Women's Views on News |
- Barton apologises after ‘ugly girls’ row
- New team to advance women’s rights
- Sexism in science a daily reality for women
- Undercover police saga continues
| Barton apologises after ‘ugly girls’ row Posted: 04 Jun 2014 08:00 AM PDT Footballer Joey Barton has apologised after describing UKIP as the best of “four really ugly girls”. The footballer, Queens Park Ranger’s midfielder, who was appearing on BBC's Question Time on 29 May, was commenting on the legitimacy of UKIP's recent victory in the European elections. His remark about ugly girls was met with gasps from the audience and led Louise Bours, UKIP's newly elected MEP for the North-East, to comment that Barton had "brains in his feet". Other panellists appearing on the show, which was being filmed at Heathrow's new Terminal 2 building, included Piers Morgan, Conservative minister David Willetts and Labour's Margaret Curran. Barton's comments were made after the panel had been asked about whether the success UKIP had seen in the European elections could be translated into success in next year's general election. In response, the footballer said: "You won some seats in the European parliament that nobody cares about. "You only won 34 per cent of the vote. "If you get the same traction in the general election, people might sit up and take note. "All UKIP represents to me is the best of a bad bunch," Barton added, and pointed out that the election’s outcome - when UKIP won 27 per cent of the overall vote – was far from a ringing endorsement of the party, since only 34 per cent of the eligible electorate had voted. Barton then went on to say: "So if I am somewhere and there were four really ugly girls, I'm thinking, 'Well, she's not the worst', because that is all you are, that is all you are to us." In reply, Bours said: "The ignorance just espoused by the gentlemen here … proves that footballers' brains are in their feet. "What an offensive thing to say, Mr Barton." A member of the audience later remarked in an exchange with Barton: "I was with you in some of the things you said (but) I think the analogy you made of four ugly girls, that's going to be on Twitter tonight and tomorrow, you'll be buried for it." Barton, who read the book British Politics for Dummies before appearing on the programme, apologised on the show for the analogy, saying: "I couldn't think of a better one, this is the first time I have ever done it." He added: "As Louise rightly pointed out my brains are in my feet, which is an equally offensive statement. "Maybe I was a little bit nervous, I apologise." Later on Thursday evening, Barton tweeted: "I may have upset one or two women with an ill-conceived metaphor #imnewtothis." Barton then tweeted: "Should have left it at 'best of a bad bunch'. Ah well #imnewtothis @bbcquestiontime."  |
| New team to advance women’s rights Posted: 04 Jun 2014 06:00 AM PDT
The United Nations has teamed up with leading businesses to advance women’s rights and empowerment through a new advisory council comprising of private sector chiefs with a strong commitment to supporting women and girls. The new Private Sector Leadership Advisory Council, launched at the UN’s headquarters on 2 June, will offer advice on three areas: accelerating women’s economic empowerment; ending violence against women; and helping to close the funding gap for the UN Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women). “This Council’s focus is to accelerate economic and social progress for women and girls worldwide by combining our expertise, reach and resources for greater results,” the executive director of UN Women, Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, said. “The Council is being launched at just the right time, as UN Women mobilises for the 20th anniversary of the Beijing Women’s Conference under the theme: Empowering Women, Empowering Humanity,” she added. The invitation-only Council, which will meet twice a year, comprises prominent private sector leaders, whose companies have a global footprint and identify as corporate citizens that already demonstrate a strong commitment to supporting women and girls. “Given our mandate in advancing gender equality and the empowerment of women, we hope that the Council will provide the foundation necessary to further expand diversified representation in terms of company size, region, and increased female membership,” Mlambo-Ngcuka said, to explain the move. Muhtar Kent, the chairman and chief executive officer of The Coca-Cola Company is the first Chair of the new Council. He said, “Empowering women is one of the most important ways to accelerate growth across the global economy. “By bringing together corporations, government and civil society through Golden Triangle partnerships, we can positively impact women, their families and their communities. He was, he said, honoured to chair this new council and confident that it can make meaningful progress engaging with the private sector on what he called ‘important work’. Along with Kent, the other founding members of the Council include heads of L’Oréal; McKinsey & Company; Goldman Sachs Group, Inc; Chanel; Anglo American plc; Tupperware Brands Corporation; Ogilvy Public Relations; Publicis Dallas; The Coca-Cola Company; and Unilever.  |
| Sexism in science a daily reality for women Posted: 04 Jun 2014 04:12 AM PDT
From publishing results to performing tests in a lab and securing the funding to do the tests, women face more and higher hurdles to success than do men. Personal anecdotes abound of instances of sexism against women within science and academia, and a growing body of data is beginning to quantify the extent of such bias. As one anonymous academic, writing in the Guardian, said, 'I have been asked to divulge my relationship status and future maternity plans in interviews. 'I have even watched my professor refuse to interview astounding female candidates because they have a child.' As promotion and tenure increasingly depends on the amount of grant funding each researcher has been able to accrue, ‘gender bias partly explains why, although women hold half of all bachelor degrees in Europe, only 10 per cent of professors are women’. The reason is likely down to the peer review process, where applications for funding for research are reviewed by a panel of the scientist's peers. Much of the bias that has been revealed is likely to be the result of the perceived and assumed competence of men. Researchers have found that 'in the peer review process, women had to be two and a half times more productive than male applicants to receive the same competence score.' And 'when double-blind peer reviewing was introduced for academic journals, there was a significant increase in female-first-authored papers, and a 33 per cent increase in the representation of female authors more broadly.' Sexism in science is so widespread and consistent that not only do many women expect it, much of the research itself is gendered and biased. The United States' National Institutes of Health (NIH) recently addressed this imbalance by introducing a set of new policies due to begin in October 2014, to ensure that all research contains an appropriate balance of male and female subjects. Writing in the journal Nature, directors from the NIH said that 'the over-reliance on male animals and cells in preclinical research obscures key sex difference that could guide clinical studies. 'And it might be harmful: women experience higher rates of adverse drug reactions than men do.' Such an ingrained acceptance of the predominant use of male cells and animals is because of the traditional belief that the female hormone cycle would cause results to vary too widely to be useful. That belief, for the most part, has been clinically debunked; however, perceptions and beliefs have proven to be much harder to change. Following the NIH's announcement, the University of Wisconsin-Madison women's studies department announced a new fellowship. Led by Professor Janet Hyde, director of the women's studies department, the fellowship will uncover and reverse the gender bias in biology. Hyde led a similar project years ago, culminating in publication in 2005 of an analysis of 20 years of research into gender bias in psychology. A significant finding of that earlier research was that there are far more similarities between male and female psychologies than there are differences. In defending the new fellowship, Hyde said 'Many scientists believe that science is very objective and factual, [which is] a wonderful aspiration, but it's actually not true.' While 'strenuous efforts are being made to get girls to consider science, engineering and mathematical careers, further down the line there are a large number of disillusioned women leaving science and academia. 'What are we doing about that?' asked the anonymous academic. Another anonymous academic article suggests two options – quotas and anonymous research grant applications. Neither is the perfect solution, and there are well-developed arguments for and against both. However, until the systemic bias running through nearly every aspect of science and academia is eradicated, unpopular solutions may be the best option women have for beginning to redress the gender imbalance.  |
| Undercover police saga continues Posted: 04 Jun 2014 01:09 AM PDT
On Thursday 5 June and Friday 6 June 2014 the High Court will hear an application to require the Metropolitan police to drop their "neither confirm nor deny" (NCND) stance in a case being brought against them over undercover relationships. In a statement, the women said: "The purpose of our application is to request that the Court bring an end to the obstructive and distressing approach taken by the police, and require them to plead a proper defence to the claims. "If permitted, the police will continue to use Neither Confirm Nor Deny to cover up the abusive, unlawful and unethical nature of their operations." Harriet Wistrich, solicitor for the women, said: "Three years on and we still don't have any answers. "The police must be made to answer the allegations. "Ever since the deception started the police have sought to maintain their deception at any cost – including the psychological harm to the women who have been left not knowing the truth about these operations." She added: "There is also a huge public interest in this case being properly heard since it is seeking to explore the operation of undercover officers who have committed unlawful acts." An explanation of this particular hearing, including an interview with Harriet Wistrich, can be found here. The case was first lodged in October 2011 against the Metropolitan Police and the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO). It concerns eight women who were deceived into long-term intimate relationships by five officers who had infiltrated social and environmental justice campaigns. "The women assert that the actions of the undercover officers breached their rights as protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, including Article 3 (no one shall be subject to inhumane and degrading treatment) and Article 8 (respect for private and family life, including the right to form relationships without unjustified interference by the state). "The women are also bringing claims for deceit, assault, misfeasance in public office and negligence." The women's case includes common law claims and human rights claims. Due to legal technicalities of these two different types of law, and the obstructive stance taken by the defendants, the women's case is currently proceeding in two sets – one group of five women, and another group of three women. In both parts of the case the women have had to face legal battles by the police, who have attempted to strike out the case, have the case sent to secret court, and who have attempted to hide behind Neither Confirm Nor Deny.  |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Women's Views on News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |