Women's Views on News |
- End violence against women
- E-gift for mother’s day to help women
- The evolution of ‘The Big Bang Theory’
- She just didn’t listen
| Posted: 21 Mar 2014 09:30 AM PDT
On the occasion of the 58th session of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), on 11 March the Head of the Delegation of the European Union to the United Nations, Ambassador Thomas Mayr-Harting, and the Permanent Representative of Greece, Ambassador Spinellis, hosted a reception in honour of Mr Stavros Lambrinidis, the European Union Special Representative for Human Rights. They spoke about the centrality of human rights and gender equality to international efforts to achieve peace and security and sustainable development. They stressed the importance of human rights for all, especially for women and girls, to make greater progress in achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) and in shaping the post-2015 development agenda. UN Women's executive director Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka spoke too. She highlighted the importance of ending violence against women, a global pandemic that affects one in three women and girls. She said that ending violence against women has been called the 'missing MDG' and stressed the necessity of its inclusion in the post-2015 development framework currently under discussion. And she read an adapted excerpt from the poem, I Got Flowers Today, written by Paulette Kelly in 1992, and dedicated to battered women. I got flowers today. I got flowers today. I got flowers today, I got flowers today.  |
| E-gift for mother’s day to help women Posted: 21 Mar 2014 07:22 AM PDT
Women's Aid's policy team works to influence the government and decision makers so as to improve the lives of survivors of domestic abuse and create a world where a woman's right to live free from violence is unquestioned. Your support helps us continue doing this vital policy and lobbying work. Women's Aid is currently focusing on the following policy areas to make a difference to women survivors of domestic violence: Saving services from funding constraints and focusing on commissioning; Ensuring welfare reforms do not disproportionally impact on women survivors; Working to provide evidence of the impact of Legal Aid reforms on women and lobbying for change to the system; Campaigning to amend the law so coercive control and patterns of behaviour are recognised in law and legislation better protects women. We have recently had two successes in our campaigning and lobbying work. Your support will help us ensure we have many more. In January 2014 the Prime Minister announced that the government would be ratifying the Istanbul Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence. We have been campaigning for this since 2012 and launched a joint petition with the TUC in November 2013. In February 2014 Work and Pensions Minister Lord Freud announced that the government would be widening the definition of exempt supported accommodation to include virtually all refuges. Again, this is something we have been working on for the past year and is a vital development for refuge services as it means they will be exempt from welfare reforms. Women's Aid also provides the secretariat to the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Domestic and Sexual Violence. In March 2014 the APPG published a report from their Inquiry into Access to Justice. The inquiry found that: Many women experiencing domestic violence, including sexual violence in intimate partner relationships, do not have access to justice; The criminal justice system frequently fails to hold perpetrators of domestic violence to account. When sanctions are imposed they are often so limited and the violence so pervasive that perpetrators are able to continue abusing their victims; 89 per cent of respondents to the APPG Inquiry felt there were barriers to women disclosing domestic violence to the police and/or other criminal justice agencies; Where criminal justice agencies fail to respond appropriately to domestic and sexual violence, women pay with their lives. Alongside the report we also launched the APPG and Women's Aid Survivors' Charter which sets out the key principles that women should expect when going through the justice system. They include: being respected; being heard; and being safeguarded. To read the report and charter click here. You can support us on that by signing up to the Survivors Charter and pledging to support women's access to justice. Please email us to sign up to the charter and we can send you a version that can be signed. You can also support Women's Aid this Mother's Day by making a donation in honour of your mum, grandmother or the other special women in your life. You could make a gift donation in her honour and receive a beautifully designed e-gift certificate (as shown in the pic) which you can then either print out and send or forward by email to the recipient of your choice. On an average day, almost half the women (47 per cent) using refuge services and accommodation have children with them. Often it is the thought of keeping their children safe which gives women the strength to keep going and to leave abusive relationships. Donating to our general fund this Mother’s Day would mean that we can use your donation where it is needed most and help change the lives of women and children affected by domestic violence. Thank you.  |
| The evolution of ‘The Big Bang Theory’ Posted: 21 Mar 2014 05:30 AM PDT
The Big Bang Theory, the show that legitimizes the nerd in all of us and tickles that small (or large) part of us that gets the Star Trek jokes. The writers of the show are like geeky unicorns who can finally tell that nerdy joke you've been trying for years and who make you smile with superiority when you manage to understand one of the many scientific concepts thrown around. Instead of just being another rendition of 'Friends' and 'How I Met Your Mother,' The Big Bang Theory has a unique foundation in its scientist main characters. The main characters Leonard Hofstadter (Johnny Galecki) and Sheldon Cooper (Jim Parsons) are brilliant, but struggle socially, embodying the traditional nerd stereotype in their love of science fiction shows, fantasy card games, comic book mania, and gamer lifestyle. In the typical sitcom, these kinds of characters are usually background extras that provide the comedic situation for a bad date; while definitely quirky, each of The Big Bang Theory characters' intelligence and desperate need for affection provide the necessary comedic relief. The show's contrasting use of pop culture and advanced scientific concepts is engaging and is augmented by guest appearances from Star Trek alums LeVar Burton, Will Wheaton, and a voice-over by the unparalleled Leonard Nimoy, as well as scientific celebrities Stephen Hawking and Neil DeGrasse Tyson, to name a few. However, despite the unique nature of the show and its legitimately hilarious dialogue there are problematic elements to The Big Bang Theory and it's a problem I've mentioned before: the use of stereotypes. Stereotypes are obviously an important part of comedy; the stereotype is a relatable way to demonstrate a familiar funny situation (or an unfamiliar one since I know few people as smart and neurotic as Sheldon Cooper). However, the stereotypes used in The Big Bang Theory often pigeon-hole women who aren't physically appealing into socially awkward nerds with latent lesbian tendencies and traditionally beautiful women into uneducated sluts with bad taste in men. Kaley Cuoco plays Penny, the third main character on The Big Bang Theory, who is a beautiful, young waitress and a bit of an airhead. There are a few disturbing moments on the show when Penny is condescended to by the male characters and is given lines to reflect an "I'm hot but stupid" mentality. Now, this isn't to say that there aren't some people in the world who are probably like this, but perhaps it wouldn't be so noticeable on The Big Bang Theory if it wasn't used so often with its female characters. In the first three seasons it's especially noticeable as all of Penny's beautiful friends are given similar characteristics, as are the beautiful women that the boys date. Even Bernadette (Melissa Rauch), Howard Wolowitz's fiancé, who has a PhD in microbiology, is often typecast as an airhead who doesn't understand a common sense principle as well as the boys. Perhaps this is a good transition into the sexist mess that was the early Howard Wolowitz character. One of Sheldon and Leonard's close friends, for the first four seasons Howard played the role of a disgusting, probably should be on a sex offender list somewhere, horny aerospace engineer. His goal was to get laid and so he lied to women, hired prostitutes, chased them down in a park, and was in general, completely repugnant for laughs. While the character has improved since the introduction of the Bernadette character and their marriage, for the first four seasons, Howard's character ran rampant through the show, completely unchecked and without any repercussions for his behavior. If anything, there was a congratulatory sense to his actions, as if him hiring a prostitute and going back to his old ways of disrespecting women after a small breakup was something the audience should be sympathetic toward. Howard's character displays what I like to call the 'Mad Men Principle'; is a show sexist because it portrays sexist situations, or is it instead brilliantly self-aware and exposing sexism? In the case of Mad Men, I would argue that yes, it is self-aware and exposing the massive amounts of sexism that was commonplace in the 1960s. Does the same hold true for The Big Bang Theory? I would say that in the early years of the show, no, it was sexist. For instance, take the episode "The Killer Robot Instability:" during this episode the sexually rapacious and unethical Howard Wolowitz says something incredibly inappropriate, wildly sexual and completely disrespectful to Penny for about the millionth time, yet when she tells him off, she's the one who has to apologize for being rude. Despite the fact that Penny has now put up with Howard's constant pick-up lines and overt sexual come-ons, when she finally stands up for herself and informs him that his behavior is inappropriate, she is the one in the wrong; this action validates Wolowitz's inappropriate behavior and paves the way for him to continue being disgusting without consequences. Or again, how Wolowitz treats his mother badly and demands that his girlfriend and wife cook and clean and care for him: the lovely Bernadette looks confused by his constant insistence that she do so, but continues to participate in his illusions about how she's going to behave. However, the show has gotten better the past few seasons; the characters feel more well-rounded, there are fewer jokes at Penny's expense, and the "quick, try to bone every woman in sight" attitude from Wolowitz has subsided since his involvement with the Bernadette character. In fact, there was a moment of acknowledgment and apology for his past behavior in season five, an act of redemption that has put the show on the good side of the 'Mad Men Principle' for me. In fact, the season four episode, "The Roommate Transmogrification," started a clever role reversal featuring Wolowitz and Bernadette as she is offered a high-paying job at a pharmaceutical company. This job will make Bernadette the main 'breadwinner' in their relationship and spawns a situation where Bernadette treats him like a trophy wife. Similarly, in season five's "The Shiny Trinket Maneuver," Bernadette tells Wolowitz that she's not sure she wants children, a problem that's resolved by her compromise to have children if Wolowitz will stay home with them so she can continue her career. It's obvious that this compromise is unacceptable to him, a fact that I appreciated since it was automatically assumed in the episode (as it so often is in life) that it's the wife's duty to give up her career and stay home with her children. It seems glaringly obvious to make this point about a show with a title that references evolution, but the great evolution and development of The Big Bang Theory makes it, in my opinion, a well-thought out and intelligent sitcom. I'm hopeful that I'll continue to laugh like the giant geek I am at every brilliant Star Trek joke that Sheldon Cooper makes. Rachel Redfern has an MA in English literature, where she conducted research on modern American literature and film and its intersection, however she spends most of her time watching HBO shows, traveling, and blogging and reading about feminism.  |
| Posted: 21 Mar 2014 02:09 AM PDT
This means that someone can ring the police if they have concerns about a partner’s past. The police will then decide whether to tell you about the partner’s abusive past. If they have a record. Or not, if not. The scheme – the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme, known as ’Clare’s Law’ – came about after the tragic death of Clare Wood, who was murdered in 2009 by her former boyfriend, a man she met on Facebook. After her murder, it transpired he had several previous convictions. Her family since have fought for future potential partners of convicted violent criminals to have the right to know about those convictions. Statistically, one woman is killed every 3 days in the United Kingdom, and this hasn't changed since recording these particular statistics began. I worked with domestic abuse survivors for ten years. It was frustrating, because despite the work we did, the numbers of deaths didn't decrease. They stayed the same despite an increase in awareness, media attention and of course, new laws. A woman I know experienced domestic abuse as a child, and for the first 15 years of her life she lived with an abusive father. The effects lasted much longer. Her abusive father didn't have any previous convictions and when he married her young mother at 16 there was no signs of the impending control, violence, fear and isolation which blighted all their lives. When Clare’s Law was announced, I thought to myself, what would have happened if this new pilot scheme had been around 40 years ago? What difference would it have made to such a situation then? Unfortunately, I think nothing. My intention is not to be negative about Clare’s Law. I do see its value, and I totally understand why Clare’s family have been driven to do something. To feel that something positive had to come out of their painful tragic horrific experience. Of course there is the possibility that this could save someone. It's very likely, in fact, and that is why it has to be supported. One person could be protected and that is enough. I do have concerns though. What about the woman who finds out her new boyfriend had been in prison for rape. The rape is explained away as something a vindictive 16 year-old accused him of. It was her fault. The new partner believes him. Another woman is told by neighbours that her current partner is a known paedophile. She chooses not to believe it because he said it was made up. How many of us have chosen not to believe or make an excuse for the fact our partner was jealous, unfaithful, lazy or abusive? They wouldn't behave like that with us, would they? So I'll give you an example of what I think could happen. Katie rings the police as someone told her at toddler group that her new boyfriend Mike had stalked his previous girlfriend. The police decide to tell Katie yes, that's right, he has previous convictions for stalking. Katie speaks to Mike and he's adamant his ex-girlfriend made it up, she's a psycho and jealous, evil. Katie stays with Mike. Mike becomes abusive. Katie leaves Mike. Mike stalks Katie. Mike kills Katie. It's Katie’s fault, because she knew about Mike. She just didn't listen. Is this what could happen? The onus falling heavily onto the victim yet again? I fear that this will be the case for some. Anyone who has worked in the sector trying to protect victims from domestic abuse will welcome anything that could help, however Clare’s Law comes at a time when funding is still being cut for front-line services. It was recently reported that 15 per cent of specialised services in England have shut because of cuts in funding between 2010 and 2013. Domestic violence officers in the police service are inundated but have few resources to tackle the amount of, often, complex cases. Work within schools to promote safe relationships with young people has been cut. Domestic abuse happens not because of drink or drugs or alcohol, not because you were abused or because you're poor or your football team lost, not because you met someone on a dating site or Facebook. All of these reasons can be used, but they are excuses. If you raise your hand, you chose to do it. If you call your partner a slag, you choose to do it. If you kill your partner, you choose to do it. Clare’s Law may help potential victims, but more work, funding and services have to be provided to prevent domestic abuse in the first place. This new initiative has to be welcome – despite the concerns, it will no doubt help one person. But above and beyond that, domestic abuse has to be approached by society – the third sector, the private sector, women, men, children, schools, doctors, hospitals, teachers, nurses, relatives and friends. You and me.  |
![the big bang theory, bitchflicks](<a href="http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p78/rabbygranata/the-big-bang-theory.jpg">)
| 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 | |