Thursday, June 19, 2014

Women's Views on News

Women's Views on News

Sturgeon on Independence and women

Posted: 18 Jun 2014 10:00 AM PDT

Nicola Sturgeon's speech at Scottish Women's Cabinet meet with 100 days to go.

With lots at stake and less than 100 days to go.

Scotland's Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon recently hosted the first all-women Scottish Cabinet event, and outlined how independence can improve the lives of individuals, families and communities throughout Scotland.

When she initially announced the event in April, the BBC reported that Sturgeon said: “This all-women cabinet event sends an important message to women in Scotland: that the Scottish government is serious about ensuring a fair and prosperous society for all and that, following a vote for independence, we want women to have a strong voice in building our future.”

The event brought together women from 130 organisations from throughout Scotland, including Engender, the Scottish Women’s Convention, the STUC, Scottish Women’s Aid, Close the Gap and Rape Crisis Scotland.

And members of the audience were given the opportunity to ask questions of the female ministers in the Scottish Government.

The Cabinet discussed this government's ambitious plans to provide free universal childcare for children aged 1-5, plans to maximise Scotland's vast wealth to create more job opportunities and the creation of a social security system that tackles poverty and protects the independence of women in the benefits system.

Talking about what she considers independence will offer Scotland’s women, Sturgeon said: ‘The vote on September 18 is the greatest opportunity we will ever have to build a better, more prosperous and fairer country.

‘Today, I want to explain to you why I believe so strongly that independence promises a better future.

‘And while I don't think independence benefits only women, or will benefit all women in the same way, I'll explain why I think a Yes vote promises more for women than a No vote.

‘The first thing we should all be clear on is that Scotland can be a successful, thriving independent country.

‘Scotland has vast wealth and extraordinary resources.

‘We are rich – most of all – in human talent.

‘We generate more wealth, per head, than Japan, France, the UK and the majority of independent countries.

‘The ratings agency Standard and Poor's says that even excluding oil and gas "Scotland would qualify for our highest economic assessment."

‘The Financial Times says that in terms of GDP per head we would be among the top 20 wealthiest countries in the world.

‘We have more top universities, per head, than any other country.

‘We are a hotbed of cutting edge industries like life sciences.

‘Our world class food and drink industry turns over £13 billion a year.

‘And we have strengths across a range of growth sectors such as creative industries, tourism, renewable energy, business and financial services and ICT.

‘From Dolly the Sheep to Grand Theft Auto, people living and working in Scotland have made significant contributions to the modern world.

‘And we are blessed to have the huge multi-billion pound bonus of oil.

‘Scotland has 60 per cent of the EU's oil reserves and we know this industry will be a continued success story for decades to come.

‘The question then is not whether Scotland is wealthy enough to be independent.

‘The great issue in Scotland today is why – under Westminster – so many of us don't feel the benefit of that wealth.

‘That is why a Yes vote is so important. The case for independence is based on a fundamental belief.

‘A belief in the ability and talent of the people of Scotland.

‘No-one else will do a better job of running our country.

‘Certainly not Westminster governments that we don't vote for and for whom we will always be an afterthought.

‘Independence means decisions about Scotland will be taken by the people who care most about Scotland – the people who live and work here.

‘By transferring that decision-making power from Westminster to Scotland we can change our lives for the better.

‘This won't happen overnight. We will need a truly national effort. But the prize is worth the effort.

‘By taking Scotland's future into Scotland's hands we can give an independence guarantee.

‘We will always have the security of being in control of our vast wealth and resources.

‘We will have the job-creating, economic powers we need – for the first time ever an economic policy designed in, and for, Scotland.

‘We'll save around £600 million by not spending money on Westminster priorities like Trident weapons or sending MPs to Westminster.

‘We will always get the governments we vote for. Our public services will be protected from Westminster privatisation.

‘We will be able to tailor economic policy to make the most of our huge strengths.

‘That means more and better jobs for people by designing a tax system that gives firms in Scotland a competitive advantage.

‘It means helping people climb the career ladder here in Scotland by attracting and retaining company headquarters.

‘It means more financial security for households because we can choose to deliver cost of living increases in pensions, tax credits and tax free allowances.

‘It means making life easier for young families by delivering a transformational increase in childcare – something I will turn to shortly.

‘The experience of devolution shows that taking decisions in Scotland improves the lives of people who live here.

‘We've protected the NHS. We've implemented world-leading climate change legislation and public health initiatives such as the smoking ban.

‘We've re-instated the principle of free higher education.

‘We are doing our best to protect the universal principle in the face of an all-out assault on the welfare state by the current Westminster government.

‘Access to high quality public services and a social security system designed to help people in need – not humiliate them – empowers individuals and builds strong communities.

‘It is this sense of giving people more control over their lives that drives the case for independence – as much as the idea of having control of policy levers at a national level.

‘I want to focus now on three areas where, for women, in particular, independence will lead to more security and control in our lives.

‘First: childcare.

‘We have an ambitious plan to provide free universal childcare for children aged 1-5 – a policy that could save families up to £4,600 per child per year.

‘This would improve the early education of our children; help families; and support parents, particularly mothers, to go out to work.

‘Every woman should have the opportunity to reach her full potential, in whatever field she chooses, and this represents a huge step towards that.

‘And it makes economic sense.

‘If we increase female participation in the labour market to levels achieved in Sweden, for example, we can boost economic performance and raise an extra £700 million per year in tax revenue – that's not just income tax, but National Insurance and corporation tax, too.

‘Some say we could do this now, and, indeed, we have already expanded free child care.

‘But this issue illustrates the inherent problems of devolution.

‘We receive a fixed budget from Westminster. We would not receive the increased tax revenues from more women in the workforce unless Westminster decided we should.

‘Without that, we could not sustain free childcare long term, unless we made cuts to other services we provide. And Westminster could spend the extra money we raised however it wanted – as things stand, it would more likely fund more nuclear weapons on the Clyde rather than childcare.

‘Only by controlling both spending and revenue can we make the changes needed to help women back into work.

‘And it's not enough to get women into work – the kind of work matters, too.

‘So my second point is that with independence, we can take control of employment policy.

‘What happens to the minimum wage really matters to the standard of living of women and their children, because the fact is that women today are more likely to work in low paid jobs. With independence, we can guarantee that the minimum wage will rise at least in line with inflation every year.

‘If this had happened over the past five years, the lowest paid would be £600 a year better off than they are now. That’s money they've lost because we cannot take these decisions ourselves.

‘And that's only one part of what's possible.

‘We would be responsible for implementing the Equal Pay Act to address the still scandalous inequality in women's pay. And we could build on our support for social partnerships to increase trade union and employer collaboration, and examine options for employee representation on boards.

‘Finally, we would take action, backed by legislation if necessary, to ensure that a clear target – I would argue at least 40 per cent - of places on public and company boards were occupied by women.

‘What I've outlined so far will help to build a fairer society. However, the mark of a truly fair society is how we protect those in need.

‘So my third point is about the welfare system in an independent Scotland.

‘In the short term, we could protect the independence of women in the benefits system.

‘Westminster is introducing Universal Credit as part of their so-called welfare reforms to replace payments like working tax credit and child tax credit. It will be paid in a single household payment, meaning, in many cases, it will go to the man of the house.

‘It’s like going back in time to the ‘male breadwinner’ notion of society. In some households, it could lead to real hardship for women and children.

‘Women – if they are the second earner in a house – will also lose their ‘earnings disregard’, the amount they can earn before losing benefit.

‘We would reverse those changes, protect the right of individuals to receive payments in their own right and ensure women have the same incentives to work as men.

‘But there is a chance to do more. Last week, our Expert Working Group on Welfare published their second report.

‘They identified principles – fair, personal, simple – that should inform the development of a Scottish welfare system. And they made the crucial point that, instead of the complex patchwork of welfare systems we will inherit, an independent Scotland could build a new system that needs the needs of a country of five million people.

‘I was happy to agree with many of the group's specific recommendations, but more than that, their work shows the exciting possibilities for an independent Scotland to address long standing issues in new and innovative ways.

‘Those are some of the reasons we should be independent.

‘But they are part of the larger reason we must become independent.

‘The UK is one of the most unequal societies in the developed world. OECD analysis shows that, since 1975, income inequality among working age people in the UK increased faster than any other developed country

‘And it's a country with some of the biggest regional differences in economic performance of any EU nation.

‘Every year nearly 40,000 young people leave Scotland.

‘It is great that our young people have the opportunity to work and live elsewhere.

‘Those opportunities will be there whether we are independent or not.

‘But with independence we will have the powers to use our vast wealth to create more job opportunities here in Scotland.

‘And the decisions of the current Westminster government are increasing the gap between rich and poor.

‘That makes it much harder for people from ordinary backgrounds to get on in life.

‘Up to 100,000 more children in Scotland could be raised in poverty.

‘And there are now 43 food banks in Scotland.

‘In 2011, there was one.

‘It's a shameful increase, driven by welfare cuts, benefit delays, benefit sanctions and falling incomes – this is true, no matter what Westminster might say about people using them out of choice.

‘And remember, all this is the result of existing welfare cuts. There's another £12 billion to come.

‘We will try to mitigate these – as we have mitigated the bedroom tax. But we did so by taking money from other services.

‘This obviously makes no sense: taking money from our own priorities to prevent harm caused by policies Scotland overwhelmingly rejected.

‘Only independence can prevent this.

‘We already know further devolution won't.

‘Last week, the Conservatives published their proposals for further devolution. This confirmed what we all suspected. None of the UK parties would give us the competitive powers to grow the economy, set our taxes and fund public spending. Welfare will continue almost entirely in the hands of Westminster, and Westminster will continue to decide immigration and set Scotland's budget.

‘That is why independence is the greatest opportunity we will have for a future where we can realise our full potential and build a more equal society.

‘The people of Scotland will decide and build the sort of society they want to see.

‘So that is my argument: Scotland's huge wealth and extraordinary resources mean there is no question we can be independent.

‘We should be independent because by being in control we can improve the lives of people, families and communities.

‘We can do that because there is an independence guarantee.

‘The security of having control of our vast wealth and resources.

‘The job-creating, economic powers we need – so we all feel the benefit of that wealth.

‘Savings of £600 million a year by not spending money on Westminster priorities such as nuclear bombs.

‘The governments we vote for – every time.

‘Our public services protected from privatisation.’

And she closed her speech by pointing out that ‘when the polling booths open, for the first time ever the future of our country will be in the hands of the people who live here. We will be in control of our destiny.

‘When the polling stations close let's resolve this – let's not hand that control back.

‘It's time to take Scotland's future into Scotland's hands.’

Keep gender stereotyping off toys

Posted: 18 Jun 2014 04:59 AM PDT

Toy campaigners tackle McDonalds about sexist toy policyCampaigners tackle McDonald’s over boy or girl question about toys.

Controversial fast food chain McDonald’s have come under fire from toy campaigners Let Toys Be Toys recently for introducing ‘boy’ and ‘girl’ toys in the UK and Ireland.

McDonald's may not be a toy shop but they are the world's largest distributor of toys, and their Happy Meals are enjoyed by boys and girls alike.

But although UK and Ireland branches have avoided gendered toy marketing for several years, Let Toys Be Toys supporters have now raised concerns that separate toys for boys and girls are now being offered.

In a blog post entitled ‘Not-so-Happy Meals at McDonalds UK’, Let Toys Be Toys have criticised the introduction of two different toys with Happy Meals: Hello Kitty and Hot Wheels.

Let Toys Be Toys said: “We believe that by offering two separate toys, and making one of these pink – which children learn at a young age is used to symbolise girls, children are receiving the message that there are 'boy toys' and 'girl toys' and they may feel that there is something wrong with them if they want the 'wrong' one.”

McDonald’s have answered criticisms by saying that their policy is, “to offer either a Hello Kitty or Hot Wheels option, not a girl/boy option”, but a Let Toys Be Toys survey suggests that 83 per cent of branches are not adhering to this policy.

According to Let Toys Be Toys results, 70 per cent of the McDonald's branches asked if customers would like the girl's or boy's toy and another 13 per cent have been giving the toys out based on perceived gender, without asking.

Let Toys Be Toys said this move is particularly surprising given the much publicised decision by McDonald's in the US to no longer offer toys according to gender following Antonia Ayres-Brown's campaign.

And, said Let Toys Be Toys, “Our UK supporters have long praised McDonald's UK for not taking this approach, whilst our American supporters have often expressed envy of your inclusive options.”

This blog post contains a map to show their survey results, which includes quotes from disappointed customers.

Many suggest their children would have preferred the toys that were not aimed at them, such as this one from Cork: ‘I was ordering for two girls and a boy.

'Was asked ‘boys or girls?’ Asked the cashier to tell me the toy options, then asked the kids. All three wanted Hello Kitty.’

To read the campaigner’s open letter to the CEO of UK McDonald’s click here.

To contact McDonald’s and let them know your opinion fill in their customer contact form or tweet them: @McDonaldsUK

The truth about the ‘fertility cliff’

Posted: 18 Jun 2014 01:23 AM PDT

The most ominous data around female fertility is dangerously out of dateWe need to admit that we do not know as much as we think about female fertility.

TV presenter Kirstie Allsopp caused a furore earlier this month by suggesting that young women should consider the limits of their fertility ‘window’ when planning their lives.

“Nature is not with you and I. Nature is not a feminist,” she said, on BBC TV.

Allsopp used the sort of emotive terms which often surround this issue.

She argued that female fertility "falls off a cliff" after 35 and backed up her claims with references to Nature as if that makes age-related infertility a hard and fast cosmic law.

Female fertility – how to manage it, how to plan around it, what to do with the lack of it – is indeed a highly personal and emotive issue.

It is the sort of issue on which so much depends and yet the data surrounding it is, at best, unclear.

But many often-cited statistics surrounding the 'fertility cliff' at 35 have been highlighted as being woefully out of date.

Dr Jean Twenge, professor of psychology at San Diego State University, published her findings about fertility data last year in The Atlantic.

She reported that one widely cited statistic – that one in three women aged 35 to 39 will not be pregnant after a year of trying – is from a 2004 article in the journal Human Reproduction.

However, that article uses data from French birth records from 1670 to 1830, because the researchers needed a population not using contraception.

Twenge found that there are few well-designed studies of natural fertility and age which studied women born in the 2oth century, and that the most ominous of the historical data is the most highly publicised, something that she dubs ‘one of the more spectacular examples of the mainstream media's failure to correctly report on and interpret scientific research’.

The few more recent studies that do exist show a much more nuanced picture.

For example Twenge quotes the David Dunson study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology in 2004 studied European women and found that when having sex at least twice a week, 82 per cent of 35 to 39 year-old women conceived within a year, compared to 86 per cent of 27 to 34 year-old women – a four per cent difference.

And a Boston University study published in 2013 found only a six per cent drop in fertility levels within a year between the 20 to 34 year-old women studied and their 35 to 40 year-old counterparts.

In response to studies like these, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) updated its guidance on fertility in 2013.

It now says that over 80 per cent of couples will conceive within a year if the woman is aged under 40 and has regular sex without using contraception.

Another 10 per cent will conceive in the second year of trying.

The next 10 per cent make up the generally agreed percentage of women said to be affected by infertility in the UK.

And many of those women would struggle with infertility regardless of their age.

So where is the 'fertility cliff' at 35 in the data?

The head of assisted reproduction at Guy’s and St Thomas’ Hospital in London, Yacoub Khalaf, explained that it is just not that simple.

“It is tempting to want a black and white answer, but biology doesn’t work that way…

“Some women find it difficult to conceive in their late 20s, while others don’t have a problem into their 40s,” he told the BBC.

It is more appropriate to consider that on average women experience a slow decline in fertility from 35 as the quality and quantity of their ova decline, a process which speeds up after 40.

However, it is also important that we acknowledge that the most we can say about female fertility is that it is individual to each woman.

“I think that doctors who give blanket advice to populations… are making all sorts of presumptions,” said leading fertility expert Professor Lord Winston.

“We eventually find out that so much of this advice is spurious and unnecessary and often wrong.”

In short, the hype around the so-called 'fertility cliff' is just another example of the media putting pressure on women.

Interestingly, many studies have found that male sperm counts have been steadily decreasing over years, but the media is not nearly as interested in that.

We do need to be honest with women, as Allsopp urges, about their reproductive health, however that means acknowledging that the ‘facts’ are not as clear-cut as Allsopp would have people think.

Considering that our society already hounds women about their bodies, their relationships, their careers or lack thereof, their family-work balance, the state of their homes and wardrobes, we do not need to add unnecessary scaremongering about 'fertility cliffs' to that list with no very sound data to prove it.