#Institute for Women’s Policy Research

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

In the US Supreme Court’s landmark ruling to revoke a constitutional right to abortion care, Justice Samuel Alito suggested that the “attitudes about the pregnancy of unmarried women” have changed.

“Modern developments” like medical leave for pregnancy and childbirth are “guaranteed by law” in many cases, medical care is “covered” by insurance, and “safe haven laws” allow people to drop off babies anonymously to give them up for adoption.

But such “modern developments” fail to reflect that the US has some of the worst economic and health outcomes for women and families, while only a fraction of workers get anything close to “guaranteed” leave, and eliminating access to abortion care can have devastating economic costs.

In a hearing on the far-reaching consequences of anti-abortion laws on 29 September, US Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said that denying abortion access to millions of Americans is a “profound economic issue”.

“Forcing poor and working class people to give birth against their will, against their consent, against their ability to provide for themselves or their child is a profound economic issue,” she told the House Oversight Committee. “It certainly is a way to keep a workforce, basically, conscripted.”

In the 27 states poised to severely restrict or outlaw abortion without protections from Roe v. Wade, none have paid family and medical leave, and 18 have gender wage gaps above the national average, according to Center for American Progress.

Women live in poverty at rates above the national average in 22 of those states, and children live in poverty at rates higher than the national average in 17.

19 states also have not expanded Medicaid, the federal healthcare programme for low-income Americans, to provide care up to 12 months after giving birth.

Without a “robust federal and state” effort to strengthen the nation’s social safety net, people unexpectedly facing parenthood are “likely to fall even further through the cracks – with downstream effects on their children, communities, and local and state economies,” according to the report.

“The idea that abortion and access to abortion is somehow not a profound and central economic and class issue and class struggle is certainly something that I think a person who has never had to contend with the ability to carry a child – it belies that perspective,” according to Ms. Ocasio-Cortez.

“Abortion rights are a class struggle too,” she added on Twitter. “When the powerful force people to give birth against their will, they trap millions into cycles of economic setback and desperation. Especially in a country without guaranteed healthcare. And desperate workers are far easier to exploit.”

One study found that patients who were denied an abortion experienced “a wide range of negative financial consequences,” including lower credit scores, increased debt, greater risk of bankrupty and eviction from their homes.

The study also found that those abortion restrictions were linked to a higher risk of child poverty and poor developmental outcomes among children.

Another study following two groups of women over 10 years – including one group that access abortions and another that wanted to but could not – found that people who were denied an abortion sank deeper into poverty as a result.

In 2021, the Institute for Women’s Policy Research found that restrictive abortion laws cost state and local economies $105bn from workforce reductions and earnings levels and increasing turnover and time off from work among women ages 15 to 44 years old.

Medical costs for birth are also expensive, even with insurance coverage. The average cost for vaginal deliveries in 2015 was roughly $4,300, and $5,200 for caesarean births, according to a study of more than 600,000 women between 2008 and 2015 who had health coverage through their employer.

“Policymakers and advocates must recognize that the fall of Roe is an economic issue and would be one more victory for the economics of control and disempowerment – low wages, little worker power, and rising disinvestment,” according to a report from the Economic Policy Institute. “Reproductive justice is key to economic justice and protects women’s humanity, dignity, and the right to exert freedom over their own choices in the economy.”

#us politics #news #the independent #rep. alexandria ocasio cortez #abortions #abortion bans #roe v. wade #reproductive rights are human rights #reproductive rights #reproductive health #2022 #house oversight committee #twitter #tweet #Institute for Women’s Policy Research #Economic Policy Institute #economy #economics #classism #class struggle #class warfare #us healthcare #medicare #maternity leave #paternity leave

[impriindia]

Empowering Women Through Financial Inclusion: The Lakhpati Didi Scheme, 2023 - IMPRI Impact And Policy Research Institute

Policy UpdateApekshya Basnet Background It is commonly recognised that women’s economic empowerment accelerates social advancement and sustainable development. In India, where gender inequality still plagues society, programmes such as the Lakhpati Didi Scheme have become important tools for addressing these inequalities. In August 2023, Prime Minister Modi unveiled a vision to create two crore…

View On WordPress

#Didi #Empowering #Financial #impact #impri #Inclusion #Institute #Lakhpati #policy #research #Scheme #Women

[ukrfeminism]

We’ve been chatting for about half an hour when Eloise lowers her voice to a whisper. Until now she’s been confidently talking through the ups and downs of being a 19-year-old woman in a world she finds unsteady. 

She’s annoyed that, on TikTok, the advertisements she gets are keyrings with rape alarms and “stabby kitties” (a cat-shaped metal keychain with pointed ears sharp enough to cause damage), feels that modern feminism sometimes goes a bit too far, but having grown up in the age of nudes, she doesn’t really trust men. Which is unsurprising considering the story she tells me next.

“So a boy I know was asking a girl at his school for nudes,” she says, quietly. “And then when she refused, he threatened to rape her.” The boy was 14 and had recently posted an Andrew Tate video to his Instagram page, which was Eloise’s first encounter with the online influencer. 

“It said stuff like how women are your property and that it doesn’t matter if women say they’ve been sexually assaulted; if you’re with them that’s your right. I didn’t like it,” she adds.

Tate has made several appearances in the headlines this week. On Tuesday, a Romanian court rejected his appeal to ease the ban on him leaving the country as a legal case against him – in which he’s charged with human trafficking, rape and forming a criminal gang to sexually exploit women – continues. He denies all charges against him. The following day, Ipsos polling for King’s College London’s Policy Institute and the Global Institute for Women’s Leadership found that one in five men aged 16-29 who have heard of Andrew Tate have a positive view of him.

Separately – or, arguably, perhaps not – another survey published in the same week underpinned a renewed focus on the attitudes and beliefs of Generation Z, this time from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). The research asked just over 3,000 adults of varying ages – 50.6 per cent of whom were female – about their understanding of rape and serious sexual offences, and the law on consent, and drew troubling conclusions.

Overall, 74 per cent of people surveyed understood that it can still be rape if a victim doesn’t resist or fight back, but the number fell to just over half (53 per cent) of 18-24-year-olds who had the same understanding. Less than half of respondents from this age group recognised that victims might not report a sexual offence to police immediately, that being in a relationship or marriage doesn’t mean consent can be assumed, or that if a man has been drinking or taking drugs, he’s still responsible if he rapes someone. More than 70 per cent of over-65s recognised that even if no physical force is involved a person might not be free or able to consent to sex, compared to just 40 per cent of young people.

Previous generations have become used to hearing that rape myths and misconceptions continue to persist, but that’s precisely why this week’s grim trinity of headlines stings. “There tends to be a public assumption that things are generally always getting better,” says author and feminist campaigner Laura Bates. “Actually, views like these are incredibly widespread among young people.” 

Bates regularly works with schools, talking to pupils who often tell her that “rape is a compliment”, that “it’s not rape if she likes it” or, “it’s your boyfriend, you have to have sex with him”.

She adds: “Attitude surveys have to be taken seriously because they are a real red flag that we’re going backwards – we’re seeing much more extreme and concerning misogynistic attitudes among the youngest generations than we are among the oldest. We have to face up to that and ask, why is that happening?”

Gen Z has never been neatly contained. Growing up as the first digital natives in the chokehold of crisis – climate, Covid, cost of living – has seen them praised for their social awareness, but disenfranchised and forgotten by politics. Their extremely online nature has given them unprecedented access to the world and other people – but, of course, that’s a double-edged sword.

“The internet has made everyone’s voices louder, but that means the most misogynistic people in the world are heard more too,” says Niya Clement-Hickson, a 26-year-old marketing designer from London. He says his generation has been “kind of ruined” by social media.

“You’d be surprised at just how many people around my age will argue that Andrew Tate is not as bad as he seems.”

When I spend an hour talking to 16-year-old Tate fan Manus from Ohio on TikTok, he says exactly that. He’s relatively timid and seems unsure of what he thinks at times, but came across Tate aged 12, being drawn to his motivational speeches, humour, and attitude towards making money. “[Tate] kinda showed me how people really are in reality,” he says. On Tate’s assertions that women are the property of men, he says those beliefs are simply from the Bible (though Manus himself is Muslim).

He maintains he’s never seen Tate speak violently about women, and when I send him leaked voicenote recordings of Tate saying that he enjoyed raping a woman, Manus is certain it’s fake “probably to make him look bad”. I ask for his views on feminism and he responds that feminists now want “superiority” and “more rights”. What rights exactly? “More rights in general,” he says, vaguely.

This opinion is not a rarity – there’s a pervasive idea circling comments sections and pub corners that the pendulum has “swung too far”. “Some of us warned that when you continue to suppress their identity by telling young boys that they are inherently toxic, they’ll start acting irrational,” one comment under an Andrew Tate post this week read. But it’s not just boys who hold this idea. Early last year, a survey from Ipsos UK and the Global Institute for Women’s Leadership at King’s College London echoed this and some of Eloise’s views that feminism has gone too far. They found that 52 per cent of Gen Z and 53 per cent of millennials believe that we’re now discriminating against men. Less than half of Gen Z respondents said they defined themselves as a feminist.

Was it coincidence then, to see that shortly after the research was published in March 2023, the year of the girl was in full swing? A persistently pink summer was punctuated with girl dinners, #tradwives – modern women who believe in traditional gender roles – and stay-at-home girlfriends sharing their daily rituals on news feeds. New York magazine’s The Cut declared it “Woman in Retrograde” as the year came to a close; a cluster of reactionary elements to a significant demise of mainstream feminism.

This shift back to traditional behaviours is also present in younger men, says Niya. “A lot of guys feel that their role is all about providing money, being a protector. But they feel they deserve to get something out of the interaction. They just can’t deal with being told no.”

In terms of consent, does he hear attitudes that put women in danger? “Absolutely,” he replies. Niya didn’t learn about consent in school – “I don’t think it was ever talked about beyond ‘don’t have sex until you’re old enough’” – and thinks this is quite common for men of his age. For Maya, who’s 24 and neurodivergent, the line of consent is difficult to pinpoint and somewhat shaped by social media. There’s a “disconnect” from what she really wants – and is able to articulate – in the moment.

“I think that we do have less and less sex and more and more porn,” Niya adds. “And I think that once porn is your main and in some cases, only engagement with sex and women, then that is going to completely screw up how you see sex.”

Do all roads lead to porn? Probably. Clare McGlynn, who is a professor of law with particular expertise in sexual violence and online abuse, says: “We know that algorithms promote more extreme content, more hate – and many, many younger people, men and women, are getting this. Millions of people, as we speak, are watching mainstream online pornography that is racist, sexist, misogynist and violent in its content. Of course, it’s shaping attitudes and lives.”

“There’s certainly a pressure on young boys and men, for example, to be taking and sharing nudes – they’re part of a culture that is encouraging them to,” McGlynn explains. During a study, she looked at what material was presented on the homepage of popular sites – she found landing pages which were filled with sexually violent material. “So it’s also not them even actively choosing that material; we’re part of a culture that is grooming young men, teaching them expectations around sex – and asking them to accept and normalise it.”

What appears clear from the survey conducted by the CPS is a dangerous lack of understanding of what constitutes a crime. “I do lectures on criminal law and I’ve had students come up to me afterwards and say that they didn’t know they had been sexually assaulted or raped,” McGlynn adds.

Laura Bates says that we’re in the midst of a “crisis of sexual violence among young people”. 

“Deeply misogynistic misinformation is being spread to young people online at a rate that most people just have absolutely no idea about,” she says. “And there is a massive knock-on effect.

“Some will look at these surveys and go, well, what does attitude matter? But you have to draw a connection between these really worrying attitudes about rape and the fact that nearly 80 per cent of young people told Ofsted inspectors recently that sexual assault is normal and common in their friendship groups.”

So what can be done? More responsibility and accountability from social media companies, says Bates. Tate’s content – some of which reportedly shows him attempting to beat a woman with a belt; she later hides behind a locked door – has been viewed more than 11 billion times on TikTok, she says, adding: “That’s more than the population of the planet.” Last year, advocacy group HOPE found that more 16-17-year-old boys had watched Tate’s content than had heard of Rishi Sunak. “I think it’s really important that the government supports high quality, age-appropriate sex and relationships education,” she adds. 

Actively listening to and engaging with boys – as seen in initiatives like the state of New York’s Starting the Conversation campaign – is also important. Boys must have a safe and judgement-free environment to express themselves: the more their experiences of rape culture are internalised, the more difficult they are to see.

The Online Safety Bill, which was enacted in October last year, she says, was a missed opportunity for change. While it asks for more transparency on social media platforms and imposes sanctions for those not following the act, along with criminalising cyberflashing and sending unsolicited nude images, “it went 250 pages without mentioning women and girls once, until campaigners changed that”, Bates says.

“It’s so much more effective to focus on prevention of radicalisation than trying to unpick it once it’s happened,” she says. “Young people really are prepared to listen and prepared to change their minds, it’s just a shame this isn’t happening in every school.”

“It does make me worried about how safe the world is going to be,” says Eloise, who will begin her twenties in the summer. “What if people really start thinking that women are property again?” Then, she’s quiet again. “I really hope it can change.”

#Articles #community #MVAWG

[fromchaostocosmos]

Claims that Israel has been committing a genocide of Palestinians date to long before October 7. Yet the population of Gaza was estimated to be less than 400,000 when Israel captured the territory from Egypt in a war against multiple Arab countries in 1967. It’s now estimated at just over 2 million. Population growth of almost 600% would make it the most inept genocide in the history of the world.

Those repeating the word genocide over and over, turning it into a mantra that penetrates the public consciousness, smearing Israel and anyone who supports it, ignore the facts of this war. This is not an unprovoked war, like Russia’s against Ukraine. It’s not a civil war between rival militias, like the one raging in Sudan — which, by the way, is being ignored by almost everyone, even though the UN describes it as one of the “worst humanitarian crises in recent memory,” where a famine could kill 500,000 people. No, Israel was attacked. On October 7, Hamas launched a gruesome assault on Israeli civilians, killing some 1,200 — including many women and children — and dragging hundreds of them as hostages into Gaza. Today dozens — including many women and children — remain in captivity. Those who keep saying that Israel’s response is an act of revenge rather than the strategic, defensive war that most Israelis view as a fight for national survival against a determined enemy backed by a powerful country are deliberately distorting reality. In doing so, they are perversely evoking the same false blood lust and grotesqueness embedded in the blood libel archetype.

Indeed, Hamas’ actions, which precipitated this war, don’t seem to exist in the minds of ostensibly humanitarian-minded protesters. Nor even the fate of the hostages, still captive in Hamas tunnels. Although the campus protests vary in their message and actions from school to school, we never hear protesters chant that Hamas should release the hostages or accept a ceasefire. Quite the contrary. Accusations against Israel at times include praise for Hamas, one of whose aims — the end of the Jewish state — is shared by some key organizers of the student protests. As Secretary of State Antony Blinken recently said, “It remains astounding to me that the world is almost deafeningly silent when it comes to Hamas.” Accusing Israel of genocide and putting the entire onus for stopping the war, putting all the blame for the deaths, on the Jewish state is even more astounding because Hamas — designated a terrorist organization by the US, the European Union and many other countries — is a group whose explicit goal, according to its founding charter, is not just to destroy Israel, but to kill Jews. That is the definition of genocide.

Still, the death toll, even by the Hamas count, does not in any way suggest a genocidal campaign. The terror organization puts the total at about 35,000. The figure, disputed by The Washington Institute for Near East Policy among other think tanks and researchers, includes Hamas fighters. That means the number of civilians killed, whatever the total, is actually lower. Compare that to the death toll in Mosul, Iraq, where coalition forces uprooted ISIS from a city that had some 600,000 people at the time. Estimates of the exact number of deaths vary, ranging from 9,000 to 40,000 (the latter is the estimate of Kurdish intelligence). The lowest figure is on par with the rate of total deaths reported by Hamas authorities in Gaza that does not distinguish civilians from Hamas fighters, while the highest is four times greater. I don’t recall hearing the term genocide used there, or in any of the battles that led to more than half a million people being killed in Afghanistan and Iraq during America’s wars there. And yet, Israel has been repeatedly smeared with this damning accusation.

#antisemitism #judenhass #jumblr

[afeelgoodblog]

The Best News of Last Week - January 09, 2023

1. Top British universities offer Afghan women free courses until Taliban lift learning ban

Afghanistan's ruling Taliban announced last month that women would no longer be able to study at universities and higher education establishments. Institutions were told to implement the ban as soon as possible.

Now, a number of British universities have teamed up through FutureLearn to offer the women in Afghanistan free access to digital learning platforms. Girls and women with internet access will be able to study more than 1,200 courses from top institutions at no cost to themselves.

2. Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs extends protections to LGBTQ+ state employees and contractors

Arizona’s newly elected Gov. Katie Hobbs (D) signed an executive order extending employment protections to state employees and contractors who are LGBTQ+.

As the Human Rights Campaign reports, the executive order, signed on Hobbs’s first day in office Tuesday, directs the state’s Department of Administration to update hiring, promotion, and compensation policies for all state agencies to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity and include provisions in all new state contracts to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

3. EU Carbon Emissions Drop To 30-Year Lows

It was supposed to be a dirty autumn and winter, with European nations scrambling to replace Russian gas with high-polluting coal. But according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, the cold seasons so far have been the cleanest in more than 30 years.

4. Critically endangered rhinoceros gives birth to calf at Kansas City Zoo on New Year's Eve

The Kansas City Zoo got a special start to the new year: A critically endangered subspecies of rhinoceros gave birth to a calf on Dec. 31, officials announced. The calf is walking, nursing and even playing with its mother, Zuri, animal specialists said.

5. Cancer Vaccine to Simultaneously Kill and Prevent Brain Cancer Developed

Scientists are harnessing a new way to turn cancer cells into potent, anti-cancer agents. A new stem cell therapy approach eliminates established brain tumors and provides long-term immunity, training the immune system to prevent cancer from returning.

link to the paper …

6. The US has approved use of the world's first vaccine for honey bees.

It was engineered to prevent fatalities from American foulbrood disease, a bacterial condition known to weaken colonies by attacking bee larvae. As pollinators, bees play a critical role in many aspects of the ecosystem.

The vaccine could serve as a "breakthrough in protecting honey bees", Dalan Animal Health CEO Annette Kleiser said in a statement. It works by introducing an inactive version of the bacteria into the royal jelly fed to the queen, whose larvae then gain immunity.

7. Cat missing for nearly 6 years reunited with owner thanks to microchip

West Sacramento woman got the surprise of a lifetime Saturday when she was reunited with her missing cat after nearly 6 years thanks to microchip. 

- - -

That's it for this week. If you liked this post you can support this newsletter with a small kofi donation:

Buy me a coffee ❤️

Subscribe for more weekly wholesome news...

#best news of last week

[thatsonemorbidcorvid]

Police in Vienna are investigating the deaths of four women and a teenage girl in a 24-hour period.

Three women were stabbed to death by a man in a brothel in Austria's capital on Friday. A suspect was arrested.

Another woman and her daughter were killed in an unrelated incident. Investigators believe the girl's father was responsible.

Campaigners described the day as "Black Friday" and called for urgent action to stop violence against women.

The bodies of three women, believed to be Chinese nationals, were found in a building in the central Brigittenau district at around 21:00 local time (20:00 GMT) after a witness called the emergency services.

The suspect, whom police have described as a 27-year-old Afghan national, was found hiding near the brothel with a knife in his hand.

On Sunday, police said the man had "basically confessed" to the killings during his first interrogation.

The motive is currently unclear but further questioning and investigations are to follow.

Autopsies will be carried out on the bodies of the three victims later on Sunday.

Earlier on Friday, a 51-year-old woman and her 13-year-old daughter were found dead in an apartment in the Erdberg area - about 12km (seven miles) from where the other incident happened.

There is no suggestion they are connected.

Police are still searching for the woman's husband, who is also the girl's father, as investigators suspect he may have strangled or choked them to death.

"The initial investigations, which are currently under way, indicate that blunt force was involved," said police spokesman Philip Hasslinger.

Eva-Maria Holzleitner, the leader of the women's policy department of the opposition Social Democratic Party (SPO), has urged the federal government to call a crisis meeting to discuss the issue of femicide in the country.

"We mourn the murdered women, are thinking about the survivors and call for a national action plan to protect against violence to finally be implemented in order to protect women's lives in Austria," said Ms Holzleitner.

Klaudia Frieben, leader of umbrella organisation the Austrian Women's Ring (OFR), wrote on X (formerly Twitter) that "this day will go down in history as Black Friday with five dead women".

According to the latest data on femicide rates in Austria, published by the Institute of Conflict Research, some 319 women were killed in the country between 2010 and 2020 - mostly by male partners or ex-partners.

The coalition government has vowed to crack down on the issue - pledging almost €25m (£21m) in 2021 to initiatives aimed at protecting women against violence.

[coochiequeens]

Another reason to have more women not just in the workplace but in the leadership roles in the workplace

If you want a fairer pay packet, you have a better chance of getting it with a female manager, according to new research. 

When given the task of deciding how much to compensate employees for a set task, male managers chose to keep more for themselves than their female counterparts, according to the findings of researchers at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology. 

“Various studies observe that women make more selfless and moral decisions than men,” political economy researcher and the report’s author, Nora Szech, said on Thursday. “However, we were shocked at how drastic the discrepancy was here.”

The study found that both male and female managers took advantage of opportunities to enrich themselves by paying lower wages, when circumstances allowed this. But women were in general less likely “to be selfish” than men and generally awarded about 13% more than managers on average, the research showed.

“Male managers react stronger to incentives schemes than females. Female managers exhibit a more consistent behavior which seems to be more robust to the opportunity to be selfish,” the study found.

The findings come as European countries tighten quotas for diversity in the boardroom, with the region’s largest economies all introducing some form of mandate to ensure women get at least a third of directorships. The policies target not only inequality within companies, but are intended to boost performance. 

#Women in the workplace #women in leadership #women being better managers

[discluded]

OTW Candidates and the Threat of Censorship in Power

Per my policy with this blog, I am creating this post as a centralized information point for the last two cycles of pro-censorship candidates running for @transformativeworks board positions. This is for us, voting members of OTW to have an centralized factual archive of these candidates, which allows us to hold OTW responsible for better screening candidates for views antithetical to the central mission of the organization.

As we know, censorship is on the rise across parts of the internet. These places include geographical territories that OTW's servers sit on. With the resignation of three sitting OTW board members, including one with a history of racist comments, the current election cycle for OTW board became an uncontested cycle that would have been dangerously close to allow an uncontested slot-in for a pro-censorship candidate. With this, I am hoping to increase the amount of transparency and responsibility OTW owes to its voting (and contributing) members.

We as voting members of OTW have the right to choose candidates that will advance the mission of the organization -- we should not, multiple years in a row -- be forced to organize around preventing a pro-censorship candidate from advancing to the Board or accept that such a candidate was could have possibility of being promoted in an uncontested election to the Board.

2022 Election - Tiffany G

Tiffany G's interview statement from her candidacy response. It appears that this text is no longer part of the transcript, but a screencap was preserved by twitter user muzhiyou on August 11 2022. Please click the link to their tweet thread for more context about AO3's banned status in China.

[ID in alt text]

Given that the text transcripts' comments reference in various parts "adult content" but this section is now removed from the chat archive and only contain references to "pedophilic content and other illegal content" the transparency of candidates' views and the the permanency of their archival by OTW are also now in question.

For further nuance and discussion about Tiffany G's candidacy, please review this [non-neutral] thread/discussion about Tiffany's position on censorship with regard to AO3 and the Chinese government.

2023 Election - Audrey R

Upon reviewing candidates for the 2023 election cycle, twitter user mozaikmage noticed that candidate Audrey R was Audrey Richards, an registered Republican who ran for election to the U.S. House to represent Missouri's 7th Congressional District in 2022. (source: Ballotpedia / archive.today version ) Her affiliation for OTW was listed on her Ballotpedia biography.

For additional [non-neutral] discussion of Audrey R's candidacy, please review twitter user fairestcat's breakdown of Audrey's responses and their contention. Fairestcat's views are not representative of my own, the creator of this post. I am merely trying to offer voter perspectives to Audrey's lack of qualification.

Upon further research, twitter user Taenith_Rain was able to unveil more about Audrey R's work with Children and Screens, an organization that advances moral panic around minors' media consumption which has an ultimate goal of censorship. Twitter user Taenith_Rain gave me express permission to archive their research and also asked not to be further engaged on this topic.

(archive.today link)

Note in her own webpage, her qualification listed as follows:

POLICY LEAD, Institute of Digital Media and Child Development - Create and lead the policy department at a nonprofit research institute dedicated to understanding the impact of digital media use on child development. Create a nonpartisan reputation on Capitol Hill as a scientific resource.

(archive.today link)

(archive.today link)

(archive.today link) Please note that the twitter user's comments do not reflect my own opinions about the Republican voters, Republican women, or Audrey R as a person.

(archive.today link)

Youtube webinar:

I do want to highlight again the dog-whistle pro-censorship description used for this webinar.

"media w/romanticized abuse and sexual content lacking partner communication may be impacting teens' attitudes and behaviors".

Final Thoughts

I am glad that twice in a row OTW has avoided having a pro-censorship candidate elected to its Board, and that the Stop OTW Racism campaign has led to the successful removal of a sitting board member who has made racist comments.

However, it is unconscionable that two years in a row OTW voting members were forced to reconcile with the fact that there was a pro-censorship candidate running, and had to do extensive research and advocacy to make sure that voters were aware of this risk.

With this archived in one place, I am hoping to hold OTW accountable to better screen candidates to advance the organization's goal of fighting censorship.

Reblogs for knowledge sharing and transparency appreciated.

#otw #ao3 #otw elections #audrey richards #censorship #tiffany g #Youtube

[star-anise]

Pulling a piece out of an already massive post to reply to @zenosanalytic :

Most of this is great, but I feel like this overstates the influence and power of exclusionists; they never took over either Feminist or Lesbian groups or turned them en masse against bisexuals and transpeople, at least not in the US(in Britain it's an accurate description from what I've read). They def were still there, TRYING to(they were majorly annoying in the Fair scene), and you'd meet them or lesbian-separatists moving in wider queer circles, but they were pretty consistently losing that fight especially in academic and political queer orgs and, by the 00s, were pretty much irrelevant. They stayed that way until the Conservative movement deliberately revived/coopted them in the 10s.

Because... here's the bit from the original post I think this is talking about:

That process of expelling bi women from lesbian groups with immense prejudice continues to this day and leaves scars on a lot of bi/pan people. A lot of bisexuals, myself included, have an experience of “double discrimination”; we are made to feel unwelcome or invisible both in straight society, and in LGBT spaces.

It is absolutely true that radfems did not succeed in making exclusionary politics the mainstream policy of LGBT institutions. Hooowever. That's not what I was talking about.

Most people do not engage with the LGBTQ+ community solely by, like... walking into a policy meeting at GLAAD. Generally we do things like finding LGBTQ+ content on social media, or by attending LGBTQ+ social events, or by trying to find people to date!

In those settings, groups that are minoritized within the LGBTQ+ community (bi, pan, m-spec, ace, aro, trans, nb, etc) experience being treated in ways that are invalidating or derogatory. Not all the time! #notalllesbians!! The majority of the community might actually be kind and welcoming, and it might be relatively small microaggressions. But those microaggressions can happen often enough, and in a context where not much is being done to show that we are valued by the community, to create a sense of wariness and unwelcome in a space that ought to be safe for us.

I didn't attend a single LGBTQ+ event, or try to date a single woman, my entire undergrad career, because when I was 16, the first real-life gays and lesbians I ever met laughed and joked, in my hearing, about how bisexual teenage girls are just sluts who are doing it for the attention, not actually gay. It's not that I believed them, since they were obviously wrong; it's just that I went, "Oh okay, so LGBT spaces are still ones where I'll be bullied and shit-talked. I absolutely cannot deal with any more of that, so I'll just never go into those spaces."

Mine is a very small story. There are a lot of little stories like mine, and also ones big enough that they'd look exclusionary even to an outside observer. I know people who actually did get pushed out of their college GSAs, or lost their whole social support network, or had people try to coerce them into thinking they were horrible misguided tools of the patriarchy, in LGBT spaces, because they were bi, pan, m-spec, ace, aro, trans, nb, etc.

If you'd clicked the link in the post labelled "double discrimination", you'd read an NBC article that says, in part:

“This study adds to the growing body of research confirming that bisexual people face unique mental health disparities [that are] closely related to stigma and discrimination [they face] from straight, gay and lesbian communities,” Heron Greenesmith, a senior policy analyst at LGBTQ advocacy organization Movement Advancement Project, said.

(Note: this means "unique" as compared to gays and lesbians, which have been the focus of most mental health research and practice in this area. Namely, bisexuals tend to face certain pressures as a group that cis gays and lesbians don't so much. It does not mean "unique" as in "only bisexuals experience this". Bisexuals are just one of many groups that feel unwelcome or unsafe in LGBTQ+ spaces they ought to belong in.

Maybe you didn't mean to imply that all these experiences didn't happen. I hope you didn't. Because it would be really goshdarn silly for someone who's been on Tumblr for years to suggest that the 2010s were not a fucking golden age of young LGBTQ+ people tentatively reaching out to explore their gender and sexuality, and being deluged with immense volumes of bullshit by other LGBTQ+ people for it.

I don't want to in any way discourage people from reaching out to LGBTQ+ groups, because it's very possible that the reward will far outweigh the risks. It's possible that other people will welcome you and will enforce a code of conduct against anyone who gives you shit. I'm not saying, "Hide forever! You're on your own, kid!"

But on the other hand, it is very easy, in a million different ways, to say "We didn't think very hard about making these groups feel welcome and protected in our space" without ever writing it into official policy.

#staranise original #lgbt discourse #transphobia tw #biphobia tw #aphobia tw

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Just a few years ago, maternal mortality was the rare reproductive justice issue that seemed to transcend partisan politics. In late 2018, Republicans and Democrats in Congress even came together to approve $60 million for state maternal mortality review committees (MMRCs) to study why so many American women die from causes related to pregnancy and childbirth. Donald Trump—not exactly famous for his respect toward pregnant women and new mothers in his personal life—signed the bill.

But some Republicans’ enthusiasm for these committees began to wane at around the same time abortion rights advocates began warning that draconian restrictions on reproductive care would only push the shamefully high US maternal mortality rate—the worst among affluent countries—even higher. Nor did conservatives, like Idaho lawmakers, appreciate the policy recommendations that came out of many MMRCs.

Texas, whose record on maternal mortality (and maternal health more broadly) has been an embarrassment since long before Dobbs, has a history of controversial attempts to play down potentially unwelcome findings from its MMRC. After the Dobbs decision, when the state committee was working on its report examining maternal deaths in 2019, Texas officials decided to slow-roll its release until mid-2023—too late for lawmakers to act on its recommendations. “When we bury data, we are dishonorably burying each and every woman that we lost,” one furious committee member told the Texas Tribune. Ultimately, officials released the report three months late, in December 2022. Soon afterward, the Legislature reconfigured the MMRC, increasing its size—but also ejected one of its most outspoken members.

Now Texas officials have stirred up the biggest furor yet, appointing a leading anti-abortion activist to the panel. Dr. Ingrid Skop, an OB-GYN who practiced in San Antonio for 25 years, will join the MMRC as a community member representing rural areas (even though she is from the seventh-largest city in the US). But she also represents a largely overlooked segment of the anti-abortion movement: researchers who seek to discredit the idea that abortion restrictions are putting women’s lives in danger. To the contrary, Skop and her allies argue that abortions are the real, hidden cause of many maternal deaths—and that abortion restrictions actually save mothers’ lives.

One of several doctors suing to revoke the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of mifepristone, the medication abortion drug at the center of one of this term’s blockbuster Supreme Court cases, Skop has been a familiar face on the anti-abortion expert-witness circuit for more than a decade. She has frequently testified in favor of strict abortion bans in court cases, state legislatures, and before Congress. In a high-profile case this winter, she submitted an affidavit stating that a Dallas woman named Kate Cox— who was seeking a judge’s permission to terminate a nonviable pregnancy—did not qualify for an abortion under Texas’s medical exception. The Texas Supreme Court rejected Cox’s petition, and to get medical care, the 31-year-old mother of two had to flee the state. Apparently, Skop’s hard-line stance against abortion-ban exemptions extends to children. At a 2021 congressional hearing, she testified that rape or incest victims as young as 9 or 10 could potentially carry pregnancies to term. “If she is developed enough to be menstruating and become pregnant, and reached sexual maturity,” Skop said, “she can safely give birth to a baby.”

Skop’s relatively new role as vice president and director of medical affairs for the Charlotte Lozier Institute, the research arm of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, has solidified her standing in the anti-abortion firmament. Lozier, which has positioned itself as the anti-abortion alternative to the Guttmacher Institute, described Skop’s role as “coordinat[ing] the work of Lozier’s network of physicians and medical researchers who counter the abortion industry’s blizzard of misinformation with science and statistics for life.” Elsewhere on its website, Lozier notes that Skop’s “research on maternal mortality, abortion, and women’s health has been published in multiple peer-reviewed journals.”

What her Lozier bio doesn’t mention is that three of the studies Skop co-authored about the purported risks of abortion were retracted by their publisher this February. Attorneys representing Skop and her fellow anti-abortion doctors had cited the studies in the FDA-mifepristone case. As my colleague Madison Pauly reported, an independent review of the papers found “fundamental problems,” “incorrect factual assumptions,” “material errors,” “misleading presentations,” and undisclosed conflicts of interest between the studies’ authors (including Skop) and anti-abortion advocacy groups (including Lozier). In a rebuttal on its website, Lozier called the publisher’s move “meritless,” adding, “There is no legitimate reason for [the] retractions.”

Skop’s work on maternal mortality hasn’t received the same attention as those papers—yet. But her reflections on maternal deaths in the US have raised plenty of eyebrows.

Skop has argued repeatedly that abortions are directly and indirectly behind the rise in maternal mortality in the US. In a 53-page “Handbook of Maternal Mortality” she wrote for Lozier last year, she says that CDC maternal mortality data can’t be trusted in part because “there is much unreported maternal mortality and morbidity associated with legal, induced abortion, often obscured due to the political nature of the issue.” She claims that a history of abortions puts women at risk in pregnancy, childbirth, or during the postpartum period—whether from maternal complications she contends are linked to prior abortions, or from mental health problems, such as drug addiction and suicide, purportedly caused by abortion regret.

In another paper co-written with some of the same co-authors as in her retracted studies, Skop and her colleagues call for an overhaul of how states and the CDC collect maternal mortality data, urging the inclusion of “mandatory certification of all fetal losses,” including abortions.

And whereas the vast majority of public health experts predict that maternal deaths and near-deaths will increase in states with abortion bans, Skop takes the opposite view. In yet another Lozier paper, she lists 12 reasons why states with abortion bans will have fewer maternal deaths. For instance, she argues, because of abortion restrictions, women will have fewer later-term abortions, which tend to be more dangerous to women than first-trimester procedures. (In fact, researchers report, that state bans have led to an increase in second-trimester abortions.) She claims that since women who don’t have abortions won’t have mental health problems supposedly associated with pregnancy loss, their alleged risk of postpartum suicide would be reduced. (In fact, the idea that abortion regret is widespread and dangerous has been thoroughly debunked.) Skop makes a similar argument about abortion’s purported (and disproven) link to breast cancer, arguing that fewer abortions will mean fewer women dying of malignant tumors.

Much of Skop’s advocacy work has been done in collaboration with colleagues who share her strong ideological views. MMRCs, by contrast, have a public health role that is supposed to transcend politics—their focus is on analyzing the deaths of expectant and new mothers that occur within a year of the end of the pregnancy. Typically, committee members come from a wide range of professional backgrounds: In Texas, these include OB-GYNs, high-risk pregnancy specialists, nurses, mental health providers, public health researchers, and community advocates. Panels also aim to be racially and geographically diverse, the better to understand the communities—Black, Indigenous, rural, poor—where mothers are at disproportionate risk of dying. In a country that hasn’t prioritized maternal health, MMRCs are uniquely positioned to identify system failures and guide policy changes that can save lives.

Texas’s most recent maternal mortality report found that 90% of maternal deaths were preventable, racial disparities in maternal outcomes weren’t improving, and severe childbirth complications were up 23%—all before the state’s abortion bans took effect.

It remains to be seen how someone with Skop’s background and agenda will fit in with her new colleagues, especially at this dire moment for women in the state. Maternal health advocates aren’t optimistic: “This appointment speaks volumes about how seriously certain state leaders are taking the issue of maternal mortality,” Kamyon Conner, executive director of the Texas Equal Access Fund, told The Guardian. “It is another sign that the state is more interested in furthering their anti-abortion agenda than protecting the lives of pregnant Texans.”

Skop, contacted through Lozier, didn’t respond to a request for comment. In a statement to the Texas Tribune, Skop said she was joining the Texas MMRC because questions about maternal mortality data deserve “rigorous discourse.” “There are complex reasons for these statistics, including chronic illnesses, poverty, and difficulty obtaining prenatal care, and I have long been motivated to identify ways women’s care can be improved,” she said. “For over 30 years, I have advocated for both of my patients, a pregnant woman and her unborn child, and excellent medicine shouldn’t require I pit one against the other.”

Meanwhile, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists criticized Skop’s appointment, asserting that members of any maternal mortality review committee should be “unbiased, free of conflicts of interest and focused on the appropriate standards of care.”

“The importance of the work done by MMRCs to inform how we respond to the maternal mortality crisis cannot be overstated,” the group said in a statement. “It is crucial that MMRC members be clinical experts whose work is informed by data, not ideology and bias.”

#us politics #news #republicans #conservatives #gop #mother jones #texas #maternal mortality review committees #dobbs v. jackson women's health organization #the texas tribune #Dr. Ingrid Skop #2024 #mifepristone #Kate Cox #child pregnancy #abortions #abortion bans #reproductive justice #reproductive health #reproductive rights #Charlotte Lozier Institute #Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America #Handbook of Maternal Mortality #maternal mortality #Texas Equal Access Fund #Kamyon Conner #The Guardian #American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

[impriindia]

YWLPPF Young Women Leaders In Public Policy Fellowship - IMPRI Impact And Policy Research Institute

Event ReportReetwika Mallick The Gender Impact Studies Center, at IMPRI Impact and Policy Research Institute, New Delhi conducted a Two-Month Online National Winter School Program on ‘Young Women Leaders in Public Policy Fellowship’ from January 6th, 2024 to March 8th 2024. The chair of the program was Prof Vibhuti Patel, Visiting Distinguished Professor, IMPRI. Convenors of the program were Dr…

View On WordPress

#Fellowship #impact #impri #Institute #Leaders #policy #public #research #Women #Young #YWLPPF

[labourmarketanalysis]

Wage Inequality and Labour Market

By Sraddha R

In this blog post, we'll look at three compelling studies that shed light on wage disparities in Europe and India, as well as the critical role of labour market institutions. Take a seat, and let's get started!

INTRODUCTION

The labour market serves as a barometer for trends in employment, economic well-being, and the broader societal challenges posed by wage inequality. Our investigation begins with an acknowledgement of the modern global economy's profound impact on globalisation, technological advancements, and evolving work structures. These seismic shifts reshape industries, redefine skill requirements, and, as a result, affect wage structures. Wage inequality, which reflects the unequal distribution of earnings across gender, ethnicity, education, and occupation, is at the heart of this complex issue.

Study 1: The Structure of the Labour Market and Wage Inequality in European Countries

This study focuses on France, Germany, and Italy, meticulously analysing changes in wage inequality from 2005 to 2013. The findings show distinct patterns, such as a decrease in wage inequality in Germany, a decrease in France with explicit job polarisation structures, and a significant increase in Italy. Using a decomposition approach, the study considers variables such as gender, marital status, health, experience, education, contract type, economic status, and job categories.

The study emphasises the role of national labor-market protections, historical policy spending, and broader socioeconomic and political factors in shaping wage inequality trends. Tailored policy recommendations are emerging, urging France and Germany to implement policies that promote women's participation and improve job-related careers. In contrast, Italy faces challenges such as a lack of a legal minimum wage and political instability, necessitating specific policy responses.

Study 2: Recent Trends in India's Wealth Inequality

Using data from the Annual Income and Expenditure Surveys, this paper investigates wealth inequality in India using decomposition analyses. The study differentiates contributions from within and between group components, identifying sources of wealth concentration and drawing parallels between wealth and consumption inequality trends.

According to the study, increasing wealth concentration in India is linked to neoliberal growth, emphasising the failure to address employment and earnings disparities. While the study provides valuable insights, it is suggested that a more explicit discussion of policy implications and interventions be included. A complex policy framework is required to guide future research and inform effective policy decisions.

Wage Inequality and Low Pay: The Role of Labour Market Institutions, Study 3

The impact of labour market institutions on low-wage employment in OECD countries is investigated in this study. It seeks to comprehend the impact of trade unions, collective bargaining, and wage regulations on wage distribution, particularly in low-wage industries. The study distinguishes between different wage distribution segments, recognising variations in the analysis through the use of bivariate correlations and incorporating various control variables such as minimum wages and unemployment benefits.

According to the study's findings, labour market institutions account for more than 60% of cross-country differences in low pay. According to the study, strong unions protect against low pay, whereas centralised bargaining systems effectively limit wage disparities at the top. Minimum wages and welfare systems have varying effects across wage distribution segments. Governments, according to the study, can address rising earnings disparities and low-wage employment by supporting effective labor market institutions.

Comparative Evaluation

Our comparative analysis reveals the distinct perspectives provided by each study, shedding light on various dimensions and dynamics in different countries. The in-depth examination of economic inequality ranges from changes in wage inequality in European countries to wealth dynamics in India and the impact of labour market institutions on low-wage employment in OECD countries.

Conclusion

Taken together, the studies emphasise the interconnectedness of factors influencing income distribution and the importance of nuanced, context-specific policy decisions. The journey has shed light on labour market dynamics and economic outcomes, emphasising the complexities of addressing wage inequality in our pursuit of an equitable future where the benefits of economic growth are shared by all.

[mariacallous]

For this year’s International Women’s Day, the United Nations calls on us to “Invest in Women: Accelerate Progress.” The theme highlights how, amid a global polycrisis, achieving gender equality is vital for the collective well-being of communities worldwide. It calls attention to the significant challenges that persist in ensuring gender-equitable outcomes: in particular, evidence from the 2023 Gender Snapshot projecting that 340 million women and girls will still be living in poverty by 2030 and highlighting a significant funding shortfall—an additional $360 billion investment needed to achieve SDG goals of gender equality.

As global calls for financing for gender equality continue, it is vital to center care in these conversations. Over the past few decades, while programs focusing on women’s inclusion into the formal economy have made promising strides, much of the labor traditionally performed by girls and women, such as domestic and care work, is unpaid and not accounted for in conventional economic models. Globally, women perform an estimated 76 percent of unpaid care work. Even when paid, care work is often characterized by low wages and inadequate working conditions, especially for the most marginalized workers.

This International Women’s Day, as we reflect upon the advances made in the struggle for gender equality and justice in the previous decades, policy and program design would also be strengthened from addressing the relative invisibility of women’s labor across informal and care economies.

Situating women in global development

Globally, women’s inclusion as stakeholders in development processes emerged in the 1970s as part of a transnational “Women in Development” movement, which sought to position women as central to development—both as agents and beneficiaries. The movement’s advocacy translated into significant policy shifts, beginning with the 1973 Percy Amendment to the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act, requiring that “U.S. foreign aid programs encourage and promote the integration of women into the national economies in the developing countries.”

In the following decade, a broad array of global actors began championing women’s role in development. For example, the OECD instituted the Guiding Principles for Supporting the Role of Women in Development in 1983, and the World Bank established a Women in Development division in 1987. Galvanized by the U.N. Decade for Women (1975), along with decades of feminist research and organizing across the Global South and North, such programs ranged from women workers’ rights to small scale social enterprise, the latter of which were contemporaneous with the ascendancy of neoliberal policies in the 1980s and the faith in increasingly market-based solutions toward development.

But much like the biologically deterministic category of “woman” itself, actors working in the women in development space were far from homogenous. Over the intervening decades, their work has pushed theory and practice in new directions, introducing debates over whether women’s economic inclusion should be separated from advocating structural transformations in the political economy and asking what the roles of gender, race, caste, class, ability, and geopolitics are in women’s development programs. This has led to new frameworks, including those emphasizing gender relations, intersectionality, and global redistributive politics, which continue to shape contemporary debates in the broader field of gender and development.

In many of these debates, the gendered division of labor has been at the center. For example, feminist research on social reproduction—which broadly refers to the paid and unpaid labor necessary to sustain human life, such as care work—highlights not only that such labor has historically been seen as “women’s work” but also how its devaluation is fundamental in reproducing inequality and patriarchy.

Building care infrastructures for a gender-equal future

So, while today’s calls to invest in gender equality can fuel transformative initiatives, there are also perils associated with focusing solely on women’s inclusion in the formal labor market. Evaluating progress through this lens can not only render women who perform domestic or care work as “unworthy, disposable others,” but can also erase how race, class, and geopolitics shape labor across all gender identities. A broader view of the economy, which encompasses concepts of care, is fundamental in creating a more gender-equal future. In fact, Sustainable Development Goal 5.4 underscores the importance of valuing unpaid work by providing essential public services and promoting shared household responsibilities.

Building care infrastructures that recognize, fairly compensate, and redistribute the care work performed predominately by the working class, migrants, and women of color can lead to a multitude of benefits, including ensuring better educational outcomes for children, improving women’s mental well-being, and expanding women’s access to economic opportunities. One example of how the redistribution of care work can lead to gender equality is adequate and well-incentivized paternity leave, which can increase mothers’ probability of reemployment, promote maternal health, and advance gender and economic equality. Additionally, recognizing unpaid care and domestic work can help promote the elimination of discriminatory social norms and deep-rooted stereotypes around ideas of gender and labor–ultimately contributing to building more inclusive societies for all gender identities.

Looking forward

As global stakeholders respond to this year’s International Women’s Day call, determining who, how, and what to invest in can facilitate progress toward more equitable and sustainable development goals.

Who: Using an intersectional lens can enable stakeholders to identify how different systems of oppression—and the particularities between them—marginalize individuals and communities across all gender identities, and who should be centered in policy and programs.

How: The root causes of marginalization may then be addressed through a critical reflection of power dynamics across and within development contexts, and empowering local communities to chart their paths toward justice and equality, which can also inform recent “localization” efforts championed by development actors such as the U.S. Agency for International Development.

What: Finally, such shifts toward intersectionality and localization may also benefit from directly addressing inequities at the household, community, and national levels—in particular, both domestic work at home and in paid sectors such as education and health care—by developing concrete tools and infrastructures that value and redistribute care burdens.

As we craft new strategies to carry forward the decades-long fight to transform systems that sustain inequality and patriarchy, reimagining the relationships between gender, labor, and the economy is essential to building a more just future for all.

[partisan-by-default]

A new study published by scientists at Tulane University in Louisiana found that pregnant women in anti-abortion states face an increased likelihood of experiencing intimate partner homicide. Since the Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade, which provided Americans with the constitutional right to access abortion care, more states have enacted TRAP laws, which stands for targeted regulation of abortion providers. According to Guttmacher Institute, 23 states in the U.S. have laws or policies that regulate abortion providers.

In the study, published in the peer-reviewed health care journal Health Affairs, researchers looked at data from 2014 to 2020 to observe the connection between anti-abortion laws and intimate partner violence before Dobbs. Homicide is the leading cause of death for pregnant and postpartum women in the United States. The researchers found that the enforcement of one TRAP law was linked to a 3.4 percent increase in the rate of intimate partner violence-related homicides.

“We estimated that 24.3 intimate partner violence–related homicides of women and girls ages 10–44 were associated with TRAP laws implemented in the states and years included in this analysis," the researchers wrote. “Assessment of policies that restrict access to abortion should consider their potential harm to reproductive-age women through the risk for violent death.”

[ptseti]

SACHS: DEMOCRATS & REPUBLICANS BEAT WAR DRUMS The US political spectrum has been described as two sides of the same coin. While the Democratic Party and the Republican Party may differ on issues like LGBTQ rights, women's rights and migration, they almost always see eye to eye on US foreign policy. This is partly what is driving up the country’s debt burden, explained economist Jeffrey Sachs several months ago on Democracy Now. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, US defence spending in 2022 accounted for almost 40 per cent of global military expenditures. That year, US military support for Ukraine required a $71 billion increase in expenditures, pushing the United States to spend more than the next ten countries combined, compared to surpassing the next nine countries in 2021. US military violence has been unleashed under various pretences to line the pockets of the military-industrial complex, a term used to describe the US military establishment as well as private companies that develop weaponry for US 'defence.' Meanwhile, the country’s infrastructure is crumbling, many cannot afford healthcare, and more than a half-million are homeless (a conservative estimate), to name a few challenges. Rather than acknowledging that its domestic situation is unravelling, that its wars have failed and that its debt burden has ballooned, the United States is doubling. It has a military presence all across Africa through its Africa Command (AFRICOM) while goading China. What's a failing empire to do? Let us know in the comments.

[ukrfeminism]

Women would need to work for an extra 19 years to retire with the same pension savings as men, according to data from the Pensions Policy Institute.

The research found women retiring at 67 – the new UK state pension age from 2026 – will have saved an average of £69,000, compared with £205,000 for men.

The data, published by the PPI and pensions provider Now: Pensions, suggests that under the current system, in order to close the “gender pension gap” a girl would need to start saving at three years old to retire with the same amount of money as working men.

Career gaps, caring responsibilities, childcare costs and lower earnings all contribute to the disparity.

As automatic enrolment into workplace pensions – where workers are put into a pension scheme into which they and their employer pay – starts at the age of 22, the 19-year gap meant that “by age three, girls are already falling behind boys in their provision for later life”, the researchers claimed.

However, women often live longer than men – on average by about seven years – meaning their retirement pots also need to last longer.

Now: Pensions is calling for the £10,000-a-year earnings threshold for people to be automatically enrolled into a workplace pension to be removed because it excludes many women who hold multiple jobs or work part-time or as freelancers.

The UK state pension age of 66 is set to rise to 67 between 2026 and 2028. From 2044, it is expected to rise to 68. However, research issued earlier this week suggested it would have to rise to 71 for those born after April 1970.

Separate industry figures issued on Wednesday indicated that the estimated amount of money needed to enjoy a “moderate” standard of living in retirement had jumped by £8,000 – or 34% – in a year as a result of the cost of living crisis and changes in behaviour.

The Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association has developed the “retirement living standards” to show what life in retirement looks like at three different levels – minimum, moderate and comfortable. Last year it said a single person needed about £12,800 a year to meet the minimum threshold but this year the figure has been put at £14,400.

The new threshold for a moderate standard of living in later life is £31,300 for a single person – up from £23,300 a year ago. To meet the comfortable threshold, the new figure is £43,100 a year for one person – up from £37,300.

The pension provider Scottish Widows said securing a guaranteed annual income of £23,300 for life would require a pension pot of about £500,000 – but securing an income of £31,300 would mean amassing a pension pot of more than £750,000.

The PLSA said its latest research “reflects the price rises that households have faced, particularly in food and energy use”, but also highlighted the increasing importance people placed on spending time with family and friends away from the home, as people’s priorities have changed after the coronavirus pandemic.

#Articles #finance