Engender blog

Guest Post: Why we need an integrated health care strategy for women

Women and girls face significant barriers to good mental and physical health in Scotland. Health issues that disproportionately affect women, or affect women differently to men, have historically lacked funding and professional focus, meaning that women’s health needs are not equally prioritised and understood across health services and more broadly.

Engender Member Linda Gask is a retired psychiatrist and feminist, living in Orkney. In this guest post, they explore the need for a coordinated approach to women’s physical and mental health.

In the Paris suburb of St. Denis, one of the more deprived parts of that city, stands a building called House of Women. Opened in 2016, by an extraordinary obstetrician and gynaecologist called Ghada Hatem-Gantzer, it now has now helped over 30,000 women.

Why do we need to know about this now, in Scotland? Because the House of Women isn’t only a place where women receive reproductive healthcare. It’s an amazing one-stop shop where women who have experienced gendered violence and everything that goes with that: poverty, abuse, racism, injury and illness, contact with the criminal justice system, mental ill-health, can get help in one place. Under one roof. There is nowhere like it in Scotland, or anywhere else in the United Kingdom. If we need help, we must seek out different professionals across our towns and cities. Our minds and bodies are treated as though they too are in separate places.

Women’s Centres can provide some of this holistic support but accessing help for problems that can cause serious harm to both minds and bodies, in one single place like the House of Women, is nigh on impossible. Why?

It’s because our health policymakers are not thinking enough about what women want and need to recover, but instead about ‘disorders’ and where, how and by whom they should be treated.

Yet women’s physical and mental health are closely intertwined.

When we have persistent, horrible pelvic pain, it gets us down and may even make us severely depressed. The leading cause of death for women between a month and a year after childbirth continues to be suicide. Not only our lives but our hormones drive us crazy at times. We now know that perimenopause and menopause is a time of risk for women’s mental health. That the mean age for the menopause is 50, and historically the peak suicide rate for women in Scotland has been between 45 and 54 is unlikely to be a coincidence.  

Domestic violence doesn’t only cause physical harm to women, but also psychological trauma too and is finally being recognised as a major cause of suicide. Dementia, which affects both our minds and bodies, is more common in women than men, though we still don’t understand why, because the research hasn’t been done. Women are the ones more likely to be those caring for people with dementia too.

Both poor physical and mental health are closely related to living in poverty, and women are more likely to experience that in our society and suffer the ill-effects. Dr Hatem-Gantzer recognised that her patients who have experienced gendered violence needed much more than just a gynaecologist, so she set about getting everything they needed together in one welcoming space.

Women’s health is still too often thought of as being about childbearing and its consequences, even though, despite what some politicians may think, we are so much more than wombs. It is pleasing to see that the second phase of the Scottish Women’s Health Plan has a broader perspective than this, covering not only gynaecology but also thinking about women’s brain health – dementia, and other physical health problems such as cardiovascular disease and bone health including risk factors for osteoporosis. However, once again, the specific needs of women’s mental health will be addressed in a separate mental health strategy to be published later in the year. There is a real risk we’ll be overlooked once again by a ‘gender neutral’ approach that fails to consider our real needs including better care for the problems that are so much more common in women – anxiety and depression.

We want faster access to therapies in the community, more investment for eating disorders and the right help for the psychological consequences of early abuse, domestic violence, rape and sexual assault. Too many of us are still ending up with a diagnosis of personality disorder after experiencing violence and abuse. And all of these would benefit from more joined up thinking with physical health. For example, anorexia nervosa is a risk factor for osteoporosis and depression makes it harder to manage your chronic health problems such as diabetes.

Everything is connected.

What we need is a strategy that thinks about us in the whole – not as separate minds and bodies. Australia has produced a plan just for women – which addresses women’s health across the life course, the factors that contribute to health and health outcomes for women and girls, improving health equity, and the needs of ethnic minority and gender diverse populations. It also talks about getting organisations and professionals to work together more effectively – something that doesn’t always happen here either. There are women’s health centres emerging there which address physical and mental health - something we desperately need.

Dr Hatem-Gantzer’s model for the House of Women is now being copied across France. We could do with an integrated approach to women’s health in Scotland too. We just can’t afford to keep splitting off women’s minds and bodies. It makes no sense.

Engender Member Linda Gask is a retired psychiatrist and feminist, living in Orkney, Scotland. Their latest and award-winning book Out of Her Mind: How We Are Failing Women’s Mental Health and What Must Change is available for purchase. They also regularly blog here.

Guest posts do not necessarily reflect the views of Engender, and all language used is the author’s own. Bloggers may have received some editorial support from Engender, and may have received a fee from our commissioning pot. We aim for our blog to reflect a range of feminist viewpoints, and offer a commissioning pot to ensure that women do not have to offer their time or words for free.

Interested in writing for the Engender blog? Find out more here.

Guest Post: Gen Z, the promise of progress, and the persistence of patriarchy

Against the backdrop of the rise in online misogyny and far-right politics, young women are increasingly concerned about a regression in their human rights. In this guest blog, MSc student Matilda Fairgrieve interrogates Gen Z’s socially active image and shares her perspective as part of a digitally divided generation.

Folk are fascinated by Generation Z and our many nuances. 

Media outlets fiercely debate our stereotypes; from digital addicts to digital activists, the generation to which I belong is a subject of collective curiosity.

Public commentary often considers our social conscientiousness, ‘changing the workplace and culture as we know it.’ We are viewed as radical, curious and progressive; seldom are we interrogated further. But are we really this way?

Here, I explore this perception of my generation and alert attention to where assumptions of progressive attitudes demand questions – gender equality.

57% of Gen Z men believe women’s equality has gone so far that it discriminates against men. This finding is not in isolation; with another 32% of young men believing gender equality has negatively impacted men. In this context, I position myself among the 59% of my generation who believe there is tension between men and women.

Countless research studies and media outlets will tell you of this “tension” between Gen Z men and women. But how does this tension translate? Trepidation, as Gen Z women ponder these statistics, perplexed. How can it be that such a staggering proportion of young men we share space, workplaces and relationships with hold these views? Despite our disbelief in the percentages, there is no doubt about the problems and pain we’ve experienced as a result. A society entrenched in unequal power, from underrepresentation in politics and leadership, persistent gender pay and pension gaps, disproportionate burden of care as the norm and the violence against women and girls (VAWG) epidemic.

Intergenerationally, there is some difference in how men and women identify as feminists. However, Generation Z’s Millennial, Gen X, and Baby Boomer counterparts are not nearly as divided on the overarching importance of gender equality. Could Gen Z simply grow out of this divide? Debatable when contemplating the socio-cultural realm Gen Z grew into.

Gen Z: The distinct divide

Unique to Gen Z’s divide is the danger lurking in the digital. It is no coincidence that a generation of men aged in a media-fuelled weaponisation of masculinity are threatened by gender equality. Research correlates the self-assessed importance of masculine identity with lower support for gender-equitable policy. Disconcerting political support compounds disconcerting narratives held by young men. Misogynistic and even incel ideologies have crept into dominance, such as 53% of young men believing women are only attracted to a “certain subset of men.”

As manipulative media actors exploit tensions, isolation among young people is accelerating. 19% of young adults reported having no one they can count on socially. The most digitally connected generation exists in a remarkably distrusting, detached state.

While digitally destructive shifts did not shape the playgrounds of Gen Z’s infancy, I’d argue that a physical shift in our playgrounds set a precedent for disconnect. Gen Z’s early 2000s upbringing coincided with the introduction of Multi-Use Games Areas (MUGAs) in public parks. Open outdoor spaces, a place for equal play, became unprotected from gender roles and division, with boys making up 90% of MUGA usage.

My friends and I shared a similar sentiment to that uncovered in research: “there is nothing stopping us going through the gates of MUGAs, but we don’t feel we should.” From divided children to digital teens – the trajectory of gendered socialisation for Gen Z was fundamentally different.

Reflecting on our unique transition into the digital age with little protection, Gen Z women and I question what this means for present gender equality. With real-world implications of misogynistic digital narratives in corporate and political fields already evident, the time to ask is now.

Building bridges to connect: Real-world gender equity

If Gen Z’s polarisation is a partial result of our upbringing, there is hope for progress in remedying social disconnection and in intervening with the voices that use it as a weapon. Without minimising the complexity we face, the courage to connect and build a bridge rather than a wall certainly feels like a place to begin.

Of course, bridges must be built from primary prevention. While the ideological divide of Gen Z men and women may have been digitally fuelled, it was made possible by the root cause of gender inequality. The grip of misogynistic media would not be so tight in a gender-equal, real world.

It is promising to see primary and secondary prevention work picking up much-demanded acceleration in Scotland through initiatives such as the Equally Safe at School and Equally Safe at Work programmes, both shaped by a gendered understanding of the root cause of VAWG. Inspiring work to rectify early disconnects is on the rise, too, with the Make Space for Girls campaign ensuring gender mainstreaming in public spaces for play.

However, the current division between Gen Z men and women requires additional tertiary prevention, acknowledging that these attitudes are already abundant.

To my fellow Gen Z men and women, I’d like to meet outside of the digital world. In-person dialogue, focused on listening to lived experiences and restorative approaches to harm, moving from individual fear to collective security.

Do so with enough meaningful intent, and I’d like to believe our perceived progressive nature will not require interrogation. Building a bridge, together, that serves not only to connect once again, but provide an exit pathway from polarisation and a route to a gender-equitable future.

This guest blog was submitted by Matilda Fairgrieve (she/her), a Gen Z intersectional feminist and MSc student in Political Communications and Public Affairs, inspired by the drive to grow into a gender-equitable future in Scotland.

Guest posts do not necessarily reflect the views of Engender, and all language used is the author’s own. Bloggers may have received some editorial support from Engender, and may have received a fee from our commissioning pot. We aim for our blog to reflect a range of feminist viewpoints, and offer a commissioning pot to ensure that women do not have to offer their time or words for free.

Interested in writing for the Engender blog? Find out more here.

Guest Blog: Gender and precarity in the 21st century workplace – universities and beyond

Even before the pandemic, women’s employment was increasingly precarious. Work from our sisters at Close the Gap shows that women are more likely to be in insecure work, on zero hours or temporary contracts, and are two-thirds of workers earning less than the real living wage. Black and minoritised women are overrepresented in precarious work, and are more likely to be on zero hours contracts. 

Today on our blog, researchers Dr Lena Wånggren and Dr Cécile Ménard share their work on the gendered impact of job insecurity and precarity, and why we need to make women’s unpaid, unrecognised work visible. Illustrations throughout are by Maria Stoian.

Casualisation – the precarisation of work, in which core business previously done by colleagues in permanent jobs is done on an hourly, fixed-term, sessional, and one-off basis – is a key feature of the 21st-century workplace.

This blog post, written by two long-term insecurely employed feminist researchers at a Scottish university, shares research on job insecurity and inequalities in the UK workplace. Making visible women’s unpaid and invisibilised work and the intersectionally gendered impacts of job insecurity, we highlight what needs to change.

The gendered impact of job security

Job insecurity has become the norm in UK workplaces, especially since the 2008 financial crisis and the austerity measures that followed, when anti-feminist cuts to social infrastructure went hand in hand with anti-worker legislation and policies across sectors. UK Universities, once seen as a prestigious place of privilege, are one of the most casualised (that is to say, reliant on insecure contracts) sectors in the UK: around half of academic staff are employed on insecure contracts, and higher education is the second most casualised sector in the UK after hospitality.

Precarity is not experienced equally. Migrants and racially minoritised persons are more likely to be employed on insecure contracts and, in fact, more likely to be in severely insecure work. While trade unions, feminist researchers and campaign groups have highlighted the detrimental and intersectionally gendered impact of job insecurity, including the exacerbated risk of sexual and racial violence, there is a lack of action among employers and governments to tackle the problem. To address the equalities impact of contractual precarity, we need an intersectional feminist perspective with a focus on workplace justice.

Job security is a workplace issue and a gender equality issue

There are two ways in which we approach gender and precarity in the workplace: from an intersectional feminist framing and from the issue of workplace justice. In the context of our 21st-century precarisation of work across sectors, with gig economy and platform models spreading, and the gendered and intersectional impacts of such an economy, specific problems need tackling. One specific and urgent issue is the financial instability of women in precarious work, with dependency on a partner related to risks of gender-based violence, especially for groups of migrant women who have no recourse to public funds. Family planning is affected when a stable job or living situation is not on the horizon. Job security is both a workplace issue and a gender equality issue.

The university sector – still seen by many as a prestigious place of privilege – reproduces the same structural inequalities as the broader society. More than 40% of teaching staff are on hourly or zero-hour contracts that often do not pay enough to live on, with some relying on food banks to get by. While hourly workers are underpaid for the amount of work they are contracted to do, and the work is insecure, researchers are usually on fixed-term contracts, and are encouraged to apply for prestigious awards and grants for their careers in their own time. If they are successful, there is no guarantee of job security; the prestige and cashflow benefit the institution while the worker remains expendable.

Women’s unpaid work in universities and beyond

In our current research project, In Their Own Time, we have partnered with our trade union, UCU, to examine a key problem in struggles for gender equality: the undervaluing of women’s work. Unpaid labour has long been at the heart of the feminist struggle. From the Wages for Housework campaign to the work of scholars such as Selma James, Dorothy Smith and Patricia Hill Collins, feminists have shown that defining ‘work’ only as paid labour renders invisible the gendered, racialised labour that keeps institutions—and societies—going. While reproductive work, such as care work, is gendered and racialised, women’s work across society is also underpaid, undervalued, and invisibilised, with the labour market maintaining sexist, racist and ableist structures. This gendered undervaluing of work shows through in expectations of unpaid work and lack of support structures in the academic workplace.

Working with the fantastic feminist illustrator Maria Stoian, the participants in the project tell stories of combining paid and unpaid work, visa applications, health issues, and a range of insecure jobs. Steph, a single mum who juggles housework, childcare, and two insecure jobs, states: ‘Every year I panic – am I going to have a job this year?’ What she calls her ‘own time’ is at night when she does emails for her jobs after her child has gone to bed. Susie, a casualised researcher for 20 years, remarks on the expectation of working unpaid in academia, for example, applying for funding in her own time even when not paid for it: non-academic colleagues think ‘it’s crazy’, but in academia, it’s normalised. She highlights that not everyone can work for free – with childcare responsibilities, she needs flexibility. Alex is a disabled academic whose disability has been made worse by precarity. Another participant, Eimhir, explains that she spends managing her chronic health condition alongside paid work and cannot fit in further unpaid academic work even if this is required to succeed in the university. Olivia, a mum and researcher, keeps her work with her all the time – including marking dissertations by the pool when the kids are at swimming lessons on Saturday morning. Meanwhile, Gwen is a trans academic in precarious part-time jobs: she gives lectures, does research, organises events, and supports her colleagues, all unpaid in her spare time.

As seen in our project, the reliance on intersectionally gendered unpaid labour creates further inequalities because it excludes those whose own time is other people’s time – such as those with caring responsibilities, the majority of whom remain women – or those whose own time is recovery time, as is the case for many disabled individuals.

Job security now!

Precarity is everywhere: environmental, geopolitical, and at work. We can make distinct policy changes to address this: we need decent, secure jobs for women and for all - that is key to gender equality. Together with trade unions, workers’ organisations, and feminist organisations, we call for immediate institutional and governmental action on job insecurity, intersectional gender inequality, and an end to the invisibilisation of women’s work. Addressing job insecurity requires more than reforming individual contracts—it demands dismantling the structures that normalise insecure, unpaid labour as inevitable. Such action extends far beyond universities. Across sectors, a renewed feminist politics of labour is urgently needed—one that centres care, builds intersectional solidarity and challenges the exploitation of those whose time has always been devalued.

This project was supported by the UKRI and the British Academy Funding through the Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Caucus (ES/X008444/1)

Recommended viewing: Our Time Is Coming Now (BBC, Selma James & Michael Rabiger, 1970)

Guest posts do not necessarily reflect the views of Engender, and all language used is the author’s own. Bloggers may have received some editorial support from Engender, and may have received a fee from our commissioning pot. We aim for our blog to reflect a range of feminist viewpoints, and offer a commissioning pot to ensure that women do not have to offer their time or words for free.

Interested in writing for the Engender blog? Find out more here.

General Election 2024 - The Rwanda Scheme & Safety of Women – Joint Blog with Amina MWRC

[Content Note: abuse, sexual assault]

In this joint blog, women’s rights experts from Amina MWRC and Engender come together to discuss the safety of women in light of the Rwanda Act. 

We are calling on candidates in the upcoming General Election to commit to taking action on four key areas for women if elected. In our What’s in it for women? four-part series, we’ll break down each of our key asks covering health, social security, equal representation and immigration.

Find and email your local candidates with our pre-written letter here.