Did you know that after you are raped it is very unlikely you will have a female Forensic Medical Examiner, the vast majority are men, in some areas of the country all are male? Did you also know that the British Medical Association [...]]]> Sarah Learmonth is Policy Officer at Coventry Rape & Sexual Abuse Centre.

Did you know that after you are raped it is very unlikely you will have a female Forensic Medical Examiner, the vast majority are men, in some areas of the country all are male? Did you also know that the British Medical Association have stated that rapists are escaping conviction because of a lack of adequately trained doctors to deal with victims and that this is a contributing factor to the low UK rape conviction rate, currently standing at around 6.5%?

No? Well it’s not surprising, rape is reported nationally only as individual cases, mostly those which are going to trial or have achieved conviction, not as an issue for society to acknowledge and understand.

I work for the Rape Crisis Centre in Coventry which supports around 3,000 victims of rape and abuse. Around a quarter of our clients are children and nearly half of the adult clients were sexually abused first as children. More women and girls are raped in the UK than suffer diabetes or coronary heart disease, but the level of support for victims is nowhere near the same.

An Amnesty International survey found that third of people in the UK believe that a woman is partially or totally responsible for being raped if she has behaved in a flirtatious manner, these people are doctors, police officers, A & E nurses, jury members; the latest Crown Prosecution Service figures show that if you go to trial it is twice as likely you will get a not guilty verdict than a conviction.

No wonder then that we end up in a situation where David Cameron supports the proposal for rape anonymity for defendants based on ‘the significant number of false allegations.’ The evidence for that? Well there isn’t any. The Stern Review of the criminal justice response to rape victims states false reporting is ‘extremely rare’, but as a society the knowledge that women lie about rape is an undisputed myth, a stereotype not only unchallenged by the government but adopted within a proposal initially for legislation.

I was on a train recently with a woman who was interested in doing some pro bono work for us, explaining our services for victims when the man next to me told me to ‘Shut up’ and looking around the carriage I wondered how many other people agreed with his sentiments and how many realised that this is exactly what our victims are told to do.

When we ask the Practise Managers at our local GP surgeries to put our leaflets out some explain they can’t because they might offend people.

In March of this year a report came out called Taskforce Alberti, a review of the health response to rape victims, it states that in the UK an estimated 16% of children between 0 to 16 years old have experienced sexual abuse. There was no media attention given to this report, no interviews, nothing.

Rape and sexual abuse are in epidemic proportions and as a society our reaction is to distance ourselves with disbelief, the victim is blamed and a focus put on helping the abusers. As a whole our society would rather that organisations like Rape Crisis picked up the pieces invisibly and silently.

“My uncle used to ask for me to bring him tea in the morning that was the signal, I knew what would happen. He showed me pictures of my aunt after he’d beaten her up and told me if I didn’t do what he said then he would beat her again. I was 9 years old.”

So maybe after what I’ve told you we can decide that it’s no longer going to be a secret, that together we will effect the monumental change in our society’s attitudes that is needed towards rape and its’ victims. If we have to do it one person at a time, then we will.

If you would like to donate to Coventry Rape Crisis Centre please click here: www.crasac.org.uk/donations
We are on Facebook (CRASAC) and Twitter (@CRASAC)
Helpline Number: 024 7627777
National rape crisis website

As nearly one hundred women and a sprinkling of men gathered in a function room in North London on Saturday for a day of talks and workshops under the banner Inspiring Leaders, one question in particular burned [...]]]> Emma-Louise Hardman attended the Progressive Women and Camden Speakers first ever ‘Inspiring Leaders’ event this Saturday 6th November.

As nearly one hundred women and a sprinkling of men gathered in a function room in North London on Saturday for a day of talks and workshops under the banner Inspiring Leaders, one question in particular burned in my mind: what exactly is women’s leadership?

The most memorable quote of the day surely goes to Labour MP Fiona Mactaggart, who in her rousing keynote speech asked the assembled aspiring leaders “are you prepared to take the shit?” She is, of course, referring to how people, and women in particular, are treated in public life. After a brief consideration of the question I realise that my honest answer is no, I am not. Oh dear, this doesn’t bode well for my future as a great leader.

The following panel discussion where Fiona was joined by leadership coach Lee Chalmers, writer Louise Doughty and Labour party activist Kathryn Perera helped to offer some powerful potential solutions though. They spoke about authentic leadership, the value of self-doubt, supporting other women and the need to be brave. It was Lee who, for me, made one of the most striking points of the discussion by questioning why people ask what women want? The implication being that the answer to this is less complex than what men want.

Straddling lunch were two sets of workshops in which some of the skills of leadership were imparted by a set of very talented leaders and coaches. My first session was run by public speaking guru Pia Henderson and hypnotherapist Nicola Preston Bell. We discussed the significance of first impressions, using the power of stories and even attempted to define leadership itself (although we soon decided this was impossible). We then all floated away into a wonderfully relaxing visualisation, which could be used to prepare ourselves for public speaking.

My afternoon workshop was run by Lee Chalmers and to my delight the first question she asked the group was ‘what is women’s leadership?’ She argued that women’s leadership is no different from men’s and that it’s only our perceptions that the differences truly exist. She encouraged us all instead to consider the particular mix of influencing styles we choose.

In the second discussion panel Linguist Deborah Cameron outlined her view that women are just as capable of leadership roles as men but that they are excluded by a structural problem based on what she calls myths of gender. Political journalist Boni Sones OBE described the exclusive culture of parliament as childish and silly, rather than specifically sexist. This view was reinforced by Liberal Democrat diversity officer Vicky Booth, who called for adapting the system not just to suit women but to include all normal people.

So what is women’s leadership? Did I find an answer to my question? Not exactly. I came away from the event armed with a more complex view of what women’s leadership is and can be. I had assumed that the concept could be much more easily defined than it really is. Women’s leadership is as diverse as women themselves and in diversity there’s great strength.

Of course women are just as capable of leadership as men. However, society’s view of leadership includes, but goes beyond gender, and opening up leadership roles to everyone involves breaking down many collective assumptions about what a leader is. If 60% of the impression a person makes is based on how they look, we have to believe this is possible.

I still don’t want to have to “deal with the shit” but I don’t want anyone else to have to either. I do want things to change and know that they won’t without some effort. I’m not sure if I’m ready to be a public leader but I know that I can lead by example, challenge gender stereotypes and, perhaps most importantly, support other women. It was impossible not to be inspired by the amazing leaders at this event and I left promising myself to be little braver.

Laura Nelson, co-organiser of Inspiring Leaders writes on who inspired her at the event on her Delilah blog.

Progressive Women would like to say a massive thank you to all the trainers, speakers, and volunteers who contributed to the Inspiring Leaders event on Saturday and made it a great success! For a full line up of speakers and trainers you can see here.

This week, new Labour leader Ed Miliband unveiled a shadow cabinet in which women hold [...]]]> Ellie Cumbo is a policy researcher, campaigner and activist; she recently led on the development of Oona King’s women’s policy. Ellie comments on why Oona’s campaign and recent events of the Labour party are so important for women and for politics.

This week, new Labour leader Ed Miliband unveiled a shadow cabinet in which women hold a slightly disappointing 12 of 29 positions; this is nevertheless triple the measly 4 put up by the coalition Government. Reactions to these figures in the media ranged from casual observation to complete obliviousness: under-representation of women is such a fixed feature of our politics that it barely merits comment.

It was with a keen sense of this background, immediately following the May general election, that I read of Oona King’s bid to be Labour’s candidate for Mayor of London. Immediately, and despite my great respect for her rival, Ken Livingstone, I knew that I wanted to be part of her campaign. In addition to her forthright centre-left politics, her new ideas and her great personal charm, here was a candidate with the potential to demonstrate that leadership doesn’t require Y chromosomes, white skin or a vast disposable fortune.

Too often, the importance of diversity among our elected decision-makers is dismissed as tokenism or identity politics; it is in fact far more than this, and far more important. A politician’s greatest challenge is to find a workable balance between ideology and realism; to hold to the convictions that drew them to public service in the first place, while remaining receptive to outside evidence that may contradict them. The latter is dependent on access to the broadest possible range of experiences, and gender is unquestionably one of the forces that most powerfully shapes our lives.

Whenever it is suggested that more equal gender representation therefore matters and should be striven for, it is treated as an argument for elevating women regardless of their merit. This is a gross (and perhaps deliberate) misunderstanding of the argument, which is that talented and able women are not finding their way into the corridors of power at the same rate as talented and able men; not that femaleness is itself an adequate qualification for holding office. No-one wants poor female candidates to be preferred over good male ones, and this is simply not the inevitable outcome of factoring gender into our consideration of what matters in political representation (or even of outright positive discrimination). To believe otherwise is to believe that there aren’t enough capable women out there to get a roughly equal gender split, and that all our male politicians are uniformly brilliant: it’s nonsense, and must not go unchallenged.

So, disappointed as I was that Oona didn’t win the Mayoral nomination, I see it as a tremendous boon to our politics that she stood. Not only has she cemented her position as a role model, to unconventional candidates of all kinds, but she specifically raised issues and proposed solutions that had never made it into political debate before; in particular, her plans to tackle street sexual harassment met with more support than even the campaign team had imagined, from Woman’s Hour to Radio Five Live.

As we head into a future in which the only certainty is the suffering in store, especially for the most vulnerable, it is essential that we don’t lose sight of the need to do better on representation, across gender, race and, perhaps most urgently, income level and class background. Let’s be very clear that, besides the economic situation, there is another deficit that threatens the very legitimacy of our politics – and that’s one sacrifice we really can’t afford.

Ellie will be delivering a debating training session at Progressive Women’s INSPIRING LEADERS event on 6th November. For more info on the event & to buy your ticket read here

Attending a Conservative Party conference when they are part of the government is a novel experience for me (this might seem to be a banal statement but judging by the age of some of [...]]]> Emily Dover attended this week’s Conservative Party conference as a
delegate. She has formerly worked for both front and back bench Conservative politicians

Attending a Conservative Party conference when they are part of the government is a novel experience for me (this might seem to be a banal statement but judging by the age of some of the delegates there are a few that have fond memories of several Conservative governments).

Having first got involved in the party in 2001 I have become unaccustomed to winning things – as any Conservative will testify, there have been some dark days over the past 13 years. It could be expected then that – despite the rhetoric about tough times ahead and spending cuts – behind the scenes there would be a little self-congratulation and general back patting.

The reality however was a businesslike conference albeit one with simmering tensions. Late night bar conversations and fringe meeting after fringe meeting grappled with the concept of the “Big Society” – every delegate seems to have their own definition and their own local example of the “big society in action”.

If it is hard for them to grasp it is little wonder that the general public also struggle. Many of the activists and even candidates that I met were still smarting from the election campaign. It is rarely pointed out in public but they feel the fact that the Conservatives did not win an outright majority very keenly. Many feel like they suffered from being the guinea pigs in a grand ‘A’ level politics experiment. The party leadership is having to do just as much work to sell the coalition government to their supporters as the Liberal Democrats are.

The Conservative party is not unique in having a significant influx of first time MPs following the general election and conference has been a great opportunity to observe some of them in action. We have increased the number of women MPs significantly but there is still a way to go on that front. One of the early highlights of my conference was attending the women2win reception.

Women2win has done really great work over the last few years in mentoring and supporting women who want to stand as candidates for the Conservative Party but also in convincing Conservative associations of the benefits of putting their trust in women candidates. It is built on the concept of mutual support and advice and is a growing force within the party.

There are a great many talented and able women involved in all levels of the party. Trying to unpick why too few of them put themselves forward as candidates is not an easy task – some may feel that they are too busy juggling a family and/or career to consider entering politics, many may not be prepared to undergo the personal upheaval that comes with embarking on a political career. However, those concerns are not unique to women. I cannot compare with other parties who will obviously have their own rigorous processes, but having been part of a candidate selection panel in the Conservative party, I can testify that the selection process and the interview is a terrifying and sometimes confrontational experience.

Removing the possible barriers to entry is part of the solution. Improving confidence and professional and political skills of female candidates through training and mentoring may make all the difference – and will give us better candidates to boot. What seems to be the most important and successful element of women2win’s work is in creating that atmosphere of mutual support that will make the party a more welcoming place for women to do business without having to rely on crude list systems.

For more information on women2win check out their website

Join other aspiring future leaders at Progressive Women’s upcoming event INSPIRING LEADERS on Saturday 6th November. For more details see here

The Labour party conference began with much anticipation about the election of the future leader following a four month campaign that saw four men and one woman battle it out attending 100’s of hustings, meeting [...]]]> Nargis Khan was a senior Labour Councillor in Hackney for 8 years and writes from the Labour Party conference in Manchester

The Labour party conference began with much anticipation about the election of the future leader following a four month campaign that saw four men and one woman battle it out attending 100’s of hustings, meeting members across the country. While Diane Abbott MP, the only woman on the ballot was not declared leader on Saturday and throughout remained the ‘very’ outside favourite, her name on the ballot paper was certainly talk of the town and brought to the forefront women’s participation in politics and public life. It is widely agreed that Diane’s involvement gave prominence to issues around equality, social mobility, civil liberties and taxation.

When the results were finally declared and Ed Milliband MP elected leader, the work of the ‘next generation’ had started.

Whilst the media continued the scramble and commentary of divides in the party and family psycho dramas, the conference finally began with the tone moving to how “One United Labour Party takes on {taking on} one divided Government”

Early on Sunday a little bleary eyed I made my way to Manchester Town Hall for the first national ‘Labour Women’s Summit’, I had been expecting a small meeting but I was overwhelmed when I entered the great hall and was faced with a room packed with over 700 women, many of whom had travelled by coach overnight just to attend this event. These were Labour women determined to get their priorities on the new leadership agenda. We heard from prominent women such as Harriet Harman, Yvette Cooper, Oona King and many more all reflecting the full complexity of women’s lives. Women were taking to the platform, many for the first time to express their anger with the current government and their justification for an agenda of cuts.

Like many women in the room I believe that this current Conservative government is making a real attack on gender, this is ideology and we need to step back from the language of deficits and remember that these are real choices about care, living the weekly shop that will impact women and their families disproportionately. The two hour event heard from women from all around the country truly trailblazers and breaking new ground. I left the event inspired and with more than a suspicion that it will be progressive Labour women that will bring back the 5 million voters that we lost at the last election. It will be women winning for Labour in 2015!

With three days of conference still to go and a packed fringe and conference agenda debating among other’s the economy, foreign affairs and a future direction. Labour women are part of a new way of doing politics and will be at the forefront of tackling the tough issues as well as a celebration of the Party’s diversity. Still to come the new leader’s speech and the election of a shadow cabinet that will see women at the helm…watch this space.

If you’re interested in exploring the issues of women in leadership and developing your own leadership skills come along to our Inspiring Leaders event on Saturday 6th November

So I’m heading home from the Lib Dem conference feeling [...]]]> Progressive Women will be sharing first hand accounts from the 3 main political party conferences. This week Lee Chalmers shares her experience of the Liberal Democrat conference. Lee runs a coaching company Authentic Living and is a delegate at this year’s Liberal Democrat conference.

So I’m heading home from the Lib Dem conference feeling reflective and pragmatic, a state I often find myself in. This year saw the largest attendance ever, as our membership increased and the media got interested in what was said. The mood of participants was mixed. On the one hand, people are happy and proud to see our MP’s in government. So many of the policies and ideals that we care about and voted for are on their way to being implemented into law, something that we didn’t think was possible 9 months ago.

However, there is also a feeling amongst some people that being in government with the Tories will have a negative effect on the party and will result in us having to implement policies that we simply cannot stomach. For some, that is too much to bear, not the reason they are involved in politics at all. It really has got me thinking about my engagement in this crazy world. I like to think of myself as progressive, hence my connection with progressive women but what does that actually mean?

For me, being progressive is all about thinking about the future, to how things can improve. It’s about standing up for policies that allow us as a species to grow up, to stop acting like adolescents, to start to take responsibility for how we live, which means being aware enough of each other that we care more and start to create a truly equal society. It’s about equality, freedom and liberty. Recognise these terms? It’s why I’m a Lib Dem. It’s also about making sure that the policies we implement are not regressive, do not hit the poorest hardest. And there lies the rub of being a Lib Dem right now. How can we make sure that we are working with the government enough to implement the policies we believe in but mitigate against the worst of the right wing desire to reduce government and cut crucial services? If we can do that we will be entering into post-adolescent politics, leading in a way that understands the complexities of the role and the fact that you cannot please all the people all the time.

Did I hear anything at conference that specifically applied to me as a woman? What messages were there to move the cause of equality for women forward? To be honest, I didn’t even look. Such was my focus on the policies as a human being, not through the lens of my gender. I ran a training session on leadership for women candidates where I talked about the specific stereotypes we suffer from but at the end of the day the topics that mattered most applied to all people. I for one am starting to move away from an articulation of what is different or even special about women. I am much more focusing on what narrative we need to create which enables the men to understand that there is no womens vote, no special category called women with special needs. We are the majority of the population and the major topics of the day all apply to us. And on that basis we required a seat at the table. More on this at the Progressive Women leadership event.

Read Lee Chalmers blog

Join in Lee’s leadership training session at the Inspiring Leaders event on Saturday 6th November

It’s easy to talk about cuts in the abstract – and to presume that there are large-scale painless efficiencies across the public sector that will allow us to reduce our deficit with ease. But the reality is [...]]]> This week is TUC week. Nicola Smith, Senior Policy Officer at the TUC writes this week’s guest blog.

It’s easy to talk about cuts in the abstract – and to presume that there are large-scale painless efficiencies across the public sector that will allow us to reduce our deficit with ease. But the reality is that cuts of the scale that the Government are proposing cannot be made without significantly increasing inequality and taking substantial economic risks.

Women will feel the impact of these cuts. Earlier this year TUC research showed that women’s jobs were on the line in the public sector. Our analysis suggests that around 40 per cent of women in work in the UK are employed in public sector jobs – and that areas where there are particularly high levels of female public sector employment are also those where male unemployment rates rose the most during the recession. With the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasting that over 600,000 public sector jobs will be lost by 2015, it is clear that working women will feel the impact. And with 38p of every pound of state expenditure going directly to the private sector, it won’t only be state employees who feel the jobs impacts of the cuts.

But job cuts are only part of the story – when posts are lost across the public sector, so are services. Already, before the Spending Review has even reported, around £13 billion of cuts have been announced that directly cut services from children and families. These include cuts in free school meals, in Tax Credit payments for families with new babies, in careers services for young people who are not in education or employment and in the Future Jobs Fund for those facing the prospect of long-term worklessness.

As new TUC research shows, public spending is a driver of redistribution. Households in the poorest decile, whose average annual income is £6,500, receive transfers and services from the state equivalent to 328% of their original household income. In contrast, households in the richest decile, whose average annual income is £76,200, receive transfers and services equivalent to 19% of their original incomes. Spending on public services and social security makes a substantial contribution to the reduction of inequality in society. As services are cut it is the poorest, who are more likely to be women (and specifically women with children), who will feel the inevitable impacts.

The TUC believe that there is an alternative, based on reducing the deficit over a more sensible time scale, with much more flexibility and a far greater emphasis on closing the fiscal gap with fairer taxes and the proceeds of growth. We also believe that this change of tack is an economic as well as a social imperative. Taking large amounts of money out of the economy when the recovery remains extremely vulnerable risks increased unemployment (and consequently social security payments), slower growth, reduced tax revenues and may ultimately cause further damage to the public finances. In Ireland, which embarked on deep austerity measures a year and a half ago, public services have been slashed but the economy remains sluggish and the country’s credit rating has been downgraded.

Spending cuts are not painless and we urge the Government to recognise the economic and social consequences that steep cuts now will have. Until they do, we will actively campaign against the cuts –all progressive women should do the same.

Want to be inspired by strong women leaders? Want to develop your leadership skills? See here for more information on our Inspiring Leaders event

With an estimated 47,000 victims of rape in the UK every year, and around only one in twenty reported rapes leading to a successful conviction (although this has begun to increase), everyone agrees that we need to do [...]]]> This blog comes from Lucy James, Research Fellow at Quilliam the world’s first counter extremism think thank.

With an estimated 47,000 victims of rape in the UK every year, and around only one in twenty reported rapes leading to a successful conviction (although this has begun to increase), everyone agrees that we need to do something to improve the justice surrounding perpetrators of rape and sexual abuse.

Everyone, it seems, except certain sections of the coalition government who, in nine words hidden in the coalition’s government agenda, announced at the end of May that ‘We will extend anonymity in rape cases to defendants’.

As with all crimes, false accusations can be incredibly damaging for individuals involved and deserve due consideration. However, there appears to be no solid evidence that false accusations are higher for cases of rape than other crimes and, moreover, there are numerous arguments that highlight the potential dangers of such a proposal including the damaging impact it could have on conviction rates (for example, see here and here). Consequently it remains unclear as to why rape was singled out in this way.

It is not the first time. Originally introduced by a Labour government in 1976 as part of the Sexual Offences Act, anonymity for rape defendants was finally scrapped in 1988 by the Tories. The issue again resurfaced in 2003 after the Tories raised it in relation to the Sexual Offences Bill. It has also been Lib Dem policy since 2006 (although it was not mentioned in their election manifesto).

Such inconsistency in the application and support of this law in the past would imply that any reapplication should be based on well-thought out arguments and solid evidence. However, despite a clear need for hard facts, the most striking aspect of this whole debate has been the astounding lack of evidence put forward by the motion’s proponents throughout.

Due to the misgivings of various MPs, at the beginning of July the issue was put forward by Caroline Flint MP as a motion for an adjournment debate in the House of Commons. Crispin Blunt MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice, defended the motion. He claimed that opponents to the proposal must ‘turn to evidence rather than supposition’ and, specifically, that (when making the case that a significant proportion of rapists become serial offenders) ‘there appeared to be insufficient data to form a reliable evidential picture’. In fairness, those rejecting the motion during this debate could have solidified their arguments with the use of statistical data. Yet it still remains startling hypocritical that Blunt could make such assertions given the whimsical and vacuous nature of the arguments he put forward himself.

Blunt’s central argument rested on the supposition that sex crimes “are of an entirely different order”. In the House of Commons debate he ‘elaborated’: “Rape is such a serious and emotive crime that it attracts both a high degree of stigma for the defendant and a disproportionate degree of media interest. The combination of those factors distinguishes rape from other crimes”.

Despite declaring that he had ‘sound reasons’ for this motion, what constituted ‘a high degree of stigma’ or a ‘disproportionate degree of media interest’ remained unspecified. It was therefore left unsubstantiated as to why other criminal offences, such as paedophilia, were not also included under the motion. At a time when conviction rates, although unacceptably low, have been rising, such apparently off-the-cuff legislation could have a profoundly detrimental impact.
Even during the adjournment debate, Blunt appeared to be backtracking, for example that he had “no intention of extending similar protections to rape defendants once convicted” (having previously provided no ‘timescale’ for anonymity). It therefore perhaps came as little surprise that, at the end of July, there was an apparent government ‘u-turn’ on this policy. In a rather impromptu briefing given to the Sunday Telegraph it was announced that anonymity would not be granted to defendants. Blunt declared that he instead wanted a “non-statutory solution”, and would go down the route of lobbying the Press Complaints Commission to ask them to issue guidance recommending media outlets not to identify rape defendants before they are charged.

What is important, however, is that, regardless of the legal u-turn, the motivations of Blunt and his government allies have not changed. Blunt explained that, “Given that we had 21 criminal justice acts passed over the 13 years of the last administration, I am sure that Labour [MPs] will understand why we are loath to find even more statutes to put on the statute book”. The u-turn was not made on the basis that it would be singling out one crime over others, and sending out the wrong message to those who had recently experienced the trauma of rape, but was instead done on the basis that the law book was full. In addition, new legislation may not have been fully written off as the Ministry of Justice is reported to have ‘played down Mr Blunt’s remarks’ and insisted ‘it had not entirely ruled out legislation to provide anonymity between arrest and charge’.

In many ways we are therefore back where we started. Key questions remain unanswered: why were cases of rape and sexual abuse singled out in the first place? Concerns are the same – change will just be sought through ways that avoid adding more pages to the statute book.

The result of the current review is now due when parliament reconvenes in September. It still remains to be seen entirely what action the government is going to take. Perhaps the legal battle is over, but even if this is the case, the war is far from won. That the current justice minister is simply finding alternative procedures to implement the same policy does little to allay any fears. These latest announcements give little cause for celebration – there is still work to be done.
———————————–
Progressive Women join organizations such as Rights of Women, to urge you to continue lobbying and writing to your MPs in order to get them to add their name to the list of signatories for Fiona Taggert’s Early Day Motion. A list of current signatories can be viewed here.