Meryl Streep and Margaret Thatcher

Being the avid history nerd that I am, I was basically counting down the minutes until the opening of Iron Lady, the new film chronicling Margaret Thatcher’s life, starring Meryl Streep. I mean, what could be better than Meryl Streep (who is awesomeness in human form) taking on a complex, fascinating character like Prime Minister Thatcher, right? Regardless of your politics, Margaret Thatcher’s story is an exciting one.

I was expecting a few things from the film. First, I was expecting a kick-butt performance from Ms. Streep. Second, I was expecting to learn more about Margaret Thatcher’s political and personal story, since I don’t know that much about her. Third, I was expecting to be thoroughly entertained.

Unfortunately, only one of my three expectations was really fulfilled. Meryl Streep’s performance was above and beyond what I had hoped for. She did an incredible job conveying subtle aspects of Margaret Thatcher’s character, and portraying her throughout at different ages. I also just have to give props to Meryl Streep for taking on this role and helping to bring to light the story of a political trailblazer.

Sadly, I feel the film didn’t give Meryl Streep much of a chance to delve into certain aspects of Thatcher’s character. The film touched on events that occurred during Thatcher’s time as Prime Minister, but glossed over many.

I wanted to see more explanation of how Thatcher came to believe in her conservative politics, whether she ever questioned them, and how she became interested in politics in the first place.The film alludes to Thatcher’s early ambitions with a scene where she dreamily watches her politically active father deliver a speech, but skips over Thatcher’s time at Oxford, showing us her run for Parliament before we know why or when she became interested in politics.

Instead the film focuses mainly on Thatcher’s life as an old woman, after her husband has died, as she is beginning to lose her mind. In most of the movie, Thatcher is coping with the loss of her husband. She hallucinates that he is with her when he is, in fact, dead, and for most of the film refuses to throw out his belongings.

At the end of the film, she finally lets her hallucinations go, as she imagines her husband walking out the door. However, this is done with much crying and saying that she is scared to be alone. I thought the film’s choice to include these hallucinations was especially interesting, as it highlighted Thatcher’s dependency on her male counterpart, rather than focusing on her independent strength.

One positive aspect of this portrayal is that it debunks the idea that Margaret Thatcher was, well, an Iron Lady. Showing Thatcher as vulnerable and reliant on her husband humanizes her to some extent. However, it frustrates me that it is necessary to portray a female leader as dependent on her husband to humanize her or make her seem likeable.

I found myself wishing that the film had focused on a stronger, more independent Thatcher, rather than trying to make her hard exterior soft on the edges.

Maybe it’s because I can be a bit of an iron lady myself sometimes, but I think Thatcher would have been even more likeable and relatable, had more of her firmness and independence been portrayed. I was expecting a lot from this film, and frankly, I left somewhat disappointed. While I commend Streep and the others who worked on this film for highlighting the life of such an interesting woman, I hope that someday filmmakers will not feel the need to soften such a powerful character simply because of her gender.

Like every other rational individual in our country, I was in a state of utter shock when I heard the news that, for the first time in history, the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had overruled a fact-based decision by the FDA. While this type of nonsensical anti-choice maneuver is something pro-choicers have had to deal with in the past, the fact that it was carried out by a Democratic administration was nothing less than devastating. The administration ignored sound evidence (and women’s basic rights) and did what they are quickly becoming best known for, sacrificing “change we can believe in” for “never mind what’s right, I will shirk away from anything that could possibly be considered controversial and cost me a vote in my reelection campaign.”

And yes, it was abundantly clear to me within a few moments that this was nothing but a case of political posturing by Obama and his team of advisers. For many obvious reasons this was clearly not a case of Secretary Sebelius going rogue and determining, as a non-medical professional, that the scientists and researchers at the FDA, in their ten-plus years of evaluating over-the-counter use of emergency contraception, had somehow failed to adequately address the subject at hand in their research. Her flimsy response citing an issue that could have easily been addressed in say, the past 10 years (if it were an actual issue, which it is not), did nothing to convince me otherwise. Groups like the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, who are in a position to know a thing or two about the proper use of emergency contraception (because, unlike Sebelius, they are medical and public health experts who have addressed this issue daily since emergency contraception came into existence), happen to wholeheartedly agree with my conclusion.

In a particularly disheartening statement from one of the only four (yes, really) members of Congress who actually spoke up on the issue, Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) managed to release this depressing gem of a proclamation, “I think the president has not been with us 100 percent, but I don’t think he’s thrown women totally under the bus.”

He hasn’t thrown women totally under the bus? This is now that the standard by which we judge the leader of the party that is supposed to protect women’s rights? Not throwing women’s rights totally under the bus?

This telling statement and the unacceptably small number of Democrats in Congress willing to criticize Obama’s blatant disregard for the health and rights of women should serve as a huge wake up call to us. We cannot let the Democrats, let our president, lose sight of what this decades-old debate about access to all forms of reproductive health care is really about; that is, for women to have any sort of autonomy and self-determination within our society. When you make this connection explicit, it renders all of their “compromises” with an unrelenting and regressive conservative party seem horribly unacceptable. In fact, that is precisely why the United Nations was advised to consider any such maneuvers a violation of women’s human rights.

The UN Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council, when tasked with submitting a report to the committee on the connection between reproductive health and human rights, asserted that legal restrictions on access to reproductive health services serve to systematically deprive women of full participation in society. It is clear why the Rapporteur came to this conclusion when we look back at our own nation’s history; it is no coincidence that it was only when women gained widespread access to oral contraception in the early 1970s that we were able, for the first time, to fully and sustainably participate in the public sphere (though patterns of working outside the home have always varied by race and by class, access to oral contraception was one of the primary shifts that allowed for all women to begin working outside the home). The simple truth of the matter is that if a woman is not able to safely opt out of or delay pregnancy, then it is nearly impossible for her to pursue things like education and work outside the home. If you need proof of this lesson from outside the broad strokes of history, feel free to ask any woman who has had a career outside of the home or managed to avoid an unintended pregnancy in college or high school, where she would be without access to contraception.

In his report, the Rapporteur goes on to note that:

Public morality cannot serve as a justification for enactment or enforcement of laws that may result in human rights violation, including those intended to regulate sexual and reproductive conduct and decision making. Although securing particular public health outcomes is a legitimate State aim, measures taken to achieve this must be both evidenced-based and proportionate… legal restrictions that reduce or deny access to family planning goods and services…such as emergency contraception, constitute a violation.

Enforcement of public morality around emergency contraception without any basis in evidence sounds eerily familiar doesn’t it? What did our President say again of his administration’s decision? I believe it was, ah yes:

And as I understand it, the reason Kathleen made this decision was she could not be confident that a 10-year-old or an 11-year-old, going to a drug store, should be able to, alongside bubble gum or batteries, purchase a powerful drug to stop a pregnancy… I think most parents would probably feel the same way.

Aside from the fact that Obama misrepresents how this drug works, it prevents pregnancy, it does not “stop a pregnancy,” others have appropriately commented on how a) this statement completely distorts the population the decision affected (aka ALL women and b) Obama’s words are incredibly insulting and paternalistic. However, what I am most interested in for the purposes of this analysis is how President Obama’s actions and words demonstrate a complete lack of understanding and/or callousness about something that was very clear to the UN Rapporteur and should be clear to a President who considers himself a student of history (I would hope he has read a book or two on U.S. history which included a few chapters on women). There is an inextricable link between women’s reproductive rights and our freedom and self-determination within a society, thus any President who restricts access to reproductive healthcare violates women’s human rights and certainly cannot claim to be pro-woman. Period.

Now the question is, where does that leave the pro-choice, pro-woman community who feels betrayed both by the actions of our President (and the line of thinking behind them) and by our party? Particularly when we hear more than whispers of another potential move to undermine our rights.

Quite frankly I do not have an answer. But I do know this: Obama’s political calculation in the Plan B scenario relied on the belief that no matter what he does, pro-choice women will rally, raise money, and vote for him in 2012 because there is just no better option. However, despite the fact that Obama thinks women are incapable of following directions for a one-step pill, we just might be smart enough to hold him and our party accountable, with our votes and with our voices, to the women who put them in office.

Originally posted on RH Reality Check.

The Divine Feminine at Occupy Wall Street

Bonobos and chimpanzees, our closest animal relatives, are almost exactly the same type of monkey. They are so similar, in fact, they only became distinguished as separate species in 1929. But chimpanzee and bonobo societies are dramatically different. In chimpanzee culture, males dominate, sex is strictly for reproduction and violence and infanticide are common. Bonobo society, on the other hand, is remarkably peaceful and is characterized by an abundance of recreational sex and strong female bonding. This marked difference is inextricably linked to the relative levels of female interaction in each society. In chimpanzee habitats, where food is difficult to obtain, females spend their time isolated from one another, gathering food and caring for their offspring. Their seclusion leaves them susceptible to violence and allows male chimpanzees ample opportunity to fight and build hierarchies. In bonobo society, where food is abundant and easy to gather, females spend most of their time with each other. Pervasive female bonding obscures paternity lines, removing the incentive for infanticide, and offers protection and support against other forms of violence.

The evolutionary advantages of bonobo lifestyle, well-known among primatologists, served as an introduction to our first Divine Feminine discussion at Occupy Wall Street. Tired of male-dominated spaces and conversations, female occupiers were insisting on the importance of coming together simply for the sake of, well, coming together. Unlike WOW (Women Occupying Wall Street), there was no agenda, no actions being planned. The purpose was solely to meet and share what was on our minds without men present.

To be perfectly honest, I entered my first Divine Feminine discussion out of duty rather than desire. I had more than enough commitments, caucuses and events competing for my time – meeting for meeting’s sake was not a priority. I was also a bit put off by the group’s name, with its whiff of gender essentialism. I was more interested in dismantling gender binaries than discussing estrogen with a bunch of earth mothers.

But I have also experienced my share of sexism at Occupy Wall Street. I have watched too many women shrink from sharing their ideas, too many temperate voices shouted out of conversations, and too many important issues squeezed off of the agenda. I have heard too many terrible stories testifying to the very real violence and dangers plaguing female occupiers as night falls. And after pushing aside the things that are most important to me – family, friends, physical health – in the name of building a better world, the idea of taking time to nurture human relationships, bonding, and conversation, hit a nerve. So I figured I would make a show of solidarity, get in touch with my Divine Femininity for a few minutes, and then get back to work.

It turned out I was not alone. Perching just outside the circle to signify their non-commitment, several attendees announced at the outset that they could only stay ten minutes, just came to check things out, “what is Divine Feminine anyway?” That’s when my friend Ketchup shared the story about the bonobos, explaining that when women spend time together, all of society benefits; when we isolate ourselves, society suffers. By the time she reached this simple conclusion, everyone had drawn in closer.

Ten minutes came and went and nobody left, except to run to a bathroom or grab a hot chocolate from the nearby falafel cart. One woman returned triumphantly wielding a large pizza and proudly announced that she had used her “Divine Feminine powers” to procure it from the OWS kitchen team. Over the course of the night it became clear to me that the value of the group, what set it apart from the 60-odd other groups operating at Occupy Wall Street, had nothing to do with biology. Rather, what kept us there was a testament to how, as one woman put it, “the feminine act of listening is beautiful and radical.”

In my time at Occupy Wall Street, I’ve experienced numerous bonobo-style communities emerge from the radical, beautiful, and sometimes challenging, act of listening. One week after a Safer Spaces sleep-out, as we drank our coffee and rolled up our sleeping bags, the person I slept next to suggested everyone play a game. I was about to skip it when, realizing I hadn’t even learned my fellow safe-spacer’s name, I checked myself and decided to stick around. After five minutes of the silly exercise – depicting our hairstyle evolution on pieces of cardboard – it was clear that we would no longer need a pink flag to demarcate the safe space we had created among one another. Just the day before the sleepout, two people I had never met separately, mysteriously, showed up to lend support as I was facilitating a meeting that threatened to be disrupted. I later learned they were friends of someone with whom I had locked tear-filled eyes during a particularly moving moment of the story-sharing session I help coordinate. After the session we had bonded over the experience, and when I briefly mentioned the meeting, she silently enlisted everyone she knew to attend. Like bonobos, they showed up to protect the group’s ideas against violence and possible “infanticide.”

Which brings me back to evolution. In the early days of Occupy Wall Street, before Divine Feminine and WOW were formed, I found my home in the Speak-Easy Caucus. Like WOW, Speak-Easy originated as a safe space for voices and ideas that were being pushed out of the larger conversation of the General Assembly. Originally open to anyone who did not identify as 100% male, Speak-Easy later evolved to include a spectrum of individuals, from female-bodied people identifying as women to male-bodied people who did not identify as traditionally masculine. Although it made sense for Speak-Easy to include a diversity of people, including men, who had difficulty having their voices heard, many women felt it was also important to maintain a safe space exclusively for women and non-males – and thus, WOW was born. Speak-Easy itself would later disband as many of its members became active in the Queer Caucus.

Recently, the entire structure of the General Assembly and Occupy Wall Street evolved to adopt the spokes council model passed by the General Assembly. The spokes council model is meant to improve coordination, accessibility and transparency at Occupy Wall Street and to better empower marginalized voices in groups such as WOW, the Queer Caucus and the People of Color Working Group to communicate their needs and be involved in decision-making. The model is not without its critics – it has undergone countless revisions, been the subject of daily teach-ins, and was presented to the General Assembly on four occasions before finally achieving approval by a 9/10 consensus. The adopted proposal is itself a living document, and was accepted with the understanding that it would continue to evolve in response to the many concerns raised by members of the OWS community.

It’s no surprise that Occupy Wall Street is far from perfect. But what I have witnessed in the evolution of Occupy Wall Street, what differentiates us from dominant society and makes this movement worth fighting for, is a genuine willingness to confront our problems and create a community where all voices can be truly equal. We have a lot working against us, not the least of which is centuries of practice doing things the other way – building hierarchies based on race, class and gender, protecting systems of privilege and rewarding the loudest and most dominant voices. But slowly, together, we are learning how to listen.

I’ve heard people poke fun at the emphasis we put on “Process” at Occupy Wall Street. To me, the beautiful and radical act of listening is not about feminine or masculine, but simply about respect – respect for each other and, yes, for our agreed-upon (and ever-evolving) processes of communicating and interacting. When process breaks down – when groups operate without consensus, people and ideas are attacked, voices are silenced – there is no criteria of inclusion that can enforce a “safe space.”

Without respect for each other, we are nothing but chimpanzees. In order to survive, we must learn to live like bonobos. And the more we continue to evolve together, the better the chances that evolution will one day lead to revolution.

Originally posted on Code Pink

When I first heard about the death of Libyan Dictator, Moammar Gaddafi (who seems to be America’s favorite frenemy) my thoughts went to the women of Libya: what would it mean for them? I quickly realized I had no idea. I searched my mind, trying to remember what I’d heard about Libyan women in the news in the past months.

The fact is, I hadn’t heard much at all about Libyan women, because Libyan women are complicated. Okay, all women are complicated (I feel like this could be the title of a book), but the women’s rights situation in Libya is especially complex, because it turns out, Gaddafi was in many ways a supporter of women’s rights—and yes I cringe a little when I say something as general as this…after all, it’s complicated.

Most interesting to learn was that Gaddafi paved the way for many women to enter into certain male-dominated professions, namely the police force and military. In response, many Libyan women felt immense gratitude for and loyalty toward Gaddafi. This Huffington Post article describes Nisrine Mansour, a 25-year-old policewoman with a picture of Gaddafi as her phone background and a pro-Gaddafi song as her ringtone. Mansour is apparently not alone in her support for Gaddafi, as many Libyan women in the militia and police think they owe their careers to the dictator.

Gaddafi also believed in promoting women to higher positions, as a way of publicly demonstrating his policies. Such women included the Amazonian Guard, a group of highly trained female bodyguards (who often dressed like fembots—forever the theatric, that Gaddafi) as well as prominent women officials such as Huda Ben Amer, a former appointed mayor of Benghazi. Ben Amer is famous for having attended the hanging of a political prisoner, and tugging on his legs to make him die faster. And people think Hillary is tough. Ben Amer gained recognition among the rebels as a universally hated figure and represented much of the brutality of Gaddafi’s regime.

Learning about these women was a surprise to me, because although they clearly represent Gaddafi’s regime for some, they are certainly not what I imagined when I thought Gaddafi. Why? I wondered. Gaddafi was apparently once quoted as saying he promised his mother he would make the country better for women—although it’s probably more likely that he hoped to undermine traditional religious groups with his pro-women policies. It made me wonder about who encountered these women on a daily basis, and I couldn’t help but think of the rebels. Since many of these women found their power in violent jobs (as militia and policewomen) it seems likely that they also found themselves face to face with the rebels in Libya. The combination of these interactions and prominent, brutal female figures like Ben Amer makes me wonder about the rebels and Libyan citizens’ perceptions of women with power. If I often encountered an oppressive regime in the form of violent powerful women, I don’t know how great I would feel about giving women power.

These are all speculations, of course—as most statements made about the Arab Spring have been—but I can’t help but wonder if the political pendulum will somehow swing back to a place where women lack routes to success in Libya. Already, Libyan female supporters of Gaddafi have publicly lamented the lack of female representation in the rebels’ interim administration—only one woman was appointed.

As with most events we’ve seen in the Middle East in the past few months, we really won’t know what’s going to happen until it does. Gaddafi’s belief in women’s empowerment was sometimes expressed in odd ways (see: Amazonian guard), but it had a small, yet noticeable impact.

However, like most things Gaddafi, his policies toward women were erratic, required complete and total loyalty from his subjects, and only went so far. Many women felt left out in Libya’s patriarchal society, despite Gaddafi’s reforms and in part due to his restrictions of freedoms. And of course neither women nor men are better off living in a repressive dictatorial society ruled by decades of fear.

Many factors could affect Libyan women’s lives in the coming months, such as the religious leanings of the rebels, but one thing is certain—some of Gaddafi’s strange female bedfellows have lost an ally.

Originally posted on Rachel Simmons’ blog. Fiona also writes for her own blog, Barbara’s Angels

If you recently married a prince, and are pregnant or thinking about having a baby, I have no doubt that the most pressing issue on your mind is the question of who will inherit your estate and title when you die. Some days it’s all I think about.

Or, you’re a normal person, living on a normal planet, and find it incredible that in the twenty-first century such dilemmas even exist. The Queen has been praised recently for encouraging the introduction of a law to give girls the right to inheritance if they’re first born – even if they have male siblings. That means that if the recently married Kate and Wills have a baby girl first, she’ll become queen, before a potential younger male brother, or even Prince Harry. David Cameron is also very much for this law, saying that it’s high time this was introduced.

In principle of course, I can’t argue against it. It should not still be the case today that male offspring get to inherit the title, the wealth and the estate before their older siblings. But the fact that this is even being discussed is jaw-dropping. There are a few questions that need answering: 1. Why was this not changed decades ago? And 2. Who actually cares? Even in traditional Britain, we are slowly abolishing hereditary peerages (whereby you get a seat in the House of Lords because your dad had one), and other customs that rely on inheritance and birth. It’s hard to find anyone outside of the Royal Family to whom this would have any relevance.

I’m ecstatic that the Queen has spoken out on a ‘feminist’ issue. Her theme for the tour of the Commonwealth is ‘Women as agents of change’ which is great. However, I think the Queen has missed an opportunity to have spoken about truly important women’s issues. There are number of feminist issues she could have picked. I am neither an admirer nor hater of the Royal Family, but arguments like this make me yawn. They appear to show the Royal Family modernising when really they are just doing things that should have happened years ago.

college: where I learned to lead

One of the coolest things I’ve been able to do since entering college is become involved in radical politics. I think many people, and women especially, feel a few barriers to the realm of radical politics.

The word “radical” sounds polarizing. Actually, I didn’t identify as a radical until relatively recently. One of my professors explained that radical feminism, as opposed to liberal feminism, is interested in actually breaking down the power systems (patriarchy, racism, etc.) that form the fundamental barriers to equality. And it just clicked. Duh, I’m radical. There’s a stigma to the word, though, that I think presents a problem for a lot of people.

Radical politics are often dominated by that old chestnut of a demographic: white men. But for people of color, or for women (or for basically anybody who isn’t a white dude), joining a group whose membership is heavily male and white can be daunting. This is an obvious Catch-22.

Also, sometimes the task of radical politics seems too big, and often hopeless. It’s hard to imagine committing to a cause if you’re not sure it can make a difference.

One of the taglines of Miss Representation is “you can’t be what you can’t see,” and I think that is absolutely true. I believe very strongly that having real, positive role models in one’s life is very important. I have been very much influenced by the people in my life who have taken on responsibilities that impact people aside from themselves and/or have done really cool projects that have made a difference for other people. People like old camp counselors, my mother, old chorus directors, teachers, former employers, coworkers, friends — these are all people who may not become famous for being role models, but who have definitely impacted many people’s lives.

College is an interesting environment for this. On the one hand, most college campuses are now mostly female. Potentially, there are ample leadership opportunities for college women to become involved on campus, and many of them do. Volunteering, tutoring, and mentoring are all staples of college-age involvement. These are awesome. I am fortunate to know a lot of kickass lady activists, and actually one national organization I’m involved in recently voted down an old rule which required a minimum percentage of women on the coordinating committee. This rule was made to encourage women to feel confident enough to step up for leadership positions, and I think in general it has fostered an environment that–while most of the members are male–encourages the active participation of female members. After the rule was voted out (with much debate, not everyone supported this), the actual members of the coordinating committee were voted in. Women are currently the majority. (Heyoooo!)

So I just want to say to any high school or college students who are interested in radical change, don’t be afraid to get involved! I used to be the kid whose parents heard at every parent-teacher conference that I needed to talk more in class. Finding my voice is an ongoing process, and I am proud to say that I am now at a confidence level where I am a leader at my school and in my community. I spent plenty of time as a peripheral-member, then active-member of groups before I got into the leadership positions where I am now, and in addition to the work I do as a college activist, I hope that my presence is encouraging the younger women at my university to eventually do the same.

We have to be the leaders we want others to be as well. If you want to be involved in something, go for it! If you want to see something done, do it! And if you want more diverse representation, represent yourself!

Senator Gillibrand

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand was appointed to the US Senate by Governor David Paterson in 2009 to fill the vacancy left by Hillary Clinton when she was selected by President Obama to serve as Secretary of State. Previously, Gillibrand spent two terms representing New York’s 20th Congressional District in the House of Representatives. Many were surprised by Paterson’s appointment of a relatively unknown Democrat from the mostly rural district that represents the Catskill, Adirondack, and Hudson Valley areas of upstate New York. New Yorkers outside of her district may not have been familiar with Senator Gillibrand before her Senate appointment, but for the past two years she has been turning the heads of those who might be looking for an alternative to Hillary for next woman President.

Senator Gillibrand will be running for reelection to the Senate in 2012. There has already been talk about the possibility of Gillibrand running for President in 2016, though Senator Gillibrand has made no statement on that possibility as of today. Nonetheless, here are five reasons to keep your eyes on Senator Gillibrand through the next political election.

1. She’s pro-choice.

Senator Gillibrand has continually defended a woman’s right to make decisions about her reproductive health. During the Health Care debates in 2009, Gillibrand spoke out against the Stupak Amendment, which would have severely limited access to abortions in this country.

2. She supports LGBTQ rights.

Senator Gillibrand was instrumental in repealing military’s discriminatory Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. She has also spoken against the Defense of Marriage Act, along with Senators Feinstein and Leahy, introduced a bill to repeal the law. Gillibrand also supported the legalization of gay marriage in the state of New York.

3. She wants women more involved in politics.

Senator Gillibrand launched Off The Sidelines, a movement to encourage women to engage in their communities, vote, advocate, and participate in the current political climate that often discourages such involvement.

4. She calls herself a feminist!

Unlike many politicians who treat it as a dirty word, Gillibrand is not afraid of calling herself a feminist:

“Yes. Feminism represents a core belief that women matter and that their contributions and views are both valuable and necessary for the growth and success of families and communities….I have focused on women and family issues since my first term in Congress. I am committed to fair and equal pay for women in the workplace, addressing maternal mortality issues in America and abroad, and protecting reproductive rights for women.”

5. She’s not too radical.

Though she has always supported reproductive rights, the distict that Senator Gillibrand served while in the House of Representatives was actually very conservative. Senator Gillibrand often supports measures that are fiscally conservative while socially liberal, which puts her in a position to be popular even among Baby Boomers who might be reluctant to vote Democrat due to our increasing budget issues. Eventually, feminists would love to see a woman in politics who can bring up Judith Butler in a Congressional debate, but we need to first take the baby steps to show America that a feminist President would be a very good thing.

Yes, keep your eye on Senator Gillibrand – she’s definitely a beacon of hope for women in politics.

The political terrain of Britain is shifting beneath our feet. Children of the ‘80s and ‘90s will have no memory of anything comparable to the dramatic, fundamental transformation of our nation that’s currently taking place. In an atmosphere of such instability, where the media’s frantically trying to keep pace, women’s issues – sidelined at the best of times – are slipping further and further down the agenda. That’s where we come in: YouFem is a London-based feminist organisation, aiming to harness the political power of young people and draw women’s issues back into the light…and to have fun doing it.

The elections of 2010 landed us with a Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition. Since then, Britain has been made to swallow a manifesto that no-one voted for; we’re facing a tsunami of spending cuts (£3.5bn cut in the education sector alone); our beloved, free National Health Service is being uprooted, its free-of-charge, open to all ideology left to whither; the state sector is being pared back and stripped of its funding. As a result, police are being dragged off the streets by the budget cuts, public sector workers are being made redundant in droves, and meanwhile our economy is stagnating to the point where pretty soon it’ll be overgrown with moss, and little birds will start nesting in its orifices.

It hardly needs saying that all this has hit women disproportionately hard. As long ago as March last year, Brendan Barber, a prominent Trade Unionist, mused: “Women often work in the public sector because it offers relatively secure work [and] flexible working patterns…the gender pay gap is smaller and the public sector offers more opportunities to combine a proper career with caring responsibilities. Spending cuts would inevitably threaten this – and thus set back the cause of gender equality.” Well, Barber could set himself up as a psychic: female unemployment has reached a 15 year high, with 1.02m women in the UK now receiving job seekers allowance.

Women in the UK earn on average 17% less than their male counterparts. 85% of women feel discriminated against at work. 1 in 4 women in the UK will suffer from domestic abuse. Clearly, the fight for women’s rights in modern Britain is far from over.

Meanwhile, our government is happily ignoring the problems. David Cameron – our plum-voiced, hug-a-hoodie-then-take-his-benefits Prime Minister – has stood up in the House of Commons a few times now and been openly, laughingly sexist. “Calm down, dear”, he told MP Angela Eagle, grinning like a Cheshire cat. What extraordinary wit! Having been a member of the notorious Oxford Bullingdon Club, it’s no wonder that he comes out with such cutting quips, like implying a female MP is sexually frustrated…at the time, I was almost surprised he hadn’t yelled, “BURN”. But sexist banter isn’t his only crime against women. There are, for instance, only 4 women in the 23-strong Tory-led cabinet. And as for the rest of his party…well, suffice to say that every time you say the name of pro-lifer “Nadine Dorries”, a fairy dies.

This is all evidence of a wider problem in our society: open discrimination against women has subsided, certainly, but most women will testify that there’s an undercurrent, a rippling whisper of sexism across Britain. I don’t know how many times I’ve been told by young men, with a pretence at irony, to “get back into the kitchen.” Hilarious, right? I’m sure the 72% of women who say they experience regular sexual harassment at work just roll around with laughter.

YouFem are looking at the road stretching ahead of us beyond university, and noticing that potholes that should have been filled in decades ago are still posing a very real problem. Our future job prospects look decidedly unsure: we will be the first generation facing the rise in University Tuition Fees, and will soon be emerging into a vicious jobs market, shouldering up to £60,000 of debt before we’re 24 years old. The young women among us will have to rediscover the impossibility of ‘having it all’; we’ll be neatly slotted into one of the few gender roles picked out for us, whether mother, career-woman, or juggling part-timer.

Are young women angry about the political and personal uncertainties facing them? When I talk to my peers, many of whom would hesitate to call themselves feminists, they want equality, but most are in complete ignorance of how far away that goal is. Many don’t seem to think that politics is something that touches their lives, and they’re in the majority: a massive sector of British society feels excluded from politics, the substance of which seems to take place at politico dinner-parties, over glasses of red wine with members of the Westminster gang. Political apathy in this country is a growing problem. We’re seeing a steadily decreasing turn-out at the polls, and membership of the major political parties is startlingly low. To preserve our democracy, to properly hold our governments to account, to legitimise their dealings and to push for greater transparency in politics, we need to promote pluralism in our society.

YouFem is a way to do that. We aim to encourage young people, from all walks of life, and all parts of the political spectrum, to engage in politics and to exercise their influence over their elected leaders. We want to make sure that women’s issues stay firmly on the agenda; that equality is a goal for every successive government; that young women are properly educated as to their rights, and feel empowered to speak up when they encounter discrimination. Most importantly, we want to open the eyes of the people around us to the inequality in Britain today. Young women are walking around with their eyes wide shut, blinkered by the idea that feminism is all unshaven bra-burning man-haters. YouFem seeks to challenge that preconception. YouFem seeks to make these young women see that, just by believing in their own equality, they are feminists. A new Britain is emerging, and while the success or otherwise of its future is still uncertain, we can be sure that giving the upcoming generation of women the tools to tackle inequality…well, that’s one step towards a better Britain.

In a society where women can’t leave the house without their faces covered and aren’t allowed to drive, how much does the right to vote really mean?

Global pressures aided in getting women the right to vote and run for office in Saudi Arabia last week. Unfortunately, “the right to vote” is used very loosely when it comes to Saudi Arabian politics. With an intact monarchy, a tight set of laws based on religious texts, and a society which allows for few freedoms for women, Saudi Arabian King Abdullah’s promise that women will be able to further participate in politics rings a little bit empty to me.

First of all, what does it mean for women to “get the right to vote” or “run for office” in a country with a king? Second of all, are there more important things we should be worrying about here?

These are a lot of questions to tackle—questions that many Saudi Arabians have been pondering for years. To begin with, suffrage in Saudi Arabia means the right to participate in municipal elections. These elections are often for very small or insignificant positions. Not to mention that only half of the municipal government is elected—the other half is appointed.

Next, I can’t help but wonder how empowering it will feel for women to vote, when they have to be driven there by their husbands and must approach the voting booth with their faces covered—regardless of their religious affiliation or beliefs. Let alone how many women’s husbands or male family members will actually allow them to exercise their newfound right in a country where men are able to dictate most of the actions of women within their communities.

This brings me to another question: why did the King even give them the right? Word has it that King Abdullah wants to be known as a reformer. Although he certainly hasn’t made great strides against human rights violations in the past, King Abdullah did build the first coeducational university and has granted scholarships for women to study abroad.

While these actions are certainly a step forward, the main motive for reform seems to be to improve the King’s and country’s global image, rather than actual belief in reform. So, here’s my last question—I promise—is this a bad thing?

Leaders of nations act for a myriad of reasons, and one of the most popular reasons is global pressure. Some in Saudi Arabia say that the government is starting to feel uneasy and embarrassed about their Sharia-based laws, especially given the country’s relationships with Western countries such as the U.S. Some also say that King Abdullah is feeling the heat, so to speak, of the Arab Spring and recognizing that without reform, his country could soon be facing a similar situation. So maybe, pure or not, it’s not the motive that matters as much as the outcome.

Unfortunately this outcome seems to be more symbolic than realistic. Still, some Saudis have hope. Many say this is another example of the ultra-religious losing ground in Saudi Arabia, and others assert that having some women in politics, no matter how small the number or how insignificant the position, will bring more light to women’s issues and pave the way for future reforms.

I don’t know if I’m quite that optimistic, especially since the king will probably be succeeded by Prince Nayef ibn Abdulaziz, the Saudi interior minister, who appears to be more of a traditionalist, but I do recognize the power of global pressure and I’m happy to see that it’s finally starting to affect women. Justice or just words, it may not matter, sometimes even a solely symbolic gesture can be the match that starts a fire of change. We saw it last February with the Arab Spring—maybe a Women’s Spring will be next.

Cross-posted on Rachel Simmons’ website