Women's Views on News |
| Fawcett Society and uniform clothing Posted: 14 Sep 2015 02:57 AM PDT
The Fawcett Society is campaigning to get this stopped. From a school in Hull that announced plans to ban girls from wearing skirts because they're too distracting and make male teachers feel 'uncomfortable', to a school in Plymouth that has banned skirts because girls rolled them up too high, it seems that some public institutions are intent on shaming girls for their bodies. But this attitude towards girls' dress code puts the blame squarely on the girls. Branding female bodies as inherently sexual, and punishing them for being so, creates a shame culture: attention focuses on young girls instead of on the males who supposedly can't control themselves in the first place. Authoritative figures are essentially implying that girl's bodies – many of which are pre-pubescent – are sexual and that it is their responsibility to adapt their so-called 'distracting' attire to fit the needs of their male classmates. If the issue is the inability of the male population to control its behaviour, you would assume that the centre of focus would be on that, as opposed to shifting the blame entirely onto the bodies of unsuspecting girls. Then there is the timing issue: the age at which girls begin to be called out for their clothing in school often coincides with the start of street harassment and catcalling, since most women's first experience of catcalling predates adulthood. When you combine the implications of body shaming by teachers, the discomfort caused by being leered at in the street and the myriad of images showing how women should look, it's no wonder that generations of young girls are struggling with a self-esteem deficit. Help fight this. Join Fawcett's campaign to give boys and girls the same options for school uniforms and #DontBlameItOnTheGirls. It is time to have one uniform list, not one for boys and one for girls: uniforms and how they are worn should not make girls subject to blame or disadvantage. Male teachers and boys should be able to manage their own minds to maintain focus on their work, and not blame it on girls if they get distracted. Teachers' time and energy is best spent on educating young women and men and opening a world of opportunity for everyone, not turning the school experience into one of victim and prey. The way men behave should not be blamed on girls and what they wear. Fawcett thinks it is time to speak up for girls, and wants to hear from you. Should we have one uniform list for boys and girls? Let Fawcett know by email or by using the #dontblameitonthegirls hashtag on Twitter. And they want to hear your thoughts – and about what is happening at your school or your children's school.  |
| July’s budget impact research out Posted: 14 Sep 2015 01:09 AM PDT
New research published by the TUC shows that the poorest working households will lose on average £460 a year by 2020 because of government changes to tax and benefits, despite the Chancellor's minimum wage increase. However, the richest working households will be made £670 a year better off. The research analysed the combined impact on annual incomes in 2020 of changes due to be made to universal credit, benefits, the minimum wage and tax allowances. It also included gains from the Chancellor's planned increases to the minimum wage. This type of distributional analysis was included in every Budget in the course of the last parliament, but it was excluded from the Chancellor's July Budget. It looks at the average impacts to all households in the UK, including pensioners, of changes announced in the Budget. It also looks at the impacts by whether or not householders have work. Working households in the middle of the spectrum make a small gain on average, but it is much less than the average gains that the wealthiest stand to receive. The difference between the top and the middle shows up even more starkly in the decile analysis for all households, which shows that the average annual gain for the top decile in 2020 – £780 – is twenty times the average gain for the fifth decile – £40. The average weekly gain for the wealthiest working households – £12.88 – is enough to buy a bottle of champagne each week, with plenty of change left over – were the wealthy to buy Comte de Senneval Champagne Brut, which costs £9.99 in Lidl. However, the average weekly loss for low income working households – of £8.85 – is equivalent to a weekly basket of groceries including: 2 litres of milk, a large wholemeal loaf, 1 litre of orange juice, 500g of cornflakes, 6 eggs, 800g of apples, 500g of beef mince, 400g of tinned tomatoes, 1kg of pasta, a 4 pack of yoghurts at current Lidl prices in Lidl. Alternatively, the average annual amount lost by low paid working households – £460 – is equivalent to a year's worth of school dinners for one child at a cost of £2.50 per day for 190 school days – a sum worked out as an average in the UK. The research also looked at the impact of the changes on non-working households. It showed a similar pattern of large gains at the top, minor gains in the middle, and losses for the bottom – although these losses are not as great as when only working households are included. The analysis assumes that all qualifying households have been transferred from tax credits to Universal Credit by 2020. However, if the transition to Universal Credit is delayed, the poorest deciles will face even larger losses worth hundreds of pounds more each year because of cuts the government is making to tax credits. The TUC has said that this research shows that the government's tax and benefit policies will redistribute from the poorest to the richest. And this will worsen inequality and poverty – especially in-work poverty. The TUC’s General Secretary, Frances O'Grady, said: "Even after the extra help from a larger tax allowance and a higher minimum wage, low paid families will still be made more than £8 a week worse off on average by 2020. "And if Universal Credit is delayed, leaving families still on tax credits, their losses will be hundreds of pounds a year more. "David Cameron needs to explain to low paid families why he is cutting their income by the same amount as a whole year of school dinners, but he's giving the richest a cash boost worth a bottle of champagne every week," she continued. "We need a recovery that works for everyone, not just those at the top. "But by cutting support for low paid families, despite a growing economy, the government is shutting them out of the recovery. "And worse than that, it's also giving rich households a tax break by taking support away from the low paid. "Not only is this unfair, but it's bad economics," O’Grady continued; "We need more money in the pockets of low paid families so that they can get out and spend it in their local businesses." To read the full report, click here.
 |
| 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 | |