Do you want to learn from women who made it to the top? Explore the obstacles and gender imbalance of leadership and discuss [...]]]> Inspiring Leaders, a partnership event between Camden Speakers Club and Progressive Women, is a day of leadership training, discussions and debate. We are working together to ask questions, spark dialogue and find solutions.

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?

Speakers include:

Mary MacLeod MP (Conservative), Professor Deborah Cameron (Oxford University linguist and author), 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 is wheelchair accessible.

Cost: £12.50
Saturday 6 November, 10:00 – 16:00
London Irish Centre, 50-52 Camden Square, London, NW1 9XB

Book on eventbrite here

Hope to see you there!

Caroline

Please contact me if you have any questions caroline@progressivewomen.org.uk

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

With an estimated 47,000 victims of rape in the UK every year, and around only one in twenty reported rapes leading to a successful conviction (although this has begun to increase), everyone agrees that we need to do [...]]]> This blog comes from Lucy James, Research Fellow at Quilliam the world’s first counter extremism think thank.

With an estimated 47,000 victims of rape in the UK every year, and around only one in twenty reported rapes leading to a successful conviction (although this has begun to increase), everyone agrees that we need to do something to improve the justice surrounding perpetrators of rape and sexual abuse.

Everyone, it seems, except certain sections of the coalition government who, in nine words hidden in the coalition’s government agenda, announced at the end of May that ‘We will extend anonymity in rape cases to defendants’.

As with all crimes, false accusations can be incredibly damaging for individuals involved and deserve due consideration. However, there appears to be no solid evidence that false accusations are higher for cases of rape than other crimes and, moreover, there are numerous arguments that highlight the potential dangers of such a proposal including the damaging impact it could have on conviction rates (for example, see here and here). Consequently it remains unclear as to why rape was singled out in this way.

It is not the first time. Originally introduced by a Labour government in 1976 as part of the Sexual Offences Act, anonymity for rape defendants was finally scrapped in 1988 by the Tories. The issue again resurfaced in 2003 after the Tories raised it in relation to the Sexual Offences Bill. It has also been Lib Dem policy since 2006 (although it was not mentioned in their election manifesto).

Such inconsistency in the application and support of this law in the past would imply that any reapplication should be based on well-thought out arguments and solid evidence. However, despite a clear need for hard facts, the most striking aspect of this whole debate has been the astounding lack of evidence put forward by the motion’s proponents throughout.

Due to the misgivings of various MPs, at the beginning of July the issue was put forward by Caroline Flint MP as a motion for an adjournment debate in the House of Commons. Crispin Blunt MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice, defended the motion. He claimed that opponents to the proposal must ‘turn to evidence rather than supposition’ and, specifically, that (when making the case that a significant proportion of rapists become serial offenders) ‘there appeared to be insufficient data to form a reliable evidential picture’. In fairness, those rejecting the motion during this debate could have solidified their arguments with the use of statistical data. Yet it still remains startling hypocritical that Blunt could make such assertions given the whimsical and vacuous nature of the arguments he put forward himself.

Blunt’s central argument rested on the supposition that sex crimes “are of an entirely different order”. In the House of Commons debate he ‘elaborated’: “Rape is such a serious and emotive crime that it attracts both a high degree of stigma for the defendant and a disproportionate degree of media interest. The combination of those factors distinguishes rape from other crimes”.

Despite declaring that he had ‘sound reasons’ for this motion, what constituted ‘a high degree of stigma’ or a ‘disproportionate degree of media interest’ remained unspecified. It was therefore left unsubstantiated as to why other criminal offences, such as paedophilia, were not also included under the motion. At a time when conviction rates, although unacceptably low, have been rising, such apparently off-the-cuff legislation could have a profoundly detrimental impact.
Even during the adjournment debate, Blunt appeared to be backtracking, for example that he had “no intention of extending similar protections to rape defendants once convicted” (having previously provided no ‘timescale’ for anonymity). It therefore perhaps came as little surprise that, at the end of July, there was an apparent government ‘u-turn’ on this policy. In a rather impromptu briefing given to the Sunday Telegraph it was announced that anonymity would not be granted to defendants. Blunt declared that he instead wanted a “non-statutory solution”, and would go down the route of lobbying the Press Complaints Commission to ask them to issue guidance recommending media outlets not to identify rape defendants before they are charged.

What is important, however, is that, regardless of the legal u-turn, the motivations of Blunt and his government allies have not changed. Blunt explained that, “Given that we had 21 criminal justice acts passed over the 13 years of the last administration, I am sure that Labour [MPs] will understand why we are loath to find even more statutes to put on the statute book”. The u-turn was not made on the basis that it would be singling out one crime over others, and sending out the wrong message to those who had recently experienced the trauma of rape, but was instead done on the basis that the law book was full. In addition, new legislation may not have been fully written off as the Ministry of Justice is reported to have ‘played down Mr Blunt’s remarks’ and insisted ‘it had not entirely ruled out legislation to provide anonymity between arrest and charge’.

In many ways we are therefore back where we started. Key questions remain unanswered: why were cases of rape and sexual abuse singled out in the first place? Concerns are the same – change will just be sought through ways that avoid adding more pages to the statute book.

The result of the current review is now due when parliament reconvenes in September. It still remains to be seen entirely what action the government is going to take. Perhaps the legal battle is over, but even if this is the case, the war is far from won. That the current justice minister is simply finding alternative procedures to implement the same policy does little to allay any fears. These latest announcements give little cause for celebration – there is still work to be done.
———————————–
Progressive Women join organizations such as Rights of Women, to urge you to continue lobbying and writing to your MPs in order to get them to add their name to the list of signatories for Fiona Taggert’s Early Day Motion. A list of current signatories can be viewed here.

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 [...]]]> Laura Nelson is a writer, blogger and campaigner and writes the Delilah blog

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 (http://delilah-mj.blogspot.com/2010/07/notes-for-campaign.html). 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 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/04/women-mass-awakening) was quizzed on topics such as unequal maternal 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.

Women’s objectification and absence from the public eye is not just confined to politics, but another manifestation of the presentation of women [...]]]> Our latest guest blog is from Ann Kristin Glenster an award-winning screenwriter, voting member of BAFTA, on the Board of Directors of Women in Film and Television, and a Fellow at the RSA.

Women’s objectification and absence from the public eye is not just confined to politics, but another manifestation of the presentation of women in the media across the board.

I admit it. I’ve been as sidetracked as everyone else in this debate about the portrayal of women in the media. Following the current stir of alleged sexist and ageist institutional practices at the BBC, launched by former Countryfile presenter Miriam O’Reilly and now Selina Scott, I have happily added my views on women’s artificially enlarged breasts, frozen foreheads and hair extensions as they appear in the public eye. I have even been to the EU Parliament in Brussels and called for broader representation of women on screen. And yet, I’m starting to think I may have missed a major point.

Truth be told, I don’t care that much about what women look like. I rather care about what they have to say. And so I have joined in the calls for broader pictorial representation thinking that if we have a greater variety of women on the screens we would somehow get a more interesting reflection of society. But now I think that by going along with a debate stuck on the physical image of women, I’ve missed the point. It is not really interesting what women look like, but what they feel, say and do.

Granted, physical stereotypes are a real barrier. But when a senior manager at the BBC recently told me that he did not hire women presenters because he couldn’t find many enough with talent, it makes me ask if it isn’t the time we move the debate on from appearances to brains? I want to watch Selina Scott, Miriam O’Reilly and Moira Stuart, all who have fallen victim to alleged sexism and ageism at the BBC, not because they look “more representative” of the general population, but because they have interesting things to say.

It is when women are given the chance to be more than” just seen” that we will have an exciting, vibrant culture and equal society. In short, it’s the day Jordan (aka Katie Price) tells me something I don’t know about politics, neuroscience, law or gardening that we’ll see some real progress. For me the point is not to get Jordan off the screen, but to give her some content, and opening the media to women who not only look like the rest of us, but just as importantly, to their point of view.

Ann Kristin Glenster is a former managing director of a film fund, and has more than ten years experience from the film and television industry. She trained in dramaturgy and law and has degrees from several universities including Columbia University in New York. She currently runs the film business consultancy Boiler Station from Norway and London.

We were delighted to be joined by Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty; Alice Delemere of the Electoral Reform Society; [...]]]> ‘Where are the women?’ This is not a question we needed to ask last night as Committee Room 17 in the House of Commons was full of women, and some men, to discuss women and leadership.

We were delighted to be joined by Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty; Alice Delemere of the Electoral Reform Society; Dr Ruth Fox of the Hansard Society; Ceri Goddard Director of the Fawcett Society; Mary MacLeod MP; and former Minister Maria Eagle MP. The topic was what are the barriers to women reaching the top in politics and what are the solutions.

There were a number of barriers identified from the cost of standing for parliament, childcare and family responsibilities, constitutional issues such as the ‘first past the post’ voting system, and political and social issues. Alice pointed out that in systems with proportional representation twice as many women are represented in Parliament. Ruth noted that in the current discussions on electoral reform in the UK women’s representation is not even on the agenda, even though it could have a fundamental impact. Pressure needs to be on political parties to consider impacts on women of the proposed constitutional reforms in the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

Ceri recognised that ‘there are not enough women in political power because we are so unequal in so many other areas’. She suggested that we need to move forward on all these rights. She also suggested that women are seen as the problem, rather than the problem being the system. If democratic participation is a human right then surely the system needs to enable female participation?

There was a lot of agreement across the aisles – Mary MacLeod MP (Con) and Maria Eagle MP (Lab) agreed that there are not enough women in parliament or political leadership – but that we should recognise the gains that have been made. However, they also agreed that the problem hasn’t been solved because gains have been made, and that we need to keep the pressure on to increase women’s role in parliament.

We discussed how ministerial teams often don’t have women, and that it is important to have women at the table to bring the female perspective on how policy impacts on women. One audience contributor suggested we need to win the argument on what importance women bring to policy making and political leadership in terms of female perspective and diversity.

The discussion also focused on the importance of the media in shaping public perception of women in politics. Women are more likely to be criticised for their appearance rather then the substance of their performance. ‘Cameron’s Cuties’ and ‘Blair’s Babes’ are based on the trivialisation of women in politics and appearance focused. Shami told some stories of her own experience and how the perception of politics and, for some the experience, is that party politics is still nasty, brutal and misogynistic. A participant asked shouldn’t female MPs take on the media and challenge their bias?

There was an agreement that there is a real need for solidarity across all parties and cooperation between women regardless of political affiliation. Shami urged a personal commitment from all of us to demand change.

Solutions included mentoring and supporting women candidates and potential women candidates. Role models were cited as important and Maria said that Barbara Castle MP had inspired her to stand. Mary said it was vital that the leaders of the parties saw women’s roles as a priority and that change has come to the Conservative Party because David Cameron took it on as an issue. Changes to the voting system, as well as equal paternity and maternity laws were also cited as a part of the solution. The meeting concluded with our speakers making commitments to all take personal actions.

Progressive Women want to join together in solidarity with you and like minded women and men. We are organising an event on 6th November to inspire, support and develop women leaders – so watch this space for more details.

Other ideas for what we can all do:

* Get involved and join a political party
* Follow and support the work of the Fawcett Society, the Electoral Reform Society, the Hansard Society
* Share your ideas with Mary MacLeod MP and Maria Eagle MP, or your own MP
* Submit your thoughts to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee Inquiry *Read the Speaker’s Conference report for more on women and political representation

What will you do? Tell us here….

We’re very excited to confirm that our final line up of key contributors includes (in alphabetical order):

Shami Chakribati, Director of Liberty Alice Delemare, Electoral Reform Society Maria Eagle MP Mary MacLeod MP Ceri Goddard, Fawcett Society Ruth Fox, Hansard Society

After seeing the lack of women in the general election campaign and [...]]]> 6.30-8pm, Committee Room 17, House of Commons, SW1A 0AA.

We’re very excited to confirm that our final line up of key contributors includes (in alphabetical order):

Shami Chakribati, Director of Liberty
Alice Delemare, Electoral Reform Society
Maria Eagle MP
Mary MacLeod MP
Ceri Goddard, Fawcett Society
Ruth Fox, Hansard Society

After seeing the lack of women in the general election campaign and the Labour leadership race we decided we need to do something about this. We want to see more women at the forefront of national politics and the aim of this discussion is to work out ‘Where are the women?’ and ensure by the next general election women are visibly leading.

Come have your say!

If you want to attend this event please rsvp to caroline@progressivewomen.org.uk

The new coalition government seems to be going ahead with proposals to give those accused of rape anoynimity.

Despite rape convictions being extremely low, the government has decided to take proactive measures to protect the accused rather than the victim. What does this say [...]]]> This blog is written by Caroline Watson, Co-founder of Progressive Women

The new coalition government seems to be going ahead with proposals to give those accused of rape anoynimity.

Despite rape convictions being extremely low, the government has decided to take proactive measures to protect the accused rather than the victim. What does this say about our new government’s priorities?

Parliament debated the new rules last week and you can read the views of largely (but not exclusively) female MPs who contributed to the debate in the House of Commons here.

There is a powerful article here from Caroline Flint summarising the opposition in the House of Commons.

And Rights of Women have issued a statement which you can read here opposing the proposals. They are asking women’s organisations to sign up to their statement.

If you are an individual and you feel you need to act now to stop these new laws that will make it even harder to protect women and men from rape then put pen to paper and tell your MP to vote against these proposals.

Check out this short clip here to find out why you should come and have your say!

Where are the Women? – 6.30pm, 21st July, Committee Room 17, House of Commons, SW1A 0AA

We are pleased to confirm that Shami Chakrabarti [...]]]> Want to know why you should come along to our next event ‘Where are the women’?

Check out this short clip here to find out why you should come and have your say!

Where are the Women? – 6.30pm, 21st July, Committee Room 17, House of Commons, SW1A 0AA

We are pleased to confirm that Shami Chakrabarti Director of Liberty, Mary MaCleod MP, and Ruth Fox of the Hansard Society, will be contributing to the discussion. Further speakers will be confirmed in the next few days.

Numbers are limited so please rsvp as soon as possible to caroline@progressivewomen.org.uk

The United Nations has [...]]]> Our guest blogger Laura Nelson writes a blog, Delilah, where she campaigns for equality and tries to quash stereotypes. She is also the president of Camden Speakers Club, which is part of a national association that helps people develop skills for speaking in public, and she investigated the brain for her PhD.

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 be 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.