Fran Hall 2014-12-19T16:25:31-05:00 Fran Hall Copyright 2008,, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Fran Hall Good old fashioned elbow grease. We Need to Talk About Consent,2014:/theblog//3.5448208 2014-06-04T19:08:56-04:00 2014-08-04T05:59:05-04:00 Fran Hall
However, in recent news, much more has been spoken about consent, and there are some amazing campaigns pushing to get consent on the curriculum or to educate those in particularly volatile circumstances about consent. There is also finally, thanks mainly to Everyday Sexism but also recent media activism, a move towards a consensus that sexism and sexist language is still rife. As a consequence of this it seems that finally, (something I have been bashing my head against a brick wall trying to convince people), we are starting to draw a link between sexism and sexist language and discrimination and sexual violence. The recent BBC documentary, Blurred Lines, is a good example of this. A lot of discussion and academic evidence arguing that the everyday use of sexist language, in particular sexist humour, can lead to increase sexist discrimination. That documentary also drew attention to some amazing grassroot campaigns lead by young women, such as the Campaign 4 Consent to be a compulsory part of the national curriculum which I fully support.

So what is our understanding of consent with regards to sex?

The other day I was listening to one of Michael Sandel's Public Philosopher lectures where he argues how consent must always be informed. In another source, NHS medical treatment guidelines add another level to Sandel's philosophy that it should be voluntary and informed. In other words, you must have adequate information about the situation you are consenting to, and you must be consenting completely under your own terms and not out of any force or coercion. And there is by no means a consensus on this; as I recall a UK judge declaring in common law that 'drunken consent is still consent' when it can be argued that you are not informed or may be under coercion when drunk.

A programme of study by the PSHE association, who support the development of PSHE curriculum in schools (which by the way is still not compulsory), says consent, in the context of sex and relationship education is ' 'Positive and active communication that goes beyond saying no' This is good, because too often our understanding has been that consent is permission granted. Rarely are sexual encounters text book situations with the question 'do you want to have sex with me' followed by a straight forward 'yes or no' response. The author Rachel Vail spoke out saying that 'Consent is really too low a bar. Hold out for enthusiasm.' Consent so often does sound permissive - usually a man asking a women for permission to have sex with her, not the other way around, always in a very heteronormative context, not always a two way discussion. This is certainly not positive and active communication.

But then, what does positive and active communication really look like when you are taking your clothes off with somebody? Many adults are terrified of talking about sex, with their sexual partners or others. Often communication during, before and after sex is non verbal. Notions of consent are also tied up with relationships; yet fully consensual sex can occur with someone you are not in a long term relationship with, and assault, sexual violence and rape is even more likely to occur by someone that you know well or are in a long term relationship with.

So I still think consent is more than active and positive communication, more than saying no, more than giving permission, more than an act that is voluntary and informed, and certainly more than a man asking a woman if he can have sex with her. I think you can only consent when you respect one another. And I think you can only show true respect for one another when you see each other as equals in society and treat others as equals in society. Sandel, again, argues that rape is a worse crime than other forms of violence or assault because it ignores the respect and dignity of a person.

How then, should we educate young people about consent?

I remember turning to teenage magazines as the sex education I had from school was pretty limited and I don't recall touching on the idea of consent. The magazine message was that you should only have sex once you are 16 and in a loving and stable relationship and that as young girls we should not feel pressurised into having sex. (Surely being pressurised into sex is rape? It certainly doesn't comply with our earlier idea of consent being voluntary). They didn't emphasise positive and active communication, nor any idea of respect, equality and trust. And if boys are taught the more permissive form of consent, then if a girl says yes because she is under pressure (particularly if that pressure may not be coming from him) as far as the boy is concerned he has gained consent. But I'm not certainly not happy with this set up. What other ways do young people learn about consent? Hollywood either tells you that sex is a wonderful romantic moment, or a lustful exciting encounter. Porn portrays sex in a very unrealistic manner which also sends out very confusing and harmful messages about consent. These illustrate ever more the case for clear information about sex. If we do not talk about it a vacuum breeds which Hollywood and the internet will inevitably fill.

We need to therefore talk about equality and respect (as we should be doing anyhow I have argued before), but very much in relation to consent. Being on equal terms suggests one person is not pressuring the other. Respecting the other person is respecting their decisions and not coercing. Equality implies equal enthusiasm for sex, and equal consideration for sexual preferences. Overall this is respect for each other as equals in society. This can be brought about through positive and active communication, which actually means that in the event of very little verbal communication, there is an underlying consensus of equality and respect for one another which supports or enables consent to take place. As soon as one person is not showing respect or treating someone as an equal, they are unlikely to be in a consenting situation, even if they may give verbal or similar permission (such as a shy nod of the head). 86% of adults agree, according to a recent YouGov poll, that sex and relationship education needs to address sexual consent and respectful relationships and should be taught in all schools.

This brings us back to the start and shows why raising awareness of sexism and sexist language is so important. Otherwise sexism directly undermines the notion of respect and equality between the sexes. And without respect and equality we do not have consent. Let's talk more about this.]]>
Why We Must Take a More Joined Up Approach to Tackling Gender Inequality,2014:/theblog//3.4628482 2014-01-19T15:36:07-05:00 2014-03-21T05:59:02-04:00 Fran Hall Men's Heath Forum. More suicides in this age category occur annually then there are total fatalities from road accidents.

In the UK we also have a culture of owning your own home. This is not a recent phenomenon, harking back to the days of landed gentry. Since the baby boomer generation, this has become an aspiration across the society and is no longer the preserve of the wealthy, with everyone wanting their piece of Little England and a tidy retirement investment. Right now, we have a housing crisis with demand for housing far outstripping supply and house prices keep on soaring, whilst offers on mortgages keep on shrinking.

We also have some of the most expensive childcare costs in the world, amounting to an average cost of 68% of the second income of a two parent household, according to the OECD in 2011. Worryingly, there is evidence to suggest it is on the increase. We also have a gender pay gap.
I am arguing that all these things are related and they are an example of how we need to take a joined up approach to tackling gender equality and the negative effects it has on women, men and wider society.

The desire to own a property soon becomes a pressure to do so. This pressure has fallen disproportionately on men, due to the existing gender inequality in society that still often views men as the providers and women as the homemakers. This pressure and related ones of acquiring and sustaining a well-paid job I am speculating could be contributing factors to the high rates of mental health problems and in some extreme circumstances, suicide, in men. This coupled with the rising unemployment (particularly for the under 25s) means there is now a huge amount of pressure just to get a job, let alone a highly paid one.

Since the crisis in 2007 it has been much harder to get on the housing ladder, for both men and women. Gone are the days of 100% mortgages, and after a brief steady spell, house prices are rising again and demand is significantly outstripping supply especially in the South East. The alternative is the rental market, in which again demand far outstrips supply and in the UK you are invariably treated like a second class citizen (certainly from mine and my peers' experience).
A Swiss friend who recently moved to London spoke of the difference she'd noticed between her peers back in Switzerland compared with those here, and in particular the men. Swiss men (and women) just aren't as concerned about buying property and consequently don't feel as pressured to seek those higher paying jobs or to work all hours.

Some of you will, rightly, note that this is changing and that the pressure is falling more equally on women as society becomes more equal (however given what the pressure can lead to this isn't one to necessarily celebrate). There are three reasons, however, why perhaps it has not reached the levels that men may experience; childcare costs, unequal parental leave and the gender pay gap. Parental leave, which I've blogged about in the past, is finally becoming more equal, so I'll leave that one for now.

The gender pay gap sadly is still a problem, with women earning on average 20% less than their colleagues in the private sector and 14% less than colleagues in the public sector, despite the Equal Pay Act and widespread campaigns. Why is this then related to the extra societal pressure on men? For two reasons. The first is back to childcare. With childcare in the UK as expensive as it is (compared to the OECD average) this forces many parents to make a rational decision as to who will be the main earner - for most this means the highest earner. However, the gender pay gap means that women will more often than not be the lower earner in the couple and consequently they are forced to put their career second to the family.

Secondly I also reckon that the gender pay gap is in part exacerbated by the pressure on men; you are more likely to ask prematurely, (or perhaps even when you don't even think you deserve it) for a raise if you are struggling as the main earner in a family, or are seeking to become the main earner in a family. These men who are the main earners are then more likely to put in longer hours or overtime to seek that promotion or clock that extra hour's pay, again incentivising them to take those jobs with longer hours that have higher earning potential. So, perversely, I think the gender pay gap is a symptom of, and a perpetuating cause of, the harmful pressure placed disproportionately on men. In short; the gender pay gap actually causes harms to men (in addition to of course the harms to women) despite them being the obvious beneficiaries.

And of course, no piece I write about gender would be complete without a mentioning of how we are conditioned from a young age. Despite most women in a country like the UK being encouraged to do well at school (in fact outstripping men in terms of achievement) this pressure on men starts from a young age at almost a subconscious level. The added problem is that in the UK economy we have a culture of longer working hours than many of our European counterparts. In many industries it is an 'all or nothing' approach when it comes to working hours, so even if women are receiving their increasing share of the pressure, I only have to site the myriad health problems associate with this kind of pressure and consequent stress to say that his pressure is not a good thing. Not to mention the lifestyle this leads to and the unhappiness it can cause on both parts - with some women wanting but unable to work and some men wanting, but unable, to reduce their hours and share the burden.

So now I have outlined a pretty gloomy picture to you. What should we do to solve this picture? Here a few suggestions:

a) Build more houses. This to me is just patently obvious but not nearly enough is being done currently. We should flood the market, drive prices down making it more affordable for everyone and thus alleviating some of the pressure.

b) Alternatively, or in addition, we could try to change the culture towards renting, by say holding landlords better to account or introducing longer rental agreements, thus becoming more like our friends on the continent. (However we still need a) in order to make this more affordable)

c) Subsidise childcare. This has a huge economic benefit to the country not to mention the effects on gender equality and quality of life for those struggling. The little we do in this area now is simply not enough.

d) Change our culture towards inflexible jobs with long hours. This is changing thanks to technology and some leading firms (e.g. the big four accountancies who have some great schemes in place), but could do with a bigger nudge. However, we still need c) to make this happen.

e) And finally; we need to raise greater awareness of mental health issues - and try not to condition gender stereotypes and put pressure on people from a young age

Some of you may find my argument speculative, yet this is inevitable given that I am trying to join the dots and demonstrate the links (speculative or otherwise) between issues. Hopefully then more people (especially those in power) will be aware of the interconnectivity between this issues and take a wider lead approach to tackle them , rather than thinking one policy or solution alone will solve it, or in some cases ignoring the issues altogether.]]>
Some New Year's Resolutions for Women,2012:/theblog//3.2381065 2013-01-01T19:00:00-05:00 2013-03-03T05:12:01-05:00 Fran Hall letter to Santa from all women, I've taken the liberty of writing a list of New Year's resolutions for women. Because it is tragic to think just how many women will make a resolution list for 2013 that looks something like this:

1) Lose weight
2) Get prettier
3) Find perfect man
4) Repeat steps 1) and 2)

I'm trying to make this as positive as possible, but as you'll see it proves tricky. 2012 has had its ups and downs for women; from positive accolade at the Olympics, to horrific stories of rape victim blaming from around the world .

But here goes:

1) No means no. This has to come first and foremost. Because apparently, especially in 2012, some men need constant reminding of this. Women are never to blame for being the victims of sexual abuse, no matter how drunk, naked or wondering alone they are.

2) Don't put up with everyday sexism. This means:
a. Speaking out against sexism in the workplace. Whether to their face, making a formal complaint, or joining the twitter campaign @everydaysexism (one of my favourite movements of 2012)
b. Perfecting that glare or witty response to the average street abuser with his 'get your tits out' remark

3) Shout I AM A FEMINIST from the rooftops, the office or kitchen chair, at any given opportunity, Caitlin Moran style.

4) Do what you, not anybody else, wants with your body. Shave what you want to shave, wear what you want to wear, stop fretting about those few pounds. Don't let men/society/media/other women tell you otherwise.

5) Stop reading those damn magazines. You know the ones. We all find ourselves doing it and feel so much worse afterwards. They are pretending to help but instead strip you of all self esteem and sense of worth, and make no 4) much harder to achieve.

6) Celebrate the achievements and successes of women. Properly. I'm guilty of this when I follow men's sport and don't scroll down to that tiny link at the bottom to the women's league. If we don't praise women, give a damn and spread the word, how can we expect the media or anyone else to care? Sorry Cheryl, this doesn't include you. I'm discovering female role models every day who I am amazed that I'd never heard of. We need to make sure the next generation are celebrating and looking up to those who deserve it.

7) Campaign for true equality. Whatever the issue, be it closing that gender pay gap, introducing affordable child care, or making abortion available in Northern Ireland. We must continue to fight and not become complacent or we will be trampled on.

8) Help women across the world gain equality. Give to a good cause, volunteer or campaign for those who have it much worse than you or I.

Many of you do these things already. Hopefully, if we all try to (and even better if men did as well), then 2013 should have a more positive outlook for women. Finger's crossed.

Also on HuffPost:
Why Are We Not Drilling Gender Equality Into UK School Children?,2012:/theblog//3.1777787 2012-08-16T19:00:00-04:00 2012-10-16T05:12:28-04:00 Fran Hall Debate Mate), they easily identify and relay arguments in favour of gender equality and against gender discrimination.

In the UK your typical secondary school teenager will very much buy into gender roles and stereotypes when making arguments on either side of this debate. These are the stereotypes and roles which have little grounding in truth as I have argued in some of my other blog posts (so I won't go through it all again here). Arguments in favour of single sex education typically include; boys and girls are very different academically, boys prefer practical lessons with girls preferring written work, boys would like more sports and girls are shyer around boys. More worryingly perhaps are the arguments heard, or indeed not heard, opposing single sex education. Never have I heard that there should not be discrimination and that we should ensure boys and girls get the same standard of education. Never have I heard them argue that it's not fair if a girls' school is better and boys aren't allowed to go there. Never have I heard that boys and girls are equal and there is no need to separate them in the classroom. Yet to shy, sporadically educated poor Nepali children with little time to come up with arguments these seem to be on the tip of their tongues. Why have we become complacent and let gender stereotyping and sexism continue in our schools?

There is indeed sexism in Nepal - much more so than in the UK. I've heard awful stories of rural women being condemned to sleeping in animal sheds during menstruation. Yet despite or perhaps because of this existing sexism school children have gender equality drilled into them; at least at the inspiring Samata schools for Nepal's poorest children this is the case.

Let me be clear here that the Nepali children are by no means getting off scot free. They still buy into certain stereotypes and identify a lot with their own gender, such as boys and girls choosing to sit separately and mostly only make friends with their own gender. And of course this is from my observations of only two Nepali secondary schools, all be it over 300 individual children. But it is still comforting and heart-warming to my feminist ears how they repeat proverbs such as 'men and women are two sides of the same coin' or 'two wheels of the same cart.'

And it is also worth noting here that I'm not simply accusing children of gender stereotyping because they speak out in favour of single sex schools and perhaps as you may guess I'm not their biggest fan. There are some reasonable arguments to be had on both sides of that debate and I would willingly give someone the chance to argue those stereotypes back to me that I so strongly dispute. It is just the ease with which UK children can make all the arguments stereotyping genders, yet hardly any of those which argue against said stereotypes. If even a minority of the class spoke out and tried to challenge these stereotypes I would be much happier.

You may argue that sometimes due to the nature of a debate children make sexist arguments because they think these are the arguments for their side. This could be the fault of the nature of debate itself; however that is not what I would argue. Because even if a child makes a sexist argument that they don't believe, it still shows that they think this is an acceptable argument to make. For example in a debate about quotas for women in business, in opposition I have heard many children argue that women should be at home raising the children instead of going to work. This is worrying and actually clouds the debate as there are many non sexist arguments opposing quotas.

For a developing nation (often making it into the poorest 10 nations) Nepal is making good progress typically ahead of its stage in development. I've come across some fantastic feminist literature and magazines, praising some brilliant women in business and politics, as well as observing the many female shop owners on the street along with all the girls attending school and college. The total lack of female sex icons being thrust in your face is also a comfort. This progress is far more than can be said for its bigger and more economically developed neighbours India and China where 'gendercide' is an example of the open acknowledgement of women being less important than men in society. However much of this progress in Nepal is still recent and problems continue, particularly in the rural areas as I mentioned earlier. As a nation on the rise in terms of fighting discrimination, they are able to do a good job of teaching the next generation that men and women are equal, perhaps because it is a necessity.

Have we become too complacent? Why don't our children chime in succession that men and women are equal and want to sing it from the rooftops? Perhaps we assume this equality exists so that we don't feel the need to reinforce it. Yet I've shown from observation that even when presented with a prime opportunity to do so they still fail to state the seemingly obvious. Some of you will argue that reinforcing gender equality and challenging stereotypes is to admit there is a problem. Surely you shouldn't have to constantly remind children that men and women are equal. And I agree that this is quite sad that without constantly reaffirmation our children's minds become void of these simple statements . Yet all this demonstrates is that we must to do more to teach children about gender equality and invite them to challenge gender roles and stereotypes. If we do not do so then those who speak out and say they are experiencing sexism or inequality can be dismissed.

Not only do we need to teach history so that it does not repeat itself, we need to teach children to constantly reaffirm their beliefs and constantly challenge their surroundings, otherwise sexism and stereotyping sadly continue to exist and new forms can emerge.]]>
Parental Leave And Childcare; Why Can't We Make It Fair For Women And Men?,2012:/theblog//3.1645615 2012-07-03T08:07:20-04:00 2012-09-02T05:12:16-04:00 Fran Hall
Child rearing is not a female problem, pregnancy is. We should separate the two to give men and women real fair choices about work and family life.

However sadly in many western nations this is not the case. In the UK for example, women can take up to a year off in maternity leave, with men allowed 2 weeks during the first 20 weeks of the baby's life, and now (since 2010) fathers may take leave once the child reaches 20 weeks instead of the mother. Childcare in the UK is one of the most expensive in developed nations; with on average 68% of a second salary being spent on it.

So where did this inequality start? Maternity leave came about as recognition that women were dis-proportionality affected by having children. Proposed with good intentions, it is something that was introduced to compensate women somewhat for pregnancy and childbirth and to give women more flexibility to return to work. But actually is extended maternity not doing the opposite? In reality it is incentivising women to stay at home for a year, making it harder for them to be reintegrated back into the work place. Furthermore without equal provision for men to take time off this lengthy maternity leave entrenches the norm that women are the main child carers, which is unrelated to the fact that they are the child carriers during pregnancy.

This unequal start is more likely to lead to unequal consequences and discrimination towards women (such as fewer women taking senior positions at work). Why not give families more choice and let them decide who cares for their child and when? Why should the state incentivise mothers to look after the child in the initial months? Just because a woman carries the baby for 9 months does not mean she should be told she has to become the primary child carer (or make it harder for her not to be).The pregnancy and birth of children does affect women more than men. However child caring does not have to.

So we can really separate maternity leave into two parts. The first part is that which is taken at the initial stage, from the last two weeks of pregnancy and a month or two recovery period for the mother when the baby is born. This is much akin to sick leave from an operation (although I recognise it would wrong to lump pregnancy and sick leave in the same category). From then on the second stage of maternity leave is about caring for a small child.

For the first part of course I recognise that women are disproportionality affected and therefore need leave. However I think it would be good to offer men leave in this stage as well; as the recovery of the mother post childbirth and the rearing of the child occur simultaneously. Thus it would be beneficial in two ways; firstly it would give mothers a chance to recover whilst fathers can help look after the baby (particularly necessary for women who undergo a caesarian section and cannot bend or lift for 6 weeks) and secondly it gives more choice to families to decide who will be the primary carer (or neither). If men have to return to work after 2 weeks leaving the mother on leave, it is much less likely that he will take leave again as it is quite disruptive to to and fro from work. This is therefore making it more likely that the mother will resume the role of primary carer; if and when she chooses to return to work it will be her burden to sort out care of the child.

Knowing this to be the case that men can only take 2 weeks off once the baby is born and are therefore less likely to become primary carers in the long run, women are more likely to move into less demanding positions at work where they can afford flexibility. And what's more even if they don't want to do so, they may well get discriminated against for the more demanding positions at work once it is known they are seeking to start a family (or even if it is not known that it is the case). Hopefully this can start to challenge the stereotyping and discrimination that says child caring is a female problem, even though I recognise that still more women will take the option of becoming the primary carer over men. In Sweden, more gender neutral parental leave has led to an increase of 7% in a mother's pay for every month the father takes off in leave. I'd like to one day see a world where employers reckoned there was just as much chance of a male employee taking leave or requiring flexible work/ childcare as their female counterparts.

This unequal start to the care of a baby in the UK is compounded with the barriers of extended maternity leave and expensive child care to give women and men fewer and unfair options to decide how to balance work and family life. Some of you may at this point be thinking 'ah but many women enjoy maternity leave, it is a great time to relax and spend time with your new baby at such an important stage' And indeed this may well be the case. It may also be the case that many men would like to do this; but they are not offered a year off from work at nearly full pay. And others may be thinking 'don't complain about a year off at nearly full pay when childcare is so expensive and so many benefits are being cut.' But of course the problem being that extended maternity leave is a pathetic consolation to the fact that for the next 4 years childcare will consume 68% of a mother's salary (thereafter less once they attend school) therefore, given maternity leave incentivises mothers to become the primary carer, such expensive childcare further disadvantages mothers who wish to return to work as again the provision of childcare is now seen as their problem.

Government subsidised childcare works well in other European countries to even out the gender disadvantage and has other positive effects on the country. In Denmark, where men commonly take 3 months paternity leave and parents only cover up to 25% of childcare costs, female employment is ranked 5th in the OECD and most women return to work. France (where average maternity leave is three months compared to six months in the UK ) has a birth rate at well above the EU average which clearly shows the system is encouraging to having children (this can be problematic in terms of population but at least demonstrates the efficacy of the system) Furthermore, in times of economic austerity, the cost incurred by the state is outweighed by the economic boost of more available employees and more disposable income. Similarly the costs outweigh the benefits to companies who might complain of the additional expensive of paternity leave, as more women would return to work and sooner (it usually being better to have two employees with their foot in the door than one gone completely - especially when companies have to hold open positions for returning mothers.) And of course let us not forget that this would particularly benefit poorer families; giving them and single parent families many more options meaning they are less reliant on the state. The recent pitiful tax breaks on childcare in the UK are a start, but are not enough for the 58% of parents who say they are no better off for returning to work once they factor in childcare.

Fundamentally it is about having a system which does not discriminate against either gender in terms of their role as a parent but offers full flexibility. The knock on effects, in terms of female employment, economic growth and costs to the state mean fairer parental leave and childcare provision really is a no brainer.]]>
How Can We Get More Women in the Boardroom?,2012:/theblog//3.1561703 2012-06-01T06:04:34-04:00 2012-08-01T05:12:19-04:00 Fran Hall European Commission's Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship commissioner?

I shouldn't really have to discuss here why we want more women in the boardroom; but I'll cite that it is high on the agenda for Baroness Margaret Prosser, deputy chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission who champions diversity. If you don't believe in fair and equal opportunities for all regardless of arbitrary factors that are the luck of the draw (such as gender) then you should probably stop reading here. Or perhaps you should continue and you never know I may convert a misogynist or two. Probably more likely that you mistook this for an article about women in the bedroom, in which case this is differently the wrong blog for you.

First off let's hear what some of the countries politicians, psychologists and business people have to say about why women are struggling to make it to the top. A study from Institute of Leadership and Management on ambition and gender remarks that 'they (women) tend to lack self-belief and confidence.' President of BT Global Services, Ms Timmons, notes that "sometimes people still think they should be handed things - but they've just absolutely got to have more confidence in their abilities." Diane Abbott MP says that women, unlike men 'tend to think of the reasons why they shouldn't do something.' All references to BBC here

They are all saying here that on the one hand women lack confidence and self-belief and therefore expect things to be handed to them (which is bad), yet we are also programmed from puberty to be more risk averse. Therefore surely the confidence deficiency isn't our fault and is simply down to biology? So in conclusion, we should overcome this biological programming to have more belief in ourselves, be confident like men and importantly we should not expect a leg up on the way (because that would make us lazy and demanding). Well that really gave me a confidence boost right there.

I don't think there is a significant biological difference between the genders with reference to confidence, referring once again to the stereotype threat argument made by Fine. These libertarian I-made-it-without-help-why-can't-you feminists are actually engendering these otherwise minimal gender differences into stereotypes by constantly telling women they are the less confident sex. Leadership psychologist Averil Leimon is right when she says we are actually conditioned by society from a young age to behave differently; 'girls to keep quiet and boys to shout out.'

Moreover this proclaimed lack of confidence and self-belief has not stopped women from outperforming their male counterparts at school and representing 60% of university graduates. So why is this information mentioned far less? Because it doesn't explain why many firms who hire at entry level on a 50-50 split end up with an all-male board. You can start to see where we are going wrong in our approach to this problem.

How about we look at this from a different perspective? Like from that of the hiring companies and existing board members. Because all too often the focus with this discussion is on how the women can make it, pushing the responsibility onto them, and deflecting the attention from those doing the hiring and the promoting. After all, say if a company hires 50% females at entry level, what internal mechanisms mean less than a fifth end up on the board? If they are good enough to be hired in the first place, surely statistically they are just a likely to end up on the board as men?

Now I know some of you will say that I'm missing something here by not discussing women's choice to have children as they get to that stage in their careers. And all companies need to do is just improve their childcare provisions! Wave the magic wand and all is solved. Only claiming this is the only obstacle further entrenches the norm that childrearing is a female responsibility. I'm not going to talk about this more here just to say that more importantly it is a straw man argument which often masks the real reason. We need to challenge how we condition boys and girls from a young age; how we repeatedly tell one sex they are confident and risk taking and the other that they are not.

Combined with this stereotype threat that women feel is the subconscious bias from the employer towards hiring someone similar to them. Fine again gives evidence to shows how this is the case, and given that most current board members are male, they are more likely to hire men. The problem is then, how do we stop this occurring when it is subconscious?

There are a couple of things we could do here. One option would be to introduce a quota. Although they have received a lot of bad PR and I recognise that rather than force board directors to hire women, as it can cause resentment and won't necessarily change opinions, we need to challenge our attitudes and unconscious biases. The good news is there is evidence that this is changing; in my experience I've seen a lot of organisations trying to be more diverse, to the point where it can feel quite strange to be in a homogenous environment be that with regards to gender or other factors such as race. We need to create an expectation; an eyebrow should be raised at an all-male meeting with us all remaining constantly critical. This way it is on our radar and we can work to remove the unconscious bias and stereotype threats.]]>
Is the Matriarchal Woman a Regressive or Progressive Figure for Feminism? A Comparison Between the UK and Jamaica,2012:/theblog//3.1462366 2012-04-29T07:16:53-04:00 2012-06-29T05:12:01-04:00 Fran Hall
The matriarch is the female head of the family unit. Typically the most senior female member of the family, it is usually the mother or the grandmother who would take on this role. On top of this, referring to a woman as matriarchal conjures a much fuller picture of an individual who is fiercely dominant in all domestic and family affairs, controlling what is seen as traditional female turf in the 'private sphere'. Matriarchs are a dying breed, yet should we champion these women as a force for good? Or do matriarchs now hold back the fight for gender equality?

Matriarchs were frequent in the UK before women were granted much access to or equality in the public sphere. When women had little influence in the 'public' domain' it is no wonder they would assert more influence domestically. In addition, before contraception was widely available families were larger and more often poorer, necessitating a permanent figure to run the house. Thus many talented women would have found themselves excluded from the workforce and bound to the home. But it is a particular approach to running the home that makes someone a matriarch. It is a particularly fierce way of controlling every aspect in the home and leaving little decision making to the partner or father. Obviously there are cultural and religious aspects of matriarchy and I'm aware that this is a general overview. It is becoming clear why matriarchs have a decreasing presence in modern society in the UK. Should we welcome this decline?

First let us look at the immediate qualms feminists might have with matriarchy. Surely if you support gender equality it has to work in both directions; we should strive for equal status not one sex dominating the other. Matriarchy also entrenches the separation of private and public spheres; understandable given women's exclusion from public life, but blurring the public/private line was an important step in feminist discussion. Furthermore when women take such a dominant role in the home it can damage men's perception of what they would be like in the public sphere - men are clinging on to the little control they have left and often try to hide away. The flip side of this is of course how men are perceived -they become more incompetent and incapable with domestic affairs as they are treated such. This does us no favours when trying to divide labour more equally in the home or question parenting roles. Matriarchy is surely then becoming a redundant position as we gain head way in gender equality.

Yet let us not forget the admirable work that the matriarchal women have achieved. Raising children and running a household are no easy tasks that should not be overlooked. Being in total control as a strong leader means you always know what's going on; it is a level of consistency and stability which often allows families to prosper in tough conditions. This strong matriarchal and family support can have further benefits such as grandparents providing childcare, allowing more parents (particularly mothers) to work.

The matriarchs of Jamaica are still going strong, much unlike in the UK. There are clearly a variety of factors to explain this. Firstly there are a lot of single parent families in Jamaica. This means often mothers are raising children alone, or with the support of the grandmother as there are also high rates of teenage pregnancy. Related to this, are the worryingly high crime rates amongst young men. There is a heavy Christian influence, praising the strong family unit. All of this is coupled of course with high poverty rates. I think the trend in Jamaica will share similarities with other developing nations, although this is just an example and I'm not really going to delve into this here.

Speaking to a remarkable woman who conducts outreach work in a men's prison in Spanish town Kingston, she told me one of the most effective ways of getting the young men to listen (most of whom were in for murder or violent offences) was to ask what their Grandma would say to them. The shame and humility they expressed showed how much they respect and look up to these strong Jamaican women.

And in Jamaica these strong matriarchal figures haven't gone unnoticed. There are now more female university graduates than male, with consequently many women being hired in middle management positions. Although there still appears to be a glass ceiling at the top, there is much head way being made, with current female Prime Minister Portia Simpson-Miller (commonly referred to as Sister Portia). This strong sisterhood and respect for women is a most certainly a positive outcome of strong matriarchal figures in the home.

Overall the matriarchal figure in the home is not progressive for gender equality in the UK. That is not to neglect the important role matriarchs played in the past however. In countries such as Jamaica conversely, when there are pressing concerns over poverty and family stability, the matriarchs are most admirable, and are proving women's capability and resilience in society, not hindering it.]]>
Why We Should Not Trivialise 'First World' Gender Inequality,2012:/theblog//3.1338472 2012-03-12T06:01:05-04:00 2012-05-12T05:12:01-04:00 Fran Hall





Why Is There Such Ignorance of Gender Discrimination?,2012:/theblog//3.1299245 2012-02-24T11:00:59-05:00 2012-04-25T05:12:01-04:00 Fran Hall
In my job, teaching school children how to debate, I have been exposed to prime evidence of this unawareness. First off is the ignorance of past achievements. I taught a group of young girls who were not aware that we have ever had a female prime minister in the UK. I don't think they are to blame here, rather this is a worrying indicator of the lack of discussion. Frighteningly the other day I heard about a secondary school English teacher who told her class that women got the vote in 2010. It makes me wonder how many know when contraception became available, or when the abortion act came in, the equal pay act was introduced and a whole host of anti-discrimination legislation.

Second is the unawareness of discrimination that still exists today. Many don't know that men and women still don't receive equal pay in all areas. What are the restrictions still in place on women in the army? Why has paternity leave only just been extended (and still not equal or completely interchangeable with maternity leave)?

Within that let's not forget the less explicit (but perhaps more pernicious) forms of discrimination. The percentage of women on company boards, numbers of rich women, countries with female leaders. Can you name female Nobel prize winners, famous scientists or sport stars (see my previous post)? How many times has a female act headlined at the supposedly left wing (but woefully lacking in diversity) Glastonbury festival? Let's not even begin with the lack of awareness of the discrimination that faces women across the world...

How many did you manage to answer in the female achievement pop quiz? And I bet you like to think of yourself as a reasonably informed individual. This is very worrying, for a number of reasons. First of all we need to remember past achievements in order that history does not repeat itself. This is not a contested notion and forms the basis for academic history. We learn from our mistakes and hope never to make them again. Not only is this to prevent reoccurrence and regression, but this helps us make further progress on tackling discrimination and promoting equality. Complacency is a real danger; we have come so far and many think we have reached total equality. Our progress has been fantastic but we must not give up; we still have a way to go in many areas. We must constantly challenge and reaffirm our beliefs (another shameless plug for debating, as Mill would argue) in order that they are not lost. Furthermore our persistence fighting discrimination can set an example to many other countries that are lagging behind on gender discrimination. We can all do our part to help them and ourselves, through education and discussion, so that past brave individuals did not act in vein.
The Vicious Cycle of the Angry Feminist,2012:/theblog//3.1262137 2012-02-08T07:42:29-05:00 2012-04-09T05:12:01-04:00 Fran Hall






Wrongly Wired? Why There Is A Lack Of Women In Computer Science,2012:/theblog//3.1214426 2012-01-18T17:06:59-05:00 2012-03-19T05:12:01-04:00 Fran Hall
The neuroscientist Cordelia Fine thoroughly examines my first query in Delusions of Gender; a pinnacle piece of feminist literature which I thoroughly recommend and could quote all day (but I will just give you a snippet here). She highlights the flaws in studies which cannot decipher sociologically driven from biological factors when attempting to prove hard wired gender differences. Furthermore when she looks at counter studies with subtle changes (such as being told or not told before a test that men do better at logic tests) these so called hard wired differences are dramatically reduced. She eloquently proves that our perception of what is hard wired is somewhat misled. (Though she is not trying to prove that there are no differences in the brain)

Yet she appears to be in the minority opinion here. I heard recently from a friend about a head teacher of an all-girls secondary school who, during a start of term assembly, told the pupils how logical men are(infer how emotional and illogical you girls are). Not only is there little scientific evidence to support this, but what kind of message does this send to these young women? The danger is that this is a self fulfilling prophecy. In other words, the more we tell young girls they are illogical the less logical they indeed become. That men are more logical than women has truth because we say it and therefore engender it. If you have been told your whole life that you won't be as good at maths then you start to believe it and it becomes true. Fine coins this situation as the 'stereotype threat' and it occurs in all forms of discrimination. For whatever reason though, to make these stereotypical claims between genders does not carry the same social taboo that making a stereotypical claim about race does (and rightly should do). We don't feel comfortable inferring from the colour of someone's skin (symptom of a tiny genetic difference) that they will have a specific skill set or large difference in the brain. Why is it then ok to infer these 'scientific' claims about human brains from observation that women and men have physical differences?

And once again like most problems with gender discrimination we need to start young. We need to fight against these artificial stereotypes when teaching children so that more women can release their potential in the world of computer science and technology (and indeed help us release our potential as a country). Head teachers certainly shouldn't be the ones enforcing these stereotypes.
Women In Sport: Why There Aren't Enough And Why The Media Is To Blame,2012:/theblog//3.1184172 2012-01-04T15:09:11-05:00 2012-03-05T05:12:02-05:00 Fran Hall
Some like David Thomas point out that the female media focus on celebrity gossip and beauty and not on sportswomen. He concludes, however, that women don't care about sport and only care about beauty (therefore why should the BBC or any other media make any effort to change). Worryingly a perpetuating cycle is being ignored here. If female media always pump for beauty and celebrity over sports coverage then of course more women will read about this. Not to mention that it is quite hard to read sports coverage in the male media if you don't fancy naked breasts every other page. Let us dig a little deeper though and wonder why are women more interested in beauty than sport? I know plenty of women who like sport (myself included if you hadn't already guessed) but it is not promoted in mainstream female culture. I wonder, who influences girls at a young age to follow celebrities and beauty and boys to follow sport and macho culture? The media of course. They cannot pretend to be passive receivers who merely report what is demanded, when it is evident that they can dictate the demand. Are sport and beauty therefore in direct conflict with one another?

As one of two girls my sister and I were encouraged to play a lot of sport when we were young by both parents but particularly my dad. He admits that as we became teenagers he really felt the competition of the media and society telling us we should be wearing make-up and doing our hair not getting muddy outdoors. It isn't difficult to realise that peer pressure amongst young girls says it's cool to focus on beauty and appearance, whereas for boys it's cool to play sports. This peer pressure is cultivated by society and the media, they are part of the root cause and cannot pretend to be purely symptomatic. Gender divisions begin at a young age. The less interest women have in playing or watching sport at a young age the more they will spend their lives catching up. Moreover we should endeavour to ensure that young girls' interest in sport doesn't taper off when they reach puberty.

Now this isn't to say that the beauty industry is all bad and should be rid of, just it's a shame it monopolises girls' interests and carves out a pigeon hole in which they are supposed to fit. We all know the benefits (such as health, team skills, discipline) sport can bring to the young and old, not to mention that its terrific fun and very sociable (and gives both genders some common interests - see my previous blog post) It seems a great shame that many women miss out. And all this can be rectified by competing with media coverage aimed at women (particularly young girls) so that they have positive role models who can influence what is cool amongst peer groups. What is most frustrating is that there are many talented sportswomen out there who just get shafted in favour of talentless nobodies who piggy back on their partner's careers. Why should more girls follow Coleen Rooney over Rebecca Adlington? Not to mention when progressive moves for women (such as Lancashire men's youth cricket Academy admitting two women for the first time) are also ignored.

We should take advantage of the Olympics in London this year to really challenge the sporting demographic in the UK. But in order to do this the UK media has to give more press coverage to sportswomen - giving them the credit they rightly deserve and in turn more women will take an interest in sport. ]]>
Men and Women: Big Difference?,2011:/theblog//3.1158212 2011-12-19T13:04:52-05:00 2012-02-18T05:12:02-05:00 Fran Hall
Just the other afternoon on a train through Greenwich I overheard one young woman telling her female friend about her new job. She spoke about her new colleagues and expressed disappointment that they were predominantly male. Specifically she said she didn't 'have anything to talk to them about' namely because they are men. These little asides about gender differences usually get me listening, especially when expressed by women (who are often more guilty then men for perpetuating gender myths).

So this woman is claiming that due to her colleagues' gender she finds them uninteresting and difficult to talk to in the work place. In fact it's more than that when she claims she has nothing at all to say to them as by the gender they are so different to her. Perhaps her male colleagues have isolated her. A throwaway comment is actually a big statement (hyperbole aside). I know some will think I'm reading too much into this. Others will say why does this matter? Yet consider for a moment if a man had said this about his female colleagues. Many of us have fought to ensure that no one felt isolated in the workplace. Similarly many women have argued that the differences between the genders are minimal. This has greatly enabled female progress in the workplace as it proves women are just as capable as men.

Yet clearly this remark shows that there are those who still think there are large differences between men and women. This is not of course limited to everyday conversation. I read recently that there are now more women than men becoming doctors. This is something of a great achievement and women should be congratulated. However the media focus of this event was to question whether this would lead to a great change, to focus on the differences that could occur in the profession. Of course male and female doctors have been trained to the same high standards, why should we focus on differences? Let me guess, they want to argue women are more caring (in contrast to the supposedly uncaring male doctors?) This leads to minimal differences being amplified and stereotypes being perpetuated, which in turn widens the gender divide. The thoughts expressed by the young woman represent opinions that are still widespread. I think it is about time we moved on and stopped focusing on the differences between men and women.]]>