Women's No Pay Day campaign success...

On the 30th October I campaigned for an hour with colleagues from the Students Union, at the University where I work, for Women's No Pay Day. They continued for a further hour, and during that time we collected a total of 121 signatures to add to the letter to the Secretary of State demanding important inclusions in the forthcoming Equalities Bill.

I was very happy with the signatures we gained, but even more thrilled at two other things -
1 that 3 women from the SU committed time to campaign - after much persuasion -
2 that people we spoke to didn't know the reality of the pay gap and were horrified - many saying that they thought we had equality already

I was particularly thrilled because the initial responses when trying to encourage people to campaign with me, was very dispiriting. I started the day thinking it was probably going to be a disappointing and futile exercise. People had led me to believe that no-one cares.

I firmly believe that if people know the facts, they do care and will take action. Many people came back to the stall we had bringing a friend who they had talked to, who also signed the petition. At least a third of the people we spoke to, who then signed, were men.

You can see a report of our event and others on the day here, at the Fawcett website - I took the photo.

If you still haven't signed up it's not too late - click here to sign.

the value of women

Why are women, generally, globally, believed to be of less value than men?

This question arose in my house after watching "India's Missing Girls" on BBC TV a couple of weeks ago. This was a moving programme. UN figures state that 750,000 girls are aborted every year in India and others are killed when very young. There are now only 840 girls for every 1,000 boys according to Indian government information.

The main rationale for this is the high cost of dowries that families have to find in order to pay a man's family for him to marry their daughter. But this is not just an economic issue, as abortion of female foetus's is common in wealthier families.

So, this led me and my partner, T to wonder and discuss how this ridiculous and terrifying position came to be. It is not the case in every culture, but it's almost globally the case that women are not seen as valuable compared to men. The UK situation regarding unequal pay is a good local example of the same issue.

Could it be that it's because it is almost impossible to tell who the father of a child is, but it's certain who the mother is, when she gives birth, and so men have to control women if they are going to be certain of their heir? It cannot be that men are more necessary in order to pro-create, as the opposite is true, one man can father children with many women.

Could it be that on average men are physically stronger than women, despite women tending to do much of the physical domestic work worldwide. This means that in a capitalist world, where labour is needed to generate profit for those in power, brawn is prized? Women ensure the next generation of labourers grow up strong, but one woman can bring up many boys to be labourers, but it helps if she has the support of others to do so.

Do we need to understand why, in order for there to be a new world order? India is the world's biggest democracy yet it is still a highly unequal society. The power to make changes through political decision making is not an answer in itself. Changing the culture is much more complex. The whole of global society is predicated upon the lesser value of women.

workplaces need to change.....

now that's a surprise! (not)

According to a Guardian article today Jill Treanor says "Senior executives from 150 leading companies will be asked to help draw up a new set of industry standards to promote more women and to create working environments which break away from the traditional male-dominated, aggressive workplaces"

The number of women in the boardrooms of Britain's biggest companies has fallen sharply. While 50% of the graduate recruits are female, the proportion reaching senior levels falls to 30% and to just 15% in executive roles. There are only 12 female executive directors at FTSE-100 companies last year - down from 20 last year. The 12 women work for 10 companies. Only three FTSE 100 firms have women chief executives. 90 women serve as non-executives, but more than a quarter of FTSE 100 firms have no female director.

Yup - there's a lot of work to do!

Professor Lynda Gratton, leading the research says "It ís not simply that companies [are choosing] not to promote women but that women decide to leave". One of the first things the centre will do is to bring together all relevant research on its website, london.edu/womeninbusiness Then it has plans for studies into topics such as what draws women to entrepreneurialism and the reason women seem to be good at innovation.

In an interview in the Guardian last week Gratton said "We need to show organisations, through research, what benefits women can bring, what they can do.....

Research published this Wednesday also found that women were both task- and relationship-oriented, meaning, in lay terms, that they get things done as well as get on with people. Gratton describes this as a "huge finding". I think it's totally patronising - women have to be doers and networkers to survive with a family to support, it's not news!

This week's research suggests that more than 30% of any workforce needs to be female to change an organisation. Women are surrounded by fewer and fewer women as they move up the greasy pole. Gratton also points out "Being a minority is an unpleasant place to be. The surprise I sometimes think is not that there are so few senior women but - given how hard it is and how extraordinarily good they have to be - how many." This point that echoes the earlier posts I have written about how women, despite having to spend hours on "beauty-work" can still achieve as much, if not more than our male counterparts, if we choose to.......

Anita sold out....

... but she says she had no choice to sell to L'oreal as being on the stock market meant she had to go with sharedholders decisions and that is based on profit. She is planning on giving most of her income from the sale away. Listen to her first interview after the sale on the BBC website. She was on Woman's Hour.
Just a shame that L'oreal are the owners and they are part of the Nestle group!!!

Anita Roddick "because she's worth it?"

Body Shop are being offered loads of money to sell out to L'oreal.
The Guardian wonder if Anita will sell out so she can spend the dosh on her campaigns and wildlife projects and they also pose interesting comparisons between the 2 organisations.
One of the Body Shop's trading standards is honesty about what the products can do for you.
"Anything which says it can magically take away your wrinkles is a scandalous lie" Anita Roddick says. Too bloody right!

towel and tampon tax

Did you know that the tax on blood catchers was reduced from 17.5 to 5% from Jan 2001?

I missed that one, and I wonder if it was because Gordon Brown wimped out on something that is a significant shift in economic policy for over half the population of the country he holds the purse strings for. And that means it's our fucking money!!!!

Lucy Ward and Dave Hill in the Guardian had two very different persectives on this one - wonder why? Dave Hill makes some great excuses for Gordon - check them out!!!!!
Apparently Gordon's excuse was he wanted to let the female MPs claim credit - well if they did I did not hear them loud enough.........

What made me look this up, after thinking about it for a few months now - was reading My Vag latest post - Sarah says " Oh, I go through such phases with this blog. Even after publishing 500+ pages on the finer details of my vagina, I have trouble figuring out what kind of vaginal news is worth reading every day. Who needs to read about vaginas every day? I myself, devoted disciple of vaginal scholarship, have no desire to keep up with the day to day developments in tampon politics or whatever." So I thought - well I'm sure there must be some news that is worth writing about.

I know this is old news, but it's new to me.....

The Beauty Myth

I am reading the Beauty Myth.

naomi wolf
It is hard going. This is the second time I have tried to read it. I keep getting stuck in the 2nd chapter - it's so dense and full of facts that are very depressing. I find it fairly overwhelming, but really need to read it.

The first chapter has some significant figures and Naomi Wolf's turn of phrase is so clear in explaining how the goalposts keep moving for women.

"The closer women come to power, the more physical self-consciousness and sacrifice are asked of them. "Beauty" becomes the condition for a woman to take the next step."

"Beauty" is a characteristic that despite being very subjective, women are measured against. In the workplace, the law says that some jobs require a person employed to be attractive- this used only to apply to jobs like glamour model, but now Wolf demonstrates by quoting actual employment law cases, is applied to all jobs.

"Since 1971, the law has recognized that a standard of perfection against which a woman's body is to be judged may exist in the workplace, and if she falls short of it she can be fired. A "standard of perfection" for the male body has never been legally determined. While defined as materially existing, the female standard itself has never been defined. A woman can be fired for not looking right, but looking right remains open to interpretatation." Moreover - "working women do not have access to legal advice when they get dressed in the morning...confronting constantly the dualistic experience of being "feminine" and "businesslike" at the same time, while they do not perceive men experiencing the same contradiction."

So - do we dress to look smart and plain, or attractive and feminine?
"dressing for business success and dressing to be sexually appealing are practically mutually exclusive because a woman's perceived sexuality can "blot out" all other characteristics...Since women's working clothes - high heels, stocking, make-up, jewellery, not to mention hair, breasts, leg and hips - have already been appropriated as pornographic accessories, a judge can look at any younger woman and believe he is seeing a harrassable trollop, just as he can look at any older woman and believe he is seeing a dismissable hag." It doesn't matter which we do - it will be wrong.

Would wearing a uniform sort the problem out? Wolf thinks not - "Women dare not yet relinquish the "advantage" this inequality in dress bestows. People put on uniforms voluntarily only when they have faith in the fair ewards of the system. They will understandably be unwilling to give up the protection of their "beauty" until they can be sure the reward system is in good working order."

I heard today on Radio 4 "Woman's Hour" that the average make-up wearing woman consumes four and half kilos of lipstick in her lifetime, and exposes herself to 200 synthetic chemicals before breakfast. It asked the question - why do women continue to do this and other things (like wearing high heels) which may harm their health? Do women control, or are we controlled by, our beauty practices?

We carry on making ourselves conform to the beauty norms, the demands of which cost us a larger and larger percentage of our income, and hope that we are rewarded accordingly.

Can you imagine what we would achieve if we did not spend hours each week buying clothes and cosmetics, applying cosmetics, removing body hair, styling our head hair, and more to the point thinking about all of this? We would be high-flyers indeed! Society has to put all these hurdles in our way, as despite them, we still achieve great things.... If we were paid according to our actual worth rather than according to what we are led to believe we are worth, the economic system would collapse. The status quo has to be upheld for this reason alone.

4x4's in the suburbs and towns...

don't you just hate 'em?

Wear and tear on roads, high fuel consumption - two good reasons for increasing tax on 4x4's.

Higher chance of damage to pedestrians on impact in an accident due to the design- higher off the road. Bull-bars on the front? - don't get me started on those! - Ever seen a bull in the middle of town or suburbia? All they do is increase the risk of death or injury if you are hit by the vehicle surely?

There is a campaign against urban 4x4's - some interesting facts - sign the petition if you share my views...