Women's Views on News |
| PETA really needs to learn a new trick Posted: 10 Sep 2013 08:29 AM PDT
Yet again, the animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) couldn't quite campaign on an animal rights issue without using women's bodies. They wrote an open letter to the National Buffalo Wing Festival – a 2-day event in Buffalo, New York, that features a series of chicken wing-eating contests – urging the organisers to prevent pregnant women from participating in the event, 'for the sake of their son's sex organs'. PETA’s objection to the event was that ‘chickens suffer every day of their abbreviated lives, including when they’re hung upside down by their legs from conveyor belts before their throats are cut. They’re also often submerged in scalding-hot water to be defeathered while still conscious’. Aiming to discourage participants, PETA pointed out that women eating poultry during their pregnancy are more likely to have boys with smaller penises and blocked arteries at birth in both sexes. Yet according to Women’s Health, the study PETA based their claims on did not in fact examine chicken consumption. It did say that prenatal exposure to phthalates can affect boys reproductively. Exposure to phtalates, a chemical that has raised concerns among consumer health advocates, comes from many sources, including plastic food containers, personal care products and foods. In the list of foods that contain phtalates, chicken doesn't come close to the top, so PETA's claims were tenuous at best. PETA has traditionally relied on objectifying women's bodies to promote its values, whether it was in the famous 'I'd rather go naked than wear fur' advertisement with models or Pamela Anderson portrayed as a piece of meat. Then there was the time they ran an advertisement against fur, using the concept of it being unattractive for women to have pubic hair, to get their message across. Or the time they promoted vegetarianism by mocking overweight women, comparing them to beached whales. Billboards featured an overweight woman in a bikini on a beach and the caption read, 'Lose the blubber: go vegetarian'. The chicken wings stunt is just the latest in a series of campaigns that seek through shame or guilt to get women to adopt the lifestyle choices PETA promotes. Not content with systematically degrading and objectifying women, PETA also ran what they called a 'tongue-in-cheek' advertisement playing on domestic abuse. The advertisement, which argued that becoming a vegan improved a man's sexual prowess, showed a woman in a neck brace and with bruises, staggering down a road. The narrative was in the style of a typical public service announcement. The punchline was that the woman was in fact suffering from “BWVAKTBOOM – “boyfriend went vegan and knocked the bottom out of me” – her injuries coming from her boyfriend's new-found vigour in the sack. While PETA has become famous for these tactics, the mystery remains as to why it seems so difficult for them to campaign for animal rights without degrading women. It should, surely, be possible to campaign against animal cruelty without relying on women's bodies as a prop and on their objectification as a media tactic. Other animal rights groups have successfully campaigned without resorting to such low-hand tactics. The ongoing campaign against the badger cull has employed a range of strategies. Activists have launched petitions, which has become the first ever e-petition to top 300,000 signatures, involved celebrities such as Queen's Brian May in their campaign and released an anti-culling pop song. They have held candle-lit vigils and marched at night. They have even found time to fight right-wing extremists. They have managed to do all of that without objectifying or degrading women. Maybe PETA could learn a trick or two from them.  |
| Posted: 10 Sep 2013 03:00 AM PDT England's women regain the Ashes in spectacular style to match the achievement of the men’s team. After the test match at Wormsley was drawn, there all was to play for in the remaining limited overs matches. Each side was awarded two points for the draw, but in truth, Australia would have felt hard done by. They were clearly the better side and England were lucky to hang on for the draw. There would have to be significant improvement and a series of good performances from Charlotte Edwards' side in both the One-day Internationals (ODIs) and the T20 matches to regain the Ashes. As we left Lord's after the first ODI on 20 August I feared the worst. The Lord's match was a chance to show a large crowd just what women's cricket is all about. It started well for England, as although Australia won the toss and chose to bat, some fine England bowling, particularly from the fearsome Katherine Brunt, restricted them to 203 for 8. Australia's excellent Meg Lanning was the top scorer with 56. This should have been easily within England's compass. They began confidently with the captain making 61 and opening partner Arran Brindle 21. However, they were never ahead of the required run rate. It all went horribly wrong when the openers were out and England lost their last seven wickets for 34. They were all out for 176 and Australia won the game by 27 runs. It was a great game, but we were left wondering what might have been. England needed to respond, and quickly. And they did. Whatever Edwards and Head of Performance Paul Shaw said to her team after this disappointing defeat, it obviously did the trick. England then proceeded to take their cricket to a different level, winning the next five games in a row to take the series 12-4. The second ODI, at Hove, was another good match. The crowd, and those listening, heaved a sigh of relief as Edwards won the toss and chose to bat. I was not alone in thinking that England were much better at setting the pace rather than having to chase a total. Edwards scored her second consecutive half century as England set a challenging target of 256 for 6. Australia gave it a go, but never looked to be close. A fine 81 from Jess Cameron couldn't see them home and they were all out for 205 in the forty-ninth over. The last ODI also took place at Hove on 25 August. My heart was in my boots as I learnt Australia had won the toss and chosen to bat again. Could we chase down any total, let alone a good one? The weather played a part, as the match was reduced to 36 overs due to a persistently wet outfield. It was important that there be some sort of result as an abandoned match would benefit no-one. Australia posted 203 for 4 with Meg Lanning again top scoring with 64. England, however, weren't going to collapse again and achieved their target with more than two overs to spare. Edwards was dismissed cheaply for eight, but 69 from Heather Knight and 64 from Sarah Taylor paved the way for another England victory, this time by five wickets. It was then on to Chelmsford for the first T20. Normal service was resumed when Charlotte Edwards won the toss again and decided to bat. England scored 146, on the cusp of good, but eminently achievable by the powerful Australians. In the process Sarah Taylor scored 77, the top score by any English woman in a T20. It was tight, but in the end Australia finished 15 runs short, finishing on 131 for 5. England needed one more win from the last two matches to regain the Ashes. Tension was high as the second T20 took place at the Ageas Bowl in Southampton as part of a double-header with England's men. Australia batted first, but suffered from Katherine Brunt's tight bowling as she took 1-15 off her four overs. The batting side crumbled under the pressure, losing five wickets for 35 runs in the last five overs, and posting a meagre total of 127. If ever England were to successfully chase, this should have been it. However, nerves were evident as they slumped to 9-3 and 128 looked some distance away. But a stunning 80 from Lydia Greenway (beating Taylor's record of only the game before) saw England home. England had regained the Ashes with one game to spare. Both the fans and the England team were in joyous, celebratory mood for the last match at Chester-le-Street on 30 August. In the end it was somewhat of a damp squib of a match with Australia scoring a paltry 91-7. Surely England were going to top off the series with another thumping win? England got off to a bad start, though, at 14-3 with Knight going for a duck, pulling a hamstring in the process. Taylor soon followed for 2 and Edwards for 10. It looked as though a fairytale end was not in the offing. But Lydia Greenway and Natalie Sciver were not in the mood to lose it. England won with nearly four overs to spare. England had comprehensively outplayed the Southern Stars 12-4. Player of the series was Heather Knight, who limped up to get her award mainly earned through her outstanding test match innings of 157. It was a thrilling series. If Test Match Special were to award a "champagne moment", it would surely be Sarah Taylor's unbelievable catch in the in second ODI at Hove. Somehow, standing up to the stumps, Taylor anticipated the Jodie Fields' reverse sweep to take a catch which, it was widely agreed, eclipsed anything happening that day in the men's game at the Oval. The new multi-format points system was acclaimed as a great success. It is difficult to surmise what would have happened if the test match had produced a result as the winner would have been six points ahead from the beginning. This could have killed the series or set it up, depending on who you listen to. But it was always going to be tight. Even the most ardent England supporter wouldn't have seen it finishing 12-4. There were impressive crowds and good coverage on both television and radio. My personal barometer of its success was the fact that a picture of Charlotte Edwards and Katherine Brunt celebrating the win appeared on the front page of the Times! It was a stunning day to be at Lord's and I enjoyed every minute of it (except the result), but I can't quite believe that out of ten days of cricket, I saw the only one that England lost…  |
| Gender segregation in apprenticeships Posted: 10 Sep 2013 01:09 AM PDT
Alison Johnstone, Green MSP for Lothian and a member of Holyrood’s economy committee, has challenged Scotland’s First Minister Alec Salmond to do more to help women play a full part in economic recovery. She highlighted the fact that the UK government’s welfare reforms are having a significant impact on women, including for many the loss of financial independence. And she pointed towards childcare and apprenticeships as key areas for the Scottish government to tackle. “Investing in a transformative, affordable childcare system would provide hundreds of jobs and would enable thousands of women to pursue work and education, boosting economic recovery,” Johnstone said. “I pointed out to the First Minister that the most popular modern apprenticeships are severely gender segregated and that while the number of women apprentices may have increased women are still doing the poorly paid jobs.” “I’m glad the First Minister accepted my point that sectors such as construction remain male-dominated and I will continue to press for women to be given the chance to play a full and fair part in Scotland's economic recovery.” The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) in Scotland, is the independent advocate for equality and human rights in Britain. Their report on inequalities in accessing Modern Apprenticeships, the Scottish government’s flagship training programme, showed that currently: • disabled people take up less than 0.5 per cent of all apprenticeship places • gendered segregation in apprenticeships is still unacceptably high – less than 2 per cent of engineering or construction placements go to women • Scotland is the only part of the UK where men's access to apprenticeships is higher than women's • ethnic minorities also have poor access – less than 2 per cent of all apprenticeships in Scotland are offered to ethnic minorities • although men are increasingly moving into 'traditionally female' apprenticeship programmes, e.g. the care sector, there is no evidence of women moving into 'traditionally male' apprenticeships Speaking about the report, Alastair Pringle, the EHRC’s director in Scotland, said: “At a time when the government is moving people from welfare into work, the accessibility of training for skills is essential. “Our report shows that out of the 26,000 apprenticeships placements available in Scotland, only 74 disabled people have been able to take up places.” The report also shows that occupational segregation remains a significant issue in apprenticeships programmes, with little or no progress being made in trying to open up employment opportunities in traditionally "male" sectors of the economy such as engineering and construction, where men occupy 98 per cent of the available apprenticeship placements. The research, conducted by Heriot-Watt University for the EHRC, draws on both official and unpublished data. As well as focussing on Modern Apprenticeships, the research also looks at the extent to which Scotland's industries are aware of equality issues and the extent to which conditions can be placed on contractors to drive up their equality performance. Pringle went on to say: “The Scottish government has invested a great deal of money in developing the Scottish economy by boosting the skills of its workforce. “It is therefore disappointing to see that the profile of apprenticeship opportunities is a very old one – men doing the "heavy work" like building; women doing the "softer work" like caring and teaching; and disabled people not having much work at all. “If we are to emerge from the recession successfully, we need to harness the talents of all of Scotland's people. This report shows that we are missing a trick by failing to maximise the potential of all Scotland's people. “We believe that the government needs to demand greater effort from their contractors to drive up the representation of ethnic minorities and disabled people and to open up occupations which have traditionally been "men only" to young women apprenticeships.”  |
| 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 | |