Siobhan [...]]]> Inspired by Progressive Women’s event ‘The Race for Mayor – A Male Monopoly’ Theadora Jean has written a blog on why she will be supporting female candidate Siobhan Benita. We’d love to hear from anyone who attended the event and if it influenced the way you’ll be voting on 3rd May in the London elections.

Siobhan Benita is the only candidate for the mayoral election who has run independent of any political party. She’s done this because she believes that the mayor should stand for London, not the ideology of particular political stripe. Unfortunately because of the lack of television coverage about her candidacy, chances are you may not even have heard of her.

The media coverage of the candidates would make you think that democracy in this city consists solely of a clash of male egos, fighting over transport fares. In fact, we have a candidate in our midst who not only has diversity issues on her agenda, but is indeed herself from a mixed heritage background. Considering the three main parties all have white male middle class candidates, and the fact that women only represent 22% of Parliament, you’d think the media should start paying attention to her. To put this in perspective: the UK comes joint 53^rd with Malawi in terms of percentage of women in government. To further put this in perspective; Pakistan, Uganda, Cuba and South Africa have a greater percentage than the UK. Rwanda is number one.

Siobhan is a Londoner through and through. Her Anglo-Indian mother came to London in the 50’s to work as a nurse, where she met Siobhan’s primary school teaching father. Siobhan went to state schools in Merton, where she still lives with her husband and two children.  Prior to running for mayor, she was a civil servant working in the heart of Whitehall. So far, so ordinary, right? Except, when it comes to the mayoral candidates, doesn’t ordinary and hard-working sound like refreshingly new attributes for the person to have? A Londoner who has dedicated her life to working for our country and our city, someone who walks our streets and shops in our supermarkets, and has the same concerns we have.

As she rightly points out, the position for mayor should come from an independent candidate. How can a mayor stand for the people of London, when she or he are bound by the ideological stances and policies of mainstream parties, and still truly represent us? Siobhan has a manifesto which doesn’t strike me as particularly coloured by Conservative, Lib Dem, Labour, or Green parties. They are entirely sensible, practical and useful changes which would improve the standard of living for the people who live and work in London.

To highlight a few:

Whatever your living arrangements, most people would agree that property in our city both for rent and for sale is ridiculously expensive. Siobhan would set up a fixed-rate housing market introducing 20,000 homes to market per year, with the aim to provide affordable property for those on the average wage to purchase.           

Siobhan would require each of our individual boroughs to reach out to their residents to ask them what their top five concerns where –no matter how small. If litter or potholes or the local buses routes are on the list, then Siobhan will be holding the boroughs to account on a yearly basis on improving those issues. I don’t know about you, but I’ve never heard of a politician or mayoral candidate who wants to find out what matters to me, and wants to deliver on those things.

She also wants to improve how we travel in the city, not just with huge, expensive projects like Crossrail or wild promises like reducing fares, but by keeping the trains and tubes open later so that more people can get home safely.

When Mark Duggan was shot in the face by police in Tottenham last year, you will all remember how it ignited the riots across the country. Do you remember what Boris said about the Mark Duggan case? Do you remember how his presence was felt across the capital, how we all felt reassured that we had someone there who was going to do something about it…No? Me neither. Siobhan wants to set up an entirely independent body to review the police force. With the Stephen Lawrence case still not entirely being resolved due to the ineptness of the police to resolve the murder of an innocent, ambitious young black teenager who was set upon by a gang of cowardly racists – something clearly needs to be done, and Siobhan’s suggestion is the only reasonable one I’ve heard.

And the youth of London are at the heart of her campaign. Siobhan wants to invest in young people, the same young people cannot get their first job despite getting degrees which they have immersed themselves in debt for, the same young people who have felt so disaffected they took to the streets to vent their hopelessness, the same young people who are our only real investment for the capital in an uncertain economic future. And how would she do that? Well, for a start she would set up a youth assembly, along with a youth mayor, a mayor she would be prepared to pay the wages for out of her own pocket, because as she says ‘£100,000 is more than enough for anyone to live on’.

If that isn’t enough, she wants to create new primary schools, make access to secondary schools more transparent, protect libraries and ensure that every child has a library card. In short, she wants to overhaul the experiences that our children and young people have growing up in our city. This is crucially important to London not only if you happen to be a parent or a young person yourself, but because they are an investment in the future of our capital and our country.

I’ve seen her speak, and she is unlike any other politician you can come across. She is reasonable, calm, determined to engender change, genuinely inspirational and as well as all of these: she listens. She is interested in what you have to say and takes it on board. If a suggestion is made which seems reasonable, she is willing to implement it.

And momentum of support is growing for her; with Michael Portillo ditching Boris to support her, and the national press starting to run features on her, who knows what can happen come the third of May.

To find out more about forthcoming Progressive Women events join our mailing list – email progress@progressivewomen.org.uk. Follow us on twitter @sylviapankhurst. You can also find us on Facebook here

Here are some thoughts from some of us who were there [...]]]> This week saw our event “The race for mayor: a male monopoly”. A very special thank you to all the speakers who joined our debate. You can find out more about them on their respective websites Mary Macleod MP, Siobhan Benita, Caroline Pidgeon AM, Gisela Stuart MP and Natalie Bennett.

Here are some thoughts from some of us who were there and who will be voting in a few weeks’ time:-

“For the most part I have been bored witless by the current London mayoral elections. I am sure that I am far from alone when I say that one political old-timer versus another leaves me cold. The clash of male egos is everything that is distasteful about British politics. Here we are in one of the most diverse cities in the world and not one of the three main parties has fielded a woman or a candidate from any minority group. And as one of the most successful cities in the world, I don’t think we have the best candidates for the job either. As one of our guest speakers, Labour MP Gisela Stuart, pointed out, UK politics is hardly meritocratic. Despite huge progress, the corridors of Westminster are still dominated by men. Gisela is also one of the Labour candidates for mayor in Birmingham — let’s not forget that there is a dearth of women running for positions outside London in the form of police commissioners or as candidates for city mayors. All of the speakers agreed that the traditional structures serve to lock women out. Huge steps have been made, but these structures need overturning and we should not sit around and wait for men to do it for us. And more determined women need to come forward and when they do they deserve our support. Siobhan Benita, the independent candidate, is at the very least a shining example of the grit and determination that more women need to overcome the male powerhouses in Westminster and beyond. I have no affinity with the other candidates. I am voting for Siobhan in the mayoral elections. Join me.” — Lucy James

“What a great evening, and a fantastic debate about the forthcoming Mayoral elections and the role of women. It was such a reward to be approached by so many attendees afterwards to be told that they had decided how to vote based on the debate we held and what the speakers said that evening. Mary Macleod MP (Conservative) and Gisela Stuart MP (Labour) spoke on behalf of their parties. Mary said that crime under Boris has reduced and that another term would give him the chance to continue cutting waste and making our streets safer. Gisela focused her attention on rallying women in the room to stand for office ourselves. Caroline Pidgeon AM– would be Deputy Mayor to Brian Paddock, who is also standing to keep her place on the London Assembly – explained that although women are under represented in the Lib Dems at the national level, they are well represented on the London Assembly and it’s the Assembly that holds the Mayor to account. Natalie Bennett who is standing in the London Assembly elections for the Green Party represented Green candidate Jenny Jones. Natalie emphasised the significance of the economic crisis on women, and that unemployment is growing twice as fast for women as it is for men. The “cut, cut, cut” philosophy of the main parties is not working. We were delighted to have the independent candidate Siobhan Benita who had just published her manifesto that day. Unfortunately, she explained how, rather than getting support, she had been excluded from other feminist hustings, like the Fawcett Society’s, which is counter-intuitive given their role as promoters of women in politics. As Gisela Stuart said we should ‘make the weather ourselves’ and Siobhan is doing just that. As Gisela also said, look at women politicians, pick one out and say ‘if she can do it, so can I’.” – Caroline Watson

“At the beginning of the ‘male monopoly’ event, as the female Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs regurgitated their male mayoral candidates’ manifestos, I have to admit my heart sank. I didn’t hear anything that recognised the need to appeal to women’s unique position in the capital. Natalie Bennett of the Green Party was the only speaker who even mentioned that female unemployment is increasing twice as fast as men’s. However, despite a shaking beginning, I left this event inspired. I was struck by the female solidarity between the speakers, and the clear message from all of them that in order for the things to change we had to find the courage to speak up, engage in the debate and consider public office, without waiting for an invite. For me, the most important speaker was Siobhan Benita, the independent candidate who was motivated by her frustrations with the lack of diversity in our public leaders to resign from her job and stand for mayor. She felt like living proof of what we could all achieve if we dared to stand out from the crowd.” — Emma Ward

People in The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) have known Joseph Kony’s name for years, having lived in a country terrorised by the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) he commands. With the UN reporting last week that attacks by the LRA have been [...]]]>

Progressive Women welcome guest blogger Sarah O’Malley of Women for Women International

Last year, to mark the 100th International women’s Day I had the opportunity to go and listen to Sonia Gandhi deliver the Commonwealth Lecture on Women as Agents of Change.  She spoke about how there had been [...]]]> In celebration of Women’s History Month we are delighted to post a profile of Indira Gandhi by Jyoti Bhojani.

Last year, to mark the 100^th International women’s Day I had the opportunity to go and listen to Sonia Gandhi deliver the Commonwealth Lecture on Women as Agents of Change.  She spoke about how there had been two women who changed the course of the 20^th century, Indira Gandhi and Margaret Thatcher.  She went on talk about how she believed that her mother-in-law profoundly changed India much in the same way that Margaret Thatcher changed Britain. 

As a British Indian, I’m fascinated by the history and heritage of this key political family in India.  Born at a time when India was still ruled by the British, Indira Gandhi was the only child of Jawaharlal Nehru and his wife Kamala in Northern India.  Her childhood home was owned by her grandfather Motilal Nehru, a close ally of Mahatma Gandhi at the forefront of the Indian independence struggle.  It’s fair to say that she was born in to politics with her childhood dominated by struggle for Indian independence. Her home served as the headquarters for independence movement with visits from the police a frequent fixture; her parents were repeatedly in and out of prison.  As she puts it ‘My public life started at the age of 3, I have no recollection of games, children’s parties or playing with other children. My favourite occupation as a very small child was to deliver thunderous speeches to the servants, standing on a high table. All my games were political ones – I was, like Joan of Arc, perpetually being burned at the stake.’

Undoubtedly though, Mrs Gandhi’s childhood was lonely and left a number of permanent scars, in particular she had to witness first hand her mother’s failing health and early death.  This along with the high expectations of being Nehru’s daughter may have been one of the contributing factors to her poor academic performance.  During her years in Britain, she involved herself in the youth moment of the Labour Party and in 1938 she joined the National Congress Party and began to get further involved in the independence movement.    

In 1941, as the Indian independence movement gained momentum she sailed home with Feroze Gandhi a newspaperman from Allahabad, who had also worked in the Congress Movement.  Despite being a childhood friend of the young Indira her family were still unhappy about her decision to marry him, as she was Hindu and he was Parsi.  Their marriage represented a serious breach of convention as interfaith marriages were not the norm in India in the 1940’s. 

Mrs Gandhi however, upon her father becoming the first Prime minister of an independent India, chose to become her father’s companion and lived with him as his official hostess; this too was seen as another bold assertion rejecting the role of the traditional Indian wife. This was a decision which was resented by her husband which resulted in a prolonged separation.  They did however, have two sons, Rajiv and Sanjay.    

By the 1950’s she was filling in for her father on internal Congress matters and on goodwill tours abroad.  In 1959, she was elected party president with Nehru’s tacit support.  It was in this role that she was able to really demonstrate her ruthless political skills.  This role also enabled Mrs Gandhi to become a national established figure, and a clear candidate to take over from her father.  However, when he died in 1964, a quick dynastic succession proved impossible and Mrs Gandhi had to bide her time, taking instead a position in the Cabinet of Mr Lal Bahadur Shastri, serving as Minister for Information and Broadcasting.  When Shastri suddenly died in 1966, her patience was rewarded and she took over as Prime Minister.  During her first term she worked to bring economic calm to India’s flagging economy, whilst doing so imposed her personal supremacy to ensure that she was undoubtedly seen as the party leader.  Her shrewd political skills, and radical policies such as nationalising the banks and prosing a split with Punjab, enabled her to purge her party of political opponents in the late 1960’s having secured her own small mandate in 1967.  Following this, she set out a ten point plan to bring about a socialist state and a stable economy. 

In 1971, Mrs Gandhi led India to its first military victory over Pakistan and it won her a larger mandate, in the election held in the same year with the slogan ‘abolish poverty’.  It’s fair to say that the early 1970’s were the highest points of her political career. 

This soon changed and in 1975 however, Mrs Gandhi was found guilty of violating election law which meant that her position as PM was untenable and her critics demanded her resignation.  Her response was to declare a state of emergency, believing that what India really needed at the time was a strong leader.  Under her state of emergency which lasted nearly 2 years, she suspended basic civil liberties, imposed strict press censorship, and imprisoned 160,000 opponents, including all of the opposition leadership. 

In 1977, she felt confident enough to hold an election, hoping to secure some form of legitimacy for her autocracy, but was voted out.  Not deterred, she was able to sweep into power again, in 1980 with a convincing majority.  Only a few months after her victory she lost her second son, Sanjay, whom she had been preparing to take over from her in a mysterious plane crash.  During this time relations with Punjab were tense, with the opposition parties there demanding religious and political autonomy.  This culminated in 1984, when Mrs Gandhi order Indian troops to storm the Golden Temple in Amristar which was being held by Sikh militants. Overall, about 500 people were killed at the sacred Sikh site.  A few months later, in October 1894, Mrs Gandhi, was assassinated by two of her Sikh bodyguards in retaliation for the attack. 

Unquestionably, Indira Gandhi will always remain a controversial figure in Indian political history, who will be remembered for state of emergency, the storming of the Golden Temple and fostering a culture of corruption.  Nonetheless, her achievements are dazzling and made a positive contribution to Indian society.  She secured independence for Bangladesh and pushed a radical green agenda to ensure that India could be self-sufficient. It was under her premiership, that India became a nuclear power and ensured that India built up scientific and technical skills and became an industrial power.  Moreover, her lasting legacy has got to be her refusal to compromise India’s sovereignty and her empathy with the poor, two qualities which are still held dear in India.  

Join Progressive Women for their next event on 17 April ‘The Race for Mayor: A Male Monopoly?‘ 6.30pm Committee Room 16, House of Commons. Places are limited RSVP to progress@progressivewomen.org.uk

As part of Women’s History Month, which celebrates the contribution of Women to events in History and contemporary society, I looked across the Atlantic for a truly inspirational woman who changed the face of the American Civil Rights movement and should rightly be remembered [...]]]> Jyoti Bhojani is an equalities campaigner and an officer at Young Labour.

As part of Women’s History Month, which celebrates the contribution of Women to events in History and contemporary society, I looked across the Atlantic for a truly inspirational woman who changed the face of the American Civil Rights movement and should rightly be remembered as part of Women’s History Month as well as Black History Month.  Talking about how she’d like to be remembered for Rosa Parks said:

“I would like to be remembered as person who wanted to be free…so other people would also be free”

It will come as no surprise then that Parks is remembered for exactly that.  Indeed, the US congress has called her ‘the mother of the freedom movement’ and ‘the first lady of civil rights’.  Born in 1913, a time when the southern American states were governed by the Jim Crow Laws, which separated Black and white communities in almost all aspects of their daily lives. Parks’ childhood revolved around the small church where her uncle was the pastor, it was here she developed a strong sense of faith and racial pride.  Undoubtedly though, it was her grandfather who had the biggest impact on her life, responding to the threat of the Klu Klux Klan, by keeping a loaded shotgun in the house.   Parks grew up being all too aware of this separation, where on buses there were designated black and white seats.  Moreover, there was no school bus for black school children and this, Parks says was the first time that she realised ‘there was a black and white world’.

She married in 1932, her husband Raymond, who as a barber and a member of the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People (NAACP) which aimed to eliminate racial hatred and racial discrimination.  Parks completed her high school education in 1933, at a time when just 7% of African-American individuals had a high school diploma.  As mentioned above, the Jim Crow laws made political participation of Black communities difficult so it took another ten years before Parks became immersed in the Civil Rights Movement.  She joined the Montgomery chapter of the NAACP in 1943 and quickly became secretary of the branch, a post she held until 1957.

However, it was her experience at the Maxwell Air Force Base, during the Second World War, which had a big impact on her life as racial segregation was not allowed and staff were integrated. Speaking to her biographer, she says that Maxwell opened up her eyes.  Her political education continued when she was encouraged to attend an educational centre for worker’s rights and racial equality.  Within Montgomery, a number of black men had been killed and it was at a community meeting that she got to hear from a number of leading Civil Rights activists.

Following this, on the 1^st of December 1955, Parks refused to give up her seat on the bus for a white passenger.  In her autobiography, Parks talks about her motivation for her refusal stating that she was not tired after a long day at work but was tired of having to give in and wanted to know what it felt like to have rights.  However, the police were called and Parks was arrested for violating the segregation laws.  Parks was found guilty and fined however, she did appeal.  E.D Nixon, the leader of the NAACP, used Park’s arrest as a means of highlighting Montgomery’s policy of racial segregation on public transport.

Park’s simple act of defiance sparked the Montgomery Bus Boycott, which lasted for thirteen months, working with the Black Church leaders, Women’s Political council and others such as Rev. Martin Luther King Jnr, the Black community in Montgomery were encouraged to find alternative means of transport.  As pressure grew across the country, the Federal Court found that Alabama’s racial segregation laws were unconstitutional; however an appeal meant that the boycott continued until the 20^th of December 1956, when the Supreme Court upheld the Federal Court’s verdict.

After the bus boycott, Parks continued working for civil rights and worked for Congressmen ~John Conyers.  In 1993, she was inducted into the Women’s Hall of Fame and in 1996 she was presented with the Medal of the Freedom Award by President Bill Clinton.  She died in October 2005, and her body lay in honour in the rotunda of the U.S Capitol, being on the 2^nd black individual to be given the honour since the practice started in the 19^th Century.

Parks simple action of refusing to give up her seat paved the way for the National Civil Rights Movement which has clear ramifications over the world as a whole. For me, Parks symbolises what Women’s History Month is about – while in her later life she down played the role she had in the movement – I for one know that without her and all the other women who stood up for what they believed in and in the words of Martin Luther King Jnr, wanted to be judged on the content of their character rather than the colour of their skin, paved the way not only for the civil rights movement but also gave strength to black feminists.  This for me is why she is one of my political and feminist heroes.

Join Progressive Women at our upcoming event on 17th April: The Race for London Mayor – a male monopoly. For more details click here.

Time: 18:30 – 20:00 Date: Tuesday, 17 April, 2012 Location: Committee Room 16, House of Commons, Westminster SW1A 0AA

The London Mayoral Election will soon be upon us. In the run-up to d-day, the debate has been hotting up. At its core, we have two major personalities who have been on the London political [...]]]> Join us for our event

Time: 18:30 – 20:00
Date: Tuesday, 17 April, 2012
Location: Committee Room 16, House of Commons, Westminster SW1A 0AA

The London Mayoral Election will soon be upon us. In the run-up to d-day, the debate has been hotting up. At its core, we have two major personalities who have been on the London political scene for many years: an ex-mayor and the current mayor. Both of whom are men.

It could be argued that, yet again, the Ken versus Boris re-match reminds us of the imbalance of female representation in UK politics.

And at a time when women are facing higher unemployment than men, and parts of London are facing some of the highest unemployment rates in the UK, the question is perhaps more pertinent to women in the capital.

To shed some light on these issues, Progressive Women are holding an event in Westminster where we will ask the following questions:

- Can women can be fairly represented in London when the main contenders are men?

- What are these campaigns doing to win the “female vote”?

- Is creating a “female voting bloc” a reductive way of doing politics?

- Is there really such a thing as “women’s issues” – and what are they?

We’ve invited women from each campaign to put forward why their candidate is the best one for the job and to give you an opportunity to ask your own questions.

Speakers

Newly confirmed – Gisela Stuart MP (Labour)

Mary Macleod MP (Conservative)

Caroline Pidgeon AM (Lib Dem)

Siobhan Benita (Independent Candidate)

Natalie Bennett (Green)

Spaces are limited. Please RSVP to progress@progressivewomen.org.uk as soon as possible.

“My husband tried to kill me, the Family Justice Centre rescued me”.  These words came to me from a woman in the street as I was handing out flyers at East Croydon station earlier this week. “Family Justice Centre saved my life, I owe [...]]]> Lee Webster guest blogs for Progressive Women. Follow Lee on twitter @leepster  

“My husband tried to kill me, the Family Justice Centre rescued me”.  These words came to me from a woman in the street as I was handing out flyers at East Croydon station earlier this week. “Family Justice Centre saved my life, I owe them everything”, another woman tweeted later.  It’s a stark reminder that Croydon’s domestic violence service, at risk of closure from council cuts, is not an added-extra for women, it’s a vital service.

Let’s be clear.  An attack on domestic violence services is an attack on all women.  1 in 4 of us will experience domestic violence in our lifetime.  Croydon’s Family Justice Centre sees over a thousand people a month experiencing domestic violence, the majority of whom are women and children.  In Croydon we have the highest reported rate of domestic violence, and yet because of previous cuts there are already 117 women, and 64 children, on the waiting list to access the Family Justice Centre services.  Timely intervention in domestic violence is vital, waiting lists can kill.

Even when women do access the service, cuts in two consecutive years mean that the services run by the centre are being depleted:  the housing officers have gone, the paid counsellors have been replaced by volunteers, and now the dedicated police unit, which provided a safe space for women to report violence, is leaving the building.  Domestic violence services in Croydon will soon be nothing but a shell of the cutting edge service they used to be.

As women of Croydon and beyond, we must stand up against this.  It’s International Women’s Day and tonight Croydon Labour Women’s Forum are holding a rally to show the council that we’ll stand by vital services for women.  In a time of austerity, cuts are being made on the backs of women’s lives, and we won’t let that happen quietly.  For the Council’s part, they have issued statements saying that no services will be closed. We hope, for the women of Croydon’s sake, that this is true.  But the evidence is compelling – cuts to services, longer waiting lists, job losses.  How much longer can the centre survive?

On International Women’s Day we must all stand together and loudly stand by the services that keep us safe.  You’ll get a very warm welcome if you join us in Croydon after work this evening – or take two minutes to add your name to our online petition, and ask the Council to reverse the cuts and protect women: http://croydonfirst.org.uk/family-justice-centre/

On International Women’s Day, we send you sisterhood and solidarity from Croydon.  Please send us some in return.

 To find out more about Progressive Women’s forthcoming events email progress@progressivewomen.org.uk follow us on twitter @sylviapankhurst

Michelle Obama has the dubious accolade of being essentially famous for being someone’s wife – that someone being the President of the USA. Not very feminist nor particularly helpful to the feminist cause, you might think. However, the significance of her being the [...]]]> A huge thanks to Theadora Jean for our first profile in celebration of Women’s History Month

Michelle Obama has the dubious accolade of being essentially famous for being someone’s wife – that someone being the President of the USA. Not very feminist nor particularly helpful to the feminist cause, you might think. However, the significance of her being the first Black First Lady cannot be overstated, and her multitude of achievements in her own right cannot be overlooked. Not only that, I’d feel comfortably asserting that she is the embodiment of the American dream itself.

Legend has it that while Michelle Obama now helps legislate for the food stamps program in the U.S., when she was growing up, she used to be on them. It’s possible to trace her roots back four generations to learn that her descendants were slaves, and that her great-great-great-great grandmother was impregnated by a white man. I will leave you to make your own assumptions about that. More immediately; her mother was a secretary and then home-maker, and her father was a city plant operator. That seems ordinary enough, but as her father actually worked while suffering from multiple sclerosis, a picture soon emerges of a family where a strong work ethic is heavily emphasised and that ethic seems to be ingrained firmly into the children. Michelle got herself into a good high school, which was a round trip of three hours for her, every single day. She was on the honor roll, was student council treasurer, and Salutorian. What’s more, she got herself into Princeton, an extremely prestigious university. That sounds quite impressive now – imagine what that meant in 1981, considering she is black, a woman, and from a non-wealthy background.

But Michelle didn’t just get into Princeton and graduate cum laude. She challenged the tutors about their style of teaching French (saying it needed to be more ‘conversational’) and went onto Harvard Law School where she took part in demonstrations advocating the hiring of professors from minorities. At the same time, she noted while at Princeton she felt ‘shocked’ by the college students who drove BMW’s – seeing as she hadn’t even known parents who drove BMW’s. But rapidly her career soared to dizzying heights, becoming an associate at a Chicago law firm, which was also where she met her future husband.

            She then became Executive Director at a non-profit organization where she set fundraising records which weren’t beaten again for 12 years. She became an Associated Dean at the University of Chicago. She became Director and then Associate at the University of Chicago hospitals, as well as being on the board of directors for a company called TreeHouse Foods.  Until Barack was appointed president, Michelle was earning substantially more money than him. Oh, and did I mention she’d had two children in this time?

Phew! That’s a lot of work in one lifetime, and she’s not even finished yet. Michelle’s achievements and work ethic are an example to us all. Yes, she’s well known because of her husband, but that shouldn’t detract from the countless successes that have been won entirely under her own steam. What’s more, we need to think of what Michelle represents to the world. In a world that is still essentially dominated by a white male middle class system, Michelle has broken down countless barriers and prejudices. A few generations ago her maternal grandmother was enslaved, and now Michelle is in the White House. This doesn’t just mean a lot to African- Americans, this means a lot to women, to the poor, to those who are non-white, to anyone who is different and not adherents of the mainstream, to any of these people across the globe. Because Michelle is in the White House in America, still the only superpower in the World, she shows us that patriarchy and prejudice can be overcome.

On top of all this, Michelle comes across as a friendly, warm person who would be pleasant to talk to. She reminds me of Diana, in a way, a woman thrust into the limelight who has bucketloads of charisma and raises awareness of charities which are generally overlooked. Jodi Hunter – author of ‘The Obamas: A Mission, A Marriage’, claims that Barack ‘wouldn’t be president without Michelle’ – she makes this point because it is Michelle’s warmth that creates a fuller image of who he is. Picture Obama without his wife and daughters for a moment, and doesn’t he seem aloof and somewhat over-intelligent? He does to me, anyway. What’s more – can any of us imagine a Monica Lewinsky episode happening at the White House – no? Me neither. The couple come across as perfectly happy if somewhat stretched for time, and scandal seems to be inconceivable.

Michelle has a touch of the Diana about her when it comes to the media too, instinctively being able to engage positively with the TV shows and interviews and so forth. Look her up on YouTube (if you haven’t seen it already) challenging Ellen to a push-up contest….and winning. She’s been on the front cover of Vogue, and along with that and the sleeveless designer dresses she is known for, and the best dressed lists she has featured in…..it’s fair to say she is a fashion icon. And not one who has to get her boobs out all the time.

And there’s something else important about her too. In the media women are repeatedly being told that women ‘can’t have it all’. I hate this phrase, because it inherently suggests that women can only be mothers or have careers. It’s implicitly ridiculous because most women have children, and most women work. It’s hard, but it’s actually the norm. Lazy journalists will claim that fine, yes, women can have a part time job or something, but in terms of getting to the top – its career or kids, baby.  But just look at Michelle. Even if you stripped away completely Barack’s job as President, she has worked her way to the top and has children and a husband. And Jimmy Choos.

They can tell us as much as they like that women can’t have it all. But Michelle Obama tells us; Yes, we can.

If you’d like to write a profile on a inspirational woman from history in celebration of Women’s History Month then please email progress@progressivewomen.org.uk with your idea.

Join us at our next Leadership workshop: Embracing the Hidden Potential of Your Voice, on 13 March, London. Tickets must be purchased in advance here. Find out more by reading Alice’s blog.

Last week I was sat in a meeting at work discussing details of a new campaign and one of my colleagues made a point that I completely disagreed with. Naturally, I wanted to talk against this and let the others round the table [...]]]> Alice Delemare is a member of Progressive Women. Follow Alice on twitter @alice_delemare

Last week I was sat in a meeting at work discussing details of a new campaign and one of my colleagues made a point that I completely disagreed with. Naturally, I wanted to talk against this and let the others round the table hear my views on the matter. The words dance around my head for a while as I put them in a coherent order. There was a gap in the conversation. My heart started beating faster and faster. I could feel the heat rising up to my face. I opened my mouth…and let out a little squeak. Embarrassed at the high pitched squeak I quickly shut my mouth and looked down at the floor, missing the opportunity to communicate my thoughts.

Don’t misunderstand me, I don’t have stage fright and I’m not a shy wallflower. I’m not so petrified of public speaking that I won’t contemplate it.  But in certain situations I have a complete inability to control my voice and speak with conviction. For someone who works in the world of politics and campaigning, and enjoys making my opinions heard, it’s extremely frustrating.

Now you might say that’s not an unusual scenario. And you’d be right. At the Progressive Women workshop last Wednesday the majority of people in the room told similar tales about their voice failing at a crucial moment. Others didn’t like their accent, and some just wanted to feel more confident when speaking to others in a group situation.

Julia Williams, the Corporate Whisperer and member of ANKLe, ran a fantastic workshop. She told us the story of her own struggle with her voice and how she overcame those problems and went onto coach others. Without giving away any identifying details of her clients, she explained that many people in high profile positions have problems with their voice as a method of communication – whether dealing with nerves, speaking too quickly, not daring to speak, or fearing to be too emotional.

Julia took us through a series of voice exercises. We practiced breathing deeply into our abdomen, yawning loudly, and going from very high to low in one continuous sound. During one exercise we made noises like a gorilla and swung our arms around the room in imitation of the animal. I have to admit I couldn’t help giggling! But that took away my inhibitions.

My favourite exercise helped us to ground ourselves and project confidence before speaking. With feet firmly on the ground, we imagined we were trees, our roots extending into the ground as far as we were tall. The visualisation was incredibly powerful and I felt solid and confident. The exercise came in very handy later on that week, as I used the ‘tree technique’ to stand my ground during a verbal conflict.

The voice is an incredibly powerful instrument. It’s our tool for communication. It’s one of the main ways for us to express anger or affection, praise or discontent. The voice can project a huge range of noises that we often don’t use in daily life. Apart from gaining very useful practical techniques, I came away from the workshop feeling in awe of the voice – the powerhouse of communication that I use every day and don’t appreciate nearly enough.

 As our Leadership workshop ‘Embracing the Hidden Potential of Your Voice’ was so well received and sold out so quickly we are pleased to announce that we have set a date to repeat the session.

Progressive Women & ANKLe ‘Embracing the Hidden Potential of Your Voice’. Tuesday 13 March 2012 6.30pm – 8.30pm, Friends Meeting House, 173 Euston Road, NW12BJ. Tickets are £20 and must be purchased in advance – you can do so at this link: http://progressivewomenankle7.eventbrite.com/

The total number of displaced persons living in Afghanistan rose to half a million in 2012, according to a report released by Amnesty International this week. The report, ‘Fleeing War, Finding Misery: The Plight of the Internally Displaced [...]]]> Progressive Women are delighted to welcome Sarah O’Malley of Women for Women International as our guest blogger  

The total number of displaced persons living in Afghanistan rose to half a million in 2012, according to a report released by Amnesty International this week. The report, ‘Fleeing War, Finding Misery: The Plight of the Internally Displaced in Afghanistan’, is the result of 3 years of work, including much on the ground research and interviewing. The information it uncovers paints a shocking picture of the life many Afghan citizens lead after fleeing their homes in the wake of ongoing violence in the country.

The report claims that conflict affects more Afghans now than at any point in the last decade, and that as incidents of violence increase, so too do the number of people fleeing their homes. These people make up the 400 people displaced in Afghanistan every day. And this figure is on the increase, with the number of displaced persons increasing year on year since 2008. Hundreds of thousands of people are now living in makeshift shelters around the country, often having nothing more than plastic sheeting and cardboard to protect them from the blistering summer heat and bitterly cold winters. Only last week The Guardian reported the deaths of “dozens of children” in camps outside Kabul, due to the severe cold.

The situation faced by women and children in these camps is amplified by a number of factors, not least of which are health related. Afghanistan already has the world’s worst maternal mortality rate, and for women giving birth in camps their risk of dying during childbirth is even higher. This is not only due to the lack of healthcare facilities, but due to the fact that their access to healthcare is restricted by husbands and male relatives. As one woman, Zarmina, in Kart-e-Parwan, told Amnesty International:

“When women are giving birth, we do it here inside the tent. I had my second child born under this tent, with no medical attention or professional midwife attendance. Our men don’t like us going to the hospital for childbirth until it gets complicated and difficult. They don’t like it because this is not part of our traditions and second because it costs money.

We don’t have to pay for the childbirth itself, but we have to pay for the medicines, drips, and other post-labour care, and we can’t afford it. We also have women who had problems during their pregnancy, including miscarriages, but still couldn’t go to see a doctor because our men can’t afford to pay for the medical care and medicines, which are very costly.”

Shagal, another woman in Kart-e-Parwan, told Amnesty she had suffered three miscarriages since moving to the camp but had never seen a doctor, “There is a mobile clinic that comes once a week, but they are mainly looking into other health issues, not gynaecological health.”

The report also suggests that incidents of domestic violence are higher amongst displaced populations, and that incidents of violence against women in general are higher in camps. Guljan, a woman in her late 50s in Chaman-e-Babrak, told Amnesty:

“I am being harassed by one member of the community because he was trying to force me to marry my daughter to him. I didn’t want this. My daughter is too young—she is 14 years old. She’s going to school. She’s educated; she has a bright future. I don’t want to force her into marriage. Why should I force her to marry someone who lives in a tent? She wants a bright future. Now they are stealing my things, trying to put me in a difficult situation.”

Education is a vital step in women’s empowerment, a fact recognised by women like Guljan around the world. Yet, education is another thing women in displaced communities are being deprived of. This is in part due to a stigma attached to children from camps, and also due to the distances young girls must travel to reach schools. Amnesty report that, “distance from schools is a particular factor for girls’ attendance. One study of primary schools in Ghor found, for example, that girls’ attendance fell 19 percent for every mile (1.6 km) they had to travel to school.”

Afghanistan was named the most dangerous place to be a woman in 2011, and life for displaced women carries a host of additional risks and hardships – a lack of adequate healthcare, sanitation, clean water, food, education, jobs and housing leave women vulnerable in many ways. Amnesty’s report laments the Afghan Government’s failure “to engage with or respond to the needs, immediate and long-term, of its internally displaced population,” and it was widely reported in the wake of the Bonn Conference that many Afghan women feared the gains they have made over the last 10 years being lost if the Taliban return to power. To ensure that the needs of Afghan women are at the forefront of their government and the international community’s agendas, we must stand with them and make sure their voices are heard. It is essential that women have a voice in government and at peace negotiation tables so that their demands are met and sustainable peace is achieved. There are many ways you can support the women fighting to attain this, from sponsoring a woman through Women for Women International and giving her the chance to take part in a year-long programme of rights education and business training, to attending or organising a Join me on the Bridge event on International Women’s Day. Make today the day you take a stand for peace and equality for women around the world, join us!

Want to find out more about Progressive Women’s events? Join our mailing list email progress@progressivewomen.org.uk Follow us on twitter @sylviapankhurst and you can like us on facebook here