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.
Showing posts with label equality?. Show all posts
Showing posts with label equality?. Show all posts
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Monday, October 13, 2008
women's no pay day 30th Oct
October 30th is Women's No Pay Day.
It’s nearly 40 years since equal pay legislation came into force in the UK.
Women working full-time in the UK get paid 17% (or roughly one sixth) less than men...
That’s the equivalent of women working the last two months of the year for free, while men get paid year-round. Last year, the Fawcett Society labelled October 30th ‘Women’s No Pay Day’ to tell the world that on this day, women across the UK will receive their last payslip. This year, the pay gap remains unchanged at 17%. But we have a great opportunity for change with the forthcoming Equalities Bill.
The Fawcett Society are asking supporters across the UK to hold an event on or around Women’s No Pay Day to raise awareness of the pay gap and to tell the world: we demand equal pay! I am campaigning at the University where I lecture, in partnership with the Students Union events and volunteering coordinators and hopefully some volunteers. I have signed the open letter to John Hutton MP.
What can you do?
It’s nearly 40 years since equal pay legislation came into force in the UK.
Women working full-time in the UK get paid 17% (or roughly one sixth) less than men...
That’s the equivalent of women working the last two months of the year for free, while men get paid year-round. Last year, the Fawcett Society labelled October 30th ‘Women’s No Pay Day’ to tell the world that on this day, women across the UK will receive their last payslip. This year, the pay gap remains unchanged at 17%. But we have a great opportunity for change with the forthcoming Equalities Bill.
The Fawcett Society are asking supporters across the UK to hold an event on or around Women’s No Pay Day to raise awareness of the pay gap and to tell the world: we demand equal pay! I am campaigning at the University where I lecture, in partnership with the Students Union events and volunteering coordinators and hopefully some volunteers. I have signed the open letter to John Hutton MP.
What can you do?
- 1 minute action: sign the Fawcett Society's open letter to the Secretary of State
- 10 minute action: write to your local paper. Tell them about the pay gap, and about Women's No Pay Day.
- 1 day action: take to the streets on No Pay Day
Visit the Fawcett Society's website to find out more about No Pay Day and how to get involved, or to download the campaigners' info pack which has loads of information on putting on and publicising an event for No Pay Day.
Monday, November 12, 2007
why women only? Cameron speaks out
David Cameron has spoken out today about the disgracefully low percentage of convictions for rape in a speech at the Conservative Women's Organisation conference. Follow the link for the BBC story.
There was a discussion on Woman's Hour (radio 4) about his proposals which you can listen to here if you missed it. The F-word blog has a post on this topic too. The main points they both make seems to relate to the need to reform the legal system to address the issue of low conviction rates, which Cameron has not directly addressed.
Cameron pledged longer-term funding for rape crisis centres, to change attitudes towards rape through sex education and announced a Tory review of sentencing.
He said "Studies have shown that as many as one in two young men believe there are some circumstances when it's okay to force a woman to have sex" and called for "widespread cultural change" as treating women as sex objects has become viewed as "cool".
He called for compulsory sex education in schools to drive home the message that sex without consent is a criminal offence.
Cameron referred to statistics suggesting one in 20 women had been raped, yet three-quarters of them never report the crime. And of those that are reported, just 5.7% result in a conviction.
He also said the number of rape crisis support centres had fallen from 68 in 1984 to 45, and funding decisions on those that remained were short-term and being made mid-way through the financial year. "As a result, these centres are forced to survive hand-to-mouth and often face the threat of imminent closure," he said. "All this has led to an appalling and tragic lack of support for the victims of rape."
As a socialist I feel concern that it is a Tory that has had to raise this issue. Despite this, I find myself saying "good on him for getting us talking about it in the mainstream". I have not yet heard the Government's response but I am very disappointed that they did not lead the debate.
There was a discussion on Woman's Hour (radio 4) about his proposals which you can listen to here if you missed it. The F-word blog has a post on this topic too. The main points they both make seems to relate to the need to reform the legal system to address the issue of low conviction rates, which Cameron has not directly addressed.
Cameron pledged longer-term funding for rape crisis centres, to change attitudes towards rape through sex education and announced a Tory review of sentencing.
He said "Studies have shown that as many as one in two young men believe there are some circumstances when it's okay to force a woman to have sex" and called for "widespread cultural change" as treating women as sex objects has become viewed as "cool".
He called for compulsory sex education in schools to drive home the message that sex without consent is a criminal offence.
Cameron referred to statistics suggesting one in 20 women had been raped, yet three-quarters of them never report the crime. And of those that are reported, just 5.7% result in a conviction.
He also said the number of rape crisis support centres had fallen from 68 in 1984 to 45, and funding decisions on those that remained were short-term and being made mid-way through the financial year. "As a result, these centres are forced to survive hand-to-mouth and often face the threat of imminent closure," he said. "All this has led to an appalling and tragic lack of support for the victims of rape."
As a socialist I feel concern that it is a Tory that has had to raise this issue. Despite this, I find myself saying "good on him for getting us talking about it in the mainstream". I have not yet heard the Government's response but I am very disappointed that they did not lead the debate.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Women's No Pay Day - take action!
Fawcett and UNISON have joined forces to declare October 30th Women's No Pay Day because the 17% hourly pay gap is equivalent to men getting paid all year but women working for nothing from October 30th until the year end.If you do just one thing for Women's No Pay Day, do this:
Sign the online petition to Gordon Brown demanding stronger action on the pay gap that rips women off. It takes less than a couple of minutes.
Click here to sign the petition
Saturday, February 17, 2007
SNAP!
Last year I posted about the Mencap SNAP photography competition. Since then as part of my old job I have been working with a group of people to organise activities to raise awareness and promote the equal rights of people with learning disabilities in Stoke-on-Trent.
We have arranged to borrow the exhibition of the 2006 SNAP winners photographs. They are currently on show at Keele University. On Monday I will go and collect them and take them to 3 venues in the city - Burslem School of Art, Staffordshire University and The Observatory clubhouse. They will be there until mid April.
The press release is accompanied by a feedback form, designed by other group members, to encourage viewers to think about the impact of the images. I can tell you what I think of them.....
The photos place people with learning disabilities in the public eye - as people with value and dignity.
I have some reservations about some of the photos - well not so much the photos as the words that go with some of them. It is obvious that some of the words although written as though they are the words of the person with a learning disability, are actually the words of a carer/ supporter. I find this very patronising and disempowering. I wonder if someone does not speak, it is not better to have no words with the photo?
There is also a wider point about the photographs - if I cannot take my own photo and cannot tell you what I want a photograph taking of, or do not like my photo begin taken, then I cannot not take part in the competition. Not everyone can/ wants to take photos. I don’t think it is "equality" to pretend that everyone can do that - we are all different. I wonder if there is a debate here?
I am going to link the exhibition in with diversity month at Staffs Uni and set up a discussion event sometime in the next few weeks, to pick up some of these issues.
We have arranged to borrow the exhibition of the 2006 SNAP winners photographs. They are currently on show at Keele University. On Monday I will go and collect them and take them to 3 venues in the city - Burslem School of Art, Staffordshire University and The Observatory clubhouse. They will be there until mid April.
The press release is accompanied by a feedback form, designed by other group members, to encourage viewers to think about the impact of the images. I can tell you what I think of them.....
The photos place people with learning disabilities in the public eye - as people with value and dignity.
I have some reservations about some of the photos - well not so much the photos as the words that go with some of them. It is obvious that some of the words although written as though they are the words of the person with a learning disability, are actually the words of a carer/ supporter. I find this very patronising and disempowering. I wonder if someone does not speak, it is not better to have no words with the photo?
There is also a wider point about the photographs - if I cannot take my own photo and cannot tell you what I want a photograph taking of, or do not like my photo begin taken, then I cannot not take part in the competition. Not everyone can/ wants to take photos. I don’t think it is "equality" to pretend that everyone can do that - we are all different. I wonder if there is a debate here?
I am going to link the exhibition in with diversity month at Staffs Uni and set up a discussion event sometime in the next few weeks, to pick up some of these issues.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
missing......
women in senior positions.
According to the Equal Opportunities Commission publication "Sex and power: who runs Britain? 2007" - at the current rate of progess it will take…
Another 20 years to achieve equality in Civil Service top management.
Another 40 years to achieve an equal number of senior women in the judiciary.
Another 60 years to achieve an equal number of female directors of FTSE 100 companies.
Up to 200 years – another 40 elections – to achieve an equal number of women in Parliament.
"Where are the women missing from our boardrooms and public life?
If we hope to shatter the glass ceiling across the public and private sectors, the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) has calculated that we would need to find the nearly 6,000 women ‘missing’ from more than 33,000 top spots. The pace of change is painfully slow and in some cases is even going into reverse, so that is quite a challenge. This year, as the EOC publishes the final Sex and Power index before moving into the new Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR) in October 2007, the EOC asks: Where are the women missing from our boardrooms and public life? What’s holding them back? And what price are
we – as a society and as employers – paying for their absence?"
The price is - the continuation of the patriarchy is confirmed.
According to the Equal Opportunities Commission publication "Sex and power: who runs Britain? 2007" - at the current rate of progess it will take…
Another 20 years to achieve equality in Civil Service top management.
Another 40 years to achieve an equal number of senior women in the judiciary.
Another 60 years to achieve an equal number of female directors of FTSE 100 companies.
Up to 200 years – another 40 elections – to achieve an equal number of women in Parliament.
"Where are the women missing from our boardrooms and public life?
If we hope to shatter the glass ceiling across the public and private sectors, the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) has calculated that we would need to find the nearly 6,000 women ‘missing’ from more than 33,000 top spots. The pace of change is painfully slow and in some cases is even going into reverse, so that is quite a challenge. This year, as the EOC publishes the final Sex and Power index before moving into the new Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR) in October 2007, the EOC asks: Where are the women missing from our boardrooms and public life? What’s holding them back? And what price are
we – as a society and as employers – paying for their absence?"
The price is - the continuation of the patriarchy is confirmed.
Monday, November 13, 2006
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.......
Saturday, November 04, 2006
women at the top? ...
in your dreams!
The R£wards survey from the Institute of Directors (IoD) shows that female executives are still getting paid less than their male colleagues - suprise, suprise - and also work longer hours......
“Although there has been an overall decrease from 24% last year, to 19% this year, this is hardly grounds for celebration. Even those who break through the glass ceiling and reach board level will find there is another roof over their heads. The pay gap has often been justified on the basis that women work shorter hours. Our survey refutes that suggestion. Not only are women directors being paid less, they are also working longer hours.”
Female directors now earns an average of £60, 000 compared with the average male director’s basic pay of £74, 028 and the biggest gaps are in the private services and voluntary sectors where female pay was 25% below that of their male counterparts.
To make matters worse, the research shows that female managing directors in medium and large companies are actually working longer hours than their male counterparts – 51.25 hours per week, (compared with 50 hours for men in small to medium sized companies) and 57 hours a week compared to 55 in larger companies.
Meg Munn MP made a speech in October saying -
"In parliament there have only ever been 291 women MPs. There are more than 500 men there today. That’s nearly 90 years after the time when women could first stand for parliament. Today still less than 1 in 5 MPs are women. Less than 30 per cent of local councillors are women. In business less than 11 per cent of directors of the FTSE companies are women. Only 1 per cent of those in construction trades are women and in 2004 just 22 young women took up plumbing apprenticeships in England compared to more than 3000 young men."
She goes on to say "For public appointments it’s a bit better - 35 per cent are held by women but only just over 6 per cent by ethnic minority women. " However, I read a special supplement in Health Service Journal in September, that I meant to post about a while ago. It listed "the 50 people with the greatest influential on today's NHS policy and practice." Of the 50 - only 9 are women. I found this truly shocking. That is considerably less than the 35 percent (just over one third) that Munn suggests. The list had Patricia Hewitt at number 2 - Secretary of State for Health. Dame Carol Black who is at number 8 - National Director of Health and Work and Gill Morgan at number 15 Chief Executive of the NHS confederation. The other 6 women all come in the bottom half of the list.
The Women and Work Commission was set up to examine the persistent problem of the pay and opportunities gap. Their final report, which came out earlier this year, contained a number of recommendations about the barriers to informed choice at school, combining work and family life, lifelong learning and training, and improving workplace practice. It found that the pay gap between part-time women workers and full-time male workers is 41%.
Meg Munn was promoting the new Commission for Equality and Human Rights. (CEHR) The new Commission for Equality and Human Rights will inherit the powers of the three existing Commissions who focus on equality relating to gender and race and rights for disabled people and will deliver the new Equality Act (2006). It will open it's doors in October 2007. In the meantime the Equal Opportunities Commission continues.
There is certainly a long way to go and the CEHR needs to have a lot of power and support to have any effect on what is clearly an entrenched problem. The new commission says "we want to talk to as many groups, organisations and companies as possible to establish the relationships and engagement that will be essential for the Commission's success. Please contact us if you have any questions on the CEHR during this transition phase, or if you are holding an event and would like a member of the transition team to speak; or you are would like the latest update on the CEHR, please use the form below to get in touch."
Will it challenge the patriarchy I wonder? What do you think?
The R£wards survey from the Institute of Directors (IoD) shows that female executives are still getting paid less than their male colleagues - suprise, suprise - and also work longer hours......
“Although there has been an overall decrease from 24% last year, to 19% this year, this is hardly grounds for celebration. Even those who break through the glass ceiling and reach board level will find there is another roof over their heads. The pay gap has often been justified on the basis that women work shorter hours. Our survey refutes that suggestion. Not only are women directors being paid less, they are also working longer hours.”
Female directors now earns an average of £60, 000 compared with the average male director’s basic pay of £74, 028 and the biggest gaps are in the private services and voluntary sectors where female pay was 25% below that of their male counterparts.
To make matters worse, the research shows that female managing directors in medium and large companies are actually working longer hours than their male counterparts – 51.25 hours per week, (compared with 50 hours for men in small to medium sized companies) and 57 hours a week compared to 55 in larger companies.
Meg Munn MP made a speech in October saying -
"In parliament there have only ever been 291 women MPs. There are more than 500 men there today. That’s nearly 90 years after the time when women could first stand for parliament. Today still less than 1 in 5 MPs are women. Less than 30 per cent of local councillors are women. In business less than 11 per cent of directors of the FTSE companies are women. Only 1 per cent of those in construction trades are women and in 2004 just 22 young women took up plumbing apprenticeships in England compared to more than 3000 young men."
She goes on to say "For public appointments it’s a bit better - 35 per cent are held by women but only just over 6 per cent by ethnic minority women. " However, I read a special supplement in Health Service Journal in September, that I meant to post about a while ago. It listed "the 50 people with the greatest influential on today's NHS policy and practice." Of the 50 - only 9 are women. I found this truly shocking. That is considerably less than the 35 percent (just over one third) that Munn suggests. The list had Patricia Hewitt at number 2 - Secretary of State for Health. Dame Carol Black who is at number 8 - National Director of Health and Work and Gill Morgan at number 15 Chief Executive of the NHS confederation. The other 6 women all come in the bottom half of the list.
The Women and Work Commission was set up to examine the persistent problem of the pay and opportunities gap. Their final report, which came out earlier this year, contained a number of recommendations about the barriers to informed choice at school, combining work and family life, lifelong learning and training, and improving workplace practice. It found that the pay gap between part-time women workers and full-time male workers is 41%.
Meg Munn was promoting the new Commission for Equality and Human Rights. (CEHR) The new Commission for Equality and Human Rights will inherit the powers of the three existing Commissions who focus on equality relating to gender and race and rights for disabled people and will deliver the new Equality Act (2006). It will open it's doors in October 2007. In the meantime the Equal Opportunities Commission continues.
There is certainly a long way to go and the CEHR needs to have a lot of power and support to have any effect on what is clearly an entrenched problem. The new commission says "we want to talk to as many groups, organisations and companies as possible to establish the relationships and engagement that will be essential for the Commission's success. Please contact us if you have any questions on the CEHR during this transition phase, or if you are holding an event and would like a member of the transition team to speak; or you are would like the latest update on the CEHR, please use the form below to get in touch."
Will it challenge the patriarchy I wonder? What do you think?
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
"Angels" at the top
The Observer has an interesting take on the idea of the "Angel in the House" - the stay at home "lady" of leisure whose reason for being is to look beautiful and serve her man. These women - The Guardian Angels have made it in the man's world of being leaders of large organisations.... of course the organisations are independent not-for-profit companies and forces for social change, the glass ceiling has risen up a notch......
Their pay is much higher than the average wage, but considering the large budgets and numbers of staff they are responsible for, unbelievably low compared to the men who manage organisations of equivalent size in the private sector, and compared to Chief Executive's of Local Authorities and the NHS. This interests me as those feminine traits are clearly less valued still - even if men hold the senior positions, voluntary organisations are unable to pay at similar levels to the public and private sector. I do not believe the huge salaries in some companies are justified either, but the inequalities speak volumes.
Maybe they are Angels in the Boardroom - but why Angels? I bet they are not perfect, heavenly beings.......
The article is interesting for it's focus on their values and skills and simply for showing that it can be done - I see them as role models but I question the stereotype of feminity....
"women are more used to showing emotion and not seeing it as a weakness 'they don't find it difficult to combine passion and professionalism, and passion is absolutely essential in the voluntary sector'" says Jackie Ballard, director of the RSPCA.
Maybe they are Angels in the Boardroom - but why Angels? I bet they are not perfect, heavenly beings.......
Saturday, October 15, 2005
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.....
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.....
Thursday, September 29, 2005
suits you sir!
but it doesn't though - does it?
I went on a shopping outing with T the other day, T fancied getting a suit (which would be his second one). He looks quite good in the one he's got, which he wears about one day a month on average. He only ever wears collarless shirts - which are very hard to find - and it's a fairly casual style.
We went to M&S and the choice (and this is totally serious) was grey, dark grey, dark blue and grey, dark blue, black, grey and black. There was nothing brown, green or light coloured. And the one he tried on made him look like an unhappy accountant/ wedding photographer. The patent leather pointy shoes that the man at the changing room gave him to wear to test the length of the trousers did not help.
It well and truly put him off the idea. Me too.
I had a little internet search after and found that Next do linen and gaberdine suits and Boden to "moleskin" (which sounds cruel to me!). They are a bit more casual.
Anyway - the point is - why wear one at all - it's so macho. He feels like it is essential on the odd occasion. One thing that is clear is it is a uniform. It is notable that women do not have the same restrictions in most workplaces. Some women wear I work wear a suit (usually bright colours or at least with a bright blouse). Others wear all sorts of tops and they have a choice of skirts and trousers. There obviously are subtleties that men can "read" from the suit-wearing, but it's so limited.
I wondered if this is because men are not meant to be attractive at work, but women are. That is Naomi Klein's view - see the Beauty Myth post. It also seems to be that men are not taken seriously unless they conform utterly. (Women are never taken seriously no matter what we wear).
We talked about how some men wear suits to go out at night - T used to have a suit as a youngster that he bought so he could get into nightclubs. Again the same issue arises - men are the ones who have to follow the "shirt and tie, no trainers, no jeans" rules - for women it's literally anything goes! We think that is because women are on display and the more women nightclubs attract in, the more men will also pay to go in.
All this reminded me of what I thought when I saw the press call on the first day of the UN general assembly when all 60 members were photographed together. Obviously there were very few women, but noticeably there was a lot less "traditional/ ethnic/ national" dress than there used to be - almost all the people were wearing western tailored suits in dark greys.
President of the Phillipines Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's red suit is noted on the Phillipines government website. She is the first President of the Phillipines, the first Asian head of state, and the first woman leader to preside over the UN Security Council Summit - the webpage says this about 10 ten times. I guess it's good. Shame about the suit though even if it is red. I'm not sure what I think about women getting into positions of power - it means we are taking part - but it does not change the fact that what we are taking part in is the patriarchy....
Anyway - back to the suits. The suits we know and love are culturally specific and seem much more dowdy than the formal wear of other countries - although I don't know enough about it to know whether for example an Ghanian lawyer or an Bangladeshi hyper-capitalist company director would be expected to wear grey rather than, say red....
I went on a shopping outing with T the other day, T fancied getting a suit (which would be his second one). He looks quite good in the one he's got, which he wears about one day a month on average. He only ever wears collarless shirts - which are very hard to find - and it's a fairly casual style.
We went to M&S and the choice (and this is totally serious) was grey, dark grey, dark blue and grey, dark blue, black, grey and black. There was nothing brown, green or light coloured. And the one he tried on made him look like an unhappy accountant/ wedding photographer. The patent leather pointy shoes that the man at the changing room gave him to wear to test the length of the trousers did not help.
It well and truly put him off the idea. Me too.
I had a little internet search after and found that Next do linen and gaberdine suits and Boden to "moleskin" (which sounds cruel to me!). They are a bit more casual.
Anyway - the point is - why wear one at all - it's so macho. He feels like it is essential on the odd occasion. One thing that is clear is it is a uniform. It is notable that women do not have the same restrictions in most workplaces. Some women wear I work wear a suit (usually bright colours or at least with a bright blouse). Others wear all sorts of tops and they have a choice of skirts and trousers. There obviously are subtleties that men can "read" from the suit-wearing, but it's so limited.
I wondered if this is because men are not meant to be attractive at work, but women are. That is Naomi Klein's view - see the Beauty Myth post. It also seems to be that men are not taken seriously unless they conform utterly. (Women are never taken seriously no matter what we wear).
We talked about how some men wear suits to go out at night - T used to have a suit as a youngster that he bought so he could get into nightclubs. Again the same issue arises - men are the ones who have to follow the "shirt and tie, no trainers, no jeans" rules - for women it's literally anything goes! We think that is because women are on display and the more women nightclubs attract in, the more men will also pay to go in.
All this reminded me of what I thought when I saw the press call on the first day of the UN general assembly when all 60 members were photographed together. Obviously there were very few women, but noticeably there was a lot less "traditional/ ethnic/ national" dress than there used to be - almost all the people were wearing western tailored suits in dark greys.
President of the Phillipines Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's red suit is noted on the Phillipines government website. She is the first President of the Phillipines, the first Asian head of state, and the first woman leader to preside over the UN Security Council Summit - the webpage says this about 10 ten times. I guess it's good. Shame about the suit though even if it is red. I'm not sure what I think about women getting into positions of power - it means we are taking part - but it does not change the fact that what we are taking part in is the patriarchy....
Anyway - back to the suits. The suits we know and love are culturally specific and seem much more dowdy than the formal wear of other countries - although I don't know enough about it to know whether for example an Ghanian lawyer or an Bangladeshi hyper-capitalist company director would be expected to wear grey rather than, say red....
Friday, September 09, 2005
unequal pay...
in a big way...
if there was only one way to demonstrate that the oppression of women is still alive and well this is it...
According to the Guardian - thirty years after equal pay legislation was introduced, women still earn almost a fifth (18%) less than their male counterparts. This gap widens to 40% for part-time workers. Even recent women graduates, after five years in employment, earn 15% less than men who have the same qualifications.
Lady Prosser, the chair of the Work and Women Commission, set up last summer, will outline the progress made to date next week.
Unions are hoping for a "gender equality duty" imposed on employers, mandatory pay audits to identify disparities and time off for union equality officers in the workplace.
Prosser blames three factors sustaining the gender pay gap: "part-time working, occupational segregation and women's labour market issues, such as childcare, which act as barriers to women's chances of entering and progressing in the workplace."
This makes great sense in the wider context of the inequalities (outlined this week's in the government's follow up to the Black Report of 1980). As Alex Scott-Samuel says - "There has been a lot of rhetoric [on health inequalities], especially since Labour first came in, but we now see that these are not working. Material factors still underlie inequality ... income inequalities are still at the same level as in the 1980s."
Prosser believes "the solutions lay in longer-term changes, such as ending the job segregation that sees women tied to traditionally low paid jobs".
I agree with Lady Prossers view of the three main causes, and that the solution needs to be wider than legal changes. The social divide is as great as ever. There has to be a total culture shift and that includes our own attitudes as women to our value. Many of us have internalised the oppression so that we believe that men should earn more as the "breadwinners" and we don't speak up enough.
I know that voluntary agreements to equalise pay don't work. I will be disappointed if none of the unions expectations are met.
if there was only one way to demonstrate that the oppression of women is still alive and well this is it...
According to the Guardian - thirty years after equal pay legislation was introduced, women still earn almost a fifth (18%) less than their male counterparts. This gap widens to 40% for part-time workers. Even recent women graduates, after five years in employment, earn 15% less than men who have the same qualifications.
Lady Prosser, the chair of the Work and Women Commission, set up last summer, will outline the progress made to date next week.
Unions are hoping for a "gender equality duty" imposed on employers, mandatory pay audits to identify disparities and time off for union equality officers in the workplace.
Prosser blames three factors sustaining the gender pay gap: "part-time working, occupational segregation and women's labour market issues, such as childcare, which act as barriers to women's chances of entering and progressing in the workplace."
This makes great sense in the wider context of the inequalities (outlined this week's in the government's follow up to the Black Report of 1980). As Alex Scott-Samuel says - "There has been a lot of rhetoric [on health inequalities], especially since Labour first came in, but we now see that these are not working. Material factors still underlie inequality ... income inequalities are still at the same level as in the 1980s."
Prosser believes "the solutions lay in longer-term changes, such as ending the job segregation that sees women tied to traditionally low paid jobs".
I agree with Lady Prossers view of the three main causes, and that the solution needs to be wider than legal changes. The social divide is as great as ever. There has to be a total culture shift and that includes our own attitudes as women to our value. Many of us have internalised the oppression so that we believe that men should earn more as the "breadwinners" and we don't speak up enough.
I know that voluntary agreements to equalise pay don't work. I will be disappointed if none of the unions expectations are met.
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
standing? gadgets? revolution?
I'm back!
I'm busy tonight.
Just read Urban Chick's post on women's toilets.
Reminded me that it's a favourite rant of mine.
But what's to be done about the endless queuing?
1 - We could lobby for more toilets for women in public places e.g. theatres, towns, festivals etc. -especially the places where we pay - e.g taxes pay for public toilets, ticket sales pay for theatre toilets.
BUT - more toilets = more space needed for building, more water etc. - bad for the environment unless the toilets use grey water.
2 - We could learn to pee standing - lots of advice here on Restrooms and MyVag. There are some people advocating provision of female urinals .... not a bad idea - except could be a problem if you're wearing trousers...the She-inal looks possible though not sure about the hose - doesn't sound clean.
3 - Problems with technique can be reduced by using gadgets. All of this assumes that it's reasonable to expect us females to learn a new way of peeing. Many men in the world sit to pee so why shouldn't we?
What a dilemma.. in the meantime I'll just stamp and shout when I'm out and about and have to QUEUE!!!
I'm busy tonight.
Just read Urban Chick's post on women's toilets.
Reminded me that it's a favourite rant of mine.
But what's to be done about the endless queuing?
1 - We could lobby for more toilets for women in public places e.g. theatres, towns, festivals etc. -especially the places where we pay - e.g taxes pay for public toilets, ticket sales pay for theatre toilets.
BUT - more toilets = more space needed for building, more water etc. - bad for the environment unless the toilets use grey water.
2 - We could learn to pee standing - lots of advice here on Restrooms and MyVag. There are some people advocating provision of female urinals .... not a bad idea - except could be a problem if you're wearing trousers...the She-inal looks possible though not sure about the hose - doesn't sound clean.
3 - Problems with technique can be reduced by using gadgets. All of this assumes that it's reasonable to expect us females to learn a new way of peeing. Many men in the world sit to pee so why shouldn't we?
What a dilemma.. in the meantime I'll just stamp and shout when I'm out and about and have to QUEUE!!!
Saturday, July 02, 2005
braball
This is rather a long post - I make no excuses.
Emily Duffy, the artist that produced the braball makes so much sense.
She says -
“Breasts are often a source of conflicting emotions for women. Our personal body experiences are rarely reflected in media images we see. A woman may feel ashamed, proud, annoyed, and sexual about her breasts during just one menstrual cycle, or even a single day. Almost every woman has a bra story to tell. Some are traumatic, others joyful. A first bra is one of our culture’s rites of passage for women, yet it’s often a secret, mumbled between teenaged girls and their mothers in store dressing rooms.
Using bras as an art medium (something I’ve been doing for several years now) is a way of disrupting some of the longstanding taboos surrounding them. It reconciles the narrow stereotypes of virgin and whore and fills in the true definitions of women that are missing in between. We’re old and young, tall and short, thin and plump, rich and poor, straight and gay, famous and anonymous, and every racial background imaginable.
The BraBall sculpture is solid bras, except for a "time capsule" in the very center that contains several pertinent items: documentation about my dispute with the other artist, one of my own bras, a scalpel, a replica of the Venus of Willendorf (one of the oldest known art artifacts - a plump, busty, female figure), documentation of my best friend’s battle with breast cancer (thank goodness she’s winning so far), a breast cancer ribbon pin, and a broken, red glass heart in a box. The last item is from a difficult therapy session I had several years ago, about being an incest survivor.”
braball
Emily Duffy, the artist that produced the braball makes so much sense.
She says -
“Breasts are often a source of conflicting emotions for women. Our personal body experiences are rarely reflected in media images we see. A woman may feel ashamed, proud, annoyed, and sexual about her breasts during just one menstrual cycle, or even a single day. Almost every woman has a bra story to tell. Some are traumatic, others joyful. A first bra is one of our culture’s rites of passage for women, yet it’s often a secret, mumbled between teenaged girls and their mothers in store dressing rooms.
Using bras as an art medium (something I’ve been doing for several years now) is a way of disrupting some of the longstanding taboos surrounding them. It reconciles the narrow stereotypes of virgin and whore and fills in the true definitions of women that are missing in between. We’re old and young, tall and short, thin and plump, rich and poor, straight and gay, famous and anonymous, and every racial background imaginable.
The BraBall sculpture is solid bras, except for a "time capsule" in the very center that contains several pertinent items: documentation about my dispute with the other artist, one of my own bras, a scalpel, a replica of the Venus of Willendorf (one of the oldest known art artifacts - a plump, busty, female figure), documentation of my best friend’s battle with breast cancer (thank goodness she’s winning so far), a breast cancer ribbon pin, and a broken, red glass heart in a box. The last item is from a difficult therapy session I had several years ago, about being an incest survivor.”
braball
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
