Kent Feminista March Against the Cuts

We may not have been the biggest group there but last Saturday three of us were really proud to go and represent for those of you who weren't able to make the march but whose sentiments we know were completely with us. We dressed in the suffragette colours, picked up our placards and joined the other hundreds of thousands of marchers who wanted to send a clear message to the government that they are not acting in our name.


I'm totally with Polly Toynbee, every pair of feet counted, even if the BBC and police were reluctant to 'fess up to the true magnitude of the event, preferring to focus on the vocal minority they were relying on to give them the headlines and story that they really want to be heard. But it's too late - we were all there, we know we're not alone in believing that this government are morally bankrupt, self interested and without a genuine popular mandate for their draconian and ideologically driven cuts. The cat is out of the bag and this is just the beginning.


I've already ranted on this blog about what the cuts will mean for women and the Fawcett society are doing a brilliant job at getting the story out there, even though George Osborne is doing a splendid job at ignoring their claims. As the weeks and months go on and the effects of the cuts on women, not just in our fairly well insulated corner of the country but further afield as well, becomes evident, I hope that we will be able to play our part in monitoring where the axe is falling and standing with and for those people who will be worst affected. Just as women came together in the suffragette movement because they saw the rights and needs of women being trampled on, so it is time for us to come together and say that we will not stand for what the government are trying to do to us.


Although I want all comment on the march to be overwhelmingly positive, I just want to take a moment to say how maddened and infuriated I've been by the amount of lazy journalism there has been around the March and the serious arguments being put forward by its organisers. Of course, the media machine's determination to focus on the anarchist action and the wonderfully inventive UK Uncut's non-violent direct action campaigns has been maddening but what I have found more poisonous and lazy has been the repeated claim that no alternatives have been offered. I have heard countless arguments over the last few months about the potential alternatives to the government's program of cuts and while, predictably, my favourite have been around increasing and tightening up taxation in order to pay for services or even the implementation of the Tobin tax, I think the argument that Osborne could have done something much more creative with the money raised from the North sea oil companies is the argument that makes it most apparent that there are alternatives, simply not ones that the government wishes to consider.


Since the march, Vince Cable has confirmed that the fifty pence tax rate on incomes over a hundred and fifty thousand is to be abolished. With Cable saying that it was necessary in an emergency to create a sense of solidarity. Clearly for the government we are at the end rather than the beginning of an emergency, after all, how many of them are really going to be feeling the pain over the next five years and beyond? If this is their response to the march it only confirms why we were right to be there.

Getting Active

Last Wednesday's meeting was our first chance to sit down together and talk about our way ahead and what we wanted to focus on as a group after the end of our successful campaign over improved regulation of lapdancing clubs in Ashford. We met in the Leaf Lounge in Ashford (in comic alignment with another group of ladies getting 'made up' for facebook shots) and were made really welcome by the lovely Cathy and her team.

We talked at length around our own passions and concerns as feminists and ranged over a broad selection of issues. A decision seemed to emerge that rather than selecting a limited range of issues to concentrate on, we would all start our own research into a variety of different actions that we were individually passionate about and that we would report back to the group on whether there was work that could be done in each area by us as a collective.

One of the first concerns raised came from a report from Radio 4s PM program in which a representative from SPUC (the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child) had recently appeared in debate about a controversial leaflet they have distributed to 1,500 doctors' surgeries. The leaflet is called 'Abortion: Your right to know' and is completely untraceable, beyond its front page, on-line. However, Hannah, our resident webwizard, managed to find the notes provided by SPUC for doctors to accompany the leaflet which you can check out here. We spent some time discussing our own attitudes to abortion but were able to agree that an ideologically driven group, promoting risks about abortion that appear to have often very sketchy medical support, were not the best people to be advising women facing the difficult decision of whether an abortion is right for them. As a result Hannah and I are going to take the lead in contacting local surgeries, seeing if we can trace the leaflet there and opening debate with surgeries about whether this leaflet is appropriate for distribution.

Mel talked passionately about her own interest in trying to provide some kind of practical support for women who have suffered abuse or rape and are trying to work their way through the courts. Laura, with her professional knowledge of the problems facing homeless women, was able to bring new understanding to the issue and is going to work with Mel to find out how they can investigate the needs of these women and how we might be able to offer support. Mel spoke about the importance for women facing the court experience to have other impartial women alongside them and hopes to be able to find ways to fill the gaps for support that might exist in the system.

With the approach of the Olympics and the expectation that Ashford might become host to one of the teams we talked about the concerns around increased trafficking that can accompany the expanding demand for the sex industry during these kind of mega events. I'd found a group called Stop the Traffik who are looking for community groups to sign up and work against traffiking in their area. Jo was very interested in the work that we might be able to do alongside Stop the Traffik and has started to look in to how we can affiliate. She has already investigated whether our local Soroptimist group are already involved in this action and should be able to report back on this important issue at the next meeting.

Hannah also raised the point that her school is soon to host an 'Any Questions' program and asked whether anyone had any ideas for questions we'd like posed to the panel. Please contact us if you feel there are any questions you think we should be trying to put forward as a group.

Laura also reminded us that within the community of Nepalese women who are making homes in Ashford there might be a group that we could look to support through offering conversation classes. I plan on contacting our local assosciation as most of us at the meeting felt we could offer time for conversation classes if this was a gap that might need filling. Please contact us if you are local and feel this is something you could offer support with.

We spoke again about the importance of standing in solidarity with the women who will be worst affected by the programs of cuts that we are still watching develop. Hannah and I are planning on attending the TUC organised mammoth protest against the cuts on the 26th March; any feministas who would like to accompany us on this one please get in touch. With the higher proportion of women who are pensioners, Jo reminded us that cuts to services to pensioners such as meals on wheels will be important issues for feminists that we should be watching carefully in our local communities. We are waiting to hear more about ho the cuts will affect us locally... watch this space.

Finally, we had a discussion about the increased pornification of society and discussed our concerns about the particular pressures on young women to adopt dress styles and cultural poses that are commensurate with the desires of the men they wish to attract. We talked about the 'Liquid' night club in Ashford and the 11-18 'club nights' they hold. While we all understood the exciting and important 'frisson' of these events we were concerned about whether this broad age categorising was potentially dangerous and whether it would be exposing younger girls to the potentially predatory advances of older boys. Hannah and I are going to look into how widespread they are and what controls, if any, are in place to protect young women at these events. We all felt that such events should be split into two age groups and want to look at how we can open discussion about whether this would be more appropriate and a possible alternative.

The meeting was invigorating and stimulating and provided a wonderful space in which a broad range of issues and perspectives were considered. We plan to meet again on Wed 30th March to feed back on any progress we've made in investigating these issues and, hopefully, to meet even more feministas. We really hope we might see you there!

Why the cuts suck for women

I am posting in response to Kelly’s post ‘Why the Fawcett Society’s challenge actually discriminates against women further’. KentFeminista aims to create a space that brings together women from a variety of different political perspectives and as such we are not always going to agree. Kelly has spoken about the cuts from her perspective as a respected political activist within the Liberal Democrats and a Feminist. I would like to respond to her as a Marxist Feminist who can find no place for herself within mainstream politics.

It is broadly acknowledged by political and economic commentators that the cuts are going to hit the most vulnerable and the worst off in society, in particular the women from these groups. It is these women who I think we should be standing with as feminists as much as, or perhaps more than, hypothetical, educated, mobile, middle income women who might be made redundant from the public sector as a result of the cuts. The shambolic claim from the tories that ‘we are all in this together’ was made stylishly evident in its irony when the Camerons appeared together to announce the cuts in child benefits with Mrs C wearing a dress that would have cost me 36.8 weeks worth of first child benefits payments.

This fashion faux pas made it evident how little knowledge of or empathy the Camerons and the majority of the coalition have for ‘normal, hard working families’, let alone those who are on lower incomes and are already struggling to make ends meet. The TUC and UNISON have reported that the poorest 10% of households will lose 20.5% of their income as a result of the cuts, whereas the richest will lose only 1.6% of theirs. There is a clear Conservative, ideological drive to this poor-punishing budget and it is to the shame of the Liberal Democrats that they have had any part in supporting it.

The argument that the cuts in public sector employees might be a positive thing because it will flood the private sector job market with women who will demand equal pay and flexible working hours does not ring true for me. When I made a noise about the gap between maternity and paternity rights in my private school and those in the state sector, I was roundly ignored by my employers who dared me to take them to a tribunal rather than recognise the inequality of their provision. I, as an articulate, educated and determined women, backed by the majority of my staffroom colleagues, could do nothing to force a change in their provision and I suspect that this will be the case with many other private sector employers. Rather than some radical change in private sector employment culture, basic labour market economics suggests that a market flooded with ex-public sector workers will lead to the private sector entrenching their position and selecting only workers who will not demand such flexibility and equal opportunity provision. That is, if these mythical employers can be found in the first place...

The argument about the existence of legislation that will help these women in their fight to be granted equal opportunities in terms of work hours and culture as well as pay is also hard for me to accept. The Equal Pay Day campaigners drew our attention to the fact recently that just because women can now demand to find out if they are receiving equivalent pay to their male colleagues, this has not in fact led to a closing of the pay gap; it has made us angrier but the gap is still there. Similarly, women have the right to demand consideration of flexible working arrangements from their employers and their employers have the duty to show they have considered such requests but beyond this there is little pressure on employers to change their employment practices or to make life easier for women who want to contribute to society as a carer as well as a tax payer. Legislation, as it stands, is not strong enough; it is whitewash that is emphatically not fit for purpose.

Beyond the issue of the effect of the cuts on public sector workers, many of whom are women, we must also, as feminists, be concerned about the effect of a budget that privileges cuts to public services over rises in taxation. The great trick of the coalition has been their success in making people forget that the deficit we face is not the fault of overspending on the public sector under the Labour party but a result of their decision to bail out the banks during the credit crunch. Their success here has given them enough grace from the public to convince many of us that reigning in public spending is a moral as well as economic necessity. The Fawcett Society’s report eloquently demonstrates the falsity of this argument of necessity and puts forward some serious alternatives that could prevent the terrible cuts that are already being made.

In contradiction to the view that Kelly’s post puts forward, that the Fawcett society are entrenching backward stereotypes, their report actually demonstrates how it is the coalition budget which aims to restore ‘the ‘breadwinner/dependent female carer’ model of relations rather than an egalitarian ‘dual earner/dual carer model’ and I would encourage readers to digest it in full before they make up their mind on its credibility.

The coalition budget will punish the poor and will punish poor women in particular; as such we should back the Fawcett Society and stand in total opposition to it.