Scotland's City Councils are Clearly in a Competition for 'Feminist Fail'.

Last week, it was Edinburgh; this week Glasgow's city council is behaving as if they had never met a feminist, let alone employed one! In a letter to the parents of children at a local secondary school, GCC stated that children's shouldn't wear short skirts or tight trousers as it might attract paedophiles. Yes, you read that correctly - it's children's clothing that makes the vulnerable to paedophiles. Does this sound familiar?

Well, fortunately, the Chief Exec at the Scottish Parent Teacher Council had the sense to point out that this was very unhelpful advice as it blamed children for the activities of paedophiles. And, even more interestingly, directly compared this to discussions of adult women's dress and their 'responsibility' for rape.

Time for the local councils to send their peeps on some rape awareness/ gender sensitivity training, me thinks.

WTF?

Edinburgh's Reclaim the Night Walk has been rescheduled by the council - get this - because it might be dangerous for the marchers!! The march, which is designed to reclaim the streets as safe spaces for women, will walk through an area full of pubs, during the Champions League football final, and the council is worried that the marchers will be in danger from drunken fans.

Instead of making the streets safe for the marchers, the council has asked the march to move their route and time. The organisers have rescheduled an hour earlier, but are refusing to change the route.

What would I have given to have been at that meeting! 'Er, we need you to defeat your own political aims and move the march, because, well, the streets aren't safe for women.' It would be be funny, if it wasn't so terrifyingly sad!

Jobs for Labour? Some Random Election Thoughts

So, if you have been watching, Scotland had an election at the end of last week, which saw dramatic changes to Scotland's political map. Traditionally, a Labour heartland, many long-held seats were lost to the SNP, raising questions about what happened and why? We might wonder whether Labour policies over the last decade, which promoted higher education, employment, house-purchasing, and other middle-class ideals in their own electoral areas, may have back-fired as a new (and in the current recession, now rather tenuous) middle-class's horizons changed. Can we say that the legacy of the death of the coal and steel industry (the heartbreak over which, no doubt, helped sustain Labour votes over the last few decades) is now finished in Scotland? Are Labour's traditional voters feeling the pinch of jobs losses, cuts in university places and in the public services, that will see them slide once more down the social mobility ladder, and buying into the blame placed on them by the Tories and LibDems? The questions are numerous?

Perhaps, less surprisingly, is the massive losses sustained by the LibDems- losses that even their own party recognises came from a coalition with a party that their supporters hated? I hate to say, I told you so- but I did, in a letter to them after they made this decision. The complete lack of regard, or awareness, of their party's new-won supporters values is quite breathtaking. Do we think we'll get through four more years at Westminster? Do we want to?

The new Scottish parliament has a historic majority for the SNP, but more disappointingly, the number of women sitting in it is still only 34%. Up 0.8% from 2007, but down from the all time high of 39.5% in 2003. Even more concerningly, the losses of several Labour seats held by women saw a reduction in female seats at the constituency level; we only got to 34% because Labour has gender balanced lists and they made it up at the regional level.

As the SNP stood together after their wins in Glasgow, Nicola Sturgeon, the only woman among them, commented that the SNP is more gender balanced than this- I am a wee bit sceptical (the list of 2011 MSPs' names are not yet compiled in one place, or I'd have counted!!), given that only 1/3 of their constituency candidates were women and their lists were not gender balanced (in fact heavily male)- but the very fact she noticed is why Nicola should be First Minister!!

Vive la revolution.

So, you may have seen that the Con-Dems have proposed tuition fees of up to £9,000 a year to pay for university education. So obviously I think this is a travesty for social justice and class equality- but this statement by Michael Gove really made me laugh:

'Someone who is working as a postman should not subsidise those who go on to become millionaires.'

So, postmen's taxes shouldn't subsidise students paying for university education- but it's perfectly ok for their physical labour - paid at not much above minimum wage- to subsidise the capitalist system that allows people to become millionaires in the first-place?

Do you want to know another way of making society fairer- higher rates of income tax for top earners and higher rates of corporation tax- because the real question is what entitles a rich few to be millionaires when such wealth is paid for by the labour and the purchasing power of a poor majority?

Scots men save more than women

A new study has shown that Scots men are more likely to have savings than Scots women- 36% compared to 33%. And that when asked why they did not save, 85% of non-saving women said they could not afford it compared with 73% of non-saving men.

What is not mentioned, of course, is that women are more likely to earn less, live in poverty and be the sole support of dependants than men.

Announce-y-thingys

As part of 16 Days of Action for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, Tomorrow Night is RECLAIM THE NIGHT GLASGOW 2009.

This year the route for the Reclaim the Night march in Glasgow will be from Botanic Gardens at 6.30 pm, down Byres Road - University Avenue - Gibson Street - Eldon Street and will end with a rally in the STUC, 333 Woodlands Road, Glasgow G3. As always, it will be led off by SheBoom and there will be hot drinks, food, stalls and music at the end of the march. If you need more information you can contact the Rape Crisis Centre at info@rapecrisiscentre-glasgow.co.uk.

This years theme for 16 Days of Action for the Elimination of Violence Against Women (25th November to 10th December) is ‘Commit – Act – Demand: we CAN end violence against women’. So it is perhaps both saddening and timely that the Daily Record reported that reported domestic violence rose by 8% this year to 53,861 incidents (in a country with a population of 5 million!) If you want to see what's happening internationally to combat violence against women over the next 16 days, please click here.

Now, I have to go finish writing the last chapter in my book, which just happens to be about domestic violence.

More tokenism.

Women have been practising law in Britain since the 1870s and called to the Bar since the 1920s, but despite several generation of women lawyers in Britain, we could only find one qualified enough to sit on the brand-spanking new Supreme Court. SIGH.

But, actually, the content of this post is a complaint about the website. In the UK, there are three equal and distinct legal systems, operating in England and Wales, in Scotland and in Northern Ireland. The Supreme Court is to be the final court of appeals for all three systems, so the judges are meant to reflect all three systems. There are eight lawyers representing the English system, two for Scotland and two for Northern Ireland, which given population differentials is not hugely unfair. However, if we read the website, two of the judges practised law in Scotland, two in Northern Ireland, and eight just practised 'law' or were called to regional bars, with no mention that they represent the English and Welsh system.

The effect of this is to imply that the English/Welsh system is the default/the norm, and Scotland and Northern Ireland are exeptional. This denies the equality of the three legal systems and as such devalues the Scottish and Irish systems, making their representation tokenism. Let's hope the practice of law in the Supreme Court does not reflect this.

Dear BBC

England is not the UK. [and yes it is England that is getting the heatwave, not Scotland- are you shocked?]

That is all.

[ETA: Ha! They changed the title- who says random blogging doesn't work.]

Maternity Leave.

Today, the head of the Equality Commission suggested that employers are discriminating against women of child-bearing age as they are now entitled to up to a year’s maternity leave. She calls for more flexible working arrangements to be more widely available with partners able to take ‘maternity’ leave, so that neither partner’s career suffers. The Federation for Small Business thinks maternity leave is a bad idea, because it’s ‘bad for business’. And so, once more, we stir up the debate that leads to people arguing that that insist that women working is a ‘choice’ (both for individuals and for society); women should ‘choose’ between children and career; that describe maternity leave as a holiday; that treat children like luxuries that mothers use as excuses to skive off work; that ignore that most children have (at least) two parents (in the making, if not the keeping); that refuse to recognise that children are part of society and need to be cared for.

First off, let’s get rid of the idea that women ‘choose’ to work. Women, even mothers, have as much right to work as men. We do not sit around discussing how father’s ‘choose’ to work despite having children, or comment on how selfish or irresponsible they are for fertilising women and then not staying home with the baby. People need to work, women included. Furthermore, the vast majority of women do not have the luxury of ‘choosing’ to work. In the UK, most households, especially those with children, need two incomes to have an acceptable standard of living. Indeed, 83% of married (or coupled) fathers work, as do 68% of married (or coupled) mothers.* And many, many households are run by single parents who need to work to survive (although are less likely to be able to work due to lack of support).

In Scotland, women outnumber men by 7%. There are not enough men for every woman to be married off and happily supported. They need to work. There are more single, adult women (and for that matter men) in the Scottish population than there are married women (or men). Women of working age are more than twice as likely as men to live alone. Not every woman is coupled up with someone to support them. They need to work. Female single parents head 6% of households, compared to 1% of male single parents. Not all mothers have partners to support them, neither do all fathers. They need to work.

Furthermore, the labour market needs women workers. 50% of Scotland’s workforce is female. 72% of the (working age) female population in Scotland works, compared to 77% of men. Roughly 44% of the working female population have dependent children. The labour market would collapse if women stopped working; it would even collapse if only mothers stopped working. They are vital to the functioning of the economy, particularly in certain areas such as Public Administration, Education and Healthcare where over 70% of the workforce is female. With an unemployment rate of only 5%, there are not enough men to even replace a fraction of the female workforce.

We cannot talk about women working as a choice, because it is no more or less a choice than for men. We cannot talk about women ‘choosing’ between a career and a family, unless your baseline is that all women should work and choosing to have children is the luxury.

Now, it is certainly true that more and more women choose to never have children. 31.2% of Scottish women born between 1960 and 1963 have never had children (45 is taken by most scientists as the oldest women will have children so this is considered a completed fertility cycle). The age group born between 1970 and 1973 is heading towards 40%, although this may change as women have children later in life. Furthermore, Scotland’s total fertility rate is 1.6, which means that most women will only take one or two maternity leaves in their lifetime (and which also means that we are not replacing our population- a decline which has only recently been halted by immigration). Both of these things, I might add, make the idea of not employing women due to their potential fertility a bit redundant. But, should this mean that we should consider having children a luxury and a women’s luxury at that?

I don’t think so. Children are an important part of society. They are the future generation. Without children to grow into the next generation, we shall not be able to survive as a society. When we are retired, we need young people to pay taxes to pay for our pensions. We need young people to have jobs, so we can buy food, use services (such as hospitals and transport) and generally survive. Without the next generation, the human race will not only not survive, neither will capitalism! And we shall all have rather uncomfortable endings. Not having children is not a choice for society; we need them. And, as yet, they do not grow on trees.

Children are born to individuals, but they do not belong to them. They are part of society, just like you and me. They are entitled to care from birth and somebody has to have that responsibility. Why are we happy for babies to go to state nurseries (paid for by our taxes), but not to be brought up by their own mothers (or fathers), at a time in their life where they need specialist one to one care? Allowing women maternity leave is not giving women a holiday; it is a vital contribution to society. In a society where more and more women choose not to have children (as is their right), and most women cannot afford not to work, maternity leave is vital to ensuring that people can and do have children (also their right). Not employing women because you don’t want to pay maternity leave is incredibly short-sighted. It fails to recognise that an investment in children is an investment in your future employees and in your future customers. It fails to see that families where women don’t or cannot work do not have the money to buy the luxuries and services our economy relies on. It is also vital to ensuring that women are not disadvantaged by the fact they play such an important role in their contribution to society.

A Letter Sent.

This my response to the Scottish government's consultation on raising the age of alcoholic purchases for 18-21 year olds (Yes, I pinched quite a bit from an old blog post of mine).

Dear Madam or Sir,

I wish to strongly object to removing the legal right of 18-21 year-olds to purchase alcohol in supermarkets and off-licenses, as I believe that such legislation is discriminatory and unjustified. Legislation of this nature is a restriction on the legal rights of adults, and as such, could fall foul of age discrimination legislation. I believe that it is unjustified as, despite claims to the contrary, there is little statistical justification to single out 18-21 year-olds.

The justification for this legislation appears to be a ‘significant public concern’ that young people drink too much and that alcohol misuse is higher in this age group than other age groups, as suggested by attendances at Accident and Emergency, levels of drink-driving and assaults. While ‘significant public concern’ surrounds the issue of young people drinking, this alone cannot be used as the basis of legislation. Public concern is a notoriously problematic judge of social problems and often has no basis in fact. The public has continously been concerned with the behaviour of young people for the past three-hundred years and yet most of that concern is hyperbole and reflects poorly on ‘reality’.

There is also no real statistical evidence that the 18-21 age group are the major cause of alcohol related problems. As far as I know, there are no studies that exclusively look at the behaviour of this age group and show a different pattern of behaviour from those of people aged under 30. The statistics used for the government’s consultation back this up. The report says that drink-driving accidents are highest among young people, yet the 2005 police road casualties report shows that 25% of drivers and passengers, aged 16-19, killed while driving were drunk, compared to 33% of those aged 20-29 and 33% of those aged 30-39. Why pick out the 18-21 age group for particular punishment, when if anything they are better behaved? Similarly, while 65% of drunken assaults were amongst those aged under thirty, the average age of an assailant was 25 for men and 26 for women. Singling out 18-21 year olds seems rather arbitrary. The vast majority of 18-21 year olds do not binge drink (43% of men aged 16-24 binge drink and 24% of women) and, again, there are no studies that look particularly at the drinking behaviour of 18-21 year olds. If this change in legislation is about health benefits, then, younger people tend to drink more than older people, but, again, I am not aware of any studies that say alcohol consumption peaks between the ages of 18 and 21. Furthermore, as alcohol consumption is related to earnings, it is more likely that alcohol consumption would be higher amongst the 21-24 age group, who have a higher earning capacity. Legislating against the 18-21 age groups seems arbitrary and restricts the rights of adults based on their age. As such, it appears to fall foul of age discrimination legislation. It is a fact that men of all ages drink more than women aged 16-24, yet legislation that restricted the right to drink by gender would be discriminatory. Why would the same not apply to age?

Underage drinking is already a fact of life in Scotland. Raising the age limit, even if just in particular circumstances, criminalises the behaviour of another group of people with no real reduction in behaviour. More problematically, however, is what criminalising the behaviour of a group of adults based on their age says about our society. At a certain point, we grant people in society the rights of adulthood, which include the ability to make choices about their lives, whether or not they are good ones. What age do we want to set adulthood at? There is already considerable social discussion about the ever-increasing boundaries of youth as people put off marriage and family until their early-thirties, allowing them the freedoms of adolescence for longer and longer. Do we want to institutionalise youth into the twenties? The fact is society has a responsibility to protect its young people due to the fact that we restrict their behaviour. It is the pay off we make for not allowing them full human agency. If we raise the age limit for adulthood, we remove full human agency for a larger group of people and thus we change their role in society. We infantilise them and we cannot expect people who are not allowed to be adults in one area of their life to behave like adults in another. Are we willing to take on that responsibility? Furthermore, should we?

If we can agree that, in Scotland, people over fourteen can make legally binding contracts, that people over sixteen can have sex, marry without parental consent, leave school, live in their own homes, be held criminally responsible and tried as an adult, work and pay tax, that people over seventeen can drive, that people over eighteen can smoke and have mortgages, credit card debt and all the other rights and responsibilities of adulthood, then why should there be a separate rule for drinking? Much of the government’s alcohol use reduction strategy is based on education and teaching people to make good choices. Yet, at the same time, the government is removing the ability to exercise that choice. What does that say about the government’s faith in its own strategies and in its young people?

While similar legislation exists in other countries, notably the US, different countries have different legal standards for adulthood. Scotland has set the legal age of adulthood peculiarly young (effectively at 16) and, as such, it has created a culture of responsibility and adulthood from around that age, and certainly by 18. In the US, full adulthood is not granted until 21. In Scandinavia, the picture is similar to Scotland, but generally the age of legal responsibility is higher as is age at marriage. Legislative practice cannot be easily removed from one environment to another, especially when it would grievously infringe upon the rights of a social group that, until that moment, had been full adults.

Drink is a problem amongst all social groups and all age-groups. It is at the heart of our culture. Drink is brought out at all social occasions, whether organised by families, institutions or the state, often with no alternative given. It is given out as a reward or bonuses in the workplace based on an assumption that everybody drinks alcohol. Not drinking alcohol can exclude you from a large part of Scottish social life, and, if drink is calculated at cost, refusing alcohol can be refusing a (sometimes significant) part of your wage. Raising the drinking age pretends that alcohol related problems are about the irresponsibility of youth, while simultaneously reclassifying a group of adults as young people to solve a fictional problem. Our love affair with alcohol is a widespread social problem, institutionalised into our culture, and effecting people at all social levels and in all age-groups. If we want to reduce the harms caused by drinking, we need to change the significance of drinking to Scottish society, not redefine what it means to be an adult. Legislative practice often has much wider social implications than the single issue that it addresses. This sort of legislation is of this nature.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

Yours Sincerely,

Feminist Avatar.

Policy Heading in Right Direction...

The Scottish Executive has laid out a new five point plan for tackling drug use in Scotland. Perhaps, its most important contribution is point one:

Recognising that tackling problem drug use will only be done through effective policies on the economy, tackling poverty, and supporting families and children.

Now, this is exactly the right approach. The areas of Scotland that are devastated through problem drug-use are also areas of massive social deprivation. They are frequently areas that previously relied on hard industry, coal, steel and the like, which have now gone and never been replaced. Such communities are marked by the complete lack of hope; lack of hope for a future; lack of hope that there is something to live for. Problem drug-taking is frequently a response to a lack of incentive not to take drugs.

Yet, while I am pleased that they realise this is the right approach, I wonder how they are going to achieve this. Rural regeneration has been a problem for the last thirty years and, as yet, no one has came up with decisive answers about transforming communities devastated by a lack of employment opportunities and the all the related problems of poverty and deprivation. Throwing £94 million at a problem will not make it go away if there isn’t a clear strategy for regenerating communities in the long-term. Knowing what the problem is, is very different from knowing the answer.

Newsflash: Abortion Statistics are News.

Today’s headlines in Scotland inform us that WOMEN IN SCOTLAND HAVE ABORTIONS. Ok, they don’t quite say that, but it feels a bit like that. Today, the statistics for the number of abortions performed in Scotland in 2007 were published and, as usual, were headline news. Please note that there is nothing new or particularly exciting about these statistics. They are published every year, but we all love to talk about abortion, so we will. There were 13,703 abortions in Scotland last year, up 540 on the previous year, meaning that around ¼ of all Scottish pregnancies (that were known about) ended in termination. Only 44 (0.3%) abortions occurred after 20 weeks, a reduction from 49 in 2006 and 67 in 2005. Rather unsurprisingly, the usual suspects also came out of the woodwork to pass judgement and equally predictably the same old tropes that we have come to expect passed their lips.

Mary Scanlon MSP, the Scottish Tories' health spokeswoman, noted, on the fact that more than a quarter of women had previously had a termination, that:

There is a general consensus that abortion should not be used as a form of contraception. Sadly, it appears that, for some women, this could be the case.

Because, as we all know, you have to be really irresponsible to fall pregnant twice.

Ian Murray, from the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, commented:

The reality is these statistics refer to human lives – both the babies lost and the women whose lives will be scarred by their decision forever.

Again, we all know that all women that have abortions are irreparably damaged (presumably the women who have repeat abortions are just sadists).

Another interesting statement, this time by The Scotman, was that:

Pro-life groups reacted angrily when it emerged that 372 patients having abortions were under 16 years of age.

This I am extremely puzzled at. Why would pro-life groups feel differently about underage abortion than any other type? I suspect that this is hyperbole on the part of The Scotsman, but, if true, part of me wonders if the logic goes ‘women have choices=bad; girls have choices=worse’, because the lower down the social ladder you are as a woman, the more you are hated.

Most abortions occurred amongst the 16-19 age group, very closely followed by the 20-24 age group, highlighting that women are more fertile when they are younger the follies of youth, it seems. Admittedly, this shows that teen pregnancies are high in Scotland, but also that teen pregnancies are overwhelmingly amongst women who are legally old enough to be having sex. Only 2.7% of abortions were on girls under the age of consent. I find this an interesting paradox. I realise that there is a difference between the legal age women can have children and the age when it is socially acceptable or desirable for them to do so, but it does make you wonder if the fuss about the teen pregnancy rate is really a fuss about legally adult women making decisions about their own bodies.

What has been less commented on, with the exception of the Lib Dem spokesman, is that twice as many abortions occurred in areas of social deprivation as in wealthier areas. If people want to reduce the abortion rate tackling poverty seems the obvious place to go. Yet, it is much easier to make emotive or unhelpful statements. As the spokesman for the Archbishop of Glasgow noted:

These statistics are an ever-present sign that society has failed both Scotland's unborn children and women. [Check out the order of priority.]

Well, if society has failed them, what is society going to do about it? Bemoaning the numbers doesn't seem particularly helpful.

The Iraq War: About as Violent as a Football Game.

As I was walking through Partick tube station, I spied an army recruitment poster with the picture of a soldier and the words:

it can get rough in Iraq, especially when the Old Firms on.

For my non-Glaswegian readers, the ‘Old Firm’ refers to the two main football teams in Glasgow, Rangers and Celtic. They have a huge following throughout Scotland and dominate the league. Little Scottish boys and girls everywhere dream that they one day will play for their team, and for a considerable part of the population, the world literally stops when the old firm play. Celtic and Rangers, perhaps, have a more volatile relationship than many rival football teams with games frequently accompanied by violence both at and after the actual game. This rivalry is exasperated by sectarianism, with Rangers traditionally being a Protestant team and Celtic, a Catholic team. Old firm matches often operate as a way of venting religious tensions amongst the tight-knit community of Glasgow and, as such, the rivalry often disguises the bitter religious divide that marks many Scottish communities. Furthermore, as church attendance falls, but levels of sectarianism do not, the football stadium operates as a church- a place where people meet weekly to express devotion and to have fellowship. Sectarianism, and the Old Firm as a symbol of that sectarianism, is undoubtedly a blight on Scotland, responsible for many deaths and murders.

Despite this, Scotland is not Iraq. The Scottish people do not live in constant fear and terror of being bombed, murdered or dying from starvation or disease. They do not live in rubble. They do not have armed soldiers patrolling their streets as a constant reminder of the conflict that goes on around them. A football game, whatever its history, is not a war.

Now, I appreciate that this recruitment poster is not actually meant to be implying that Iraq is like Scotland- after all they don’t want to frighten away the recruits. It is meant to suggest that joining the army is about camaraderie and friendship, where conflict between brothers-in-arms is over the little joys in life, such as supporting one’s football team. It wants you to focus on the things that give you pleasure in life and imply that the army is that pleasure writ large. Perhaps, on another level, it may even want you to realise that this is a simplistic and euphemistic message, but even this promotes the idea of fraternity through suggesting a shared secret that you will find out if you join the club. It wants to give you that sense of brotherhood that many men, and some women, only find on a Saturday afternoon in a football stadium.

Yet, to my mind, comparing the realities of war in Iraq to a football game trivialises the sacrifice that the men and women in the armed forces make every day. It is deceitful to recruit people to a warzone without presenting the horrors of armed conflict. Is it really a good idea to hire people who believe that they are going to the equivalent of a football game and then present them with the realities of death, rape, physical mutilation and deprivation on an unimaginable scale? The Iraq War is an ethical nightmare as it is. Does the army really want to exasperate the situation through unethical recruiting?

Bullying: A Social Ill.

The Fword has an interesting article on how violence against women often begins in schools as a form of bullying, but, because it is seen as bullying, it is not treated as seriously as other forms of violence against women. I think this is a really important point, but I would like to broaden the discussion somewhat.

Just as the violence against women in schools is a reflection of our wider social values and attitudes towards women, so is bullying more generally in schools taught to children by us as adults. About a year ago, there was a poster in Partick underground station that proclaimed ‘Bullying is not a normal part of childhood’. The idea behind the campaign was to challenge the idea that bullying is not just a part of growing up, an experience to be lived through and moved past, but something that should be recognised and addressed. Yet, as soon as I read it, it struck me that bullying is a very normal part of childhood. The average child has almost no control over their lifestyle or life choices.

Take school for example. Children are forced to attend school, whether or not they want to go. When they act out in school, they are punished with writing exercises, the removal of privileges and exclusion. They are forced to wear a school-uniform and conform to a very strict code on suitable hairstyles and jewellery. Attendance at school is never discussed with children. We assume that they are too stupid or have no self-interest and so will make the wrong decisions. As a result, we force them to do things that they don’t understand and don’t have any desire to do, and when they refuse, we punish them. What is this, if not bullying? Multiply this over the course of a child’s life, where they are forced to eat foods they don’t like, wear outfits they don’t want to wear, attend functions they don’t want to attend, and is it any wonder that they learn that punishing people who don’t conform or make you uncomfortable is acceptable.

If we want to stop bullying, we need to stop bullying children. This is not to say that children are allowed free reign. Children are often not mature enough to make the right decision on their own. Instead, we should be talking to our children more. We should explain why something is in their interest and discuss why they feel the way they do. We should teach them that adults are not there to fulfil their every need and demand, but are other human beings who deserve respect and kindness. An argument over refusal to eat dinner would change from the authoritarian adult insisting a child eats something they dislike, to a discussion about why they don’t like it. It should involve a discussion of the feelings of the adult who made that meal and why they would be hurt if a child is just being selfish. It should involve children in the process of making meals so that they have more choice over what they eat, but also learn to respect other people’s choices and that sometimes compromise is necessary.

Similarly, the importance of attending school should be explained to children. The role it played in their parent’s lives should be openly discussed. They should see the benefits and failings of schooling. They should also be made aware that school attendance is compulsory and obeying the law is a necessary part of operating in society. Schools also need to negotiate more with their students. The need for rules and discipline within a school environment should be freely discussed and explained. They should not appear arbitrary. Children should be allowed to feel as they played a part in making the rules that they must adhere to. Schools must also seriously reflect on why they have the rules they do and whether, for example, a strict hairstyle policy has any actual social benefit? They should stop seeing children as things that need to be controlled and as people who should be treated with respect.

I understand that this may be seen as naive, but schools where children voted to bring in school uniforms see a much higher uptake of uniforms and less contention over whether they should be worn. My husband, who is a teacher, allows the children to decide all the rules for behaviour within his class and what the punishments should be. He says that with a little guidance (such as highlighting particular scenarios) they come up with all the rules that he wants and that they often want harsher punishments that he would require. He says that behaviour improves dramatically as a result, and that when children break the rules, as inevitably happens, they take their punishment without complaint. Making children part of the process of discipline helps them set their own boundaries, which is integral to making them independent and responsible adults.

As a society, we have a tendency to view children as dangerous and transgressive. We don’t have strategies for integrating them and, when viewing them as a group, such as hanging around street corners, our first response is to punish them, not engage with them. We create our children. If they bully each other or behave in an anti-social manner, they are simply responding to what they have learned. If we want bullying to stop being a normal part of childhood, the buck stops with us.

When ‘Victorian’ Values Pervade Our Legal System...

The trial of a ‘Pimp’ charged with procuring women for prostitution collapsed today after it emerged that one of the women he had ‘procured’ has a previous conviction for prostitution. The Crown agreed that a legally convicted prostitute could not be ‘procured’ by somebody else. Now, it strikes me that this legislation is saying that once a woman has been corrupted by selling her body, she is forever impure or tainted. And, it doesn’t seem too much of a stretch of the imagination to see how such a position would lead to an argument that prostitutes can’t be raped or otherwise abused. What is the purpose of such legislation in our society? Do we really need laws to protect our ‘innocence’ when the basis of such legislation holds women to a very different moral standard and creates a distinction between the moral and impure women? It paints women as passive victims waiting to be used and exploited by men, not agents in their own destiny. It would not be that difficult to phrase legislation in such a manner that allows pimps to be prosecuted without reinforcing such a simplistic dichotomy that is ultimately harmful to the very women the law is trying to protect.

The law plays a central role in a society’s understanding of itself and how it conceives of gender roles has a knock on effect on how men and women are expected to behave and how gendered behaviour is understood. Legislation that portrays women as the passive, innocent victims and the law as her protector from the abuses of the active, morally complex man sits uncomfortably with feminist belief that women are fully human, morally complex beings with control over their own lives. Even as this law protects, it restricts and limits women’s role within society. We need new legislation for a modern society.

Adulthood, Debt and Family Responsibility.

The BBC Magazine today discussed different social attitudes towards inheritance and it brought to mind the not unrelated issue of parental responsibility for adult children. When I went to University at 17, it was the year after the abolishment of the student grant, the first year of means-tested loans and the year before bursaries were established for children from poor backgrounds. I was ridiculously independent, having worked at since I was fourteen and saved up a reasonable about of money. I did not receive pocket money, but used my own money to make any purchases that I needed. My parents, at that time, were not particularly wealthy, and so when I applied for a student loan, I received the full loan and my parents were not expected to supplement it. Meaning the debt was all mine. My parents supported me by providing free accommodation and food, but I paid for all my university expenses, including books, lunch and the travel costs of a two hour commute by public transport (each way!). At eighteen, I bought my own flat, nearer university, using the money I had saved as a deposit, mainly because I couldn’t keep up with working 30 hours a week, four hours commuting and university. Later that year (when I was nineteen) I got married (my husband was also a student and from a similar background, so his debt was all his too!!) meaning that I was classified as independent by the student loans company (SLC), and so from that point my parents were no longer expected to contribute to my upkeep.

I had been raised with a strong work ethic and a belief that adults did not look to their parents for financial help. That my parents had to be ‘means-tested’ at all really bugged me. If I wanted to take out loans, why was that my parents’ responsibility? Going to University was my decision, not theirs. When my younger siblings went to university, my parents were earning more and so deemed rich enough to contribute. What this meant in practice is that the SLC takes the amount of loan that you are entitled to and deduct the amount your parents are meant to pay and then give you the balance. You are responsible for asking your parents for the money or taking them to court if they won’t pay. Now this is a LOAN, we are talking about, not a grant. It is not like the state is paying for this; it is just how much debt they will allow you to take out. For children, who consider themselves adults, this can be a very difficult thing to do. Especially as your parents are considered liable to means-testing until your 26!

What’s my point? I think that there is a disconnect between the social values of certain social groups and what is expected by the government and I think that this problem is affected by nationality. Adulthood in Scotland comes at sixteen. At that age, we can leave school, work, get married, sign contracts, and make decisions about our future (although we can’t smoke, drink, or drive). In England, where the legislation on student loans was passed, although people can leave school at sixteen, they are not adults and cannot get married without parental consent or sign contracts. Furthermore, whereas in England, the university system is designed for people aged over eighteen (and it used to be the case that some universities had age restrictions, although this may have changed in light of recent legislation), in Scotland, while many people now wait until they are eighteen by taking a ‘sixth year’ at school, universities are designed for students coming from Higher, at age 17. I think that these social differences create considerable cultural differences about what we expect from young adults and affects perceptions of parental responsibility.

I think that cultural difference is more pronounced amongst certain social groups, especially the working class and lower middle class, where money and success is hard earned and not inherited. Children are taught, both verbally and by example, that financial independence is part of being an adult and we are uncomfortable with the ‘child’ status that results from us taking money from our parents (possibly more so when we are just becoming adults than later in life where our adulthood is established in other ways). To be honest, I think that we are more comfortable asking the state to support us than our parents. I think that the government and the SLC should take those cultural differences into account before bringing in systems that are resented, and as a result, unworkable by parts of the population.

There are also real drawbacks to this way of working. First, what do students whose parents won’t pay do? They either have to sue them (you know with the free cash that students have lying around and all the related tensions and family wars that may result) or become declared independent adults, which involves getting the social work department to declare you independent (which is difficult if you have never been in care); proving that you have been economically independent for three years; or get married. All of the latter options can be time-consuming to evidence and, in the meanwhile, no loan. Second, it can lead to parents controlling their children’s behaviour when they are meant to be adults making decisions about their future. What good is a degree that you didn’t really want in the first place? I think this is especially problematic amongst social groups that associate adulthood with financial independence as logically if this is the case, then if they are paying for it they should have a say. Finally, it leads for odd situations where I am married so am independent but my sister lives with her boyfriend in their own flat but is still dependent. Where is the consistency?

Different understandings of adulthood and responsibility do not only effect student loan awards, but have bearing on a lot of ‘hot potato’ issues of the moment, including discussions of teenage pregnancy, compulsory schooling until age 18, raising the age of smoking, apprenticeships for all, and how we view young people and their place in the world. For legislation to work, it has to be meaningful to all social groups and reflect the different national attitudes across the UK.

An Open Letter to the Police and the Justice Secretary.

Re: “Police Slam Women Drink-drivers” reported on the BBC at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7165248.stm

Dear Scottish Police Chiefs and Kenneth MacAskill,

I appreciate that drink-driving is a very real concern and a danger that should be highlighted, but why are you picking on women drivers? As you acknowledge women drink-drivers only made up 100 of the 657 drivers who were charged with drink-driving over the festive period, yet you select them out for particular criticism. I understand that the number of female drink-drivers has risen from previous years, but I am not sure why that matters. Instead of addressing your comments at men, who after all are the majority of offenders, you select women. This seems suspiciously like a double standard that ignores male bad behaviour as natural and vilifies the same behaviour in women. Comments such as “Sadly, it is a grip that seems to be tightening on both young people and women - many of whom seem to believe that heavy drinking and driving can go together. We have got to do more to nip this dangerous trend in the bud” as made by Kenneth MacAskill or “It is a disappointing statistic that over 100 female drivers have been found to be over the drink-drive limit since the festive safety campaign began” by Assistant Chief Constable Jim Green, which entirely ignore male offenders, reinforces this. Drink-driving is wrong whether you are male or female. Targeting women in this way is sexist.

In future could you kindly address this?

Best Wishes,
Feminist Avatar.