I’m going to talk about Tory MP Nadine Dorries’ attacks on womens’ rights and some of the campaigning we’ve been doing against these attacks.

On Friday 20 January, I organised a demonstration against Tory MP Nadine Dorries’ Sex Education (required content) private members’ Bill with the help of Laura, Holly and others.

Dorries’ Bill was proposing that girls aged 13-16 (specifically) be given “information and advice on the benefits of abstinence from sexual activity” as part of their sex education. Let’s quickly outline the glaring problems with this proposal:

• Making abstinence education ‘just for girls’ positions women as the gatekeepers of sex. It positions men as having no responsibility for decision making about sex, or for understanding consent. It also supports an idea of women having no desire, and mens’ desire being uncontrollable.
• Existing Sex and Relationships Education in the UK is not statutory. That means that some schools, in particular academies, Free Schools and religious schools, are highly likely to not teach comprehensive Sex and Relationships Education, because they disagree with the apparently ‘unsavoury’ content. Therefore, if this bill had passed, these schools could have ended up teaching only abstinence, and the biology of reproduction in science classes. I.e. not the useful bits of SRE.
• Abstinence education on its own doesn’t work. It’s been proven not to reduce STIs or pregnancy. A review of American sex-abstinence programs involving over 15,000 people by Oxford University found that they do not stop risky sexual behavior, or help in the prevention of unwanted pregnancy.
• The bill is heteronormative, assuming that the only sex likely to happen is between a male and a female.
• Comprehensive Sex and Relationships Education already advises on the option of abstaining from sexual activity as part of decision making about sex.
• Moreover, Dorries’ view that teenagers should be taught to “just say no” to a partner who insists on sexual relations blames victims for sexual violence, suggesting that young people do not say no currently. In fact we know from research not only that young people do refuse sex but more significantly that their partners often choose not to hear this. Instead, we should be teaching teenagers the need to ensure active consent.
  A few days after the first reading of her abstinence education bill, Dorries went on the Vanessa Show and claimed that “if more children were taught to ‘just say no’ there would be less sexual abuse.” This is blatant victim blaming.

The Bill passed its first reading on May 2011 with 67 votes to 61. All 6 of Dorries’ co-presenters of the Bill are active in the socially conservative, Christian-dominated, anti-choice, All Party Parliamentary Pro-Life Group, and outside of parliament the Bill is supported by the unrepresentative pressure group Christian Concern For Our Nation, and by the fundamentalist organisation Christian Voice.

Although the Bill had little chance of passing its second reading due to scheduling, opposition was rallied in order to raise awareness of the need for statutory, evidence based, comprehensive SRE.

Over 100 people turned up to protest against the Bill, and over 2,000 have joined a campaign on Facebook at http://facebook.com/stopdorries. As well as The Socialist Party and Youth Fight for Jobs and Education, the opposition was supported by the British Humanist Association, Abortion Rights UK, Education for Choice, the National Secular Society, Feminist Fightback, Queers Against the Cuts, Slut Means Speak Up, and others.

During the demo on the 20th January, it was reported that the Bill had suddenly been withdrawn from the parliamentary order paper (schedule), effectively killing it dead. Although we saw this as a partial victory, Dorries is threatening her intentions might become part of another bill she puts through, so whilst we celebrate the success in defeating this Bill, we’re keeping an eye on Dorries and her Tory Government, as we know we haven’t heard the last of their attacks on womens’ rights, education and sexual liberation.

In running this campaign, the more I read about Dorries, the more I learnt about her multiple attacks on womens’ rights:

• 2006 – trying repeatedly to reduce the time limit on abortions, from 24 to 20 weeks
• 2006 – trying to make counselling a compulsory pre-requisite to abortion – she called it “counselling about the medical risk of, and about matters relating to, termination and carrying a pregnancy to term as a condition of informed consent to termination” – in America this equivalent law has meant states forcing women to view images of aborted foetuses before being allowed to have an abortion.
• 2011 – trying to make counselling for women seeking abortion provided not by experienced abortion providers such as BPAS (which is NHS funded), but by what she considers to be ‘independent’ groups – i.e. religious anti-choice organisations.

Dorries had proposed changing the statutory duties the NHS must provide to include “independent information, advice and counselling services for women requesting termination of pregnancy” – and had said private abortion providers should not be considered “independent”. But that was not put to the vote – instead it was on another of her amendments, proposing instead to offer women “the option of receiving independent” counselling and advice, that MPs voted.

“MPs rejected her call to offer women the “option” of independent counselling by 368 votes to 118, but there will be a consultation on improving services.”

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith, Defence Secretary Liam Fox and Northern Ireland Secretary Owen Patterson were among the ministers to vote for Ms Dorries’ amendment.

MPs did not have to follow party lines as abortion is considered an issue of conscience.

Health Minister Anne Milton had urged Ms Dorries to withdraw her amendments. She said the government was “supportive of the spirit of these amendments” but that putting it in primary legislation was unnecessary and would “deprive Parliament of the opportunity to consider the detail of how this service would develop and evolve.”

Since then, Anne Milton, has been working with DoH civil servants behind the scenes on plans to dramatically alter the system. Draft proposals will set out three options.

1. One is exactly as had been laid out in Dorries’ amendment.
2. A second option is for a system of “voluntary registration”. This would would mean any organisation offering counselling to women with a crisis pregnancy would have to meet minimum standards, and only use appropriately-trained counsellors.The consultation group has been debating whether organisations running such services should be required to declare any ethical stance – such as holding pro-life beliefs. If that demand is made, some pro-life campaigners are likely to argue that abortion clinics would have to declare a financial interest in carrying out terminations.
3. A third option, to retain the current services, acknowledges that it would mean a “postcode lottery” remained in the standard of care.

A Department of Health consultation is likely to begin in February 2012, so we need to be ready to make sure we’re heard in that.

Dorries’ proposals, and the actions of her party, have nothing to do with helping women. The conservatives are responsible for pushing through cuts which disproportionately affect women:

• As women represent 65 per cent of the public sector workforce, they will bear the brunt of the estimated 400,000 public sector job losses over the next four years.
• On average women working in the public sector earn almost 40 per cent more per hour than female employees in the private sector. So even if replacement jobs were available in the private sector (which they’re not), it would represent a pay cut.
• Cuts to welfare will affect women twice as much as men because on average one fifth of womens’ income comes from welfare, whilst for men it is one tenth.
• £280 million of funding for a ten-year Teenage Pregnancy Strategy has been scrapped.
• While one in five women is likely to suffer rape or sexual attack during their lifetime, Government cuts to domestic violence and rape crisis services are averaging at over 40%.
• Legal aid cuts will make women in violent relationships particularly vulnerable.
• Lone parents, 90 per cent of whom are female, will be hit hardest by the spending cuts, losing 18.5 per cent of their net household income.

Around 250 people turned up to protest against the Bill, which would have required girls aged 13-16 to be given compulsory abstinence lessons, as part of their sex education. Over 2,000 people joined a campaign against the Bill on Facebook. As well as The Socialist Party and Youth Fight for Jobs and Education, the opposition was supported by the British Humanist Association, Abortion Rights UK, Education for Choice, the National Secular Society, Feminist Fightback, Queers Against the Cuts, Slut Means Speak Up, and others.

The Bill had many problems – it was sexist by being just for girls, and abstinence-only education has been proven not to work in reducing unplanned pregnancies and STIs. As the majority of comprehensive sex and relationships education (SRE) is not currently compulsory, many schools, particularly academies and religious schools, don’t have to teach comprehensive SRE, meaning that the Bill effectively could have meant abstinence-only education for many.

Although the Bill had little chance of passing its second reading due to scheduling, opposition was rallied in order to raise awareness of the need for statutory, evidence based, comprehensive SRE.

However, Dorries is threatening her intentions might become part of another bill she puts through, so whilst celebrating the success in defeating this Bill, campaigners are keeping an eye on Dorries and her Tory Government, as we know we haven’t heard the last of their attacks on womens’ rights, education and sexual liberation.

1. Making abstinence education ‘just for girls’ positions women as the gatekeepers of sex. It positions men as having no responsibility for decision making about sex, or for understanding consent. It also supports an idea of women having no desire, and mens’ desire being uncontrollable.
2. Existing Sex and Relationships Education in the UK is not statutory. That means that some schools, in particular academies, Free Schools and religious schools, are highly likely to not teach comprehensive Sex and Relationships Education, because they disagree with the apparently ‘unsavoury’ content. Therefore, if this bill passes, these schools could end up teaching only abstinence, and the biology of reproduction in science classes. I.e. not the useful bits of SRE.
3. Now, abstinence education on its own doesn’t work. It’s been proven not to reduce STIs or pregnancy. A review of American sex-abstinence programs involving over 15,000 people by Oxford University found that they do not stop risky sexual behavior, or help in the prevention of unwanted pregnancy.
4. The bill is heteronormative, assuming that the only sex likely to happen is between a male and a female.
5. Comprehensive Sex and Relationships Education already advises on the benefits of abstaining from sexual activity.

The more I read about Dorries, the more I learnt about her multiple attacks on womens’ rights, such as trying to make counselling for women seeking abortion compulsory (we apparently can’t be trusted to decide for ourselves), and provided by religious anti-choice organisations, and trying repeatedly to reduce the time limit on abortions. A few days after the first reading of her abstinence education bill, Dorries went on the Vanessa Show and claimed that “if more children were taught to ‘just say no’ there would be less sexual abuse.” Seriously, she said that, on TV. This is blatant victim blaming.

Let’s examine Dorries’ motivations for a minute. It is clear to me that Dorries’ attacks are founded on her capitalist, fundamentalist Christian, ideology.

Firstly, her religion teaches her that sex outside of marriage is a sin – it’s wrong and shameful. Knowledge about sex is also dangerous. Her religion teaches her that abortion is immoral. Not only does that explain her direct and explicit attacks on abortion rights, but is relevant to this abstinence education bill, because she (wrongly) believes that abstinence education will reduce sex outside of marriage and therefore reduce unwanted pregnancies, therefore reducing abortions.

Secondly, her capitalist ideology relies heavily on the traditional idea of a nuclear family. For the ruling class, the family is a vital social and economic institution. It means married (presumed to be heterosexual) women being stay-at-home mothers and carers whilst the husband goes out to work – i.e. women providing unpaid labour. Capitalists have historically depended on the institution of marriage and the monogamy of women within the rules of marriage, to control the paternity of children for the purposes of inheritance of money and property. Dorries believes that any sex outside of marriage will lead to either abortions or single mothers on benefits. And she certainly doesn’t want the state to support either of those. A major contradiction of capitalism though, is that employers refuse to pay working class people a family living wage to one working parent as a sole breadwinner, forcing families into poverty and exploitative working conditions.

Dorries’ proposals, and the actions of her party, have nothing to do with helping women. The conservatives are responsible for pushing through cuts which disproportionately affect women:

• As women represent 65 per cent of the public sector workforce, they will bear the brunt of the estimated 400,000 public sector job losses over the next four years.
• On average women working in the public sector earn almost 40 per cent more per hour than female employees in the private sector. So even if replacement jobs were available in the private sector (which they’re not), it would represent a pay cut.
• Cuts to welfare will affect women twice as much as men because on average one fifth of womens’ income comes from welfare, whilst for men it is one tenth.
• £280 million of funding for a ten-year Teenage Pregnancy Strategy has been scrapped.
• While one in five women is likely to suffer rape or sexual attack during their lifetime, Government cuts to domestic violence and rape crisis services are averaging at over 40%.
• Legal aid cuts will make women in violent relationships particularly vulnerable.
• Lone parents, 90 per cent of whom are female, will be hit hardest by the spending cuts, losing 18.5 per cent of their net household income.

We must fight each and every attack on our rights or they will be taken away from us. Equality cannot be won under capitalism, but while we fight to change the system, we can’t let the ruling class destroy what rights we have won so far. So, back to Dorries and her abstinence education bill…

Not finding any focused campaign against her newest attack, back in May, I decided to set up a Facebook campaign: Stop Dorries’ abstinence for girls sex education bill. After a bit of tweeting, in two days the campaign had over 500 supporters. We’ve now got over 1,900.

We will be demonstrating against the abstinence education bill on the 20th January outside the Houses of Parliament, at 10:30am, Old Palace Yard, Westminster. The Socialist Party, Youth Fight For Jobs and Education, the British Humanist Association, Feminist Fightback, Abortion Rights UK, Queers Against The Cuts, Parents & Carers for Sex & Relationships Education, Education for Choice, The National Secular Society, Bristol Feminist Network, Left Front Art and Liberal Conspiracy are all supporting the demo. More information and the Facebook event are at http://on.fb.me/stopdorriesdemo.

Disclaimer: a shortened version of this post was previously published on The F Word.

On 20 January 2012, Nadine Dorries’ proposed amendment to sex education, Bill 185, which suggests GIRLS be taught abstinence, is due to get a second reading in parliament.

The bill is sexist as it positions girls as being solely responsible for decisions about sexual activity and boys as having no responsibility for ensuring that sex is mutually wanted, fully consenting and safe. Dorries even said that teaching children to ‘say no’ could reduce child abuse. This victim blaming is dangerous, incorrect, and offensive to survivors of abuse.

Abstinence education on its own is ineffective in reducing teenage pregnancies and STI rates. Good quality comprehensive Sex and Relationships Education (SRE) should already explicitly address the option of abstinence as part of decision-making about sex, and safer sex.

SRE should be informative and fact based. Some of the most important bits of SRE, which really helps young people to take responsibility for themselves and make healthy decisions (namely the relationships and communication aspects), are optional for schools and this bill will not change that. If this bill passes, some schools could end up only teaching the biology of reproduction and STIs (within the science curriculum) plus abstinence.

If Dorries really wanted to help young women to stay safe and healthy she would be advocating for statutory, comprehensive sex and relationships education for all young people, of all genders, and in all schools whether they are faith schools, academies, free schools or community schools. Her party in Government has already stated that they have no intention of making SRE statutory.

More information on the campaign can be found at http://facebook.com/stopdorries and the demonstration at http://on.fb.me/stopdorriesdemo.

Further reading:

• Debate in parliament at first reading: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2011-05-04b.680.0
• Guardian article, ‘Nadine Dorries and sex education for girls’: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/the-womens-blog-with-jane-martinson/2011/may/04/nadine-dorries-sex-education-lessons
• Guardian article, ‘Stop this anti-sex drive’: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/16/anti-sex-drive-nadine-dorries
• YouTube video: Critique and interview of Rick Perry, governor of Texas, who introduced abstinence only education into 94% of state schools, with the result of Texas becoming the highest teen pregnancy state. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Lb8X0WweOU
• Check how your MP voted in the first reading: http://bit.ly/sexedbill185
• What is currently taught in UK schools: http://www.bbc.co.uk/barefacts/sex_education.shtml

1. Adjust your income for inflation to see what your income was worth in the year 2000. Use this ‘lump sum’ inflation calculator tool for that. This put me down to  £25,368.
2. Use this Global Rich List tool (which is based on year 2000 world bank data, which is adjusted to account for differences in cost of living around the world, and is based on household surveys) to see what top % you’re in. I got 1.22%.
3. Not only does it tell you what % you’re in, but it tells you how many people in the world are richer than you are. I got 73,781,538 people.

I’m sure there’s holes in these tools and methods but I also don’t think they’re massively far off. I also don’t think the solution is to give lots of money to charities dealing with the symptoms of a broken society. I think we need to support charities or organisations that are focused on changing the structure of society to make it fairer, otherwise nothing will change in the long term. That is, revolutionary organisations, and those working to raise awareness of the issues.

There’s also a really neat data visualisation tool where you can customise the dataset here. Here you can see how wealth distribution has widened over time, and how different countries differ.

This is also interesting, by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, to see where you fit as a household, in the UK. I got top 19%. You can use this salary calculator to calculate your income after tax.

Then noticed this whitehouse blog post which uses LBGTQ (defined as ‘lesbian, gay bisexual, transgender or queer/questioning’) which is quite interesting…never seen that definition before… (the ‘questioning’ definition of Q). Great that they’re using ‘queer’ properly, shame they define T as ‘transgender’ instead of simply ‘trans’, the latter being inclusive of transexuals and transvestites as well as transgendered people.

Also realised the UN reference “to sexual orientation in a resolution on extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions has been restored.”, in December 2010, which I hadn’t realised. I.e. the UN is supposed to come to your aid if you’re gonna be killed for being LGBQ. (I’m not sure if they will help if it’s ‘cos you’re T).

Nadine Dorries, Conservative MP, who has voted against equal gay rights in the past, has just successfully proposed a bill to teach GIRLS (specifically) the ‘benefits’ of abstinence from ‘sexual activity’! Who’s up for starting a big campaign against this dangerous heteronormative sexist anti-sex bill before its second reading in parliament?

Join the Facebook Page Stop Dorries’ abstinence for girls sex education bill

Check how your MP voted

Email your MP with the following points (alter tone depending on whether they already voted for or against or were absent but email either way to make sure! MAKE SURE YOU CHANGE THE TEXT OR THE EMAIL WILL BE BLOCKED):

Dear [Your MP],

On 4 May 2011 Nadine Dorries proposed a bill to require that sex education in schools should include content promoting abstinence to teenage girls.

While sex education already mentions the option of abstinence, this Bill would require active promotion of abstinence to girls, with no such requirement of the education provided to boys.

There is no logic in promoting abstinence to girls specifically – it is sexist. There is also no evidence that promoting abstinence in sex education reduces teenage pregnancies.

The wording of the bill is also ideological – it is not demanding abstinence from heterosexual sexual intercourse but from all sexual activity. This is dangerous as teenage girls may be taught that masturbation or other sexual activity is also wrong.

I call on you to vote against this archaic ideological bill on its second reading on Friday 20 January 2012.

Please respond letting me know your voting intentions regarding this bill.

Sincerely,

[Your Name]

________________

View the debate on They Work For You

RSS Feed of Beth Granter’s Delicious Activism Links

Thinking about giving presentations and public speaking lately… I’ve done conference speaking to groups of 80-100 marketers without much worry before, but put me in front of 10 people I really really respect and admire (like some awesome clients, proper geeks, or highly intellectual socialists) and I totally freak out. So yeah, my presentation didn’t really go that well due to nerves… I need to work on that!

Radio buttons? With only two options and I have to choose one? And the default is Male? So I’m forced to declare myself as one or the other. How rubbish. Here’s a couple of suggestions for improvement:

Or even better:

Or even don’t bother asking in the first place! At least not in the initial sign up. You could let people enter this information about themselves by choice later on. So far Pownce is winning the gender game. I know I keep reporting on all the sign-up dialogues being crap for promoting gender diversity, but when I’ve seen enough of these I think I’ll make a table of winners and losers in gender awareness in sign ups / personal profile sites’ UI.

_____________EDIT______________

Aha! on logging in, turns out you can un-define your gender in your profile settings.  So that is a good thing, but you still shouldn’t have to choose one in the first place.  It’s a bit weird that you can choose ‘nothing’ later on, but not initially.  Also it’s still not perfect because you might want to define yourself as Transgendered or something else and because you can’t this is giving preferential treatment to males and females.

]]> http://bethgranter.com/blog/2008/06/spock-is-rubbish-at-identity-politics-as-well/feed/ 3