Emma Watson calls on men to help fight gender inequality: ‘It’s your issue too’

Emma WatsonEmma Watson has called on men to help end gender inequality.

During a speech made in New York as part of her role as UN Women Goodwill ambassador, the Harry Potter actress questioned how her objective will ever be reached if only half the population take part.

Her talk came as she launched a new UN campaign called “HeForShe”, which aims to enlist the support of as many men as possible to help achieve equality between the sexes.

“I was appointed six months ago and the more I have spoken about feminism the more I have realized that fighting for women’s rights has too often become synonymous with man-hating,” said Watson. “If there is one thing I know for certain, it is that this has to stop.

“For the record, feminism by definition is: ‘The belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. It is the theory of the political, economic and social equality of the sexes.’”

The actress also outlined her experience of sexism, which started at the age of eight when she was called “bossy” because she wanted to direct school plays, adding that her male classmates weren’t described in the same way.

“When at 14 I started being sexualized by certain elements of the press,” she said.

“When at 15 my girlfriends started dropping out of their sports teams because they didn’t want to appear ‘muscly’.

“When at 18 my male friends were unable to express their feelings.”

Watson continued that gender equality has not yet been reached in any country, and it never will be so long as “only half of it is invited or feel welcome to participate in the conversation”, going onto to note prejudices that come with being a man.

“Men – I would like to take this opportunity to extend your formal invitation,” she said. “Gender equality is your issue too.

“Because to date, I’ve seen my father’s role as a parent being valued less by society despite my needing his presence as a child as much as my mother’s.

“I’ve seen young men suffering from mental illness unable to ask for help for fear it would make them look less ‘macho’ — in fact in the UK suicide is the biggest killer of men between 20-49; eclipsing road accidents, cancer and coronary heart disease. I’ve seen men made fragile and insecure by a distorted sense of what constitutes male success. Men don’t have the benefits of equality either.”

Last week, the actress travelled to Uruguay to deliver a petition urging for more women to be employed in politics.

The Independent, Monday 9 March 2015

Emma Watson is hosting a live Q&A on 9 March to address the global issue of gender equality – International Women’s Day- http://ind.pn/1A3oTcI

The academics tackling everyday sexism in university life

universitySelina Todd, of St Hilda’s, Oxford, aims to champion the rights of women working and studying in universities. Photograph: David Levene

At a recent academic conference, I stepped back in time, and not because we were all talking about history. Here was a group of men who announced they were “redefining” modern history. They swaggered through presentations – about men – asserting that only those in their charmed circle had anything of significance to say. Male speakers were introduced as great scholars – “he needs no introduction” a favourite opening – while the few female speakers were granted brief, unenthusiastic descriptions of their work. Few women asked questions; those who did were often ignored, though if a man picked up and repeated their ideas, these were then considered worthy of debate. We are all wearily used to “mansplaining” and being talked over, excluded or ignored. But this conference was a personal nadir.

On the first day I thought: is it me? We’re often told that women overreact, taking offence where none is meant. These were younger men, who’d grown up since the 1970s: wasn’t misogyny meant to disappear when they came of age? Yet, as I watched our next generation of professors perform, it was as if feminism had never happened.

On the second day, I left an overrunning session (those men sure can talk) and discovered a bunch of other women huddled around the cold coffee and curdling milk, who felt exactly the same. Something, we said, has to change.

Our universities are highly sexist institutions. Women are outnumbered and relegated to junior posts. More than 60% of academics are men, and about 80% of professors. Official statistics show that more women are on temporary contracts than men.

Behind the numbers lie depressing examples of everyday sexism. A new survey by the Royal Historical Society (RHS) shows that female academics, regardless of whether they are PhD candidates or professors, are exploited and marginalised by “macho practices and cultures”. Combative behaviour in academic debates and a long-hours culture are de rigueur. And, as a report by Women in Philosophy points out, the problem is “not that women are somehow less able to cope when aggressive behaviour is aimed at them… It is rather that aggressive behaviour can heighten women’s feeling that they do not belong, by reinforcing the masculine nature of the environment within which they work and study.”

When women do engage in combative debate (I speak as one who does), we receive no kudos: what is assertive in a man is arrogant in a woman. At the conference I attended, most of the women on the platform were junior to the men present – many academic men can’t deal with female equals.

‘Most men regard their universities’ equality policies as ‘good’; women consider them ‘poor’

Even women who have a track record of research aren’t treated equally. Increasingly, universities fail to advertise prized permanent academic jobs, simply filling the post with their favoured candidate – invariably a man. As Women in Philosophy reveals, lazy stereotyping means men are assumed to be “brighter” than women; assertive polemic is taken as evidence of intelligence. Lecturers who research women are considered esoteric or marginal to “mainstream” scholarship. History students at Oxford are required to study medieval, early modern and modern history – but not women’s history. Look at the course requirements of most humanities degrees and you’ll very rarely find any obligation to study women.

But soon after that conference, I found myself in a more exciting, inspiring meeting. This was the steering group of a new initiative at Oxford University – Women in the Humanities, formed by a group of academics to introduce real feminism into universities and to combat women’s marginalisation, both as subjects of study and as serious scholars. Many of us teach on Oxford’s master’s in women’s studies – one of just a handful of such programmes in the UK. We aim to promote the study of women – and champion the rights of women working and studying in universities.

We aren’t the only group of academics concerned about women in universities, but unusually we’ve got some hard cash. WiH exists due to the generosity of a private donor who shares our belief that the study, and the career development, of 51% of the population is something a major university should prioritise. Worryingly, few universities seem to agree – women’s studies courses are disappearing and there’s little support for female academics. We’re filling the gap as far as our limited resources allow – we’ve got about £20,000 a year for the next three years to provide grants, seminars and fellowships to support women in the humanities.

We particularly want to encourage early-career scholars, those who have just finished their PhDs. They are reliant on stop-gap teaching jobs to make ends meet, but we know from the large proportion of women academics on temporary contracts that these jobs rarely turn into permanent lectureships. Universities prize research productivity over collegiality, in a system where women are most overburdened with teaching and administration. So we’re offering postdoctoral writing fellowships to help scholars break into academic publishing.

Our research grants and visiting fellowships aim to encourage collaboration. There’s a worrying emphasis at the moment on rewarding individual “leaders”. The Arts and Humanities Research Council, the leading grant-giving body in my field, now evaluates applications according to candidates’ “leadership” potential. This does nothing to challenge the combative, competitive working practices that alienate many women, and also ignores the kind of collaboration that so often leads to research innovation.

We’re also hosting seminars and conferences. Women’s scholarship isn’t as widely known as men’s because they aren’t invited to talk about their research. As one woman complained, “I have been asked if I was married, while my colleagues have been asked what they think”. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve been asked by male academics have asked me if I have children. My husband, also a university lecturer, can’t recall ever being asked this.

One initiative can only achieve so much. But we hope to provide some new ideas to the macho managements who have so few of their own. The current mantra of “flexibility” and privatisation damages women’s interests. Universities offer lamentably little childcare – partly because many of them have privatised or cut funding for all non-academic services. Working days are long. At two universities I know of, for example, academics can be timetabled to teach at any point between 9am and 6pm. Often they are notified of their semester timetable only a week in advance, which makes organising childcare extremely difficult.

Universities blame timetabling software, but given that other large, complex institutions – notably the NHS – offer flexible working, this is a weak excuse.

University managers claim that higher education is “in crisis”, and that we can’t afford the time or investment to make our universities more equal and humane places to work and study. But the real crisis in higher education is not financial – as can be seen by vice-chancellors’ annual pay rises.

Our managers and politicians want to increase our exploitation, and women are the losers. When universities announce redundancies, non-academic staff are usually first in line, and guess who then bears the cost: the RHS survey found that many women “get stuck mid-career”, often overburdened with administrative tasks. We resolved that WiH could only exist if we had administrative support – and that our administrator must be paid at least the living wage and offered flexible working conditions.

In 1970, the UK’s first women’s liberation conference was held at Ruskin College, Oxford. Participants demanded “equal education”. But no measures since have eradicated sexism from universities. Equality legislation has failed. Reform will not arrive with more “enlightened” men. Most men questioned by the RHS regard their university’s gender equality policies as “good”, but most women consider them “poor”.

So we are doing something about it. On 6 March, WiH is hosting Oxford University’s International Women’s Day Celebration at St Hilda’s College. Participants include academics, but also feminist campaigners Melissa Benn and Caroline Criado-Peres. Their presence makes the point that we’d all benefit from universities embracing feminism. University managers claim they need to become “globally competitive” by making a profit out of students or academics’ labour.

We’ll be planning how to promote a different form of higher education – one that offers alternatives to the sexist status quo and pioneers a feminist fightback.

From The Guardian – Education

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/feb/24/sexism-women-in-university-academics-feminism

Men as Change Agents for Gender Equality: Report on Policy Seminar

Countries with more gender equality have better economic growth. Companies with more women leaders perform better. Peace agreements that include women are more durable. Parliaments with more women enact more legislation on key social issues such as health, education, anti-discrimination and child support. The evidence is clear: equality for women means progress for all.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon

Creating a fairer society where men and women alike can achieve their full potential is an important goal. This equality of opportunity will only be achieved if both men and women actively engage in making it a reality.

That’s why, in June 2014, the Government hosted a seminar on “Men as Change Agents for Gender Equality”. This brought together a number of UK experts with Professor Michael Kimmel, a world leader on studies of men and masculinity, to discuss how we might unlock the full potential of men as positive agents of change to achieve gender equality.

Equality is everybody’s business, and most men are supportive of it – it is not just women’s responsibility. Both men and women have much to gain from gender equality.

On the surface, this issue seems straightforward: equality is good for everyone; we should all want to achieve it. And an increasing number of men are realising that they will benefit from a more equal society. We have seen significant progress in recent years as a generation of men are seeking more “hands-on” fathering roles than those of their fathers or grandfathers before them.

But while men may support gender equality, their participation in achieving it remains low. Why, then, are men not more actively involved in bringing it about? That was the focus for this discussion, along with ways in which we might gain the level of men’s engagement that will be necessary to secure real and lasting social change.

This debate is happening here in the UK, but also around the world. Shortly after the seminar, Emma Watson made her powerful and compelling speech to the United Nations launching the global HeForShe campaign. Of course men can be feminists – to create an equal society we need them to be – yet even in 2015 this statement can still seem controversial to some.

Government has a significant role to play in promoting gender equality. For example we have changed the law to introduce shared parental leave and extend flexible working. Through education we encourage both girls and boys to fulfil their aspirations, unconstrained by narrow stereotypes. We are also working tirelessly to support those girls and boys, men and women who are most vulnerable and disadvantaged in our society. For instance, we know that men are three times more likely than women to die by suicide. Admitting to yourself and those close to you that you are having trouble coping is a difficult thing to do. It can be particularly hard for men, due to gender stereotypes that mean they often see owning up to being depressed as a sign of weakness, or may feel unable to discuss their feelings. We are addressing this problem and tackling stigma around mental health through the Time to Change programme where we have committed funding of £15.3million over four years to 2015.

But Government alone cannot deliver the lasting change we need; we must all work together to create a culture and society where individuals are not pressured to conform to gender stereotypes. I am hugely encouraged by the number of people and groups working and campaigning on these issues and the insight and dedication that they bring to the debate – with special thanks to the participants who generously shared their expertise with us at the event in June. Men and boys can become true agents of change by challenging discrimination, sexism and gendered violence, and by speaking out about the ways gender inequality hurts men and boys as well as women and girls.

Jo_Swinson

 

Jo Swinson MP, Minister for Women and Equalities

 

 

Here’s the full report:

Men_as_Change_Agents_for_Gender_Equality_Jan_2015_Gov_Equalities_Office

Cable: Still Not Enough Women On UK Boards

The Business Secretary says “alarm bells” should be ringing for FTSE chairs not doing their bit for gender diversity

By Anushka Asthana, Political Correspondent

Vince Cable has warned the “threat of EU mandatory targets” forcing big companies to appoint many more women onto their boards is still a real possibility because the UK has yet to meet its 25% goal.

It comes as the Business Secretary publishes a list of the 10 “most improved” FTSE 100 companies, including household names like HSBC, in a bid to persuade other companies to follow suit.

Topping the list is Old Mutual, which has seen a 38.5% increase since 2010 – although it began with the very low base of no women at all.  Aggeko is second and then Glaxosmithkline, which has risen by 28 percentage points to 35.7%.  Capita is in sixth place, and HSBC is in 10th, although both began from a stronger position than many of their competitors.  Capital had 22.2% of its board as women in 2010, and that had risen to 44% by October 2014. HSBC rose from 16.7% to 37.5%.

Mr Cable says the 25% target for women on boards is ‘in sight’

Mr Cable said: “Seeing the enormous progress made by these 10 top FTSE 100 companies demonstrates that the UK’s voluntary, business-led approach is working. Our target of 25% women on boards by 2015 is in sight.  “However, the threat of EU mandatory targets remains a reality if we do not meet it.

“Businesses must not take their foot off the pedal during the final stretch – if we are to avoid action from Brussels we must continue to demonstrate that our voluntary approach is the right one and is working.”

He said “alarm bells” should be ringing for FTSE chairs not doing their bit for gender diversity.  He announced the figures at an event at Barclays headquarters in London alongside Lord Davies at Abersoch, who has assessed progress in this area for the Government.  He said: “I have never doubted that the UK has plenty of talented senior women, capable and willing to serve on FTSE boards.

“In 2011, British business said they could fix this problem on their own and I am delighted we are now seeing evidence of this, with more women being picked to serve on the boards of Britain’s biggest companies.

“However, the job is not yet done.”

Women on boards and how the humble procurement department can help

By Alan Day, Chairman and Founder of State of Flux, a global procurement consultancy headquartered in London, UK

Recently I attended a dinner where Dina Medland was talking about the insights she had gained around diversity in the boardroom. Whilst the points Dina was making were more around boards being more representative of their customer base, the conversation quickly turned to women in the boardroom and the recent efforts that the UK has made to increase female representation across FTSE100 organisations.

Today we see the results of those efforts being published and the number of women in board positions has risen from 12.5% in 2011 when Lord Davies set the 2015 25% target to today at 20.7%. If the current rate of growth in female appointments to the board remained, this would leave the UK short of achieving the target. I know there is an interesting debate around setting targets or not and I can see both sides. Those against targets have argued it should be about the best person for the job regardless of gender. There is also a question on what happens if a business fails; would the targets be cited as a reason for failure of the business?

Conversely, there is always the argument of ‘what gets measured gets done’ and today’s results are a good example of this. Equally it is well recognised that by getting a more diverse board leads to better decision making, less ‘group think’ within the boardroom and ultimately better run businesses (1 and 2).

All this got me thinking about what role an organisation’s procurement department plays in this discussion. The procurement profession already has a strong female influence with Paula Gildert being president of Chartered Institute of Procurement & Supply (CIPS) in 2012 and many others also doing great job in the role before her in 2010, 2005 and 2001. We also have some of our most successful UK businesses represented by a strong group of female Chief Procurement Officers (CPOs); think about just the financial services sector where you have HSBC, Barclays and RBS all with female CPOs. But I believe there is more business that could be done with their procurement influence….

Ask yourself, how often does your organisation look at the make-up of a supplier’s board? Knowing your suppliers well is critical to building a trust and strong working relationship and we know that a business follows the lead of their board. Given research has shown that diverse board is more likely to yield better results (1 and 2), then checking and understanding the supplier board make-up is simply good business practice.

Equally, what are we doing to ensure that we encourage suppliers to operate with diverse boards? Is your organisation’s procurement department building this into their thinking when choosing suppliers or even their decision making processes (should scoring criteria be assigned to it during a buying process?)? I believe if we all started to do this, it would encourage a rapid change in not just how FTSE 100 organisations but organisations in general select their board members.

If government were serious about encouraging more women in the boardroom for the better of UK business (as opposed to avoiding having EU sanctions imposed) then a good starting point would be building scoring organisations for their board diversity into their own procurement processes. Shouldn’t Francis Maud be encouraging all government agencies to now include this into their decision making criteria when selecting new suppliers?

The humble procurement department has an opportunity to change the future landscape of how business operates in the UK (and beyond) and I think we should embrace it.

N. Van der Walt, C. Ingley, G.S. Shergill, A. Townsend, (2006) “Board configuration: are diverse boards better boards?”, Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society, Vol. 6 Iss: 2, pp.129 – 147
Mijntje Lückerath-Rovers Women on boards and firm performance