that this is an inevitable consequence of the male-stream media fixation with stories about false rape allegations; she calls it 'the 'women cry rape' theme.'

Isn't it enough that victims in rape cases are often blamed for drinking alcohol, walking alone, or flirting with their accused assaulter – the "they got what was coming to them" mentality?

The prevalence of the 'women cry rape theme' in the media continues to cast doubt on the reliability of victims, taking victim blaming a stage further by effectively exonerating the accused assailant in the eyes of the reading public.

In which other crimes do we see this kind of routine reversal of victim and aggressor?

The myth that a huge proportion of rape allegations are stories made up by manipulative fantasists is not borne out by the statistics, and there is no evidence of higher rates of false allegation in rape than for any other crime.

Is it any wonder, however, that nearly three-quarters of women feel that the media is unsympathetic to those who report rape to the authorities?

Sadly, the 'women cry rape' theme has been given renewed vigor since McGowan's comments.

Writing for the Daily Mail, Peter Lloyd suggests that the current legal system affords 'women all the power'.

Granting anonymity for defendants, he maintains, would 'deter anyone from making false claims out of spite, seeing the accuracy of convictions rise – not fall.'

Not only does his inference that women are the only victims of sexual assault deny the existence of the estimated 72,000 men who are sexually assaulted each year, but his suggestion that survivors of sexual assault have 'all the power' shows a complete lack of understanding of the situation.

According to statistics released by the Ministry of Justice, the Office for National Statistics and the Home Office this year, an estimated 404,000 women are victims of sexual assault each year, yet only 15 per cent of them report the incident to the police.

The reasons most frequently cited for not reporting the crime were that it was 'embarrassing', they 'didn't think the police could do much', or that they saw it as a 'private/family matter’.

The latter of these is telling, when you consider that 9 out of 10 victims of rape know their attacker.

Of the small proportion of rapes reported to the authorities, nearly 1 in 10 – or 7.2 per cent – were later recorded as 'no-crimes' because victims retracted the allegations.

We can only speculate on the pressure put on victims by abusers or, in the case of one south London specialist rape unit, pressure from authorities to improve clean-up rates.

In the end, only 2 out of 5 women secure a conviction against their rapist.

This is a statistic that shames the whole British justice system, from the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, and the courts, to the government.

Nevertheless, were the anonymity of alleged defendants brought into force, it is a very real possibility that even fewer rapists would be brought to justice.

In the case of high profile serial suspects like Jimmy Savile, as well as those less well-known, other victims often find the courage to speak out when they know that their story is not an isolated incident.

This was proven again this week with Cardinal Keith O’Brien, who has now admitted he was guilty of sexual misconduct throughout his career in the Roman Catholic church: the men who spoke out about him did so once each had realised he was not the only one.

Jill Saward, victim of the Ealing Vicarage rape in 1986, told the Guardian, "the key reason the system should remain in place is that we know that rapists rarely have one victim.

"Many people feel their case is too weak on its own and if the name of the suspect is made public it brings out other victims."

Which makes the naming very, very important.

Why we need International Women’s Day

Posted: 08 Mar 2013 01:04 AM PST

feminism, women for women internationalAnd then let’s remind ourselves of women and their rights every day.

Guest post by Brita Fernandez Schmidt, executive director for Women for Women International.

Why do we need an International Women’s Day? – after all, there is no International Men’s Day.

The answer is not as simple as it appears at first glance.

Why do we need one day a year that reminds us of how important women are to society when it should be obvious and we should acknowledge it every day?

However, having an International Women's Day is also a sign of how far we have advanced in our striving to create a society where women and men have equal rights and equal access to resources.

Why?

Because up until recently, we did not have this day, or the right to vote, or legislation outlawing violence against women, the list is so long.

For me International Women's Day is a day where we should celebrate how far we have come – a day that symbolises that change is possible.

One hundred and three years ago a woman named Clara Zetkin, leader of the ‘Women’s Office’ for the Social Democratic Party in Germany, tabled the idea of an International Women’s Day.

She proposed that every year in every country on the same day there should be a celebration – a Women’s Day and occasion to press for women's demands.

The conference of over 100 women from 17 countries, representing unions, socialist parties, working women’s clubs, and including the first three women elected to the Finnish parliament, greeted Zetkin’s suggestion with unanimous approval and thus International Women’s Day was created.

Today, it is still a day where we call for change and for equality.

And today, it is also a day where we are connected – all over the world – not just in the demands we make, but also in our celebrations of all we have achieved.

Because on this day the media can and will focus on women, it is an important moment to shine the light on women's stories, their needs and the challenges and injustices we still face today.

As an organisation that focuses on women and their plight in countries affected by conflict every day of the year, Women for Women International too will use this opportunity to highlight injustice, inequality and the need for change.

I would like you to think of the women in South Sudan, their hopes and dreams for their new country, and more than anything their hope for peace.

And I ask you to reach out and invest in this hope and help us support more women in South Sudan on International Women's Day.

But I also ask you to do this after the day is over.

Because unlike politicians who use International Women's Day as an opportunity to make announcements around women and equality to have the box ticked until next year, I am going to tick the box every day!

I cannot make up my mind about International Women's Day.

I love it and I hate it.

I think we need more publicity about women, their role in society, their thoughts and experiences but we need that every day.

I think we need more opportunities to connect worldwide and show ourselves, and of course the other 49 per cent of the world population, that we are not alone, that there is strength in numbers and that if we connect, change becomes more possible.

So here it is then – let’s celebrate International Women's Day on the 8 March,

But let’s also celebrate on the 9th and the 10th and all the rest of the days

And let’s remind ourselves of women and their rights every day.

In fact, let’s commit to that on International Women's Day – that women’s rights are not just for 8 March, just like a puppy is not just for Christmas.