Women's Views on News |
- Re-modelling prisons is missing the point
- First shopper’s prize for toy shops awarded
- Looking at ‘Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?’
- Women essential to peace says UN
| Re-modelling prisons is missing the point Posted: 01 Nov 2013 09:15 AM PDT
Feminism in London 2013 returned to London last week for the first time since 2010 with over 850 women attending. The conference’s ‘Women Incarcerated’ workshop focussed on the lack of government progress in following the recommendations of the Corston Report. Jenny Earle, director of the Prison Reform Trust’s Programme to Reduce Women’s Imprisonment spoke at Feminism in London 2013 about how the government is failing women in prison. As the government announced a plan to close two women's prisons, Earle made her views clear on how government strategy is currently missing the point. Only 5 per cent of the entire prison population are women. This is probably not a figure you are familiar with as it is rarely outlined when statistics of prison incidents are discussed. Such statistics mainly refer to the male population, but this is rarely made clear. The female population is often forgotten in discussion and, as Earle highlighted, some focus on women in prison is essential "because if we don't, no one will". A report known as The Corston Review was prompted by six suicides at Styal Prison near Manchester; Baroness Jean Corston, Labour Peer, published it in 2007 and it has become a manifesto for change in this area. Ultimately the report said there was a case for a very different approach when working with women offenders than that taken for men, and especially there was a case for a radical reduction in the imposition of custodial sentences. Most women receive short sentences. Just long enough to blight their lives and those of their children. Earle said: "Most women in prison simply shouldn't be there. Most have been victims of crimes far more serious than the ones they are accused of permitting. "The courts that send women to prison must frankly be in denial about the impact of imprisoning women on children, even if it is for a short period. "Often it is unexpected with unplanned arrangements for children…More than 17,000 children a year are impacted by the imprisonment of their mums." This workshop highlighted how much of women's offending is underpinned by abusive relationships, in both childhood and adult lives, and that women will commit crime to support the men in their lives. Nearly half of women surveyed reported having committed offences to support a partner's drug use – compared to 22 per cent of men supporting a woman’s. Drug mules are a classic case of men's power and exploitation – women find it very hard to make money legally, and very few of the women in prison have educational qualifications and so their employment options are limited. The Prison Reform Trust (PRT) believes that patriarchal power is a major factor in women's imprisonment: with women's continued subordination to men, and men's use of sexual and physical violence against women contributing as major drivers to the woman’s offending behaviour. Earle added: "That's not to deny women's agency or to suggest that all women are innocent, but we have to understand what gets women into trouble and ask whether prison is a just and proportionate option for the offences they commit." The Corston Review recommended alternatives to prison as women are much more of a risk to themselves than to the public, even though they are often kept in ridiculously high security prison environments. "Definitions of and our responses to mental illness are of course highly gendered, but the fact is women should be getting help needed in the community and not just given tranquilisers which is how mental health is dealt with in and out of prison," Earle said. She continued: "There has been no shortage of inquiries, reports and research but there has been a shortage of government commitment to implementing the pretty unanimous recommendation of less use of imprisonment and increased use of dedicated women's services. "The Corston Review is considered the blue print calling for a strategic, holistic…women-centred approach with imprisonment reserved for those serious and violent offenders who pose a threat to the public." Of those women currently incarcerated in prison, Earle outlined how only approximately 3 per cent are considered to pose a significant risk of harm to the public. In total this amounts to only 130 women. It is argued that the remaining women should be having access to alternative sentences and community support at a much earlier stage altogether. The Corston Review recommended a national network of women's centres to provide women with much-needed support and the necessary practical skills they require to lead or rebuild their lives within a non-judgemental framework. Last year the Justice Select Committee's report reviewed the progress of the Corston Report and criticised the government for the 'lack of progress made, lack of leadership and impetus and allowing the agenda to languish'. "Prison is expensive and an ineffective way of dealing with women who do not pose a significant risk of harm to public safety," Earle said. You would think in this era of austerity, significant cuts would be considerd acceptable by closing women's prisons and adopting an alternative approach. Last week the government responded to the report on progress following the Corston Review. Earle commented on that, saying: "It's pretty disappointing as they seem to see prison as the solution to women's offending rather than the problem." It has been announced that two women's prisons - Askham Grange and East Sutton Park – will close. Although this is considered a good thing, both of the proposed closures are small and open prisons. Most women's prisons are not open and are for much higher risk prisoners. It has also been announced that women prisoners will serve their sentences closer to home. This can only be a welcome change, enabling women to have closer and more consistent contact with their families. Women usually have to serve their sentences further away from home than men because there are fewer women’s prisons in the UK. However, no explanation has been given as to how this new proposal will work. The government has also announced that it plans to designate all women's prisons as resettlement prisons but again, no explanation has been offered as to what this means or how the government plans to achieve this. Earle evidenced a very valid point during her presentation at the Feminism in London 2013 conference: the government's approach in adopting the Corston Review recommendations has been incredibly slow and far from elaborate. To focus on re-modelling prisons is to really miss the point and is not consistent with the Corston agenda.  |
| First shopper’s prize for toy shops awarded Posted: 01 Nov 2013 07:38 AM PDT
Children's TV star Sid Sloane caused some half-term excitement recently when he made an appearance at Whirligig toy shop in Brighton. He was there to present the store with the first 'Toymark' award from Let Toys Be Toys, the consumer action group that campaigns against gender stereotyping in toy marketing in the UK and Ireland. Sloane, of CBeebies fame, said: "I was very honoured to be asked to hand out the inaugural Let Toys Be Toys 'Toymark' to Peter Allison, owner of Whirligig. "I grew up in a single-parent family of five and we were lucky to even get toys to play with. But I did have a sister, and she always encouraged me to play with her toys, so I'm all for not being gender-specific when it comes to toys. "I think it's fantastic that Whirligig lets children be children." The Toymark award is a new venture for the campaign which has hit the news several times this year, after getting retailers such as Boots, The Entertainer and Toys R Us agreed to move away from gender stereotypes and to instead sell toys in a way which is more inclusive to both girls and boys. Sloane also said, "I got involved with Let Toys Be Toys because by believing in children and sparking their imaginations we encourage them to shine. "By not reinforcing gender stereotypes upon kids you are promoting free thinking and empowering self-esteem, which is essential to healthy person-centred development.” It was a busy morning, as families with children of all ages came to the presentation. The shop, unlike several large chains, does not split toys in "boys" and "girls" sections, or market by gender, a move welcomed by many families, and the essence of this award. Peter Allison, Whirligig'a owner said: "We’re delighted to get the Toymark. Let Toys Be Toys is a great campaign and we’re really pleased to be part of it. "When a shopper asks us for gift buying advice we don’t ask the child’s gender – we always start with their age and interests. We think children are children." Local resident and Let Toys Be Toys campaigner Rebecca Brueton said: "We've had some great successes in persuading big retailers to drop sexist signs, but we also want to celebrate those shops that already get it right, and that's what the Toymark is all about. "Whirligig is a wonderful example of best practice in toy selling. "It's an amazing treasure trove of beautiful toys, which adults and children are free to browse without having to negotiate limiting and outdated stereotypes. "We're really pleased to be able to award them our very first Toymark, and plan to add many more great shops to our online directory of recommended retailers." Shoppers can nominate UK and Irish-based toy retailers for a Toymark via twitter @lettoysbetoys or on the Let Toys Be Toys website. Let Toys Be Toys is a grassroots consumer campaign, run and organised wholly by volunteers, calling on retailers to stop limiting children's interests by promoting some toys as only suitable for girls, and others only for boys. Over 9,000 people have now signed the Let Toys Be Toys petition on change.org, asking retailers in the UK and Ireland to remove gender labels and organise toys by genre not gender, and the campaign has over 12,000 likes/followers on social media. Do join in.  |
| Looking at ‘Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?’ Posted: 01 Nov 2013 05:10 AM PDT A cross by Amber Leab When I was young, my mom raised me on classic films: Gone with the Wind, Casablanca, The Great Escape, Breakfast at Tiffany's. I fondly remember watching Elizabeth Taylor on-screen. Hollywood royalty, we often think of her arresting beauty, numerous marriages, struggle with alcohol, philanthropy and perfume commercials. It's easy to forget she was an amazing actor; a stellar artist who fluidly exuded strength, sensuality, vitality, passion and pain. Starring in over 50 films, Taylor often chose feminist roles. In National Velvet, she plays a young girl disguising herself as a male jockey to compete. In Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, she's a fiery survivor embracing her sexuality. And in the Texas saga Giant, she plays an educated and outspoken woman, challenging sexism. So after years of my mother urging me, I finally watched Taylor's legendary performance in Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? Based on Edward Albee's Tony Award-winning play (it also won the Pulitzer although it wasn't awarded it due to its vulgarity and sexual themes), the 1966 film follows Martha (Elizabeth Taylor) and George (Richard Burton), a middle-aged married couple. He's an assistant professor at a New England college and she's his wife who happens to be the college president's daughter. Through their vitriolic and bitter alcohol-fueled feuding, they lash out at each other. When a young couple, new professor Nick (George Segal) and his wife Honey (Sandy Dennis), visit their house after a late-night party, Martha and George continue their battle of wits, interchangeably attacking their guests and using them as ammunition, to further lash out at one another. Director Mike Nichols wanted to have real-life married couple Taylor and Burton star in the film, a celebrity couple famous for their off-screen turbulent relationship. Known for its acerbic dialogue, Martha and George sling verbal barbs throughout the movie. Martha continually insults George calling him a "dumbbell," saying he makes her want to "puke." Critics often focus on Martha's vicious verbal attacks but George equals her venom. He says she makes him "sick" and equates her voice to "animal noises." Their guests Nick and Honey initially appear to be the quintessential couple, contrasting Martha and George in appearance, age and demeanor. But as the night wears on and more alcohol is consumed, the problems both couples face come to the surface. I've read that Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? is a feminist film. But when I started watching, I initially thought, what the hell? There's no way this is feminist as it's mired in misogyny! The film follows George's perspective as there are scenes with just George and Martha, George and Nick, or George and Honey. George is almost omnipresent. Also, there a few violent scenes in which George attempts to strangle Martha, pushes her, shoves her against a car and pretends to shoot her with a gun (an umbrella pops out instead of a bullet). But when you begin to peel back the layers, you realize that while it might not be an overtly feminist film, feminist tendencies emerge nonetheless. In the 1960s, the domesticity paradigm for women reigned. In the beginning of the film, Martha tells George about a Bette Davis movie she's trying to remember the name of. She says, "She [Bette Davis] comes home from a hard day at the grocery store." George snidely and skeptically replies, "At the grocery store?" to which she retorts, "Yes, the grocery store. She's a housewife, she buys things." Women were expected to be docile, obedient wives and mothers tending the home. Yet this revealing exchange shows the disdain for domestic duties women in the 60s faced. Policing of sexuality also appears. When Martha calls George a floozy in one scene, Honey jovially and drunkenly retorts, "He can't be a floozy. You're a floozy!" The film makes a subtle commentary of the double standard in sexual conduct between women and men. Men could sleep with whomever they pleased while women who did the same were branded as "sluts." A role that earned Taylor her second Oscar, she considered the role of Martha her "personal best." A bravura performance, Taylor seamlessly sinks into the part; it's difficult to ascertain where she begins and the character ends. A college-educated woman, Martha perpetually humiliates her husband for his lack of ambition and professional failures: Martha: I hope that was an empty bottle, George! You can't afford to waste good liquor, not on your salary, not on an associate professor's salary! She pushed George to be the head of the History Department and the head of the university. But why couldn't she do those things herself? In an exchange with Nick: Nick: To you, everybody's a flop. Your husband's a flop, I'm a flop. Martha: You're all flops. I am the Earth Mother, and you are all flops. In a time when women weren't supposed to have jobs beyond wife and mother, perhaps Martha wanted her own career. As she came from a wealthy family, Martha had money so she didn't need George to succeed for fiscal security. It seems as if Martha lived vicariously through her husband and his capacity for success which would explain why his lack of ambition was such a blow. While the play was written a year before the publication of feminist Betty Friedan's ground-breaking The Feminine Mystique, the play explores the same issues Friedan railed against. Friedan writes about the "feminine mystique," where the highest value for women is embracing and maintaining their femininity, and the "problem that has no name," the unhappiness women faced in the 50s and 60s and their yearning for fulfillment beyond being a housewife and a mother. Friedan argues: "They [women] learned that truly feminine women do not want careers, higher education, political rights – the independence and the opportunities that the old-fashioned feminists fought for…All they had to do was devote their lives from earliest girlhood to finding a husband and bearing children." (58) "Self-esteem in woman, as well as in man, can only be based on real capacity, competence, and achievement; on deserved respect from others rather than unwarranted adulation. Despite the glorification of "Occupation: housewife," if that occupation does not demand, or permit, realization of women's full abilities, it cannot provide adequate self-esteem, much less pave the way to a higher level of self-realization…But women in America are not encouraged, or expected, to use their full capacities. In the name of femininity, they are encouraged to evade human growth." (435-437) [Warning: Spoilers ahead!!] Motherhood, a reoccurring theme in the film, comprised one of the few ways society allowed fulfillment for women. Both women don't have children, Martha is unable to and Honey, whose "hysterical pregnancy" led to her marriage with Nick, takes pills to eliminate any pregnancies as she's scared to conceive. As women were supposed to be good wives and mothers, society viewed reproduction as one of their vital duties. If a woman didn't have children, ultimately she was a failure. Friedan writes: "Over and over again, stories in women's magazines insist that women can know fulfillment only at the moment of giving birth to a child…In the feminine mystique, there is no other way she can even dream about herself, except as her children's mother, her husband's wife." (115) As someone in their 30s who doesn't have children (and isn't even sure I ever want them), even in this day and age, people often act as if there's something fundamentally wrong with you if you don't have or want children.Martha invented the story of a son probably because she genuinely wanted one. But I think she also did it to make it easier for her to fit into society. As a woman, I often feel I don't fit the stereotypical mold of what a woman "should" be. Perhaps Martha, with her abrasive, obnoxious persona, wanted at least one component of her life to fit. While I genuinely believe Martha wanted a child, her yearning may be tempered by the fact that society views her as an inadequate woman. It's as if she can handle being a non-conformist woman in every way possible except this one. What makes Martha so interesting is that she's not merely a bawdy, angry woman. Taylor imbues the complicated character with fleeting moments of agony and vulnerability. In a tender, rather than simply rage-filled moment, Martha refutes George's accusation that she's a "monster." She asserts, Martha: I'm loud and I'm vulgar, and I wear the pants in the house because somebody's got to, but I am not a monster. I'm not. George: You're a spoiled, self-indulgent, willful, dirty-minded, liquor-ridden… Martha: SNAP! It went SNAP! I'm not gonna try to get through to you any more. There was a second back there, yeah, there was a second, just a second when I could have gotten through to you, when maybe we could have cut through all this, this CRAP. But it's past, and I'm not gonna try. To me, this is such a pivotal scene. Women are supposed to be, especially during that era, docile, proper and well-mannered; the epitome of femininity. Blond, thin, meek Honey appears to be the perfect wife while bawdy, brash, raven-haired, curvy Martha stands as the complete opposite. In the equally ground-breaking The Second Sex published in 1949, philosopher Simone de Beauvoir wrote about the treatment and oppression of women. In her tome, she argues that society teaches us that passivity is "the essential characteristic of the 'feminine' woman." Society encourages men and boys to explore their freedom while women and girls are taught to embrace femininity, turning their back on what they themselves want. She asserts: "In woman, on the contrary, there is from the beginning a conflict between her autonomous existence and her objective self, her "being-the-other;" she is taught that to please she must try to please, she must make herself object; she should therefore renounce her autonomy. She is treated like a live doll and is refused liberty." (280) Wives were supposed to support their husbands, echoing their desires. While Martha eventually admits that George is the only man who has ever made her happy, she refuses to silence herself. She is loud, vulgar, shrewd, intelligent, assertive, sexual and outspoken; the antithesis to femininity. And in many ways, society punishes Martha and women like her for it. Yet she rails against constraints, struggling to navigate the sexist terrain on her own terms. The title of the play and film comes from a riff of "Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf" with the wordplay on Virginia Woolf. It was a quote that playwright Albee saw scrawled on a bathroom mirror in a bar. It's also an allusion to show that people concoct imaginary scenarios and personas in order to cope with their lives, a theme that runs throughout the entire film. The audience is never quite sure what is fact and what is fiction, the line often blurred. After the pivotal climax and shocking revelations, in the penultimate line of the film, George asks Martha, "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" to which she replies, "I am, George, I am." Some scholars assert that this alludes to being able to live without illusions, which both George and Martha, with their web of lies and treacherous games, clearly find difficult. But the play/film's title is also an accidental feminist reference as feminist author and writer Virginia Woolf famously advocated for women to be able to possess their own money and space to be creative and ultimately themselves. Captivating yet uncomfortable to watch, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? depicts the brutal deterioration of a marriage and the crumbling of hopes, ambitions and illusions. Through their cruel taunts and insults, the film exposes the illusory facades people create, while challenging stifling gender roles. In the 60s (and to a large extent still today), society demanded men act assertively and women behave passively. As men wield a disproportionate amount of power over women, people often fear female empowerment. Despite her brazen outspokenness, Martha might be afraid too — afraid of her own power in a society that doesn't embrace or accept powerful women.  |
| Women essential to peace says UN Posted: 01 Nov 2013 02:09 AM PDT
Resolution 2122 is the seventh text passed by the United Nations (UN) over the last 13 years that addresses the 'participation aspects' of women in the international peace and security agenda. This reflects a growing determination that the vital roles women play in conflict prevention and resolution are no longer ignored. The resolution explicitly links gender equality with international peace and security and calls on Member States to fund and support work that develops women's leadership, for 'full participation in all levels of decision-making.' 'Sustainable peace requires an integrated approach based on coherence between political, security, development, human rights, including gender equality, and rule of law and justice activities.' Hailed by the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) as a high water mark in Women, Peace and Security commitments, the UN Security Council's unanimous adoption of the resolution aims 'to change the business as usual approach' of conflict resolution and peace building. The UN itself recognised the need for improvement in its own work; Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary General of the United Nations, welcomed 'calls for concrete actions to increase the number of women involved in peacemaking [as well as] to improve the way in which the Council and other entities address gender issues.' That intent was emphasised by the point in the resolution announcing the UN's plans 'to increase its attention to women, peace and security issues in all relevant thematic areas of work on its agenda.' One of the most meaningful measures is the resolution's clarion call for funding and humanitarian aid to include 'access to the full range of sexual and reproductive health services, including regarding pregnancies resulting from rape, without discrimination.' Other important calls for action centre around the need for more regular briefings and reports, with an emphasis on timely information and analysis. Senior officials, including special envoys and representatives, have been tasked with providing the Security Council with more frequent updates on 'issues relevant to women, peace and security, including implementation [and] on progress in inviting women to participate.' The resolution also makes clear the importance of women's groups, requesting that all missions 'regularly consult with women's organisations and women leaders, including socially and/or economically excluded groups of women.' While acknowledging the importance of women's organisations, the Global Partnership for Prevention of Armed Conflict (GPPAC) points to difficulties it has had in securing funding for its work because it is not a women-only organisation. It warns that this practice 'misses valuable input from feminist practice and ideas on preventing violent conflict, both from civil society and decision makers [and] risks reinforcing tendencies to treat gender as a separate issue from broader peacebuilding processes.' As a further push for change, resolution 2122 confirms the Security Council's plans for a High Level review in 2015 of resolution 1325, the resolution passed in 2000 that started the process of stressing the importance of women's equal and full participation in the maintenance and promotion of peace and security. The review will assess progress at the global, regional and national levels and will include a global study identifying ongoing problems, challenges, trends, priorities and examples of good practice. As Marten Grunditz, Sweden's representative at the Security Council meeting, said, 'Let us underline that gender justice is not merely about women's needs as victims, but also about women's valuable contributions to bringing about peace and their participation at the forefront in transitional justice and rule of law measures.' Amina Smaila, Nigeria's representative at the meeting, agreed, saying that was was needed was 'strong advocacy to break the culture of silence and promote zero tolerance across the globe [as] fundamental [steps] to restoring the rights and dignity of women in all circumstances.'  |
| 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 | |