EU Referendum: Women Stronger In

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21673810-vote-will-be-close-britain-begins-its-campaign-stay-europeand-leave-it

In the UK, the decision to stay or leave the European Union will continue to dominate the headlines until the referendum on the 23 June 2016. The debate itself will invariably continue to be dominated by men. Men like David Cameron who wants us to stay in a reformed Europe, men in the business community who understand the economic catastrophe of leaving and men like Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage who in their love of the spotlight and misguided nostalgia for the empire want to isolate Britain from the economic, political and social innovation and progress we gain from the EU. I’m in favour of staying in. Can you tell?

My position aside, women are making strides to reclaim the debate about the EU: there is strong opposition to leaving the EU from many high profile women including the Women Stronger In campaign. From a glance at the women’s rights legislation the EU safeguards, it is obvious to see why. Women and men, throughout European history, have worked tirelessly to implement legislation across Europe that protects women in their daily lives. Some of the most significant examples include:

•       Equal pay for equal work: the EU has the policy of equal pay enshrined in EU law and EU law realises the problem of workplace harassment for women.
•       Maternity leave: without the EU women would not have the same rights to take time off both before and after the birth of their children. This would result in them having to quit their careers completely if they wanted to have children. Just in case women didn’t already face such a monumental choice between career and family.
•    Domestic violence protection: restraining orders taken out by victims of domestic violence now apply throughout Europe, protecting victims if they move around the continent.

-        

Beyond this European legislation, the EU as a political instrument allows us to sit at the table and work as one to confront international violations of women’s rights including child marriage, female genital mutilation and sexual violence in conflict. For example, the work of the European Women’s Lobby makes laudable progress in tackling gender inequality throughout Europe, we should be proud to sit alongside these women.

The economic consequences of leaving the EU would almost definitely affect the lives of women and girls disproportionately. If we think the government is currently burdening women with austerity, a break from Europe would result in an economic upheaval which no doubt would be increasingly burdened by society’s most vulnerable. Of course there are problems with the EU’s structure and ability to change things, but abandoning ship is not the answer, particularly for women. If we lose all these hard earned rights it seems unlikely that they will be replaced by the likes of Nigel Farage who has publically denounced working mothers in the past and who’s political history is riddled with prehistoric views on the status of women. The EU is, at it’s core a transnational feminist project; joining women, disseminating good practice, enshrining equality in law and creating the space for international feminist solidarity. Without it, I fear even more for the rights of women in the UK and those excluded from the privileges we receive.

Four Headlines from 2014 that weren’t Gendered and should’ve been

@GendertheNews

 3. Modi’s Election in India

Photo Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-20907755

Many would not consider the election of the right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party’s leader Narendra Modi in May 2014 in the top 4 headlines of 2014. However, India’s booming economy makes it a key player in the changing world order. More importantly, after the deeply misogynistic nature of Indian culture was epitomised to the world after the New Delhi bus gang rape in late 2012, women’s rights and anti-sexual violence movements in India would be front page news at any feminist newspaper and should be top of any election agenda. The empowering and inspiring feminist protests and movements coming out of India in 2013 and 2014, brought issues of women’s rights to the very forefront the national agenda. These women would not longer let their voices be stifled. And politicians could no longer ignore them. We hoped.

A brief reflection on the Hindu Nationalists reputation of governing women in Gujarat from 2001-2014 speaks volumes about his attitudes towards these atrocities. During the anti-Muslim riots in 2002, it is believed the Sangh Parivar orchestrated the systematic rape of hundred of women, girls, men and boys. According to many Human Rights groups, Modi effectively stood by and allowed these atrocities. Strangely enough the investigation into Modi’s involvement in these riots has since been silenced. Yet again, when these attacks hit the headlines they were rarely gendered. This is staggering considering that the exclusively female branches of the Sangh Parivar undertook many of the attacks - internalised patriarchy looks to be rife here. Additionally, under his governance in Gujarat, which he hinged his election campaign upon, female education rates and rape conviction rates slumped whilst the minority of women in the community has suggested rates of female infanticide. (Wilson, 2014: The Guardian.) Should economic growth really be prioritised at the hands of patriarchy and misogyny?

Today, these attitudes continue, Modi has spoken a handful of times about the problem and his speeches seem to be just that: words. The laws have been tightened and some photos have been taken but real action to secure the safety of almost half of his country has not been seen. Recently he also banned the British-made India’s Daughter documentary about the 2012 bus rape and the reaction to it. Although some say this is a result of its inaccuracy and western bias, it is also interpreted as an outright attempt to silence the anti-rape movement in India that was reignited in the wake of said documentary. The response to these claims is that the laws in place for gender equality in India are there, but these are not problems that can be solved with the wielding of a truncheon (especially given the well-known corruption salient in the Indian police force): they are cultural. That is not to say that judicial reform is not important but these problems are deeply entrenched into the minds and institutions and this is a revolution that cannot be solved by signatories on a piece of paper. When there is a leader of a popular political party denouncing the upmost penalty for gang rape because ‘boys will be boys’ you know something needs to be done.

Nevertheless, Modi’s election was heralded as a triumph for liberal democracy (unfortunately I could not find gender disaggregated voting figures but the likelihood of male dominance in voting rates goes without saying) and both Obama and Cameron publicly invited him to Washington and London respectively. All in the name of economic and business interests: the mainstream press in both the lead up to and the aftermath of Modi’s election orbited around his economic plans to further liberalise the country and reach out for foreign direct investment and jobs for the disproportionately young (male) demographic. There were, at best, sparse mentions of his plans for India’s (bigger) social problems of gender inequality, corruption and wealth polarisation. Such is the nature of neoliberalism in its ability to blindly deny or ignore the real problems of society, as long as the people at the top have money in their pockets and women at their disposal. But the feminist movement in India threatens to take both of these away from their elites: as Enloe (2014) points out that tourism is central to the Indian economy (6% of GDP, 20 million central and 70 million supply chain jobs) and as they continue to ignore the fact that 1 woman is raped every 20 minutes in India, their tourism revenues slump. Indeed in the 3 months after the Delhi rape hit the headlines, the number of foreign tourists fell 25% on the same statistics from the previous year. The number of female foreign tourists fell by 35%. (Enloe, 2014: 59.) If they will not fight this problem for a lack of morality, then perhaps they will if the queues outside the Taj Mahal suffer. I have told people about my desire to travel to India only to get the repeated response ‘it’s not a place for women.’ There are 600 million real women who live in India; it should go without saying that if it is not a place for me, it is not a place for them and no state should be deemed ‘no place for women.’ When South Africa was publicly mistreating people of colour, the west stood up and listened, and used capitalism to stop it. Why will we not boycott India’s misogyny? Why is it consistently pushed under the rug? Beatrix Campbell coined the term neoliberal, neopatriarchy which resonates here. Thankfully, these amazing Indian women and men have not and will not stop until they see justice but this is just another example of the headlines not calling out blatant sexism. In the last of this series of posts on 2014 I will address the Ukraine Crisis in the veil of the rise of nationalism in Europe. Thank you for reading and please follow the twitter for regular updates! 

Sources:

Enloe, C (2014) Lady Travelers, Beauty Queens, Stewardesses and Chamber Maids: The International Gendered Politics of Tourism. (See recommended reading)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-27452924

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/04/narendra-modi-as-prime-minister-womens-rights-india

http://www.firstpost.com/politics/modi-indeed-will-be-bad-for-women-but-was-cong-any-better-1484151.html

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/05/india-women-activists-remind-modi-promises-201452674827263709.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-31635902