Invisible Women - Making a Nuisance of Ourselves

Good MORNING GFPs! I trust you are all excellent. This week, I have, in contrast to other weeks, mainly been getting angry about P.O.C.K.E.T.S.

It all started with THIS tweet:

Naturally, this made me furious. I went on a tweet rampage. I swore. F*CK YOU AND YOUR B*LLSH*T “MARKET RESEARCH”, who did you ask, BOB FROM ACCOUNTING? I did not asterisk it. The asterisk here is purely for the benefit of whoever signed up to this newsletter with a BMA email address, because the BMA does not like my potty mouth and keeps blocking these nuggets of pure gold from the heart of the medical establishment. Tune in next week to find out if I have outwitted the algorithm 😎

Anyway, it turns out it is actually dangerous for me to throw down pocket based marketing gauntlets, because none other than the Director of Political Research at YouGov follows me and, erm, is now going to run a poll on whether or not women actually do want pockets on their clothes. I am of course now terrified that there are in fact millions of inexplicable women out there who hate convenience and I will have ruined clothes for all women forever.

I believe the poll ran this weekend. I’ll share the results as soon as I have them…

Aaaaaaanyway, on to more important matters….

Like BIRDS. Yeah, you heard me. Turns out, we’ve been default male-ing all over the shop when it comes to birds and it has been to the detriment of science, which of course will come as a major shock to GFPs who have only been calling for female data for shits and giggles 🤪

First up, PIGEONS.

Wait, you’re telling me females aren’t just males with boobs and ovaries???

Anyway it turns out it’s NOT JUST PIGEONS. One ornithologist found that the failure to account for sex in conservation plans could prove fatal for female birds:

Wow. It’s almost like planning habitats around just one sex doesn’t work for everyone, huh. Crazy

Anyway, it turns out, surprise surprise, that it is women who have driven our new understanding of the fact that female birds exist and are not just crap versions of male birds.

Yes, friends.

I think by “bird song” the authors of this article mean male bird song, but we’ll let them off because, well, because they were close and I’m feeling generous. Also, I’m exhausted and I can’t pick up EVERY LITTLE THING [sobs]. Just do as I say not as I do, ok?

I know, I know, where is default male of the week, right?! Worry not, GFPs, it’s coming. But first! I want you all to do something for me. Someone sent me this article the other day:

This is obviously music to my ears, but…I couldn’t help wondering who is going to benefit from this? I am extremely pro free universal childcare paid for with our taxes: childcare should be viewed like roads: as indispensable infrastructure. So don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that better-paid women do not need this support. But I worry that it will *only* be going to the better-paid women, leaving lower-paid women, such as the (mainly) women who are cleaning the offices to make them safe for everyone else to work in, without the support they need just as much if not more. The article doesn’t clarify on this point – so I thought us GFPs could ask!

I set the ball rolling last night with this tweet:

GFPs should feel free to follow up on twitter, including with companies that I didn’t include on my tweet. But you could also email them. OR, maybe some GFPs work for these companies and could raise the issue internally! Wouldn’t it be amazing to get this absolutely necessary benefit extended to all women who work for the benefit of these companies? And yes I know most office cleaners work for agencies, but I see no reason why profitable companies like Accenture that are already doing this at scale couldn’t include their agency staff in this programme. So email one, email them all! Do whatever you have time for. But let’s get this on their radar, and, just as importantly, let them know the world is watching. GO, GFPs, GO! (and try not to all just email Accenture 😘) And let me know how you get on!

Guess how much I liked it, GFPs.

Phew! This is turning out to be a loooooong-ass newsletter, for which I apologise. I can only say that it’s worse for me writing than it is for you reading. But anyway, I had to share this with you just because

So. Long-time GFPs will know I’ve been banging on about mask fit for, well, a Long Time now. So I was delighted to see this study emerge which asked the following question:

Question  How effective are the aerosol filtration efficiencies for fitted face mask alternatives used during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic?

As least, I was delighted until I read it. Because of this:

A single man. (woman). (1 common individual). I’m sorry, GFPs, please excuse me, but

Women make up the vast majority of healthcare workers WHY IN THIS CONTEXT OF ALL PLACES ARE WE USING THE MALE AS THE DEFAULT.

Don’t tell me that hasn’t cheered you up.

Well that’s it for another week, GFPs. Remember to make like Emma Valério’s daughter and make NUISANCES of yourselves – and don’t forget to scroll back up and contact those companies about extending their excellent perks to their cleaners 💪

Until next time, GFPs…xoxoxo