Women's Views on News |
| Five reasons not to vote for UKIP Posted: 11 Jun 2014 07:47 AM PDT
There are few details on exactly how any of these proposals would actually be carried out, but we can certainly make educated guesses. 1. “Remove the UK from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights”. Doing this would mean the UK would be excluded from the European Convention on Human Rights, a convention which makes sure women have basic freedoms, such as not being discriminated against. Not just that, but if someone wasn’t happy with a UK court’s decision on a human rights violation, they would have nowhere else to go. 2. “No to Political Correctness – it stifles free speech”. It’s pretty rich of UKIP to pretend that they’re for free speech, when there have been several reports of them trying to silence bloggers and people on Twitter. Besides that, we all know what UKIP really mean by “no political correctness” – they mean people having the right “to say clearly racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic things and get away with it without being told it’s a bad thing to say”. 3. “Abolish non-essential and politically-correct jobs and red tape“. What do they think is non-essential? Well, so far, the rights of workers, immigrants and women, and freedom of speech. Secondly, what on earth is a “politically-correct” job? I can take a guess: positions like diversity and/or equality officers would probably be first for the chop. 4. “Make welfare a safety net for the needy, not a bed for the lazy. Benefits only available to those who have lived here for over 5 years”. Why does this dichotomy of the ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ poor sound so familiar? Here, UKIP are beginning to sound like the Tories on steroids – and the effects of the Tory-led welfare cuts so far are plain to see. And let’s not forget that damning last sentence. Presumably, asylum seekers will be left on the streets for five years, kids and all. 5. UKIP supports the concept of civil partnerships, but opposes the move to legislate for same-sex marriage, which it says risks “the grave harm of undermining the rights of Churches and Faiths to decide for themselves whom they will and will not marry”. This one speaks for itself, really; abandon hope of marriage equality. Then there’s the sexism, hypocrisy, and blatant lies.  |
| Posted: 11 Jun 2014 04:10 AM PDT Without urgent action, young women face a lifetime of low pay, poverty and poor mental health. Half a million young women in England are not earning or learning and are in danger of being scarred for life. Half a million young women aged 18-24 in England are out of work, unable to study or train – a number that has hardly changed in over a decade. Without urgent action, young women face a lifetime of low pay, poverty and poor mental health. The Young Women's Trust has launched an inquiry the aim of which is to provide invaluable insights into the hurdles faced by so many of these young women. The 'Scarred for Life?' Inquiry Panel of experts, chaired by broadcaster Sian Williams, will make recommendations about what needs to be done to reduce the numbers of young women who are not in education, employment or training (NEET); reduce the length of time young women are NEET and reduce the impact being NEET has on young women’s lives. The panel is calling for evidence from practitioners, policy makers and the public but most importantly from young women themselves. Analysis of official figures shows time spent being NEET is having a particularly devastating impact on young women’s lives now and in the future. Women who are NEET are likely to be unemployed for an average of 36 months Women who are unemployed in their youth can expect an average annual income of only £8,647 when they are 30-34 years old. Speaking at the project launch, Sian Williams said, “I am delighted to be leading this inquiry as I was shocked to hear how many young women are excluded from earning or learning. “We urgently need to find the right solutions so all young women can access opportunities to secure their futures.” Dr Carole Easton, chief executive of Young Women’s Trust said, “Too many women are scarred for life by being NEET. “Young women's lives are being defined and determined by how they are at 18 or 20. ” It is no wonder they lose confidence, become depressed and anxious about their futures. “They desperately want to participate but no one is listening. “We want to hear from them so they can help shape the solutions to this problem. “We are urging young women, people working with young women, academics and members of the public to visit our website and tell us what they think.” The inquiry focusses on young women who are not in education, employment or training (NEET). Amongst 18-24 year old women 1 in 5 are NEET – in some parts of England this figure rises to 1 in 4. This has a huge impact on young women’s lives – there is a high risk that these young women will be scarred for life as a result of this period of unemployment. The panel wants to find out why young women get ‘stuck’ and what needs to change so all young women can be financially independent and emotionally resilient. The facts: The latest figures show that there are currently 408,000 women aged 18-24 who are NEET; Over the last 12 months on average 20 per cent of young women aged 18-24 were NEET at any given time; Women who are NEET between the age of 16 and 24 are likely to be unemployed for an average of 36 months before their 30th birthday; Women who are unemployed in their youth can expect an average salary of only £8,647 when they are 30-34 years old; The cost of youth unemployment was over £10 billion in 2012. The statistics only tell part of the story. The Women’s Trust is are working with young women so they can tell their own stories about how being ‘NEET’ impacts on their lives. Watch our film of 3 young women speaking out about the challenges and obstacles they face. The Trust needs your help to understand what needs to change so all young women can access quality and sustainable work, education or training. The inquiry is being overseen by an expert panel who will be seeking evidence from young women, professionals working with young women, and the public about what needs to change. Evidence will be gathered via the Young Women’s Trust website and visits to different localities in England including Blackpool, Barking and Dagenham, Birmingham, Dover, Grimsby and Hartlepool to speak directly to young women and local services who support them, The Trust intends to publish the initial findings in September 2014, and a final report with full recommendations early in 2015. Whether you are a young woman, a professional or a member of the public, the panel wants to hear from you, so do please help. Click here if you are a young woman and would like to get involved. Click here if you are a professional working with young women, a policy maker or member of the public. We hope that by doing this work we can let young women know that they are not invisible. Judging by the stories in the press, it would be easy for them to think that they are.  |
| Posted: 11 Jun 2014 01:09 AM PDT
The BBC has sparked debate over the use of the word ‘girl’ after it removed the term from a documentary about the Commonwealth Games. In the 30-minute programme, presenter Mark Beaumont was filmed grappling with judo champion and Games hopeful Cynthia Rahming from the Bahamas. After being thrown to the floor by the sportswoman he said: "I am not sure I can live that down – being beaten by a 19-year-old girl." When the documentary, The Queen’s Baton Relay, was aired on the BBC News Channel in April, the remark was broadcast in full. But in a repeat of the programme last month, the word ‘girl’ was edited out. Both Beaumoth and Rahming were said to be surprised by the move. On his Twitter feed Beaumont said "maybe the editor thought it was sexist – which it wasn’t. I’m not worried about it," while Rahming told The Mail on Sunday "I wasn't offended – I didn't find it sexist." So if the comment wasn’t intended to be sexist, and it wasn’t taken as sexist, why take it out? A BBC spokesperson said: "Mark didn’t mean to cause offence. But the word ‘girl’ was taken out just in case." The fact that this use of the word ‘girl’ was seen as so innocuous is however part of the problem. The word ‘girl’ is used over and over again to mean someone weaker or less able, or to describe traits that are inherently undesirable in any ‘real’ man; to ‘throw like a girl’, ‘cry like a girl’ or just ‘act like a girl’ are terms used to belittle boys and men. Of course the word ‘girl’ itself is not inherently sexist – it all comes down to context. In the context of this particular documentary, the presenter is hiding his own embarrassment by implying that because Rahming is female, she shouldn’t be good at this sport. At its most problematic the term is used to infantalise women and undermine their abilities and authority. B.J. Epstein, a lecturer in literature and public engagement and Huffington Post blogger, said: “I really dislike the word girl! “I think it's appropriate to use it to refer to females up until, say, the age of 11 or 12, but not after that. “I find it offensive when people refer to young women or adult females as "girls" because it diminishes who and what we are, and makes us seem young and unimportant,” she continued. “I would never refer to colleagues as "boys", nor would I call grown men "boys", and yet people, especially men, continually do this to me and to other women." Speaking about the programme, Miriam O'Reilly, the former Countryfile presenter who sued the BBC for age discrimination, said: "He used the word ‘girl’ because it has connotations of being younger and weaker. "I think he immediately realised what he said was sexist. He knew he was going to be thrown by Cynthia, she is a first-class sportswoman at the top of her game. "He and the director obviously thought to play up the being thrown by a "girl" aspect would be funny, when in reality it's an example of casual everyday sexism." Speaking to the Huffington Post, Olympic Champion Anna Watkins said: “In rowing, we would call ourselves the girl’s team informally (and also refer to the ‘boy’s team’), but publicly it’s definitely the Women’s Team, and Women’s Double, and there’s nowhere more public than the BBC! “So I think it’s right that they stick to that. ‘Girl’ is fine as an informal description but it also sounds a bit juvenile so I wouldn’t want to be called that in a professional environment,” she said. It may seem ironic that women are happy to refer to themselves and their friends as ‘girls’, but in an informal setting I don’t see this as a problem. It’s when the term is used in a professional capacity that it really becomes an issue – it would be clearly seen as totally inappropriate if we used the term ‘boys’ so liberally when discussing professional men.  |
| 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 | |