The Tampon Tax: Why Aren’t We Talking About Class?

In 2000, British MP Dawn Primarolo’s campaign to reduce the VAT on tampons and sanitary towels meant a reduction from 17.5% to 5%. Dubbed the ‘Tampon Tax’, recent attempts to scrap the tax altogether have not been successful, with 305 to 287 voting against the motion. Had motion been successful, the change would require unanimous agreement of all 28 European Union member states before the tax could be scrapped. Some argue that the move may increase the end cost to the consumer, because it would prevent manufacturers recovering manufacturing costs*.

Adequate nutrition, shelter and sanitation are perhaps the most basic human requirements that enable us to live with dignity. If the move were to increase the cost of tampons and sanitary products, this would be clearly counter-productive. Unlike menstruating women, men do not have any natural bodily function specific to their sex, which requires them to purchase specific products. In a society which strives for equality across class, gender, race and other differences, should women, by virtue of their natural bodily functions, have to pay extra costs for sanitation?

There’s an elephant in the room here: class. Women earn less than men, and women account for 92% of lone parents with dependent children*. The poorest women contending with these issues are already substantially more disadvantaged: an additional cost, solely on the basis of sex is therefore an unfair disadvantage. We need an equal playing field – if men don’t have to bear specific these costs, neither should women by virtue of their sex.

In order to equalise the playing field, the government needs to first consider the impact of paying for sanitary products on the poorest and most vulnerable women, let alone the ‘tampon tax’. If scrapping the ‘tampon tax’ will increase costs to the end user, the government should consider subsidising sanitary products minimise costs. Free condoms are available from the NHS, as is assistance with dental costs, eye care costs, wigs and fabric supports through the Low Income Scheme.

Considering the several support mechanisms in place for the most disadvantaged in our society, including free prescription medication, how can the government justify not providing the most disadvantaged women in our society with free sanitary products? If Britain strives to be a country that considers the plight of disadvantage based upon characteristics, then the government needs to re-consider its attitude to sanitary products – this will help us move towards to a model of equality that is more substantive.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34649495

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/family-demography/families-and-households/2011/sum-lone-parents.html

Same-Sex Marriage: India Could Do Better

The recent US nation-wide legalization of same-sex marriage in June 2015 is undoubtedly a laudable step in the struggle for full equality for its LGBT+ citizens. How far does this move serve the LGBT+ masses of America? It would be impossible to succinctly expand on the types of marriage that have existed throughout human history, but an integral element (especially for the working classes), has been its role in ensuring economic security. So what about the economic security the working class LGBT+ in America, for whom in many states can be fired (and legally so) for being LGBT+? The prioritisation of same-sex marriage over livelihood security does not serve the most disadvantaged LGBT+, who cannot afford to migrate to a state where they are protected from workplace discrimination. What then, can India’s growing LGBT+ movement do better?

It is the bleak reality that the vast majority of gay women and men in the world still marry opposite-sex partners. Legalisation of same-sex marriage maybe a dream so distant for most LGBT+ people, who desperately require societal change before any change in law – such as not facing the risk of alienation or ‘shaming the family’ for coming out, or to not risk losing their job simply for falling in love with the ‘wrong’ sex. This is the reality of modern India, and many men and women in America today. It is then the failure of same-sex marriage advocates to consider the real life context and diversity of those LGBT+ citizens it purports to serve, that India’s LGBT+ movement could learn from. While these societal barriers in the US may be primarily religiously driven, India clearly has much more to contend with.

An example of how not to do it is Celina Jaitley’s American-style gay-liberation. As part of the UN’s ‘Free and Equal’ campaign, her video features a male, fair-skinned, seemingly-wealthy same-sex Indian couple who are quickly accepted by their family at their wedding – it gets a plus point for using Hindi rather than English, but the portrayal is of the least marginalised of LGBT+ in India. Would a female same-sex couple with a darker complexion, one perhaps from a Scheduled Caste and the other a Muslim, have shaken up India too much? Heterosexual India needs to be enlightened as to the reality of LGBT+ India around them, rather than confining LGBT+ people to a Bollywood prototype. I digress to accept that films like Dostana, with its underlying message of gay-acceptance, may provide a starting point for LGBT+ sensitisation, but we must ask the question: in a highly diverse, class and caste-structured society like India, can these efforts translate into meaningful change for all LGBT+ people?

Using cinema to promote LGBT+ acceptance through male, same-sex love marriages among economically advantaged Indians serves to confine issues to the world of cinema alone, especially in a society where heterosexuals are also expected to self-sacrifice in deciding their marriage partner. Self-sacrifice is a wonderful value that many western countries can borrow from India, but without the excesses that produce relationships for the sake of reputation and economics. It is then the duty of the LGBT+ movement to target the real barriers that produce the oppression and stigmatisation of LGBT+ in India; marriage, love and happiness are inadequate solutions for a far more complex context. It is only when the barriers are both identified and targeted can India really achieve an LGBT+ movement that rivals the USA, rather than imitating it. This will serve to create a strong, effective movement with a lasting change. It is the wider social biases that are carried through into the LGBT+ movement that serve to detriment, fragment and serve a small minority of LGBT+ in India. 

The first step is to celebrate the diversity of India’s LGBT+, like the auto-walas, office-professionals, dark and light skinned, Sikhs, Muslims, Hindus and Atheists, Scheduled Castes and Tribes, Rich and Poor. The second step is not to simplify the cultural barriers as only being unique to LGBT+ people – there is a necessity to recognise both the narrative of the immorality/culture/sin and shame connected to homosexuality but also the connection with the restrictions placed on how non-LGBT+ people are expected to live. Repetitive American Bollywood-esque platitudes like Celina Jaitley’s, no matter how positive her intentions are, neglect the diversity and opportunity that India’s LGBT+ citizens have to set a precedent for engagement and inclusively, and to develop a movement that is truly transformative.

As a non-Indian, I admittedly uncomfortable. I hasten to pontificate and lecture on how liberation should look to those who need it – and beyond the call to recognise diversity (a foundational value of all well-meaning social movements), it is up to every single LGBT+ person in India to decide what needs to take place. To phrase it quite simply: India can do much, much better.

Why a Multi-Sectoral Feminism Matters: Real Intersectionality for Gender Transformation

In 1989 Kimberlé Crenshaw coined the term 'intersectionality', which acknowledges the way in which various social categorizations (i.e. race, class, gender) are regarded as creating overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination or disadvantage.

Recently, I was having a discussion with a development professional regarding structures of gender and patriarchy. One comment struck me in particular. They argued that we should not try to change situations where women choose to be a housewife - arguing this would be an interference of free choice. This could present a dilemma for those that push for gender equality: to what extent are we taking away a women's agency when we say that women should not choose certain roles which are expected of them but (are perceived to) hold less value, and to what extent are we allowing inequality to flourish by not taking action?

Both questions must be situated within context. Every decision we make has a multitude of factors contributing to a chosen outcome. In the context of gender we may ask 'what is the most socially acceptable role for me, what role(s) am I expected to undertake?'. Choices do not occur devoid of context, they are influenced by them. In order to make this argument of non-interference valid, there needs to be an assumption that the conditions for said choices are neutral, but they are not. Creating a society where the conditions are neutral for these choices should be a long-term goal. Achieving this goal leads me to make a case for a multi-sectoral approach to achieving gender equality. A truly multi-sectoral approach is one that takes account of intersectionality and how different sites link in with social-categorizations to re-produce inequality, for example, domestic or work spheres. 

An example of this in context means that Women's Economic Empowerment must be work with efforts to challenge breadwinner masculinities that maybe threatened and co-operation with 'Ending Violence Against Women' or 'Gender Based Violence' - especially if there is evidence that Women's Economic Empowerment alone may lead to Violence Against Women. If development work is to be truly transformative and work towards a clear goal of gender equality it must use all resources to work within society for attitudinal change, linking simultaneously with various sectors. One type of development is not enough, for one type may produce regression in another, thereby simply shifting the problem and reproducing patriarchy and inequality in other areas.

India’s Daughter: Investigating Masculinities and Power

Banned for publication in India, Leslee Udwin’s ‘India’s Daughter’ documentary is fraught with critiques such as the documentary perpetuating neo-colonial narratives, and the legal question of contempt of court. The documentary investigates the brutal 2012 Delhi gang-rape of Jyoti Singh that lead to her death. While the above questions are legitimate, they do not fall within the remit of this blog entry. I believe consideration should be given to both rape statistics per country, and the extent to which rapes are actually reported in each country. Given this, this post does not take a position on the position on whether women in India face a higher rate of sexual violence. The purpose of this post is therefore to analyse power relations and questions of masculinity raised by the documentary. Before analysis, I provide a brief outline of the comments made by Mukesh Singh (a defendant), the defending lawyers and female relatives of the defendants. If you have seen the documentary, feel free to skip this.

Mukesh Singh, one of the defendants, talks in great detail about how the ‘nature’ of women should be (housewives, appropriately dressed, behavior restricted based upon time) and states that rape is a tool used to teach a lesson to women who breach these norms – ‘a lesson from shame’. He therefore concludes that women are more responsible for rape than men.

The defending lawyers, M.L. Sharma and A.P. Singh appear to legitimise these attitudes, justifying violence towards women for breaching social codes and supporting restriction of women to the home. Women have no place in Indian culture, argued Sharma; while Singh defended his previous comment that he would set his daughter alight if she engages in pre-marital activities.

Defendant Akshay’s wife did not accept the guilt of her husband and was concerned about losing the protection of her husband should be face the death penalty. Ram and Mukesh Singh’s mother speaks of her concern about no longer having a son to perform her burial rites.

ANALYSIS

There are several important points raised in the documentary. Jyoti Singh may symbolise a changing India – she represents a young woman, becoming successful, gaining greater autonomy and freedom. As was referred to in the documentary (albeit briefly), there is clear issue of changing power relations. Where women are becoming empowered and norms of masculinity dictating that men should be breadwinners are left unchallenged, a 'free' woman presents a great threat to the power relations between men and women. This creates a potentially toxic mix; especially where cultural trajectories of shame that focus around female sexuality and freedom persist. 

Scholars such as Arendt who theorise power and violence, state that violence is a product of impotence and loss of power, rather than as a tool to exercise existing power. One would not need to enact violence if they (perceived they) had power. This is why actions of violence require a moral justification.

Where hegemonic masculinity may require breadwinner status and authority over women, any male (working or not) will therefore see an empowered women as a threat to his status and power over women, and therefore a legitimate target to act out alternative forms of masculinity (violence). Such violence may be a challenge to shifting power relations. This is why women’s economic empowerment must also accompany a qualitative, grassroots shift towards changing gender roles. This will benefit both men and women in a multitude of ways. Women will not be essentialised to conduct housework after coming home from work, heterosexual men will not feel humiliated by having a wife who works when he doesn't (or earns more than him), and such men will be free from the restrictions of hegemonic masculinity that both oppress men and women.

Shame as a concept, is undoubtedly a masculine, patriarchal form of controlling women. Although the victim, shame was referred to only in relation to Jyoti, with no comment (even by Jyoti’s parents, who supported her completely) that the rapists were bringing shame upon themselves or their family. This is perhaps the most pernicious form of controlling women in India and serves to deeply entrench and legitimise rape culture. Perhaps the most revealing is the above noted comments by the defendant’s female relatives about the case. Not only do they reject their sons’/husband’s participation in the crime, they also speak of their concerns about no longer having a man to fulfill the requirements of his hegemonic masculinity (breadwinner, burial rites). 

I have referenced the patriarchal bargain several times in my blog, and it is women who uphold hegemonic masculinity and patriarchy that serve has a contributing factor towards this type of violence towards women. It is for this reason that where gendered power relations develop and change in India, norms of masculinity must be challenged. Such an approach must not only be at the grassroots level, but also require significant inputs from various sources – this is clearly not just about the notion of a breadwinner masculinity. Without a multi-pronged approach that is willing to delve into sensitive areas (e.g. religious constructs), it may prove impossible to completely destroy rape-culture and the legitimization of violence against women – without this, women’s continuing empowerment stokes fears that this problem may only worsen. 

Should We Avoid Promoting the Re-Appropriation of Gender?

In sociology and cultural studies, re-appropriation is the cultural process by which a group reclaims—re-appropriates—terms or artifacts that were previously used in a way disparaging of that group.

Drawing on the theme of masculinity and how by definition it requires the degradation of the feminine binary – and then how men are expected to live up to hegemonic masculinity, the question of patriarchy and gender question raises an interesting question. Should we re-appropriate gender? In practice, this would mean: keeping the two binaries while redefining them in ways that allows those 'acting out' either gender to take up any type of behaviour, without the adoption of those behaviours being considered abnormal according to their binary gender identity.

If re-definition takes place and opposing binaries are no longer assigned to either gender, then this leads to the question: what would gender then look like in practice? There must be a distinction between theory and practice here. We live in a society where gender exists, and since cultures are not static, moving towards fully re-appropriated genders might prove difficult. As a personal example, I continue to act out many (but not all) of the norms of masculinity expected of me (for example, by way of dress). It is too simplistic to narrow this down to my 'personal choice'; my personal choice is framed within a social context of where personal choices are usually undertaken according to socio-cultural gendered norms. Can we therefore expect, that full re-appropriation is practical, or even possible? Collective effort is necessary for such a change to take place.

Imagining how re-appropriation and re-definition of gender might look in practice may prove difficult and simply mean we revert back to gender prejudice and patriarchy. For two genders to exist and contain within them socio-cultural ideals to which a person should aspire is problematic, since for one gender to be distinguished from the other there must be contrasting features - without this, gendered contradiction would not be possible, and therefore, quite paradoxically, true re-appropriation would mean the eradication of gender altogether.

Re-appropriation, if done improperly, may simply lead to the same problems that feminists seek to eradicate. There is thus a grave risk that this approach could go terribly wrong. Re-appropriation is sometimes predicated on the notion that women should be able to take up prized masculine behaviours and job types, while little may be discussed about making positive the feminine binaries when taken up by men. It is time for us to start thinking about the de-construction of gender altogether, seeking a society where gender does not exist at all. If we continue to propagate the need for such binaries while simultaneously arguing for re-appropriation, we will only serve to leave ourselves a society where men and women still have contrasting binary qualities. This will ever serve to give space for people to limit qualities ascribed to either gender and continue to define masculine qualities as superior.  In order to remove this potentially toxic risk factor implicit in re-appropriation, it is time to seriously consider deconstructing gender altogether.

Visiting a Toy Store: Playtime on the Gender Agenda

The role of toys in propagating divisive gender binaries is definitely on the agenda. Laura Bates in ‘Everyday Sexism’ highlights the way in which toys encourage boys and girls to grow up, pursue certain career paths and subsequently avoid those of the opposite sex. In addition to this, British retailer Tesco recently apologised after a 7 year old girl complained that science toys were merchandised as ‘boy’s toys’, while the work of the ‘Let Toys Be Toys’ campaign seeks to encourage manufacturers and retailers to label toys based upon theme or function alone.

Considering this, I decided to do some investigative work of my own. I visited a major toy retailer’s store with ‘gender eyes’ in order to establish how this looks in practice. There are two important differences to note here: store merchandising and manufacturer branding/marketing. This is important since a toy store/retailer could refuse to merchandise on the basis of gender, yet the packaging and the marketing of a toy may still be gendered. Considering this, my findings were as follows:

• Sections that the store had merchandised for girls were almost overwhelmingly pink and focused on childcare toys (dolls, toy prams), and for older girls, the inclusion of boy-band paraphernalia.
• There was no section that was sign-posted as ‘boys’, yet sections that were merchandised by brand contained images of children exclusively of one sex for either brand or type of product. For example: Thomas the Tank Engine toys used images of boys only on the packaging; within another brand, all toys relating to battle (castles, forts) and car sets used boys only. Toys relating to girls focused on domestication (dolls, dolls' houses, etc.).
• The lines of gender appeared to be blurred when it came to kitchen sets. Pink sets featured girls only on the packaging, whereas some sets featured boys and girls on the same packaging. This is perhaps the most interesting point. There are several celebrity male chefs on British TV – the absence of boy only imagery on kitchen sets may serve to reinforce the notion of cooking as a domestic duty for girls and a hobby/career for boys.

Considering these findings, I think it is essential to support the work of organisations like Let Toys Be Toys. If toys continue to promote outdated notions of gender, this will only serve to limit and restrict individuals along gendered lines in later life and hinder the move towards equality. You can visit their website here: http://www.lettoysbetoys.org.uk/.

The Problem with anti-Feminists

I never thought that I would be writing about misandry. I thought it would be crystal clear that anyone who cares about gender equality that feminism is clearly opposed to it. I’ve recently ventured into territory where people argue otherwise; that it fights for female supremacy and is grounded in a hatred of men. It’s time to challenge this notion.

Why don’t feminists call themselves ‘egalitarianists’, or to gender the issue ‘gender egalitarianists’? While it may seem a mute point that detracts from the aim of feminism, there’s a reason why the word is important. Feminism is about acknowledging that gender inequality exists, and that the existence of this inequality is rooted in socially constructed notions that automatically prize characteristics associated with masculinity. Implicit in this, is the acceptance that men can be, and often are, disadvantaged by these notions of masculinity where they are upheld – but to move to the term egalitarianism ignores the way in which such structures are implicitly constructed in favour of men and rest upon the subjugation of women.

There are men and (gasp!) women who fight feminism by cherry picking a few self-proclaimed feminists who appear to be man-haters. They talk about misandry and ‘feminists’ who ‘bathe in male tears’. The anti-feminist movement is sinister at best, and perhaps even indicates that feminism is effective. After all, if we are progressing towards a gender equal society rather than regressing, then what is the fuss? There is no evidence of any structural discrimination against men (in comparison to women), and it is pertinent to remember that the norms of gender are propagated by powerful men. It is therefore those anti-feminists who should be looking towards men, allowing them to challenge the disadvantages of masculinity that affect (often the poorest) men rather than cherry picking self-proclaimed anti-men ‘feminists’ in order to tarnish the grassroots movement of feminism.

Even if for one second misandrist women were to be considered feminists (an oxymoron, in my book), should they be the focus of concern for feminists? Misandry is a residual product of structural prejudice, and by virtue of being a product from this subjugation, it cannot be compared to misogyny in anyway. It is a form of anger; it does not perpetuate an existing structure that marginalises a group. Feminism can be muscular, inclusive and intersectional (and inclusive of men) while recognising this structure and the need to dismantle it. In essence; let’s not worry about the disenfranchised extremes and get back to fighting for equality.