The all female shortlist
The all female shortlist is something that is sometimes criticised for giving women an 'unfair' advantage. I don't think it is giving an advantage in a negative sense, I think it is helping to redress the balance and beginning to get more women into politics, if it also makes the fact that few women make their way into cabinet and government a focus then that is also not a bad thing. If it forces people to discuss the poor representation that women have, with a view to trying to change it, then that is also a positive step. The Guardian highlights today that Labour have decided to use all women shortlists for 52 parliamentary candidates. This is because the party found that men dominated the list for new candidates in target seats for the 2015 election, when the lists had been open to both genders. The open lists have seen 17 men selected from 18 contests. This suggests that women only lists are needed to ensure that those who have the power to select the next candidates for constituencies are ensuring there is equal representation. This has led to 22 women only shortlists being drawn up for target areas for the next election, which has resulted in 23 female candidates being selected so far. However, this is from a total of 40 seat contests, meaning when the lists have been open to men and women only one was won by a female candidate. The paper raises an interesting question about the lack of women selected when the list was open, they ask whether this is because the 'stronger' female candidates found themselves on female only shortlists to ensure they were selected. Or whether the 1 in 18 when the lists were open was a backlash in response to knowing their were women only lists elsewhere, and so they felt they did not 'need' to select a woman.
A spokesman for Labour is quoted in the paper as saying that this is the only way to ensure female candidates. This begins to feel quite patronising. I blogged at the start of March about women in power and discussed the often sexist 'boys' club' environment that seemed to have been created in politics. I think this is perhaps more influential in keeping women out of politics and needing to rely on women only lists. If women do not feel confident about their ability then they may not feel confident enough to put themselves forward. Women are just as capable as men, in every aspect of life. However, the use of women only shortlists ensure that women at least begin to get some representation and way in to what can be seen as a male dominated female-unfriendly environment.
Saturday, 16 March 2013
Friday, 1 March 2013
Women in power
I've blogged and tweeted about this before but an Observer report based on the report called Sex and power 2013: Who runs Britain? which was published by Counting Women in found that the number of women in high positions of power is falling. The suggestion was that over the last ten years the level of representation has reversed.
The problem with the lack of women and poor representation of women in roles such as:
Is that without an adequate female representation, women lack a voice. They lack a voice in the decision-making processes in this country, in the reporting of events and actions, in the upholding and responding to the law and in the shaping of the next generation. Last year there was an interesting piece in the Guardian about why women's representation was poor, it attempted to cover some of the possible reasons for this lack of representation.
Perhaps the biggest problem behind the lack of equal representation is the system itself. With women so poorly represented in many key fields such as politics, economics and policing their needs go largely unheard or voted out. Without the voice of half the population properly represented it becomes difficult to make the changes that would enable women to be involved or accepted in these positions. If women are not well represented who hears their needs, demands and desires? If these needs, demands and desires are not met, how are the women expected to take part in the political, social, economic systems of this country? The problem of the culture that sometimes can develop within industries that lack equality can be seen to play a part.
This week has seen a number of articles about sexist and inappropriate behaviour within politics. This can create an environment where women do not feel welcome or valued for their contributions, this in turn affects the numbers that will go into those fields and so on in the future. There is then the problem of the attitude from some who are already in 'the business'. Accusations of sexual harassment and the harassment itself are bad enough but when people then respond by reasoning that women need to 'toughen up' this does not help. Jo Philips, a former Lib Dem press secretary, was reported to have said this in response to the claims of sexual harassment that have been in the media this week. This response does not help, women should not have to 'toughen up' in the work place to succeed, they should be able to go to work and be free from harassment, sexual or otherwise. I would hope that no-one would respond to the victim of harassment by telling them to toughen up, so why should someone expect to have to do it at work? Sheila Gunn, John Major's former press secretary (from the same article) agreed with Philips and reasoned that women going into environments that are dominated by men should know what to expect. This view highlights two of the flaws that keep large numbers of women out of industries like politics:
There is also then the problem of pay, as the Fawcett Society found that women are on average still paid 14.9% less than men, why would those within the current system want to change it? It may also lead us to wonder why women would want to go into jobs and endure the boys' club atmosphere when there is a strong possibility they may be paid less.
*All stats have come from the Observer report: here, also published in print on 24/02/2013.
The problem with the lack of women and poor representation of women in roles such as:
- The police: as commissioners (14.6%), chief constables (13.7%) etc
- News and the Media: as national editors (5.0%) etc
- The Armed Forces: where there are no women in the highest three ranks
- Politics: Only 22% of the House of Commons is female*
Is that without an adequate female representation, women lack a voice. They lack a voice in the decision-making processes in this country, in the reporting of events and actions, in the upholding and responding to the law and in the shaping of the next generation. Last year there was an interesting piece in the Guardian about why women's representation was poor, it attempted to cover some of the possible reasons for this lack of representation.
Perhaps the biggest problem behind the lack of equal representation is the system itself. With women so poorly represented in many key fields such as politics, economics and policing their needs go largely unheard or voted out. Without the voice of half the population properly represented it becomes difficult to make the changes that would enable women to be involved or accepted in these positions. If women are not well represented who hears their needs, demands and desires? If these needs, demands and desires are not met, how are the women expected to take part in the political, social, economic systems of this country? The problem of the culture that sometimes can develop within industries that lack equality can be seen to play a part.
This week has seen a number of articles about sexist and inappropriate behaviour within politics. This can create an environment where women do not feel welcome or valued for their contributions, this in turn affects the numbers that will go into those fields and so on in the future. There is then the problem of the attitude from some who are already in 'the business'. Accusations of sexual harassment and the harassment itself are bad enough but when people then respond by reasoning that women need to 'toughen up' this does not help. Jo Philips, a former Lib Dem press secretary, was reported to have said this in response to the claims of sexual harassment that have been in the media this week. This response does not help, women should not have to 'toughen up' in the work place to succeed, they should be able to go to work and be free from harassment, sexual or otherwise. I would hope that no-one would respond to the victim of harassment by telling them to toughen up, so why should someone expect to have to do it at work? Sheila Gunn, John Major's former press secretary (from the same article) agreed with Philips and reasoned that women going into environments that are dominated by men should know what to expect. This view highlights two of the flaws that keep large numbers of women out of industries like politics:
- They are boys' clubs and women are not particularly welcome.
- That women should expect bad and unprofessional behaviour from men and have to deal with it, that this is part of the job.
There is also then the problem of pay, as the Fawcett Society found that women are on average still paid 14.9% less than men, why would those within the current system want to change it? It may also lead us to wonder why women would want to go into jobs and endure the boys' club atmosphere when there is a strong possibility they may be paid less.
*All stats have come from the Observer report: here, also published in print on 24/02/2013.
Saturday, 9 February 2013
Childfree or childless?
For women in today's society the words woman and mother seem to be used by some as interchangeable. If for some reasons you are a woman but not a mother as you get older you begin to feel marginalised. As a little anecdote I remember picking up a free magazine in a large supermarket last year titled 'the women's issue'. Expecting it to be full of stories and information for women I took it home. Upon opening it I realised it was all about mothers and children. It was frustrating (particularly at the time for me as someone going through fertility treatment) that the words woman and mother were treated as identical.
The expectation and stereotype, as peddled by fairy tales, Hollywood and the like, is that girl will meet boy, girl will fall in love boy, they will marry and then along will come a number of chubby cheeked children. Life will be complete as they sit on the veranda 60 years later reminiscing about their life. For many in society this story is simply something that will not happen nor do they want it to happen. As we move closer to finally allowing equal marriage the story will need to change to reflect this, no longer should Disney films simply be about boy loves girl, who marry, a family and live happily ever-after. The story should also reflect the number of marriages and relationships in which children do not feature.
For some this can be through choice and there are a large number of websites dedicated to singles, couples etc who choose not to have children. Tips on how to deal with the patronising 'advice' or comments that get shared with couples if they have been together a long time without children. In some communities and on some websites it is nicknamed 'childfree bingo' (a piece in the Daily Mail illustrates this quite well) in which the aim is to note all of the various arguments put forward by relatives and friends. Some range from flattery 'you would both be great parents, think about how much you have to give' to the downright rude 'children will give your life purpose'. Why does my life lack purpose? What does the notion of children give you purpose mean? I also get frustrated by the arguments concerning money. I have been told countless times that if I don't have children who will pay my pension? I pay my pension now, I watch it leave my paypacket every month. If the government choose to spend it now and not put it away for me I can't stop that! Whether I have children or not I will still be entitled to a pension. I also get told that those with children are funding medical care, again I pay my National Insurance. I also have paid a considerable amount for my medical treatment in trying to have children. I have had to jump through enormous hoops to attain treatment for infertility. This is the only medical condition I have had where I have found my age, weight and relationship status have ever played a role in my treatment. I am patronised in my healthcare options, I don't need it in my social life as well.
For those who can not have children and yet desperately want them, these types of comment are perhaps even more hurtful. When I wasn't sure if I wanted children I found them annoying and patronising. Now I am struggling to have children I find them hurtful and they make me angry. I want to shout at relatives, themselves with a number of children that they are ignoring as they make these comments, that I can do nothing about this, I have a medical problem. Sometimes I wonder about telling them about the painful, embarrassing and at times horrible treatment I have had in trying to have children but I imagine they would find this uncomfortable. Those who do know that we have been trying for a while are also prone to the ignorant comments, 'advice' such as relax, take a holiday, try this odd and expensive potion. I (more often than not my husband) restrain myself from shouting at them that this is a medical condition that will not be cured by 'chilling out' I need medical treatment.
I can not imagine ever walking up to a couple and asking them about their sex life and when they last had unprotected sex and if not why not. So why does it seem acceptable to ask those of us without children, for whatever reason, why we do not have them? I have found over the last couple of years that I have had to become more defensive about my lack of children status. The words childfree and childless are such loaded terms, some people prefer childfree to suggest choice and power in this decision whereas others choose childless. I think this should be up to the individuals to decide which if at all they wish to use.
The expectation and stereotype, as peddled by fairy tales, Hollywood and the like, is that girl will meet boy, girl will fall in love boy, they will marry and then along will come a number of chubby cheeked children. Life will be complete as they sit on the veranda 60 years later reminiscing about their life. For many in society this story is simply something that will not happen nor do they want it to happen. As we move closer to finally allowing equal marriage the story will need to change to reflect this, no longer should Disney films simply be about boy loves girl, who marry, a family and live happily ever-after. The story should also reflect the number of marriages and relationships in which children do not feature.
For some this can be through choice and there are a large number of websites dedicated to singles, couples etc who choose not to have children. Tips on how to deal with the patronising 'advice' or comments that get shared with couples if they have been together a long time without children. In some communities and on some websites it is nicknamed 'childfree bingo' (a piece in the Daily Mail illustrates this quite well) in which the aim is to note all of the various arguments put forward by relatives and friends. Some range from flattery 'you would both be great parents, think about how much you have to give' to the downright rude 'children will give your life purpose'. Why does my life lack purpose? What does the notion of children give you purpose mean? I also get frustrated by the arguments concerning money. I have been told countless times that if I don't have children who will pay my pension? I pay my pension now, I watch it leave my paypacket every month. If the government choose to spend it now and not put it away for me I can't stop that! Whether I have children or not I will still be entitled to a pension. I also get told that those with children are funding medical care, again I pay my National Insurance. I also have paid a considerable amount for my medical treatment in trying to have children. I have had to jump through enormous hoops to attain treatment for infertility. This is the only medical condition I have had where I have found my age, weight and relationship status have ever played a role in my treatment. I am patronised in my healthcare options, I don't need it in my social life as well.
For those who can not have children and yet desperately want them, these types of comment are perhaps even more hurtful. When I wasn't sure if I wanted children I found them annoying and patronising. Now I am struggling to have children I find them hurtful and they make me angry. I want to shout at relatives, themselves with a number of children that they are ignoring as they make these comments, that I can do nothing about this, I have a medical problem. Sometimes I wonder about telling them about the painful, embarrassing and at times horrible treatment I have had in trying to have children but I imagine they would find this uncomfortable. Those who do know that we have been trying for a while are also prone to the ignorant comments, 'advice' such as relax, take a holiday, try this odd and expensive potion. I (more often than not my husband) restrain myself from shouting at them that this is a medical condition that will not be cured by 'chilling out' I need medical treatment.
I can not imagine ever walking up to a couple and asking them about their sex life and when they last had unprotected sex and if not why not. So why does it seem acceptable to ask those of us without children, for whatever reason, why we do not have them? I have found over the last couple of years that I have had to become more defensive about my lack of children status. The words childfree and childless are such loaded terms, some people prefer childfree to suggest choice and power in this decision whereas others choose childless. I think this should be up to the individuals to decide which if at all they wish to use.
Feminism and the surname
As a married feminist I often get asked why I changed my name. I also get asked whether feminists should or normally get married. The first thing I normally point out is that I am one feminist and can not speak for all feminists, as they are a hugely diverse group (we are not a hive mind!). The second thing is that for me marriage was about the relationship, and the legalities that go with marriage. To consider the issue of the surname, there were a number of options:
- Keep my surname, that no one could ever seem to spell correctly
- Keep my surname and my husband to share it, he was prepared to take my surname (still then have the spelling and pronunciation issue)
- Merge the surnames, now with our combination that would sound so bizarre and laughable!
- Take my husband's surname: easier to say and spell (perhaps what is 'expected')
- Create a whole new name
Saturday, 19 January 2013
The rise of the 'Sugar Daddy'
I was vaguely aware of the notion (and seemingly rising phenomenon) of a sugar daddy. My understanding of a sugar daddy was a wealthy, older man who wanted to provide for a younger woman in return for companionship and possibly in some cases a sexual relationship. The website (that has irritated me this morning) Sugar Daddy describes it in a much more crude and blunt way. They suggest the following
Most of the advice takes the more obvious form of, if you want a rich man you have to look pretty like a Christmas bauble, there merely for decoration and enjoyment. Apparently to bag a man you need to look the part, this does not mean (they say) being as skinny as Kate Moss but you should spend time on your looks. They suggest a great perfume as men like this sort of thing. (I've always worn perfume because *I* like the smell of it). They argue that your clothing, hair, make-up and nails should be perfect, as you want to stand out *and* allegedly this will boost your confidence. I would reason that rather than boosting your confidence, a focus on having to look a certain way to please a man and working hard to maintain this look, will in fact leave many women self-conscious and unhappy. The brilliant Body Image Project encourages people to submit their stories about body image problems/stresses or upset that they have suffered. This project shows the impact that this notion of having to be perfect can have on self-esteem and body-confidence. I don't think encouraging women to look a certain way to attract a man helps this.
The next area of advice is about keeping this man once he has been attracted to you. Women are told to give him attention, listen to him, give him intellectual conversation, the site does mention some men may want sex, so that he wants to keep you around. There is no mention of any mutual respect for the woman, she seems to be expected to fawn over him, simply because he is wealthy. I appreciate I do seem to have missed one of the key 'selling-points' of the site in not getting this. Finally, the women are advised to spend time with their man on his terms. They suggest that he should be the sole focus for the women when out.
I really dislike these sites and this whole idea of sugar daddies because there is far too much focus on women having to conform to a fixed idea of beauty, total focus on only one partner in the relationship and the advice suggests an unequal relationship by solely focusing on his needs. I am sure people will criticise me and argue that these women are free to choose to be part of this. What I don't like is the fact that as a society we think it is ok, in the 21st century, to promote this type of relationship. The woman is not an equal in this, even if she believes that her beauty/body controls or enthrals the man, at the end of the day he controls the wallet and that gives power.
"a sugardaddy is a man who engages in a relationship with a younger woman, where he is seen to be taking on economic benefits in return for the physical benefits a younger woman can provide"This is such a shallow basis for any relationship and it saddens me to think that there are women out there who feel their only worth is their body or their looks. The website reasons that why would a woman want to work for her life when she can be spoiled by a man. Well there are several reasons why a woman might want to work/be financially independent and not relying on a 'sugar daddy'
- Financial independence is hugely important: it enables a woman to leave a relationship without feeling bound or trapped to the partner
- Financial independence also gives a woman equality within the relationship
- Engaging in a relationship such as this 'sugar daddy'-type relies on your looks being deemed attractive enough, as you age will you be replaced by the next younger model?
- Relying on a sugar daddy means appeasing them in return for money, this does not have to be sexual.
Most of the advice takes the more obvious form of, if you want a rich man you have to look pretty like a Christmas bauble, there merely for decoration and enjoyment. Apparently to bag a man you need to look the part, this does not mean (they say) being as skinny as Kate Moss but you should spend time on your looks. They suggest a great perfume as men like this sort of thing. (I've always worn perfume because *I* like the smell of it). They argue that your clothing, hair, make-up and nails should be perfect, as you want to stand out *and* allegedly this will boost your confidence. I would reason that rather than boosting your confidence, a focus on having to look a certain way to please a man and working hard to maintain this look, will in fact leave many women self-conscious and unhappy. The brilliant Body Image Project encourages people to submit their stories about body image problems/stresses or upset that they have suffered. This project shows the impact that this notion of having to be perfect can have on self-esteem and body-confidence. I don't think encouraging women to look a certain way to attract a man helps this.
The next area of advice is about keeping this man once he has been attracted to you. Women are told to give him attention, listen to him, give him intellectual conversation, the site does mention some men may want sex, so that he wants to keep you around. There is no mention of any mutual respect for the woman, she seems to be expected to fawn over him, simply because he is wealthy. I appreciate I do seem to have missed one of the key 'selling-points' of the site in not getting this. Finally, the women are advised to spend time with their man on his terms. They suggest that he should be the sole focus for the women when out.
I really dislike these sites and this whole idea of sugar daddies because there is far too much focus on women having to conform to a fixed idea of beauty, total focus on only one partner in the relationship and the advice suggests an unequal relationship by solely focusing on his needs. I am sure people will criticise me and argue that these women are free to choose to be part of this. What I don't like is the fact that as a society we think it is ok, in the 21st century, to promote this type of relationship. The woman is not an equal in this, even if she believes that her beauty/body controls or enthrals the man, at the end of the day he controls the wallet and that gives power.
Thursday, 10 January 2013
Sexualised behaviour on TV: Kavos and Magaluf
There have been a number of TV shows recently that have shown some horrific and degrading sexual behaviour, that made me wonder whether I was alone in feeling so shocked and concerned for the welfare of some of the people shown. I'm talking about the 'shock' documentaries about young people (late teens/ early twenties) holidaying in some of the more notable resorts. I'm talking about shows like
Watching the TV shows, online, the first thing that struck me was the huge quantities of alcohol being consumed. The fact that as one bar worker talking to Dooley states they pour free-hand, meaning people buying drinks mostly likely won't have a clue how much they have really drunk. With the alcohol comes a lack of inhibitions, and so the sex games begin.
This was the part that both shocked and upset me. Watching it I felt that so many of the contestants seemed vulnerable due to the amount of alcohol that was freely available. If we then consider the TV shows individually
Starting with 'The Truth about Magaluf', at about 11 minutes into the documentary Dooley is talking to two bar crawl organisers about the sex-games that she has just witnessed. One act that drew a large crowd in the bar was the 'Erection Challenge', the purpose of this 'game' was for the women to give the men erections within 3 minutes. The host of the game told the women that they could use any means to do this. Dooley was clearly shocked by this, as I was and as I assume most viewers would be, and spoke to the men who had organised the bar crawl and 'activities'. The men reasoned that they would not include someone who was too drunk but they then say that the aim of the bar crawl is to get the participants 'wasted'. Dooley is still visibly shocked by this, and asks if this is a common event. The response she gets simply does not seem to take in the seriousness or degrading nature of the games by simple stating that this is Magaluf and you know the reputation. They follow this up by reasoning that they simply encourage the games. The fact that so much alcohol is involved, with some of the bars being 'free' as you pay 25-30 euros to enter makes these games seem all the more seedy. My fear is that women, and men, are getting themselves drunk and feeling that they need to prove themselves in 'games' like this. I question whether a sober individual would, or would want to, take part in a game that involved them performing a sex act whilst partially dressed in public. The fact that for the crowd and organisers this seemed like a normal event made it all the more worrying.
To move on to the other show on offer from the BBC: Sun, Sex and... again there was one particular section that stood out and offended. It involved a booze cruise, now my understanding of the term booze cruise was people travelling to France or Belgium to bring back cheap alcohol. However, on the holiday shown the term booze cruise refers to people paying to go out on a pleasure boat, drink a lot and then take part or watch sex-games. Again, my objections relate to the degrading nature of the games and the sexualised objectifying environment that they create. The 'host' welcomes the young people onto the boat and asks the assembled people to raise a hand if they are a virgin. My first thought was 'how childish' and then 'what is the point?' in such a question. However, it was the response of the host that annoyed me the most. When a woman raised her hand the host responded by shouting at her that she was a 'lying f*****g b***h', cue laughter from the boat (and the woman involved I think). The next segment shows the hosts telling a group of assembled naked men (I don't know why or how this happened, either) to run around the boat slapping their willies in the face of women. Personally, a stranger running up to slap me in the face with their penis would disgust me and I would term it an assault if this happened. The next 'game' involved women being told to give a 10 second love-bite on the body part chosen by the male partner, this led to one man waving his penis around and then having the love-bite administered to it. These games seem to serve no other purpose than to degrade those involved. In *my opinion*, having watched these 'games', I felt many were designed to degrade women. I question whether the women involved would have taken part in these games had they been sober and not in an environment that is encouraging and egging on this behaviour.
Finally, the Channel 4 show, What happens in...., followed round both workers and holiday-makers. Some of the more disturbing details from the show:
This is where I will end this post, on the notion of respect. Teaching respect must not be confined to schools. It should be present in the media, in our music, our homes, our businesses and our politics. We need to see true equality in order to see proper respect between individuals. With respect there might not be the pressure to engage and conform with these sexualised games.
- What happens in Kavos on Channel 4
- The Truth about Magaluf: Stacey Dooley investigates on BBC3 And finally,
- Sun, Sex and Suspicious Parents also on BBC3
Watching the TV shows, online, the first thing that struck me was the huge quantities of alcohol being consumed. The fact that as one bar worker talking to Dooley states they pour free-hand, meaning people buying drinks mostly likely won't have a clue how much they have really drunk. With the alcohol comes a lack of inhibitions, and so the sex games begin.
This was the part that both shocked and upset me. Watching it I felt that so many of the contestants seemed vulnerable due to the amount of alcohol that was freely available. If we then consider the TV shows individually
Starting with 'The Truth about Magaluf', at about 11 minutes into the documentary Dooley is talking to two bar crawl organisers about the sex-games that she has just witnessed. One act that drew a large crowd in the bar was the 'Erection Challenge', the purpose of this 'game' was for the women to give the men erections within 3 minutes. The host of the game told the women that they could use any means to do this. Dooley was clearly shocked by this, as I was and as I assume most viewers would be, and spoke to the men who had organised the bar crawl and 'activities'. The men reasoned that they would not include someone who was too drunk but they then say that the aim of the bar crawl is to get the participants 'wasted'. Dooley is still visibly shocked by this, and asks if this is a common event. The response she gets simply does not seem to take in the seriousness or degrading nature of the games by simple stating that this is Magaluf and you know the reputation. They follow this up by reasoning that they simply encourage the games. The fact that so much alcohol is involved, with some of the bars being 'free' as you pay 25-30 euros to enter makes these games seem all the more seedy. My fear is that women, and men, are getting themselves drunk and feeling that they need to prove themselves in 'games' like this. I question whether a sober individual would, or would want to, take part in a game that involved them performing a sex act whilst partially dressed in public. The fact that for the crowd and organisers this seemed like a normal event made it all the more worrying.
To move on to the other show on offer from the BBC: Sun, Sex and... again there was one particular section that stood out and offended. It involved a booze cruise, now my understanding of the term booze cruise was people travelling to France or Belgium to bring back cheap alcohol. However, on the holiday shown the term booze cruise refers to people paying to go out on a pleasure boat, drink a lot and then take part or watch sex-games. Again, my objections relate to the degrading nature of the games and the sexualised objectifying environment that they create. The 'host' welcomes the young people onto the boat and asks the assembled people to raise a hand if they are a virgin. My first thought was 'how childish' and then 'what is the point?' in such a question. However, it was the response of the host that annoyed me the most. When a woman raised her hand the host responded by shouting at her that she was a 'lying f*****g b***h', cue laughter from the boat (and the woman involved I think). The next segment shows the hosts telling a group of assembled naked men (I don't know why or how this happened, either) to run around the boat slapping their willies in the face of women. Personally, a stranger running up to slap me in the face with their penis would disgust me and I would term it an assault if this happened. The next 'game' involved women being told to give a 10 second love-bite on the body part chosen by the male partner, this led to one man waving his penis around and then having the love-bite administered to it. These games seem to serve no other purpose than to degrade those involved. In *my opinion*, having watched these 'games', I felt many were designed to degrade women. I question whether the women involved would have taken part in these games had they been sober and not in an environment that is encouraging and egging on this behaviour.
Finally, the Channel 4 show, What happens in...., followed round both workers and holiday-makers. Some of the more disturbing details from the show:
- Workers devised a punishment involving downing a shot of urine, the reason for this punishment? If a worker had slept with another worker 3 times.
- Sex-'games' involving a cucumbers placed between men's legs, with female partners simulating oral sex to eat them.
- Women placing tomatoes between their legs for the men to eat, again simulating oral sex in front of a large audience
- The seemingly obligatory sexual positions games; what I am struggling to understand (ignoring the obvious - why? or why anyone would want to take part) is why the women always seem to have to be topless in the games?
- The group of young men discussing the scoring system they had devised for the holiday, with ugly women being worth more points.
This is where I will end this post, on the notion of respect. Teaching respect must not be confined to schools. It should be present in the media, in our music, our homes, our businesses and our politics. We need to see true equality in order to see proper respect between individuals. With respect there might not be the pressure to engage and conform with these sexualised games.
Sunday, 6 January 2013
Infertility, same-sex relationships and children
Anyone who follows me, casually or otherwise, on twitter (@NrthntsFeminist) will possibly have noticed some of my rants about the treatment of infertile couples, individuals and same-sex couples. My irritation (I seem to be very irritated this new year!) relates to a couple of key areas, and I am sure that anyone needing NHS/medical support in creating children in a same-sex relationship or struggling with infertility will be able to empathise with some of my feelings of irritation and anger,
This post has been brought about following today's BBC The Big Question on BBC1. One topic being debated was the notion of using stem cells to create sperm, this would help infertile heterosexual couples in-light of the shortage of donor sperm as well as allowing same-sex female couples to both be the biological parents of any child born into their relationship. This would bring joy, happiness and new life for those desperate to have their own children. However, many of the commentators seemed disgusted by this notion of 'doing away with fathers'. They seemed to wilfully or stupidly (I will let the reader decide!) ignore the fact that this was talking about supporting and enabling same-sex couples in being able to create children that were biologically linked to both parents. The notion of simply adopting was raised at several points, as if this is an easy option, both emotionally and practically.
Before I begin to pick apart the points that I have identified further up in this post I would urge you to look at the Guardian's datablog about access to IVF, this came about as the result of a number of Freedom of Information requests to PCTs. Although it should be noted that the date of the piece is 2009 it is frightening to think that there are/were PCTs ignoring NICE guidelines with regards to access to healthcare and imposing requirements about the length of relationship or age for example. If we remove the emotion (and often religious arguments about morality of fertility treatment) we should see IVF and fertility treatment as doing just that, treating. IVF etc treats a medical need, infertile couples or some same-sex couples can not have children without assistance, this is a medical need. For example, some PCTs say that the woman in the couple needs to be between 30 and 35 to qualify for IVF, a woman aged 28 who is infertile will still be infertile at 30, forcing her to wait *another* two years will not alleviate her medical problems. Wolverhampton, Worcestershire, Newham, North Yorkshire and York, Oldham and Telford and Wrekin, for example, are all marked as responding to the FOI in 2009 saying no, they do not provide IVF for same-sex couples/individuals. Find out what your PCT offers or does not offer.
So to take the points made earlier: Adoption this is not the easy option that people seem to think. It is often suggested to couples as a way for them to have the family they want. It ignores the drives and desires that this couple or individual may have to have a biological child. In my experience people with biological children haven't liked the question being flipped and applied to them! Adoption is not easy, there are (rightly) numerous checks, panels and references. It is a challenging, rewarding if successful, process and should not be seen as a fall-back. To see it is as such is disrespectful to adoptive children and parents.
I will group a couple of points: 'We should only fund children/people who already exist', 'It costs too much to fund IVF etc' and 'Cancer treatment etc is underfunded so we should not 'waste' money on IVF/fertility treatment'. Fertility treatment is not something people enter into for the laughs it is to address a *medical* need. In the same way that any other person uses the NHS. To say we should only fund those that exists is in fact directly agreeing with the view that IVF/fertility treatment should be funded, as infertile people do already exist and are asking for help. The arguments that it costs too much and other areas are underfunded is a misnomer, drugs could be made cheaper if we looked at the profits made by large pharmaceutical companies. It is also a weak argument to say x lacks money so y should not happen. We should look at how the system can be balanced so that all needs can be met.
Children need two parents/a dad: this argument ignores the stability that a loving same-sex relationship can provide for a child. The nuclear family is perhaps an outdated model, as society moves forward and develops we should look at how we can support different models of family rather than applying our personal views.
The argument that children are a privilege is an interesting one. To some extent I do understand, children are not a commodity to be upgraded etc. However, I believe that everyone should have the ability to have a family, with medical support if needed. We should not be telling infertile people that their medical treatment constitutes a privilege.
As I mentioned I have come at this from a person point of view, as someone who is facing having to wait several years for the medical treatment I need, for no better reason than that is the arbitrary interpretation of NICE guidelines in the PCT near me. I believe that IVF/fertility treatment for infertile couples, individuals and same-sex couples addresses a medical and scientific need, the access to this should be open to all and free from moral judgements.
- Why not just adopt?
- We should only fund children/people who already exist
- Children are a lifestyle choice/privilege not a right
- It costs too much to fund IVF etc
- Children need two parents/a dad etc etc
- Cancer treatment etc is underfunded so we should not 'waste' money on IVF/fertility treatment
This post has been brought about following today's BBC The Big Question on BBC1. One topic being debated was the notion of using stem cells to create sperm, this would help infertile heterosexual couples in-light of the shortage of donor sperm as well as allowing same-sex female couples to both be the biological parents of any child born into their relationship. This would bring joy, happiness and new life for those desperate to have their own children. However, many of the commentators seemed disgusted by this notion of 'doing away with fathers'. They seemed to wilfully or stupidly (I will let the reader decide!) ignore the fact that this was talking about supporting and enabling same-sex couples in being able to create children that were biologically linked to both parents. The notion of simply adopting was raised at several points, as if this is an easy option, both emotionally and practically.
Before I begin to pick apart the points that I have identified further up in this post I would urge you to look at the Guardian's datablog about access to IVF, this came about as the result of a number of Freedom of Information requests to PCTs. Although it should be noted that the date of the piece is 2009 it is frightening to think that there are/were PCTs ignoring NICE guidelines with regards to access to healthcare and imposing requirements about the length of relationship or age for example. If we remove the emotion (and often religious arguments about morality of fertility treatment) we should see IVF and fertility treatment as doing just that, treating. IVF etc treats a medical need, infertile couples or some same-sex couples can not have children without assistance, this is a medical need. For example, some PCTs say that the woman in the couple needs to be between 30 and 35 to qualify for IVF, a woman aged 28 who is infertile will still be infertile at 30, forcing her to wait *another* two years will not alleviate her medical problems. Wolverhampton, Worcestershire, Newham, North Yorkshire and York, Oldham and Telford and Wrekin, for example, are all marked as responding to the FOI in 2009 saying no, they do not provide IVF for same-sex couples/individuals. Find out what your PCT offers or does not offer.
So to take the points made earlier: Adoption this is not the easy option that people seem to think. It is often suggested to couples as a way for them to have the family they want. It ignores the drives and desires that this couple or individual may have to have a biological child. In my experience people with biological children haven't liked the question being flipped and applied to them! Adoption is not easy, there are (rightly) numerous checks, panels and references. It is a challenging, rewarding if successful, process and should not be seen as a fall-back. To see it is as such is disrespectful to adoptive children and parents.
I will group a couple of points: 'We should only fund children/people who already exist', 'It costs too much to fund IVF etc' and 'Cancer treatment etc is underfunded so we should not 'waste' money on IVF/fertility treatment'. Fertility treatment is not something people enter into for the laughs it is to address a *medical* need. In the same way that any other person uses the NHS. To say we should only fund those that exists is in fact directly agreeing with the view that IVF/fertility treatment should be funded, as infertile people do already exist and are asking for help. The arguments that it costs too much and other areas are underfunded is a misnomer, drugs could be made cheaper if we looked at the profits made by large pharmaceutical companies. It is also a weak argument to say x lacks money so y should not happen. We should look at how the system can be balanced so that all needs can be met.
Children need two parents/a dad: this argument ignores the stability that a loving same-sex relationship can provide for a child. The nuclear family is perhaps an outdated model, as society moves forward and develops we should look at how we can support different models of family rather than applying our personal views.
The argument that children are a privilege is an interesting one. To some extent I do understand, children are not a commodity to be upgraded etc. However, I believe that everyone should have the ability to have a family, with medical support if needed. We should not be telling infertile people that their medical treatment constitutes a privilege.
As I mentioned I have come at this from a person point of view, as someone who is facing having to wait several years for the medical treatment I need, for no better reason than that is the arbitrary interpretation of NICE guidelines in the PCT near me. I believe that IVF/fertility treatment for infertile couples, individuals and same-sex couples addresses a medical and scientific need, the access to this should be open to all and free from moral judgements.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)