Friday, July 26, 2013

Three modern heroines of third-wave feminism


  
Forget Kate and her brace of  kings-in-waiting for a moment. These are the women who are already helping to shape our future society. And the great news is that there are plenty more like them, with brains, instinct, imagination and determination, who are unwilling to accept the status quo or to be fobbed off by officialdom.

Laura Bates (left, in a BBC picture) is the founder of the Everyday Sexism website that is cataloguing examples of casual abuse and harassment by men who see nothing wrong with eyeing up a teenager or thrusting themselves onto complete strangers on the Tube.

Jo (centre, anonymous for reasons that will become obvious) is behind the End Victim Blaming site, which aims to help people who have suffered violence to stop feeling guilty - and to change the media vocabulary to end the use of what she calls the language of perpetrators.

Caroline Criado-Perez (right, in a photograph by the Independent) spearheaded the campaign to retain a woman on British banknotes after Sir Mervyn (now Lord) King announced that Churchill would be replacing Elizabeth Fry on our fivers in the next year or so. She has spent the past 48 hours doing the radio rounds, welcoming the confirmation that Jane Austen would be the face of the £10 note from 2017.

These women are key players in the latest incarnation of third-wave feminism. And they are so energetic and driven that - at last - it is possible to believe that there may be no need for a fourth.

To a relic of the second wave, the world they are encountering is shocking. Whatever happened to the 'new men' of the 80s? Were they just a chimera?

Somehow we have regressed to the gender stereotyping of half a century ago. How did we come to this point, with the pinkification of everything for girls and the primacy of the cupcake?

Do we blame the ladettes? The wannabe TV programmes? Overpaid footballers and their WAGS? The weight-obsessed celebrity mags that feel it's their right and duty to pronounce on the shape of every woman in the public eye? (This Kelly Brook bikini shot was in fact on the cover of six magazines on one newsstand last month - and inside another two).



And of course, the cover below has provoked predictable outrage. It does beggar belief. But when you are in the market of being rude to celebs (or lauding them to the heavens as some part of multithousand-pound wedding deal), it is sometimes hard to remember that getting too familiar with the royals won't please your readers. Especially if you follow up with thoughtless tweets.



Back in the real world, it may not matter much that builders are still wolf-whistling, but if a woman can't use public transport to get to work without arriving with semen running down the back of her leg, there is something wrong.

If social workers regard a 28-year-old man abusing a 13-year-old girl in care as her 'boyfriend', there is something wrong.

And if the Bank of England didn't realise that it wasn't a good idea to ignore half the population when deciding who to put on notes used by everyone, there is something wrong.

Writing in the Guardian yesterday, Zoe Williams hailed Criado-Perez, Bates and the No More Page 3 group as proving that modern campaigners were packing a punch. Let's hope that's true. What they are certainly doing is exposing how little we have travelled since the 60s; how misogyny has not simply survived, but thrived over the past half-century.

The Commonwealth had agreed (reluctantly in some quarters) that if little Prince George had been little Princess Georgina she would succeed her father to the throne, even if she had a dozen younger brothers. Progress. But women bishops? We're still waiting. Join an elite golf club? No chance - Muirfield members say they'd rather not stage the Open than allow women to join.

Women are under-represented in almost every walk of life, other than in the most menial of tasks or those traditionally regarded as 'women's work'. We all know about the glass ceilings, but what is even more worrying is the way that white men in their 30s and 40s are again dominating all aspects of our country and culture: the Government, the media, business, the Church. Women who advanced up the ranks ten or twenty years ago are suddenly nowhere to be seen.

It is bad not simply for women, but for everyone. It is sending the wrong message to today's young men and suppressing the able women who are emerging from school or university. This would not be of such huge concern were it not for the fact that girls are routinely outperforming boys right through from primary school to university. We are squandering talent in every sphere.

Why? How could this have happened? What caused the reinforcement of gender stereotyping? When did everything turn so pink? Who decided that girls shouldn't, after all, want to play with scientific toys?

Do people with any influence or power realise how far our society has retreated? How unacceptable behaviour has been accepted? Do we need Ken Loach to spell it out for everyone?

Let's go back to our heroic trio.

Laura Bates, Everyday Sexism


Bates, a 26-year-old Cambridge graduate, started the Everyday Sexism Project 14 months ago 'to catalogue instances of sexism experienced by women from on a day-to-day basis. They may be serious or minor, outrageously offensive or so niggling and normalised that you don't feel able to protest'. More than 40,000 people have sent in their stories and a book is in the pipeline. But this week the programme notched up a gear.

The British Transport Police combined with the Met and Transport for London to set up Project Guardian to monitor cases of harassment on buses and trains after reports showed that most people who suffered unwanted sexual behaviour did not report it.

They linked up with Everyday Sexism to tap into their expertise for guidelines on how to encourage victims - male or female - to report their experiences, no matter how apparently insignificant or how long ago they took place.

Two thousand officers have been given special training in sexual offences, with particular emphasis on the first contact with victims. An extra 135 officers, both in uniform and plainclothes, have been supplementing the regular force every day this week and the BTP have been taking part in live Twitter chats and responding to tweets describing unwelcome incidents - even events going back weeks or months.

It was as heartening to see the BTP geared up for the enterprise as it was dispiriting to read what women commuting to work have to put up with.  Take a look at this Twitter thread:






Enough!

Far more encouraging was the response of the police, who took every incident seriously, gave out numbers for people to text or telephone and urged individuals to take their complaints further.

It was wonderful, after too many years of stories of cops' insensitivity and dismissivenenss,  to see a police force so pro-active and apparently understanding of what they were dealing with -  and they were rewarded with many complients from tweeters, as in this case:


The overwhelming response to the initiative has been one of surprise and delight and the BTP will be issuing some statistics on the project on Monday.



The transport project is Bates's second triumph within two months, for she was also behind the campaign that forced Facebook to stop people posting images encouraging rape and other violence against women.

Everyday Sexism pointed out that pictures of breastfeeding or of woman who had had mastectomies were banned, while those of women trussed up or children with black eyes were allowed.Bates combined with the Americans Soraya Chemalnd Jaclyn Friedman in an email and Twitter campaign aimed at advertisers such as Dove and Pringles. Fifteen suspended their accounts with FB.

Within a week FB had admitted that it had failed to identify and remove 'hate speech' from the site and promised that it would review and update its moderating procedures.

Perhaps the next step is to get mainstream advertisers to get real. These appeared on a newsfeed only the other day:


Jo, Ending Victimisation


Unfunny jokes about 'get back to the ironing' and the casual disrespect and contempt displayed by the Tube gropers are probably the most visible examples of sexism. Ending Victimisation is seeking to tackle public attitudes to bigger sins. To try finally to get across the message that a rape victim is not 'asking for it' because she's wearing a pair of Daisy Dukes and a strappy bodice on a hot day; that a woman being beaten black and blue by her partner is not just 'a domestic'.

The website is the brainchild of Jo, who describes herself as a working-class northerner in her mid-thirties. She says she had the idea in May, started to build the website on the 21st and went live on the 24th. It is run by a women's collective and, eight weeks on, is already getting 30,000 uniques a day.

The objective is to stop people blaming victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse - and to help the victims to stop thinking that they somehow brought their injuries on themselves.  She says it is outrageous that women are expected to change their behaviour or their wardrobes to avoid being assaulted.

Jo is particularly keen to change the 'problematic' language used by journalists, by social workers and in the family courts, and to develop a new vocabulary that makes plain who the guilty party is. 'Child porn', for example, is easy shorthand and everyone knows what is meant. But it is inaccurate. Pornography is produced by willing participants for a willing audience. Pictures of children cannot fall into this category. 'Child porn' is in fact evidence of child abuse.

Jo believes that domestic violence is not taken seriously enough by the courts -  to the extent that men who have killed children have been described by lawyers as 'good fathers', while magistrates have criminalised women attacked by gang members.

Here are some of the examples that have been posted on her site this month:

My father is a violent alcoholic who allowed my brother to be abused and then beat him because ‘ you deserve it'

Marte Deborah Dalelv was on a business trip to Dubai. She was raped after a night out with colleagues and went to the police who imprisoned her and, four days later, charged HER with three crimes, including having sex outside of marriage. She was convicted and  sentenced to 16 months in prison for having the temerity to report her assault, compared with the 13 months that her alleged rapist received. 
To add insult to injury, reports now suggest that she has been sacked because of her  'unacceptable and improper behaviour'. 

 'A jilted man allegedly fatally stabbed his ex-wife with a kitchen knife after seeing her in the company of her new lover over the weekend.' 
As ever, the defence for male violence occurs within the first sentence; this time it was the second word. Linda Akim is dead because she  'jilted' her husband. Not because her ex-husband was violent. Not because Kudakwashe Mushandira chose to stab Akim to death. It is Akim’s fault for ending her relationship.

I was walking to a nightclub with a friend, when we were stopped by policemen who asked our age. I was in a PVC miniskirt and black fishnet top and I thought they were just mocking us 'goths'.  When I became indignant that they were hassling us and making us late for meeting our friends I was told be nice to policemen and not be so cocky as dressed the way I was it would be my own fault if I got 'raped down an alley' and where would they be then? I said that I would hope the police would help me and they just laughed.
Utterly horrible. I spent the night hiding under my coat as I was suddenly very aware of my outfit not as an expression of my individuality, but as a signal to potential rapists.

Jo hopes to set up a free service for the media, children's services, social services and the justice system offering guidance on language that does not make the victim feel or appear guilty. As we can see here from this submission by a youth justice worker, it is much needed.

In many of the multi agency meetings, child sexual exploitation meetings and other professional meetings I have chaired or attended, the blame for the trauma lies firmly with the girl. Below are a selection of examples:

She needs to start making the right choices


She’s out of control


She loves him. There’s nothing we can do


She needs to take more responsibility


I just don’t understand why she behaves like this. She knows she’s going to get into trouble but she carries on


She’s storing weapons in her room. We’re letting the police deal with her now


We can’t stop her going out to meet him. She makes her own choices


I told her he was bad news but she wouldn’t listen and now look what’s happened



A crop top and a pair of Daisy Dukes
are not an invitation to rape


Caroline Criado-Perez, The Women's Room




This is a 1937 Austin 10. The car, which first went into production in 1932 and continued until 1947, was the Austin Motor Company's most popular model.



This is the 2017 Austen 10. The note may well prove to be the Bank of England's most popular currency.

We know about this new note so long before it is due to be introduced thanks to the efforts of Caroline Criado-Perez, a 28-year-old Oxford graduate now studying for a masters in gender studies at the LSE.

The announcement that Churchill was to adorn the next £5 note, leaving the currency without any female presence besides the Queen, was greeted with dismay by women all over the country. Criado-Perez was not one for grumbling acceptance; she decided to challenge the decision.

She took the Bank Governor to task in a series of letters, started a petition to support her case and threatened to take Sir Mervyn to court for breaches of the 2010 Equality Act. But she got no further than the hint that Jane Austen was 'waiting in the wings'.

The papers picked up on her petition, which secured 35,000 signatures, and many ran features asking 'Which woman would you want to see on a banknote?'

SubSist was sceptical about the campaign and remained sceptical this week as Criado-Perez's supporters went wild on Twitter, claiming a great victory after Mark Carney's formal announcement that Austen would indeed be the face on the £10 note from 2017.

This doesn't seem to me to be a huge triumph, since the decision was probably made some time ago. Churchill will still be on the fiver and there will still be no woman on any banknote for a year or so. SubSist also questioned the tone of the campaign, which smacked of tokenism. 'We want a woman. We don't care who it is. We want a woman.'

But that doesn't mean that the issue was not important, nor detract from the fact that Criado-Perez was the one person to do something about it.

The Bank missed a trick in not putting Mrs Pankhurst on the next note as the centenary of the Suffragette movement provided an obvious peg. Indeed, had Wellington been to coincide with the bicentenary of Waterloo, that would have been understandable. To pick Churchill, who could have made his appearance at almost any time over the next thousand years, only served to emphasise the male-oriented culture of the Bank.

Criado-Perez's real success in this campaign -  as she pointed out yesterday -  was to secure a promise that the system for choosing subjects for the notes would be reviewed.

This alone does not make her a feminist heroine. She achieved that status last year when she set up The Women's Room, a database of female experts on anything from farming to civil engineering.

She was inspired by two items about contraception for teenage girls and breast cancer on the Today programme last October. The discussion panel on each occasion was all-male because, the BBC said, it had been unable to find any female experts.

Criado-Perez formed a plan and, like Jo, immediately swung into action. She tweeted a request for women who were experts in any field to register with The Women's Room and the site was live within days. It now lists about 700 experts.

And to complete her hat-trick, the third of our third-wave feminist heroines also runs the Week Woman blog, motto: A pox on the patriarchy.





A final thought: These women have all acted quickly on longstanding issues and have all achieved rapid recognition and success. This is almost entirely thanks to the influence of social media, and in particular Twitter.

We know that Twitter was an important factor in the Arab Spring and, equally, that news emanating from it is likely to be unsubstantiated and sometimes unreliable. For projects such as these, however, it is ideal. People are coming forward to share their concerns in a way they would not do person-to-person or to mainstream newspapers and broadcasters.

Our trio are therefore helping not only the feminist cause, but wider society by exposing truths that would probably have remained uncovered. The scale of sexual assault and harassment on public transport, for example. Until now, we have had only official statistics to go by and so long as women were loath to report incidents for fear of being brushed off or regarded as over-reacting, the true picture could never emerge. And until we have that, no one can take appropriate steps to tackle the problem.

Anecdotal evidence can go only so far, but when there is enough of it, it can make people sit up and take notice -  as the British Transport Police have, to their great credit, done this week.

The down side, however, is that the trolls have had a field day. Bates appeared on the Jeremy Vine Show at lunchtime today. The callers were all male and almost all hostile. She held her own, but by the time she had got home the trolls had bombarded her Twitter timeline.

The same applied to Criado-Perez, whose language grew increasingly ripe through the evening as she fought back against neanderthals whose solution to uppity women was to give them 'a good rogering'.

We still have an awful long way to go. These women are not going to be right about everything. To some, they will appear to be man-hating extremists. But, hey, wouldn't you if you were confronted with something like this:












Still, at least @MrBLawton proves that not all men are bastards. Which most of us knew all along.

Thursday, June 27, 2013

Women of note




When you've been a woman for as long as I have - almost as long as the Queen's been the Queen - you get used to the way that sexism pervades our society.

It ranges from builders' wolf whistles to rape; from ironic references to cushions and hoovering to violence of the tongue as devastating as a blow to the stomach. And for all the equality laws of the past four decades, women are still lower paid and still find it harder to get full-time jobs.

There are the ignorant - people who lump women together with the disabled, homosexuals, immigrants and 'other minorities', forgetting that women are the majority - and the unthinking. Female votes put the brake on 80mph shouted the Times splash headline on Saturday, almost inviting every bloke who picked up the paper to blame the missus for spoiling the fun.

In fact most drivers, both male and female, were in favour of the higher limit. But Downing Street was apparently afraid of losing the votes of  women who were against the change and so abandoned the plan.

The logic of this escapes me, so I'll run through that again: 53% of women were in favour of an 80mph limit, 41% were not - so rather than upset the 41%, the plan was dropped. Sounds like nonsense, and of course it is. But it's so much easier to put the focus on unidentifiable 'females' than on the safety campaigners and vested interests that lobbied against the change.

When it comes to equality, certain sectors of society are locked in the first half of the last century,  most particularly business and finance, politics, the police and the media. They beat their chests and wring their hands saying 'We'd love more women to come forward/move up'. But they don't mean a word of it. They talk about ratios and quotas and positive discrimination.

Women don't need these things; the need is for there to be a will to treat everyone equally - for without that will, no artificial devices can correct the imbalance.

More women than men are qualifying as doctors, vets,  lawyers and dentists - the most competitive fields of study - and there are far more female undergraduates across our universities than there are male. So there is no doubt the talent is there, it just all goes pear-shaped in the workplace.

There are only three women at the helm of FTSE 100 companies because businesses and boardrooms are stuffed with stuffed shirts in black suits who think that a woman's role is the packed lunch in their briefcases. Tory deadwoodsmen in the shires are the same, picking wideboys over intelligent women as their parliamentary candidates. We had a woman prime minister once, didn't we? What more do we want? (The irony of that is that these diehards would have shaken the ladder as she climbed the first few rungs, and then ended up adoring her.)

But they've always been like that. They just need educating - though preferably not by the Australian political classes.

More worrying are the police and the media, who seem to be regressing towards the 19th century.

No matter how often codes of conduct are revised, no matter how many public inquiries condemn police practices, nothing seems to shift the mindset that only white men are worthy of respect - whether inside or outside of the force.

Meanwhile television networks that regard grey hair in male presenters as a sign of gravitas continue to push women off camera the moment the first wrinkle appears. Within the Press, middle-aged white men are again dominant in setting the news agendas while women, with few exceptions, are once more consigned to features or subordinate roles. This is especially galling after the great strides of the 80s and 90s.


Given all this, it's hardly surprising that there has been an upsurge in interest in the feminist movement - and the centenary this month of Emily Davison's Derby death has been a convenient peg for a new call to action.

Lest there is any doubt that action is required, take a look at the Everyday Sexism Project,   an alarming catalogue of evidence of the contempt in which women are held, especially by young men who should have been taught better by baby-boomer parents. Fresh examples appear on the site and on Twitter every minute (no exaggeration), here is a random selection:








So how are we women countering the louts and the dinosaurs?

By demanding an end to page 3 girls and a petition to have a woman's picture on a banknote.

I'm treading on dangerous ground here, but these don't seem to me to be the vital issues of the day. Pretty young girls are queueing up to feature on page 3 and if they want to take off their bras and pose for photographs in the hope of advancing themselves, why stop them?  The budding lawyers, doctors, vets and dentists have their opportunities, is it right to deny those with a little less up top (but a bit more further down) their chance of a richer life?

Is it exploitative? Is it demeaning? Is it offensive? Perhaps, but I find I object more to the nudge, nudge, wink, wink captions than to the generally cheery photographs. I'm glad the days of women draping themselves over boats and cars are over, and I wouldn't be sorry to see page 3 disappear, but I think there are more troubling matters for feminists to worry about.

The No More Page 3 campaign believes, however, that the easy accessibility of what it describes as soft porn helps to shape men's view of women and diminishes their respect. Given the oafish behaviour detailed in Everyday Sexism, it is a fair argument.

The banknote campaign is different and, whisper it softly, I don't think it serves the feminist cause very well. You can never be equal if you need or demand special treatment.

The Bank of England clearly didn't think too long or hard, if at all, about the gender of the next person to be honoured on the £5 note. And that's a good thing.

In whatever walk of life or area of society, people should be treated in the way merited by their actions and achievements. It's a shame there will no longer be a woman other than the Queen on our currrency, but it would have been a greater shame if whoever chose the replacement for Elizabeth Fry had thought 'We'd better have another woman.'


Criado-Perez. Photograph: audioboo.fm

Caroline Criado-Perez has worked ferociously and tenaciously to garner nearly 30,000 signatures for her 'keep a woman on English banknotes' petition. That's some achievement, but no more than might be expected from Ms C-P, who is, by all accounts, one smart cookie. The Oxford graduate describes herself as a furious feminist and she is particularly angered by the under-representation and misrepresentation of women in the media. She has set up a website to ensure that female experts are available to offer opinions on any number of issues, she runs a blog with the slogan 'a pox on the patriarchy', and works as a freelance journalist - all the while studying for her master's.

In the course of her banknote campaign, she has written repeatedly to Sir Mervyn King, publishing the correspondence, and appeared in every national paper, the Huffington Post and on radio and television stations all over the country. Her efforts have wrong-footed the Governor to the point where he has been forced to say that the Bank has a contingency plan for someone other than Sir Winston Churchill to feature on the fiver and that Jane Austen is 'quietly waiting in the wings' to make her appearance.

Between them, they've stirred the pot so that every paper seems to be running 'Which woman should be on the banknote?' features. The same half dozen names appear at every turn - Mary Seacole, Ada Lovelace, Mary Wollstonecraft, Rosalind Franklin, Elizabeth Garrett Anderson and the blessed Jane.

Odd that, isn't it? Well no. Asked to name great British women, most people run out of steam after Florence Nightingale and Elizabeth Fry, as the Bank seems to have done. Yet I'd bet that anyone could rattle off ten times as many men in sixty seconds flat - and be aware of why they were in the frame. You can see how easy it was for the Bank to fall into the trap.

My problem with the debate is the letter 'a'.
Keep a woman on English banknotes
Which woman should be on the fiver?

Imagine if that has been 'which man should be on the fiver?' Or 'which black/gay/blind person...'

This isn't equality, it's tokenism. It's as though the feminists are saying 'We don't care who it is, we just want a woman', while those (presumably men) commissioning the newspaper articles are saying 'If you were allowed one, who should it be?'

There have been many, many great men through British history - and rather fewer great women. There is an interesting debate to be held on what should be the criteria for recognition on a banknote, but gender ought not to be one of them. Should candidates be instantly recognisable to all Britons? Towering giants of the arts, science, social reform? People of international renown? Or people whose retrospective importance outweighs their fame?


If  the women's cause is to be advanced, then the latter needs to be emphasised. That way we would highlight the achievements of people whose efforts have been under-reported and under-estimated for decades. People like Rosalind Franklin, above, whose DNA X-ray work provided the vital key to the mapping of the human genome. She was sneered at and patronised in the lab by Crick and Watson, who danced off to collect their Nobel prizes and then took a quarter of a century to make grudging acknowledgement of her contribution.

Had Ms Criado-Perez approached the Bank (and the media) with an extensive list and said 'You know there are so many unsung British women who achieved great things, how about raising their profile by putting them [not "one of them"] on the currency?' she might have found that the door opened easily. The Bank would probably have been grateful for the suggestions.

Instead we have a campaign that has the air of women stamping their feet shouting 'It's not fair.'

And that means we also have men patting us on the head saying 'Calm down, dear, we'll give you that Pride and Prejudice woman next time...

'Now get back to the hoovering.'



SubScribe also writes about feminism in the posts The truth is never pure and rarely simple and Women's rights and wrongs.

Sunday, May 19, 2013

Will safety deal help us to find ethical clothing?

Big brands sign up to try to prevent another disaster


This post was published by SubScribe on May 17, 2013

Three weeks ago 1,127 people were killed when an eight-storey factory block collapsed in a Dhaka suburb. The victims were largely garment trade workers, most of them making clothes for the Western market.

This week 31 big-name Western clothing chains endorsed a fire and safety accord designed to ensure that such a tragedy never happens again. Between them, these chains buy from more than a thousand factories in Bangladesh. Campaigners were delighted with their haul and declared it a watershed, the dawn of a new era. 

Wow, that was quick! You wouldn't have thought it possible. Well, it's without doubt an achievement, but it wasn't quite that quick and it is sadly unlikely to be a cure-all.

The idea for the accord grew not from the Rana Plaza disaster last month, but from a series of fatal fires culminating in one that killed more than a hundred workers at the Tazreen factory in the city last November.
In January this year, the Dhaka Government, garment manufacturers and workers' organisations agreed to work together to produce an action plan to improve fire safety at work across the country. A committee was formed and its recommended strategy was approved by the Government at the end of March.



That basically called on ministers, employers and workers to recognise and fulfil their responsibilities and for outside organisations - such as brands and international development agencies - to be encouraged to join the party. PHV, which is behind Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger, and the German company Tchibo signed up straight away.

The latest tragedy gave the campaign for action added impetus, and a deadline of midnight on Wednesday was set for retailers to sign up. The fact that so many household names did so in the final 48 hours, with H&M leading the charge, suggests that a tipping point may have been reached. Customers are demanding action and more information about the clothes they buy.

The accord aims to establish a new inspection regime that places makes the retailer as well as the factory owner and the Government take responsibility for workers' safety. Stores will be expected to put up to $500,000 a year into the project and to contribute towards work needed to bring factories up to standard.
If manufacturers fail to meet the required standards, the retailer will have to stop doing business with them.
The agreement also aims to give workers more muscle. They should be trained in fire safety practices and be allowed to refuse, without penalty, to work in a building if they fear that it is unsafe. Health and safety committees are to be set up at factories and workers should make up half the representatives.

So far, so good. Even better is the fact that implementation is intended to start immediately and that it should be well on the road by the end of next month. A steering committee is to be set up to get things moving, with its major task the appointment of an independent safety inspector 'with fire and building safety expertise and impeccable credentials'.

Workers and the exporters will have equal representation on the steering committee, whose chairman will come from the International Labour Organisation. The factory bosses are excluded from this area, although they will have seats on the advisory board that will discuss strategy and - with luck -  build stronger relations between the various interested parties. They will also be represented on the committee that actually runs the show.

The Government has meanwhile promised new laws by the end of the month. The minimum wage is to be raised  - at £25 per month, Bangladeshi clothing factory workers are the lowest paid in the world - and  the ban on the unionisation of factories is to be loosened. It has also said that it will train 200 more safety inspectors by the end of the year - at the moment there are only 50 to cover 200,000 factories (or 18 to cover 100,000, depending on whose figures you use).

There are still many hurdles to be overcome, however. Many factories are in Export Processing Zones from which trade unions are banned. If the Government produces its promised legislation  (which is by no means a given) workers will be able to form unions and enter into collective bargaining. Yet it will still not be illegal for employers to fire employees trying to organise workers. How is that going to work? Who is to determine whether people have got together in a reasonable manner or whether they have been suborned by a rabid firebrand?

And always at the back of people's minds will be the torture and murder last year of Aminul Islam, a local president of the garment workers' federation. His killer has not been brought to justice.

We are a long way from happy families here. Factory owners have a huge influence on the Government - both inside and outside of parliament. About half  of the country's MPs have business links and a tenth own  clothing factories. They are hostile to trade unions and will not like their central role in the new regime.

Nor are they too happy with their customers, the big-name buyers from the West who have been pushing them on prices. Costs have risen over recent years, even before the promised reforms, but prices have been kept low. 'The buyers have not given anything. They just say "increase your productivity",' one owner told Reuters.

Unions and anti-sweatshop campaigners such as War on Want and Labour Behind the Label are understandably impatient for change. But there is an aggressive tone amid the accord celebrations. The main targets for their venom are Walmart and Gap, who have declined to sign up.


Gap said it was ready to sign but was concerned about possible ramifications of the accord being legally binding. It fears - probably quite reasonably, as the New York Times pointed out -  the potential cost should any dispute end up in an American court. Walmart, which owns Asda, said it had already acted by starting its own inspections, including using thermal circuit imaging to check electrical systems. It  has also promised fire safety training for all workers and to publish a list of approved factories and their inspection results. It has not, however, committed any money towards repairs or improvements.

Such explanations, or excuses, cut no ice with campaigners. Paul Jennings, general secretary of UNI Global Union, said: 'Walmart, the world's largest retailer, is out of step. By not signing up, the Walmart brand sinks to a new low.' Tim Noonan of the International Trade Union Federation, accused Walmart of sticking with a system that had failed 'year after year...corporate-sponsored investigations that aren't investigations'.

Murray Worthy, a War on Want campaigner told the Independent that Gap's position was absolutely outrageous and that its objection was a smokescreen that would rip the heart out of the agreement. 'It's a straightforward statement that they don't care at all about the safety of their workers and aren't interested in taking action to put that right.' The Labour MP John McDonnell said people should boycott the shop and that British customers had a duty to force it into action.

Are such complaints justified? Bloomberg Business Week notes that JC Penney had also remained aloof, commenting: 'These companies are concerned about preventing the fires and collapses...but signing a legally binding agreement with built-in systems to resolve disputes that was created with labour unions? That’s too European.'
Photograph by Susie Taylor
The Atlantic
American companies will need a lot of persuading to join in this sort of initiative - and activists know it. On the day of the Rana Plaza disaster, theAtlantic website told the story of a Tazreen fire survivor who was in Washington to try to persuade big chains to act. "I've come to America to tell people that we deserve safe working place, that factories in Bangladesh are no safer for workers than before," Sumi Abedin told the site. Ms Abedin, above, is a powerful ambassador, as Jason Motlagh and Susie Taylor's report testifies:

When a fire engulfed the Tazreen Fashions garment factory in late November, Sumi Abedin was resigned to die. Defying orders from floor bosses to stay at her sewing machine after word got around that a blaze was spreading down below, she and her co-workers ran to the two "women's" exits, only to find them padlocked. Another "male" stairwell was choked with smoke and bodies, forcing her to retreat by the light of a cell phone. 
Amid the screams and confusion, a ventilation shaft offered a way out: a three-story fall to the ground, one that could also be fatal. "I did not jump to save my life; I jumped to save my body," says the 24-year-old, hoping her family could identify her remains. 

Will she be able to sway Walmart, which buys from 279 factories in Bangladesh and is the industry's second-biggest customer, spending $1bn a year in the country?

Shortly before the deadline for signing the safety accord on Wednesday, the company broke off relations with a supplier because documents in the Rana Plaza wreckage included an order dated May 2012 for more than 5,000 pairs of skinny jeans destined for its shops. Walmart had said after the disaster that it had no dealings with factories in the building.

The timing of the announcement and the detailed explanations are interesting. Walmart's supplier was the Canadian company Fame Jeans, which had apparently given an assurance that it had not dealt with Rana Plaza. Walmart said: 'Based upon our policy on unauthorised sub-contracting we are terminating this supplier.' Fame Jeans immediately put up its hands, with Alen Brandman the chief executive, saying: 'It's very clear that Walmart did not authorise me in any capacity to work within this factory.' A 'rogue employee' had placed the order without the knowledge of senior managers. Ah, those rogue employees. You just can't trust them.

Funnily enough, Walmart had severed links with another supplier after the Tazreen fire. Funnily enough documents surfaced showing that a supplier had been buying clothes from that factory. "A supplier subcontracted work to this factory without authorisation and in direct violation of our policies," the company said.

Scott Nova of the Workers Rights Consortium, which monitors workers' rights in factories producing goods for sale in the US, was unimpressed by the coincidence: 'One disaster after another at factories producing Walmart goods, but it's never Walmart's fault. They always have some story about a rogue supplier or sneaky subcontractor.'

Other order dockets found in the Rana Plaza rubble showed that the Spanish Mango chain and the Danish group PWT had both had dealings with the Phantom Tac factory based in the building. Mango said it had requested samples and the order would not have been confirmed until the factory had undergone a successful social audit.

Profit and loss

Retailers have been criticised for their big profit margins, so it is interesting to look at these a little more.

The Mango order was for 12,000 polo shirts at $4.45 (£2.92) each, which it would sell in its British shops for £26 - £30.

PWT had ordered long-sleeved checked shirts at $5.08 (£3.34) each, which would be be marketed under the Jack's label for 25 euros (£21).

Inditex, which owns Zara, operates on a gross margin of 58% - the bald relationship between the cost of the goods and the price for which they are sold. But when other costs - premises, staffing, taxes, shipping etc - are taken into account, this comes down to 16%. H&M's margins are 55% and 9%.

Activists say that the published figures show that they could afford to pay more to see workers' conditions improve without a big increase in the prices in their shops. The TUC was quoted in The Times on Saturday as saying that doubling Bangladeshi workers' pay would add only 2p to the cost of a T-shirt.

The BBC has also looked at margins, taking as its example a pair of $50 jeans for sale in Germany. Breaking down where the money goes, Philip Hampsheir says that 39% ($19.50) goes to the retailer, 16% ($8) in tax, 9% ($4.50) on shipping and 20% ($10) on the denim, buttons, zips etc.

That leaves 16% ($8) to go to the producer, who has to pay his rent, fuel and equipment bills and taxes as well as his workers before taking his share. The BBC puts the cost of manufacture at $6 and the profit at $2.  Some will take this as proof of how Western retailers are squeezing their suppliers, others will question the way that final $8 is split.

Is any of this helpful for the shopper who merely wants to know whether their jeans or T shirt have been made in a sweatshop? Probably not.

And so we come back to the Little Red Sewing Machine and the need for a reliable guide to whether workers are properly paid and decently treated. Remember, the accord that brought whoops of joy this week relates only to safety. That is obviously vital to avoid another tragedy, but even if it brings real change - a big if - we are still a long way from making sure that women are not chained to their sewing machines for 12 hours at a time for a pittance.

And another thing: this accord applies only to Bangladesh. Three people died and dozens were injured or trapped when a factory roof collapsed in Cambodia on Thursday.

It was making trainers for the Western market.


Some facts
The retailers who signed up to the accord are:

Abercrombie & Fitch
Aldi
Arcadia (Top Shop, Top Man, Dorothy Perkins, Burton,
BhS, Miss Selfridge, Outfit, Wallis, Evans)
Benetton
Helly Hansen
H&M
Inditex (Zara)
John Lewis
Lidl
Loblaw (Joe Fresh)
Mango
Marks & Spencer
Mothercare
N. Brown Group (various plus-size labels, Figleaves,
Ambrose Wilson, Heather Valley)
New Look
Next
Primark
PVH (Calvin Klein, Tommy Hilfiger)
Sainsbury's
Shop Direct (Littlewoods, isme)
Tesco

Carrefour (France)
C&A (Germany)
El Corte Ingles (Spain)
Esprit (Hong Kong)
G-Star (Netherlands)
Hesse Natur (Germany)
JBC (Belgium)
KiK (Germany)
Stockmann (Finland)
Switcher (Switzerland)
Tchibo (Germany)
WE Europe (Netherlands)

Recommended reading



The Clean Clothes Campaign's ratings for various companies
http://www.labourbehindthelabel.org/campaigns/item/980


All of which will convince you that it's impossible to tell what's good and what's bad. And that is why we need a reliable label.

Please join the campaign and tweet using the hashtag  #littleredsewingmachine