Progressive Women

Judy Oliver, founder of ANKLe (A New Kind of Leadership) and leadership coaching business Oliver and Company, speaks to Caroline Watson about shaping a successful career. Judy will be faciliating our Leadership training workshop on Weds 8 Feb, ’Understanding Change and Transition’. Find out more and reserve your place here

After establishing a successful career in the public sector what made you decide to set up your own company?

I worked for BP for 17 years after I left school. They paid for me to go to university and to study part-time for the bar. I never expected to leave but when the company seemed to start going in (what I thought was the wrong direction) I made the switch to local govt for another 9 years. Throughout all the time though, I had always believed that I would work for myself one day and after more than 25 years of being managed by others, I decided I never wanted to be managed by anyone again!

What advice would you give to anyone setting up their own company?

Talk to others who have done it first. In my field of leadership development, it is important to have done things yourselves, to be credible with the audience so that you can genuinely relate to their experience.

You also established ANKLe. Can you tell us what inspired you to do so?

After my Mother sadly died, I realised that, having lost both my parents, I didn’t have to ask anyone’s permission any more (not that I always did!) And started to collect a list of the many like-minded women I was meeting. I had helped set up women’s groups previously in BP – you have to remember I graduated the year of the Sex Discrimination Act!! The real push came when I was working with Baroness Julia Cumberlege who had been a Government Minister for 5 years but had retained her integrity, femininity and the ability to be a true friend. I told her that I had this idea of starting a women’s group to make the quality of leadership better and wanted her to be the first inspirational speaker. She simply replied ‘ I’ve got my diary so let’s fix a date. That was it!! We launched in 2001!

What do you see as your greatest career accomplishments?

Setting up the first public private sector MBA with Warwick Business School. Writing a book for The Economist when my daughter was 2 to pay for my loss in salary when I moved from the private to public sector. Being a member of an NHS Board that managed to get a new hospital built. My work now with junior doctors to help them prepare for leadership. Lots!

What have been your greatest career challenges? And how did you overcome them?

Greatest challenge was moving into a new sector, local govt, at a senior level looking after 30000 people and negotiating with 17 unions ; being the only women on the management team and being given no support at all to make the transition – closest I’ve ever come to a nervous breakdown!! What helped – a wonderfully supportive family and my amazing team!

How have you balanced work and family life especially having children?

That’s always been the challenge and looking back I wish I’d had more time with my daughters. I was reliant on good nursery support and after school care and later on, my husband retired early around when I decided to start the business. That meant that he could help me with the school runs which enabled me to work longer hours. But, it also meant I became the main breadwinner. No easy answers too. I have decided not to think about it as work/life balance as I love a lot of my work – instead I think of it as stress/life balance.

What one important message would you like to share with Progressive Women readers?

Life and especially relationships are very precious. I believe we are here for a purpose and try to live ‘on purpose’ as best I can.

Join Judy and Progressive Women on Weds 8 Feb for our first Leadership workshop of 2012 ’Understanding Change and Transition’, Friends Meeting House, 173-177 Euston Road, London, tickets are £20 and must be purchased in advance. Find out more and how to reserve your place here

Sarah O’Malley works at Women for Women International.

 

During December 2011 the world’s attention was drawn to two high profile cases of violence against Afghan women.

The first was the case of Gulnaz, a woman jailed for adultery after being raped by her cousin’s husband. After national and international outcry Gulnaz received a pardon from Afghan president Hamid Karzai, but reports suggest this only occurred after she agreed to marry her attacker. The second case was the heartbreaking story of Sahur Gul, a 15 year old girl who endured months of torture at the hands of her husband and his family. After escaping her basement prison and being brought to local authorities, she was then returned to the hands of her torturers before eventually being rescued by Afghan police after a relative reported their concerns.

More recently, an article published by The Women’s UN Report Network highlighted the case of a young girl named Yasmin, who was married at the age of 12 to a 60 year old man. After 4 years of unhappy marriage she fled with a man from her village who she had fallen in love with. The pair were later caught by the police and imprisoned, with Yasmin giving birth to their child whilst in prison. Yasmin has since been released and is living at a shelter in Kabul, but lives in fear of violent reprisals from her family and first husband.

As shocking as these cases are, the sad fact is that they are not isolated events, and cases of rape, domestic abuse, forced marriage and unjust imprisonment of women are still commonplace in Afghanistan. In fact, a Thompson-Reuters poll published in June 2011 named Afghanistan as the most dangerous place in the world to be a woman.

The Afghan legal system fails to protect or provide justice for women like Gulnaz, Sahur and Yasmin. Frequently women are imprisoned for the crime of “zina” (sex outside marriage), after being raped or fleeing violent or forced marriages.

This is despite the introduction of the ‘Elimination of Violence Against Women’ (EVAW) law in 2009, a landmark that many human rights and women’s groups hoped would improve the situation for women in Afghanistan. A UN analysis of the EVAW law notes that it has yet to be widely implemented, and Human Rights Watch researcher Heather Barr has reported that most zina trials lack thorough investigation or proof, and the women accused are often poorly represented.

The failure to implement the EVAW law is indicative of the widespread attitude towards women’s rights in Afghanistan, a country that is still enshrined in patriarchy. There is much work to be done to achieve gender equality, both culturally and legally, in Afghanistan, and to ensure the women there are free to live their lives as they choose without fear of reprisal.

The work Women for Women International does in Afghanistan provides a real chance for women to begin their journey to achieving this. Our Join me on the Bridge 2012 campaign offers you the chance to lend your voice to the cry for peace and equality in Afghanistan, and other war torn countries across the world.

Have a look at the website to find out how to join an event near you, or organise your own event to raise awareness amongst your local community. It is also a great opportunity to fundraise and contribute towards the programmes Women for Women International runs to educate and empower women who have suffered the atrocities of war.

Join us, on March 8th 2012, and help spread a message of peace and equality around the world.

Caroline Watson, Co-founder of Progressive Women, writes about good books to read in 2012. Follow Progressive Women on twitter @sylviapankhurst

Having received some fantastic books by women about women for Christmas I got excited about sharing my enthusiasm with Progressive Women followers on our blog. So here are some suggested reads for 2012 – they’re not new books per se but one’s that I have enjoyed that I think Progressive Women followers will too.

House Music: the Oona King Diaries - with all the debate going on about women in politics and how and why there should be more of them, this a wonderful personal account of Oona’s time in Parliament. Telling a capitivating story of how she got there and how the stress of balancing her private family life and her professional political career came close to her quitting and her husband leaving is a must read for any woman considering a career in the House. In fact it’s a must read for anyone wanting to read a witty account of what it’s like for women in politics.

The Myth of Mars and Venus – Deborah Cameron

In the light of Laura Nelson’s recent campaign success to rid Hamley’s toy shop of gender stereotypes, Progressive Women are interested in exploring more about the science of gender difference. This is a great book that looks into debunking some of the myths about the differences between men and women particularly around language and communication. Some assumptions she tackles include ‘women talk more than men,’ ‘women are better at interacting then men’ and ‘men use language on a less personal and more competitive basis than women’. Deborah considers the impact these myths have and why they are important. She says ‘They shape our beliefs, and so influence our actions’. Deborah considers the role of these myths around communication in job candidate selection, and rape prosecutions, to demonstrate these myths can have very serious implications. 

 The Equality Illusion – Kat Banyard. Every feminist or would-be feminist should read this book if you haven’t already! Kat has an approach which locks the reader in from the offset. I love the way she uses each chapter to signify an hour in the day of a different woman. She begins with breakfast and the journey of an anorexic woman, and then delves further into the growing epidemic of women and eating disorders. Other issues Kat details in her book in a gripping and at times shocking way are sexism at work, domestic violence, the sex industry, and reproductive rights. What makes the book un-put-downable is that it is full of first hand accounts. The book uses personal stories that Kat gathered from over 100 interviews to discover how inequality plays out in everyday life. This is full of evidence and statistics, definitely one of the best researched, yet readable books I have read about women and inequality. The chapter on sex industry has definitely stayed with me, and anyone who claims the expansion of lap dancing and strip clubs is harmless should read this as it actively presents the view of some of the women involved.

The best thing about Kat’s book is it ends with a chapter on all the good work that is happening from women and men to make the changes needed to address the issues she raises in the book. You won’t feel helpless but empowered and ready to take action!

If you’ve got a book you want to recommend to Progressive Women then let us know!

Sign up for our mailing list and find out about Progressive Women events by emailing progress@progressivewomen.org.uk If you would like to write a guest blog for us email us with your suggestion.

Actress and writer Rhona Foulis returns with a follow up blog on burlesque. Rhona is the author of anecdotal blog cocotucker

There was something of a burlesque backlash to my recent blog.  Performers questioned what, if any, burlesque I’d seen.  Was I asexual?  Sexually repressed?  (The charge reveals as much prejudice as the accusation itself.)  Did I not know the joy involved?  How could I call myself a progressive woman?!  Yada yada yada.  I needed to get with the burlesque programme!  From my side, I felt they’d missed the point.  The blog was a comment piece based on my observations and experiences of burlesque. Yes, contrary to seemingly popular supposition, I had seen burlesque and even tried it for myself.  But given the wealth of burlesque defenders, heckling me from the virtual audience, I decided to see what they had to show and tell.

For various reasons, too tedious to go into, none of the burlesquers was available to accompany me to a show nor I to see them in action. So I set out with a female friend to The Folly Mixtures’ Christmas Revue Show at Madame JoJo’s, recommended by Miss Bruise Violet as “one of the best out there”. If the Folly Mixtures were meant to change my mind – spoiler alert – they didn’t. How to describe it? “Pantomime stripping” is how my mate put it and I’m inclined to agree. 

With barely a care for character development or creativity, each solo scene involved about a minute of ham acting before a temp-change signalled the performer enthusiastically whipping off her clothes. Take the first act: a 1950s housewife (not so) secretly gagging for it. Within a mere two minutes she had bent over, stripped down to a g-string, revealed cut-out cupcakes barely covering her nipples and lathered her upper body in squirty cream. Incidentally she later donated all her cupcakes to the men in the audience.

A Folly fail, then. What did cause me to re-consider were my subsequent conversations with Pixie Truffle, Glorian Gray and Doc Leroc, who generously and honestly engaged me in debate. Interestingly Pixie voluntarily expressed concern about me seeing the Dolly – sorry! Folly – Mixtures as a representative sample of the thriving and diverse British burlesque scene. In retrospect, my first blog should have stated my reference to the Americanised, heterosexual, glamour concept of burlesque. Certainly subsequent research has opened my eyes to the wealth of burlesque currently practised in the UK.  

Pixie, Glorian and Doc are at pains to point out that burlesque is almost impossible to define; any attempt at such stimulates “a source of constant debate”.  Doc compares it to “trying to describe a circus”: burlesque is composed of numerous acts but resists definition by any one of its component parts.  Glorian broadly identifies it as “a performance genre that’s got comedy, sex, magic, variety, singing, dancing, striptease, creativity, theatre…”, stemming from its cross-cultural gestation.  Doc explains the genre’s history: “the original burlesque shows were more about comedy… with singers and stand-up routines…  When it went over to America it sort of lost that satire element.  Dancing girls became the main theme.”

The recent resurgence of burlesque in the UK has seen an explosion of its generic boundaries.  Doc Leroc began performing “boylesque” over a year ago and remarks that “each of us [male performers] is creating our own style”.  Pixie Truffle established the wonderfully titled Lesburlesque, “the only troupe in the UK dedicated to providing burlesque for mixed audiences where the pantomime elements of sexuality swing toward the female psyche.”  Performers like Glorian, Pixie and Doc stay true to burlesque’s roots, prioritising the comedic element; others adopt a more sexualised, glamorised form.  While I have only been privy to the latter, I’m not entirely to blame for my ignorance.  According to Pixie, it’s well known that the London scene focuses on “the very classical stuff, the Dita von Teese type burlesque, the stuff that was misapprehended in the movie Burlesque, which really bears no resemblance to the burlesque that we know and love in the rest of the country.”

In response to my initial blog, Dr Evil Cupcake wrote: “if Burlesque is JUST aimed at heterosexual men, why was the audience for the last show I saw in London made up of 70% women?”  It’s a good point: why is burlesque so popular amongst women?  Doc, Glorian and Pixie are unanimous in their emphasis that burlesque sees a majority female audience.  But I don’t accept that because the audience is mostly comprised of women it is, ergo, A Good Thing.  Watching the women watch The Folly Mixtures, I wondered the source of their pleasure.  Did the retro style simply resonate as vintage and on trend?  Did they, dare I say, enjoy and/or envy the sexual objectification on stage? 

Pixie reflects: “I’ve never really understood why it appeals to women.”  Doc has observed that, for female audience members, “it’s nice to see someone who’s not a perfect size zero up on stage being judged.  You can be any shape, any size, any age”, which women find “empowering”.  However it’s not all diversity, middle-age and plus sizes.  At 41, Pixie considers herself “one of the older burlesque performers”[1].  Glorian concedes that there are a set of “early 20s beautiful girls who choose to do the glamorous routines” and are admiringly applauded for it. 

Doc notices that it’s overwhelmingly the women in the audience who whoop, clap and cheer.  ”I tend to have to prise the noise out of the guys” because social etiquette dictates that it’s otherwise unacceptable.  “You’re telling them to do everything that in day-to-day life they’re not allowed to do…  So you have to, as a compère… make them know that it’s okay; you have to reassure them.”  The performer gives permission for the audience to holler at them; those are the rules of the game.  Still I’m not sure that it’s helpful or even responsible to encourage men to cheer at “scantily clad” women, in a society in which more than one in two women experiences sexual harassment[2].  But then I’d probably be told to put my tongue in my cheek.

Doc and Glorian both describe their work as bawdy comedy along the lines of Carry On…  The striptease element reflects British seaside postcard humour rather than raunchy and exploitative lap-dancing clubs.  Pixie goes so far as to rationalise burlesque as “a concept devoid of sexual referencing… We tease to an invisible other”.  Again, I’m not convinced that it’s that academic.  Pixie claims that pasties are conceptual, representing “an intellectual way of elevating the arousal mechanism”.  Sorry, not sold.  I’ve been sandwiched between two heterosexual men who were – without divulging detail – palpably turned on by the tassel.  They don’t disguise much and, besides, we aren’t reading about them in a journal.  They’re there: LIVE!  BREASTS!  It’s titillating.  Surely that’s the point of a “tease” and why it’s so popular in covered-up, repressed Britain.  But then I’m reminded of the range of burlesque performances, which don’t all cash in on the tease.  Pixie mentions a new LesBurlesque routine-in-progress, aimed at sticking two fingers up at stripping for men.  I’m intrigued…

Even if burlesquers do strip for Britain, does it matter?  One of Glorian’s chief gripes is performers who “try to distance themselves from the stripping element…, which I think is very derogatory to stripping.”  As creators of their own shows, masters of their own theatrical personas, burlesque performers are surely far more in control of their stage acts than strippers.  Glorian sighs in agreement that the striptease inherent in most burlesque is “problematic” since it is “linked to stripping with sexual intent”, potentially reinforcing the misogynist myth that women are men’s sexual servants.  “If you’re coming from a particular feminist point-of-view where you see stripping as part of the gender inequality issue then it’s going to be a problem for you.”  Ah, yes, that’d be me.

Glorian contends: “it’s about time we shook up the standard feminist ideas about displays of sexuality and femininity…  What I’d like to see more is challenging some of these boundaries and ideas that we have [about sex and women].”  But doesn’t burlesque appropriate and thereby re-hash traditional models of sexuality?  Certainly the Americanised, over-sexualised form recycles sexual stereotypes, behaviour and posturing.  One of my frustrations with burlesque is precisely that it offers nothing new, that it can appear to be sexually regressive.  Doc admits that “there are a lot of ‘Burlesque’ shows and classes in the UK which are based on corsets, feather boas and stockings and not a lot else”, corsets, which – lest we forget – were originally designed to restrict women’s breathing, appetite and fertility.

You don’t need me to tell you that for centuries women have primarily been defined by our appearance and sexuality; arguably we still are.  As Glorian says, “why do we have to be sexy?”  We can be; we are; we might want to be; we might not want to be; why do we have to be?  A lack of appreciation for burlesque does not equate to a lack of (appreciation for) sexuality, a reductionist conclusion hurled at me by Delores Daiquiri.  In fact it reflects the opposite stance: pro-sex that doesn’t necessitate women stripping to feel sexually free.  I’d rather inhabit a culture in which women already felt that.  We don’t expect heterosexual men to perform their sexuality; it would be ridiculous and/or camp. They’re just there, y’know, hanging out, being all sexy[3].  In the words of Jermaine Stewart, we don’t have to take our clothes off to have a good time (cherry wine optional). 

Pixie seems almost appalled by the idea that men or women in the audience might be turned on by her performances.  The prime intention of Lesburlesque is fun, not arousal.  In fact it is her personal mission to bring lesbian performances to a mainstream audience, in exactly the same way as drag queens have been accepted.  Go forth and conquer, Pixie!  Yet, as Glorian points out, we can’t expect every female burlesque performer (and there are hundreds) to have undergone a “feminist awakening”.

One comment that shocked me, in response to my initial blog, was self-professed feminist Gypsy Wood’s alarming reaffirmation of an adage by Helena Rubenstien (misquoted as Coco Chanel): “There are no ugly women, just lazy ones.”  The message is: if you don’t conform to strict, oppressive and unnatural patriarchal standards of sexual attractiveness, you’re lazy and you’ve failed.  Glorian cites female burlesque performers “trying to re-enact this vintage, domestic, pin-up, Cath Kidston-y kind of – not only look, but lifestyle”, who “don’t feel like it’s anti-feminist at all.”  Similarly, The Folly Mixtures didn’t appear to want to deconstruct traditional sexual stereotypes, just update the music to Christina Aguilera and incorporate some R&B moves in the choreography.

Glorian proposes that burlesque offers “the claiming of femininity”, challenging the notion that femininity is anti-feminist.  However in the same breath she recognises that “obviously that’s quite de-contextualised because we still live in a patriarchal society”.  Even when performers such as Glorian deliberately ridicule hegemonic ideas, it’s possible that parody inadvertently reinforces that which it seeks to satirise or that its spectators simply don’t pick up on the parody at all.  Glorian is well aware of the risk of reinstating feminine ideals[4].  She likes to wear “almost cartoonish, “grotesque” and subversive costume, purposely unsettling the audience to remind them of the cultural construction of Woman.  “But I know it’s not always like that….  Of course there is a danger… that people in the audience might misinterpret what I’m doing.”

Wouldn’t it be more radical, exciting and genuinely progressive to overthrow the terms of masculinity and femininity altogether, as Gayle Ruben proposes?  Glorian counters that we’re simply not there yet.  Yet by re-presenting and reminding us of patriarchal stereotypes, doesn’t burlesque impede the progress of gender liberation?  Once again, I check myself and re-consider the more experimental, queer forms of burlesque.  And thus I go round in circles, mulling over a genre that refuses to be pinned down or subject to decisive scrutiny.

Indeed, given the length, breadth and girth of the performance art, it now feels unfair to draw generalised conclusions and I haven’t entirely written off the genre’s progressive potential.  I confess that I may have been narrow in my original estimations, but the glamorised form of burlesque is still out there and from what I’ve seen, I still don’t like it.  Mostly, though, my research has inspired me to ask more provocative questions about women and sexuality.  Can a performance of female sexuality ever be liberated from its patriarchal shadow?  The jury’s still out.

---

[1] In her 80s, Nanny Dora is the oldest British burlesquer, astonishingly, in her first year of performing.

[2] http://www.cwasu.org/page_display.asp?pageid=STATS&pagekey=107&itemkey=122

[3] Doc Leroc observes that burlesque is “more style-driven” for women.  “My routine’s more comedic.  If I tried doing the classic fan dance, the classic tease, it would just look completely wrong.”

[4] “I think that could be interpreted as reinforcing stereotypes about what a woman should look to and of course it will be interpreted that way by some audience members some of the time.”

Follow Progressive Women on twitter @sylviapankhurst. Find out about future Progressive Women events by joining our mailing list, email progress@progressivewomen.org.uk Do you want to be our next guest blogger? If so get in touch with your ideas!

This guest blog is written by Preethi Sundaram, Policy and Campaigns Officer, at The Fawcett Society

Where are the women? This is a question that may spring to mind when you turn on the television to watch political debate, when you read a newspaper profiling key movers and shakers in the political world and when you consider who is at the top table shaping government policy.

Women remain largely excluded from positions of power and influence in virtually every sphere of life – the media, the judiciary, and in boardrooms.

There is a shocking absence of women in politics – men MPs outnumber women 4 to 1 and the number of women in the Cabinet is at a 10 year low. A recent report from the Equality and Human Rights Commission estimates another 14 general elections- up to 70 years- to achieve equality between men and women in Parliament.  Decisions that affect us all, be it how to balance the nation’s budget, or our preferred system of welfare, are being made without women round the table.

So is there link between the lack of women in positions of power and the impact of current economic and social policy on women’s lives?

In 2011 the number of women out of work reached a 23 year high. In the same year, the number of women in the Cabinet fell to a ten year low. The Fawcett Society believes that the power gap between women and men in politics is mirrored in the growing gap between those most affected by government decisions and those at the top table shaping policy.

The Fawcett Society’s analysis has shown that the government’s approach to tackling the deficit means women face a ‘triple jeopardy’:  hit hardest by job cuts in the public sector, worse affected as the services and benefits they use more are cut, and left ‘filling the gaps’ as support services are withdrawn.

The cumulative effects of current austerity measures, drastic reforms to legal aid and an expected roll back on women’s employment rights will likely result in women’s power over their own lives and their wider world being stripped away. All of this against a backdrop of record levels of female unemployment a possible widening of the gender pay gap, and an average reduction in women’s incomes.

If we do not act now, there is a very real danger that we will see a turning back in time for women’s hard-won equality. Increasingly, women will have less power and influence over their own lives and their wider world as both their political and economic capital is reduced. A power gap is growing in society to match the gap which already exists in politics.

You can follow Progressive Women on twitter @sylviapankhurst. Find out about upcoming Progressive Women events by joining our mailing list email progress@progressivewomen.org.uk

Progressive Woman Lucy James writes about the latest workshop in our leadership series. Follow Lucy on twitter @LucyJames01

In certain job sectors the number of jobs held by men still vastly outnumbers jobs held by women. Whilst 73% of the public sector workforce is made up of women, in the private sector the scales are often tipped the other way particularly at the highest levels of management.

The latest public policy solution is to train volunteer mentors to be role models for female entrepreneurs. If done properly (and it does require a lot of time, effort and dedication on both parts), having a mentor can be a positive way of self-reflection, learning and accessing valuable networks. 

But before everything else, the most basic tool to a successful career is self awareness. And as obvious as it sounds, it is something that a lot of people fail to achieve – often not for want of trying. 

This is why, in the latest of a series of leadership training workshops put on by Progressive Women and ANKLe this week, we explored “What makes you tick”. After all, if you want to climb the career ladder then understanding your own values and what drives you is a pretty good place to start. 

But understanding yourself can also help you to hone your skills as a leader. This is because the most effective leaders are people who have authenticity and are acting naturally. Take Ed Miliband as someone who’s leadership skills are often questioned because he can often come across as awkward in public situations. 

The training session gave us tools to try to gain a better sense of self-awareness. It tried to draw out our latent strengths as well as our realised strengths. Some of the skills that we take for granted are not necessarily something that everyone finds easy and as a result these latent strengths can be undervalued. Take being a good listener, for example. 

We also tried to establish what makes us passionate, using the prism of what makes us angry, what we find fulfilling and what gives us energy. 

Everyone took away different things from the evening and for many of us it created more questions than answers. 

The thing that I was left with was a comment by the trainer: “improve your strengths and you can fly”. 

For a range of reasons, people in this country tend to dwell on weaknesses and imperfections. As a result, careers advisers and skills trainers often put disproportionate emphasis on improving your weaknesses at the expense of working on and believing in your strengths. 

And it is our strengths that are the really valuable tools, both as a key to self-belief and confidence, and as an answer to achieving better self-awareness and ultimately a more successful career. 

Find out more here about Progressive Women and ANKLE’s next leadership event on Weds 7 Dec “The Key To Success: Getting to Know Yourself and Others”

 To join our mailing list email progress@progressivewomen.org.uk Follow us on twitter @sylviapankhurst

Caroline Watson, Co-founder of Progressive Women, writes our latest blog.  Follow Progressive Women on twitter @sylviapankhurst

Don’t get me wrong I love Brucie and Terry Wogan. I agree that they are national institutions and I was disappointed that Graham Norton replaced our Tel on Eurovision depriving us of his sarcastic yet hilarious commentary.

As long as they continue to entertain us I hope they’ll continue to be on our tellies. However, I’d love to see more mature women too. On Children In Need Angela Rippon graced us with her presence. But why isn’t she still on prime time TV? Instead we have the young and beautiful opposite the wise older men – Holly and Philip, Bruce and Tess, Adrian and Christine (well until recentlly), Louis and Gary get twenty somethings Tulisa and Kelly (oh apparently Kelly is actually 30) and lucky old Terry had three young and beautiful women to guest present with him on Children In Need.

This Friday WFTV (Women in Film and Television) celebrate women’s contribution to the sector.  Their website is a wealth of knowledge and data on the industry which only goes to substantiate what we’re already guessing from the faces we see on  primetime TV. Oh and by the way, for anyone who says ‘but people want to see young women on TV’, well yes I do, but I also want to see a diverse range of men and women on TV, old, young and middle aged. Let’s see a bit more of reality. One of the more successful day time programmes of the last few years has been Loose Women, because women relate to other women who are of a similar age and background.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. The stats suggest that if a woman isn’t young and pretty enough to be on screen she’ll struggle to to find a place behind the camera too.

According to WTFV a woman is more likely to hold a seat on a Fortune 500 company (15%) than direct a Hollywood movie (7%).   There is a fascinating study conducted by Stacy L. Smith which looks at women’s roles on screen and behind for 100 top grossing Hollywood films in 2007. What she found was that women are significantly under-represented.

Smith found that only 29.9% of the 4379 speaking characters were female. 83% of directors, producers and writers were male. The number of female actors increased with the number of women directors or co-directors.

Does it matter? Or is worrying about the role of women in media trivial? Women on screen are role models, helping shape young females ideas of what they can be, and how women are generally valued in society. The absence of older women gives a message that women are not valued in society after a certain age. The absence of women in the industry suggests there are barriers towards women’s participation and also impacts the experiences that are portrayed in the content on our screens.

The WFTV awards this week are a great opportunity to celebrate the strong contribution from women in the media and to promote the contribution that women are making. To find out more about the awards and the work of WFTV go to  http://www.wftv.org.uk/wftv/

Join Progressive Women on Weds 7 Dec for ‘The Key to Success – Getting to Know Yourself and Others’. This is our fourth Leadership workshop in the series with ANKLE. You can find out more and secure your place here

 

Alice Delemare is a member of Progressive Women. Follow Alice on twitter @alice_delemare

Temple tube station, 12pm on a perfect crisp, sunny and autumnal Saturday. Nope, I wasn’t there for a leisurely weekend stroll down by the Thames. Instead I had donned my retro headscarf and taken up my placard. I was there to protest.

The Fawcett Society had organised the ‘Don’t Turn Back Time on Women’s Equality’ march to raise awareness of the disproportionate impact of the government’s cuts on women.

On average, women earn less, own less, and are more likely to work and retire in poverty than men. The government’s approach to cutting the deficit is already widening the gap between women and men:

• Female unemployment is rising as jobs are cut in public services
• The benefits and services women rely on more are being slashed
• Women on low incomes are becoming poorer
• Women’s access to vital support services is being undermined
• Increasing numbers of women are being forced to give up work as cuts to childcare support means their jobs no longer cover the family’s care costs

And so we gathered – a colourful sea of 50s headscarves, yellow marigolds, wooden spoons, bright lipstick, kitchen whisks, brooms, placards and flags. There were women and men, both young and old. The crowd looked wonderful. But it wasn’t about the looks, we also spoke sense. We were angry. We were outraged. And we had come together in solidarity to damn well shout about it! Sending a clear message that women don’t want to be catapulted back to the levels of inequality of yesteryear.

We marched along Embankment and down Whitehall to rally outside the Treasury buildings. People watched, tourists took pictures, bystanders were intrigued. Chants of “when they say cut back, we say fight back” could be heard along the streets. And there were some fantastic slogans painted on homemade placards (my personal favourite -“Screw the patriarchy. That’s not an invitation boys”.)

At the rally we stood together in solidarity. Inspiring speeches were given by the Fawcett Society, Women’s Resource Centre, UNISON, Abortion Rights, UK Uncut, Southall Black Sisters, and Tanya Gold among many others.

My favourite speech, and definitely the funniest, was given by the comedian Josie Long. She spoke openly about her experience of casual sexism and inspired us all to challenge anyone who uses sexist language – even those who say they are just joking, or playing devil’s advocate.

Of course, the fight for equality doesn’t end with a march. It will go on for as long as necessary. The government’s approach to cutting the deficit is widening the gap between women and men. This regression of our rights needs to stop now.

So I will never get tired of protesting. Of speaking out. Of being a nuisance. There are some who try to discourage me. But as long as there is a threat to women’s equality, as long as there is a pay gap, as long as we are still experiencing casual sexism in the workplace and in the streets, I will be fighting back. And judging by the numbers of women and men who turned out to the march on Saturday, I know I will be fighting in good company.

If you couldn’t make it to the march you can still support the Fawcett Society’s Cutting Women Out campaign. For more information go to www.fawcettsociety.org.uk

Progressive Women are hosting a series of Leadership workshops. Join us for our next event on 30 November ‘What Makes Me Tick? Deepening Awareness for Planning Your Career’ Find out more here .

Follow Progressive Women on twitter @sylviapankhurst