Women's Views on News |
- What the Frock book and birthday party
- Why are we still taxing tampons?
- Questions around Pride in London
| What the Frock book and birthday party Posted: 10 Jun 2015 06:01 AM PDT
The What The Frock! Book of Funny Women, written by Jane Duffus and with a foreword by Lucy Porter, puts an end, once and for all, to the tired idea that women aren't funny by providing countless examples of side-splittingly hilarious women. The first half of the book contains chapters outlining the history and important role of women in comedy on both sides of the Atlantic, as well as addressing the myriad of obstacles that stand in the way of female comedians' success. The second half of the book collects together more than 70 profiles of some of female comedians – from Caroline Aherne to Victoria Wood – and includes guest contributions from names such as Ian Martin writer on The Thick Of It, Veep; Viv Groskop, comedian, broadcaster, journalist; James Mullinger, comedian, GQ comedy editor; and comedian and broadcaster Kate Smurthwaite. What The Frock! founder, author Jane Duffus, said: "This book neither asks nor answers the question 'are women funny?' because of course women are funny. To suggest otherwise is as absurd as asking whether a man can be a nurse. "This book presumes you know women are funny and confirms this by celebrating some of the wonderful women who have made us laugh for the past century or more. "We shouldn't have to segregate the genders in the 21st Century. But to me the important point is to provide a platform to nurture new female talent, and to continue to raise the profile of those talented performers in the media. "This is what What The Frock! aims to do and this book is an extension of that goal." The What The Frock! Book of Funny Women was published this May to celebrate 100+ years of fantastically funny women – and What The Frock! is having a birthday party-comedy show and book launch on 12 June at Bristol Improv Theatre, St Paul’s Road, Clifton, Bristol. The very first What The Frock! comedy event was held in Bristol on 18 May 2012. It was meant to be just a one-off event, but 'with a never-ending stream of talented female comedians we wanted to book, plus overwhelming enthusiasm from our continually growing audiences, we just kept on going'. So 2015 will mark What The Frock!'s third birthday – and forty-fifth event. Forty-five! That’s an average of 15 events a year, 60 comedians a year brought to Bristol and 2,000 people a year entertained! Very well done! Making 12 June an incredibly special event. A fabulous comedy night has been planned so you too can mark the occasion. It will be hosted by Viv Groskop, stand-up, a compere, a member of improv group Upstairs Downton and star of her 2013 solo show I Laughed, I Cried. And joining Viv will be the amazing Ada Campe, the outstanding Fern Brad and the vivacious Miranda Dawe. For more event info click here. Get tickets here. To buy the book – at £7.99 with free UK P&P click here.  |
| Why are we still taxing tampons? Posted: 10 Jun 2015 05:08 AM PDT
So, last week I had my period. Instead of tearing up some rags or locking myself away to contemplate my shameful uncleanness… I bought a pack of sanitary pads. Pretty extravagant of me, I know. Like indulging in a take-away, or buying a new jacket when the old one's still perfectly fine. But we all need life's little luxuries now and then, right? If, like most sane people, you actually think tampons and sanitary towels are more like "essentials" than "luxury products", then you'd be wrong in the eyes of current legislation in many parts of the world. In response to campaigns to end the so-called "tampon tax", the UK's ‘tax collectors’ HMRC has stated that the current five per cent VAT rate is the lowest possible under EU guidelines. HMRC categorises tampons and sanitary towels as "non-essential, luxury" items. On the other hand, as Laura Coryton points out in her petition calling for an end to the tax on menstrual products, items ranging from edible sugar flowers to helicopters are all tax-free. Meanwhile over in the USA, menstrual products are taxed in more states than sweets or fizzy drinks. This is not only ridiculous, but an affront to human rights. In many developing nations, lack of access to menstrual hygiene means many days of missed school or work, and health problems such as vaginal infection. And as Jessica Valenti has pointed out, this is not just a problem limited to the developing world. In the US, there are reports of women resorting to selling food stamps in order to indulge in the "luxury" of tampons or pads. In the UK, Natasha Preskey recently reported that some women are choosing to skip periods entirely, by taking the contraceptive pill without any breaks. One interviewee told her: "I’ve asked a couple of doctors and nurses and had no clear answer on what the long-term health effects might be but, at the end of the day, the pill is free and tampons aren’t." Campaigners have been fighting this issue for decades, yet the slow pace of change is frustratingly difficult to comprehend. In 2000, the UK did reduce the tax rate on menstrual products from a whopping 17.5 per cent to the current 5 per cent. And then at the end of last month, the Canadian government finally agreed to stop taxing tampons, sanitary towels and menstrual cups, taking effect from 1 July. Hopefully that will pave the way for other governments to follow suit. Aside from the financial cost, there are other important reasons to push for the recategorisation – and re-thinking – of sanitary items. Frances Lucraft, who organised a recent protest in Bristol, has highlighted concerns about both the health implications and the environmental impact. She points out, "Because sanitary products are not considered health products there are no guidelines that they have to state what a product is made from, and then we put them into our most intimate of areas." Her new company will also aim to reduce the huge amount of landfill waste currently produced, by focusing on creating biodegradable, organic menstrual products. Of course, the tampon tax is just one part of a much bigger picture in terms of how tax affects different groups within society, and our beliefs about the types of product/need that should be used to generate revenue – for either the public or private sector. Eleanor Robertson has recently suggested that what we really need is "a more holistic assessment of how our tax system affects women", alongside practical initiatives such as better ensuring homeless women have access to menstrual products. Agreed – but in the meantime, shall we just go ahead and scrap this ridiculous tax?  |
| Questions around Pride in London Posted: 10 Jun 2015 04:57 AM PDT
The organisers of London Pride have revoked UKIP’s invitation to the LGBT parade taking place on 27 June this year. They have also relegated trade union members from the front. But the corporate sponsors retain their headline positions at the event. So you have to ask: is there a danger of compromising the founding messages and the history of LGBT struggles and liberation? London’s Pride is less than three weeks away, and as the biggest single event in London and the largest LGBT celebration in the world, its significance cannot be underestimated. This year’s festival has attracted its customary share of controversy; organisers have revoked UKIP’s invitation to join the parade amid “concerns for safety”, and the historically militant group Lesbian and Gays Support the Miners (LGSM) has refused to take a position at the front of the parade in solidarity with trade union members denied the same opportunity. The parade will now be led by LGBT representatives from around the world holding their national flags, but corporate sponsors like Starbucks, Barclays and Citibank, will appear ahead of groups like the TUC and LGSM. Will appear before groups whose role has been fundamental in defining the political struggle for LGBT rights and visibility, as well as the history of Pride. On 5 June Pride in London organisers said that “We aim to unite our community, not divide it, and our intention is to serve the whole of our community with an inclusive event, so to exclude any group is not a decision we take lightly.” The question of who to exclude is divisive. Far right groups like the English Defence League (EDL( and the British National Party (BNP) have been denied spots in the parade in previous years and this seems justified. But now there are the ethical implications of permitting corporations and banks such a prolific role in the event, especially when they practice business in countries that have yet to even recognise LGBT rights. Pride depends on corporate sponsors for funding, but is the message and history of LGBT liberation being compromised? The success of Bafta award winning film, Pride, has helped to repopularise the struggle that united miners in the thick of 1980s Thatcherism with queer communities confronting brutal police repression, no rights and ubiquitous prejudice. And as the co-founder and secretary of LGSM, Mike Jackson, told PinkNews, "Our experiences show how much can be achieved when we stand together. This is a fundamental part of our history, of LGBT rights and of working people's rights. We are not two separate communities; we are the same." This year marks the 30th anniversary of the 1984-5 miner’s strike, and initial plans for the Tredegar town brass band to lead the 2015 parade would have paid respect to the 1985 parade led by miners to repay LGSM for their support. But this year LGSM will now walk with trade union members in block C, almost a mile back from the front of the parade. The political discussions continue over the decision to revoke UKIP’s invitation to march in the parade. An online petition campaigning for UKIP’s removal which raised over 2000 signatures, says: "Nigel Farage, leader of Ukip, clearly does not support the values of acceptance that Pride promotes, and Ukip is an inherently homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, racist and misogynistic political party." Protestors reportedly threatened sit-ins and other direct action if the party were allowed to participate in the parade. Although Farage reversed UKIP's opposition to same sex marriage just before the General Election last month, the party’s history is littered with instances of homophobia and racism. And during his election campaign, Farage himself warned of what he called the dangers of HIV positive immigrants ‘exploiting Britain’ for health tourism, and several UKIP candidates have voiced openly homophobic remarks. But UKIP’s (new) chair of LGBT, Flo Lewis, told the Guardian: 'The board of Pride in London have not decided to reject our application. Instead they have decided to rescind the invitation under threats from and complaints by other members of the LGBT community. 'All people, regardless of creed, colour or sexual orientation, can find a home in UKIP,’ Lewis continued. 'It is a sad day for diversity and freedom when these people are prohibited from expressing themselves as part of the wider community.' But as Pride has grown in scale and popularity, it is not only political parties that have clamoured to assert their LGBT credentials despite ambiguous track records, but also corporations. This year, Barclays is headline sponsor for the second time, and the bank will use the celebration to promote its new app Pingit, which allows people to donate money to LGBT causes and buy food and drink. Citibank, Exterion and CMS are other large corporate sponsors. Does the headlining of these companies, and their commercial use of the event, detract from Pride’s message, or enforce it? There are some obvious advantages to their involvement; demonstrating public support of LGBT rights sets a good precedent for diversity and helps to increase visibility and challenge discrimination, particularly in the workplace, where there has been increasing pressure for companies to be more inclusive and representative. And it is also great business. LGBT groups have long been targeted as a niche group of loyal consumers, but as LGBTQIA awareness and themes have become increasingly disseminated in more mainstream channels, and in the wake of Ireland’s recent Yes result after their same-sex marriage referendum, it is a good marketing strategy for companies to position themselves in support of diversity and acceptance. But as Nic Holas – queer activist and writer – told the Sydney Morning Herald, “It’s all very good to say ‘yes, we’re inclusive and yes we’re pro marriage equality and we love the gays’ but if they’re directly profiting off work with other nations that are doing the exact opposite that’s pink washing. “Marketing is effective when it comes to making corporates appear more human but the profit will always drive the decision-making process.” What is the effect of corporations co-opting messages of political struggle and histories of militant activism? Should right wing political parties with LGBT contingents be banned? The very essence of inclusivity suggests an acceptance of all who self-identify as LGBTQI, and those identifying as allies, but many claim that to create a space inclusive of all groups who want to be involved is to depoliticise Pride and commodify its symbols for the gain of those once considered hostile to the movement. A source close to the dispute told the Morning Star: "For many years there are some people involve in Pride who wanted to airbrush out the true history of how LGBT liberation was won. "We want a proper remembrance of our history."  |
| 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., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |