TOMORROW marks the end of International Women’s Week; so what better time to reflect on the lot of our lasses.

We might be called the “fairer sex” (perhaps by gentlemen of a certain age), but Simone de Beauvoir’s description of us as the “second sex” is, regrettably, hard to argue against.

The shock doesn’t lie in how much women’s lives have changed since the first International Women’s Day of 1911 – but rather how they have failed to catch up with men over the past 100 years.

A recent TUC report showed that the earnings gap between men and women has failed to close.

Research shows the average pay gap between men and women has widened for the first time in five years.

The chasm is greatest among older workers; with women in their 50s and 60s bearing the brunt of this inequality.

It’s not hard to see how this has happened. Many women take time out to raise families and return to work part-time, which tends to be low-paid. Later on, they face the challenge of caring for elderly relatives and grandchildren.

Unlike their sisters a century ago, women may have all the mod cons at home to make washing, cleaning and cooking, etc, less labour intensive, but technology has not released them from the chains of domestic responsibility and allowed them to compete with men on the financial front.

Women’s monetary woes are compounded by the Government’s austerity agenda.

Campaign group the Fawcett Society points out that women are acting as the “shock absorbers” of the coalition’s cuts, arguing they have been disproportionately affected by a perfect storm of benefit slashes, the shrinking public sector (where women make up two-thirds of employees) and the reduction of services they rely on for themselves and those they care for.

On benefit changes alone, it adds, more than two thirds of the money cut from the welfare bill is coming from women’s pockets.

It doesn’t help that women are still woefully under-represented in the political sphere. Almost 80 per cent of our MPs are men and the three main parties are all led by fellas.

The problem exists at local level too; almost 70 per cent of our councillors are men, and in Europe, just under two thirds of the UK’s MEPs are male.

It’s tempting to imagine what Britain would be like if the situation was reversed: where women were the dominant force in politics and men were under-paid and charged with shouldering the challenges of our domestic lives.

Somehow I think there would be a lot more fuss about it all.


THE Freedom of Information Act has been a great boon for society.

It allows us access to all sorts of material that people in power would rather we didn’t see.

Just consider the Lendal Bridge saga in York. Thanks to the FOIA, journalists on The Press were able to uncover “private” emails between Labour leaders and council officials revealing concern and uncertainties over the controversial trial closure of the bridge.

In one exchange, deputy council leader Tracey Simpson-Laing told colleagues to “shut down” an email discussion detailing concerns over the trial, in case it had to be later released under freedom of information laws.

Now the spotlight is on Prince Charles and letters he sent to UK ministers during Tony Blair’s prime ministership a decade ago.

The Attorney General had effectively banned these letters from being made public, arguing members of the Royal family should be exempt from the FOIA.

Happily, the Court of Appeal has deemed this an unlawful. The Attorney General is planning to appeal against this ruling.

This is ridiculous. The monarchy is supposed to be apolitical. Prince Charles is one of the richest and most powerful people in the land. In the letters, the Prince is said to be seeking to advance the work of charities or to promote views.

We should be able to see these letters and make a judgement for ourselves.