Tampon Tax: Revisited

242 days ago, our first post on Adam and Even was about the tampon tax, the tax which forces everybody who menstruates to pay 5% tax on sanitary products as they are deemed ‘unnecessary’ by the 70% male British parliament. 

This, by its nature, is a female only tax and an example of plain discrimination based on gender. It seems ridiculous that we are forced to pay 5% extra on tampons and sanitary towels when betting shops are VAT exempt.

Last night there was a vote in the House of Commons which voted AGAINST the proposal which would abolish the 5% tax which half the population are forced to pay, with their 30% lower wages, for a good part of their lives. Perhaps I was naïve, but I really hoped that the 191 female MPs would vote for this proposal, showing female solidarity. 

But no. A number of Conservative female MPs incomprehensibly voted to continue this unfair tax. 

One of these MPs was my local MP, Maria Miller. I was shocked that she had given in to the powerful men who are willing to publicly persecute every women in this country. The reason that I am so shocked is that on the 20th April this year, I went with a number of other members of GirlGuiding UK to an evening called ‘Girls Matter’ which was organised by Maria Miller to encourage brownies and guides aged from 7 to get their voices heard, to try and put across what they believed was right and to believe in themselves. Over the course of the evening we spoke about everything from cyber bullying to the representation of females in the media. I was genuinely blown away and I went to college the next day raving about this tory, expenses cheating woman to my left wing feminist friends. Miller personally told me that she would try everything in her power to reduce the tax on these sanitary products and her personal aim was to get David Cameron to say 'tampon' yet it turns out that she is just another liar. 

However politics aside, it confuses me that the few women who actually have the power to change things all bow down to what the men want, even when it will NEVER affect the men. At this moment, the change.org petition to stop the tampon tax has 257,368 supporters, yet out of the 191 female MPs who make up 30% of our government, over 60 of them voted for this tax which they will have to pay every month. It is just another example of how women are silenced in their places of work because I genuinely don’t believe that these women are happy paying this sexist tax.

Written by Georgina

Picture credit: Lili

HeforShe

In amongst the free dominoes and endless flyers promising discounted nights out, it was a pleasant surprise to have the presence of the HeforShe campaign at this university societies fair.

The big black and pink tour bus was surrounded by students, men and women alike. It was so encouraging to see crowds of people gathering to sign up to the campaign, and then to listen to a very inspiring speech from .........

The HeforShe campaign aims to encourage men to get involved in the fight for gender equality. So many people believe that to be a feminist you must be a woman, but in fact feminism is an issue which affects all of us in our daily lives. For this reason it is essential that we continue to encourage men to join in, because without this vital cooperation from half the population it will be very difficult to change society's attitudes and beliefs.

Furthermore, especially in developing countries, men still have the majority of power and therefore are in some cases the only people able to influence others and make a positive change. Even here in the UK David Cameron only has 7 women in his 22 member cabinet. Admittedly this is a marked improvement on previous cabinets but it still leaves women in a minority such that they make up less than a third of this group. However, although some may argue (perhaps correctly) that we do indeed need the help of men when striving for equality, it is also worth noting that the HeforShe campaign is not about weak women seeking help from their more powerful counterparts, nor about helpless women being saved by men. Instead it focuses on the fact that to achieve equality we need to engage society as a whole, men included, and therefore it is very positive that so many male university students signed up to the campaign yesterday.

It is also worth mentioning that HeforShe is very much a global movement, and therefore it often encourages people in developed countries to work to improve the terrible situations many women in poorer countries find themselves in. There is a lot of emphasis placed on the importance of educating young women and girls, which perhaps is the most relevant thing for university students to relate to. In some ways one could argue that by starting at this fundamental foundation of society, education, we can open doors to women and girls, giving them more opportunities in life.

Regardless, HeforShe is an amazing organisation improving women's lives worldwide, and the university tours are certainly a good way to get more people involved.



Written by Lili

Picture credit: Lili

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/29/heforshe-campaign-makes-tour-of-10-university-campuses 
http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/press-releases/2015/september/un-women-launches-heforshe-getfree-tour-at-university-of-leicester

Ballet shoes

For those who did not already know, the attire and appearance of ballet dancers is of great importance. For this reason ballet shoes should be skin colour so as not to interrupt the line of the dancer's legs. 

Why then are pointe shoes (ballet shoes) only available in the traditional shades of pink? 

It seems absurd that in this day and age black ballerinas are at a disadvantage. Cira Robinson is a senior artist at the Ballet Black dance company, and she, like so many other black ballet dancers, uses foundation to 'pancake' her points shoes so that they match her skin colour. It seems strange that she should have to apply foundation to every pair of shoes she wears, and it is unclear as to why pointe shoes are not available in more skin colours. The fact that they are not is obvious discrimination. 

Although this is a very small, niche detail that clearly does not affect the majority of people, it nevertheless demonstrates that we have not yet reached complete equality with regards to ethic minorities in our society.

Perhaps what I am trying to say is that the battle is not over, of course progress in regards to equality has been rapid and largely successful, but problems remain ingrained in our culture. It is essential that this does not go unnoticed. 

Written by Lili 

Picture credit: Lili

Kiran Gandhi

Periods aren’t fun. Running 26.2 miles doesn’t strike me as much fun either. So when your period falls on a marathon for which you’ve been training for nearly a year, it’s easy to imagine the difficult position you are put in. Do you keep taking your pill to skip a period and face the consequences of being pumped with hormones? Do you give up and not run, waste the last year of incredible sacrifice and hard work just because your womb has decided to shed its lining? Do you run wearing a tampon, which could cause severe discomfort and worry about finding toilets along the way?

Kiran Gandhi decided to literally stick it to man when she got her period the day before she ran the London Marathon for breast cancer without any form of sanitary protection. She states a number of reasons including raising awareness for those women who do not have access to protection and the fact that it would be inconvenient for her. The response to her selfless 26.2 miles has shocked me, the media has branded her a ‘egotistical’ ‘unhygienic’ and ‘disgusting’. Everything that Kiran did for this marathon has been for women. She raised money for breast cancer, a disease where 99% of the sufferers are female [national breast cancer] and she raised awareness about periods. She has stated that she wants women to be able to talk about the pain they feel with their monthly periods because many women feel that their periods affect their careers, one in four stating that it affects how well they concentrate in the work place [daily mail], by talking about it, it may lead to a better understanding, less stigma and less shame.

Kiran has succeeded in bringing the topic of periods back into the media. She shocked people and she made a very awkward male radio 2 presenter say the word ‘tampon’. Yet there is a lot more to be done, we need to banish the idea that periods are disgusting, this only adds to the fear that young girls experience whilst growing up. They become use to the idea that periods are unnatural and something to be hidden away, which could cause them to be ashamed of their bodies. We are punished for having periods, we are taxed for having periods, we are losing out at work because of out periods. When in actual fact, periods are a part of everybody’s life. They are necessary. We need to normalise periods, my own mum who has had periods for 30 plus years and two children was horrified when she first heard about Kiran on the radio. But once Kiran explained why she did it and what she hoped the consequences would be, my mum began to understand it and by the end of the radio interview actually supported her. This shows that we need talk about periods and be honest about how they affect us, instead of hiding them out of embarrassment. This doesn’t mean we need to necessarily ruin our favourite jeans by not wearing protection if we don’t want to, but it means we need to speak up about periods and not make horrible comments about Kiran and what she’s bravely done. 

Written by Georgina

Picture Credit: Ellen

https://medium.com/absurdist/going-with-the-flow-blood-sisterhood-at-the-london-marathon-
f719b98713e7http://www.nationalbreastcancer.org/male-breast-cancerhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-358454/Period-pain-cripples-womens-careers.html 

The JK culture

All over the world millions of young girls and women are viewed as sexual objects by men and society. But the situation in Japan, a country which has been called the most misogynistic in the whole developed world, seems far worse than some others.

In Japan, schoolgirls line the streets, dressed in uniform, selling services to older men such as a 30 minute chat or a walk around the block. They are very popular amongst Japanese men, but the creepiest fact is that older, middle aged men, frequently seem more interested. The age of consent in Japan is only 13, and if you type 'school girl' into google, the first hit is sexy school girl costumes, so it is undoubtedly an issue.

Whilst on the face of it many of the services being sold appear to be fairly innocent, unfortunately young girls are often offered more money to perform 'additional services', such as sexual acts including sexual intercourse itself. Seeing as almost all of these girls are underage, the fact that they are finding themselves in these compromising situations is very saddening.

The 'schoolgirl' (or 'JK' in Japanese) culture started in the 90's, and every year more and more young girls find themselves on the street, working for male bosses, selling themselves in this way. Many of these girls come from broken families, or have run away from home, so in such an isolated environment they have nobody to turn to for help.

There do exist some aid workers, and the Japanese authorities have performed some raids on the places where these young girls work, but it does not appear that enough is being done to combat this extremely inappropriate behaviour. Many people blame the girls for agreeing to this job in the first place, but it seems clear to me that they are the victims.

The very fact that there is such an obsession with young girls dressed in school uniform is sickening, and in a country which has agreed to the UN requirements for equality between men and women it surely must be stopped.

Written by Lili

Picture credit: Ellen




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NcIGBKXMOE

Career vs Children

In light of the recent moves by parliament to close the gender pay gap once and for all (it is now necessary for all companies with over 250 employees to reveal the difference between the average salaries paid to men and women, in an attempt to shame them into paying men and women equally), the real question for me is whether or not this policy addresses the root of the issue.

Shamefully British women continue to earn less than their male counterparts in spite of legislation intended to prevent this. However this is no longer due to open discrimination but instead it seems that, once again, womens' ability to reproduce is impeding their advances in the work place.

The problem appears to lie in the period of time during and after childbirth. For every new Mother, regardless of her ambitions, it is necessary to take time off from her job. Even with changes to paternity leave allowing men to share this burden the vast majority of Mothers end up taking a sizable break from their careers. This effectively means that many Mothers fall behind their male counterparts whilst having children, something that is near impossible to recover from, this great disadvantage prevents countless women from progressing in their careers and therefore they are less likely to be earning as much as men, simply due to the fact that they have not climbed as high up the career ladder.

Unfortunately there is a fair amount of evidence to support this, if we look at the most influential female politicians, many are childless. Nicola Sturgeon, Angela Merkel, Theresa May and Liz Kendall to name but a few, are all women who have sacrificed having a family for the sake of their jobs. Obviously this was a personal choice on their parts, and there are women who have succeeded whilst raising children, but the problem is that this remains far less likely. Therefore it is unsurprising that so few politicians are female.

With young women today facing a choice between children and a high powered job, undoubtedly something needs to change, but how make this change is the real question.

Already there have been alterations made to employment laws in order to break the glass ceiling, but it is impossible to escape the facts of biology. Women are ultimately more suited to nursing babies soon after childbirth, and therefore, even when Fathers want to take the lion's share of childcare, this is far harder during early childhood without being at the expense of the children, for example depriving them of breast milk. 

Part time work is a solution, and although this is satisfactory for many Mothers, it is impossible to progress at the same speed as men without working the same hours as them and therefore there is only so high up these women can get.

To conclude, somehow women need to be able to pursue their own careers without this being at the expense of their children and family life, however this complex issue in not one easily solved. And perhaps it will never be possible for women to be successful in the work place and devoted Mothers, meaning that the best we can hope for is to give all women a choice between their career and family.


Written by Lili

Picture Credit: Ellen

The Week Magazine: "Motherhood: a political conundrum" (25th July 2015)

Are we forcing our students into sex work?

So the recent budget revealed that the Conservatives will be scrapping grants given to students from less well-off backgrounds helping them with their maintenance costs throughout University. Seeing as these grants will be largely replaced with loans, many argue that this won't negatively effect British students, after all they will still have access to the money the only difference being that they have to pay it back now. However, there is a curious link with sex work being done by students in order to earn money and reduce their debts.

In a recent study carried out by Swansea University, 22% of British students admitted to considering working in the sex industry, while 5% of students actually did. They also found that 45% of these students were entering into the sex industry in order to avoid debt. 

With the typical university student finishing their studies with around £44,000 of debt, the new plans put in place by the Tory government are likely to aggravate this situation. Perhaps with rising debts more and more students will be driven into sex work as a quick way to make money. 

Perhaps the most surprising thing about the study that was carried out, was the fact that more men than women admitted to working in the sex industry. This is a significant finding as it is stereotypically thought that women are more likely to enter into this industry, however this study suggested otherwise. This could either show the fact that this issue is becoming evermore widespread, and that men are suffering more, or it could be due to the fact that men felt more able to admit to being involved in this particular industry. Either way this definitely shows that this is something which effects both male and female students and therefore an issue which needs addressing.  

The fact that 49% of those involved in direct sex work had a fear of violence also demonstrates the severity of the issue, and the necessity to better protect those involved. It is important that universities take measures to educate students about sex work and hopefully the recent cuts to grants won't exacerbate the problem. But ultimately the our current method regarding university fees is clearly not ideal if so many young people are being forced into sex work. 

Written by Lili

Picture credit: Ellen

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-32068673

https://www.google.co.uk/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=krulVLWkD4aB7Qby14HYCg#q=average+uk+student+debt

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-33667829

Nipples and Nipple Tassles

The Free the Nipple campaign, for those of you that haven't heard, seeks to achieve equality between men and women's upper bodies. That is to say that they are fighting against the sexualisation of women's breasts and nipples. Whilst it is widely accepted for men to be seen in public shirtless, this is rarely the case for women.

As the law stands in Britain, it is not illegal for women to be topless in public, however it is up to the police officers' discretion as to whether or not this is disruptive, because if they deem it antisocial, women may be asked to cover up. Thus the double standard does not lie in the law, but rather in our social conditioning.

It used to be the case that both men's and women's torsos were deemed inappropriate. In fact, before 1936, it was illegal for men to go topless in the US, and they too had to fight for the right to take their shirts off in public. However, following their success, it seems unfair that women are not accorded the same rights as men. Why, when men's torsos have been de-sexualized do women's breasts remain objects of desire?

It is clear that we need to alter society's perception of women's upper bodies in order to reach equality on this matter, however this will, undoubtedly, take time.

Furthermore, campaigning on this particular issue is being damaged by claims that the 'Free the Nipple' campaign is contradicting battles against the sexualisation of women in the media. Many argue that women going topless is only leading to more objectification and therefore is counterproductive. Instead they say women should cover up more, and therefore escape the male gaze. However this is not at all helpful, why should women be forced to dress more modestly in order to avoid judgement from males? It does not seem at all fair that women should need to suffer when the problem lies with society's perception of the female body, clearly society needs to change, not the way in which we dress.

The main message here is that we need to appreciate that the problem is not women dressing provocatively, but the reaction that they receive. In our current society it seems absurd that women should have what they wear dictated to them, instead we need to alter society's attitudes, so that women are just as free as men with regards to what they wear. In changing our perception of the female body, in particular breasts and nipples, we can have a situation in which women no longer need to feel self conscious about their bodies, something which is essential in the fight for equality.
 
So please lets avoid misunderstandings of Free the Nipple, because it's aim it to de-sexualise women's breasts and normalize toplessness in public, a very important step towards equality.


Written by Lili

Picture credit: Ellen

http://gotopless.org/timeline
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_the_Nipple_(campaign)    

Is Equality a Must?

Most scream for equality. A confident, assured individual wouldn't contemplate differential treatment. But does that always apply...
Do you expect a 'gentleman' to pay for your meal, pull back your chair or crack on with some DIY? Whilst you stay contempt with ironing shirts, cooking many meals or do the washing up?
Perhaps you scoff at this as the they are the oppressive gender stereotypical roles. But for some this may be the agreed equal responsibilities of respective couples. Surely, it is living in a world with the freedom that can allow one to choose to adhere to activities indicative of gender stereotypes, that we have reached equality. On a macro-level, most women should believe in egalitarian opportunity, socially, economically and politically. However, So many women live in societies uncompromising in their expectations.

Written by Elizabeth

Picture credit: Ellen

The Power of Advertising

I, like many other women, shave my legs nearly all year round. I have done for a while now, and it never crossed my mind not to. The very idea of allowing the spiky black hairs to grow as nature intended is not one I find attractive. In fact quite the opposite.

Nowadays unshaven legs on a women does not have positive connotations. Most men find it unattractive, and I certainly do not know of many young women who are brave enough to expose hairy legs in public.

However, what surprised me, is that the idea of shaving one's legs has in fact only been around since the First World War (about 1915). Before this it would seem that both men and women went about their daily lives without casting a second thought to the hair on their bodies - something that may seem strange to us now.

When skirts became shorter and sheer stockings came into fashion it became obvious when a women had unshaven legs. However I am not sure as to what extent this would have influenced societal norms had it not been for the advertising.

Big companies soon realised that they could exploit this new 'hair removal' culture, and thus the fashion was born. Endless advertising campaigns begun, with captions such as: "the fastidious woman today must have immaculate underarms if she is to be unembarrassed." This idea of shaming women into removing hair from their bodies is what caused such a dramatic cultural shift. Whereas before it had been acceptable to be hairy, now it was something to be ashamed of. Moreover the reasons for the shame were always centered around the idea of pleasing men. Some adverts read "he'll never guess you shave." And the principle message was that shaven legs and underarms were essential for pleasing a man.

I think that the strength of this pressure, and the fact that it revolved around an issue which preoccupied the majority of women at this time (namely finding a man to marry), is why we feel obliged to have perfectly smooth skin at all times.

Regardless of your opinion, I think that is safe to say that the power of advertising is perhaps stronger than we might have guessed. That is to say that these clever companies highlighted a weakness in the minds of women worldwide, namely their desire to be deemed attractive, and thus harnessed this insecurity and used it to their own advantage, selling countless millions of hair removal products over the following decades...

Written by Lili

Picture credit: Ellen




http://www.dailylife.com.au/dl-beauty/hair/when-did-we-decide-women-should-shave-their-legs-20150526-gh9ao1 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/relationships/10968221/What-do-men-think-about-women-with-hairy-legs.html

Jenner and Beauty

I am a cis girl, therefore I will never truly understand the struggles that someone who does not feel comfortable in their assigned birth gender will experience but I will try my hardest not to make unfair judgement in this piece.

I am thrilled for Caitlyn Jenner that she can finally be her true self. I have great respect for her for going through something so challenging in the eye of the world’s media, but I am shocked at the way the media has treated it.

Before her transition, Caitlyn was an olympic gold medal winner, and any news articles written about her 20 or 30 years ago would describe her as an American sporting hero. Not once was there an article whose main focus was her appearance instead of her successes.

Now everywhere I look, on the train, in shops, on the internet; the only stance the media has now is how beautiful Caitlyn is. You’d be forgiven for forgetting that this is the same person who has won olympic gold medals. Naturally, because of societal norms and pressures, we all want to be deemed attractive, but it is important to remember that Caitlyn Jenner is part of a multimillion dollar family who have access to the world’s best surgeons. Caitlyn Jenner is still the same woman who appeared in the Diane Swayer interview, pre operations, but it seems only now that the newspapers dare to call her beautiful. Only now she has conformed to our society's expectations of how a beautiful women should look.

I think I’m trying to make two points here; the different way in which the media treat men and women, even when they have accomplished the same achievements, and the fact that people who are transgender are only fully accepted by society when they have spent a lot of money conforming to our idea of beauty.

Transgender people are still the least economically active group of people in the western world, so many people who find themselves in the same position as Caitlyn will not be able to afford all the treatment she has had, nor may they want it. Therefore it is important that we continue to fight societal pressures so that people can feel comfortable in their own skin, despite how they look.

Written by Georgina

Picture Credit: Ellen

The Danger Lurking Underground

It seems a while ago that we first heard about the controversial technique of Hydraulic Fracturing, or  'Fracking,' as a way of extracting Shale gas from the ground, yet the issue has not gone away, and with the Green Party still left with just one MP after Thursday's election, the danger is only likely to increase.

So is fracking really all bad? Supposedly fracking could be worth over £1.1 billion across the UK over the course of around a decade, and given that the gas and oil companies have a scheme involving huge economic benefits for the local communities, it is unsurprising that David Cameron has said fracking is "good for the UK."

However, if for a moment we consider this issue from an unselfish point of view, we might be able to see past the potential money in the fracking industry and remember that we are currently facing many serious issues regarding our environment and climate change.

The process of fracking involves pumping numerous harmful chemicals (up to 330 tons per well) into the ground in order to force the gas out of the ground. This might not be so bad if it was not for the fact that so many of these chemical leak into the ground. It has been found that 5-7% of all new fracking sites leak, and that in the long term every well will leak. This has disastrous effects on the local community, because these chemicals contaminate the ground and the water supply, and have consequently been linked to higher incidences of cancer along with other illnesses across the country. Not only does the process of fracking pollute our water supply, it also uses millions of gallons of water during the process itself, thereby wasting our precious water supply.

Furthermore, perhaps the strangest thing of all is the fact that once we have extracted this gas and oil through fracking, we then proceed to burn it as we normally do with fossil fuels. This only adds to the growing amount of pollution in the world, and as we all know, unleashing this carbon dioxide has a detrimental effect on out environment. Moreover this is not even a long term solution to our energy crisis, it has been shown in the US that the supply of this type of gas and oil has already peaked after just a decade of exploitation, meaning this process is far less efficient than our North Sea oil for example, and also requires more and more wells to be drilled to keep up with demand.

I personally believe that the cons far outweigh the pros of fracking, and I cannot believe that any economic gain is worth destroying our planet in this way; after all, without sounding too extreme, if we carry on like this, our planet may no longer be inhabitable, and I can't see the economy being important under those circumstances....

Written by Lili



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/fracking/11224097/Fracking-wont-cut-bills-and-ministers-oversold-shale-gas-benefits-experts-say.html
http://frack-off.org.uk/fracking-hell/

My Take on the Anti-Austerity Marches

This is my "I'm-angry-at-the-lack-of- respect-for-anti-Tory-protesters-but-I'm-going-to-try-to-remain-civil-to-those-that-may-disagree-rant". I can't see this possibly going wrong.

First, a Latin lesson.

When you consider the word democracy, it actually comes from the Latin "demos" meaning people. People. People make a democracy. It is a living, breathing, organic manifestation that we call the centre of our society. It is not a thought experiment with variables and hypotheticals. We have it in place in order to create some sort of order, but in our non-representational democracy where 1 million votes can equal 1 MP, 1.5 million can equal 56 and 39% somehow equals a majority, there is bound to be dissent.

So, when it emerged that the Conservatives had won the General Election outright and I was in utter disbelief, of course I was very excited when I knew I was not the only one who felt so strongly opposed, clearly, given the protest. Up until then I felt I was going mad; like I and a few others had missed something. This feeling of solidarity quickly dissipated though when tweets AGAINST the protest kept popping up on my Twitter feed. I was so confused that rational people were trying to silence people's democratic right to protest. Until suddenly, all became clear:

                                                           

                                                         

Now I understood. The riots had a violent element to them and a WW2 war memorial had been defaced. Obviously this behaviour is unacceptable but we must remember that the majority of the protest was peaceful.

To those who read these tweets and condemn the riots, please, this is my olive branch to you. This is how we feel.

For months and months, those who read the constant doom and gloom of the newspapers (Bedroom tax, food banks, austerity literally killing the poor) have been thrilled at the idea of more liberal parties gaining power. Bored of the same boys club politics, constant promises from newspapers that a new dawn is coming, many of us truly believed it would be over. Of course, it never occurred to many of us that one would read all the horrors we hear of millions of children going to school under clothed and under fed and not want change. It truly was such a shock for many.

To then be told that the "majority" of people voted for this and there was not even a hung parliament despite speculation for months that there undoubtedly would be one, there would be change, there would be improvements, really was stunning.

With all of this in mind we need to understand the gravity of the election result. This will have serious, life changing effects for people. This goes beyond a fun little debate topic that you can drop after a week when you get bored. This election, this austerity will seriously change people's lives for the worse. £50 million pounds is being cut from mental health services for children alone. People who desperately need benefits, who are disabled, who are terminally ill are being deemed fit for work and die as a result.

Whilst I accept that a voter has the right to vote for a party whose policies may be detrimental to others, that voter must in turn accept that those negatively affected by the election result have the democratic right to protest.

Written by Ella

The Tories Stand out in More Ways than Won

I intend to write this post without bias, so apologies if my opinions seep through.

I thought it was worth acknowledging that since the recent resignations of Nick Clegg, Nigel Farage and Ed Miliband, all the major political parties bar the conservatives are currently being led by women.

Admittedly Harriet Harman (Labour), Sal Brinton (Lib Dem) and Suzanne Evans (UKIP) are only acting leaders for the moment (although Suzanne Evans is likely to take over as leader if Farage decides not to run again) this is still fairly impressive given that as recently as 2001 only 118 MP's were women, let alone being in charge of the parties.

I suppose you might wonder why this important, and maybe it isn't. But I do think there is some significance in this sudden surge in women leaders. For me it is an exciting prospect to be able to finally vote for a women prime minister (no disrespect to Natalie Bennet (Green Party) but she was highly unlikely to win the election), and perhaps this marks a shift in our politics at last.

For too long British politics has been dominated by Oxbridge educated middle class men, and I believe that for a true democracy it is essential that the people feel represented. It is no wonder so many people are disillusioned with politics (only 66.1% of us voted on Thursday) when politicians seem so out of touch with real people.

Undoubtedly one of the secrets to UKIP's success is Nigel Farage's ability to connect with the electorate and his image as 'one of us,' perhaps the other parties will learn from this.

Back to the issue of women in politics, I would like to draw attention to a newly elected MP for the Scottish National Party, Mhairi Black. She is a 20-year-old university student, and has made history as the youngest British MP since 1667. Regardless of whether or not you support the party to which she belongs, it cannot be argues that she has made an incredible achievement. Not only did she win her seat, she also beat Douglas Alexander, and Labour MP who's name I am sure you all recognise. Winning against such a tough opposition only reinforces her success, and I hope that she inspires young people, particularly young women, to get involved in politics.

We are more equally represented now than ever before, and I really hope this encourages more people to take an interest in politics more frequently than every 5 years. Whatever you think about our politicians, they have the power to shape our society and consequently have a huge impact on all of our lives.

Written by Lili

Picture Credit: Ellen

http://www.ukpolitical.info/FemaleMPs.htm
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/every-major-british-political-party--except-the-conservatives--currently-led-by-a-woman-10238390.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11592557/General-election-2015-highest-turnout-since-Tony-Blair-landslide.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/08/politics/uk-elections-scotland-mhairi-black-labour/

How Much is my Vote Worth?

This is a question that many of us will have asked ourselves last Thursday on our way (or not) to the polling station.

This recent election, marking a shift from two party politics to multi-party politics has provoked much debate about the fairness of our voting system.

We all know that the Conservatives won the election, by a slim margin of 12 seats, however what you may not realise is that only 39.6% of votes were for the Conservatives. That is to say that over 60% of the electorate did not vote for the party currently leading our country. Fair?

Some say yes, others say no.

If we had had proportional representation instead of first past the post, the seats in parliament would have been as follows: (please know that it was very difficult to find these figures as there are lots of conflicting numbers out there, so perhaps it is best to take this as a rough estimate)

Conservatives: 240 seats
Labour: 213
UKIP: 83
Lib Dems: 53
SNP: 37
Green Party: 24

Regardless of the accuracy of these figures, it is strikingly obvious that many more of the minor parties are represented in far greater numbers using proportional representation. Just in case you weren't aware, there are several different types of proportional representation (for example the AV ('alternative vote') option that we voted on in a referendum in 2011), however without going into too much detail, the general idea is that if a party gains 20% of votes, for example, then said party will gain 20% of the seats in parliament.

This system would dramatically change the make up of the House of Commons (as shown above), and would be beneficial for smaller parties such as UKIP, the Lib Dems and the Green Party. Many people argue that such a system would reduce the power of our government, as it would almost certainly be impossible to govern without forming a coalition, thereby reducing the government's efficiency in passing laws. Furthermore, in scrapping the first past the post system which we have now, it would be a lot harder for constituencies/areas to have an MP who represented them. That is to say that one's MP would almost certainly come from another part of the country and quite possibly not belong to the party for which the majority of constituents voted. It is clear that Brits seem to favour a strong, single party government; demonstrated by the recent Tory majority, but to what extent should we suppress smaller parties in order to have a more 'efficient' government?

Many of the smaller parties, for example the Green Party, argue that proportional representation is a for more democratic system as it more accurately represents the opinions of the electorate, and does not favour the larger parties.

To demonstrate this, we should take into account the fact that to gain just one seat, UKIP needed nearly 4 million votes, this is 100 times more votes per seat than the Conservatives needed, and UKIP received an astonishing 2.3 million more votes than the SNP despite the fact that the SNP have 56 seats in parliament. This is clearly unfair, and it means that many people are not represented by an MP from their preferred party simply because of where they live.

This means that a Labour voter in a Conservative stronghold is likely to feel like their vote is worthless, and to be quite honest, that is basically the case. Of course if we all thought like that nothing would ever change, but why should those with minority views be stuck voting in a constituency that is extremely unlikely to ever change party? In my constituency of East Hampshire, 22180 votes went to defeated parties, that is to say that all these votes meant nothing. All those people went unheard and their votes were wasted. The current system also means that two thirds of the MP's elected in 2010 did not have the support of the majority of their constituents. Think how many disappointed voters that figure equates to. Unfortunately there is no clear or easy way to solve this injustice, and it remains unlikely that we will see change whilst the large parties continue to benefit from the current system and thereby are unlikely to pass a law that would not act in their favour.

However, undoubtedly there are flaws with the system of proportional representation, and perhaps not everybody would want 83 members of the UKIP party in government, but the fact remains that this system would certainly allow for a fairer representation of parties in the House of Commons. As our political system becomes less about Tory vs Labour and more about the smaller parties too, it is inevitable that the appetite for a reformed voting system will continue to grow.

Written by Lili

Picture Credit: Ellen

P.S. As a little aside, the process by which we elected our MEP's is proportional representation, and this has allowed for the rise of extreme right wing parties throughout Europe....(to the extent that an estimated third of MEP's will be anti-Europe in the coming years) think what you will about that...



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32601281
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/575888/Ukip-would-have-83-seats-under-proportional-representation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum,_2011

Where's the Money Coming From?

Since the new boss for NHS England announced that the NHS needs a further £8bn of spending per year, the political parties have been desperately scrabbling around for extra pennies in order to convince us that they will fulfill this spending increase. But should we believe what they are promising us?

Just a quick breakdown for those of you who have not yet received flyers through your letterboxes:

- The Tories recently promised a "guarantee of an £8bn increase in spending per year above inflation by 2020"
- The Lib Dems are promising that "funding will increase by at least £8 billion a year"
- Labour "has pledged to spend an extra £2.5 billion a year on the NHS."
- Ukip are offering an extra £3 billion for NHS frontline services
- And the Green Party Back  a rise in NHS spending across UK of £24bn by 2020-21

This is all very good, and clearly it is very important that we provide our NHS with the necessary funding, else we could risk more privatisation and an even longer waiting time in A&E.

However, not to put too much of a downer on this, but where exactly are these parties getting all these billions of pounds from? UKIP assure us that their policies are all fully costed, yet to what extent can we trust these politicians?

The issue boils down to whether or not we can believe everything we read and watch about politics, that is to say that, in the run up to an election, is it possible that every single politician interviewed s being completely honest with us? To what extent is what they are saying true, and how much of it is only designed to coax a vote out of us...

A study by the independent found that only 18% of the British population trust politicians, even less than those who trust journalists (21%). This is an alarming statistic, especially seeing as we are allowing these people to run our country, despite these figures. However can we really blame them? Surely in their position, many of us would de the same? After all it is only natural to want to win as many votes as possible. Given that the average British adult only thinks about politics for 5 seconds per week (hopefully more during the run up to an election but still...) it is unsurprising that politicians constantly repeat key catch phrases, thus luring us into voting for them without having actually examined their manifesto in it's entirety.

So to sum up, although it is understandable, I do think that quite often the figures presented to us by political parties are often too good to be true. Therefore it is down to us as voters, to be more sceptical and to question the viability of certain political policies, only then can we make a truly educated and informed decision.


By Lili

Picture Credit: Ellen


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29741776 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30796343
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/10/george-osborne-conservative-party-election-pledge-extra-8bn-nhs
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/why-dont-we-trust-our-politicians-8531134.html

FGM

Female gential mutilation (FGM) is the practice of removing parts, or even all, of a woman’s external genitalia and shockingly, it still affects roughly 133 million women throughout Africa and Asia (http://en.wikipedia.org). It is not only a non-Western issue; despite being illegal in the UK, it’s estimated that 20,000+ girls below 15 years of age are at risk of undergoing FGM each year, whilst nearly 70,000 women in the UK are suffering from the consequences of FGM (http://www.nhs.uk). The harmful ritual tends to be carried out before girls reach puberty, meaning that generally girls are “cut” between infancy and 15 years. The exact procedure varies cross-culturally, however non-sterile equipment such as scissors, glass, sharpened rocks and horrifyingly, fingernails, are frequently used. The procedure is normally carried out by an older woman with no medical training, and anaesthetic is far from guaranteed; in 1995, women in Egypt reported that local anaesthetic was used on their daughters 60% of the time, general anaesthetic was used 13% of the time and 25% of the time neither were used, meaning that ¼ of FGMs in Egypt are performed without painkillers (http://en.wikipedia.org). It has no known health benefits and unsurprisingly causes both short term and long term complications, such as heavy (even fatal) bleeding, infections, cysts, infertility and serious issues regarding urination and intercourse.

The reasons for female genital mutilation include cultural, social and religious reasons, however it should be noted that no religious scriptures actually condone the practise. It is often considered a cultural tradition, and social pressure to conform is responsible for many “circumcisions”. However, ultimately female genital mutilation stems from misogyny. In many communities it is believed that FGM reduces female libido and therefore it is practised in order to prevent women from having sexual relationships before marriage. Cultural ideals of femininity are also responsible for FGM, as in some communities genitalia is considered unclean or male, therefore the removal of this external genitalia is believed to promote hygiene and femininity.

Since 1996 attempts have been made to prevent FGM through research, work within communities and changes of policies. There has been significant progress in the past few years, such as increased international involvement, growing political support (for example, a law against FGM was passed in 24 countries), an increasing number of people in FGM practising communities supporting the end of FGM and decreased prevalence of FGM. Organisations such as Amnesty International recognise the cultural reasons for FGM and therefore advocate symbolic ceremonies as a rite of passage instead, which I believe is important as it respects culture whilst preventing physical harm to women. There are growing campaigns against FGM within practising communities due to women such as Agnes Pareyio, whose monumental efforts have prevented over 2000 girls from being subjected to FGM. More information about her work can be found here: http://www.onebillionrising.org/4964/rise4justice-blog-series-tasaru-safe-house-girls-update-fight-female-genital-mutilation-early-forced-childhood-marriage-agnes-pareyio/

Despite the progress, the harsh reality is that millions and millions of girls and women are suffering the consequences of FGM, and many are still in danger of undergoing it. An increased awareness of female genital mutilation means an increased ability to help; the NHS provides helplines for people who may be subjected to FGM or for people who have had FGM at http://www.nhs.uk/NHSENGLAND/ABOUTNHSSERVICES/SEXUAL-HEALTH-SERVICES/Pages/fgm-resources.aspx and details about health clinics at http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/AboutNHSservices/sexual-health-services/Pages/fgm-health-services-for-women.aspx

Written by Olivia

Picture Credit: Ellen

http://www.feminist.org/global/fgm.html

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation#Changes_in_prevalence

(http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/female-genital-mutilation/Pages/Introduction.aspx)

Is Farage Changing his Tune?

Recently "A long list of ideas designed to appeal to women was unveiled, who argued that UKIP 'recognises very much the huge contribution women now make to UK society'." This seems quite different to "earlier this month [when] Nigel Farage memorably opined that women were 'worth less' than men and do not face discrimination in the City." 

When polls revealed that UKIP was losing votes due to so many women opposing them, they decided to target this group in order to gain more support around the country. Some of their 'feminist' policies include:

- 3,000 more midwives for the NHS
- Access to specialist mental health services for all pregnant women and new mothers
- Wrap-around childcare - breakfast and after-school clubs - for all school-age children
- 'Zero tolerance' for illegal cultural practices or ones that 'conflict with British values' - forced marriages, female genital mutilation and honour killings
- Commitment to increasing the allowance for carers - 58% of whom are women - in line with inflation

- Scrapping the Tampon Tax 

Clearly these policies would all be beneficial to women, however some of them are mere by-products of their strong anti-immigration and anti-Europe views. For example, if we take the issue of FGM, obviously this is something that is unacceptable and should certainly be stopped, however it is unclear as to why UKIP wants to combat FGM all of a sudden. Is it so it can promote women's rights and fight for a fairer society? Or is it just another way to demonise foreigners and add to the growing islamophobia in Britain? It's probably a mixture of both.

Furthermore if we examine the detail of the tampon tax issue, then we in fact discover that this is something which is merely a side-effect of leaving the EU. That is to say that currently, due to EU regulations the UK is unable to change the tax rate on tampons and other sanitary products, therefore UKIP is using this issue to demonstrate the stifling regulations of the European Union. 

Perhaps I am being too harsh, and maybe UKIP have changed for the better. Of course these policies could be in good faith, long planned and saved up to win over those last few voters in the run up to the election. However, unfortunately I am completely convinced. You have the facts now, you make a choice - has UKIP truly decided to support women?

Written by Lili

Picture Credit: Ellen

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32232694

http://www.feministtimes.com/farage-its-the-system-that-needs-changing-not-biology/ 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/09/chauvinistic-boorish-ukip-men-put-off-female-voters-election-patrick-oflynn

Outnumbered

For the first time in history, there were more women than men partaking in a UK general election leaders debate. On the 16th April, Natalie Bennett (Green party leader), Lianne Wood (leader of Plaid Cymru) and Nicola Stugeon (leader of the Scottish National Party) took part in a debate with Ed Miliband (Labour party leader) and Nigel Farage (leader of UKIP).

I think these women deserve recognition because for so long British politics has been dominated by men, and despite the fact that there were only 143 female MP's in the last parliament (out of a total of 650), these three women have made it to the top.

Lianne Wood grew up in Wales and was educated in the local comprehensive school, and despite being a mother (and a single mother following her partner's death), she has been able to have a very successful career in politics. I think she is an inspiration to us all, demonstrating that it is not necessary to be privately educated (although 33% of British MP's are) nor a man to succeed in politics. She has managed to balance motherly duties with those that her work requires, and therefore I think she is a great example of the fact that it is indeed possible to be a working mother in this day and age.

Nicola Sturgeon was also state educated, and is the first ever female to lead the Scottish National Party. Despite becoming leader in the aftermath of the Scottish referendum, she has been able to gain much support for the Scottish National Party, with some polls naming her as winner of the 7-party leader debate. Once again this goes to show just how much impact women can make when they are allowed the opportunity.

Natalie Bennett is an immigrant (something that clearly does not seem to please Nigel Farage), and has lived in England since 1999. Unlike Nicola Sturgeon and Lianne Wood she was preceded by Caroline Lucas as leader of the Green Party, another female. Perhaps this reflects the party's policies: as quoted from their manifesto: "The Green Party would introduce a number of strong measures to promote gender equality and safeguard women’s rights including equal pay audits, shared maternity and paternity leave and better support for women in need." This clearly shows that women's rights are certainly on the Green Party's agenda and therefore their gain in popularity could have a positive outcome.

It remains to be seen what role, if any, these women will play in our next government, but for me it is an encouraging prospect to, at last, have some women able to represent us in parliament. Furthermore, for anyone who did not see, at the end of the 5-party debate, instead of a handshake, these three female leaders had a warm embrace. This just goes to show their solidarity, not just as parties with some common aims, but as women who have succeeded against the odds in gaining power and influence.

Written by Lili

Picture Credit: Ellen


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicola_Sturgeon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leanne_Wood 
http://www.ukpolitical.info/FemaleMPs.htm
https://www.greenparty.org.uk/assets/files/PolicyPointers/Women_pointer.pdf

Our Names?

Most women these days would agree that the inclusion of "Ms" on official documents in 1972 has been beneficial. But why exactly?

The title "Ms" was introduced as an alternative to "Miss" and "Mrs", thereby giving women a third option and allowing them to keep their marital status private. The word "Miss" originated from the word "mistress," and has long been the title of unmarried women. The main arguments against the use of both "Miss" and "Mrs" is that it requires women to state whether or not they are married, therefore being obliged to disclose this personal information whilst men do not even need to mention their marital status. 

Furthermore it is easy to misuse the titles "Miss" and "Mrs". That is to say that calling a grown woman "Miss" can be seen as demeaning and patronising, whilst some women feel offended if they are called "Mrs" because this suggests they are old. 

This is not something unique to our culture either, the idea that women must identify themselves in relation to a man is very widespread.

Take the example of France, where, until as recently as 2012, unmarried women were forced to identify themselves as "Mademoiselle" on all official forms. The word "Mademoiselle" originates from the words "Ma Demoiselle", translating as "My Lady".  However the word also "harks back to the term 'oiselle', which means 'virgin' or 'simpleton'." (The Mail) The very idea that an unmarried women should be less worthy and therefore referred to in terms of her 'simplicity' is quite shocking to think of in the 21st Century. Moreover, despite the fact that "Mademoiselle" is no longer included on official documents it is still widely used throughout France in both everyday speech and literary texts. It is perhaps unsurprising that so many people oppose the use of this title which highlights how ingrained male supremacy is in our current society, despite people's best efforts to make a change. In British schools for example, male teachers are called "Sir" whilst female teachers are called "Miss". This may go back to the time when any working woman would give up her career upon marrying, thereby meaning that there would rarely be a teacher who was, indeed, a "Mrs". However, it still seems to me that these two titles infer inequality, an especially damaging idea to expose so many children to from such a young age.

The fact that the terms "Miss" and "Mademoiselle" are often perceived as flattering is also interesting. when some French women were interviewed and asked their opinions on the term "Mademoiselle", many answered in a similar way to "Magali, thirty, French teacher and the mother of two, married" who said: "I am flattered to be called ‘mademoiselle’ in place of ‘madame’. It rejuvenates you." (The New Yorker). This brings up the widespread view that women (and sometimes men as well) are too often cast aside in their old age. our current society places so much value on youth and vigour that we seem to overlook the wisdom and experience older, more mature people can offer us. Therefore the fact that so many women are flattered by being mistaken for younger than they are alludes to another issue which is how our society views ageing. However, although there is more to say on this I will leave it for another time. 

In conclusion, despite that many people disregard the existence of "Ms" as being of much importance, viewing it as a petty matter and thinking that we have more significant things to focus on, the word, although small, represents a much larger battle. Namely the battle to allow women to be regarded as equals to men, for, regardless of the laws in place, our society remains one which often suppresses women. It is subtleties like the box we tick on a form that can pave the way for a more just and equal future. For anyone who thinks the fight is over, battle has been won, I urge them to think again. We have made great progress, but we are by no means finished. 

Written by Lili

Picture Credit: Ellen

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2104826/Au-revoir-Mademoiselle-France-bans-word-Miss-official-documents-suggests-woman-available.html 

http://www.newyorker.com/news/lauren-collins/adieu-to-mademoiselle

http://www.france24.com/en/20120222-france-strikes-out-mademoiselle-coup-feminism/