Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Guest posts

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Guest blog from Ed Miliband: we must change how women are portrayed in our culture

120 replies

KateMumsnet · 28/06/2013 11:33

Last night, Ed Miliband gave a keynote speech about gender and equality in which he promised that a Labour government would ensure that children were given relationships education from the age of five - good news for Mumsnetters, who have been pushing for this for a while.

He also argued that our culture needs to change how it portrays women; in today's guest blog, he expands on why he thinks the representation of women is in crisis - and why it matters.

"Our banknotes are about to change. Not a major political issue, you might think. But it does have one important effect. Winston Churchill is going to replace Elizabeth Fry on the £5 note. And that means that everyone who will appear on our banknotes - apart from the Queen, our Head of State - will be a man.

I am worried about what kind of signal that sends. I read this week that the people who make these decisions think it is OK that there will be no women on our banknotes, because Jane Austen is "quietly waiting in the wings" to appear on her own note one day. But 100 years on from the great struggle to give women the right to vote, women shouldn't be "waiting quietly in the wings" for anything, should they?

Why don't we have one of our great women scientists, like Elizabeth Garrett Anderson, and a suffragette like Emmeline Pankhurst on our banknotes already?

This is a small but important symbol of the kind of country we are. In fact, I think it reveals a crisis in the representation of women more generally in our society.

Of course, greater prominence is given to fantastic role models for women and girls today than was true in the past. People like Clare Balding, Doreen Lawrence, J.K. Rowling, Jocelyn Bell and Burnell. And it is not just these people who provide role models for the next generation. My kids will grow up with Dora the Explorer as much as my generation did with Dennis the Menace, and that matters. And this week we have been supporting Laura Robson just as much as Andy Murray at Wimbledon.

But we should not be fooling ourselves by denying the problems. It is not just the absence of women from our banknotes or the way men out-number women in the statues on our streets. There are problems in our everyday culture too.

Young people talk a lot today about the problems of a culture that is tolerant of increasingly sexualised images. They are especially worried about a culture that says that girls will only get on in life, if they live up to the crudest of stereotypes. A culture where pornographic images, some violent, are available to children at a click on a smartphone or a laptop.

In discussing this problem, one young woman, 15 years old, wrote in to the Everyday Sexism site recently. She said: "I wish people would think about what pressures they are putting on everyone, not just teenage girls ... I wish the people who had real power and control of the images and messages we get fed all day actually thought about what they did for once."

She was right. There are things that government can do about it, like safer default settings on our computers. But that young woman's point is different. She believes there is a responsibility on all of us to do what we can to counter these images and to provide a better example for the future.

So, for example, schools should offer proper relationship education at all stages to ensure all our children have a proper chance to understand what good loving relationships are about. And they should always encourage the aspirations of girls and boys.

And advertisers and magazines should change the way they act too. We all know there are still too many images in our advertising that reflect outdated ideas about the role of men and women, boys and girls. And it matters how people are seen. About the images we have of each other. It sets an example, especially for the next generation.

Women face all sorts of injustices in our society today, many of which go far beyond our culture. There are still far too few women MPs, too few women in our boardrooms, the Cabinet or in senior management positions. Women have suffered more than men during Britain's recent economic troubles too, with this government's cuts affecting them three times as hard as men.

We need to act on all of these. But as we do so we must not forget the importance of cultural representation too. Many of these issues cannot and should not be decided by parliament or politicians. But it is something we must all talk about, as citizens and, especially, as parents. This is something that a new wave of young women are campaigning on, and talking about. They are right to do so and we should listen to their voices - that means politicians, advertisers, business leaders, and newspaper editors.

We can only be One Nation if we have real equality between men and women."

OP posts:
Murraylover · 29/06/2013 11:47

Try encouraging equality in schools so the gender balance in Physics & Maths is 50/50. Then more girls will be encouraged into 'Professions'. Too many barriers into Banking, Engineering & Science already exist

swallowedAfly · 29/06/2013 13:13

oh yes and primary schools - try recruiting more men and then DON'T promote them all to headmaster within ten years. all very well giving lessons on equality when what they can actually see right there in their own school tells a different story.

wonderingagain · 29/06/2013 17:26

Good point SAF - teachers are women, heads are men. Look how far we've really come.

Catmint · 29/06/2013 19:13

Dear Ed

Are you still reading? Please do follow up your rhetoric with real action on equality. Please look at the changes about no fault dismissal and charges for bringing ET, both of are blatant attacks on equality by this government. The utter lack of evidence driving the current gov position on these policies is staggering. I believe the changes are despicable. Please act forcefully and do not allow this dreadful erosion of employee rights, which will hit women, people from minority ethnic backgrounds and low paid workers hardest.

Ed, if not you, then who?

Thanks for reading, if you still are.

Lioninthesun · 29/06/2013 20:16

Finally a politician who realises that half of the population of this country have been left in the cold, not just with the recent cuts, but in education and the media.

Trouble is, was he not in the Labour party when Blair was in power? Has he only just realised that decades of this behaviour have been acceptable whilst his party happily had the helm? At least Blair had his 'Babes' eh? Hmm

If he can do something about men walking/opting out of families and deciding not to pay for their children to be raised (usually in cahoots with their bosses hiding from CSA) then I am all for him. No point blaming the single mum who stays behind that their kids are being raised in poverty; try tackling the actual source of the problem - dad's not paying. That would solve a lot of gender issues, cut benefit spending on single parent families and hopefully enhance the idea of a relationship ideal starting in the home. Letting men run off and make kids all over the country without any shame or accountability does the opposite and enhances the stereotype that the one who stays to pick up the pieces for the child is the scrounging 'single mother'.

swallowedAfly · 29/06/2013 20:30

oh yes - also please don't charge women and children for enforcing absent men to pay towards their children. it should be a legal duty that is automatically pursued and deducted direct from their salaries - not an opportunity to charge women for the privilege of trying to get a pitiful amount of child support from the father's of their children.

as it stands my son and i will be punished for his father's absence and refusal to be part of his life by having our finally established csa claim cancelled, being charged to take it up again and then through them deducting a percentage of my son's money every month thereafter. obviously as you are concerned about equality you'll be announcing your opposition to this and labours commitment to overturn it if elected.

thanks muchly.

TooClassToGrass · 29/06/2013 22:55

SAF raises a good point. I wonder if Ed could come back and explain exactly why a percentage needs to be taken from both NRP and RP in CSA cases that totals almost 1/4 of the total amount paid, for the costs of supporting a child, to a government agency that has been given teeth and resolutely refused to use them?

Can he state that he is going to ensure that charging for this 'service' will ensure it is effective and actually uses the powers it has been given by law to compel NRPs to pay for their own children?

Will his government do anything about the loopholes which mean that one deduction is made from an NRPs wage or benefits and that must be split between however many children they have decided to have and abandon? Because I have to say that while getting Austen on a note would be awesome and saying that her or any other woman being absent is not acceptable, change starts with the things which make a day to day difference. Letting people (predominantly men but not always) have children then abandon them with no extra cost to themselves is absolutely immoral and quite simply must be stopped.

To charge resident parents who already bear the brunt of the costs of raising these abandoned children, to be able to access a fraction of the 50% of the costs of raising that child is abhorrent and to expect the resident parent (statistically speaking, likely a woman) to cut back further on their household budget because their feckless ex has created and abandoned another child smacks of the worst kind of misogyny.

Lioninthesun · 29/06/2013 23:25

Yes, how much of my £13 a week will I actually get once I give some back to pay for the service where they haven't found out his true salary?
Will anyone actually bother to find out why ex is still online currently working for his old company (clear under any search of his name and their product - hardly rocket science) where he was earning £45k a year ago but now apparently doesn't work for them and earns around £17k despite having very recently worked on a blockbuster film (according to his company website) for his old company who flew him to the other side of the planet just a couple of months ago?
This is why I resent paying for the 'service'. But I am one of the lucky few seeing ANYTHING at all from ex, so I should probably stop complaining...

swallowedAfly · 30/06/2013 07:47

yep. i have to say banknotes are low on my list of priorities.

the idea is it will encourage parents to come to amicable agreements (or at least the spin - not the real idea obviously which is revenue). if a man has zero contact with his child or the mother how is she supposed reach an agreement with him and why should she be punished for not being able to? this is literally a stealing candy from a baby tax.

top 3 things to do if you genuinely give a shit:

  • stop the csa charges upon the mother and making it clearly illegal and punishable to not provide for your children (as it is for the RP who can be taken to court for neglect, not sending her children to school etc).

-deal with the judiciary's treatment of crimes against women and come up with serious strategies to tackle endemic violence against women (including obviously sorting out the legal aid fiasco)

-reverse/revise all cuts that can clearly be proven to hit women more than men and therefore are clearly discriminatory even if we pretend that wasn't the aim (the equality act makes it clear it's not just intentional discrimination that is illegal but actions that disproportionately hit a protected group).

anyone who was committed to doing those three things would have my vote. to be honest anyone who isn't committed to those three things doesn't deserve anyone's vote or to be a politician full stop. and yet are any of them? can we think of one?

swallowedAfly · 30/06/2013 07:55

just think of this madness if you want to talk about equality -

if next year i take my child (well cared for, advanced at school due to parental input, etc) out of school for a few days for a trip away i can be legally fined for my horrific neglect of my child. meanwhile his father can legally allow him to starve to death for all he knows by refusing to even contribute to my child's upkeep.

me - missing a few days school = criminal, punishable with immediate fine.

him - total, absolute neglect = well if you can find the money and the energy to start a new claim and wait many months we'll try and get him to pay a piddly amount of his salary which we'll charge you for collecting on a monthly basis and no, he's not a criminal and he won't be fined - you will be fined with a fee.

i'm not getting into whether term time holidays are right or wrong here but look at the reality women live in and how equitable they are in the law.

the reality is the biggest inequalities come through the realities of parenthood so that is where change needs to be made.

however government seems to still be clinging onto the notion that a) it should and b) it has the right to dabble in social engineering with the tactics for doing so being to punish single mothers with poverty. i'm not sure if this is meant to make us go out and marry the next available man or if it's to scare the good girls into not leaving their husbands but it belongs firmly in the past.

swallowedAfly · 30/06/2013 07:59

why is it 'nanny state' mentality to think men should be enforced to pay for their children but not nanny state to think parents need criminalising carte blanche for taking a few days off school?

right. will try to stop mad multiple posts now, sorry. but please if you're still reading YES it's lovely to hear a nice sentiment but please do understand that we're not stupid, we're not dogs grateful for crumbs of acknowledgement from the big boys table - we are full grown up human beings and citizens and workers and parents and thinkers and......

we need to see real plans and specifics and they should be there. it is a matter of very basic ethics. when they're not there it makes it very clear those basic ethics are absent too. meaning what? that we have to try and vote for the lesser evil? pretend we're not women and vote as if we were men? not much options.

sparkle9 · 30/06/2013 08:46

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

twistyfeet · 30/06/2013 10:54

You still reading Ed? Perhaps you could explain why numerous emails to Labour HQ and phone calls go unanswered. I know I was just a lowly member but wanting to know why I was left sat outside in my wheelchair at one of your speeches because your minions had booked an inaccessible venue could at least rate a reply. Even if it was 'bog off, we hate disabled people'.
You are completely out of touch with ordinary Labour party members. you know, the ones that pay the subs...

JugglingFromHereToThere · 30/06/2013 11:13

Seems to me that Ed's original blog post was about how women are portrayed in the media - yes, a massive and important issue in itself, which sadly only seems to be getting worse for my daughter's generation compared to my own (growing up as a young woman in the 70s/80s)

But so interesting that this thread has developed into discussion on a wide range of deep and ingrained inequalities in women's lives, which are only exacerbated as saf has said by the "realities of parenthood"

Tackling these huge underlying inequalities is surely essential to being able to change the somewhat more superficial issue of how women are portrayed in our society.

I would argue that we cannot merely paper over the cracks - even with a large number of thoroughly PC women celebrating bank notes !

We need, as we always have done, some fundamental and foundational changes.

JugglingFromHereToThere · 30/06/2013 11:31

BTW - As a Quaker (and as a woman) having Elizabeth Fry on our bank notes for the last few years has been a source of pride and inspiration for me and my children - as well as a handy talking point when I've given talks on Quakers to others. So, I do think it's an important issue and I contributed to the MN discussion on this recently. It should be simple to fix - just always have a woman celebrated on at least one of our bank notes.
As DS would say - Simples !
It's just I can see other issues affecting our lives more, and more complex to solve.

swallowedAfly · 30/06/2013 11:57

ooh juggling i may pick your brain at some point. i recently read an very interesting and moving publication by the quakers and others about the upcoming wwI anniversary (a bit of a way off yet but...) and how they want to ensure that the people who were anti war, the conscientious objectors and their supporters who took care of their families and kept records of who was being held in what prison and tried to make sure they were ok etc are remembered and honoured.

it actually made me cry! plus it was huge times for women organising into anti war movements and created a split between the sufragettes/feminists of the time as some went for the 'must get behind the war movement' and others said no fucking way are we supporting patriarchal warfare and slaughter. massive times for the socialists and marxists also who objected to the working man being slaughtered for the interests of the ruling classes. fascinating how religious, political and feminist groups came and worked together in that time.

sorry for thread detour! but if you give talks i assume you're pretty informed and could be a great resource. hopefully i'll still have my equality and diversity position in college when the anniversary comes around and want to do join with the campaign to make sure these people are remembered and celebrated as the visionaries they were and their messages applied to modern times.

swallowedAfly · 30/06/2013 11:59

sorry over excited typing led to many typos and grammarflops there Blush

JugglingFromHereToThere · 30/06/2013 12:25

Thanks saf - I'm not massively well informed on Quakers and WW1 - my talks have just been whatever has come up - such as leading a prayer group session at my DD's school, introducing Quakers to other churches through our city's ecumenical group, and joining a group to talk about Quakers for an article in the local newspaper. However happy to help where I can ..

One very interesting thing is that Quakers were awarded the nobel peace prize in 1947, largely for the work of (individual) Friends setting up and running the Friends Ambulance Unit, which many conscientious objectors felt able to serve in during both WW1 and WW2.

Another interesting thing is the memorial to conscientious objectors in Tavistock Square in London, which also has a statue of Gandhi, and a memorial cherry tree with origami cranes to remember the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of WW2. It's a lovely place and well worth a visit as very thought provoking, and also peaceful in a profound way I find.

If you're still here Ed I think it would be wonderful to celebrate the life and bravery of conscientious objectors during WW1 (especially next year during the centenary of the start of WW1), alongside the many events remembering the undoubted bravery of those who fought in the war too.

swallowedAfly · 30/06/2013 12:34

juggling i will send you the link to the document if i remember when i'm in work tomorrow. it mentions tavistock sq memorial and the friends ambulance service.

JugglingFromHereToThere · 30/06/2013 12:37

In an attempt to get thread back on track (because I know others sometimes care about such things !) .... it would also be good to see women's experience remembered during the WW1 centenary remembrances next year - and, as for the men, in all it's diversity (of experience)

JugglingFromHereToThere · 30/06/2013 12:39

Thanks saf Thanks

swallowedAfly · 30/06/2013 13:12

yes to the diversity. not just the COs but also ppl like my granddad who were kept back for farming work and were treated horrendously for it by some people. i'm very glad he was or i may not have had him in my life growing up.

JugglingFromHereToThere · 30/06/2013 13:35

Yes, fortunately for him and me my DGP had just got himself apprenticed in the car industry when war (WW1) broke out when he was a very young man (maybe 18) So (perhaps surprisingly) he was obliged to fulfill that duty (can't imagine an apprenticeship being taken so seriously these days !)
When the apprenticeship ended he was able to join the Royal Flying Corps - again luckily for him the war ended a few weeks after he signed up and he survived - otherwise yes, I wouldn't have known him, and I might not even have been here ! Sad

swallowedAfly · 30/06/2013 14:10

gosh yes - that's a point. i wouldn't be here in all likelihood. how did i miss that?! Grin

again sorry for tangent.

JugglingFromHereToThere · 30/06/2013 14:36

I know it has been a bit of a tangent - I blame saf Grin

  • but maybe not that much of one as Ed and others did talk about the inclusion of women in our story of our history ?

A very important area regarding how our children grow up seeing themselves as girls and boys, women and men.