Delilah

Ed Balls has got it right - and wrong. And so have the unions

2012-01-19T11:23:00.006Z

Or: What Labour needs to do to win the next election
This article is published in Liberal Conspiracy

Ed Balls thought he was being ballsy when he spoke of his proposed public sector pay freeze at the Fabian conference on Saturday. And he was. He was being realistic, and he thought people would see his honesty as bravery. There’s no point in promising something we can’t deliver, he thought and – with no alternative clearly worked out – the most sensible option is to stay put, hold on tight to the status quo.

But not quite. The Tories are going too hard, too fast, he keeps saying. So he thinks the cuts should take place at a slower rate (this is right) and should be better thought out (right too).

The trouble is this is only half of a plan. What’s starkly obvious is what’s missing. What is Labour’s alternative? Balls came out with his announcement as if it’s the boldest thing he’s said in months. See this Newsnight clip. It’s only common sense, nothing more, and only a short term solution. It’s not good enough. It’s not the answer the nation wants and needs.

His error was two-fold. First, in his communication – telling the world as if he came up with something original and as if it’s the solution. Second, for not being more imaginative. People want a long term solution. We need to be radical.

And what of the unions? They have reacted angrily to his proposal and are threatening to withdraw their support – these are the unions who got Ed Miliband elected. The unions are right to protest. They represent the workers who are severely badly hit in this recession and especially as a result of public sector cuts and bad management of them.

But they are right for another reason they may not even be aware of. This reason is innovation. A pay freeze may protect job numbers, but it angers and disincentivises the work force. The result? A stagnant, unproductive public sector. What it much better, much braver and much more radical is to cut or reorganise the areas that are inefficient and provide an alternative. The Coalition has attempted the first half of this, but not the second. Their attempts at restoring the economy have failed, their cuts are reckless and they certainly don’t care about equality.

The key for Labour, the winning formula, is to provide a credible alternative to the Coalition’s cuts while tackling growing in equality (which has been exacerbated by the Coalition) and stimulating growth.
Innovation is the magic word.
People need hope – we have lost that. We must grow and develop – innovation will do this. And we need leadership to guide us.

To transform the country and win back support, Labour needs to:
1. redistribute wealth, radically
2. stimulate growth in all sectors
3. reorganise and improve efficiency of state

How do we do this?
1. Take money off very wealthy and redistribute. Under this government, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Increase inheritance tax for amounts over a certain threshold, tax wealthy corporations more, enforce pay transparency and stricter regulation of wealthy landlords.

2. Provide opportunities, encourage innovation and growth. Identify young leaders in all sectors, give them start-up grants from the state, support and guidance to develop businesses and charities in their communities. Encourage young people to be entrepreneurs. Set up apprenticeships, and ensure there are pathways into jobs at the end of them. Capitalise on the innovative nature of the voluntary sector. The Big Society is a myth, so let’s support the voluntary sector more and we will see returns. Tackle inequality. Contrary to what the Tories think, inequality is not the price paid for growth (they failed on both counts). Provide universal childcare with money raised from increased taxes (see 1) and enforce a culture of flexible working.

3. Reorganise the public sector and resources. Good example is health and social care. Health reforms are needed, but not so that profit takes precedence over patient benefit (the risk and reality of the Coalition’s reforms). Overhaul social care system. Tackle housing issue: many people are without homes, many others are crowded into homes that are too small. At the same time, private properties sit empty. Tax landlords more (see 1) and use money to build more Council homes and increase efficiency and fairness of the system.

The Night Flower Folk: a poem about leadership and democracy

2012-01-08T19:52:00.001Z

Today I bring another poem by Athos Athanasiou (see here for previous post with one of his poems).

This is a fantasy poem about female leadership and democracy. The woman and the man both set off to find the 'night flower folk'. But they go for different reasons. He's the romantic. She's the pragmatist, the leader and the fighter. She uses her wit to rescue the man and to make the case for democracy.

The Night Flower Folk
They lived apart.
And few the folk who them admitted seeing.
Their skills were great.
They spun the night flowers into being.
And they could grant a wish or two.
At least some held this to be true.

His love was deep,
for the most radiant chieftain's daughter,
Who climbed the trees,
so they could fill the well with water.
But she knew nothing of his love
as she picked moisture from above.

He sighed a lot
as he sat, pining 'neath the sheep birds,
to catch the wool
that drifted gently off those sky herds.
And here he formed a cunning plan,
at least he thought that's how it ran.

So off he went
with just a day pack on his shoulders,
to seek them out
through woods and cliffs and streams and boulders.
Until he found their distant lair,
and in a trench lay hidden their.

She thought a lot,
as she would climb the water tree,
of unfair rules,
like how a chieftain she can't be.
Her father and grandfather both
had sworn the sacred chieftain's oath.

And she was wroth
with how injustice had been written.
And thus she planned
to go and ask those far off hidden.
So then she put on her blue cloak
and went to find the night flower folk.

The sun had set.
And now the night flowers were appearing.
so out he crept
to steal some flowers love revealing.
But as he picked plants black and white
his body froze entrapped in light.

From house they came,
to see who had disturbed their garden.
And found the thief,
who could do naught but ask for pardon.
And while they would his fate decide
they bought him to the house all tied.

They sat him down
asked what he stole the flowers for.
But ere he spoke
there came a knock from the front door.
They opened it to find out who.
There stranger stood in cloak of blue.

She spoke at once
"Why cant I chief be, like my father
its most unfair
that only men should lead them rather.
And you who're said to be so wise,
Can you help me open their eyes."

She took a breath.
Then stopped and wondered if they'd heard her.
Then stopped again.
"Why have you tied our sheep bird herder?"
And here they answered one as three,
"night flowers caught him stealing we."

"I know him well
and know he is no thief at heart.
Let's hear his tale,
before the accusations start".
At this he turned a vibrant red,
he closed his eyes, and shook his head.

"For her I love,
I came to take a black white flower.
For that was all
that I could offer in my power.
And here I'm sorry for this stew.
You see the one I love is you."

At this she sat,
and looked uncertain for a while
but then she rose
and did he think he saw her smile?
"If he would your forgiveness seek,
then let him work for you one week."

"He meant no harm
and it was but a passing folly.
So set him free
and things will turn out rather jolly"
But here they answered three as one
"If he goes free, you'll chieftain none"

Her eyes went dark
and fleeting shadows could be sighted.
But then they changed
and now they almost seemed delighted.
"I know just how to thwart your riddle
there's such a loophole in the middle."

"See times move on,
and rulers shan't be kin selected.
There'll be no chiefs,
the next tribe leader'll be elected.
And it's not up to dad or you.
The village people will say who."

At this she turned
and with sky sheep herder now free,
went off back home
the rest, say folk, is history.
Back at the hut, turned one to two.
"I liked her, she'll go far, its true."

Read the poem and others by Athos here.

Happy New Year from Delilah

2011-12-31T19:27:00.003Z

Happy New Year (and happy second anniversary to Delilah - see first anniversary post here). The Hamleys campaign has been a fine end to 2011. It was covered by the New York Times in an excellent article by Peggy Orenstein.

The American YouTube clip of Riley, a little girl who talks about princess toys for girls and superhero toys for boys, went viral and has now been viewed more than 2.7 million times.

Radio 4 PM had a piece yesterday on gender stereotyping of toys. I'm interviewed in that report: 17:42 into programme.

I will end this post with a wonderful poem written by my friend Athos Athanasiou. He wrote it earlier this year and said he was was reminded of it because of the mention of 'girl inventors' in the PM report. See this poem and more on his website here.

Now I'm off to drink some champagne...

By the shed

In a garden of cloudspun light,
some dreams, like wings, lie broken.
They could have lifted her
on up to worlds unspoken

She picks them up no matter
and puts them back together.
Like many times in sun
and many in bad weather.

The bric nick nacks of daily life
morph in her hands of flurry.
Amid these grand contraptions,
the inventor starts to hurry.

She blows away the engine oil
she welds the parts together.
Attaches gears and counterweights,
fine balanced as a feather.

No ordinary road for her,
no desk job strong and steady.
She yearns for future greatness
unaware she's great already.

"Feminists don't have a sense of humour"

2011-12-29T23:29:00.003Z

The Hamleys campaign has annoyed some people. Paddy Murray, who wrote an opinion article about me in the Irish Sunday World called 'Sexist My Arse', is particularly rattled.

Common objections about feminists and feminism are:
1. Feminism is PC gone mad (see my interview on CNN with Richard Quest).
2. Feminists don't have a sense of humour.

This latter point reminded me of a song someone sent me on YouTube a while ago. Check this out. It's Mother of Pearl by Nellie McKay. It made me smile.

The Hamleys campaign: 'What happened' and 'Reflections'

2011-12-27T10:16:00.001Z

Part 1: What happened
My Christmas present came early. Hamleys ditched its gender signs. The story blew up last week and has been covered by most of the national newspapers, radio and TV, and numerous other news outlets in the UK and across the world. Read the article in the F-word.

Part 2: Reflections
When Hamleys ditched its gender signs, the story blew up like a bomb going off.

It is now more than a week since the media whirlwind began, and a good time for me to reflect on the campaign. As media coverage continues to trickle out, gradually subsides, and morphs into other debates, I have been mulling over what happened. Why did it work so well? What can we learn for future campaigns? Read the article in the F-word.

Community organising: from strategy to solutions

2011-12-23T16:37:00.001Z

This article, published on the website of Movement for Change, is about my ideas for community organising and the key questions facing Labour at a local level.

There are three ways I think Labour can win the next election. The first is to build the party from within; engage its existing members, get new ones and harness their potential. The second is to connect with the public; win back support by aligning their interests and values with ours and showing that we can make a difference. The third is to offer clear, convincing and viable policy alternatives to the coalition.

Movement for Change – Labour’s community organisation – can help with the first two of these. I first heard about this organisation during David Miliband’s leadership campaign. As a lifelong supporter of Labour, I thought that this is exactly what’s needed; training up members and engaging the party, building it up to beat the coalition with energy, direction and shared purpose. There was a vision. It excited me. It made me want to find out more.

A year down the line, I was headfirst into local politics, campaigning across London and milling around the national events too. I went to the Labour Conference in September and, high on coffee, adrenaline and political energy, popped into the Movement for Change’s training session with Jack Dromey MP and others.

It was an inspiring session. It was real grassroots campaigning stuff. Jack had examples of CLPs gaining huge support from the public by demonstrating to them that they could make a difference on issues that affected the community.

In December, Movement for Change came to Ealing. The group who attended were mainly people keen to help out in the GLA campaign, and the session was coordinated by our organiser for Ealing and Hillingdon Labour parties, Dai Peters. But the beauty of community organising – as David Miliband identified all those months ago – is that it can be applied in the context of any campaign, it produces lasting results and is part of longterm strategy to win back the public’s support for the Labour party and what it can achieve.

What’s at the heart of it?

The principle of Movement for Change – and any other grassroots campaigning for that matter – is simple. It’s about developing genuine relationships and trust, and building on those to effect change.

First, it’s about building relationships with existing members. After all, that’s common sense: nurture the supporters who are already there. How can we do this? Movement for Change suggests setting up face-to-face meetings with members, developing relationships, finding out what they are interested in. While doing this, it’s possible to identify leaders, explore issues and share stories and goals.

Second, it’s time to take on the outside world. With this, it’s the simple case of ‘show not tell’. Find issues that concern local people, organise around these, build confidence and identify supporters of the Labour party. In other words, reconnect with people on a grassroots level. If Labour is doing this – if people see for themselves that Labour is making their lives and communities better – people soon draw their own conclusions about what party they want to support.

What can we learn from this?

In Ealing North, we already have a vibrant campaigning scene. We have dedicated members and activists, keen to volunteer their time. Tireless organisers are coordinating canvassing and social events. Our hardworking councillors are out and about and on top of the issues that concern people.

So what can we do now? I think we would benefit from an injection of further strategic thinking and planning. Can we develop our relationships with our members better; understand what they want and can offer to the party? Can we find out what people care about in the community and show them that we can make a difference? Can we carry out listening campaigns? What’s more, can we plan these activities strategically so we make the most impact with the resources we have?

These are key questions that I believe will take us up to a new level in terms of leadership, organisation and outcomes. We have the potential among us. We have examples of other CLP successes to draw on and learn from. We have the energy, enthusiasm and resources. Let’s do it.

Other toyshops and further media coverage

2011-12-20T13:44:00.005Z

I was in the Christmas shopping crowds last night but I wasn't Christmas shopping.

I was visiting the toyshops in central London to check their practice of toy layout regarding gender.

In John Lewis, the toys are not segregated. However, on its website they are.

In Boots, the toys are not segregated, but again the website has segregation.

Debenhams is the worst culprit for gender segregation. In the shop, there is a large pink 'girls' sign and a blue 'boys' sign and different toys in each segment. There is division on its website too.

More media reports
The Hamleys campaign is still being reported by the media, following the storm last week. It is generating a large amount of public debate. The Independent and Observer covered it at the weekend - it was the cover story in the Independent Review section. It was discussed on Loose Women on ITV, who were generally supportive.

Ms Magazine has just published this article. It's in the New Statesman here.

And thanks to Latte Labour for this blog.

Hamleys story responses to media

2011-12-15T22:59:00.001Z

I have spoken to many journalists in the last few days: it's been a media whirlwind. Many ask similar questions. I have just replied to one with the answers below so am posting here.

Hamleys official stance on their decision to remove is that it had nothing to do with the campaign you orchestrated. What's your response to that?
I think it's a remarkable coincidence that the store changed their signs a few days after I wrote to the CEO, and a few days after I spoke to Landsbanki, the Icelandic bank that controls Hamleys. Also, when I spoke to their marketing team at the same time as sending the letter, Hamleys did not mention that they planned to changed the signs - surely if they were going to do so, they would have told me and all this could have been avoided! I think that, as it is so near to Christmas, the change of signs could only be due to campaign pressure. Iceland is a progressive county in terms of equal rights and opportunities so I suspected there would be interest and pressure over there.

If it really was a marketing decision, as they claim, what do you think the impetus behind that could be (considering that most toy stores keep their aisles gender codified because they claim in increases revenue).
I really have no idea. I would be very interested to know whether gender-codified toys actually increase revenue or whether there is no difference. I suspect the latter, and I think all people want is to be able to find their way around with minimum confusion. When the toys are categorised by type, there is no confusion whatsoever. I am surprised that Hamleys did not use the opportunity of this campaign to show that they were a forward-thinking organisation and had listened and responded to public opinion on this issue. I am certainly not the first person to campaign or write about this. Many people have campaigned hard for a long time in the UK and beyond and will be very pleased at the result. I think the resistance to the change from some people reflects the fact that gender stereotypes are so ingrained in our society, and that's exactly what we want to shake up and ask questions about.

Does it matter the reasoning behind their decision, or just the fact that they actually did it?
It doesn't matter. The fact they did it is enough to signify an important step toward gender equality. At the very least, it has generated a huge amount of public debate. It has been covered in most of the newspapers, on radio and TV, and many people are discussing it on social media and beyond. It's really important that we discuss this issue seriously, because gender stereotyping and conditioning of children is a likely to be a huge factor in influencing the activities they engage in, the skills they develop and ultimately the roles they end up fulfilling in society. We have gaping inequalities between the genders in our society (for example, in the UK, only a fifth of our MPs and less than 1% of business leaders are female). There are many factors contributing to these disparities, and it's important to try to unpick them. As yet, there is no scientific consensus that boys and girls are born with differences in terms of aspirations, caring tendencies and cognitive abilities, such as problem-solving skills, ability to think logically and to be more or less suited to leadership. Conversely, the exposure of children to different types of toys, as well as other types of conditioning, is much more likely to affect the development of skills, interests and paths people take.

Do you think more stores will follow Hamley's lead
I do. In fact, other toyshops have already ditched gender labelling in response to campaigns, such as the Early Learning Centre a few years ago, and Toys 'R' Us in Sweden. Hamleys is one of the world's largest and most influential toyshops in the world, and the considerable amount of publicity will certainly carry weight. More people are talking about the issue, toyshops may think again and we will keep campaigning.

Hamleys campaign causes media storm

2011-12-14T15:50:00.031Z

For the past day and a half I have been non-stop on the phone with journalists about the Hamleys story, whisked off to BBC studios to debate gender stereotyping and responding to radio and TV stations on twitter interested in covering the story. The twitter hashtag #hamleysgendercampaign has been very active.

And I have just been interviewed on CNN TV [19:40, 14 December], and it's written up here.

Meanwhile the reports keep coming. It has been amazing. This seems to have sparked more debate and discussion than anyone could ever have hoped for.

The media coverage so far has been:

Yesterday (13 December):
FT article and 'Lombard' column

The Times

Today programme [1:43:55 into programme]

Guardian article by Polly Curtis

Guardian woman’s blog

Telegraph

Evening Standard

Marketing Week

BBC Newsround with many comments and views from children about gender stereotyping.

And... the Daily Mail

I was interviewed by Vanessa Feltz on BBC London radio [Start at 2.35 into the programme] and interviewed on Also Phantom (Dublin radio). I debated gender stereopyes with Anne Moir on Radio5Live [Start at 2.50 into the prog].

The story was mentioned on Channel 4 news and discussed on LBC 97.3, Cristo's show.

Natasha Walter wrote a great piece for Virago books here. There have been numerous others - too many to mention - spanning Italian, Portuguese, Canadian and Australian news sites, magazines such as TNT, political websites, marketing magazines and parents' websites.

Also, on Polish, United Arab Emirates, Belgian, Slovenian, Hong Kong and Dutch news sites.

My article on Liberal Conspiracy is here.

It's in the Ealing Gazette here.

Today (14 December)
The story is in the Metro and G2, and Toby Young writes about it in the Telegraph. And in the Sun newspaper. And the Mirror.

And two more Telegraph articles: here and here.

Also in Time magazine and Jezebel.

Today I was interviewed BBC Radio WM by Danny Kelly [start at 0.47:30].
Plus listener reaction, as follows, according to @athosfolk
"His eventual stance was that it was totally absolutely OK with letting children play with whatever toys they wanted too. He would have no qualms if his young son wanted to a barbie with frizzy hair or his girl with a toolbox but he wasn't sure other parents would feel the same. I think he was positioning himself to have debate with both sides... The presenter asked him how he would feel if his 7 year old son wanted to be given a barbie with curly hair to play with and he was expecting the tough guy to respond with some form of shock or disgust but he said "To be honest that would be fine. It wouldn't bother me "... "some family's that might bother but they have backward views and we've moved on". He was asking similar questions to everyone and they mostly weren't bothered so he began asking what parents would do if their son wanted to wear pink dresses to school (he was saying he was still fine with this ) so then some callers began saying how that might "turn the children gay" but it was still ok to play with pots and pans ( it got a bit silly at this point)."

Reema Patel has written a blog here and AskaMum here. Numerous other blogs and news sites all over the world have covered it.

Feedback
Some of the feedback on the Telegraph site is as follows:

"As a parent (to several boys), I've been quite surprised over the last 15 years by how much more toys are divided by gender than they used to be when I was growing up. It's a massive rip-off - all sorts of things that never used to be manufactured in pink and blue versions now are - I assume partly to make sure that parents with both boys and girls face pressure to buy the same toy twice in different colours. E.g. instead of water bottles in a proper range of colours, you often get them in pink and blue only - hence pressure from girls to have a 'girls' one and from boys to avoid using a 'girls' one at any cost. There's so much pink out there, and the expectation that girls need pink things is so strong, that I've even found myself hesitating before buying quite ordinary non-pink things like board games and ordinary lego (there is now pink lego too!) for girls as birthday presents, just because they're not pink, when as a girl myself I would have played quite happily with those alongside dolls. It's scary how that pink expectation creeps up on you."

"I for one would welcome a change back to more how toys used to be - when it was the nature of the toy itself that was responsible for attracting either girls or boys more to it, and not a label put on it by the manufacturer or shop. So what if 90% of a particular toy is bought by one sex rather than the other? I've no problem with nine out of ten trains being bought by boys or whatever. I've even no problem with grouping similar toys together so you have a de factor boys floor and girls floor. But officially labelling vast numbers of toys as only 'for boys' or 'for girls', and colour-coding them accordingly by making half of them *pink* - quite frankly that's gone too far now, and it's definitely a consumer rip-off. The manufacturers and retailers might love it, but it's not doing us as shoppers, parents and children any favours."

And by children on the BBC Newsround site:

"I don't think sections should be split. Maybe boys will actually like make-up! Maybe girls will actually like Spiderman! I think it's a good idea. I hope the same happens to the Irish Hamleys."

"I think it's unfair to say whether toys are for girls or boys. I used to like action figures when I was younger and that doesn't make me a boy. There are probably loads of girls who feel pressured to buy dolls when they would rather buy something else!"

"I may be a girl but I hate all the pink, frilly, girly things that everyone expects girls to play with. I would much prefer something Pirates of the Caribbean or Harry Potter related. I think that although lots of girls love pink things, it is unfair to label things 'for girls' or 'for boys', as if someone is seen in the wrong gender aisle they could be embarrassed."

and more...

My 'favourite' negative comments on the Telegraph article (I haven't yet had a chance to look at the Daily Mail!) are:

"For Feminist, I defined: "Ugly Female". And for Sexual Harassment; "Chatting up tasty totty in the presence of a Feminist."

"Nelson, who works for a healthcare charity.... a girls job."

"Is Laura Nelson really a nom de guerre for Harriet Harhuman?"

Mumsnet gave the campaign a wonderful statement of support
"From birth, boys and girls are bombarded with stereotypes which influence the roles that they go on to fill in society, and contribute to gender inequality. Many Mumsnet users will be delighted that Hamleys have changed tack and will no longer be prescribing which toys are 'girly' and which are only suitable for boys." Justine Roberts, co-founder and CEO, Mumsnet

Mumsnet members are discussing the topic here.

Campaign success: Hamleys toyshop scraps sexist signs

2011-12-12T21:00:00.004Z

Hamleys signage: BEFORE campaign (LEFT) and AFTER campaign (RIGHT)

In response to the campaign against categorisation of toys by gender and sexist stereotypes, Hamleys has changed its signage.

The FT has covered the story here.

Last week, I spoke to Hamleys's PR office and sent a letter to the Chief Executive, Gudjon Reynisson. I also called up the PR office at Landsbanki, the nationalised Icelandic bank that controls Hamleys. (Iceland is a very progressive country in terms of providing equal gender rights and opportunities; they rightly took notice.)

The letter was along the lines of a blog I wrote in October, in which I outlined my concern that the layout of the toyshop restricts children’s and parents’ choices and contributes to our society's inequality.

The blog was also published on the leading political website Liberal Conspiracy. As a result of the blogs, there were many comments, tweets and discussions. This topic resonated with many people - parents, feminists, journalists, scientists. There has also been interest from Icelandic journalists and feminists, who have been adding to the pressure of this campaign.

This is a summary of what I said in the letter to Hamleys:

requested they categorise toys by interest (type of toy), not by gender
pointed out that on the girls’ floor, the toys are focused on domestic, caring and beauty activities and the boys’ floor is geared to action and war, with little scope for creativity (arts and crafts)
said that gender stereotypes in toys are highly influential and pervasive, and influence children’s and parents’ choices, aspirations and expectations. These different toys also promote the development of certain skills and encourage boys and girls to pursue activities that are consistent with the gender stereotypes we see in our society generally (women in passive, caring and homemaking roles; men in active, leading and aggressive roles).
told them about a group of schoolchildren Sweden in 2008 who wrote to Toys ‘R’ Us and persuaded it to change, The Early Learning Centre in the UK which similarly responded to such complaints from Pinkstinks in 2009 and WH Smiths, which agreed to abandon its use of the term ‘women’s fiction’.

The campaign worked! Thank you all for your support (moral and otherwise) and encouragement. Many people have tweeted, retweeted and suggested ideas and strategies. Also, other bloggers have added to the campaign, such as the Jaded Ladies, who are working on another toyshop, and Wonderlicious, who has blogged about Hamleys in May this year.

Congratulations everyone!

We still have work to do on the nature of the toys themselves, and the gender stereotyping of their marketing (see doll babies marketed at girls on left) - but we have come to a milestone. Great work!

"There are more men called Roger on the ballot paper than there are women"

2011-12-07T10:02:00.002Z

Seema Malhotra has been selected as Labour’s Parliamentary candidate in the upcoming Feltham & Heston by-election.

If elected, she be the first woman to represent the constituency. In fact, there are more men called Roger on the ballot paper than there are women (see interview with Seema and Labour Women's Network).

One of Seema’s priorities will be to do more to engage women in politics at a local level, to bring politics closer to people who might otherwise not take part.

I campaigned for Seema last weekend and my favourite comment on the doorstep was this, which came from a woman:

“Who’s the candidate...? Oh it’s a woman...really?” The woman on the doorstep was surprised but very pleased.

Seema herself has had similar reactions. She says in the interview with the Labour Women's Network:

“As I’ve spent time campaigning in our area, I’ve found that women really connect with the idea of a female representative – that it provides an opportunity for them to have political conversations that might not otherwise occur. I think women can bring a very different perspective to the political debate, whether on economics or family and community issues. Often, women are deeply rooted in their communities and are central to the invisible networks that hold communities together. I believe there is real value in that perspective being represented in Parliament."

Seema grew up in Feltham, and went to school in Heston. She is co-founder and Director of the Fabian Women’s Network.

No women in BBC sports personality shortlist

2011-11-30T09:54:00.000Z

The all-male shortlist for the BBC Sports Personality of the Year is a disgrace.

The Ironman world champion, Chrissie Wellington (pictured left), who was among the Observer's nominations for the award, said on Twitter: "No women in @bbcspoty top ten. Its not about me, its about the need to celebrate achievements of so many female GBR athletes. Disgraceful."

Read other reaction from sportswomen here.

The voting panel included lads mags Nuts and Zoo. Remember Danny Dyer?

End All Male Panels campaign

2011-11-16T03:44:00.000Z

This letter is published in the Guardian today. Please go to this website (or endallmalepanels.wordpress.com) to add your support.

Hashtag for tweeters is #EndAllMalePanels

GUARDIAN LETTER TO EDITOR AND SIGNATORIES

Dear Editor

We are a group of women who have an interest in public or political life who have become increasingly concerned by the number of all male panels at policy debates particularly in Westminster and also across the country.

Recently advertised examples include the RSA’s “Tale of Two Cities” on whether Londoners are on the brink of “economic apartheid” – an event with three male speakers when we know women are disproportionately affected by the effects of the downturn. The IfG’s forthcoming “Policy by Twitter” event with four men – though we know many women in policy are not just active in social media but leading exponents.

As advocates and activists around gender equality, some of us in political parties, others not, we will no longer be attending events where there is an all male panel without exceptional reason and also be encouraging others to do the same. With few exceptions, most events – whether organised by men or women - could easily have been more thoughtfully planned with a better balanced panel. The benefits of this for all of us are clear – wider representation makes for more informed debate and better policy outcomes.

We strongly urge all think tanks or similar organisations to adopt a policy of no longer holding events without a consideration for gender balance.

For forward thinking organisations and particularly those at the heart of Westminster, we believe it is time to be following a higher standard of public life and debate, which is more in tune with expectations of increasing the presence and voice of women in all areas of our political and economic life.

Yours faithfully

1. Seema Malhotra FRSA (Fabian Women’s Network and Management Consultant)
2. Deborah Mattinson (Director, Britain Thinks)
3. Emma Burnell (Blogger, ScarletStandard)
4. Dr Monica Threlfall, Reader in European Politics, London Metropolitan University
5. Dr Caroline Whalley
6. Shaama Saggar-Malik (Director, Diversity In Public Appointments and Executive Development Consultant)
7. Jo Cox (Director, Maternal Mortality Campaign)
8. Dame Ruth Silver
9. Anne Reyersbach
10. Sophie Livingstone (Chief Executive, City Year London)
11. Anita Pollack (Former MEP)
12. Ivana Bartoletti (Editor, Fabiana and public sector worker)
13. Rachael Saunders, Labour Women's Network and Tower Hamlets councillor
14. Dr Laura Nelson (Senior Manager, Charity, and Blogger, Delilah)
15. Vera Baird QC (Co-Director Astraea: Gender Justice)
16. Melanie Smallman (National Secretary, SERA - Labour's Environment Campaign)
17. Claire Leigh (Former Advisor Strategy Unit and Vice Chair, Young Fabians)
18. Alison McGovern MP, Member of Parliament for Wirral South
19. Kate Nustedt Executive Director, WomenforWomen UK
20. Fiona Mactaggart MP, Member of Parliament for Slough
21. Olivia Bailey, Chair, Labour Students
22. Christine Megson
23. Felicity Slater (Masters student)
24. Barbara Follett (Former MP & Former Equalities Minister)
25. Carole Tongue (Former MEP and Chair UKCCD)
26. Sheila Taylor (Bermondsey & Old Southwark Labour Party Secretary)
27. Ellie Cumbo (Blogger, and Editor, Anticipations)
28. Leonie Cooper, Co-Chair of SERA, and Wandsworth Councillor
29. Cllr. Rohini Simbodyal, Edmonton
30. Beverley Clack (Professor in Philosophy of Religion at Oxford Brookes University)
31. Reema Patel, Law Student
32. Helen Jackson, Former MP
33. Neeraj Malhotra (Locum Consultant in Public Health, West Midlands)
34. Ms Judith Cameron
35. Alexandra Kemp, Chief Executive West Norfolk Women & Carers' Pensions Network
36. Dr Kate Mckenzie
37. Camilla Antrobus
38. Scarlett MccGwire (Communications Consultant)
39. Barbara Keeley MP, Member of Parliament for Worsley and Eccles South
40. Jane Hanson FRSA Leading Learning
41. Mrs Cathryn Nunnery
42. Kirstin Hay (Student, Imperial College)
43. Julie Fitzgerald (Management Consultant)
44. Kate Grussing, Managing Director, Sapphire Partners
45. Caroline Watson (Co-founder Progressive Women)
46. Caroline S Dargan Interim Headteacher and Education Consultant
47. Anna Turley (Former Deputy Director NLGN thinktank and Editor of ProgLoc)
48. Kathryn Busby, Co-director, National Campaign
49. Sarah Hutchinson DPhil student, University of Oxford
50. Professor Wendy Savage MBBCh, FRCOG, MSc(Public Health) Hon DSc
51. Rebecca Rennison
52. Lesley Abdela, Senior Partner Shevolution Consultancy
53. Marie Bailey, HR Lecturer
54. Ronit Wolfson, Account executive and London Young Labour Women’s Officer
55. Rachel Jones FRSA and Chair, British Council for School Environments
56. Nina Champion (Charity Project Manager and Croydon Community Activist)
57. Nicky Gavron, London Assembly Member
58. Dr Suzanne Franks, Centre for Journalism, University of Kent
59. Rachel Briggs
60. Dr Rupa Huq, Senior Lecturer in Sociology
61. Professor Joni Lovenduski, Birkbeck College
62. Janice Winter, MPhil (Oxon) Programme Manager, Axess Programme on Journalism & Democracy

Fabian Women go to Brussels

2011-11-14T09:43:00.001Z

This article is published on the Fabian Women's Network website

“I’m not asking people to love the EU. I’m asking people to understand what it can do,” said Linda McAvan MEP, when she spoke to the group of Fabian Women who visited the European Parliament last week.

The extent of the work of the EU was one of the main messages that came through clearly in the presentations throughout the day. And what was striking was that many of the achievements are due to hardworking Labour MEPs, such as Linda McAvan and Arlene McCarthy – another MEP who spoke to us.

For example, Labour MEPs have campaigned for and influenced policies on food safety, food labeling, bank rules and climate change. “The EU is not all about flags and anthems – it’s about working rights, consumer rights and the environment,” said Linda.

Another key message was that we will always need deal with Europe, whether we are part of the EU or not. “If we haven’t got a place on the table, like Norway, we need to lobby other countries’ MEPs to represent because we still have to trade.”

As well as the themes about the importance and relevance of the EU, we heard from speakers about the structures – the Commission, the Parliament and the Council of Ministers – and an outline of how legislation passes between them. We also appreciated that a crucial skill that MEPs need to have is negotiating, as many decisions are based on consensus-seeking of MEPs in different parties.

The group on the trip, which was made up of women on the Fabian Women’s Network’s mentoring scheme and others, was full of praise for the excellent organisation of the day and the diverse and informative range of speakers. One delegate summed it up perfectly. “I learned more today than on my politics course.”

Prime Minister's Questions review: Job losses, poppies and border controls

2011-11-09T18:04:00.005Z

'Cameron looked defeated as William Hague stifled a yawn' - article published today on Progress.

Who won?
The three themes of today’s PMQs were job losses, poppies and border controls and there wasn’t much else. David Cameron started off in a sombre mood, presumably because of this week’s Remembrance Day and the resultant general seriousness of the House. He even looked a bit weepy, knocked sideways by the first question and all its associated jeering about jobs and growth, the lack of both under his reign and the relaxing of red tape for companies, which means workers can be fired at a moment’s notice.

Ed Miliband used his opponent’s fragility to launch a strong attack. In a game of political tennis about border controls, Ed used his questions to castigate the failings of the home secretary Theresa May on her recently admitted mistake of relaxing borders over the summer. Forceful, coherent and calm, he hammered his point. ‘When things go wrong, it’s never anything to do with them!’ Cameron looked defeated as William Hague stifled a yawn. ‘It’s just not good enough,’ yelled Ed. ‘It’s a fiasco! The PM cannot tell us how many people came into this country over the summer!’ Ed was doing so well and there was so much support in the House that the speaker had to chip in and ask the members to ‘stop shouting their heads off’.

When all was going well for Labour, Cameron swooped in with his killer line. Regaining his usual cocky confident stance, he cautioned the leader of the opposition to listen to the Labour adviser and founder of ‘blue Labour’, Lord Maurice Glasman, who famously noted that too many people immigrated under Labour. An unfair comparison from Cameron, but, nevertheless, it worked. Verdict: a tie.

Best answer?
No real jokes today, but there were a few attempts at witticisms and political quips. When Labour’s Geraint Davies MP questioned the danger of losing voters alongside the constituency boundary review (registration will no longer be compulsory) – making the point that Cameron is forcing austerity on vulnerable people and taking away their right to vote – Cameron was ready with a sly response. Using the word fairness, Cameron quoted the number of people in Davies’ constituency, and compared it with a higher number in the constituency of an MP behind him.

Backbench watch
A bugbear of the backbenches was the poppy. Tory MPs Tracey Crouch and Alec Shelbrooke both asked questions and expressed outrage at Fifa’s ban on poppies on football shirts. Cameron promised to write to Fifa. MPs cheered in solidarity at the fight against football.

Women doing science. A refreshing endorsement

2011-11-07T12:46:00.001Z

What do you notice about this advert? Yes, it's a female scientist. Congratulations to DHL for bucking the gender stereotype trend in their adverts.

And the world didn't end, did it?

A refreshing sight in the mid of an advertising world that time and time again reinforces stereotypes and prejudices in our society about what different genders are best suited for.

For example, read my blogs about adverts for a financial company, football, football again, icecream (and mobile phones) and holidays.

Source of picture: DHL Express advert, Guardian newspaper.

Hamleys toy shop promotes gender apartheid

2011-10-26T08:52:00.001+01:00

This blog is also published on Liberal Conspiracy.

Hamleys is a large toyshop in central London. I went in there with the intention of buying a present for my niece, only to be shocked at the entrance when I saw the store layout sign.

Inside, toys are segregated by gender and are even allocated separate floors.

As I climbed the escalator and entered the floors themselves, I was even more horrified.

The girls’ floor is pink. It is filled with fluffy objects, beauty and hair-related toys and play cookery sets. There is even a beauty salon called ‘Tantrum’.

The boys’ floor is all about action and adventure. There are cars, trains, spaceships, science sets and construction toys.

We have a severe lack of women in senior positions in our society and a severe problem of inequality. Only 22 percent of UK parliamentarians are female. A survey of Britain’s top 100 companies find that, of 329 executive directors, only 20 are women. In the media Guardian top 100 this year – the most powerful people in the industry – the first woman is at number 18.

Despite laws and measures to introduce gender equality of rights and opportunities in our society, there is still a gaping gap between the actual proportions of men and women in our leadership positions today.

There are many contributing factors, and one is conditioning of children from an early age. Deep-rooted in our society are stereotypes that dictate to women and men and influence them on the roles in society that they are expected to fill.

There is an underlying current of expectation, tradition and what is accepted as the norm, and it sets down different paths for different genders which often becomes a reality.

The toys that children are exposed to play a major part in this. From birth, boys and girls are bombarded with stereotypes; boys are allowed to be more aggressive and climb trees, while girls are encouraged to be passive and play with plastic teapots.

Even the name that Hamleys uses for its beauty salon, ‘Tantrum’, is consistent with the stereotypical ‘hysterical’ woman - unsuited to leadership and far better aligned with the domestic role and fussing over home and appearance.

A commonly held view is that boys and girls are innately suited to these traditional stereotypical roles. But the scientific evidence for this is not substantial, comprehensive or conclusive enough, and there is more evidence that experience itself changes brain function. I've written about this here and here.

Consider a shop that had different floors and different toys for black and white children. There would be an outcry.

We are seeing our very own gender apartheid on our high street.

Hamleys – as a major toy seller – has the potential to be of huge influence.

My request to Hamleys is that it signposts its toys by some other means – for example, what the toys are, rather than who Hamleys assumes they are for.

Marks & Spencer is now listing astronomy toys in both girls and boys sections, thanks to a blog on the f word and @scottkeir on Twitter.

Can Hamleys follow suit so that girls and boys are free to choose what toys are best matched to their individual interests and potential rather than a pre-conditioned and artificial notion of what the different genders should aspire to? So that they don't feel pressurised to follow paths that confine them to the unequal positions in life we see around us?

I won’t be shopping in there for my niece unless they listen. Please spread the word.

Hereditary peers in House of Lords: all male and 'too complicated to change'

2011-10-23T19:26:00.003+01:00

An attempt to allow women to inherit hereditary House of Lords titles has been rebuffed.

Out of 826 peers in the House of Lords, 92 are hereditary.

Women are generally not allowed to inherit titles to become hereditary Lords, which means that 11 percent of the House of Lords is male by default.

As I write this, I cannot believe that we are living in 2011 and this is part of our so-called democracy.

I've looked into it, following an article in the Telegraph about a campaign led by Lord Fellowes, the creator of Downton Abbey, whose wife cannot inherit her family’s viscountcy. He described the law as “ridiculous” and “outrageous” in the 21st century.

But his protests have been snubbed, even though David Cameron has begun the process that could allow a firstborn daughter of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge to accede to the throne before any subsequent sons.

According to the Telegraph, Lord Strathclyde, the Leader of the House of Lords, said: “Changes to the law on succession to the throne can be effected without any change to the legitimate expectations of those in the line of succession. Changes to the rules governing succession to hereditary titles would be far more complicated to implement.”

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, one of the few women in the House of Lords to have inherited her title, said any change in the law could be “very damaging” to family relationships if a male heir had older sisters.

Nearly all hereditary titles pass to men, with a few exceptions. In most cases where a male heir is not identified, the title is allowed to die out.

The only place where I could find a list of the full names of hereditary peers is on Wiki. On the official Parliament website, all names are with initial only, so the sex is not identifiable.

Women were allowed to sit in the Lords for the first time In 1958. The next important stage in the Lords development came when Labour was elected in 1997. Their manifesto stated that reform of the House of Lords was a major part of their agenda. In 1999 the House of Lords Act was passed. This act removed from the Lords all but 92 hereditary peers. Hereditary Peers inherit their title and consists of five ranks: Duke, Marquess, Earl, Viscount and Baron. Peerages may become extinct or fall into abeyance, but so long as there is an heir (male) the title will continue.

The Mouse and the Lion: a story

2011-10-09T23:08:00.002+01:00

by Suniti Namjoshi

One day a lion caught a mouse.

"Spare me," said the mouse, "I am so little and you are so big; but, who knows, perhaps some day I will be able to do you a favour."

The lion thought this funny and let the mouse go. But a few days later the very same lion was caught in a net.

After a while the mouse came along. "Help," called the lion. "Help, little mouse. Chew through these ropes. Remember, after all, that you owe me a favour."

The mouse started chewing and then suddenly stopped.

"Why have you stopped?" roared the lion.

"Well, I just thought of something," said the little mouse, "You see, I think I have already done you a favour."

"You haven't," roared the lion.

"Yes, I have," said the mouse.

What?" roared the lion.

"Well, you see," said the mouse, "I haven't killed you."

From Feminist Fables (Virago; Spinifex), copyright Suniti Namjoshi

A woman's place is in the House

2011-10-02T15:55:00.000+01:00

Labour Women's Network is an organisation of women members of the Labour Party dedicated to supporting Labour women to play a full part in the Party, and to securing the election of more Labour women to public office at every level.

Currently, only 22 percent of parliamentarians are women.

Forgotten voices: an opportunity for Labour

2011-09-26T17:32:00.015+01:00

This article was published during the Labour Conference by Progress.

On the train up to Liverpool, I began to read Progress’s Purple Book which contains policy ideas for the future. I was quickly distracted by a group of five men who got on at Northampton and were on their way to see Liverpool football team play at home.

‘So you’re a politician?’ they said, when they heard of my destination. ‘Not quite,’ I smiled, but it didn’t stop their questions. I put aside the Purple Book and instead embarked on an alternative policy research exercise: listening to their very real concerns – the effect of immigration on their jobs, the lack of opportunities and their feeling that they don’t have a voice.

When I arrived in Liverpool, I found that lack of voice was a theme that continued into the conference itself. The first event, before the main conference began, was the second ever annual women’s conference. Harriet Harman and Yvette Cooper led panel discussions on what women want – for themselves, the party and for achieving equality in society at large.

‘The coalition isn’t listening to women,’ said Fiona Mactaggart, who has piloted a listening exercise in her Slough CLP, which has revealed some illuminating results; for example, that women are worried about their personal safety on public transport. ‘This is opportunity for Labour.’

A canvass of the audience’s views showed that some of main issues that women are concerned about are adequate, accessible and affordable childcare, flexible and family-friendly working, violence against women, gender inequality in parliament and the coalition’s cuts to local services that disproportionately affect women.

Indeed, the coalition forgot women, said Angela Eagle, who listed a string of faults and areas of neglect. The coalition’s emergency budget was missing a crucial gender assessment, the cuts hit women three times as much as men and senior Tory politicians have treated their female colleagues, both in and out of their own party, with contempt.

‘We will make women’s voices heard,’ said Angela Eagle. And Ed Miliband, who joined the conference towards the end, agreed. ‘There is some deep change needed,’ he said. ‘I won’t rest until we have 50:50 gender representation in parliament.’

In an upbeat tone and style that he continued to use throughout the evening receptions, Ed Miliband also acknowledged that a problem with politics is a ‘total disconnection with society’. He pledged, strongly and confidently, that the conference will be addressing this. I felt there was a new forcefulness about Ed – I saw a certainty and determination. He’s all set to drive change and take the party with him.

Later, Peter Hain, who wrote the document called Refounding Labour that is designed to be the basis of change of the party from within, told me that this is just the start. ‘We need a huge cultural change,’ he said. And these views and ideas have been echoed in the conference hall, and in fringe events and training workshops, focusing on grassroots campaigning and a strategy to win. The challenge will be to ensure that this innovative thinking is a consistent and coordinated force throughout the whole party with clear goals, policies and direction.

Above all, we must address the issues of the people, and to do that we need to understand them. This is Labour’s chance. The forgotten voices are starting to be heard. We must be the party that listens and reaches out to those who are being ignored by the coalition. And we must do something.

Degrading term 'Women's fiction' out of fashion

2011-09-23T10:59:00.001+01:00

As a postscript to my last blog post, here's a link to today's article in The Bookseller, which is about the genre termed 'women's fiction' and its predicted demise:

According to the article, Eithne Farry, literary editor for Marie Claire, said: "People are getting a bit sick of the chick lit look, and the term as a genre label—it seems to cover such a wide range. The jackets make it seem frothy and light, but a lot of books with those covers actually deal with quite serious things."

WH Smith is to drop the term in its stores after two women - Claire Leigh and Julia Gillick - wrote in to protest that it was patronising and degrading to women.

War against sexism in the literary world

2011-09-19T19:13:00.003+01:00

In a courageous, dramatic gesture, writer Polly Courtney has dropped her publisher because she said that it is "ultimately degrading to women".

'It's a Man's World' was published on 15 September by Harper Collins imprint Avon, and is about a woman trying to find success working for a lads' magazine.

At the launch of her book, Polly dropped the bombshell.

She told the Daily Mail: "They dressed up my book as something frivolous, light and racy, which is the complete opposite of what’s inside my books. It is degrading to the writing and ultimately degrading to women. It’s sexist."

At her launch, according to The Bookseller, Polly said: "A lot of chick lit patronises women. There’s intelligent writing out there and I don’t know why it has to be sold in such a fluffy package. The reason why I left the city was to tell the story of how it really was and that there was sexism. Now my message is in danger of being lost."

Polly said she is returning to self-publishing.

This follows the success of two women this month - Claire Leigh and Julia Gillick - who wrote to WHSmiths to protest about the sexist term ‘women’s fiction’ in its stores. The shop is going to stop using it in October.

Watch Polly on Channel 4 here. Does the 'chick lit' label dumb down women's fiction?

Interview with Delilah: the future I choose

2011-09-17T09:26:00.001+01:00

I was very pleased to be interviewed by ThinkActVote, the think tank that brings together citizenship, sustainability, digital, creativity and culture, on the future.

In it, I talk about what led me to feminism, why I care, and what we can all do help make the world a fairer place.

Read the futures interview here.

Tory Ministers defy Dorries on abortion

2011-09-02T23:07:00.000+01:00

Following a campaign from the organisation Abortion Rights, and many of us writing to our MPs concerned about Nadine Dorries and Frank Field's amendments, Tory Ministers have pledged not to back them.

Here are some extracts from a letter that Minister for Public Health Anne Milton wrote to all MPs today; explaining, very reasonably, her position and why she will not vote for the amendments:

Write NOW to your MP about abortion rights

2011-08-29T20:01:00.002+01:00

I just wrote to my MP. You can too - use the online form on the website of Abortion Rights, the national pro-choice campaign (see below). Read some background in my previous article on Nadine Dorries, who is pushing these changes, and Sian and Crooked Rib's blog here.

---
I am writing to express my concern at proposed changes to abortion counselling arrangements currently under consideration by the Department of Health, based on amendments to the Health and Social Care bill.

The proposals require GPs to make provision for ‘independent advice and counselling’ to be made available to women seeking abortion, stripping abortion providers of responsibility for carrying out this role.

I believe that these proposals are unnecessary and misguided. Abortion providers are already obliged to ensure that women receive all relevant information about the procedure, including details of possible risks and side effects and information on alternatives to abortion.

Preventing abortion providers from offering decision-making support opens the door for organisations opposed in principle to abortion to become formally involved in counselling women on their pregnancy options. These organisations do not offer impartial, non-directive information, but rather seek to misinform and dissuade women from accessing abortion services.

I am also concerned that introducing further counselling requirements would delay women from accessing services, at a time when waiting periods are rising across the NHS. The proposals would likewise disrupt care pathways for women who choose to self-refer to abortion providers, rather than approaching their GP.

Women must be trusted to make their own decisions regarding their reproductive health. It is vital that the information they receive remains scientifically accurate and driven by clinical best practice rather than by ideological agenda.

If these amendments are debated at Report Stage of the Health and Social Care Bill on 6-7th September, I urge you to vote against them, to ensure that women continue to be able to exercise their right to safe, legal abortion without further impediment.

Lady Sovereign: young political icon

2011-08-19T09:59:00.004+01:00

With hat tip* to Latte Labour for introducing me to one of the most astute, insightful artists around, here’s Lady Soveriegn – whose lyrics are a much better contribution to political debate than David Starkey’s comments last week.

Lady Sovereign has had an extraordinary rise to fame and success. As I was in a rush, I consulted her Wikipedia entry for details (although I am increasingly reluctant to do this these days since I found out that most updates are done by men).

She's a role model for young women, and was indeed inspired herself by a rare female rap star - showing how important it is that role models for young people exist.

According to Wiki:

'She decided to pursue rap after hearing Ms. Dynamite on the radio: "When I heard Ms. Dynamite's track 'Boooo!' in 2001 it inspired me. I hadn't heard a female MC before that... she's real... her presence... her image... the way she does everything... she opened so many doors for us girls, MCs are real, they write their own stuff, they rap about what they know, the stuff around them." She was also influenced by her mother's Salt-n-Pepa albums and began writing poetry at age 11.'

David Cameron said this week that the riots "were not about poverty". But data out yesterday showed that the majority of people who have appeared in court live in poor neighbourhoods, with 41 percent of suspects living in one of the top 10 percent of most deprived places in the country.

By the way, more than 90 percent are male - a subject for another blog post (other feminists have blogged it - see MarinaS who writes about the skewed reportage, for example).

*Hat tip (or HT or via) is new Twitterspeak for acknowledgement.

We are the society

2011-08-13T18:03:00.005+01:00

The riots this week have divided political opinion in a way that has never been more stark.

For many, punishment is the only solution: increased aggression and stigmatisation of the perpetrators, absolute intolerance. Responsibility lies with the individual, and to suggest otherwise contributes to the feeling of ‘entitlement’ of the ‘sick’ society that we are seeing today.

This idea would hold if everyone were equal. If the same wealth, future and opportunities were available to all, then perhaps we could be justified in picking out the odd individual who misbehaved and labelling them as ‘sick’ (although I think labelling is always a very bad idea).

But we don’t have equality. It wasn’t the rich people rioting on the streets. Do people really think that poor people are intrinsically morally worse than rich people? It’s reactionary nonsense.

For me – and for many others – the solution is all about understanding and compassion. We are all human beings; we all have potential to be good or bad. Inequality and fear can lead to bitterness and hate. We are all responsible for our society as a whole. If we push people away, they will come back to bite us.

Rich people are equally likely to act immorally, but they do it in different ways, because of their circumstances. They may not loot shops. But they may be racist, sexist and homophobic, or selfish, corrupt and insecure; they may exploit their power and hurt people because of it (did anyone see the David Starkey clip?). This week, I have seen a deluge of hate against the rioters, many of whom are children. Is this hate not just springing from fear in the same way?

On Thursday, the politicians came together in the Commons with the prime intention of supporting the victims of the riots.

And rightly so. But we need to realise very soon is that the perpetrators are victims too. If we don’t, there will forever be fear, there will never be forgiveness and there will always a barrier. In other words, we have to care.

Ed Miliband, in the Commons, acknowledged that we all have a responsibility for our society, but he was far too careful. I don't blame him (this was discussed over at Liberal Conspiracy). The country is in shock, and needs time to recover.

But politicians have been tiptoeing around the truth, afraid of upsetting people. I hope Ed and others will be brave enough to address it soon. Riots do not happen for no reason, as this excellent blog over at Tea Cups & Ink Stains eloquently explains.

Cameron said in the Commons that he would ‘look beyond these shores’ at gang culture in other countries. He mentioned New York, but he didn’t mention Brazil.

And yet this is where the answer may lie. Brazil is used to events like these. The description of the gang that Cameron gave was eerily like a gang in Brazilian shanty towns – the ‘favelas’.

Cameron said: “These gangs are territorial, hierarchical, violent, consist mostly of young boys who come from dysfunctional families, deal in drugs, under control of an authoritarian leader and often attack innocent people.”

Rapper Reveal mentioned Brazil and the favelas on Newsnight on Tuesday. In Brazil, extreme inequality in society (wealth and opportunities) has created a situation in which the police – who have some of the most advanced guns in the world – are at war with the shanty town communities (the favelas). Watch this documentary, for starters.

The favelas live off the drug trade. But it is the middle class people outside who are buying the drugs, fuelling the favelas, and – at the same time – condemning them.

In the UK, we don’t have the same degree of inequality, but we are seeing increasing resentment, discrimination and disengagement and a dangerous division in society.

And the less we engage; the more intolerant and dismissive of the people who are crying for help, the more they will be marginalised. And there will be war.

This is why Diane Abbott is absolutely right that militarisation should not be used.

This crime is not primarily because of greed, it is because of a perception of inequality. Not just about inequality of wealth, but also opportunities. And a feeling of helplessness, hopelessness and neglect, and of fear.

If this is not addressed, the situation will get worse. Cameron is right; we are all responsible for what we do. We are also responsible for our society – because our society is a mirror image of us.

Beware Blue Labour?

2011-08-02T18:12:00.004+01:00

'Blue Labour' is a hot topic at the moment. It's an idea cooked up by Maurice Glasman, who I mentioned in an earlier article here.

As far I can glean, it's a vision that stems from:
1) a concern that the market is too powerful under the Tories
2) a concern that the state has got too powerful and bureaucratic under Labour
3) the idea that existing society has its own traditions, work ethic and community (centred around faith and family) that we can build on and put at the heart of a new kind of society.

Sounds sensible at first glance. And there could be something in it. But...my concern is that some of the community 'values' that Glasman talks about are reactionary, and are championed by rightwingers who want to keep people in their place. My take is as follows:
1) working with the community is good (and is what David Miliband pushed for prior to the leadership election and in his Movement for Change project)
2) building on existing networks and communities is good
3) but doing this while sweeping along society's old-fashioned 'values', which do not necessarily uphold Labour's core values of equality and tolerance, is NOT good (and with no state intervention, these persist).

There are more questions to be asked. Diane Abbott MP, who I admire for her straight talking, chutzpah and common sense (and who I wrote about here and voted for), sums it up very well in this video:

Also, check this out: journalist and Labour Councillor Rowenna Davis - who is writing a book on Blue Labour - questions Maurice Glasman in this Guardian article: Will Blue Labour lead us back to female subservience? and here's an excellent Fabian Society blog on the subject.

Campaign success! National conference (10,000 people) pledges female speaker quota

2011-07-27T21:12:00.003+01:00

A few weeks ago, I wrote about the National Achievers Congress: a weekend-long conference with an audience of 10,000. The speakers were entrepreneurs and sales experts, sharing their knowledge, experiences and techniques on success, inspiration and motivation.

Of the entire panel of speakers, not one was female. After writing the blog, I received many comments from readers who in agreement about the negative message this sends out about the inclusion of women in senior roles. Thanks for your comments – which all chime with mine. Where are the women? And what can we do to rectify the situation?

An obvious place to start (apart from encouraging more women to put themselves forward, of course) is with the organisers. Today, I was very pleased to talk to the lead organiser. He acknowledged that he was aware of the lack of women, and said that he had approached a few women, who had all declined to speak. He admitted that the team set out to ask speakers who represented diverse areas of expertise, but had all come back with male speakers, because there was no focus on recruiting women specifically and most existing connections are through men.

The problem seems to be that there is a culture and tradition for male speakers, and convenience in maintaining the status quo. The organiser and I talked about changing the emphasis so that the team go out with the intention of securing a certain number from the outset, and make that a priority – that’s to say, a quota.

The organiser agreed that, for the next conferences (there will be a few across Europe at the end of next summer), he will set out with a quota of one woman each day of the conference. This is a long way off 50:50 but a great start to achieving equality. There are many brilliant businesswomen out there, and we need them on stage for the next conferences.

I will be compiling a list of potential female speakers to help the organisers, so please let me know if you have any ideas (or would like to speak yourself…)

Thanks

Short fiction story, by Delilah

2011-07-21T19:30:00.002+01:00

The evening is over. The streets are quiet. What will happen to the person who has just left the night club? And what secrets will be revealed?

This story is called 'Night Walk Through Soho', and was selected for reading at a London Lit event in Euston, London, on Sunday 26 June.

Short fiction story, by Delilah

2011-07-21T08:33:00.017+01:00

The evening is over. The streets are quiet. What will happen to the person who has just left the night club? And what secrets will be revealed?

This story is called 'Night Walk Through Soho', and was selected for reading at a London Lit event in Euston, London, on Sunday 26 June.

Women gossip, women fuss, men get on with running the world

2011-07-14T15:35:00.002+01:00

Wow, there are a large number of sexist adverts out at the moment.

Haagen Dazs has got a collection which play on the stereotype that it's women who gossip indoors and men who go out to have their nights of fun.

And here's T-mobile with a stunner. An angry-looking woman upset about her partner's uncommunicative behaviour.

Of course, silly me! Women are responsible for 'managing' their relationships with men. Women are naturally better than men at communicating. Men don't bother with such domestic challenges; they have more important things to do. A woman's place is in the home, because dangerous things might happen if she ventures out into a man's world!

National Achievers Congress has no female role models

2011-07-04T08:48:00.004+01:00

I spent Saturday at the National Achievers Congress at the Excel Centre in London. It was my first sales/entrepreneur conference and unlike any experience I have had before. I walked in when world-famous life and business coach Tony Robbins had already been speaking for an hour to the 10,000-strong audience, who had their arms in the air, waving to music, as though it were a rock concert. Surreal.

His session, which lasted four hours non-stop contained nothing more than common sense motivation and management advice (“Nothing achieves success greater than the pattern of success,” and other such gems of wisdom). And yet – there was a magic in the way he held the crowd and triggered so much flow of energy. I was in awe. A lesson for all of us; how to be influential, how to lead, how to be followed.

I nearly didn’t go the conference. Several months ago, I bought a ticket, late one night, after a friend persuaded me. It was only afterwards that I looked at the website and scrolled down in horror. Every single speaker in the line-up was a man.

What was this; a three-day national conference calling itself inspirational and motivational with a total of zero female role models? What kind of message is this sending out? That women need not to aspire to reach the top because they’re not wanted?

Men dominate the business world and are twice as likely to start a business as women. The barriers stopping women are external (other people’s expectations, preference for the status quo), practical (women still overwhelmingly taking on the child and home care role) and internal (external factors feed back and affect women’s confidence and risk taking levels) – all reinforcing the 'negativity' that halts success and that Tony Robbins is so keen for us all to dispel.

Role models can therefore help a great deal in instigating change. Nothing achieves success greater than the pattern of success.

I spent the day, in between sessions, talking to members of the organising team and asking them why there were no female speakers. Some interesting reactions. All very friendly and helpful (not always the reaction I get to pleas for equality); several scratched their heads and thought for a moment. “Oh yes, you’re right. It hadn’t occurred to me, but now you say it, yes, err...it’s something we should really change.”

I didn’t find the main organiser – the man who apparently has all the power in selecting speakers – but I shall be writing to him and sending him a link to this blog. I might find him today, the last day of the conference. I need to know that next year they will make an effort to draw in some high-profile women. I will report back; watch this space.

Sexism in the casino

2011-06-25T19:29:00.000+01:00

It's well known that the gambling world is heavily male-dominated - read about Victoria Coren and her struggles (and successes) in a man's environment, for example. Or gambler Pickleman Poker writing about his night in a club just for men who can have girls brought to them if they're rich enough. So it was with no surprise that I noted on my first visit to a casino that there were very few women.

On each table, in fact, there were one or two token women among perhaps eight to ten men - who were all ages. The women were generally dressed smartly, mostly in evening dresses. And the men wore casual clothes - jeans and t-shirts.

On the casino wall was a striking mural, a large image of women's feet in high heels; an image of women's sexuality.

Again no surprise; in a man's world, women are seen as sex objects with little intellectual or power status.

In fact, one of the male casino attendents made a comment along the lines of: "Even women can learn how to play blackjack!"

A joke, of course, as most sex stereotype comments are disguised as.

Eager as ever to disprove untruths that harm my gender, I made sure I won a pile of money on the Blackjack table. A small stab at putting things right, but not really a victory. There is still a long way to go until we balance the books.

Ourstory by Carole Satyamurti

2011-06-16T19:33:00.000+01:00

I saw this poem on the underground today. Carole Satyamurti is a poet and sociologist, based in London. She is Vice-President of Ver Poets. The poem is from the book Stitching the Dark, which I shall be ordering straightaway! Watch her read some poems here.

Ourstory

Let us now praise women
with feet glass slippers wouldn’t fit;

not the patient, nor even the embittered
ones who kept their place,

but awkward women, tenacious with truth,
whose elbows disposed of the impossible;

who split seams, who wouldn’t wait,
take no, take sedatives;

who sang their own numbers, went uninsured,
Knew best what they were missing.

Our misfit foremothers are joining forces
underground, their dusts mingling

breast-bone with scapula, forehead
with forehead. Their steady mass

bursts locks; lends a springing foot
to our vaulting into enormous rooms.

© Carole Satyamurti

Financial company promotes sexist stereotypes

2011-06-12T10:49:00.000+01:00

Financial affairs is a stereotypically male topic, and the media often reinforces this.

Artemis is a fund manager company.

This is its advert - a collection of 'hunters'.

They are all men, all except one - and she is a member of a team of hunters (stereotype: women are good at teamwork and supporting the men, but are not suited to leadership).

On Artemis's website, there are 40 videos of interviews with fund managers.

They are all men.

Why I say no to Nadine Dorries

2011-05-29T22:38:00.005+01:00

This article was published first in the June issue of Labour Briefing magazine.
In May, Nadine Dorries stood up in the House of Commons and asserted that young girls should take responsibility for what young men try to do to them. Since then, she has appeared on The Vanessa Show, proposing that, if young girls were taught abstinence, there would be less sexual abuse, and has – not surprisingly – had to deal with a flurry of ‘Nadine bashing’ in response, which she catalogues in her blog.

The trouble with Dorries’s view is not only that it is outdated and worryingly small-minded, but also that there's a widespread acceptance on the right that she is talking sense.

When she said that teenage girls should be taught to ‘just say no’ instead of learning about safe sex along with their male peers, 67 to 61 MPs voted to agree with her. (The bill will receive its second reading in January, though it is unlikely to become law without government support.) Whether it was from outright misogyny, disinterest in the issue or just plain embarrassment (a few older men visibly squirmed during her speech), we will never know. But we do know is that there's a common assumption out there that girls hold responsibility during sex while boys don’t, as boys can’t control themselves. And worse, girls and women are to blame when the situation gets nasty.

To be fair, Dorries acknowledged in her blog that ‘boys should …be made aware of their responsibilities,’ but she quickly added that ‘the emphasis is on the girls because they need and deserve it.’

And here is the error. But it’s not an original one. Remember George Bush and Sarah Palin and their abstinence for girls programme. Think of some cultures in the middle east and the convention that obliges women to cover up their bodies to prevent the temptation of men (God only knows what would happen if a man saw a piece of female flesh – he would surely be compelled to have sex with her!)

These ideas are not only women-hating and women-blaming. It’s lazy to lay the onus on women. It’s simply a licence that allows men to do what they bloody well want to, and women to not get a say and to be kept in their place.

It’s also very dangerous. It underpins the traditional rape myth – that women bring it on themselves. That if a woman goes out late at night, wears provocative clothing, is under the influence of alcohol or has had previous sexual partners, she is ‘asking for it’.

We have a serious rape crime problem, and only 6 per cent of tried rapists are convicted in the UK. If we want to tackle this appalling situation, as David Cameron claimed during his Prime Minister’s Questions and the discussion about Ken Clark’s rape comments, then we need a change in our thinking.

But it’s hard work to be progressive. To accept that it’s both boys and girls who need to know about sex and loving relationships; that both boys and girls need to develop the confidence to say what they want and don’t want, and that boys and girls should respect one another as individuals and human beings.

Dorries’s remarks undermine all this. Along with her anti-abortion tactics, which further dictate to women what they should do with their bodies and their lives, Dorries’s attitude serves only to make women feel more inferior than ever – that they don’t have a voice – and men to continue to feel they have the upper hand. And so the pressure on young people to have sex when they don’t want to, the sexual assaults and the rapes on women continue. Thanks Dorries, but…no.

New author: Caroline Green

2011-05-20T10:05:00.000+01:00

Photo by Christian Colussi, Caroline's launch event, May 2011

Here's a big-up for first-time author and one of my good friends Caroline Green, who has written a sophisticated and edge-of-your-seat page-turner for teenagers called Dark Ride.

I'm not an expert on children's fiction – adult fiction being my genre – but this book kept me hooked until the end, and I related to the characters (even though they were half my age).

The book is well-crafted and tackles several strong themes, including broken marriages and modern slavery, which are woven expertly and flawlessly into the plot. The story is poignant, powerful and funny and has a sprinkling of romance – in short, it is a teenage love story with elements of the supernatural and putting the unjust world to right.

Caroline and I met on a writing course about five years ago and together we have endured some of the struggles of being a writer and shared many an experience of the pain and euphoria which occur in equal measure. I was privileged to read an early draft of the first few chapters of Dark Ride and am now thrilled to see the whole thing in print. Check out the trailer and buy it here and read Caroline's writer's blog here.

Delilah covers up her face in Paris

2011-05-19T01:04:00.000+01:00

I have been on my travels in Paris. I took the opportunity to follow on from my blog post last month 'The burqa isn't right but it shouldn't be banned' – which questions how a law that claims to protect against the oppression of women can treat women with such contempt – to stage a protest of my own.

sur le pont

dans le metro

visite au Notredame

faire le shopping

Letter in the Guardian: poets and sexism

2011-05-13T18:51:00.001+01:00

The Big Spring Clean of my flat continues. Following the finding of feminist-item-from-the-past-number-one, and the ensuing discussion on this blog about it, here's feminist-item-from-the-past-number-two. In May 2009, I wrote a letter to the Guardian, following the resignation of the first female Oxford Professor of Poetry.

Here's the letter (and text below) and link to the other letters here. A contentious subject.

"The Ruth Padel scenario is not petty bickering ("pulling at pigtails") as Zoe Williams would like us to believe (Could the behaviour of poets be any less poetic?, 27 May). It is much more sinister and fundamental, and - far from what Zoe proposes - drenched in sexism. Ruth's behaviour was naive, but I doubt she was the first to make a mistake like this throughout the (all-male) history of the chair. She was, however, immediately pounced upon by the media, her actions disproportionately criticised, and now she is forced to step down from a position that was well-deserved on the basis of her outstanding contribution to poetry.

This is unfair - and it's no coincidence that she's a woman. Women are judged far more harshly than men by society (both sexes), as exemplified by Zoe's regard for Derek Walcott's sex pest behaviour as "not necessarily inconsonant with creative genius" - implying that it's somehow acceptable - and Ruth's conduct, by contrast, as less "poetic" and "scholarly".

Ruth acted exactly as she was able in the circumstances - she apologised with dignity. For the rest of us women, it's a harsh reminder that the battle for equality has only just begun. If we are to achieve success we must be meticulously, consistently careful that our behaviour can't ever be faulted."

Why men are more likely to go on muddy bike rides

2011-05-10T14:29:00.001+01:00

In response to my last blog post, I got this comment:

"The thing is that in the 9 hours I spent walking in the south downs on Saturday I was passed by a lot of people on mountain bikes and the vast majority were men. OK, this is not a scientific sample, but doesn't that suggest that there might be a correlation between sex and choice of pastime?"

This is my answer: You're right, that's not a statistically valid sample. Plus, bear in mind that people are more likely to register conforming stereotypes rather than non-conforming ones (for example, parents are much more likely to comment that their daughter is a quiet, caring sweet little girl and their son a boisterous little boy). In your example, you may have seen some women on bikes and not registered them, or assumed that some women were men.

But I don't want to assume you did anything because I wasn't there, and you may well be right. So now we have to think a little deeper. Boys and girls are conditioned from birth to behave in certain ways (one example is how the parents describe them - see above) and their activities reflect that. Hence boys and men are more likely to engage in adventurous and dangerous pursuits and women are more likely to spend time in passive pursuits, especially ones that involve their appearance. To date there is much more scientific evidence favouring the social conditioning explanation of these differences rather than any fundamental difference in genetics between the sexes (for which there is little, and highly contested, evidence).

Social conditioning is everywhere: it's what people say and expect, and hence expect of themselves. It's reinforced by friends, peers, parents and the media. Stereotypic behaviour is what is rewarded; for example, a girl or woman who has spent time on her appearance is praised, so she does more of it. It’s a constant drip drip that continues relentlessly. As Vanilla points out in her comment, isolated examples may seem innocuous but it is this cumulative effect that is so influential and worrying. This is why the advert is wrong - because it is adding to this reinforcement.

What’s interesting is the advert from South West Tourism that came next. The roles were reversed – good news! The woman was water skiing and the man was in the pub. But there were two points of note about this advert. The first that the man’s passive activity did not involve working on his appearance (not likely to be a coincidence) and the second that he was ridiculed (albeit in a jokey, friendly way) for not engaging in the active option while his girlfriend ‘upstaged’ him. In the previous advert, there was no ridicule of the woman’s passive choice – this was seen as perfectly ‘normal’. So it seems that women and men can swap gender stereotypes. But if a woman takes on a male role, this is considered a step up in society’s hierarchy, and if a man takes on a female role this is considered a step down, hence the ridicule. This reflects how the genders are positioned in society, which is patriarchy.

Gender stereotypes... on holidays

2011-05-08T22:24:00.000+01:00

I am doing a Big Spring Clean of my flat. It's amazing what I've found! Here's feminist-item-from-the-past-number-one:

A letter I received in April 2007 from the Advertising Standards Agency in response to a complaint I sent them about an advert for South west tourism. The advert, which I mentioned in this blog post, depicted a couple. The man was on his bike being active and adventurous and getting muddy, while the woman was being pampered in a spa.

A very friendly letter as you can see!

"I note from your complaint that you object to the South West Tourism advertisement that depicts a man having enjoyed a muddy bike ride whilst the woman has enjoyed being pampered in a spa. I understand you feel this is a stereotypical depiction of women that insinuates that women are less likely to enjoy physical activities…
We have reviewed the advertisement and considered your objections… We do not consider that negative stereotypes are used..."

Vote tomorrow, and vote for change

2011-05-04T14:11:00.000+01:00

I don’t often agree with Nigel Farage, leader of UKIP. In fact, I don’t often hear him say anything that’s not a disguised whinge about the burden of Europe on the UK.

But I was refreshingly impressed with his answer on last week’s Any Questions to the question about AV (13 minutes into the programme).

The AV system will better represent the views of all voters and is progressive. First past the post (FPTP) preserves the status quo; it prefers the incumbent MP - who is, statistically, more likely to be male, white and middle-class. Under AV, all votes count and change is more likely; this therefore gives politicians the motivation to engage all voters and for voters to have less apathy. AV is already used widely and successfully: political party leaders are voted in this way – even David Cameron himself.

The no camp appears to me to be against change for the sake of being against change. Indeed, the Conservative party, which is essentially the no campaign, has opposed every voting reform in history, including votes for women (listen to Chris Huhne, who was not contradicted by Francis Maude here, 17 minutes into the programme). The no camp has a point that AV isn’t perfect – but that isn’t a reason not to employ it. As Baroness Oona King said in a debate that I attended, organised by Progressive Women: ‘The best should not be the enemy of the good’. (Watch our responses, as attendees, to the debate on YouTube here.)

The no camp have grown increasingly tiresome. Many of their arguments are bogus. They seem to be obsessed with costs, and are reportedly quoting inaccurate costs. (Incidently, what do you think the cost is for democracy? Personally, I’d rather fork out for a good democratic system rather than fritter away millions on a Royal Wedding.)

Their unwavering claim is the cry of ‘one person one vote’. Hang on, this is certainly not the case in a safe seat constituency, if you are voting for a party that doesn’t get a look-in. AV solves this problem – every single voter’s vote counts. FPTP worked well in the old days when we had a two-party system and candidates were getting more than 50 percent. Now, there are more parties, and a candidate can win with very low percentage of the votes, and this isn’t fair.

As Jon Cruddas, Labour MP for Dagenham and Rainham, argues in this excellent article, the anti-AV camp points out that AV would lead inevitably to an endless series of hung parliaments and unaccountable coalition governments, which is a concern worth considering – except those who make it appear to have missed the fact that the current coalition, like previous ones in British history, was the product of the old FPTP system.

A switch to AV would reflect changes in our society, and be more conducive to change in the future. It is one step closer to a better democracy. Neal Lawson, who heads up Compass, writes about our divided Labour party and warns: “The least the no camp will do is delay the birth of a new socialism based on democracy, dialogue and pluralism. The worst will be to strangle it at birth.”

Putting aside the melodrama of this statement, I do think he has a point. If we want a progressive society; if we want to see change; tomorrow is our chance. Vote yes.

Science fiction story by Delilah

2011-04-22T19:15:00.003+01:00

In the year 2035, medical experiments on monkeys serve a sinister purpose, and the monkeys struggle on in oblivion. All except one...

Here's Monkey Retreat, published in Litro magazine.

The burqa isn’t right but it shouldn’t be banned

2011-04-12T21:49:00.001+01:00

The stories of women in France already being arrested and held by the police horrify me.

How can a law that claims to protect against the oppression of women treat women with such contempt?

And this is why the law is wrong. Not so much that it is racist (because it is, as well). But because it is not women who should be judged and punished for being the visual symbol of a patriarchal culture.

Will banning the burqa change this culture? Of course not. It might even make it worse. Imagine a husband who keeps his wife indoors, allowing her out only with his permission, and only then in her ‘protective’ covering (because he claims that other men will desire her if she is uncovered). If she goes out without the burqa – law or not – he may beat her.

This is the culture that that needs to change. The culture that conditions men and women to believe that women are objects for the home, to have children and not a career, and to be objects of desire and display, and therefore covered up and restricted.

The law only reinforces this, condemning women further on how they look and what they dress in. Feminism is not about telling women what they should and should not wear.

It’s reminiscent of any law that victimises women who work as prostitutes. A woman who has been trafficked or coerced is not at fault. A woman who has not been coerced and may claim to have chosen this work is nonetheless a consequence of a society that views women as sexual objects to be used by men much more than the other way round.

The burqa ban is another example of women being blamed for an inequality between the sexes – and another example of society blaming the victims and not the cause.

This rap song is progressive

2011-04-03T11:32:00.001+01:00

the fascists are some heavy dudes
they don't really give a damn about life
they just don't want a woman to
control her body or have the right to choose
but baby that ain't nothin
they just want a male finger on the button
because if you say war they will send them to die by the score

Read the lyrics here. Thanks to Athos for bringing my attention to this (and reciting it).

Thousands marching say: cuts are unjust and unnecessary

2011-03-27T23:16:00.000+01:00

I was proud to march alongside Harriet Harman (centre, green jacket, purple scarf), Fiona Mactaggart (right, glasses), Yvette Cooper and other MPs and shadow ministers in the women's bloc, protesting against the coalition's cuts which disporportionately affect women.

As hundreds of women in the 'women's bloc' set off towards Embankment to begin the protest yesterday, I said to Fiona Mactaggart MP that it was my first march.

She told me she’s been marching for a long time. I asked her if she thought this one would make a difference.

In her characteristically determined way, just as she asked us if we were ‘prepared to take the shit’ and recommended we ‘work harder than everybody else’ at the Inspiring Leaders event that I organised in November, she said: "Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t. So it’s worth going on as many as possible."

And yesterday, I think many other first-time marchers adopted this contagious persistence. We were marching in our thousands, in a peaceful yet stalwart demonstration of our belief that the coalition’s cuts are neither just nor inevitable.

After I’d finished marching, and enjoying continued solidarity with my fellow marchers and the samba and speeches in Hyde Park, I was surprised to see the Tweets coming through, and the building media coverage of violence, trouble-makers and riots. In a march of half a million people, there was a very small proportion of violent protesters, and yet this was the focus of the right-wing press.

Other bloggers have written about this comprehensively: Latte Labour (who writes: “The digital right, a perpetually angry and almost entirely male phenomenon, motivated by a sub-GCSE understanding of economics married to a vague egotistic outlook on the world, were riled”), Lasophielle and Harpy Marx, for example.

The violence was minimal – don’t let anyone persuade you otherwise. The atmosphere of the march was exuberant and positive. I marched with friends, I made new friends and I felt the solidarity. I already knew the coalition's cuts were unpopular - the march confirmed that people are willing to speak up, join in and not accept what's not wanted.

Labour party: take note and capitalise on this. People are ready to fight.

Thatcher and Cameron join the crowd and cause a laugh

An anti-cuts tank makes its way though the protest, amid cheering and smiles

I'm gonna be an engineer, by Peggy Seeger

2011-03-14T18:48:00.000Z

"No, you only need to learn to be a lady
The duty isn't yours, for to try to run the world
An engineer could never have a baby
Remember, dear, that you're a girl"

"What price - for a woman
You can buy her for a ring of gold
To love and obey (without any pay)
You get a cook and a nurse, for better or worse"

"You've got one fault, you're a woman
You're not worth the equal pay
A bitch or a tart, you're nothing but heart
Shallow and vain, you got no brain"

Words and music by Peggy Seeger. I think she forgets some of the words in this, so see the Frankie Armstrong version for the rest!

Labour's International Women's Day: Women in men's spaces

2011-03-06T11:34:00.001Z

The men’s toilets were temporarily women’s yesterday in the Emmanuel centre in Westminster – not intentionally symbolic, I’m sure. But I did smile when I saw the paper sign ‘Ladies’ stuck over the permanent ‘Men’ sign.

(For centuries, women were not allowed in the House of Commons, and so there were no women’s toilets. When women were allowed to be Members of Parliament, there were two sets of toilets: toilets for ‘Members’ and toilets for ‘Women’.)

Yesterday’s event was the 100th anniversary of International Women’s Day celebrations for the Labour party – an all-day conference which brought together Labour party members, supporters, trade unionists and politicians.

The most inspiring and insightful speeches came from Harriet Harman, who urged women 'to be the engine of their own advance', Frances O’Grady (Deputy General Secretary of the TUC) and Yvette Cooper.

Kate Green MP was also wonderfully coherent, intelligent and memorable, providing the clearest explanation I have yet heard as to why the coalition’s cuts are unfair to women. Nan Sloane, from the Centre for Women and Democracy, also gave an interesting account on how countries compare regarding women in politics.

Ed Miliband was the only man to speak to us. It must have been an odd experience for him, and he seemed a little unnerved.

The only other men in the room were all the photographers and the sound technician – an oversight on behalf of the organisers; they should have tried to find women for those roles.

One thing I did wonder: where did Ed and the photographers go to the toilet?

Tokenism good, sexism bad

2011-02-27T10:59:00.001Z

Today in the Observer, there is an excellent article by Barbara Ellen on the report by Lord Davies which recommends that UK listed companies in the FTSE 100 should be aiming for a minimum of 25 per cent female board member representation by 2015.

All at once, there is a flurry of dissent, even from women, opposing the concept of 'tokenism'.

So, in this blog post, I consider tokenism.

There is nothing wrong with tokenism, when we consider the context. The context is a history of men dominating boards; men shutting out women. It would be naive to assume that just because rules have changed and women are allowed to be on boards, women will flock there in equal numbers. It's a huge cultural shift - women are fighting against external expectations, discrimination and judgements (often subconscious), their internal expectations (women are brought up to be more 'passive' and give way to men) and practicalities - the childcare issue. As Lord Davies's report states, at the current rate of change it will take over 70 years to achieve gender-balanced boardrooms in the UK. This is how long a cultural shift will take, because all these barriers need to dissolve. Very difficult. To accelerate it, we need to give women a boost, and this is what the new targets (and quotas, in other countries) aim to achieve.

Why is it beneficial to have a gender balance? Lord Davies sets out the reasons in the report - more diversity, better representation of people and a better democracy. It's the same argument for better representation in Parliament (only 22% are women); without the diversity, decisions made are small-minded and do not consider the needs and rights of the population as a whole.

Back to boards, I have heard the argument that if companies saw an economic benefit in recruiting more women to their boards, they would do it. It's not so simple. It's difficult to change the status quo; to start a cultural shift and to push against habit. This is human nature. There's resistance to any kind of change. Same applies to ethnic minority groups and people of different class. It's just not what what the companies are used to, so they resist it. So I welcome external targets on companies. I think it is the only intervention that will work - not only make the companies' performance better, but improve society as a whole and ensure that everyone, truly, has equal rights and opportunities.

A final note on tokenism:
Just because a woman is on a board when the targets or quotas are in place, it doesn't mean she is any less good than the men, or that she got there purely because of tokenism. For this to be the case, there has to be an assumption that the the women who are on the boards now (a very small proportion) accurately represent the proportion of 'high-calibre' women lower down in the company and in society in general. Likewise, there has to be an assumption that the high proportion of men accurately represents the proportion of 'high-calibre' men. But we know this is not true - there is no scientific consensus that men are better leaders or more intelligent than women.

So the explanation for the disparity must be due to other factors - highlighted in bold text above. If we could somehow knock these barriers down, the pool of high-calibre women would be freer to rise to the top. Having a quota or target forces companies and individuals (men and women) to think in a different way, therefore starts the process of knocking down the barriers and changing the culture and habit. Women suddenly have role models and men get used to having women around, being the bosses.

The talent and capability among women has always been there and always will be. It is society's barriers that stop them reaching the top.

Another sexist football-related advert

2011-02-21T15:52:00.000Z

From the Evening Standard to a tube station... Sexist, gender-stereotyping adverts are everywhere.

What is wrong with this picture?*

2011-02-13T23:02:00.000Z

Source: Evening Standard, Sony Ericsson advert for football goal-tracking mobile phone application

*Clue: see blog post label below

What do you think of this man?

2011-02-08T07:47:00.001Z

Scroll to my questions (in bold) to Manoj below...

Source: Evening Standard 18 Jan 2011, shortly after Clegg's announcement of his intention to extend paternity leave.

Manoj talks about work and childcare and says:

"I think my wife would have got sick of me being around the house if I'd had any more time off. And after two weeks I was really missing work."

What about his wife? Does she have an opinion?

"My wife worked in banking but since our son was born...she has been a housewife and hasn't worked now for three years."

And...does his wife mind?

"I couldn't imagine not working for months on end. I would be afraid of losing skills and the firm racing on ahead without me."

And...his wife? What about her firm and her career?

"I work in a very male-dominated environment and among my colleagues it's the wives who stay at home and look after the children."

Do the wives have any say? Any say at all?

Boys, surgery and sewing

2011-02-02T23:45:00.000Z

My last blog sparked a stream of comments on Facebook.

Picking up on the boys-and-textiles point, a friend of mine went to see a kidney transplant operation; she said the (male) surgeon had better needle-working skills than any textiles needleworker.

So boys will do it if it's in a different context, that's to say, one that is accepted in society as conforming with gender norms.

There are many more men than women at the top of the surgeon profession. Which makes a mockery of the myth that girls and women are more suited to sewing.

Sex and textiles

2011-02-01T23:22:00.000Z

The other day, I met a teacher, who had the following experience:

In his first school, somewhere away from London (it doesn’t matter where), very few boys chose to take textiles and cooking classes, compared with other subjects. The girls took textiles and cooking in much higher numbers.

He moved to an area in north London where there is a large Asian population, and cooking is an important part of the culture at home. There, an equal number of boys as girls chose cooking classes, but they didn’t choose textiles. This is despite a campaign run by the school which depicted men as role models in the textile industry.

This anecdote is consistent with the hypothesis that boys and girls are conditioned at a very young age about what is ‘right’ for their gender, and this is heavily influenced by cultural norms and values.

Tory MP Dominic Raab is right about discrimination against men, but wrong to blame feminists

2011-01-27T22:14:00.021Z

This post is published today on Liberal Conspiracy.

In a sweeping, scathing tirade, Tory MP Dominic Raab this week attacked the ‘obnoxious bigotry’ of feminists.

Feminists are individuals, and don’t all share the same views. But, in general, we aspire to the very opposite of bigotry. Feminists aspire to equality for men and women, which is just what Raab says he wants too.

And this is the interesting point. Raab wants equality. Feminists want equality.

The problem is that Raab is blaming feminists for the discrimination of men. He’s right that it exists, but he’s got the wrong culprit.

Contrary to what Raab claims, feminists, too, want equality in sharing childcare. Hence we welcome Clegg’s announcement to increase paternity leave – a small step in the right direction of shifting the culture so that men can spend more time with their children, and women can do more breadwinning, depending which way you look at it.

Contrary to what Raab claims, feminists, too, don’t buy into the pseudoscience that 'Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus' theory of gender difference. We believe that people are individuals and should be able to make choices in a context free from pressure to conform to defined gender roles.

And this is key: the context that choices are made. Raab complains that feminists deny that women’s choices could be responsible. Not true.

The massive gender pay gap is a good example. There are many contributing factors. Discrimination is but one, which is why pay audits would be a good idea.

Also, as Raab says, women make choices which mean they may earn less. But we must also be aware that if a woman grows up in a society which places certain expectations or judgements on her, she may make choices accordingly.

Raab fails to consider this, and this is his error, because men are also affected. Why is it that there is still a prejudice in society against stay-at-home fathers? Because it is widely assumed that this is the woman’s role. Many men may choose not to stay at home because this is frowned upon by their employers.

If Raab wants equality – which he says he does – he must consider all inequalities and the reasons why they exist. Why are only 12 per cent of top FTSE jobs held by women? Only 22 per cent of politicians female? Why is the majority of sexual violence perpetrated by men?

These inequalities are largely influenced by traditions and what’s expected and tolerated by society. Feminists work to understand and shift that culture.

Bashing of feminists will not achieve anything. It is not only bigoted in itself but it fuels the gender war (which Raab says he wants to eliminate) and is counterproductive in our common goal to achieve equality for all.

Clegg extends paternity leave

2011-01-17T21:20:00.002Z

It’s not often that I applaud Nick Clegg, but he has shown he has a backbone with this one.

Outlining a new scheme, first proposed by the last government, Clegg revealed his plans to press ahead in April with changes to allow couples to share maternity leave.

In the footsteps of progressive countries such as Sweden (see below) and Iceland, the British father will be able to take up any remaining unpaid leave if his partner goes back to work early.

Note unpaid. Thanks @dustsister for pointing that out. We still have a long way to go.

Ed Miliband today: optimism and a big vision

2011-01-15T21:03:00.005Z

The Fabian’s New Year conference today, ‘What’s the alternative?’, was aptly named. Here’s a great opportunity; the Coalition’s cuts are unpopular and unfair and Labour’s values have always been fairness, compassion and equality.

And indeed, Ed Miliband, buoyant from Friday’s Oldham victory, mentioned the word ‘optimism’ in his keynote speech more than once. Unscripted. And I felt the optimism - not least in the extended applause - in the audience.

But he has some challenges, as set out on Friday by Sunder Katwala, General Secretary of the Fabian Society, who introduced Ed today. Sunder wrote: "The most daunting challenges for the Labour leader are to restore the party's economic reputation, and forge a new political economy.”

Ed Miliband used a large part of his speech to be critical of Labour of times past, and said, quite rightly: “We have to show that we have learnt lessons if the British people are to trust us again.”

Equally, that people want change. That people do recognise that the drastic cuts are regressive and affect poorer people more than rich people; that the cuts affect women more than men - stalling any progress towards equality (which I wrote about here).

But my concern is exactly how he sees this change happening, a point also noted by Mark Ferguson on Labourlist. Perhaps now that he has Maurice Glasman, who pioneered London Citizens, to advise him, Ed's thinking will become clearer.

Before the leadership election, David Miliband had a vision and knew how he might achieve it. And indeed, one of the soundbites I heard David deliver last year was: “Leadership without values is just management; values without leadership are just dreams.”

Although Ed reportedly wants to distance himself from David's ideas, he is big on vision and thinks Labour must "show we can build a fair economy, with wealth creation and social justice for all at its heart". He also recognises that we need strong, focused values: "We became too technocratic and managerial."

And even notes that it’s time to engage the community: "The only way we rebuild the case for politics is from the ground up... It's our duty to work with progressives everywhere [including Lib Dems]."

But does he have a clear and focused strategy to make this happen? Maybe I'm being impatient - but I think it's never to early to have a plan. If there is one, I want to hear it.

The Next Left blog cited Delilah in its round up of the conference.

Toilet story tops Delilah’s blog year

2011-01-05T06:38:00.002Z

Top Delilah stories (most looked-at) of 2010:

1. If women go to the toilet like men, can we achieve equality?

2. Feminists can be sexist too

3. How to be a leader: “Work harder than everybody else"

4. Porn is consumed as much as coffee

5. Why aren’t there more women at the top?

Most used search engine term used to find my blog: Delilah blog

Funniest search engine term that led to my blog: Do women read on the toilet

Readers, you are obsessed with toilets!

It’s my first year anniversary today

2011-01-03T22:34:00.006Z

Happy New Year.

I’ve been writing this blog for a year (see first blog post here) and it’s been a fascinating experience. I started it, I think, because I had some things to say. I decided that instead of (or as well as) bothering people I meet with my unusual and controversial opinions, I would create a few ripples in cyberspace.

But I didn’t really think much beyond that. I did worry a bit about cyber-abuse – which feminist bloggers reportedly receive more than any other type of blogger – but I took a deep breath and decided to do it anyway.

I did receive cyber-abuse, which I suppose is a sign I’m being noticed. But I got a lot of positive feedback too. What I’ve found is that the blog has been much more than an opportunity to channel my thoughts across the virtual ocean. It’s been a doorway into the feminist movement and into the world of politics. It’s helped me to develop my own understanding of the issues.

Most of all it is has allowed me to interact with the outside world – with you, the readers. And from the readers I have learned the most. I’ve had heated and controversial debates on this blog, on facebook and twitter. The discussions have extended beyond social media to face-to-face debates, with family, friends and people who I have never met.

Here are a few of the comments I’ve received:

“Thank goodness for your blog…What a relief to think there's another view and a place to talk about it…I am going to start looking at feminism a little more closely.”

“Fantastic blog!”

“I am enjoying reading the topics you raise and of course your commentary, and to be honest had never really spent a lot of time thinking about the greater feminist issues, even though we encounter it all the time. I will keep following!”

“I’m enjoying reading your blog, which is both topical and thought-provoking.”

“Your blog on female bosses sparked a ten-minute controversial discussion in our office!”

And some of the less flattering ones:

“All this stereotyping analysis is 1970s GCSE feminism, surely you can do better than this!”

“Actually Delilah, I think you would be a really good lap dancer yourself (please take it as a compliment).”

“Beware of anger - it's less responsible for positive change than you think. Inequality is a reason to desire change in the world; anger is not.”

“Why do you bother with feminism Delilah? You're fighting a losing battle.”

“I've a lot of sympathy for feminists, as I do with socialists. Both lose my sympathy because they never stop talking.”

Thanks for all your kind, and not so kind, comments. Thanks for noticing me, thanks for reading, for supporting me, and acknowledging me, and making this all worthwhile. I have been assured that receiving hostility is a sign that I’m doing something worthwhile.

Delilah has transformed as well. She started off as a name a character from the bible. Over the year, Delilah has acquired a new face, introduced a comment policy to deal with unwanted guests, been on the radio, written many guest blog posts and been cited in the New Statesman. She has honed her opinions, changed her mind about opinions and has (I hope) become more knowledgable, if not a little bit wiser.

She has also become a character in the novel I’m writing. Delilah MJ (Morton Jones) is the cousin of the main character. She emerges when the main character, Jemima, is in need of some moral support because her life’s in a mess – she has been involved in a high-profile scandal and castigated by the media, has lost her job and fallen out with her family. Delilah, a strong-willed woman (and a feminist) who has had her own problems, helps Jemima get back on her feet.

Happy birthday Delilah! Very honoured that Latte Labour has blogged a celebratory post dedicated to Delilah. Check it out.

The danger of assuming that men and women are different

2010-12-31T07:30:00.003Z

The other day, I saw the film of a brilliant play, ‘12 Angry Men’ by Reginald Rose, which is about a 12-man jury deciding the fate of a teenage boy from a city slum who has been accused of murder. Setting aside the dire sexism of the play (an all-male jury; it was made in 1957), it is a wonderful portrayal of human nature, leaders and followers. Over the course of the play, one member of the jury (Henry Fonda) convinces all the others, one by one, that they shouldn’t automatically assume the defendant is guilty. He unpicks every piece of apparent evidence, revealing it to be unreliable, while exposing the prejudices of the jury which underlie their assumptions.

Why is this relevant? After I watched it, I thought about the issue of the science of male and female human brains. Since time began, people have assumed that men and women are fundamentally different (not only physically and hormonally, but behaviourally as well).

For example, in the late 19th century, Henry Maudsley, eminent psychiatrist, said that “a woman does not easily regain the vital energy that was recklessly spent on learning”.

This assumption, which persists over time, has led to, reinforced and backed up stereotyping of male and female roles in society; for example, women are better suited to caring and empathetic roles, such as nursing; men are more suited to competitive and leadership roles, such as business leaders and politicians.

At a closer look at the scientific evidence, we find a different story. Although there are some studies that show there may be differences, there is no general consensus – and I wrote about here when the magazine Scientific American devoted a whole issue to the subject earlier this year. There are some excellent books written about this; Professor Deborah Cameron’s and Cordelia Fine’s – published just a few months ago.

Professor Cameron was a speaker at our Inspiring Leaders event in November (podcast here) and also at a fascinating controversial debate at King’s Place in London, which is podcasted by the Guardian here.

No one disputes the obvious biological differences. What are under dispute are higher cognitive differences. Some scientists do claim to have found differences but many scientists have found none. My concern about assuming that there are differences in cognitive abilities before they are actually agreed on is that this automatically leads to different treatment and expectations in society. For example, if women are assumed to be less good at maths, they will perform worse, and this negative effect of stereotyping has been demonstrated by researchers.

The scientists, such as Simon Baron Cohen, who do claim to have found differences have conducted many of their experiments on adults. In these cases, I would argue that we cannot rule out the possibility of the brain adapting over time and developing skills that are practised (and men will practise certain skills more, because that’s what’s expected of them).

Other scientists assume that, because differences have been shown to exist in animals, humans must therefore have them too. Navigational skills differences, for example, do indeed exist in animals. However, what has also been found is that the brain difference between males and females is proportional to the difference in size of territory or habitat. Therefore, in species where the male roams around alone and the female stays in a tight space, males are better at navigation. The brains are said to be ‘plastic’ and adapt over time to suit their tasks and lifestyles.

This plasticity has been shown in taxi drivers; they have a larger hippocampus - the part of the brain associated with navigation in birds and animals - compared with other people. The hippocampus grows larger as the taxi drivers spend more time in the job.

What if all gender differences in cognitive skills, in both animals and humans, are plastic? What if boys end up doing maths and engineering, climbing trees and the echelons of society, because that’s what society expects them to do? What if women fall into domestic roles because of all those toy tea sets and pretty pink dresses? And what if, when scientists try to test these 'natural tendencies', the results are influenced by not only the scientists' preconceptions but also those of the test subjects?

The argument against this stance – and I have begun to discuss with my neuroscientist friends – is the warning not to fall into what is known as the ‘Naturalistic Fallacy’ trap, which is to assume that anything other than biological equality (at a cognitive level) is bad, and that we should be thinking of positive ways to deal with the inequalities rather than insist they do not exist. I would argue back that I do not insist they do not exist – I have just not seen enough evidence to show that they do exist. And I’m concerned about thinking about ways to deal with differences (because this leads to discrimination), before they have actually been agreed on.

So I'm looking for more evidence, and very interested if anyone wants to discuss this with me. Until we have a consensus, I think it may be very dangerous to make assumptions.

Inspired Leaders: reflections and contemplations

2010-12-23T10:37:00.001Z

When Caroline and I sat down and thought about what we wanted for our ‘Inspiring Leaders’ event last month, we were faced with a conundrum.

Camden Speakers Club, which I run, is for women and men, and helps members develop their public speaking skills. Progressive Women is aimed at women who want to network with other women who are interested in politics and the economy.

How would we marry up?

We decided we would hold an event for women and men on leadership, so that anyone could benefit. And there would be discussions about why there aren’t enough female leaders in all spheres of life – because this is very relevant to leadership issues in general. And, as a bonus, all the speakers and trainers would be female.

After all, most events feature mainly men, and the majority of society’s leaders are men, so it’s about time to turn the tables.

Our decision felt right, but seemed as though we were venturing into new territory. It was risky; bringing together different groups: from the feminism movement, the speakers club crowd and other interested people. These groups don’t often mix. Would it work?

This, perhaps, was why it did work. The event allowed discussions – about the barriers to women as well as issues of leadership that affect everyone – to come out into the open. As well as – thanks to our wonderful speakers and trainers – stimulating sessions and conversations which helped people to think about how they could develop their skills to become better leaders.

We were overjoyed to receive excellent feedback. Many people said they were inspired, and learned something, and want to do more.

Personally, I was more inspired than I could ever have imagined. And, as some people have asked me what my own thoughts were on event, I thought I would write some of them here.

Organising an event is an intense experience. Often there is so much happening and so many practical details that there isn’t much time for wallowing in the meaning of it all.

On the other hand, the meaning is the reason it’s being done in the first place. It’s the vision. And, during the run up to Inspiring Leaders, every now and then something happened which resonated with the vision, and made it all very real and worthwhile.

The first notable moment for me was when we asked attendees to fill out their choices for the training sessions. When it was all filled out, I saw the doodle poll in full – a mass of coloured boxes on the screen. At once, I realised that this was about people choosing to come to our event; people wanting to benefit from the wonderful top class trainers who were giving up their time and expertise for free.

I realised that people were coming.

A few days before the event, there was another high moment. The event was completely sold out and the tweets were rushing in.

“Can’t get to #InspiringLeaders, really disappointed. Will book earlier next year,” one said. Next year? That person had the idea before we did.

The third euphoric moment was during the event itself. In the first panel session, I sat in the front row and listened to the brilliant speakers talking about working harder than everyone else, having passion and sticking to values and being terrified. And taking the shit – but doing it anyway.

It was such a beautiful and powerful truth, so honest and simple. It humbled me too. The speakers – regardless of their prestigiousness – made us all feel as though we are all on a similar journey, whether we are aiming to be in politics, pursue other artistic or professional goals, or simply to inspire and motivate others.

And that’s what hit me most. The truth of leadership. That we just need to keep on going; work hard, keep at it, deal with the shit.

That leadership is about being genuine.

That leadership is about passion.

That leadership is about being supportive to others, and recognising that others support us.

That there will always be barriers, but the key is finding a way over them. We have to take risks, knowing there will be a struggle.

That I have learned how to deal with some shit, but there are some barriers I may be still using as an excuse not to do things.

That this, in itself, can be my biggest barrier.

I want to do more of this; get these debates out into the open. I believe this an important part of starting to think about and plan change. Awareness of issues, acknowledgement of problems and sharing of ideas.

And I want to do other things, which is perhaps a subject for another blog post.

What I learned from the event is that I just have to get on and do them.

After a wrote a draft of this post, I saw that Kristie West, trainer at the Inspiring Leaders event, had written an article on a similar topic. She blogs over here. Progressive Women is holding an event in January on New Year's Resolutions. See here.

Cuts protest and equality out in the cold

2010-12-10T19:17:00.001Z

It's been a week of protests; some violent, some peaceful. A few days before student riots took over the headlines, on Monday, a relatively quiet and well-behaved group of people stood outside the High Court in sub-zero temperatures. I was there, joining the protest against the Coalition’s cuts which disproportionately affect women.

The government's budget contains nearly £8bn worth of cuts to tax and welfare; an estimated 70% will come from women.

The Fawcett Society, which campaigns for gender equality in the UK, had sought a judicial review of the budget. The court ruled a rejection. However, the government has admitted that it forgot its legal duty to consider whether cuts would disproportionately affect certain groups and the Treasury was unable to provide any evidence that it had carried out an equalities impact assessment.

Families with children will bear the brunt of privatisation and cuts. We already live in an unequal society – this budget is regressive.

The cuts will severely hold back progress towards equality, and I think this is the real concern.

"One, two, three, four… tax the rich, not the poor
Five, six, seven, eight… women’s rights just won’t wait"

My concern: slower journey towards equality
Note: In the text that follows, I refer to majorities; my statements are therefore referring to averages and general outcomes, not individual cases.

The majority of carers – of children and elderly people – are female. Two thirds of public sector workers are female. The reasons for this are this are manifold and complex, but two main ones are:

Women have children and working conditions are still not fair enough to allow them to have the same opportunities of men who have children (because they do not physically bear them). The public sector offers better conditions for those who have caring commitments (eg fewer working hours expected).
Women and men are brought up to believe they are suited to different types of jobs; ie women are more suited to caring jobs. There is, as yet - as far as I can tell - no conclusive evidence that women are born with this tendency.

Because of the inequality, cuts to the public sector and services will affect women more. These cuts will generally affect only women and their children – not men, who are, in most cases, the main earners.

(In contrast, imagine if there were vast cuts to the private sector. The majority of workers are men, but their whole families would be affected, as most are breadwinners.)

In an ideal world, men and women would be free to work in the public or private sector – it would be their choice. Women wouldn’t be constrained by care commitments, as the sexes would share them equally. People wouldn’t be controlled by stereotypes, which dictate their supposed suitability for one type of job or another.

In this ideal world, these drastic cuts to the public sector would (although, I believe wrong for other reasons), not be so devastating to equality.

As it is, the greater effect on women means that they will be even more dependent on men, less likely to work, more likely to care for children and relatives and less likely to escape from violent relationships.

So, as it is, our hope of achieving an equal society is very much hampered by the unequal cuts.

Porn is consumed as much as coffee

2010-12-05T21:48:00.000Z

The world porn market is nearly $100 billion. No wonder it’s so hard to fight against. There are a large number of people making a large amount of money from the use and abuse of women purely for the pleasure of men (mainly). It’s one of the world’s biggest inequalities.

To put this amount into perspective, global markets of cannabis and coffee are each about $100 billion.

This is a sixth the size of the world tobacco market, and an eighth the size of the pharmaceutical market.

And this is three times the size of the world markets for alternative medicine and video games, which is equal to the revenue of the Catholic Church.

Source: Wellcome Trust ‘High Society’ exhibition

Icon frenzy

2010-11-29T19:00:00.001Z

Today I launch a new Delilah icon. It was a very difficult choice.

What does Delilah look like?

With the help of my good friend and brilliant designer Lou Dunn, who has her website over at http://www.loudunn.com, and other kind friends and family who have offered their opinions, I have come up with this one.

Hope you like it. Let me know what you think.

This icon is also on a new Delilah page on facebook, waiting to be liked!

Radio interview: Delilah talks about strip clubs

2010-11-20T15:53:00.007Z

Listen to the clip (at 16:38) here.

The existence of strip clubs – women working as sexual objects for the pleasure of men – represents a fundamental inequality between the sexes, which is neither necessary nor inevitable.

It’s an inequality to worry about, because women who work in these clubs are often subject to abuse and humiliation, are paid a pittance, and often led to believe, wrongly, that the work will be glamorous.

Men do not need to use women in this way, but do so because society deems it acceptable.

Click here to hear Allis Moss, journalist and broadcaster, interviewing me on Network Europe radio about strip clubs and the new law which allows local councils in England and Wales to ban clubs from opening.

The clip’s at 16:38: I'm at 17:12 and 20:23.

I wrote about the new law here, the result of a brave two-year fight by the campaigning organisations Fawcett and Object.

Inspiring Leaders: Overcoming challenges of leadership

2010-11-14T14:55:00.007Z

The second panel discussion at the Inspiring Leaders event on Saturday 6 November was: ‘Overcoming challenges of leadership’: Deborah Cameron
(Professor of Language and Communication, Oxford), Boni Sones
(Executive Producer of Women's Parliamentary Radio), Vicky Booth
(Diversity Officer for the Liberal Democrats)

Chair: Laura Nelson

Inspiring Leaders: The route to leadership

2010-11-14T14:54:00.003Z

The first panel discussion at the Inspiring Leaders event on Saturday 6 November was:
‘The route to leadership’: Fiona Mactaggart MP (Shadow Junior Minister for Equality), Louise Doughty (novelist), Kathryn Perera, (barrister, writer and Labour Women’s Network), Lee Chalmers (leadership coach)

Chair: Caroline Watson

How to be a leader: “Work harder than everybody else”

2010-11-07T16:57:00.030Z

"Are you prepared to take the shit?" asked Fiona Mactaggart MP, Shadow Junior Minister for Equality and keynote speaker at our Inspiring Leaders event – a packed, over-subscribed day of discussion panels and training sessions (three running in the morning, three in the afternoon) – yesterday.

Fiona’s keynote speech began the day, which was organised by Camden Speakers Club and Progressive Women, with her tips on how be a leader (see quotes below).

We are extremely grateful to all the speakers and trainers (all listed here), and the volunteers who gave up their time and expertise to make it an inspiring, enjoyable and educational day.

Thanks for all your Tweets too!

Read Emma-Louise Hardman's guest post on the Progressive Women website here. And a piece from Kathryn Perera, who spoke at the event, on her Sheblogs website here.

See photos from the day, taken by Kirsty McCall Thornley.

Listen to podcasts of the discussions on the route to leadership and overcoming the challenges of leadership.

Inspiring ideas

Fiona Mactaggart, MP, Shadow Junior Minister for Equality: "Base everything on your values. Work harder than everybody else. Help other women."

Lee Chalmers, leadership coach, who also delivered a workshop on leadership: "Be authentic and know who you are. Whatever you lead, you have to do it first.”

Louise Doughty, novelist: "Tell the truth. Develop a hide as thick as a rhino, which is good for you – shows you how hard you have to fight. Have fear, but do it anyway."

Kathryn Perera, Labour Women's Network, barrister and writer: "To be a leader, you have embrace feelings [about things being tough]. Self-doubt is important; all leaders feel self-doubt.”

Deborah Cameron, Oxford University linguist and author of the book ‘The Myth Of Mars And Venus: Do Men and Women Really Speak Different Languages?’: "We have to challenge the myths [of gender differences, for which there is no scientific evidence]. Challenge them in everyday life. The truth is, no one is good at multi-tasking!"

Vicky Booth, Lib Dem Campaign for Gender Balance: "As a woman, you have to deal with perceptions [prejudices] that people have of you."

Boni Sones, Executive Producer, Women’s Parliamentary Radio: "My motivation as a leader is Henry Moore. He said: 'I kept going and the others dropped out.'"

The training sessions were as follows: Ellie Cumbo (debating), Gilly Hollis (public speaking), Pia Henderson and Nicola Preston Bell (communication and confidence), Lee Chalmers (leadership), Christine Kerrison (assertiveness) and Kristie West (empowerment).

Three tips for public speaking from Gilly Hollis (via Inspiring Leaders delegate Athos Athanasiou):

Audience: understand who they are
Rehearse: no actor will go on stage without a good rehearsal
Talk: the best speakers just talk to the audience...and answer questions in the same tone.

Would women go to Hampstead Heath for sex?

2010-10-31T22:24:00.000Z

Stephen Fry has claimed that straight women only go to bed with men "because sex is the price they are willing to pay for a relationship".

He is quoted in the Guardian today: "If women liked sex as much as men, there would be straight cruising areas in the way there are gay cruising areas.”

Of course this is rubbish, as Rosie Boycott (what a wonderful name for a feminist!), said:

“Women are just as capable as men are of enjoying sex. We don't go cruising or cottaging on Hampstead Heath because we don't need to. Cottaging on Hampstead Heath is presumably a hangover from the days when, sadly, [homosexuality] was illegal…”

However, I would add to – or rather amend – Rosie’s argument.

Women do not ‘need to’ any more or any less than men do. Women do not enjoy sex any less or more than men. We are all individuals. There is no scientific evidence to show that there is a gender difference in enjoyment or need.

This is not about enjoyment or need; it is about power and tradition.

Women do not go cottaging for men on Hampstead Heath because:

Women fear physical violence (a way that some men control women; it rarely happens the other way round).
There are few men willing put themselves in the vulnerable position of allowing women to completely dominate them sexually; in other words, the men just wouldn’t be there waiting on the heath.
Women’s enjoyment of sex has traditionally been a taboo; women have not been vocal about it and have been condemned (called a slut, for example) if they have. Women have also traditionally been kept strictly inside the home; so there is no history of their venturing out to the heath.

A gathering of a thousand feminists

2010-10-26T06:52:00.001+01:00

Where do feminists go at weekends? We get together to share ideas, be inspired and plan what needs to be done. Read this guest post – by Lucy James, a member of Progressive Women, which is a co-organiser with Delilah for the Inspiring Leaders event next month – to find out more.

Last Saturday saw the Feminism in London annual conference. Held in Friends’ House, Euston, rather than the smaller Conway Hall down the road (last year’s venue), the organisers took the risk that the reported surge in the popularity of the feminist movement would translate into greater numbers on the day.

They weren’t wrong. Over a thousand women (and men) filled the main hall for the opening session, overflowing from the stalls into the balconies above. The age range was also encouraging – from seasoned second wave feminists to teenagers and everything in between.

The conference was addressed by leading contemporary feminist activists including Ceri Goddard (Fawcett Society), Helena Kennedy (leading barrister), Rahila Gupta (Southall Black Sisters), Natasha Walter (author of Living Dolls) and Finn Mackay (London Feminist Network).

The day itself covered a range of themes of concern to contemporary feminists including pornography, parenting, reproductive health, violence against women and, more widely, the global feminist movement. However, there were several recurring, more general themes of the day that dominated the overall agenda and are worth pointing out here.

The first theme to arise was the recession and the ensuing budget cuts that, having been announced by the coalition government several days earlier, were bound to dominate discussions. All too often, the audience was told, the impact of economic policy on gender equality is overlooked by feminists. The current cuts that the UK is facing will have a potentially disastrous impact, forcing the drive for women’s equality drastically backwards. It is generally recognised that the cuts in public sector jobs and benefits will impact upon women more heavily than men. In addition, as public services increasingly become private responsibility, the government seeks to rely on an army of volunteers. This burden will, more often than not, fall on women.

The second (and related) theme was the argument, made by several speakers, that located these budget cuts as part of an overall ‘ideological drive’ by the coalition government. According to this argument, Conservatives traditionally see a woman’s role to be in the domestic sphere. These speakers provided practical examples of the impact of this ideology on public policy. For example, whilst making drastic cuts to child benefits, the coalition is finding £550 million to provide tax breaks for married couples. Other examples included the dire representation of women in the current government (19 out of 23 cabinet ministers are men) and the coalition government’s failure to run a gender impact assessment before implementing the latest budget cuts (for which the Fawcett Society are now taking them to court). Whether or not this is truly part of an ‘ideological drive’, it is hard to negate the impact such factors will have on gender equality.

The final theme was perhaps the most urgent: where next? We were told how inequality was due to become further entrenched as cuts were made and the drive for social change was enforced. Despite the current surge in popularity of the feminist movement, there still seems to be relative inactivity. For example, the feminist movement has already been criticised internally for the lack of any coordinated response to the impact of the impending cuts. At the conference, Goddard said that rather than ‘think’ and ‘respond’ to the budget cuts, the feminist movement ‘retrenched’.

Whilst I left the conference with confidence in the popularity of contemporary feminism and that I was ‘not alone’, I felt an underlying sense of disunity and inaction. In part I feel, due to the wealth of inequalities still faced by women, there is no single glaring injustice to rally around that will unite us as a movement. As such, feminists are perhaps lacking consensus about the direction in which we need to move.

That said, there is much to be positive about. There were high numbers in attendance, and the movement has both the experience of seasoned members and the enthusiasm of younger members. But decisions desperately need to be made and a direction urgently needs to be decided in order that the feminist movement can proactively harness the current levels of popular support and translate them into positive action.

Breast cancer facebook campaign is tedious and sexist

2010-10-17T21:15:00.000+01:00

A global campaign is making its way around facebook status updates. It’s designed to raise awareness of breast cancer – but does little more than reinforce the belief that women are sexually available objects.

With the intention of both excluding and…well…‘tit’-illating men, women are choosing to declare where they ‘like it’, such as “I like it on the couch…” or “I like it on the floor…”.

But the meaning is not what it seems. Women are apparently referring to where they keep their purses. According to the facebook message, this enigma is meant to keep men guessing and to show men how ‘powerful’ women really are.

Breast cancer is a serious disease. It is the most common cancer in the UK (in the UK in 2007 almost 45,700 women were diagnosed with breast cancer; that’s around 125 women a day) and, worldwide, it accounts for a quarter of all female cancer cases.

Raising awareness of breast cancer is of course a good thing – but this campaign – like the previous one which involved women posting the colour of their bras on facebook (as written about by Laurie Penny in the New Statesman) – is flawed because:

1) A campaign created to sexually excite men detracts from and trivialises the real issue.
2) Even if it did work – raising awareness of an issue should not be done at the expense of women as people. Women are not objects that exist to sexually arouse men.
3) It reinforces an inequality between men and women. Men would never advertise themselves as sexually available in such a widespread way because society does not see them in that way – men talking about their pants would just be humorous or ridiculous, for example.
4) Claiming this campaign is ‘powerful’ for women is a fallacy. Power is running the country, our businesses and other organisations, and men do that (78 percent of UK parliamentarians are male and, of 329 executive directors in UK business, only 20 are women.)
5) Excluding men won’t do any good – after all they have the power, which includes the power to do something about breast cancer research. Women represent less than a sixth of of science, engineering and technology professionals in the UK.

Gender pay gap widens

2010-10-11T21:51:00.000+01:00

Here’s Kathryn Perera, who is speaking at the Inspiring Leaders event on Saturday 6 November, discussing the gender pay gap on Channel 4 news. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) found that moves toward achieving equal pay between men and women were ‘grinding to a halt’ due to long-standing inequalities.

According to the report, women on average earn 16 per cent less than men, widening to 27 per cent for women aged 40.

Today, I met a Swedish woman, Carolina Lindahl, who said she was surprised when she came to the UK to live.

In Sweden, she said, people take it for granted that Parliament is 50:50 men and women, and that both sexes share the housework and childcare.

Despite this, the pay gap per hour worked is large at 18 per cent, perhaps because many women work part time and this work is not valued as much as men's.

If women go to the toilet like men, can we achieve equality?

2010-10-05T22:30:00.002+01:00

The ‘she wee’ is a device that allows a woman to pee like a man – standing up and via an plastic tube.

It has already been successful at festivals and it accompanied one of my female companions on my recent two-week trekking trip in the Moroccan mountains (see photo).

But is it a useless gimmick or the beginning of a feminist revolution?

A male trekker made an interesting comment about the she-wee. When women use them at festivals, he said, they line up at the urinals alongside men, but they ‘do not observe the etiquette’.

What etiquette is that? Apparently, it’s this: there is no looking down at any cost. If there’s any verbal exchange, it’s just a grunt; and much more macho than normal.

Ah! Perhaps the urinal is the tight-knit centre of male dominance. It’s the space for men to assert themselves in their superiority, to club together and reinforce the macho stereotype.

It’s been closed to women for centuries, but now they are forced to let us in!

A bit like Parliament, actually.

Apparently 22 per cent* of people who use urinals are women.

(Yes, I just made that up.)

*Women make up 22 per cent of UK Parliament, and one of the barriers to women, as admitted by politicians themselves, is the ‘macho’ culture.

Brazil update: Dilma likely to be first female president

2010-10-05T08:07:00.000+01:00

Dilma Rousseff is well ahead in Brazil's presidential election.

But she is still 3.6 per cent short of the 50 per cent total which would give her an outright win.

She will have to contest a second round at the end of October against the second-placed candidate, Jose Serra.

If she wins, she will add a bit of colour to this map of elected or appointed female heads of government, which is currently looking very grey.

Yellow: countries (since independence) that have had female heads of government
Dark orange: countries that have had female heads of state, excluding monarchs
Light orange: countries that have had female heads of state and government, excluding monarchs

Women in politics, voices for change

2010-10-03T20:38:00.001+01:00

As the Tory conference kicks off today, my mind is still on the events from last week. A new leader for Labour, and new hope. We must give Ed a chance; I think he may surprise us.

With regret, I missed the Labour conference and its Miliband drama. I missed the fall of one brother and the rise of another. I missed David's expressionless face as he sat and listened to the result he already knew, the betrayal of his anger, and his noble retreat from the front line (although I am the sure he will be back).

But I missed something else too. Beyond the Miliband contest, not so visible to the eye of the media, there was another battle rising. This year, women flocked to the conference and its events in numbers not seen before.

Kathryn Perera, Vice-Chair of Aylesbury Constituency Labour Party and founder of SheBlogs, writes about this buzz on the Labourlist.

She says: “My sense from Conference is that a quiet but important shift is taking place among women within the party. The coalition’s casual attitude to cuts that impact on women has demonstrated what many of us knew already: only through pushing for structural changes at a fundamental level can we hope for lasting benefits.”

A Guardian video feature captures it here, where Labour women speak up about the need for change, the WAG petition (women against George) and the Tories’ unfair budget that hits women three times as much as men.

Watch Ivette Cooper and Harriet Harman talk about their fight for equality – which is only going to get more passionate.

“I don’t know how to give up,” says Harriet. “I don’t like unfairness. I can’t bear prejudice and discrimination and I don’t like the Tories. I am condemned to carry on!”

Woman set to lead Brazil

Today, Brazil begins voting to choose a successor to President Inacio Lula da Silva, with polls suggesting his former chief minister – and a woman – Dilma Rousseff, will sweep the election. Dilma has vowed to maintain the social programmes and the economic growth that has lifted 21 million people out of poverty since 2003.

Meanwhile, female voters in the very poorest parts of the country have been uniting to campaign for change. They want Dilma to hear their voices. They want to see progress. They hope that, with Dilma, they may get it.

Ed to address Shadow Cabinet gender imbalance

2010-09-30T08:08:00.002+01:00

By close of play yesterday, Labour MPs had put their names forward for the Shadow Cabinet.

Out of 49 nominations, there are 14 women, and Rosie Winterton is nominated for chief whip.

Among prominent female MPs standing are Diane Abbott, Yvette Cooper, Caroline Flint and Tessa Jowell, and sisters Angela and Maria Eagle.

According to the Independent yesterday, women are set to make up almost half of Ed Miliband's top team after he privately urged MPs to elect large numbers of female candidates to his Shadow Cabinet.

New Labour rules guarantee that a minimum of six of the 19 elected places will go to women in next week's contest (equivalent to 31.5 per cent of its total membership). But they could gain as many as eight or nine positions following Ed’s intervention.

In his speech to the conference on Tuesday, Ed said: “And think of how we challenged the idea of a male dominated Parliament with All-Women shortlists and made the cause of gender equality central to our government. We were right to do so.”

The influx of so many women into the Shadow Cabinet means that 40 men – including nearly 30 ex-ministers – could be vying for just 10 or 11 places.

Swiss progress

Switzerland's parliament has voted a new minister into the government, giving the cabinet a majority of women for the first time.

In a country where women only got to vote on a national level in 1971, Ms Sommaruga becomes the fourth female in the seven-member Federal Council.

It’s just a shame the BBC reported it was though it was an alien invasion: ‘Women dominate new Swiss cabinet’.

Men have dominated since time began and no one has expressed surprise. Women edge towards equality and the media get in a tizz. If women really dominated, I wouldn’t be writing this blog.

Delilah...

2010-09-12T09:18:00.000+01:00

...is on holiday

Labour will lead for women

2010-09-08T23:51:00.003+01:00

Fabian Women’s Labour leadership hustings

“It’s the famous five of Britain,” said Mary Riddell, columnist and a political interviewer for the Daily Telegraph, and chair of the Fabian Women’s Lead4Women hustings in Westminster this evening.

With just a few weeks to go before the winner is announced, the leadership candidates came together on a panel to tell us what they would do for women.

Mainly focusing on women in parliament – increasing numbers and changing the culture – all five talked about their support of quotas and ideas for helping to encourage more women to enter politics.

Diane said: “In the 1980s, I campaigned for all-women shortlists and we are now ahead of other parties.”

All five have voted to support the call for between 30 and 50% women in the shadow cabinet by 2012. Ed Balls wants to see 40% right now (indeed; why wait?), while being more cautious about the prospect of job shares.

David has a brave and admirable plan to introduce job share into shadow ministerial team.

Job shares will send out the right message to men and women, he said. “We want to be human beings as well as politicians.”

Culture is an important factor which is damaging to female politicians. Andy Burnham said: “We got shortlists, but didn’t change culture.”

(He also said that his wife told him she was put off politics because of the late hours culture, and I wondered why it hasn't occurred to Andy that he should do some of the childcare too, and that's where the culture needs to change.)

So how do the others think culture can be improved? Ed Miliband wants to get rid of factions – the Blairites and the Brownites. Diane wants young women to see women at the top of the party. “We have to smash the notion that it’s only men in suits at the top.”

And she should know.

As the division bell signalled their departure, all the Fabian Women in the audience smiled for the camera, proudly wearing our Labour Lead4Women sashes.

After all the promises we've heard, let’s hope the candidate who wins does that too.

Summing up soundbites (shouted over the 7pm division bell):

Andy: “I want to fight for a different type of Labour party: a fairer spread of health, wealth and life chances.”

Diane: “I have always stood out [on what I believe is right]: ID cards, Iraq. (Pointing to herself.) This is what the future of the Labour party looks like.”

David: “I scare the Tories. I will make us not just an Opposition, but a credible Government too.”

Ed Balls: “I want my daughter to have as many choices as possible.”

Ed Miliband: “We have to change radically.”

The female candidate hasn't lost yet

2010-09-07T21:39:00.001+01:00

Language is damaging.

I read the Times today and thought I was back in the nineteenth century.

In an opinion piece about the Labour leadership line-up, a female journalist (Rachel Sylvester) writes the following:

Whoever wins the leadership risks the fate of William Hague in 1997 – unless he can reach out to normal people.

And

As Labour Party members vote in the leadership contest, are they choosing a future Prime Minister or a man who will only ever be leader of the Opposition? It's too early to write off the next Labour leader - whoever he is - just yet.

May I remind Rachel Sylvester that we have one female candidate and she hasn’t lost yet.

Throughout history, society has assumed that leaders would be male, and they have been. Now, we have potential female leaders, but they are treated as invisible.

Ironically, it is this 'invisible woman' who scooped Rachel Sylvester with the Hague point. She told the Labour List website last Friday that the Tories made the mistake of choosing Lady Thatcher's 'heir' - William Hague - as their leader in 1997.

No women, no progress

2010-09-04T11:56:00.000+01:00

If women are not included, society will not change for the better

Inspiring Leaders event: join the women at the top

2010-08-30T22:27:00.003+01:00

Do you want to learn from women who made it to the top? Explore the obstacles and gender imbalance of leadership and discuss what needs to be done? Be inspired to pursue your own ambitions?

Only 22 per cent of British MPs are women - we are trailing at the bottom end of the league table for European and established democracies. A survey of Britain’s top 100 companies find that, of 329 executive directors, only 20 are women. In the Media Guardian top 100 – the most powerful people in the industry – the first woman is at number 12.

Come to Inspiring Leaders, a partnership event between Camden Speakers Club and Progressive Women, which is a day of leadership training, discussions and debate. We are working together to ask questions, spark dialogue and find solutions.

Saturday 6 November, 10:00 – 16:00

Book tickets here

Fiona Mactaggart, Shadow Junior Minister for Equality, confirmed as keynote

Other speakers include:
Mary MacLeod (Conservative MP)
Professor Deborah Cameron (Oxford University linguist and author of the book ‘The Myth Of Mars And Venus: Do Men and Women Really Speak Different Languages?’)
Louise Doughty (novelist)
Boni Sones (Executive Producer, Women’s Parliamentary Radio)
Vicky Booth (Lib Dem Campaign for Gender Balance)
Lee Chalmers (leadership coach)

Training includes: public speaking, debating, self-promotion, the path to self-employment, a political career.

The event is open to women and men of any age and any background, and it is wheelchair accessible.
Cost: £12.50

London Irish Centre, 50-52 Camden Square, London, NW1 9XB

Book tickets here

Camden Speakers Club provides a friendly and supportive environment for practising the skills for speaking in public.

Progressive Women aims to support women through discussion and networking events for women interested in politics and the economy.

Sweden's sisters

2010-08-19T20:47:00.003+01:00

A survey of Britain’s top 100 companies finds that, of 329 executive directors, only 20 are women. In the Media Guardian top 100 – the most powerful people in the industry – the first woman is at number 12.

Depressing, isn’t it. So, how refreshing it was, the other day, to come across these Swedish bank notes, which celebrate notable women in history.

Jenny Lind (1820 –1887), was a Swedish opera singer. Selma Lagerlöf (1858–1940) was a Swedish author and the first female writer to win the Nobel Prize in Literature.

Sweden rocks!

By chance, Woman’s Hour yesterday was discussing Sweden.

A group of women in Sweden, 10 years ago, got together to try to increase number of women in Parliament.

They made stickers and put them into men’s toilets in the Swedish Parliament. The stickers said:

“Little sister is watching you.”

Indeed.

Yet more stereotypes...

2010-08-15T18:49:00.000+01:00

Look at the home page of msn.

Scroll down to the bottom right and you will see a tab for men and a tab for women. Look at the suggestions for each...

Msn is deciding for you what pages you want to visit, based on gender stereotypes.

I’m a woman. I like sports (men’s tab), but I’m not that interested in hair, clothes and celebrities (women’s tab). I also want to find out about the economy, but that’s in the men’s section.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has just approved the sale and use a new emergency contraception ‘Ella’. This news is, unsurprisingly, in the woman’s tab.

Just a thought: surely men are also interested in more options to prevent unplanned pregnancies?

Female bosses aren't bitchy, but we are

2010-08-12T20:43:00.002+01:00

I got lots of comments on my previous post about stereotypes. Commenting on a little girl’s looks as opposed to her brains (and a boy, vice versa), may seem innocuous at first, but imagine a lifetime of that.

Imagine a lifetime of drip drip pressure on women to be pretty, passive and polite, and pressure on men to be ambitious, adventurous and boisterous.

The result?

Only a fifth of politicians are women.

For example.

But not only that. More insidious, it’s what society comes to expect.

Who’s saying: Where are the women? Well, some of us are, but many people aren’t.

Worse, there is a general aversion to women who take on leadership positions, simply because it’s not the expected and accepted outcome for women.

Look at this the results of this survey. Look at it and think very very carefully.

Be very very honest with yourselves; I have trust in you, readers.

‘Women and men prefer male bosses.’

One reason cited is that men have ‘no time of the month’.

Now, ask yourself this question. And remember, be honest! Forget what people have told you; colleagues, parents, friends. Sit yourself down and be truthful.

Assuming the results of this survey are accurate, and the questions were asked in a non-biased way (which I actually very much doubt):

Can you really tell when your female boss is having her period?

Or is it more likely that we’re so used to not seeing female leaders around, that when we see one being ambitious, assertive and dynamic we feel just a little bit twitchy?

That when we do get an unreasonable female boss, it resonates so much with our stereotypes, that we conclude: all women must be unreasonable.

That when we get an unreasonable male boss, we tend to forget all about it.

Time to address inner prejudices, not blame women for being bitchy.

Feminists can be sexist too

2010-08-08T18:24:00.000+01:00

I am a feminist but I still shock myself at my own (unintended) sexism.

A few days ago, I visited a friend who has two lovely daughters, aged four and two.

When I met them, the first thing I said to the oldest was: “That's a beautiful dress.”

It was a beautiful dress but that's not the point. I said it because she's a girl -and girls are 'supposed' to wear nice clothes and be pretty. I said it because I didn't know what else to say.

I am ashamed of myself. Stereotypes are dangerous. Girls and women are already constantly bombarded with these stereotypes and, as a result, women and the rest of society end up valuing women for their looks and nothing else.

My friend told me that her daughter – the girl I spoke to – went to nursery and told people she wanted to be a ‘fire-girl.’ She came back home saying: “They told me that girls can’t do that.”

Sexism is rife, and it starts with these stereotypes, which are so deep-rooted in our minds that even feminists have them.

So when I meet another little girl, I will not comment on her dress. I will praise her career aspirations instead.

After all, if a little boy said he wanted to be a fire fighter, I (and anyone else) would probably say: “Good for you! That’s sounds so exciting.”

And no one would mention his looks.

A movement is rising

2010-08-06T20:21:00.001+01:00

This article is published today on the website of Progressive Women, which aims to support women through discussion and networking events for women interested in politics and the economy.

Evan Davis on the Today Programme described it as a ‘hoot’, illustrating – in one throwaway sentence – why the feminist movement needs to exist.

Women are paid, on average, substantially less than men, constitute a pitiful proportion of politicians and leaders in every profession and face the daily threat of male violence – and yet still people joke. In the mainstream, there has been a reluctance to take these issues seriously, let alone committing resources and effort to try to change things for the better.

So that’s why the UK Feminista summer school, which took place on 30 and 31 July in London, was very welcome; the highlight in any feminist’s diary. A weekend of advice, training and discussion reminded us, the feminists, who have been feeling for a long time that there are issues that aren’t quite right, that there are others like us and – together – we can work to make a change.

It reminded us that we don’t have to sit at home fretting and fulminating, that we can go out, take on the world, and we’ll get results. It ignited that spark, and equipped us with the vital advice, resources and knowledge that will help us work out how to put our ideas into action.

The Saturday kicked off with a panel discussion on the importance and practicalities of campaigning, which included some star tips that came straight from the Obama campaign. Following that, there were seminars on topics such as how to lead a feminist group, how to run an effective campaign and how to organise a demonstration.

The second day included sessions that would be useful once you had your group set up. There was a session on working with the media, for example, and one on influencing politicians. “Never doubt that a small group of people can change the world,” said Janet Veitch from End Violence Against Women coalition. A statement couldn’t be more motivating.

The weekend ended with its climax; feminism question time. A panel that included Julie Bindel and Bidisha was quizzed on topics such as unequal maternity and paternity leave, the hostility that feminists are subjected to on a regular basis and the direction the movement is heading. “If two thirds of women and one third of men believe it, things can change,” said Sunder Katwala from the Fabian Society. “Keep being visible,” said Dr Aisha Gill, senior lecturer in criminology at Roehampton University.

And that’s exactly what feminists are going to do. Nothing will change on its own. Whether it’s blogging or organising, talking in groups or protesting in public, feminists are going to do it – because if they don’t, no one else will.

As individuals, we need to find our own niches and campaign in whatever ways are appropriate.

And above all, we need to stick together; support, work and plan together. There is magic in a movement. I know, because I felt it.

Other blog posts about the event:
Birds on the Blog
Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things
We Mixed Our Drinks
Daily Feminist Action
At Home
Lib Service Online
Face to the World

Feminista photos

2010-08-06T11:09:00.011+01:00

Notes for a campaign

2010-07-31T21:52:00.000+01:00

This is the weekend of UK Feminista Summer School – a fantastic couple of days packed full of advice, training and discussion on how to put feminist ideas into action.

One of the highlights of today was Karin Robinson, from Democrats Abroad, who promotes the US Democrats in the UK and was highly involved in the Obama campaign.

Karin had simple, but effective, advice for putting an idea into action.

Have a goal – has to be concrete but broad enough to appeal to all supporters
Point all supporters in the direction of the goal
Track your progress and adapt strategy if necessary

It’s tough work, but we can do it. Yes we can!

I like Men's Hour

2010-07-25T12:47:00.001+01:00

There is a new radio programme. It’s called ‘Men’s Hour’ and is on every Sunday evening on Radio 5.

It describes itself as being ‘an hour of modern men being unusually emotional and painfully candid’ and has already received much criticism from all corners.

After all, why do we need yet another hour of all-men on the radio when we get that for the other 23 hours of the day? The arts are dominated by men. Women are struggling to be heard, and to be taken seriously.

But I listened to it with interest and I have to say I’m glad it exists. It is shallow, but at least it’s getting men talking and thinking about issues that affect them. My good (male) friend Athos said:

“I think its a step in the right direction and helps to move the male stereotype away from 'men's talk' = cars, gadgets, sport, sex and fighting.”

And that’s the point. Feminism is about women and men, and equality for women and men. As long as men feel pressured to conform to an artificial stereotype, they will not have equality, and that will affect women’s equality too.

Also, men have to start taking responsibility for their role in inequality. And the only way they will do this is by first understand the issues. Wouldn't it great, for example, if the men on the programme discussed the rapes at Latitude - after all, it's men who are doing them, so why is it always women who talk about them?

So, in the first episode, I liked the discussion about hypochondria – men are less likely than women to seek help, so this is a man’s equality issue. I liked the discussion about infidelity – after a bit of discussion, the consensus was that it’s better to be faithful.

And I liked ‘Thought for the Gay’ slot. I’d rather hear this than ‘Thought for the Day’ (religion-focused) on the Today Programme, which is usually boring and irrelevant. Also, if men understand what it’s like to be discriminated against because they’re gay (this week, the theme was the lack of gay footballers), they are more likely to understand sexism against women.

Athos said: “Gender equality does not mean only changing things for women, it means changing things for men too, and that can't happen without men's involvement. The gender landscape has been slowly changing over the last hundred years. For women this has been a more conscious change, women have tended to be more aware of how gender impacts their lives whilst men have tended not to talk about it. At least not in the media. I'm not saying this program is a shining example of male feminism but any movement needs to work on many frontiers and needs to change people's minds on many levels. So I see this as one of many steps to try and get to grips with that.”

I even liked the ‘Token Woman’ slot – the first one was with Jenni Murray, from Woman’s Hour. To me, this slot seems to be making fun of the fact that women are so often the ‘token woman’ in real life. By acknowledging it; by MEN acknowledging it, it is made to look ridiculous.

What I suggest now is that Woman’s Hour adopts a ‘Token Man’ slot, in which a man nominates his ‘woman of the week’. Now that would be deeply satisfying – although there would have to a condition – he notes her for HER, not her body, not her looks, and preferably her personality, her wit or her brains.

Men's Hour is on tonight at 19:30.

Skeptical feminism

2010-07-24T12:57:00.000+01:00

Earlier this month, I went to a Westminster Skeptics event (run by the acclaimed Jack of Kent), where campaigner Simon Perry was the guest speaker and had some very useful tips on campaigning.

Simon has used the ASA, Trading Standards and publicity on the internet to expose the lies and scams of psychics, shut down nonsense allergy testing and successfully challenge Chinese medicine remedies.

The talk was an inspiration to anyone who is thinking about campaigning on anything – these methods work, as long as you have the determination and the ideas.

Skeptics and feminism
Feminism came up in the discussion; Simon happened to comment on an advert for lip balm that was accompanied by the caption that eighty (or some such high proportion) of women who use it are fifty (or somesuch) percent more happy. This is bad science, of course, not based on peer reviewed evidence, as all the other issues that Simon campaigns about.

He added he probably wouldn’t pursue this campaign though because he doesn’t strongly enough about it.

Fair enough. Everyone has their own bête noires. But it made me think of a few things. First, how I personally would campaign about this – because I believe it is not only wrong and based on false evidence, but harmful; it reinforces the idea that women should aspire to be pretty, and that this is necessary to achieve happiness and that this is what is valued by society. (No wonder about one in a hundred 16 to 18 year olds has anorexia and it is much more common in girls.)

Second, it demonstrates how, as individuals, we all have our own issues, and collectively, that’s what contributes to diversity and an interesting range of issues looked at. We need a good mix of people doing all these campaigns, according to what they personally feel strongly about, so that all issues get covered and everybody’s needs are addressed.

This brings me to government; without diversity, without a mix of people from both sexes and all backgrounds, there just won’t be the coverage of all the issues.

And we don’t have that at the moment. The Cabinet of 29 has only four women in it. No wonder the budget is so skewed to disadvantage women, as Ivette Cooper’s report revealed. There are not enough people thinking about all the issues that affect the population. Women are under-represented, so their needs do not get addressed.

Women need to be represented at senior levels in all areas of society, as well as government, and that includes a group such as Skeptics. Skeptics is an admirable set-up – fighting a worthy and important cause (combating bad science and dodgy evidence), but I looked at their speaker list and noted two out of 16 of their speakers to date are women.

One of those was Belle de Jour; there in the capacity of a scientist (according to the event advert), but I'm sceptical about that. She become famous by selling her body, so reinforces the myth that women can be successful only if they are sex objects; and that they shouldn’t be taken seriously. Plus, she is glamourising a very dangerous activity and I am sceptical about that glamour (women who work as prostitutes have a death rate far higher than the national average).

So I call on Skeptics to do the following:
Instate a more diverse speakership and some female role models – invite women who have done some campaigning and are notable for what they have done in this field (as all the men are invited for) – not for how successful they've been at selling their bodies. So for example:

What about some notable female scientists, who can talk about their work and emphasise the importance of good evidence in policy and public understanding of science?
What about a female politician or member of the House of Lords or who can discuss the link between science and policy?
What about the high-profile women who have campaigned against bad science, lead charities and organise campaigns as part of their journalism or their activism?

Join Labour, vote for Diane

2010-07-20T19:07:00.000+01:00

Do you remember Christmas number one in 2009?

Rock band Rage Against the Machine’s single, Killing In The Name, won the prime spot in the charts, beating X Factor winner Joe McElderry's The Climb.

Their success followed a Facebook campaign designed to prevent another X Factor number one and was described as a “truly remarkable outcome - possibly the greatest chart upset ever”.

The same could happen to get Diane Abbott into the leadership slot. Two activists who live in Diane’s Hackney constituency, Lynne Miles and Chitra Nagarajan, have written in the F-word their reasons why you should join the Labour party and have a say. It’s easy…

“You may not realise you can influence the outcome of the election but you can: even if you’re not a Party member already, you can join the now from just £1 and be allowed to vote. Anyone who joins up to and including the 8th September has a vote.
“There are an estimated 175,000 members of the Labour Party, of which almost 25,000 have joined since the start of the election. New members could decide the outcome. There are tens, even hundreds of thousands of feminists in this country. We’re enough to make a difference. Even if Diane doesn’t win, the more votes she gets, the more influential she will be in shaping the future of the Party.
“She is a politician in the best sense of the word: she stands up for what she believes to be right, and what is best for her constituents. Diane represents a real possibility for the Labour party. You’re her best chance of bringing it back to its core values.”

Plays on women and politics: the Tricycle Theatre

2010-07-18T23:48:00.001+01:00

As part of The Tricycle’s Women, Power and Politics series, the theatre has just reached the end of hosting two excellent collections of short plays; ‘Now’ focusing on contemporary issues of women and politics, and ‘Then’, which has a historical theme. I reviewed ‘Now’, for the F-word blog.

The actress playing the role of female politician strides across the stage. She’s confident, she’s powerful. This is contemporary society, after all, in which women have the same rights as men to work, to become politicians and to become leaders of the country if they want to.

But there’s something amiss. Will this woman get what her male counterparts are getting? She is better, she works harder, but she is judged more harshly. She may work herself to exhaustion, she may achieve great results; but the criticism, the lack of support and the centuries-old legacy of male dominance that hack away at her self-esteem and warp how people perceive her, stop her in her tracks.

The first of the ‘Now’ plays, by Joy Wilkinson, is the story of Margaret Beckett, the Acting Leader of the Opposition and the sole female candidate in the race to lead the Labour party. Should she go for deputy as well? Her inner voice – the self-doubt that is the result of a lifetime of society’s pressure on women to give way to men – tells her that men deserve more. “Don’t listen to the men, you are the best!” say the (few) voices supporting her. But Tony Blair and John Prescott have more money for their campaigns. The newspapers say how good Tony is – and how bad she is. She doesn’t give up. She runs. She comes third. The woman who worked so hard for her party doesn’t even win her old job back.

The second play, ‘The Panel’, by Zinnie Harris, is about the harsh scrutiny that women face when being considered for a role (a job in a company) that has traditionally been a man’s. Each candidate gets the treatment from the all-male panel; there’s always something wrong with her. She’s too ‘serious’; she has a ‘past’; she’s too pretty so she’ll cause trouble. The final candidate can’t be faulted until one of them notes that this in itself is a fault. “She’s too good to be true.” It’s the most subtle kind of sexism – one that can rarely be proved, only noted over years of tedious observation, and this play demonstrated it so well that I turned to my male companion in the theatre, with a tear in my eye, and whispered: “Do you realise this is what it’s like for us?” He didn’t answer.

Loud music hurls us into the third play, ‘Playing the Game’ by Bola Agbaje, which is about the chaotic life of student politics. The female candidate is persuaded by her two glamorous flatmates that the only way to ‘stand out’ is to dress in provocative clothing and dance sexily to the camera. After being branded a ‘slag’ by her electorate, she changes into a tracksuit, and is promptly labelled a lesbian. This is the most uplifting play of the bunch – the protagonist uses her wits to trump the people trying to exploit her – but it also demonstrates an exhausting battle that men don’t usually have to fight to end up in the same place. That’s to say, to be someone who is respected for her views, not her body, and to be free and comfortable to speak her mind.

‘Pink’, by Sam Holcroft, is also about success. It’s probably the cleverest play of the collection, turning sexism on its head and catapulting us into a world in which women steal a little power from men for themselves. And it all comes down to sex. It’s ironic that the most powerful woman in the country, a fictional Prime Minister, is pleading with a porn star to help her; but in the most unexpected way. She wants her to portray in porn films a new image of a woman. This is the image that doesn’t exist yet; the woman who is permitted by society to be herself, to do things for herself and for her own pleasure (for example, enjoy sex) and is not judged for it.

The final play by Sue Townsend, ‘You, Me and Wii,’ is not just about women but about class. It’s heartwarming because the women – coming from very different backgrounds – collide in an unlikely scene and achieve an understanding. Can any woman be an MP? Yes, and yet to many women it appears an impossibility. The barriers are psychological and practical, emotional and cultural. In this poignant play, it takes a blood-stained female MP with humility and a heart to help change attitudes, and the result is an inspiration.

The ‘Now’ plays are tales of leaders and fighters, victims and losers. They are plays about strong women. They are about women who – in theory – have it all. But in reality, of course, they do not. Along every step of the way along the path to power, there are hurdles – subtle and invisible to some, but real and traumatic for half of the population – which hold women back. To have the truth played out on a stage; to feel again that helplessness and frustration that accompany so much of a women’s journey in life; wrenches at the core of a woman’s heart. And, I hope, at the same time, also sends out a ripple on to the far-reaching conscience of society.

A review of ‘Then’ is here.

Brazil, women and politics

2010-07-10T18:05:00.003+01:00

Brazil is in the news. Brazil is booming, economically.

Last night I went to the South Bank to an evening with Brazilian writers – part of the Brazilian festival, an event celebrating women, politics, Brazil and fiction.

The writers Ana Maria Goncalves, Patricia Melo and Maria Valéria Rezende, chaired by publisher Liz Calder, discussed their books and Brazilian politics.

According to Liz, the Economist predicts that Brazil will be the fifth largest economy by 2014 and there are 20 million fewer in poverty under Lula, the current President, who started work as a poor shoe shiner and was a founding members of the Workers’ Party.

Ana Maria Goncalves said: “I’m very proud of Lula presidency. He is really interested in solving problems he saw when he was a worker.”

Patricia Melo, whose book Acqua Tofana (meaning ‘arsenic’) has the line “Women exist so men can measure themselves”, said the progress is a surprise for Brazil.

“We didn't expect this. It's a new reality. We are not used to opening the newspaper and reading good news. It is usually tragedy in reality. But this reality has to come with a new mentality including education; giving poor people access to education. I don't think politicians are prepared for this new reality. But it's a beginning.”

And it’s a beginning that may have a female leader, for the first time. Lula, who has to step down at the end of this year after serving his maximum two mandates, has chosen Dilma Rousseff as his official chosen successor.

According to Maria Valéria Rezende, the change in Brazil in the last eight years has been driven by women. Money has been given to families that live below the poverty line and “women administered it”.

And does fiction have a place amid all these changes? “I think Brazil is trying to know who Brazil is, where it comes from, ” said Ana Maria Goncalves.

This made me very happy to hear; I wrote my first novel, which is set in Brazil, because I was trying to understand a bit more about the country and its issues. Although, when I’d finished the novel, I felt I understood Brazil even less – it is a wonderful, colourful and complex country, full of paradoxes and contrasts, treasures and histories. My attempts at cracking it were like making small scratches with my finger nail on the outside of a green coconut.

Brazil’s culture is so different, so profound, I was in awe of it. The more I found out, the more of an enigma it seemed to be.

The path to equality

2010-07-05T20:43:00.001+01:00

This article is published today on the website of Progressive Women, which aims to support women through discussion and networking events for women interested in politics and the economy.

The United Nations has just approved a new organisation, called ‘UN Women’, to promote women’s equality globally.

And not a moment too soon. A worldwide poll revealed last week that, although people in most countries believe that men and women should have equal rights, they acknowledge that, in reality, equality hasn’t been achieved.

In the poll, which was conducted by the Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project, many people – especially in some of the wealthier nations surveyed – said that men have more opportunities than equally qualified women for jobs that pay well and that life is generally better for men than it is for women in their countries.

We live in a society, at least in the developed world, where laws for equality are broadly in place, but we’re not achieving it. Very few women run large organisations, business culture remains a boys’ club and large numbers of women are shouldering responsibilities at home and at work simultaneously.

So what’s at the heart of it? The reasons are complex and subtle and part of our culture. Since the beginning of time, men have been the dominant sex. Men have been the breadwinners, women have looked after the children, and it’s been acceptable for men to exert their power over women using violence. In many countries, this is still the case. In many others, the cultural elements are beginning to shift, but it’s a long and difficult journey.

One of the factors is the expectation – of society in general and of women themselves – of what women can achieve. Often, in a room full of people – say, in a meeting or a debate – it’s the men who speak first and the men who speak most. This is regardless of ability, knowledge or eloquence. Women have just as much to say, and their ideas and contributions are just as valuable. But they are not speaking up as much – and they are not being heard. Consequently, men assume more powerful positions and women are pushed into second place.

Of course, this is not the only factor, but it’s definitely one worth exploring. What are the reasons for the difference? From birth, boys and girls are bombarded with stereotypes; boys are allowed to more aggressive and climb trees, for example, while girls are encouraged to be passive and play with plastic teapots. A commonly held view is that boys and girls are innately suited to these traditional roles. However, the scientific evidence for this is not substantial, comprehensive or conclusive enough, and there is more evidence that experience itself changes brain function (read articles by neuroscientist Lise Eliot and Professor of linguistics Deborah Cameron, for example, who discuss this evidence).

There are obvious differences between the sexes, but there is no scientific consensus that women are generally born with a natural tendency to empathise and that men are generally born with natural competitive streak and are better at solving logical problems. But if people believe these myths, is it any wonder that there are fewer girls than boys studying maths, fewer female politicians and more female carers? Stereotyping in itself has been shown to hinder people’s performance; for example, read about Professor of Psychology Claude Steele’s eye-opening work.

Some people argue that we should accept that men and women do different jobs, but they do not then acknowledge that carer jobs happen to be lower paid than engineers, for example, and typically ‘male’ jobs are held in far greater esteem by society than ‘female’ jobs.

A change in culture will be brought about only when these stereotypes, which block the progress of society and stops us benefiting from the potential talents of individuals, are crushed. Attitudes have to change everywhere – from the parents and teachers who must encourage young children to pursue a wider range of activities, to the media and population at large who must accept women as leaders without criticising them disproportionately to men. And attitudes have to change among women ourselves. Once we fundamentally believe we are as capable as men, our self-belief will take us a long way.

Hey baby...you're dead

2010-07-04T01:08:00.003+01:00

Hey Baby is a new video game with a difference. No men killing prostitutes in this one! Women kill men who sexually harass them. It's revenge time!

Of course, this is not mainstream, and probably never will be (unlike the many video games which advocate violence against women just for fun). This one is just an idea. The idea made me smile though, in a sad sort of way.

Perhaps, if anything, it will allow men (all men, including the many who don't harass women) to see what pretty much all women have to tolerate, and get sick of, pretty much all of the time.

Quotation, quotation, quotation

2010-07-01T08:17:00.001+01:00

I have been looking through an old Penguin Dictionary of Quotations, published in 1960, and have three observations.

The quotations are mostly from men (women throughout history have generally been invisible)
The few women who are quoted speak only about the fact they are women (as though this is the only interesting and distinguishing feature about them)
The pronouns used in all quotations, if referring to people in general, is ‘he’ (as though women do not exist; women are not people)

There are some quotations about women, said by men, yet most of those about women being ‘fair’ (as in pretty).

Here’s one, from Mortimer Collins (1827-1876), an English writer and novelist.

'A man is as old as he’s feeling, a woman as old as she looks.'

Interpretation: women exist to look pretty. That is their sole purpose in life. Their looks are more important than their feelings. In contrast, men exist to be themselves – to be people. How they are feeling is more important than how they look.

I like to think Mortimer Collins was being ironic. It’s an insightful comment reflecting on the sad state of his society at the time.

It makes me sad though. Two half centuries later, I don’t think we’ve come very far.

How different are male and female brains?

2010-06-28T07:16:00.010+01:00

Female and male brains aren't that much different at all...

There are only a few days left of June, and only a few days to buy a copy of the magazine Scientific American.

This month, the entire issue is devoted to female and male brains and how (and how not) they are different.

This is brilliant news. In recent months, I have spent a fair amount of time debating (on this blog and elsewhere) with people who justify sexism on the grounds that men and women are innately different.

For example, the myths go like this:

women prefer caring and nurturing jobs (which happen to be lower paid)
men prefer jobs in which they can use skills of logic and leadership (which happen to higher paid)
men prefer to be politicians and leaders – it’s in their DNA
men are naturally aggressive; therefore they cannot help being violent towards women

As a trained neuroscientist, I find this all very frustrating, because I know that, when you delve into the scientific literature, you find fewer differences than you expect. Men are not from Mars and women are not from Venus, after all. What’s more, the stereotypes that we impose on both sexes can be dangerous because they inhibit the development of boys’ and girls’ minds and curb their natural talents.

Lise Eliot, an associate professor of neuroscience at the Chicago Medical School of Rosalind Frankin University, unpicks these misconceptions and many others – such as the one that states women speak three times as much as men, and that girls are better at empathy than boys.

Her three main points are as follows:

Boys and girls are different, but most psychological sex differences are not especially large. For example, gaps in intellectual performance, empathy and even most types of aggression are generally much narrower than the disparity in adult height, in which the average man is taller than 99 per cent of women.

Researchers have found very few large-scale difference between boys and girls in brain structure or function. Boys have larger brains, and girls’ brains finish growing earlier than boys’ do. But neither of these findings explains why boys are more active and girls more verbal or reveals a plausible basis of any of the other emotional and cognitive differences between the sexes.

Experience itself changes brain structure and function. Most sex differences start out small – as mere biases in temperament and play style – but are amplified as children’s pink- or blue-tinted brains meet our gender-infused culture.

The whole magazine is packed full of articles on different aspects of male and female brains, and presents – in general – a balanced view. Go out and get it now, quick!

David Miliband backs all-women shortlists

2010-06-23T23:57:00.006+01:00

Tonight, I was lucky enough to take part in a discussion in North London with David Miliband, Labour leadership candidate.

In response to my question about the shortage of women in Parliament, he expressed his support of all-women shortlists, which will help boost numbers and bring about equality.

He also pledged to tackle the wider cultural issues that prevent women’s progress.

He said: “I do agree with [all-female] shortlists, but there’s also a cultural problem. The attrition rate is high for women, especially junior ministers.

“There’s no point filling up the bucket if it's got holes in it. The media criticises women more than men, and culturally more women have to choose between life and work.

“I would like to see the same proportion of women in the shadow cabinet as there are women in parliament, then get this up to 50 per cent.”

Brilliant quotes

David Miliband is a master with words. The following are phrases that I collected during the evening:

The past
“Labour has been most successful when interested in ideas.”

The leadership
“My leadership campaign: values, vision and victory.”

“Why am I running for leadership? To fire the imagination of the public
and the party, to unify the talents of the party, to be a credible Prime Minister.”

“Leadership without values is just management; values without leadership are just dreams.”

The future
“The Tories will first be exposed, then opposed, then we will propose
change when it becomes clear what we are likely to inherit.”

“The route to success is to find a movement again.”

“Lib Dems have made a choice, and they're going to wrap this choice
around their necks.”

“If you go tea with an alligator, the alligator is going to eat you.”

“You shouldn't underestimate the breadth of ambition this Labour party has.”