"Activists" (not women) are pleased at end of tampon tax

[WhatTiggersDoBest]

I wasn't sure why the wording of this headline really irritated me until about ten minutes ago. They've changed it on the BBC homepage but not on the actual article. It's claiming that activists are pleased that tampon tax is scrapped in England.
At first I thought it annoyed me because I interpreted it that they seemed to think you'd have to be some fringe activist to be pleased about this change.
But I've come back to it a couple of hours later, and I think I'm annoyed about it because it doesn't say "women cheer as sexist tampon tax is scrapped". They've used "activist" when they mean "women".
And then I realised the word "sexist" is in quotes in the article, as if to imply that this is someone's perception rather than reality. I mean, why would a tax on sanitary products be sexist?
It's taken me hours to put my finger on it, but I feel like they've worded the whole article to try and avoid gendering except in direct quotes.
And now I've realised it, I'm annoyed because this slide into erasure is so fucking subtle.
Maybe I'm over reacting, but it seems like there's just so much wrong with this article.
I want to complain but in my experience the BBC will just send me a snotty email saying "the article is fine, shove off" but in different words.
www.bbc.com/news/business-55502252

IDK where that bizarre semicolon came from in the article title. Oops.

Do complain, I got something changed once because I complained, so you never know.

It's also worth complaining as they get recorded and reviewed, it's a form of audience feedback and there are internal struggles at the BBC, as there are in political parties, with GC staff in pockets around the organisation (which is huge).

I CBA to read the article TBH as I've been looking at the tampon tax stories all day and I think it's short sighted to celebrate it as a win, but the 'sexist' (in quotes) would also annoy me.

I mean, why would a tax on sanitary products be sexist?

Is any tax on an item used only by one sex sexist?

Do all single-sex items have to inherently be zero-rated? Because they're single-sex?

Surely to be "sexist" there has to be some actual sex disparity?

I know there are invented myths of disparity to justify the "sexism" claim, such as "men's razors are zero-rated". But they're not true...

@OhHolyJesus Thanks I've gone to their complaints page and found a really heartening response they recently gave to some TRAs who complained about JKR. So I will give it a go and see what happens.

@NecessaryScene1 I suppose there's always a choice, and one could avoid paying tax by not buying the items. The blood-running-down-my-legs/sat-in-a-puddle-of-jam look is free to achieve. Then we just need to work out why it was ever the responsibility of women to fund help for domestic violence victims when it's an act largely perpetrated by men, which was the justification for this tax. Then whatever tax is being levied on men's razors could be diverted to pay for that, instead. Except, lots of men don't use razors, and I rather like using men's razors as they have better blades and come in half-decent colours. I suspect I'm not the only woman who does this. Hmm...

I must admit I would probably have skimmed over this so glad OP has broken it down.

What is worse is that anytime in the article sexism or sexist is used it is always in quotes.

Re why is it sexist. If you have read any of the other threads on the tampon tax, it was started by a young woman who saw it as sexist because tampons etc., were classified as "luxury" items whereas men's shavers weren't.

And it is thanks to the one woman that the VAT was lowered to the lowest it could under EU regulations, with the obligitory 5% then creating a fund to give grants to women's groups.

And I think as a consciousness raising campaign I think for many women who wouldn't necessarily bother with women's issues immediately saw that this was discriminatory.

As to boycotting the products, have no doubt that many of the male politicians though women coped as women in previous centuries had by making use of rags and dilligently boiling them clean to be reused!

Now I am properly cross. They have even put the word stigma in quotes.

Its as thought they are saying anything that women claim as a valid response to a situation is suspect, or not to be taken seriously.

And its written by a woman.

VAT was introduced at 10%. It went down briefly in 1974-I-think, with 25% on fuel, then the fuel rate went down to 12.5% (and I think was eventually abolished under Thatcher, at which point everything was at 12.5%) and the since then the tax has carried on rising slowly until it reached 17.5% by 1991, 20% in 2011.

Memories: some time in the mid-seventies a friend of mine wrote to the female minister in charge of VAT, complaining that sanitary products were taxed while razor-blades were not, and received a reply which said, in effect, that razor-blades were essential for men who didn't want to have beards but sanitary products were not essential because women could do what their mothers and grandmothers had done and use washable rag pads instead of tampons.

She wasn't impressed by that reply. Nor was I.

The result of the many complaints about the inequity that were received seems to have been, not that tampons became zero-rated but that razor-blades started to have VAT on them.

Later again, the VAT on sanitary products was reduced to the lowest rate available in the EU -- 5% at the time of Brexit. I think that may have been as late as 2015, and as the result of a campaign started by one splendid woman whose name I really regret I can't remember.

There have been double standards across the board with razors vs sanitary products, with razors being seen as essential and sanpro as some kind of luxury that women don't deserve.

Apart from the VAT issue, razors were routinely handed out in hospital wards but sanitary products were not.
Its only recently and after yet more campaigning (by doctors though, not scary activists) that hospitals have been told to have sanitary products available for women in 2019.
The Equality Act has been in place since 2010...

news.sky.com/story/hospital-patients-to-get-free-sanitary-products-11653801

Have had a reply to my complaint from the BBC (which is quite quick I think).

Basically they are saying it is grammatically correct as it indicates a quote ie the words of the woman campainging against the tax.

So the BBC can not bring itself to say that, but can only publish it as a quote by someone.

Cant think of any other instance where they do that.

My unhappiness has been noted and past on to the writer!

VAT is applied to razors. Its a myth that it isn't

As I remember it, VAT when it was introduced in this country was not applied to razor blades, but was applied at the standard rate to sanitary towels and tampons. There was a LOT of complaint about this, so rather than it being removed from sanitary protection (which they claimed required the consent of every country in the EEC-as-it-was-then to achieve), it was brought in on razor blades as well (which mysteriously could be done without any EEC consent being necessary).

It's irrelevant whether razors are taxed or not - anyone unhappy with tax on razors can start their own campaign (and razors are used by both sexes anyway, unless you are a woman who is foolish enough to pay extra for one that's pink).

Sanitary products should never have been taxed. The reversal is too late for me, as I'm post-hysterectomy, but I'm really glad for the sake of all the women who will now benefit from this. When you consider what you must spend over, say, 40 years of having periods, the savings must be considerable.

I remember people in my sixth-form year at school making calculations, based on how often and for how long we were menstruating, of how much we would spend on the things during a lifetime -- pre-VAT, this was! also, as at least one of us put it, "periods are a bloody waste of good fucking time" and we calculated that, as well.

There was a certain amount of ill-feeling between the people with a 26-day cycle and those with a 38-day one, as well. Poor innocents, we thought these things were fixed and immutable from the age of sixteen onwards.

razor-blades were essential for men who didn't want to have beards

Useful, yes. Essential, no. In extremis a lighter would do it, as anyone who's ever tried to light a fag while drunk will know.

From my antediluvian point of view, "activists" covers men, women, children - all of whom might have actively campaigned for the end of this tax, and who I would imagine are pleased too.

And besides, if I spent my life complaining about bad reportage on the BBC, I wouldn't have time to complain about anything else.

And that would never do.

TyroTerf
"razor-blades were essential for men who didn't want to have beards"
Useful, yes. Essential, no. In extremis a lighter would do it, as anyone who's ever tried to light a fag while drunk will know.

The Romans used pumice stone to get rid of their beards, apparently.

But I suspect there is VAT on pumice stones as well.

Have written back to the BBC saying that if for instance they were talking about BLM they would never put the word racist in quotes.

Dont expect a response.

It is activists, not just women. Don't you remember the photo of Lily Madigan with Period Poverty biro's across Lily's hand?

Well, we know tampons are recommended for first aid to stop a bullet wound until proper treatment can be sought; maybe there was paranoia in the air?

People of either sex who support women's rights will be pleased to hear this tax has been abolished. But obviously it affects women more, as they are the ones who use and generally pay for the products.

Cynical me says they only really got behind this when the fetishists got involved...

Is the reason they have used 'activists' rather than specifically women because it is not only women who are pleased at the news? My DP was male last time I checked and he is pleased for me too! Men can also be feminists and activists, and I'm sure will also be pleased, just another perspective 😊