NUS Opposed to Sexist Freshers' Week Promotions

The NUS National Women's Officer has launched campaign to oppose sexist marketing by a marketing company on University campuses. The company in question is involved in the promotion of the Miss University GB Competition and plan to distribute free copies of FHM at Freshers' Fairs. This competition and the magazine promote misogynistic views of women and promote the objectification of women and help propagate the deeply offensive idea that a woman's worth is contained entirely in her appearance.

Promotions such as these at Freshers' Fairs presents a lack of inclusivity that could well be alienating to young women who should be made to feel welcome as valuable members of the University. Furthermore it privileges heterosexual males and implies by the lack of inclusivity in the promotions that this group is the only one worthy of the marketeers efforts. This is clearly unacceptable.

From the NUS website:

The NUS Women’s Campaign is making a stand against two recent BAM promotions. BAM are a student’s unions marketing company who offer various promotions, advertising and events sponsorship. It has come to our attention that they supported and facilitated the promotion of the Miss University GB Competition and plan to distribute free copies of FHM at Freshers' Fairs and you can help take action.

In a society where 92% of women under the age of 22 have said that they “hate their bodies,” promoting competitions that openly objectify women and the distribution of a magazine based on the same principles is unacceptable. These sorts of competitions and media will only continue to fuel negative, unrealistic and damaging ideals of what women should look like. And, whilst pointing out the obvious, these two promotions are not accessible to all or in any way inclusive.

Olivia Bailey, the NUS National Women’s Officer, has taken action against these promotions and has sent an open letter to BAM, outlining the Women’s Campaign’s concerns about these promotions. In her letter to BAM, Olivia stated that “It is of course vital that we respect the rights of all students to engage in whatever activities they choose to, and as such we never extend our criticism to the women who choose to enter beauty pageants. Our criticism lands squarely on the shoulders of the corporations who make money out of the exploitation of women students.”

The NUS campaign provided a model letter which can be emailed to BAM (tb@bamuk.com) to register a complaint:

Model letter to BAM – feel free to adapt to include your own views

Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing to express my concern about two of your recent activities. First, I understand that you have written to all students’ unions on your books suggesting they advertise Miss University GB at their institution. Second, I understand that you have facilitated the free distribution of FHM magazine at the fresher’s fairs of the unions you are contracted to work for.

I believe that Beauty Pageants like Miss University GB, and ‘lads’ mags like FHM, send the dangerous message that it is OK to value women purely on a narrow conception of beauty that bears little relation to the majority of women.

I believe that my institution should be free of the sexism and objectification that women face every day in wider society. I am disappointed that you did not more seriously consider the equal opportunities implications of the products that you have chosen to advertise.

I ask that you retract both promotions, and apologise for the negative impact that your action has had on campuses across the country.

Yours Sincerely,

Name
Institution

“the PES is the party of gender equality”

The Part of European Socialists (PES) of which the Labour Party is a member has put out a press release trumpeting it's record as a party concerned with gender equality. This comes with the news that another member of the PES (the Hungarian Socialist Party (MSZP)) has chosen a woman to be its new leader.

From the F-Word blog:

Zita Gurmai, President of PES Women and fellow Hungarian Socialist, said “This is absolutely fantastic news. Ildikó Lendvai has an exceptional record: having founded the Women’s Section of the Women’s Section of the MSZP and fought tirelessly for women’s political representation and participation, a gender-equal labour market and more rights for mothers…

…Gurmai, who is one of three women to lead the MSZP list for the upcoming European elections, added “This just goes to show that Europe’s socialists and social democrats are streets ahead of the liberals and conservatives in the fight for gender equality.

Eat a poppadom - help a women’s cooperative

There's a story on the BBC about a co-operative in India that empowers women, who received very little education, to use their skills to create a source of income. The ability to generate income and the associated financial independence is an effective way to tackle problems such as domestic violence and gender inequality. So I think that it's great that schemes like this exist.

From the article:

Mumbai-based businessman and entrepreneur Sushil Jwarijka explains: "Lijjat papads are a perfect example of how a sustainable business can be built, providing large-scale employment to rural women, who are illiterate but skilled.

"And when such skills are given an organisational structure on a co-operative basis a long term sustainable model assures success."

Related to this story is Kiva, which is a website that allows people to make micro loans to entrepreneurs in developing countries. It's very interesting so i reccomend that you check it out.

[This story came via the F-Word Blog.]

What we can learn from Wales

Representation lies at the heart of democracy. However not all groups are equally represented. This impacts negatively on these groups as one of the best ways to ensure that the rights of all people are protected, and that their concerns and needs are dealt with is to ensure that they are properly represented in the legislative and executive bodies of the country in which they live. Christine Chapman has an article up at LabourList concerning the Welsh Assembly's gender balance.

The Welsh Assembly is a leader amongst legislatures in terms of its gender balance, not just in the UK, or in Europe but across the world. When the first Assembly was elected in 1999, 24 of the 60 members were women. At the 2003 election the record was even better with equal numbers of men and women being elected, and a 2006 by-election led to a simple majority. All Welsh Assembly Government Cabinets have had excellent ratios of women to men. In December 2008, Kirsty Williams was elected as the first female leader of a Welsh political party. As a comparison, women make up just under 20% of MPs at Westminster.

In the article she summarises some of the reasons why an equal gender balance is a positive thing, and why working to achieve is worthwhile:

research showed that the majority of all contributions on equal pay, domestic abuse and the need for better childcare were by women Assembly Members. Of course these are often dismissed as “women’s issues”, but they are problems that affect men and women in every community the length and breadth of Wales.

Equality of representation is vital, not simply for numerical reasons, but because the involvement of women within the political process can lead to better politics and governance even in what is often regarded as traditionally “male” areas such as the economy. Support for this comes from some unlikely quarters. The centre-right Industry Minister of the Norwegian Government introduced a quota to ensure that a minimum of 40% of the membership boards of all private companies were women, arguing that quotas make sound economic sense. The investment company Goldman Sachs published a paper in 2007 arguing that the reduction of gender inequality would increase economic growth. The World Bank suggests that poverty cannot be eradicated unless parity of gender is achieved.

I would add to those the more ideological motivations of fairness and equality demand an equal gender balance. [And not just equality based on gender; only 2 black women and no Asian women at all, have ever been MPs in Britain. I don't think that those statistics are acceptable.]

Labour has done some work towards achieving a fair balance; "Labour’s policy of “twinning” led to the excellent gender parity that followed the 1999 election", but others have not; "Liberal Democrats and Conservatives have yet to adopt a policy of guaranteeing female candidates, and only one of the twelve Conservative AMs is a woman". However the balance in the House of Commons is heavily skewed towards men.

At the General Election of May 2005 128 women were elected as Members of Parliament, the highest number ever with one in five MPs now a woman, since that time due to by-election results that number has reduced to 125. Of these MPs, 95 are Labour, 17 Conservative, 9 Liberal Democrat, 1 Democratic Unionist, 1 Sinn Fein, 1 Ulster Unionist and 1 Independent
Labour.

The first sentence says a lot about the state of equality in modern Britain, and it's not good. That 1/5 of MPs being female represented a record high is quite frankly pitiful. Even Labour's 76% (95 out of 125) share is well short of the approximately 177 (50.5% of Labour's 350 MPs) there would be if there was equal representation.

As a party we still have to do a lot of work to correct this. [Other parties need to do even more. But I care more about Labour, and I think we should hold ourself to a higher standard than the Tory Party does for itself.] By rectifying this inequality in government we can perhaps even achieve a lot in ironing out the inequalities in society as a whole as well.

The Fawcett Society is a wonderful organisation that works to promote gender equality in the UK.

I personally believe that we all have an ethical and moral obligation follow the example of the Welsh Assembly in ensuring equality in government, in order that we can move toward a better and fairer Britain which has a far more representative Parliament. After all representing the public is what MPs are meant to do.

The Royal and Ancient refuses membership to the Principal of the Univeristy of St. Andrew's

Why?

Because she's a woman.

Apparently not only was the R&A founded in 1754, it's still there. I can't think of any reason how else they could possibly continue to justify such an exclusionary policy.

I got this story from Yapping Yousuf, he included these quotes from politicians:

Labour MSP Claire Baker first flagged this and was clearly angry when she called the managers of the club 'fuddy duddies' and said that;

"It's more than 500 years since Mary Queen of Scots become the first woman to tee off at the home of golf, but it seems that the Royal and Ancient is still stuck in the middle ages.

It is high time the fuddy-duddies who run the Club put their chauvinist attitudes to one side and joined the twenty-first century."

Our First Minister, a golfing enthusiast and rather good player as yesterdays news showed!, has also been critical and said

"The Royal and Ancient Golf Club should follow their long-standing practice of offering membership to the Principal of St Andrews University, and I am sure that after due consideration they will continue with that honourable tradition."

As I commented on his site (as well as a bit of rant against his criticism of golf) I like to see such blatant discrimination as this being targeted by more than just one party. I think it shows to a degree that misogyny and chauvinism like this are becoming less acceptable than they once were.

I personally think that the R&A should be forced to change it's policies in the same, as Yousuf points out, that working men's clubs were. I also don't want to see any institute using prestige or historicity to try and weasel out of equality legislation.

I, like many others in Scotland and around the world, enjoy playing golf. As such I greatly dislike the fact that this kind of anachronistic* behaviour is still associated with the game.


*(Unfortunately while I say this kind of discrimination is anachronistic misogyny less obvious but still as toxic is widespread and deeply embedded in society and our culture.)

Christmas blood shortage warning

Some less than cheerful news from the BBC this holiday season on the problem caused by a drop in blood donation before Christmas:

"More people need to give blood to avoid a 50% drop in donations over the festive period, the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service has warned.

The service said donations fell by 25% during the same period in 2007.

It fears the situation could be worse this year because Christmas falls on a Thursday, the most popular day for giving blood."

Donating blood is a fantastic thing and it's one very easy way to make a tangible difference in the life of a stranger.




But...

"If you have ever had gay sex, the NHS considers your blood contaminated for life."

If you get a tatoo of visit a country that has a high incidence of malaria you cannot donate blood for a year. If you have unprotected sex with a woman or if you're a woman you have unprotected sex with a man you can donate, no problem. However if you are a man and you have sex with a man (It doesn't matter if it's protected sex or not.) you are banned from ever donating blood. To some this policy is justifiable; gay men do have a higher chance of having HIV than other groups. However when you look at the risks this assessment is shown to be fundamentally flawed:

"The US epidemiologist and bio-ethicist Dr Scott Halpern crunched the figures for the court. Some 1 in 100 people who are infused with blood older than 14 days will die – and 13 per cent of infused blood offered by the Red Cross is older than that. This, he explained, poses a risk "thousands of times greater" than "the very worst predictions of HIV infection" if you let latex-loving gay men donate. Why? Because if the ban is lifted and gay men who practice safe sex are allowed to donate, a single HIV-positive blood donation will slip through clinical screening once every 5,769 years. That's one time between now and the year 7777 – or equivalent to it happening once since 3761 BC, when cities had not yet been invented."

I don't like having to employ caveats when I'm talking about something as selfless as blood donation, an act which is uncompensated and is to help someone that the donor will never meet. But i feel in this case it is necessary, the National Blood Service is discriminating against a group of people using very shaky reasoning and that weakens their ability to fulfill their purpose.

I have found an online petition that aims to convince the NBS to overturn their ban, I have signed it and I hope you will too.

Oh, and if you want to give blood in Aberdeen you can go to the Aberdeen Blood Donor Centre. There should be a chance to donate on campus in the near future but I couldn't find anything online, some organisations need to be a bit more internet savvy.