Category Archives: Feminism

Feminism

Debate over prostitution law: New Zealand or Swedish models

A very fair report in the Morning Star offers an introduction to the debate now going on in the Green Party regarding laws about sex work.

The current policy is for complete decriminalisation, along the New Zealand model, which, as I’ve previously written, has been shown to be an effective and sensible one.

That’s also backed by the Women’s Institute, and (which I neglected to say at the conference fringe in Hove) the Royal College of Nurses (as I reported in an account of a parliamentary lobby last year).

I’m not going to rehearse all of the arguments here – although I will make the point that whenever you read anything about this issue, do ask very carefully about the evidence and how it was collected. Many surveys quoted draw for their samples on street workers, workers seeking aid for drug addiction, and other groups that are clearly unrepresentative of workers as a whole.

I can also point you to some further reading, most notably the full report on the New Zealand law completed after it had been in force for five years. (And a short summary.)

There’s also:

* Lara’s account of why I am a sex worker. As for many, it is a financial/life balance decision.

* A critique of some of the figures often quoted for trafficking of women into sex work.

* An account of a meeting where some sex workers spoke about their work.

* An some interesting figures on public opinion: “59% of people agreed that “prostitution is a perfectly reasonable choice that women should be free to make”.

Not in any way a comprehensive list, just a small collection of useful resources for anyone looking into the issue.

And it is perhaps also useful for me to note for any non-party members reading this, that policy in the Green Party is made democratically – it can only be changed by winning a vote on the floor of conference. It is true, of course, to say that influential figures can have an impact on that, but so can good arguments and decent evidence. And as yet there’s not even been a motion put, or even a formal review process instituted. This is purely a discussion.

Feminism

Quotas – has their time come?

It’s the end of day three at Green Party Conference in Hove, and this is my first blog post – disgraceful, although in my own defence, I have been running around madly chairing, proposing motions, speaking at sessions, doing hustings, and being intercepted on my way to the loo by people wanting to talk about the management of email lists… (and I have been tweeting).

But there was one session in particular that I am determined to record, which was yesterday’s “The man-made economic crisis: time to give women a go?” That attempt at provocation didn’t really work – I think it would be fair to say all of the 20-odd attendees broadly agreed with the premise, but nonetheless we had an excellent discussion.

I was in the chair, so I didn’t have time to make detailed notes, but there was one observation from our excellent speaker — Rowena Lewis, acting director of the Fawcett Societ — that really struck out.

She pointed us to the Society’s report from last year calling for boardroom quotas to improve the representation of women (which is also Green Party policy).

When the report came out last year, she said, it was greeted with scorn, with the pounding of fists on tables accompanied by words such as “never”, “impossible”. But in the past few months, she said, there had been a shift in the reaction. Not quite acceptance, but acknowledgements that this might just be a possibility, might even be a good idea, and certainly the only way to beat the 220 years that at current rates it will take to achieve boardroom gender equality. (And that’s if the trend of the last year, which has seen women’s representation reduced, isn’t continued.) “The government is now toying with the idea of ‘aspirational targets’, whatever that might mean,” she said.

She also shared the memorable phrase from Norway, which I hadn’t previously heard. It forced firms to have 40% women on their boards, and the hierarchy were surprised to find that contrary to claims of a shortage of suitable candidates, “the waters were well stocked with women”. And in the UK, organisations by the score were collecting long lists of eminently suitable women, Rowena said.

We admired her work, and I think it would be fair to say she was impressed by the Green Party. “I am really pleased to see one of the major parties taking such a progressive stand on women in the boardroom,” she said.

Feminism

Notes from the Green Party Spring Conference maternity services panel

Professor Wendy Savage
Birth is such an important matter and government policy has been extremely important in changing way give birth. A 1946 survey of births in one week found that 46% were at home. By 1956 one-third at home, more than 50% these were there or in GP-led units that were effectively run by midwives. By 1970 this had fallen to 12% home birth, one-third out of hospital. Sir John Peel, the queen’s obstetrician, wrote a report saying that all women should have opportunity to have “benefits” of hospital birth, although there was no definition what were.

By 1980 only 1 per cent of births were at home, half of these didn’t intended to. In 1982 a Commons committee on perinatal mortality found that it was safer to have baby in hospital but at home, but they weren’t comparing like with like, given that half of home births were unplanned. In 1979 a comparison that considered women who had booked for a home birth and they had extremely low perinatal mortality. Nevertheless the Commons study was used by obstetricians to further push women to have babies in hospital.

In 1981-2 it was the first time voices of women heard by any government enquiry; this study said that there was no reason not to have home birth. But the programme had to be cost-neutral to change to midwifery services. Lots of pilots showed women have better deal, but no money, so nothing much changed.

I still remember the euphoria of that night in 1997, bitterly now, when I look at what New Labour has done. But birth wasn’t one of their priorities.

Home births rose slightly 1-2pc – some parts of country up to 10 or 12pc. It is a woman’s right to have her baby at home. Such an important thing – you are in your own home with the professional as a visitor. For most people hospitals are associated with death and dying, and the way midwifery is organised in NHS is just hopeless. There is no continuity of care. I find it really tragic that the only way for many women have a proper birth is by having an independent midwife. Tears come to my eyes when see videos of births at home; we have made such a mess of birth in the NHS.

Health care commission did huge study in 1997 – 89pc of women happy antenatal care, 90 happy in care, only about 60pc happy with postnatal care.

My solution change the way to midwives organised. Think of it arranged just as doctors: there are GPs and hospital doctors. We should have midwives in community who look after the majority of women – only refer to obstetrician if necessary.: obstetricians are a risk factor for caesarean section.

Choice is supposed to be being provided, but there are endless e-bulletins say nothing, piffling amounts of money. In 2008 the government said 360m pounds would be put in, but it hasn’t reached the midwives. I had a look to today at the latest ebulletins. Absolutely nothing about midwives, only about the tariffs, part of this govt trying to turn the NHS into business.

Sarah Davies, senior lecturer in midwifery at the University of Salford
In 1980 I started training as a student midwife – just at the beginning against the fight back of extremes of medicalisation. I went on a march demonstrating against an obstetrician insisting women lie down to give birth. As a feminist I was very keen on idea of normal birth – knew instinctively right thing. Since then had more and more evidence that right. Normality is best supported by midwives: medicalisation doesn’t improve outcomes for women and doesn’t make for happy midwives.

There is a huge gap between rhetoric and reality at the moment. It is very difficult for student midwives learning about what should be happening – they see harassed midwives in huge hospitals trying to deal with heaps of bureaucracy. At the same time you have got policy saying midwife-led care is way forward. Currently there is a reconfiguratioin in Greater Manchester – closing five out of 12 maternity hospitals. The scheme is called “making it better” – this is typical of the doublespeak that goes on at moment. There are no plans for higher rates of home births and birth centres and the whole scheme is driven more by neonatologists than people in a community midwifery.

Birth is about relationships – current New Labour project is about moving to fragmentation of care. All these reports about safety – teamwork about relationships essential, yet all getting more and more fragmented.

Britain has the most centralised medical service in Europe – hospitals like Liverpool with 8,000 births a year. Women when they get to choose, they chose small, private places.

And we now have more evidence than we ever had – in 2008 there was a big review of midwifery-led care and it is clear that all women should be offered it. This is not up for debate – the question is how do we implement it?
read more »

Feminism

Credit where its due, and not

Full marks to Kevin Rudd, who’s brought the Australian Labour government out of the dark ages (and the shadow of George Bush), by removing the ban on foreign aid for abortions. “the historic shift was lauded by a wide array of aid agencies, women’s groups, family planning experts and many cross-party federal politicians, who said it would save the lives of thousands of women who would otherwise die in botched backyard operations.”
Indeed!

But British female politicians aren’t doing well in getting young women engaged, a study has found. (Or indeed nor are the men!)

“More than a quarter of girls are put off by a lack of information about how they should take part, while 17 per cent believe it cannot make a difference.”

(And of course, sadly, given the electoral system, for most of them, unless they live in a marginal Westminster seat, that’s broadly true.)

There’s an interesting idea in there: every party’s every shortlist should contain one person under 25. Not at all a bad idea…

Books Feminism Science

Women and men and thinking straight about emotions

Sometimes irony can be so sharp it is agonising. And so it is with the case of the dichotomy that’s been at the heart of Western thought for around two and a half millennium: man equals rational; woman equals emotional (and no prizes for identifying which was good and which bad). Its a trope that’s battled with Eve and the apple as the primary cause by which to do women down, to oppress and repress them.

The irony comes from our growing knowledge of brain function, and the fact that this dichotomy is entirely false, and, moreover that emotion is the dominant factor in the great majority of decisions that we, human beings, make.

The simplest proof comes from brain injury. People who have lost a tiny section of their brain, the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), which sits just behind the eyes, as a result of malignancy or injury, can apparently fully recover, score at the same level on IQ tests as before, show no obvious sign of disability. But what they lose is all emotional reaction to anything. And what’s more, they find making decisions about the simplest things – what time to arrange an appointment, what to choose from a restaurant menu – almost impossible to make.

This is reported in Jonah Lehrer’s The Decisive Moment: How the Brain Makes Up Its Mind. This is a decisively, self-consciously, sometimes annoyingly popular science book – the actual science being so heavily interweaved with entertaining anecdote, some illuminating and relevant, some less so, that you’d really like to find a pure science alternative. But still, the science is lucidly explained in the gaps between anecdotes, and the story it tells is compelling.

Lehrer explains that the OFC is “response for integrating visceral emotions into the decisionmaking process. It connects the feelings generated by the ‘primitive’ brain – areas like the brain stem and the amygdala, which is in the limbic system – with the stream of conscious thought”. And it is one of the few cortical regions noticeably bigger in humans than other primates. As Lehrer concludes, Plato and Freud were wrong, “Homo sapiens is the most emotional animal of all”.

How well this can work is illustrated with a case from the Iraq war, when a radar operator on a British destroyer decide to shot down a blip on his radar screen heading for an American battleship. It could have been an Iraqi missile, or an American jet; no rational analysis at that time could determine which, yet something about the blip filled him with cold, dreadful fear, although he couldn’t explain what. It was travelling at 550 miles an hour, and he had 40 seconds to decide what to do. He fired his ship’s missiles, and they brought do the Silkworm just short of the American battleship. He still didn’t know why, and it was only years after that intense analysis showed that the missiles appeared on the radar screen a little later than American jets: the radar man’s emotions knew this, but his conscious mind didn’t.

Lehrer explains how experts develop their expertise by training the emotional system – they practice and practice, which produce learned patterns of dopamine release in a part of the brain known as the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC). Then, if something deviates from the pattern, the ACC sends an immediate signal to the hypothalmus. In serious cases that produces what we know as the fright or flight response – pure “gut feeling” or emotion.

The Decisive Brain goes on to get highly topical, by exploring how the human desire to find patterns has fed into the current financial crisis, and this emotional decisionmaking also has its weaknesses. The stock market is a random system in statistic terms. But when an investor randomly makes some money, instead of being happy, they tend to feel regret, that they hadn’t gambled more money. So they dive in further, as do many of their compatriots. So the market surges, and keeps surging. Until bust point. Then people start to despair, and sell out “because the brain doesn’t want to regret staying in”.

And it looks at other situations where emotional thinking only may produce bad results (such as buying with credit cards, where the normal emotional weighting of the value of the good to you versus the loss of the lightening of your wallet is shortcircuited).

So in the end too this is also a self-help book, concluding with the advice:

“Whenever you make a decision, be aware of the kind of decision you are making and the kind of thought process that it requires. … The best way to make sure you are using your brain properly is to study your brain at work, to listen to the argument inside your head.”
Further: “The best decisionmakers don’t despair [at mistakes]. Instead, they become students of error, determined to learn from what went wrong. They think about what they could have done differently so that the next time their neurons will know what to do.”

Good advice. Now all we’ve got to do is employ it to abolish all those errors arising from the false “women equals emotional decisionmaking equals bad”.

Feminism

For international women’s day

* You can read this as half-full or half-empty. The number of women parliamentarians has risen in the past year, and is up 60% since 1995. But that number is now just 18.3% of the total. In only 39 legislatures (not, of course, including Westminster) have women reach 30% of the total.

* The global gender pay gap has been recalculated, and is worse than previously thought – latest calculation: 22%. (And the gap is actually higher for women with higher levels of education.)

* The global unemployment rate for women is predicted to be 7.4% in 2009, compared to men’s 7%. That means an extra 22 million more women unemployed.