Do Not Be Quiet

home
hillary
battlestar
clothing
competition
campaign
tshirts
buttons
past >>>
scrapbook
links
contact


back to index

Past Issues: Issue#9 July 2006

Campaign Update:
Senate Submission
- Erin Dolan


Inquiry into Transparent Advertising and Notification of Pregnancy Counselling Services Bill 2005

Review the Bill

This Bill is currently under review by a Senate Committee. Do Not Be Quiet made a written submission, below, and will speak before the Committee on 18 July 2006. Further information regarding the Senate Committee can be found on the Parliament Website.



Erin Dolan
Editor
Do Not Be Quiet
PO Box 1088
Carlton VIC 3053

Committee Secretary
Community Affairs Committee
Department of the Senate
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

16 July 2006

RE: INQUIRY INTO TRANSPARENT ADVERTISING AND NOTIFICATION OF PREGNANCY COUNSELLING SERVICES BILL 2005

Dear Committee Secretary,

Do Not Be Quiet is an e-zine created to publicise issues relating to gender. From its inception in December 2003, Do Not Be Quiet has campaigned against the misleading representation of pregnancy counselling services in Australian telephone and online directories.

Do Not Be Quiet has attempted to focus attention on the issue of Pregnancy Counselling Australia which is run by Right to Life Australia, though it purports to be a professional counseling service for women.

The campaign has consisted of petitioning Sensis, writing to politicians, (in particular Senator Stott Despoja), working with other key women's organisations and publicising the campaign on the website. As editor of Do Not Be Quiet, I support the nomination of this Bill and welcome the Committee's request for submissions.

I first learnt of this phone number through my volunteer work at a women's telephone service. Callers would ask me for a more appropriate referral following their experiences after calling Pregnancy Counselling Australia, the number for which can be found in the 24 Hour Emergency listings of the Australian White Pages.

In one instance, a caller expressed her anger, having discovered that, far from receiving the independent and compassionate advice she sought, the 'counsellor' merely spoke graphically about abortion. Another caller was confused because she was not given the information she asked for; the person on the other end seemed to have her own agenda.

The call that finally pushed me into action, however, was from a young woman whose friend had called Pregnancy Counselling Australia. The caller was concerned for her friend, who was so distressed after the experience she had then refused to seek medical help from anywhere else. Not once did I hear from anyone that they had received help when using the Right to Life number—all required a referral to a legitimate counselling service.

I first wrote to Sensis, the company that produces the White Pages, in October 2003 informing them that Pregnancy Counselling Australia was run by Right to Life Australia. The General Manager replied that the listing had recently been amended to its current form, as it had previously been listed under another name which had not accurately represented the service. The name, "Pregnancy Counselling Australia", was a name Sensis felt adhered to their criteria to be listed in the 24 Hour Emergency listings. At the beginning of 2005, I wrote again to Sensis and provided them with a petition. Again, they reiterated that Pregnancy Counselling Australia adhered to their criteria, even though they had recently amended it by adding a sub-listing.

It is critical that the national phone books, the primary source of emergency phone numbers in Australia, have governmental regulations to ensure accurate information to the public.

This listing is purposely misleading, yet current legislation is inadequate to regulate these types of services. Pregnancy Counselling Australia does not fall under the regulations of the Trade Practices Act because it is not a business. It also does not provide a medical service, although it purports to give medical advice to the public. The people who answer the phones are unsupervised and inadequately trained to be counsellors, the key selection criterion being their anti-abortion stance. Right to Life, an anti-choice organisation, is unlikely to give unbiased, independent counselling to women. It is unethical to mislead callers and these types of services traumatise and isolate women most in need of support.

The Bill does not go far enough to ensure that women's health is a key priority for the Government. Only medical, non-directive organisations (rather than political organisations) should receive government funding.

Although the focus of this Bill is misleading advertising, it is difficult to separate it from the subject of abortion. Perhaps it should not be separated, as both are public issues focused on women's ability to make choices about their health. In this respect, the Government should show clear support for women by not hampering access to information and acknowledging that no one is more suited to make choices regarding a woman's health than herself.

Kind regards,

Erin Dolan
Editor, Do Not Be Quiet
www.donotbequiet.com


The Level Playing Field -
Women in Football:
- Lyle Daymond


What family would want a daughter-in-law who can run around kicking football all day, but can't make round chapattis?

Shaheen Khan, Bend It Like Beckham, 2002

Companies could make use of a sweaty, lovely looking girl playing on the ground, with the rainy weather. It would sell.

Lennart Johansson, President of the Union of European Football Associations, 2005

As a sport, Association Football (soccer), enjoys an unrivalled place as the number one sport in the majority of the world's nations. Even in countries such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, India and the USA where this is not the case, healthy leagues and large crowds are the rule rather than the exception for the men's game. It's not unreasonable that football should be in the forefront when it comes to promoting women's participation in sport. The Fédération International de Football Association (FIFA), the world governing body, has as part of its Fair Play Code a rule to treat all players and everyone else equally, regardless of their religion, race, sex or national origin. Lofty ideals, but how does the sport do in practice.

Like many issues that revolve around women's participation in a wider range of social activities, the past makes for grim reading. The modern origins of football can be traced to the foundation of the Football Association (FA) in England (1863) and the codification of a bewildering array of games that were played at leading English private schools and other 'folk' games into one set of rules. The game itself soon prospered to the extent that late in the nineteenth century professionalism was allowed (1885) and a league was founded (1888). The game was spread abroad in Victorian times through the influence of British educationalists, railway workers (especially in South America) and sailors in the world's largest merchant marine. By the beginning of the twentieth century there were a number of national associations in Europe, South America and New Zealand.

In this period of expansion and growth for the men's game, the English FA Council actual forbade its member teams from playing against 'lady teams' in 1902. Official discouragement and lack of support meant that women's football would not enjoy any of the growth, prestige, popularity and financial benefits until World War One. The influx of women into factory positions and other essential services during the war would help change attitudes to women's capabilities. The same change in attitude would give impetus to the suffrage movement in Britain and also led to greater support for the large number of factory based women's football teams started at that time. These teams became so popular that, in the immediate post-war period, the Dick Kerr Ladies played St Helen's Ladies before a crowd of 53,000 on Boxing Day, 1920 at Goodison Park (the home of English League team Everton FC). A year later, in December 1921, the FA banned women from playing football on Football League grounds and, while other reasons were forthcoming, stated as part of their reasoning the view that 'the game of football is quite unsuitable for females and should not be encouraged.' It would be 1969 until the English Ladies FA would be formed and the ban on the use of Football League grounds would not be overturned until 1971. A clear case of official discrimination based on patriarchal attitudes to the proper place of women in society. Ironically the European Women's Championships in 2005 was played on those same English grounds that were once denied to female footballers.

The failure of the game's leadership can also be seen from the lack of involvement of women in international championships. Football has been part of the Olympic Games since 1900 and in 1930 FIFA created its own World Cup held every four years. Corresponding events were not created for women until the 1991 World Championships in China and the 1996 Olympics held in the American city of Atlanta. By comparison, World Championships have been contested every two years for men's youth teams since 1979 and junior teams since 1985. Clearly men under twenty and boys under seventeen have a higher priority than women when it comes to participation in football.

In 2000, FIFA undertook a major survey into participation rates across the globe. Looking at figures for players revealed 12,487,938 males and 491,296 females registered world wide. Only 3.8% of registered players were women! Even allowing for misreporting, estimates and other anomalies it would seem that very few women had the opportunity to indulge in the innocent recreation of kicking a football. In the confederation representing North America, Central American and the Caribbean the corresponding percentage was 19.5%, reflecting the health situation in Canada (36.0%) and the USA (39.0%) where a range of affirmative action legislation is in place and college programs are strong. Surprisingly in Europe the percentage was only 3.1%, although the Scandinavian countries of Sweden, Norway and Denmark collectively had a much higher rate of 15.6%. All of which indicates that when a positive attitude to equality exists and an effort is made to provide access, participation will increase.

Barriers to female participation can vary, but include traditionally paternal attitudes among the working class (especially in the home of football, Britain), perceptions of what is acceptable for a woman in many ethnic groups, Latin machismo and religious taboos. Even where attitudes have developed positively over the years, the highest levels of the women's game struggle for sponsorship dollars. In the USA, where players such as Mia Hamm are genuine superstars and the world record crowd for a women's sporting event was set (90,185 attended the Rose Bowl in the 1999 Women's World Cup Final), the fully professional WUSA League folded in 2003 only two years after it started. The £17.25 million transfer fee paid for David Beckham by Real Madrid in 2003, is a luxury unknown in the women's game. That transfer fee, which could allow thousands of women to "bend it like Beckham", is currently only 37th highest between male professional football clubs. When the glass ceilings of the corporate boardrooms are shattered, more funding may be made available for women's sport. The 76 year old UEFA President's suggestion that the further objectification of women could lead to greater financial support shows that even amongst 'enlightened' leadership age old attitudes are still prevalent.

All is not gloom and doom, the same FIFA survey quoted above did show greater participation by women in youth teams. Worldwide the participation rate was 12.2%, although it is sobering to note that the USA (1,452,000), Canada (235,000) and Germany (208,905) make up 86% of the total number. Semi-professional leagues do provide opportunities and careers for women in countries such as the USA, Denmark, Italy and Japan. The Women's World Cup is also an established event, although it has only been staged in the USA (twice), Sweden and China to date. A Women's Youth World Championship has also been established, with tournaments held in Canada (2002) and Thailand (2004), with the next edition set for Russia (2006). Official equality in countries such as China and North Korea has also led to support for the women's game, although success in sport is primarily seen as important in achieving international prestige and justifying their social own structure.

Hopefully one day football can live up to its ideals and be a world game, not just a man's game.

TOP TEN TEAMS 2005WORLD CHAMPIONS
1. Germany1991 USA
2. USA1995 Norway
3. Norway1999 USA
4. Brazil2003 Germany
5. Sweden
6. North KoreaOLYMPIC CHAMPIONS
7. France1996 USA
8. Denmark2000 Norway
9. China2004 USA
10. Italy
Australia is currently ranked 15.


The Level Playing Field
Waltzing Matildas:
- Lyle Daymond


It's a truism that Australia is a sporting nation, even though this has more to do with the numbers of spectators than adult participants. Women's events in our "sports mad" society are often given scant publicity, struggle for exposure in the electronic media and are reduced to the small print sections of our newspapers.

An obvious example of this inequality was the difference in publicity given to the recent football games at the Melbourne Cricket Ground involving the Australian national men's and women's teams (the Socceroos and the Matildas). Football as a sport is often overshadowed by Australian Rules football and the rugby codes, but is able to provide genuine international competition, and Australia's opponents were Greece in the men's game and Mexico in the women's game.

There were some factors that could explain part of the disparity between the efforts in promoting the two games. The Australian men had qualified for the quadrennial World Cup six months previously and Melbourne has a large Greek community due to the mass migration of the 1950s, while most of the men's team are millionaires drawn from overseas clubs and some are already household names. On the other hand, the Australian women were about to start their own qualifying campaign for the World Cup and the rankings of the nations involved was similar.

TeamRanking
Australian women15
Greek men 21
Mexican women 26
Australian men 44

Football is also a highly skilled sport and the international women's game has a high standard and is entertaining and eventful despite the physical disparity between men and women.

Modern sport does need promotion if you intend to attract spectators and participants. As Kevin Costner hears in Field of Dreams "Build it and they will come". Without adequate publicity for women's sports how will positive role models be produced and a healthier society created? It is the easy option to promote men's sports, especially if you are a male sports administrator talking to male owned and managed media outlets. Extraordinarily there were paying customers attending the men's game that didn't even know that the women's international was preceding it.

The value placed on women's football can also be measured by the actual value placed on a ticket. The game between Australia and Mexico was one in a series of three taking place in Melbourne over the course of a week. The other two were played at State League grounds in South Melbourne and Port Melbourne with entry to the games being free. My own ticket to the Greece-Australia game was bought before the women's international was added to the program and even in the fourth tier of the Southern Stand cost $120. Will the public value these games if those running the sport do not? It could be argued that free entry is a means of encouraging people to attend, but if interest is generated then a relatively small charge is not a disincentive.

How great was the disparity in publicity? In the Herald-Sun, Melbourne's most popular newspaper, the women's game had two very small articles on the day of the games and the day before. In contrast the men's team had approximately twelve pages of content which wasn't just limited to the sports section, but also encompassed a two page poster lift-out from the centre of the paper, celebrity interviews, articles by regular columnists, an item in the financial section, part of the editorial and the entire front page on the day of the match. Even the official sixty-four page program on game day had only three pages devoted to the Matildas. The program did include profiles of the largely anonymous Australian players. If you read the Herald-Sun you wouldn't even know who was in the squad.

While I'm not naive enough to think that the Matildas would automatically attract tens of thousands of spectators if only the newspapers would give them some more space, it is clear from overseas examples that football can engender mass involvement at many levels. National teams in North America and Asia attract a high profile and professional leagues exist in such disparate places as the United States of America, Italy, Denmark and Japan. While the administrators of football have done a lot in the last two years, they have a responsibility to improve the promotion of women in the sport and needs to work with the commercial media to ensure this happens.

I arrived early in order to watch both games and thoroughly enjoyed both Australian wins.


James Boag is a Chauvinist:
- Rachel Funari


Boags Management
To Whom it may Concern,

I would like to take this opportunity to express my opposition to your current black and white television advertisement featuring a bikini-clad woman spreading her legs over a fancy car.

This type of advertising is offensive because of the way it uses the female body to sell something to men. Women have been struggling for centuries to be seen as people rather than sexual objects and this sort of advertising is symptomatic of and perpetuates a culture of misogyny, sexual harassment and violence against women by legitimating the perception of women in any given situation as objects of sexual gratification. Given the propensity for advertisers to use near naked women to sell products it appears that the equality of women is going backwards rather than forwards. I, for one, will fight that backlash.

I will be forwarding a copy of this letter to the Advertising Standards Bureau. While I believe in your fundamental right to air this commercial, I also believe in the right of the consumer to express their distaste by boycotting your product or lobbying to get the commercial off air.

Not only will I not be purchasing any of J Boag & Sons products, I am also asking my friends, colleagues and acquaintances to boycott your products as well.

Rachel Funari

Rachel Funari is editor of the young women magazine
lip


Campaign Update:
No Choice in America
- Amanda Marcotte



Exposing Anti-Choice Abortion Clinics
By Amanda Marcotte
Originally posted on
AlterNet, May 1, 2006

American Campaign

According to a recent Planned Parenthood email, a 17-year-old girl mistakenly walked into a crisis pregnancy center thinking it was Planned Parenthood, which was next door. "The group took down the girl's confidential personal information and told her to come back for her appointment, which they said would be in their 'other office' (the real Planned Parenthood office nearby)."

When she showed up for her nonexistent appointment, she was met by the police, who had been erroneously tipped that a minor was being forced to abort. The crisis pregnancy center staff followed up this harassment by staking out the girl's house, phoning her father at work, and even talking to her classmates about her pregnancy, urging them to harass her.

I contacted Jennifer Jorczak of Planned Parenthood of Indiana to verify this story, and while she was unable to provide details out of respect for the patient's privacy, she confirmed that everything in the initial action alert email was true.

This humiliating and frustrating experience seems, by all accounts, to await more American women in the near future. And the best part? It's funded by your tax dollars.

Even here in the liberal city of Austin, Texas, the signs are everywhere: "Pregnant? Need help?"

If you're facing an unwanted pregnancy, one of the possible solutions would be getting un-pregnant -- still a legal, if sometimes difficult-to-find, option in America. But the "crisis pregnancy centers" these signs advertise seek to limit and, in some cases, prevent women from exploring their legal options for health care.

Dishonest as these types of crisis pregnancy centers are, it's hard to argue against their right to exist, especially since most of their clients enter their doors willingly. However, the aforementioned incident reported by Planned Parenthood of Indiana indicates that some groups are not above using more aggressive methods to stop women from aborting pregnancies.

These tactics are even more troubling in light of the growing legislative support to direct taxpayer money towards crisis pregnancy centers and away from places that provide actual reproductive services to low-income women. Texas, as usual, stands at the forefront of conservative innovation in the art of draining public funding while reducing services. In the latest round of cuts, $25 million was sliced from the state budget for family planning services and $5 million of that money was set aside in a rider from Republican Sen. Tommy Williams to fund crisis pregnancy centers.

Peggy Romberg of the Women's Health and Family Planning Association of Texas estimates that 17,000 low-income women will lose access to affordable family planning as a result of the cuts, adding to the 75 percent of low-income Texas women who are eligible for state-funded family planning services but who lack actual access. And that's just in Texas. According to Planned Parenthood crisis pregnancy centers across the nation "have received $60 million of government grants."

Only two organizations applied for the $5 million in available funding for Texas's crisis pregnancy centers, and the one that received it, the Texas Pregnancy Care Network, appears to have been formed just to acquire this money. The TPCN is associated with a group called Real Alternatives, an anti-choice organization that has put so little effort into their "educational" materials that the site goes so far as to have sections called "Telling Your Boyfriend" and "Telling Your Parents," seemingly ignorant of the fact that most abortions are performed on adult women, many of whom are married.

Anti-choice activists openly regard family planning clinics like Planned Parenthood as primarily feminist organizations that just so happen to provide health care. Sarah Wheat of NARAL Pro-Choice Texas, who spent a considerable amount of time researching crisis pregnancy centers and has compiled a full report on them, explained that the first crisis pregnancy center was opened in 1967 by Robert Pearson as "the service arm of the anti-choice movement." Crisis pregnancy centers have a long history of providing the absolute minimum of services required to maintain the illusion that they provide care while they further their actual goal of trying to persuade women out of abortion -- sometimes using deceptive methods.

Peggy Romberg recollected that when she worked for Planned Parenthood in the '80s, crisis pregnancy centers would actually provide shelter to pregnant women right up until the eligible date for legal abortion had passed. They would then turn the women out, and it was Romberg's agency that was tasked with explaining to these desperate women that it was too late.

These hardline tactics were softened after a number of states began cracking down. Texas's own attorney general sued to prevent crisis pregnancy centers from advertising themselves as abortion providers in 1985. As a result the centers evolved to put on a better show of caring about women's health by advertising themselves as places to obtain full medical information.

But the kinder, gentler crisis pregnancy centers might be even more problematic than those engaging in more open harassment, as in the Indiana incident. The gentler face of the centers makes their health care pretenses slightly more plausible, even if their function is primarily political. Sarah Wheat said she and her staff regularly make phone calls to crisis pregnancy centers to learn more about the services offered there and, as a general rule, these pseudo-clinics have few or no paid employees, no medical personnel on staff and no real facilities to provide any medical care. Generally speaking, the medical treatment provided by the largely volunteer staff is nothing more than handing clients a pregnancy test that could be purchased over the counter for $10.

A friend warned me to be careful when contacting crisis pregnancy centers, as they are known to give callers the runaround, refusing to give information over the phone and asking you to come in for an appointment. Curious, I called Austin Life Care, a prominent local crisis pregnancy center and grilled the unlucky receptionist about the services offered. She said they offered pregnancy tests and counseling. When I asked about the credentials of the counselors, she replied, "Well, we have all different levels of education and some of them are really academic."

I followed up by asking what kind of medical staff they had on hand and she replied, "Well, we have sonographers."

When I asked her what a sonographer was, she was curt: "It's someone who can do your sonogram."

Actually performing a sonogram on a client probably adds to the illusion that crisis pregnancy centers are providing care. In fact, this allure explains why there's a bill pending in Congress to grant crisis pregnancy centers ultrasound machines, despite the fact that having a sonogram performed by an unsupervised technician could be dangerous. Dr. Diana Kroi, the ob-gyn who authored "Take Control of Your Period," explained that ultrasounds need a trained physician to look for problems like ectopic pregnancies and other dangerous indications that a woman's health is imperiled.

If a woman who's had an ultrasound mistakenly thinks she's had actual prenatal care, she may not go elsewhere for real care. Anti-choicers are banking on the ultrasound's appeal as a pre-born snapshot machine, though it's an actual diagnostic tool, or as the Mayo Clinic puts it, "[Ultrasound] isn't meant primarily to provide parental thrills or souvenir snapshots," and it's irresponsible to treat it as if it were. This is especially irresponsible in a setting where clients are being told that Planned Parenthood and other affordable clinics are nothing but abortion mills who want to hurt the woman and the expected baby.

So it's possible that these centers are not only detrimental to those women seeking abortions, they could be inadvertently stopping women from obtaining proper prenatal care. And from what I could gather on the website, most of the "counseling" available is for the only syndrome that crisis pregnancy centers show any interest in treating; one they call "post-abortion stress syndrome." The problem with this syndrome is anti-choice activists made it up. Unlike, say, post-natal depression, neither the American Psychiatric Association nor the American Psychological Association recognizes "post-abortion stress syndrome." So add proper mental health services to the list of services not rendered.

Because they have so little overhead, crisis pregnancy centers are proliferating while clinics offering actual medical care lag behind. NARAL Pro-Choice Texas noted that as of December 2005 that there were only 43 abortion providers in Texas compared to 183 crisis pregnancy centers -- which is unsurprising considering the cost of real medical care versus a stick to pee on and a video to watch. There's no indication as of yet that the $5 million grant to Texas Pregnancy Care Network will result in anything resembling professional medical care offered to the low-income women who need it, most of whom are punted by crisis pregnancy centers onto Medicaid, escalating the cost to the American taxpayer.

The truth is that Texas taxpayers are being asked to pony up $5 million to an organization that provides no services apart from furthering an outsider political agenda. Even the much ballyhooed "education" about alternatives to abortion isn't worth a dime of taxpayer money, even from those who would prefer fewer women to have abortions. After all, Planned Parenthood was already in the business of educating women about their options and the education offered is far more complete.

Peggy Romberg ended with a story about a young woman she'd worked with a few years back who'd been fortunate enough to get help from a college friend whose parents were friends of hers. The young woman had recently broken up with her boyfriend only to discover she was pregnant. When she contacted him for help, he instructed her to meet him at a nearby crisis pregnancy center. The ex-boyfriend had gone to a football game instead, forcing the young woman to endure the berating of the staff alone. She then went back to her dorm and despaired, running into another friend who was able to help her obtain the abortion. Without that stroke of luck, Romberg noted, there's no telling what a young woman who so far had met with nothing but abandonment, lies and berating would have done to escape her situation.

Amanda Marcotte co-writes the popular blog Pandagon.



back to index