 It is absolutely incongruous to champion TV3's late-night 'chatline' ads as signs of a new, sexually liberated era. By Clara Fischer. Last week, Fine Gael TD Derek Keating called for the banning of late night adverts, shown on TV3, for what he described as “sexual entertainment services”. There appears to be some dispute about the exact nature of these advertisements, with ComReg purportedly calling the ads “chatline” or “partyline” services, rather than “sexual entertainment services”. Judging by the scantily clad women starring in these particular spots, though, that seems rather odd. Do women always chat and hold parties in their underwear? As a woman, this is news to me. Keating went on to assert that they serve as a front for organised prostitution. This is a strong claim, and one Keating professes “given the information” he has. The question remains: what is that information, and is his claim true? The Government has dealt with the issue by referring the matter on to ComReg, the regulatory body for electronic communications; and Vincent Browne, whose show has become rather unfortunately embroiled in this debacle, has referred the matter on to the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland. It is indeed regrettable that ads objectifying women are broadcast during and after a political programme that regularly tackles issues of inequality, including gender inequality, and that includes more women contributors than most. As a keen fan of the show, I’ve felt aggrieved at these ads myself, and have responded to the problem by switching channels. If TV3 believe that the practice of broadcasting objectifying images of women is financially lucrative, I wish to deny this, as it simply encourages politically conscious viewers to not tune in. For other advertisers keen to show off their products during and after a very popular programme, this is also a loss-making strategy, as their adverts will not be viewed once the offending ad has been aired. Many readers, at this stage, will, like the company in question, assert that TV3’s ads are “entirely legal and popular”, or that criticism is “of another era”; after all, they’re just a bit of fun – but fun at whose expense? Research clearly shows us that women’s and girls’ exposure to sexually objectifying images entails harsh detrimental consequences in terms of physical and mental wellbeing. Depression, low self-esteem, eating disorders, and impaired cognitive ability result from the constant sexualisation women and girls now experience as a matter of course. One study in a wider research report on girls’ sexualisation by the American Psychological Association vividly illustrated this point. Young women were asked to complete a mathematical test wearing either a swimsuit or a jumper. When asked to wear the swimsuit, women’s ability to complete the test was significantly impaired, while for the male test subjects no differences were found. The APA concluded that “thinking about the body and comparing it to sexualized cultural ideals disrupted mental capacity”, while “sexualization and objectification undermine confidence in and comfort with one’s own body”. Notably, such discomfort and its resultant outgrowths in terms of negative body image, feelings of inadequacy, and so forth, manifest themselves in girls “as well as in adult women”. Given the evidence for the harmful effects of objectifying images, why should we still be subjected to them? Surely the State, the broadcaster, and the regulator have a responsibility to protect, or at least not to damage, the wellbeing of consumers of media. And yet, the ads were still being shown only last Tuesday evening shortly after 12 o’clock when this writer happened to turn on TV3.Would we be as tolerant of racist advertising being broadcast, and if not, then why are we so tolerant of sexist and objectifying advertising? The answer might lie in the common conflation of such ads with a kind of progressive, open-minded liberalism, which hides the financial drive to commodify women’s bodies behind high-handed claims to sexual freedom. As the lawyers for the company in question assert, criticisms of their adverts are from a bygone era, a relic of Ireland’s history of sexual repression. While I am certain that few people want to return to an age where sexual mores were dictated by the Catholic Church, it is absolutely incongruous to champion such objectifying ads as signs of a new, sexually liberated era. Besides the fact that they are aired to make certain people a lot of money, they are expressive of a reductive interpretation of sexuality. Rather than being progressive, such ads are regressive, as they limit more complex, joyful, desirous, pleasurable expressions of sexuality, while entrenching all of the negative effects women and girls experience as a result of objectification. Monolithic, reductive models of sexuality that are peddled for profit, and that are ultimately harmful to women and girls, are hardly the type of models the new, post-Catholic Consensus Ireland should aspire to and foster. If the State truly has its citizens’ best interests at heart, then it must now take further steps with regard to these particular ads, and also with regard to any future advertising. We need a robust framework of regulation that views gender equality not as a side issue, to be addressed only when people complain, but as a central and desirable feature of our society. Dr. Clara Fischer Co-ordinator, Irish Feminist Network Image top: From That swimsuit becomes you: Sex differences in self-objectification, restrained eating, and math performance (Fredrickson et. al, 1998).Cross-posted from politico.ie, TUESDAY, 15 MAY 2012http://politico.ie/social-issues/8557-objectifying-ads-a-sign-of-a-regressive-ireland-.html
 Emma Rogan wrote this article on her own blog here, and she can be found on twitter here.
If you travel by train or bus or walk through an Irish city, you’re likely to have seen the posters from the Women Hurt.ie website. The website claims to be “a project initiated by women who regret their abortions and wish to share their stories of hope and healing with women who find themselves in similar situations”. My interest was spurred on by an online discussion so I took a look around the google-box and made a few connections. Here goes: - It seems one of the spokeswomen, Bernadette Goulding, is part of Rachel’s Vineyard, an organisation that holds retreats for women who’ve had abortions. It looks all very healing and all but there is a lot of emphasis put on Jesus, GOD and the other church-made all-powerful patriarchs. Rachel’s Vineyard http://www.rachelsvineyard.ie
- There is a big GOD aspect to it, perhaps because it is run by Priests for Life (http://www.priestsforlife.org). On this site you can view aborted foetuses, join the worldwide anti-choice campaign, get dvds to show in your local schools, churches and all sorts of other places *sigh*
- Obviously Fr. Frank Pavone’s (chief ‘doer’ at Priests for Life and Chair of Rachel’s Vineyard) GOD holds very wealthy, anti-choice purse-strings. The organisation seems to have a large number of staff, huge amounts of money and they are VERY determined that women in Ireland don’t have access to abortion in this country.
- Priests for Life is also attempting to sue President Obama over the new healthcare guidelines.
- Last year (2011) Frank Pavone was called back to ministry in Amarillo after his bishop Patrick Zurek got very annoyed about the lack of financial transparency and accountability of the group (PFL) (Full text of letter here).
“The financial questions and concerns have persisted with no clear and adequate answers since the time when Father Pavone was under two previous bishop ordinaries,” Zurek wrote. PFL had sums of more than $10 million slushing through their coffers. - MORE information on this VERY wealthy organisationhttp://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=841
- The posters have been seen in Connolly, Heuston, McDonnagh and Kent stations.
- And finally, if you’ve managed to read thus far….a very good site to keep tabs on what the others are up to is Right Wing Watch. They watch all the craziness, condense it and make it readable for us pinkos http://www.rightwingwatch.org
- Know thyself but also, know thine enemy.
Meanwhile, back on the ‘Ol sod, women are getting on a plane tonight/in the morning, will check-in to a hospital, feel worse than awful and have the brutal Irish gombeen-system of law to thank for it. By the way, did I mention there is the possibility that Fr. Frank Pavone’s organisation is indirectly paying for these posters to make women who have had/will have abortions feel all the more awful? Ah lads, lassies agus na daoine eile, when will we Irish ever grow up, take responsibility for ourselves and actually be adults about sexuality and abortion? Remember, sometimes there’s nothing a can of touch-up/spray paint can’t fix.
A RECENT GUARDIAN article examined the current ‘explosion’ in feminist grassroots activism in the UK. New feminist groups are on the rise there, and the intensification of people’s engagement with the feminist movement is being attributed, to a large extent, to young women and men. Pupils as young as seventeen are reported to have organised in protest against local shops selling magazines that objectify women. There is, thus, a newfound enthusiasm for feminism, spurred by the obvious inequalities that still pervade our so-called liberal democratic societies. Ireland is no exception in this regard. Recent years have seen a resurgence in feminist activism in Ireland, with new groups like the Irish Feminist Network, Cork Feminista and Feminist Open Forum forming a conduit for people eager to express their dissatisfaction with the status quo and willing to proffer alternative visions for the transformation of social and political structures. Groups focused on specific feminist themes have also sprung up, with the 50:50 Group focusing on women in politics, for example, or Women on Air concentrating on women in the media. While Ireland has, of course, a continuous history of women and men advocating for changes in gendered power imbalances, and these new groups undoubtedly benefit from the insights and support of their activist forbearers, there is something unique about this particular moment in time which makes it conducive to oppositional political activism. Mistrust and exasperationThe mistrust and exasperation people feel at the way the country has been mismanaged and brought to financial ruin, has in fact resulted in a general questioning of the wisdom of those in authority, and has ultimately spawned a climate relatively hospitable to a whole plethora of activists, who are not just content with accepting the current state of affairs. Many of these critically engaged advocates believe that the correctives needed to redress the failings of those in charge are not being implemented – or that they are being meted out unfairly, making certain members of society pay more than others. They resist such unfair treatment at the hands of the powers that be, and bring different perspectives to problems that are frequently portrayed monolithically and in ideologically uniform ways. Ireland’s activist groups thereby provide alternative analyses of the issues negatively affecting people, or indeed identify certain issues as being problematic in the first place. In a society where political decision-making still rests in the hands of a largely uniform and unrepresentative body of politicians, and where the news media regularly excludes large swathes of people, it is essential that Ireland’s activist groups voice not only dissent, but also proffer creative solutions that will result in a more just, equitable and therefore stable Ireland. Feminist activist groups are doing precisely that, and are thereby contributing to a more vibrant civil society, which comes complete with demands for increased accountability and transparency. While the momentum for change is palpable, we should not underestimate the challenges feminists still face. It is precisely the entrenched nature of issues surrounding women’s objectification in the media, denial of reproductive rights, or lack of affordable childcare – to name but a few – that is driving people’s (re)engagement with the feminist movement, but that also highlights the enormity of the task at hand. The ‘silent majority’In some cases gender inequality is perpetuated by hugely powerful industries, such as the fashion and beauty industries, and in others, it stems directly from political decision-making that disempowers women and children in particular. In order to be maximally effective in working toward increased gender equality, feminist activist groups need to build upon their momentum by capturing the spirit of the ‘silent majority’ . That is, the very people who are affected by the issues – for gender inequality affects us all – but who may not be willing to express or act upon their negative experiences. Given the years of backlash against feminism, and its portrayal of feminists as hairy-legged men-devouring monsters, this is a tall order for a reinvigorated movement, but one that is nonetheless achievable. The environmental movement, which similarly saw its members reduced to tree-hugging hippies, has managed to make the green agenda palatable to the mainstream. Indeed, political parties are now eager to proclaim their ‘green’ credentials, and being concerned with issues of environmental sustainability is no longer looked upon as a radical or outlier position, but rather as the norm. Building upon its achievements thus far, the feminist movement can and must now follow suit by rearticulating social and political norms, thereby making gender equality the new standard of normalcy. We have already begun to do so by achieving gender quotas, for example, or by getting tangible commitments by government on the issues of sex trafficking and reproductive rights. In a climate that is hospitable to proposals for wide-sweeping change, and where people are questioning traditional understandings of social and political issues, what could be more normal than the normalisation of gender equality? Dr. Clara Fischer IFN Co-ordinator Cross-posted from thejournal.ie, Thursday 10th May 2012 http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/column-feminism-is-on-the-up-again-–-but-it-needs-to-be-for-everyone/
Cross-posted from Ms Spats's Sartorial Dispatches, 24th April 2012  Ms Spats has been preoccupied with her weight since she was eleven years of age, and estimates that she thinks about food and the width of her hips at least ten times a day. If you allow for at least 60 seconds per thought that means that she has effectively wasted 73,000 minutes of her life which works out at about 50.69 days, or at least a month and a half . These are some of the diets that Ms Spats has been on, and the effects of same: The cabbage diet (,unattractively fragrant) the cigarette and diet coke diet (surprisingly giddy), the wine and chocolate diet (very good fun, at least in the short term), the bread and water diet (she fantasised she was in the female version of The Count of Monte Cristo), the no carb diet (bad breath making), the calorie counting diet (excellent for increasing numeracy skills), the pining diet (headwrecking), the pizza diet (calories consumed at one sitting, at the end of the day - nauseating ), the caffeine pill diet (palpitations), the raw food diet (very expensive) , the fruit diet (gassy), the liquid diet (either fruit juice, slimfast or water sugar and lemon), the body confounding diet-(where you over consume one day, underconsume the next, in an attempt to trick the body into continuing to lose weight); The South Beach Diet ( Atkins less cholesterol with a garnish of fruit) and plain old starvation. And throughout it all, she fantasised about eating, constantly. Food Porn is part and parcel of dieting. At the height of her weight obsession, Ms Spats would fantasise about chicken burgers: the soft floury bun, the creamy lashings of mayonnaise, the crunchiness of the breadcrumbs and the tenderness of chicken. She would imagine her lips moist with oil, and the sesame seeds catching in her teeth. She pictured the food sliding down the gullet, masticated, in a thick glutinous glob of calorific goo. And Ms Spats, naturally, dislikes fatty foods. She never had junk food growing up. She is programmed to like vegetables. But still the allure of bad and the forbidden beckoned her. The purity of her abstention beatified her, and when she inevitably binged, it would cripple her : Sin, guilt and redemption. The basis of religion is encapsulated in a chicken burger. Who knew? And where has this left her ? Hungry and unsure of what a normal approach to food is like. It has taken a good fifteen years for Ms Spats to recognise that her body needs food to survive, that food is not the enemy, a dangerous substance that conspires to keep her fat, but rather that which keeps her alive and feeling good. Ms Spats has never been overweight, ever. She has no idea in fact, of what her natural body shape is. Throughout years of self imposed starvation and the inevitable bingeing stage that follows, she has fluctuated between a UK size 8 and 14. At 6 foot tall, the upper size is more to her body type, but should she ever get that 'heavy' again she would struggle to leave the house. Her perception of her body has the power to dictate her day. She wakes up feeling fat, and the day can be a write off - she wakes up thin and the world is wonderful place. And in other respects she is quite normal. To meet her on the street you would not think that she is any way deranged. But clearly she is. She has spent years disliking her body when there was no need to. She is delusional. Cracked. A basket case. Ironically, the time that Ms Spats has spent being consumed about her body is the amount of time that it takes - according to women's magazines - to transform the body. Six weeks is when an exercise programme is due to show results, when the muscles become toned and the body leaner. Perhaps more pertinently, behavioural psychologists tell us that this is the amount of time it takes us to form a new habit. And on a more esoteric, spiritual basis, it is also the length of time for religious period of Lent and the concept of metanoia, or the transformation of the self. The time in fact, it takes to wrestle with our demons. If Ms Spats had taken that time to revolutionise her thinking process rather than castigating herself, who knows where she would be today. Out of the house more, possibly. But she is formed and informed by today's culture. From a very young age females are taught that they have to conform to a certain type. Little girls grow up in the paradigm of pink. They are showered with stories about Princesses and Fairies-- the Feminine Archetype of the Good. They are encouraged to play with dolls, to nurture, to please and be pleasing. And when they grow up this must translate to being sexually attractive. While no woman ever wants her own daughter to carry this nonsensical idea through, society is raining it down on us from every possible angle. The phenomenon of Jordan is a case in point. She represents this crazy view, disconcertingly, in both the infant and mature form. She is a lad mag favourite (woman as sexual) and also the author of a story book franchise involving ponies and all things pink (woman as infant). Young girls cite her as a role model, which means that they are identifying (unconsciously) with the sexual element as good. And this means the body, and the fetishization of same. And so pinkness translates to thinness. A recent survey by the Australian teen magazineGirlfriend showed that 96% of those surveyed wanted to change their bodies in some way (the majority their stomachs), 76% believed that losing weight would help their self esteem, 45% have been on a diet, 56% have skipped meals, and almost 20% have thrown up after meals. And these are adolescents who have been brought up in an enlightened age. We know more now about the human body and the benefits of nutrition than at any time before, yet our relationship with food is getting ever worse. Reported incidences of eating disorders are on the rise. With the rise of the size zero, it is getting increasingly difficult to identify a woman suffering from an eating disorder. Is she starving or merely awe-inspiringly disciplined? The pressure is everywhere -Brides are resorting to feeding tubes in an attempt to look their best for the big day, the dieting industry is thriving on the premise that the majority of dieters will fail while women attempt to get back their pre-baby body in six weeks, or increasingly, to the pre-baby body they never had. Extremely thin women are celebrated as being incredibly successful, and celebrated women are extremely thin - you only have to look to women's magazine and the pro-Ana websites to verify this : Victoria Beckham, Teri Hatcher (actually 75% of the cast of Desperate Housewives) or Keira Knightley, to name a few. Even women who are celebrated for their 'curvaceous' bodies are subjected to unending pressure: A furore broke recently over leaked photos which showed that Jessica Alba's slim body had been digitally altered for an advertising campaign to look even thinner. The ideal has to be idealised further. But what solutions are there? The oft touted backlash has yet to materialise, at least not in any popular form. It could be that what is required is a radical form of re-education. While Ms Spats would respect the freedom of the media, she would suggest that with this freedom comes responsibility. Ostensibly the media is about transmitting public opinion, but more and more it comes to shape it. It would be nice if this was used to the good. But, fundamentally, it comes down to women themselves, making the conscious decision to reject the pressures placed by advertising and the media. After all, as consumer, we can and should dictate how these operate. Although it will take a lot longer than six weeks to effect a metanoia in this instance. But at least we can begin. Originally posted at: http://msspatsdispatches.blogspot.com/2012/04/i-could-have-been-rocket-scientist.html
 We owe it to both young women and men to change media messages which repeatedly reinforce harmful norms of masculinity and femininity. By Clara Fischer. With the drama of the Oscars over for another year, it might be time for reflection on the messages the film industry, and particularly Hollywood, is conveying on a near-global scale. Messages in film? But surely the entertainment industry is simply about that: entertainment? Not so: research shows that what might seem like light-hearted comedy or action-packed drama, is in fact increasingly gendered – that is, it portrays women and men in pointedly stereotypical ways. Worryingly, this phenomenon is having extremely negative effects on women and girls. A recent report by the American Psychological Association cited impaired cognitive ability, depression, low self-esteem and eating disorders as consequences of the sexualisation of women and ever-younger girls through the media. While films constitute only one particular aspect of the onslaught of objectifying and sexualised images within the larger 24 hour media cycle, they give us a particular insight into the cartoonish nature women are assumed to hold, but also to accept as audience members. Women usually star as the love interest, the princess to be rescued, or as the general supporter of the male protagonist, lurking somewhere in the background as a Side-Show Berta. Alternatively, as we know from such movies as Lara Croft: Tomb Raider, women are hyper-sexualised and dangerously assertive. This latter variation on the theme should not be confused with a kind of liberated and independent agency, but rather constitutes another example of the reductive and objectifying view described in the literature as the ‘male gaze.’ Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder, as they say, but who is the beholder?Certainly the filmmakers, producers, and studio bosses are overwhelmingly male, and overwhelmingly white and upper/middle class. Is it any wonder, then, that their experiences and stories are told, while women’s fall to the wayside? Even when women’s stories are told, though, they usually come in chick-flick form, which means they revolve around getting, keeping, or regaining a man – hardly a faithful depiction of the very complex lives we lead, yes, as partners, as mothers, as lovers, but also as workers, as leaders, as teachers, as writers, as politicians, and the myriad of other roles we may adopt in our daily lives. A simple way of highlighting the lack of meaningful portrayal of women in movies is the Bechdel test, developed by Alison Bechdel in her comic strip, The Rule. According to the test, a film has to fulfil three criteria to pass: 1) the film has to have at least two women in it 2) these two women have to talk to each other 3) they have to talk to each other about something other than a man. This minimum of women’s relatively substantive inclusion in film is rarely achieved. Indeed, the majority of our most cherished movies fail to fulfil the principles of the Bechdel test. That is not to say that these movies can’t be good or inspiring pieces of cinema, but rather that the clear absence of women in film is a systemic problem. It is the sheer scale of women’s omission from movies, which makes the test so powerful and damning. As noted, on those rare occasions where women do star in more sustained roles, perhaps even as the protagonist, those roles are increasingly stereotyped. Not only is this trend particularly damaging for younger female viewers, who adopt self-objectifying attitudes and behaviours, but it feeds into a larger raunch culture which ultimately disempowers women by promoting women’s sexual availability or physical appearance as the sole measure of our worth. The financial return for such a culture is of course handsome: the peddlers of beauty and slimming products, of unnecessary surgical procedures, and of dietary programmes and fads are indeed rewarded by the heightened anxiety women feel about their bodies, and ultimately, themselves. And yet, there appears to be a weakness in this profit-driven model of women’s objectification: women might actually opt out. In a recent interview, Meryl Streep made this point by noting that the clichéd depictions of women in film might actually drive women away, thus leaving the profiteers minus a fairly large demographic. Films such as MissRepresentation, which highlight the complex and often negative role the media plays with regard to women’s portrayal, have also met with a level of enthusiasm which clearly indicates a groundswell against the stereotyped images women are bombarded with on a continuous basis. It seems that the mainstream movie industry has confused the beholders of beauty, their female viewers, with the reductive cartoon characters they assume them to be, instead of recognising them as the critical, thinking human beings they really are. While opting out and critically engaging with the media is a viable option for media-literate adult audiences, it is less so for those who are still developing a sense of themselves. We owe it to these young women and men – for gender-stereotyping similarly skews boys’ attitudes and identities – to change the media messages, which repeatedly reinforce harmful norms of masculinity and femininity. One way of doing this is by simply taking our purchasing power elsewhere, by withdrawing economic support from the culture of objectification. If we believe Simone de Beauvoir’s famous dictum that “one is not born, but rather becomes, a woman”, we seriously have to question what kind of women, and men, our society is fostering. Dr. Clara Fischer IFN Co-ordinatorCross-posted from Politico.ie, THURSDAY, 05 APRIL 2012 14:01 CLARA FISCHER
Cross-posted from The Irish Times - Wednesday, April 4, 2012
OPINION: The exclusion of women from current affairs threatens democracy, writes CLARA FISCHER
LISTENING TO any of the Republic’s major current affairs radio programmes, one could be forgiven for thinking that women, by and large, are not interested in the news or have nothing interesting to say on the serious topics of our turbulent political times – nothing, at least, that cannot be said better by a man.
Male voices dominate the airwaves, be it as presenters or commentators, a fact many of us suspected but didn’t have proof of until now. The National Women’s Council recently published its submission to the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland. It set out its recommendations in a consultation document for the “draft code on fairness, impartiality and accountability in news and current affairs”.
This contained research showing that women’s voices accounted for fewer than a quarter of all panellists, presenters and newsreaders in current affairs radio shows aired by the main stations of the State.
The phenomenon of the extensive exclusion of women in the media is not limited, though, to the airwaves. Print media and television programmes regularly reinforce the impression that women are, or should, be non- contributors and that the hard business of politics and current affairs is better left to our male counterparts.
While this regrettable state of affairs is undoubtedly informed by sexist norms of femininity and masculinity (how many times have we seen the token woman invited on to a panel as the “soft” voice on traditionally “feminine” topics?), it also reflects the reality that the majority of top media jobs are held by men.
That is not to say that male editors deliberately exclude women or that only women placed in top posts can empower other women, but rather to assert that women can bring with them different perspectives that are easily marginalised in male-dominated systems.
In the formal political sphere, we have admitted as much by introducing legislation mandating for a minimum of women candidates in general elections. Should we follow suit in the media?
This very question has sparked considerable debate in Germany, where a group of high-profile women journalists have sent an open letter to the editors and publishers of the country’s main media outlets. The ProQuote campaign cited the fact that only 2 per cent of all newspaper editors-in-chief are women, while just three of the 12 public broadcasting directors of Germany are women.
The letter called for the introduction of a 30 per cent quota in all top editor positions, to be achieved over the next five years – a measure already instituted by the financial paper, Das Handelsblatt. Since its inception in February, the campaign has gained significant traction and a sizeable number of men have joined the ranks.
Whether such a proposal would meet with similar support here may be questioned. However, the dire need for a redressing of the even more extreme gender imbalance prevalent in the Irish media is indisputable.
The reasons for this are manifold: women’s exclusion, particularly from current affairs programming, results in a skewed debate, where only men’s life experiences come to bear upon the issues in question.
Additionally, the overwhelming presence of men as contributors and presenters, but also as editors and publishers, is agenda-setting. The very issues discussed reflect men’s priorities.
The lack of women’s voices in the media render women, more generally, invisible in our societies, which further feeds into exclusion in virtually all top-tier positions – be it in politics, business or the Civil Service.
The omission of women from serious debate also has a negative impact upon younger women and girls, who are implicitly told that politics and affairs of the State are not properly their concern.
Most importantly though, denying women the chance to partake in public debate undermines our right, as members of this society, to influence political discourse, and thereby to influence political decision-making.
If recent history has taught us anything, surely it is that the capacity to influence political decision-making should not be concentrated in the hands of those few who are unrepresentative of the wider populace and who have always had greater arsenals of power.
Indeed, women’s exclusion from political debate in the media is mirrored by our relative incapacity to influence political decision-making more generally.
Is it conceivable that the now infamous golf game Brian Cowen shared with Seán FitzPatrick could just as easily have been shared with a woman?
Access to political power has always been limited for women, be it via the traditionally male- exclusive golf course or the exclusionary culture of party politics. If our democracy is to benefit from the “fairness, impartiality and accountability” sought by the BAI, it is time to reform the political decision-making structures of Ireland, including the media.
Clara Fischer is a co-ordinator of the Irish Feminist Network and holds a PhD in feminist and political theory.
 Today marks not only the 101st International Women’s Day but also the day on which the Irish government misses the deadline to implement an EU Directive on parental leave. In a special guest post Deirdre Hosford puts forward the case for reform and argues that we in the feminist movement can turn this failure into an opportunity and put the issues of gender equality, choice and work-life balance for families back on the political agenda.
Today, on the 8th of March 2012, the Irish government will miss the deadline for implementation of an EU Directive on parental leave, which would have extended the period of unpaid leave available to men and women in Ireland from 14 weeks to 18 weeks. Ireland sought a derogation from this deadline, which gives us until March 2013 to implement the directive, owing to ‘the Government’s very heavy legislative agenda’. Clearly, extending the parental leave rights of our citizens in line with EU policy is not high on the political agenda. But there is a way that this failure could be turned into an opportunity, one that the Irish feminist movement should grasp with both hands. In response to a parliamentary question from Joanna Tuffy TD on the issue of paternity leave, Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence Alan Shatter recently discussed the implementation of the EU Directive and stated that: - My Department is currently working in consultation with the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation on the consolidation of all existing family leave legislation into one Act. This will also provide an opportunity to examine the scope for improvement in current provisions in the area of maternity, adoptive, parental and paternity leave.
Enter the feminist movement, with our list of reforms in one hand and a megaphone in the other. Women in Ireland currently have a statutory minimum entitlement of 26 weeks’ maternity leave, together with 16 weeks additional unpaid maternity leave. Maternity benefit is payable by the Department of Social Protection if the employee is covered by PRSI and she may also receive maternity payments from her employer, depending on the terms of her employment contract. Paternity leave, on the other hand, is not recognised in employment law in Ireland and employers are not obliged to grant male employees special paternity leave, paid or unpaid, following the birth or adoption of their child. Both parents currently have an equal, separate entitlement to unpaid parental leave of up to 14 weeks in respect of a child up to 8 years of age. A recent report by the ESRI into ‘Households and Family Structures in Ireland’ demonstrated the yawning and ever-widening gap between parental leave policy and the reality of family life in Ireland. The report showed that, for a growing number of young couples, the woman has higher educational qualifications or occupational classification than her partner. Among couples of mean age 26-40, the woman has higher educational qualifications in 34% of cases, compared to 18% for men, while for 42% of younger couples the woman has a higher occupational classification, compared to 28% where the opposite is the case. This means that for many young couples, the woman now also has the higher earning power of the two. The report suggested that policymakers should consider options to re-orientate working arrangements for parents so that the impact of leave is concentrated less heavily on women. The report also noted that parental leave policy that relies heavily upon career leave for women will have greater financial consequences for households where the woman is the higher earner. There has been stubborn opposition to reform from business lobby groups over the years on grounds of cost. However, the ESRI has questioned the economic wisdom of their position, since the higher earning potential of women outlined in their report points towards negative impacts for household incomes if leave remains inflexible and weighted disproportionately towards women, while continuation of strictly gendered leave policies could result in economy-wide underemployment of human resources. Meanwhile, a report by the Family Support Agency into ‘Attitudes Towards Family Formation in Ireland’ demonstrated cultural and attitudinal shifts that are completely at odds with current parental and adoptive leave policies. 93% of respondents to the survey agreed that work-life balance is as important to men as it is to women, compared to 6% who disagreed. 86% of respondents also agreed that fathers should have the right to take paid paternity leave on the birth or adoption of a new baby, compared to 8% who disagreed. The report also showed that many parents wanted the choice to share responsibility for caring and work more equally between partners. For example, 50% said that they think men and woman should both work part-time and ‘co-parent’, while 40% disagreed. In 2010, the share of part-time workers in total employment in Ireland stood at 34.7% for women and 11.8% for men. A majority of respondents also said that they would like to see maternity leave changed into leave for one or other parent, with 53% agreeing and 35% in disagreement. These findings demonstrate a clear desire for more equitable parental and adoptive leave policies, as well as the increasing importance of choice. Significant disincentives inhibit take-up of unpaid parental leave under the current system. The take-up rate of parental leave among fathers in Ireland is low. This can be directly attributed to the fact that the leave is currently unpaid in Ireland, as there is a high correlation between the levels of payment in different countries and take-up rates. Unpaid leave also leads to inequitable outcomes between women. The Pregnancy at Work Report showed that take-up rates for combined paid and unpaid maternity leave among women is related to their ability to afford it, with lower take-up rates for low earners, part-time workers, women with lower levels of education and women with shorter job tenures. Women’s take-up of unpaid parental leave is also dependent upon resources and financial security, with women whose partner is unemployed or earns less than they do less likely to request unpaid parental leave. The upcoming constitutional convention will consider ‘Amending the clause on women in the home and encourage greater participation of women in public life’. The convention will also consider ‘Provision for same-sex marriage’. At present, civil partners do not have adoption rights, so they could not avail of more flexible adoptive leave policies if they were introduced. Constitutional amendments in respect of these issues would underscore the discrepancy between parental and adoptive leave policy and our social values and lived experiences. Calls for more equitable leave policies for parents come in the context of persistent gender inequalities in Ireland, which could be somewhat ameliorated by a more balanced approach to the gender distribution of caring and work. In 2010, 22% of business leaders in Ireland are women, compared to an EU average of 33%. The employment rate for women with children in 2010 was 76% in Ireland and 76.7% across the EU 27; this fell to 57.1% for women in Ireland with children, compared to an average of 64.7% of women with children across the EU. And as we are only too aware, 15.1% of the current Dáil are women, compared to an EU average of 24.9%; a situation that will hopefully improve over time with the introduction of gender quotas for General Election candidate selection. So what should we be calling for between now and March 2013?
We could demand the introduction of statutory paid paternity leave upon the birth or adoption of a child. We could call for reform of paid maternity leave to make it transferable between partners, at a ratio to be determined by the couple. This would be relatively cost-neutral. We could demand that adoption rights be extended to civil partners to ensure that civil partners can also avail of more flexible leave arrangements. We could put the introduction of payment in respect of parental leave on the agenda. This would increase take-up of parental leave among men and lead to more equitable outcomes for women in low income households. We could set a course for increasing the period of paid paternity leave over time. But, above all, we should rescue the issue of gender equality, choice and work-life balance for families from the bottom of the political agenda. In January 2011 the Irish media noted state papers of antiquarian interest dating from 1976, which revealed the attitude held by a senior official in the department of Taoiseach Liam Cosgrave towards the prospect of extending paid maternity leave. The official described the move as ‘a luxury our society cannot afford’ and went on to state: ‘...I suspect that the over-riding body of opinion — even female opinion — would feel that there are higher priorities for [the Minister for Labour] at the present time.’ Let’s make sure that, when it comes to paid paternity leave, history does not repeat itself. And let's also make sure that, by the time our belated implementation date rolls around in March 2013, we are implementing far more than the bare minimum EU requirements. Deirdre Hosford is the Education and Policy Officer with Labour Youth. _____________ A Brief Political History of Parental Leave Reform
In April 2002, the Working Group on the Review of the Parental Leave Act 1998 published its findings...
 Usually, when feminists talk about Twilight it’s not in a good way. But is there a favourable comparison between these films and modern Ireland? ***SPOILER ALERT*** In the latest instalment of the Twilight series, Breaking Dawn: Part 1, Bella and Edward marry and go on honeymoon. Despite Jacob’s confidence that it won’t be a “real honeymoon”, they do have sex and Bella becomes pregnant. Unfortunately, the foetus is half human/half vampire, an unprecedented conception that nobody quite knows what to make of. Enter the superstitious Brazilian woman who feels Bella’s stomach and predicts ‘morte’, death. The foetus constitutes ‘a risk to the life of the pregnant woman’, making Bella a woman to whom the X case legislation (for which we are currently campaigning in Ireland) would apply. Never mind, ‘Carlisle will get that thing out’, says Edward. He takes charge, accelerating their journey back to his doctor father. Meanwhile, Bella is soliciting support for the decision she has already made independently. Their family are shocked and appalled by her refusal to have an abortion. Rosalie, her new sister-in-law, is the only one to stand by Bella. Having long craved a child, we assume she is sympathetic to Bella’s feelings. Or is she hoping Bella will die, leaving her the baby? There’s no love lost between them after all. As for the abortion debate, there isn’t much of it. Of course, the foetus isn’t necessarily human, but nevertheless, in the worst case scenario it would be 100% vampire. Then, it would presumably become part of Carlisle’s vegetarian vampire family. These vampires are seen to have a right to life equal to humans’ in the Twilight series. The abortion question in Breaking Dawn: part 1 is definitely understated, especially considering the film is based on a book written by a devout Mormon in a country with one of the most vocal and militant “pro-life” lobbies in the world. While Twilight’s only hint of an abortion debate is disagreement over terminology, ‘baby’, ‘foetus’ or ‘thing’, the real conflict is between Bella and others who believe they know what’s best for her. Rosalie is supportive even if it’s for the wrong reasons, but everyone else continually tries to manipulate Bella into having an abortion. They ignore both her intuition, ‘everything’s going to be ok’ and her affirmation, ‘it’s not [Carlisle’s] decision, it’s not any of yours’. The forces seeking to make the pregnant woman’s decision for her can be seen as patriarchal, from the over-protective husband Edward to the medically informed head of household, Carlisle. Does any of this sound familiar? Of course, Bella’s situation is the opposite of that which Irish women seeking life-saving abortions find themselves in. Much as these women would like to receive life-saving medical treatment, patriarchal forces deny them this right. 20 years since the landmark Supreme Court ruling on the X case, governments led by 4 successive male Irish Taoisigh have failed to implement the legislation that would give Irish women the choice. Bella’s physical deterioration throughout Breaking Dawn: part 1 is heart-breaking. She becomes taut and bone-thin, constantly winces and struggles to move around. She is dying. While Bella’s nearest and dearest are appalled that she won’t have an abortion, viewers support her because they instinctively feel that it’s her decision. She has the right to choose to die. Meanwhile, we are appalled that real Irish women in Bella’s situation have no choice but to die. Thus, we reach the crux of the current Action on X campaign: women must be empowered to make their own choices. This does not mean, and this should be a comfort to anti-abortionists, that if your pregnancy is a danger to your life you have to have an abortion. In fact, as a feminist, I am as appalled by that idea as I am by the current lack of access to that option. It means rather that Action on X is fighting for your right to make your own choices regarding your own body. This is where the term ‘pro-choice’ comes from. As a move consistent with supporting Bella’s right to die in the process of child-bearing, we must support Irish women’s right to choose life. We must legislate for the X case as soon as possible. To join the campaign for life-saving abortion in Ireland, check out the Action on X Facebook page: www.facebook.com/actiononx2012Emma Regan IFN Coordinator
On Tuesday February 21st, the Action on X alliance (of which the IFN is a member) held a public meeting in the Gresham Hotel, O'Connell Street entitled, 'Twenty Years After X: Where Are Our Rights?' Below is the text of a passionate and moving speech given on the night by journalist and reproductive rights activist Anthea McTeirnan.
 Why must men always fight their battles for control on the bodies of women?
Why can’t women be trusted to make the right choices? Why shouldn’t women be trusted to make the right choices?
We are the experts. We make our choices with careful thought, with intelligent consideration. Sometimes with sadness, sometimes with relief - but always with responsibility.
Our bodies are just that. They are our bodies. It is not a cliché – it is a fact.
We have argued over women’s reproductive rights for so long. The putative womb of Irish women has been kicked around our courts and debating chambers as men in wigs have bickered over whether women in Ireland are fit or capable of making our own decisions.
We have not yet decided whether they are.
We have need of more experts, it seems.
This time the experts will look at implementing the X-Case judgment.
A woman is entitled to an abortion in this State if her life is threatened by her pregnancy, including the risk of suicide. This means that there must be clear medical and psychological criteria for allowing a woman to have an abortion.
And there must be a service provided. She must be able to have that abortion in Ireland. The European Court of Human Rights expects this matter sorted. Twenty years after the Supreme Court made their ruling In the X Case, the human rights of women in Ireland are still being violated.
No more pretending.
No more pretending that the 4,500 abortions that happen each year in England or Holland or Spain - or wherever - are not Irish abortions. They are. The sex was Irish sex, the money to pay for the termination is Irish money, the counselling – before and after – is Irish counselling.
A land of saints and scholars that spews its women like undesirables across the sea at a time of great individual challenge is not one to be proud of.
We now have the opportunity to make amends.
As we speak, men the world over are waging their wars over the bodies of women. The United States is dissolving into a chequerboard of pot luck, where unlucky women needing an abortion find themselves imprisoned in their home States in the land of the free. Women from Utah and Alabama and Indiana must turn to their sisters in New York to help them to travel and pay for a medical procedure with prohibitive restrictions in their home States.
Here in Ireland, we are used to men fighting their battles over our bodies. Yet our own situation has begun to look even more precarious. Across the Irish Sea conservatives like MP Nadine Dorries seek to erect barriers where none previously existed, adding layers of policing and control to the provision of terminations in Britain. This move failed, but we cannot be certain there won't be more attempts.
So we can continue to abandon Irish women to the whims of other jurisdictions or we can drag our post-colonial democracy kicking and screaming into a place where we no longer cede the vindication of the rights of half our population to another state.
We actually have the opportunity to develop a model of best practice. We have the chance to unhook ourselves from a colonial reliance on the land next door. We can do it better – we can have a system that supports the reproductive rights of women, a system that doesn’t seek to judge and moralise and restrict.
And it is not a far-fetched demand to make.
In England, progressive campaigners are demanding that the clause in the 1967 Abortion Act that “the opinion of two registered medical practitioners” must be sought to approve an abortion should be removed. We can provide a service in this country that is progressive, accessible and stripped of moral policing. We can move forward into a new millennium, where a woman seeking a termination is not “mad” or “bad”. There is no need to judge. The woman will decide, the woman must decide.
It is time to stop asking for small measures.
The recent Electoral (Amendment) (Political Funding) Bill 2011 says 30 per cent of election candidates must be women by 2016. A strangely disproportionate choice given that 50 per cent of the population is female. In the words of one of our corporate saviours, providers of the Morning After Pill, Boots the chemist - “here come the girls”. We will increase our numbers in government, but it will mean nothing for our personal autonomy.
We have elected two fine women Presidents, heads of State who embodied the sovereignty of our nation, yet who, as women, never enjoyed sovereignty over their own bodies. An irony of presidential proportions.
Yes we can be presidents, yes we can take our 30 per cent allocation of places on the ballot paper. But as women we can never be equal in a State that embeds discrimination into its Constitution.
If we can afford the cost of a plane ticket and a termination in an English clinic, if we are strong enough during our chemo to walk up the steps of that Ryanair plane, if we can find someone to mind the kids, if we can get out of the country on our visa, if we can find out where, if we can find out how, we can get an abortion.
But that is too many ifs. If we need an abortion, if that is the choice we make, it is time for us to be able to do so here.
Reducing the women of this State to reproductive systems that need policing has to end.
Equality of opportunity will only come from equal rights and equal respect. The time has come for a mature democracy to take mature decisions. It is time to provide a service for medical terminations here.
Women are the expert group. Women can make the right choices. The time has come to trust us.
- Anthea McTeirnan - journalist and reproductive rights activist
 Having lived in Ireland for over a year now, I should know better than to let anything Kevin Myers writes get to me. Yet I felt the need to speak out about Myers’ piece in Friday’s Irish Independent (‘ What is Going On Amongst the Female Sex that so Many of its Members are Prepared to Undergo Cosmetic Surgery?’). In it, Myers uses scant anecdotal evidence to paint all women as looks-driven, celebrity-obsessed bimbos who take pleasure in mutilating our bodies to look beautiful. There are several points that are grossly misinterpreted here. First of all, Myers attributes the behaviours of a handful of women to the entire female gender. He also takes the huge leap of equating highlighted hair and bikini waxes with excessive cosmetic surgery (dubbing the face-lift obsessed socialite Jocelyn Wildenstein a female role model made me spit out my coffee). Most egregiously though, Myers blames this pressure to look perennially youthful, slim, and sexually available squarely on ‘the feminist movement’. While I wholeheartedly agree that the pressure on women to look perfect has resulted in distressing attitudes and behaviours, Myers’ charge that this was prompted by feminism is laughable. Women wouldn’t be getting boob jobs if society didn’t make us feel inadequate in the bodies we’re born with. The truth is that practically from birth, we are exposed to television, print, and Internet images that demonstrate how women should look, act, and dress. The media conglomerates that control this information are out to sell products, which they do by pigeonholing both genders, glorifying celebrities, and sowing self-doubt with the help of heavily Photoshopped images. Through all this exposure we are taught that a woman’s appearance is inseparable from her worth as a human being, regardless of what other accomplishments she has achieved. Those who don’t conform to the 21st century standard of female beauty (which is itself increasingly influenced by the mainstream porn industry) are made to feel worthless. Maybe the reason women like Brooke Shields and Melanie Griffth appear ‘so botoxed and collagened that they resembled the sewn-on faces of blow-up sex-dolls’ is because society’s attitude toward women over 40 is so derisive. Not so for Hollywood’s leading men. The media fuels the fire by publishing re-touched photos and turning comments on a woman’s cellulite into ‘news’. Indeed one of Myers’ prime targets is the women’s magazine industry which is admittedly a primary arbiter of such content. But as someone who spent two years working at a pretty prominent fashion magazine, I can tell you that just because a woman is writing an article or editing a section doesn’t mean that she’s ultimately making the decisions on content. In my case that was left to my direct bosses, two men, whose own orders came from the CEO of the publishing company, a 60-something white male who let us all know in no uncertain terms what the magazine’s ‘message’ was to be. Any deviation would risk alienating advertisers and losing revenue. Therefore, Myers’ assertion that fashion magazines are ‘produced entirely by women’, and therefore we are the ones perpetuating beauty myths and eating disorders is false. However, I’m determined to look on the bright side and be grateful that these issues are being discussed publicly; because identifying the problem is the only way we’re ever going to solve it. Happily, women’s representation in the media happens to be the very topic of the film ‘Miss Representation’, which the IFN is screening on February 22nd and March 11th. ‘Miss Representation’ articulates how media conglomerates, with the ultimate goal of making money, decide how women are represented in contemporary society. They get away with it by telling audiences that they are only providing what the public demands, thereby both guilting viewers into thinking that they are to blame, and creating the illusion that what they are seeing on TV is a reflection of reality. It’s hard for women to win these days. If we don’t conform to society’s ideas about how we should present ourselves, we are overlooked and under-valued. The ones that do play the game are called bimbos. Try to look good and be successful at the same time and we’re accused of trying to have it all and then whining about it. Maybe, instead of pointing fingers like Kevin Myers we should concentrate on fixing the underlying problem. After all, at the heart of it, don’t we both agree that plastic surgery, eating disorders, and society’s obsession with dubious celebrity role models are a problem? Let’s change that then. As journalists, we can start by no longer picking women apart for their choices of clothing, hairstyles, and reading material, and stick to covering some actual news. Erin IFN Coordinator
Related event: On March 11th the IFN will screen 'Miss Representation' (site article here and FB event here), which is a documentary specifically regarding the impact media has on society and women.
|
RSS Feed