Women's Views on News |
- Thatcher and the shadow of the workhouse
- Survivors present petition to Irish government
- New task for the next wave of feminism
| Thatcher and the shadow of the workhouse Posted: 09 Apr 2013 08:30 AM PDT
My Grandad once said to me that he and his family were one step away from the workhouse. For me this was astounding – workhouses were something that I had heard about at school and happened aeons ago, surely? But no. Born in Sparkbrook Street in Coventry in 1913 in a privately rented two-up two-down with a privy out the back and a coal fire, my grandad was just one of the working class poor of the time. Scrabbling for an existence, living hand to mouth, with a father who was terrified of losing his job because that meant the workhouse. Meanwhile my Gran, whose mother had died in childbirth along with a third child, was living with a cruel stepmother and forced into service, and indications were that she had been sexually assaulted. As I grew up, my Grandad, who was a Labour man through and through, often talked about how hard the second world war years had been, living with rationing and fear, and how wonderful it had been to watch the Beveridge report brought to life by Labour consolidating the Liberal government's previous welfare reforms. That the Welfare State was born. Used to never going to the doctor because there was no money to do so, frightened of hospitals, because that 'is where you go to die', the Welfare State and the 'cradle to grave' spirit behind it marked a new era of care for the working class. From 1945 onwards, my Grandad's life improved: full employment, council houses, free medical care, free education, college day release, qualifications. Then his children grew up, the eldest two going to grammar school on a scholarship, then after studying at the local technical college, joined the car industry. The third son went to University. University! My Grandparents were so proud – that a child of a couple that were one step away from the workhouse in their youth saw one of their own go to university was a shining moment in their lives. Grandchildren arrived, me being one of them. My mum and dad, brought up in a council house, were the first couple in the family to buy their own home. Everyone old enough to work had a job, and when I left school in 1977, I went straight into the GEC (General Electric Company) as an office junior, with the expectation that I would progress. Free day release to college! At the GEC there was a strong union presence and on my Grandad's advice I instantly joined the union. I became a union rep for my floor and found myself face to face with the bosses – all men – who I was scared to say anything to half the time. But I got used to it and realised that the union was there to protect worker's rights. For example, one woman had been diagnosed with cancer and the GEC wanted to sack her: the union fought and won a scaled down payment scheme so she could have time to recover and return. But then came 1979. Thatcher. The woman who, as Secretary of State for Education and Science for Heath’s Government, axed free milk for the under 7s in 1971. This callous act resulted in the name that she will always be remembered for, not least because her ethos never changed: Thatcher the Milk Snatcher. My granddad was horrified and warned us all that we had better start paying for private medical care because the Tories would destroy the NHS. And we had all better make sure we were in a union, because the tide was about to turn and being a union member would be the only thing that stood between us and the sack on the whims of a boss. Still naive, I argued against him – ‘surely not Grandad? People won't stand for that’. He said 'Jane, people are greedy. They have become used to owning, and expecting to own, consumer goods and they won't give them up for anything. ‘And if that means allowing businesses to hire and fire workers as they please in their chase for profit to produce even more things we don’t need, then so be it'. And so we saw the start of the privatisation of our utilities and a deregulation of the financial markets. Oh, yes and the promotion of 'individual responsibility', in this case an attempt to impose a sense of responsibility defined by the rich as 'I don't depend on anyone/merit is all/and everyone has the same chances as I do’ onto the working classes who were living in, and trying to maintain their distance from, the memory of the workhouse. Time moved on, and 1984 arrived. The miner's strike. Being in the union meant that we were called upon to support the miners by collecting for the wives and children to keep them from starving, and going on the picket line and keeping up the support for the strike. As union members we knew that if Thatcher won, the unions, and the working class were doomed. For me, aware that Thatcher's policies were beginning to bite, it was a wake up call. My most abiding memories of that time was shock at some of my colleagues who refused to give to the collections for the miner’s families. I just couldn’t comprehend that people, of whatever political persuasion, would allow families to go hungry. I just couldn’t comprehend it. The other shock was the media coverage. Being a union rep meant I had access to the union newspapers and union feedback about the strike. When I compared this news with the mainstream media coverage there was no relationship at all. That is when I realised that the media would, and could, lie with impunity. And when the police were sent in to deal with the strikers, I realised that the working class had no power against the wealthy because the wealthy held all the cards. The miners lost. Then came the poll tax riots. Mass redundancies. Pitifully paid YTS schemes for young people and the consequent loss of apprenticeship schemes. Selling off council houses. Attacks on Child Benefit. And the triumph of materialistic individualism – the price of everything and the value of nothing. For those of us who had always been socialists these were dark, dark, years. All the respect that we had been given through the cradle to grave ethos was being eroded, and the feeling that the working class were people who had agency in society disappeared. As a woman, my feeling was that the gains that second wave feminists had made before Thatcher came to power were also being eroded, as we were swept away in the rush by the Tories to put us, working class women and men, in our places. Fast forward to 1997: Blair. Oh how we rejoiced. Labour back in power. Thank you. But. Blair was Thatcher in disguise. For me the first impact was the abolishing of the single parent benefit – I was a single parent – then university fees – I had just taken redundancy to finally follow my dream of getting a degree. Then came the Iraq war. And then PFI initiatives, which meant, and still mean, that the Coventry sick, their visitors and the staff who look after them have to pay astronomical parking fees to some private company that the Blair government sold the car parks to. But, even then, I felt safer with a Labour government – there were tax credits – aberrant as it may be to subsidise private companies who should be paying a living wage – but hey now the unions had no teeth, who was going to make them? – which allowed me to work part-time and look after my son. And although the welfare state was constantly under attack by the media and various rich men's blue sky think tanks, we all knew that Labour wouldn't dare. They wouldn't dare destroy the welfare state. 2010. Coalition government – my heart sang for the briefest of moments – and I missed my Grandad who died in 2003. We always sat up and watched the elections – even if we weren't together, we would phone each other when the results were in. I watched and hoped that the Tories would not be chosen by the Lib Dems – the founders of the Welfare State – surely not. But yes they did. And here we are. The most vulnerable members of our society – and this includes all of us who don't have money – are dying because of Thatcher's spawn of a government. Food banks are now anticipating feeding 290,000 people in 2013 and are an accepted part of our high street. Meanwhile the bloated wealthy are laughing all the way to the bank thanks to Thatcher's deregulation of the financial sector. So, when people ask why are people celebrating the death of Thatcher – we are not. We are saying good riddance to a woman who systematically destroyed the working class in this country by taking away our power to fight. And we are expressing our anger at her spawned millionaire government as we watch helplessly as the bankers get richer, and Cameron rewards them and his cronies with ever more tax cuts, as people who have disabilities, who are old, who are not rich, die. My grandad would turn in his grave if he knew how close the shadow of the workhouse is getting. We are angry.  |
| Survivors present petition to Irish government Posted: 09 Apr 2013 04:40 AM PDT
A petition has been presented to the Irish government calling on it to set aside the statute bar so survivors of symphysiotomies can seek compensation. Symphysiotomy was a medical procedure carried out in Irish hospitals largely between the 1960s and 1980s. It involved the sawing of the pregnant woman's pubic bone in half to open the birth canal. This was ostensibly done to facilitate an easier delivery but, influenced by the strict Catholic doctrine of the time, had darker undertones. A symphysiotomy was an alternative to a Caeserean section, which was seen by many at the time as a form of artificial birth control. By sawing open the pubic bone, a woman could in theory carry and deliver limitless pregnancies. More often than not, the procedure was carried out while the pregnant woman was giving birth, and she was given very little or no information as to what was happening. It was a painful and invasive practice and left its victims with a multitude of permanent, adverse side effects. Victims have suffered incontinence, severe back pain, difficulties walking, and prolapsed organs. Many have suffered psychological and neurological problems because of the way in which the procedure was carried out. One survivor, Máirín O'Moore, described the procedure as "barbaric." It was carried out on her during the birth of her first child in 1950 and it left her with permanent ailments, affecting her ability to work. She said, "It was a nightmare, you couldn't explain it. An actual saw was used on my pelvis. [...] An animal would not have the same thing done to it." A group representing the approximately 200 mainly elderly women described such a step as "the only thing the Dáil can do in a practical way to assist survivors". The petition was signed by over 22,000 people, among them over 470 doctors who described the practice as "butchery" and "medieval." One went as far as to liken the practice to that of Nazi doctor Josef Mengele, who carried out ghastly experiments on prisoners of concentration camps during the Second World War. It is estimated that symphysiotomies were performed on around 1,500 women between the 1960s and 1980s, although the procedure has been carried out as recently as 2000. Earlier this year, a woman successfully sued the HSE (Health Service Executive) for damages following a symphysiotomy carried out during the delivery of her second baby in February 2000. Tracey Nelson alleged that Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda, Co. Louth, was negligent in the management of her treatment during her pregnancy, failing to diagnose a certain physical dysfunction and thereby prevent the condition escalating to the point that a symphysiotomy was carried out. In ruling in Ms Nelson's favour, the judge said that her life had been "transformed and degraded" and that the procedure was the "primary cause." Ms Nelson, a former chef, has been unable to work since the procedure and has developed depression and constant pain in her joints and muscles. She had to undergo further operations in 2004 and 2007 to stabilise and treat her condition. She was awarded €591,297 in damages. The women who endured the procedure between the 1960s and 1980s want the statute bar to redress lifted so that they can seek compensation for what they suffered. Marie O'Connor, chairwoman of Survivors of Symphysiotomies (SOS) said, "they need to be able to litigate these cases without being held up by points of procedure that are related to time. “The fact is that these operations in many cases took place 40 years ago and it's quite difficult to take action after such a long time so setting aside the statute bar is actually the only thing the Dáil can do in a practical way to assist survivors of symphysiotomies." The group went on to say, "There are no floodgates, only 200 or so mainly elderly women standing, waiting, for justice." Among the doctors who signed the petition, a number were based in the UK and the USA. One, Dr Mayra Luria, based in Florida, wrote, "I did not realise that being a Catholic required total ignorance." Another, Dr David Marchesi from the UK, wrote "Any doctors who took part in these ghastly exercises should be struck off." Dr Nigel Drew, also based in the UK, referred to the death in November 2012 of Savita Halappanavar after she was denied a potentially life-saving abortion, a tragedy which drew international attention and scrutiny of Ireland's draconian abortion regime. He wrote, "Ireland has a despicable record on its care for women, from abuse in children's homes, birth control and pregnancy services. “Many of us are appalled at the recent death of a young woman denied an abortion of her dead baby. Time to abandon the Mediaeval mindset." The petition was presented by Survivors of Symphysiotomy to Sinn Féin deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin and Senator Jillian van Turnhout of the All-Party Victims of Symphysiotomy Oireachtas Support Group. Ó Caoláin said it would be promptly conveyed to Minister for Health Dr James Reilly. He pointed out that "a succession of governments has failed to properly recognise its duty on behalf of all the people of this country [...] “It's very, very important now that every effort is employed to give these women closure. The victims of symphysiotomy deserve no less."  |
| New task for the next wave of feminism Posted: 09 Apr 2013 01:45 AM PDT
Feminism should no longer be focusing on the twentieth century's goal of breaking the glass ceiling. Instead, Dalia Ben-Galim, Associate Director at the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), has said that the next wave of feminism should be ‘less about how women can succeed in a man's game and more about how to change the rules of the game’. The IPPR's report, Great Expectations: Exploring the Promises of Gender Equality, shows that women's earnings have been and remain more unequal than men's and argues that these results suggest the advance of twentieth century feminism has ‘left working class women behind’. ‘Much of the debate about 'gender equality', the report says, is either narrowly focused on women at the top or takes place in the abstract. ‘As such, it leaves us with a weak political voice for the collective demands required to transform the majority of women's lives.’ The analysis shows that women are able to progress in work in ways that would not have been possible previously, but that ‘the lack of higher-skilled jobs that accommodate childcare responsibilities means that many degree-educated women 'downgrade' to relatively low-skilled jobs after having children.’ This leads to a situation whereby women remain concentrated in low-skilled, part-time work, further perpetuating the dearth of women at the top. By focusing on how the 'average woman' compares to the 'average man,' the report argues, the debate is missing the nuance of many women's lives – particularly those who become trapped in ‘poor quality of work at the bottom of the labour market’. And the effects of women's employment today significantly affect their living circumstances in later years. Women make up 84 per cent of workers in personal services and are concentrated in ‘caring, cashiering, catering, cleaning and clerical work’, which is what some have called the 'feminisation of poverty’. Currently, 44 per cent of women in employment in the UK are in part-time work, compared to only 13 per cent of employed men. And, says the report, part-time work in other northern European countries has been used as a tool to retain workers and promote a healthy family life. In the UK, however, the growth of part-time work is due to weak statutory regulation and its promotion since the 1980s as part of a more 'flexible' labour market. The report also points out that ‘space for autonomy and influence in work – an important measure of job quality – has declined over the last 30 years, with the sharpest contractions occurring in female-dominated low-paid sectors.’ And then with childcare costs in the UK second only to Switzerland, women continue to languish in jobs far below their potential because while ‘education levels have improved, [there has been no] corresponding efforts to ensure jobs are designed in ways that support caring responsibilities.’ One relatively recent significant change in the UK jobs market occurred in 2005 with the creation of Women Like Us. Karen Mattison saw the huge gap between the work that women wanted and the work that was available, and set up Women Like Us as a recruitment agency for women looking for quality part-time work. With quality the key to the company's business. Women Like Us expanded, setting up Timewise Jobs in 2012 ‘in recognition of the fact that 'part time' is not just a women's issue. ‘It [part-time work] is attractive to many sectors of society [including] people approaching retirement.’ A startling headline from cultural critic and sociologist Dr Lisa Wade attests to the strength of many women's desire to have options and opportunities for work. ‘Most women would rather divorce than be a housewife’. What can be done to change this disparity between what women want and what is available to them in the world of work? The IPPR report concluded that ‘while there is still a need to mobilise more state resources in some areas, legislative change is not capable of leading a broader transformation in the everyday experiences of sexism and the culture of democratic institutions and the workplace.’ What is needed, then, is ‘a set of policies and positions that seek and support democratic renewal of the economy, society and politics.’ In terms of work for women, that should include an increase in collective power and representation for the poorest paid and least securely employed. ‘Part of the solution should involve raising the quality and status of the jobs that women do’ through an approach that challenges ‘the notion that family and community is the realm of women alone [and] puts care at the centre of how society is organised.’ The report also says that alliances between different social movements are essential in furthering gender equality and says that ‘a key question for gender politics is whether those working for social change are willing or able to rediscover the tradition of organising in the political sphere.’ So: is anyone working for social change willing or able to rediscover the tradition of organising in the political sphere?  |
| 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 | |