Are female artists worth collecting? Tate doesn’t seem to think so
The museum preaches diversity, but its annual acquistions suggest that great art is mostly created by men
So, the progressive idea is that the technocrats run things. Those who know what they’re doing that is. Within that is the assumption that those running things know what they’re oing. The Tate buyers knowing what art is for example.
So, maybe it’s true that men create most of the art then?
Imagine a four-person shortlist that has three women and one man on it. With this shortlist, a woman will be hired only 67% of the time.
If you’ve got two women and two men on the shortlist, a woman will be hired 50% of the time – the odds you would expect if people were making hiring decisions purely based on merit.
What chance do you think a woman has of being hired when there’s one woman (against three men) on a four-candidate shortlist?
According to a recent study looking at academic hiring, there’s statistically no chance she’ll be hired.
Many employers are actively trying to recruit more women to senior positions, and are changing the composition of shortlists as a means of doing so. Some large corporates have recently announced that they’re scrapping all-male shortlists and are asking recruiters to find a more diverse range of candidates.
But as the study above suggests, adding just one woman to a shortlist to prevent it from being all-male may not do the trick. This is because the ratio is still sending the implicit message that a man is more appropriate for the job.
Or possible that people see through the inclusion of a token woman on a shortlist?
Why are there so few queer female coming-of-age movies?
Well, in the form of movies where they keep their clothes on it could just be that there’re not that many people interested. Lesbians are some 1% or so of the female population. So, we’re talking about something that resonates with (sure, of course we don’t have to be exactly the same as the characters. I’ve never fought anyone with a samurai sword but Kill Bill passed the time pleasantly enough) some -.5% of the adult population.
That’s something to spend tens of millions on, is it?
In the sort of movies where everyone doesn’t keep their clothes on I’m told that it’s a very popular subject.
A former head of human resources for the Federal Emergency Management Agency is under investigation after being accused of hiring women as possible sexual partners for male employees, the Washington Post reported Monday.
Very generous of him, wasn’t it? Not the popsie with the biggies as his own secretary but for the other blokes?
Or maybe he was being really generous and getting would be cat ladies into contact with those who could save them from that fate?
When I was attacked, it began with a demand for a cigarette. It escalated to the point where I was on my back on the pavement, being strangled. Not even a decent man who takes rejection with good grace can tell me, or any other woman, that our fear of violence is unfounded. We know what rejected men can do – we have seen what can happen. And many of us have felt it.
OPK. Well, no, not OK that it happened, but OK to the story as told.
Good progress is being made on teaching consent in schools. But ultimately it comes down to men treating women with respect and regarding them as equals with agency over their bodies. Unfortunately this sort of sea change can take generations, especially when it is undermined by the surrounding visual culture.
We used to laugh at this, the idea that this somewhat feckless, harmless man could be perceived as so frightening. But having suffered some of the long-term health implications of being attacked, I don’t find it funny any more. When you combine the larger male physique with rejection and a bruised ego, the situation can become frightening and violent. There are men who take rejection with good grace, of course. But not enough of them. And so women learn to smile and look down, to defuse the situation with soothing words and platitudes, to make our bodies smaller, to comply. We undertake the emotional labour of minimising men’s feelings of pain and humiliation.
That’s why we had all those old rules of the patriarchy. Never strike a woman, no matter what, for example. Societally enforced by every other man around being ready to administer a thrashing to those who erred.
Sure, you don’t have to like that solution. But it was a solution to that very problem you’re complaining about.
Football could be more dangerous for women than men because their brains are more susceptible to damage from heading the ball, new research suggests.
In a new study which looked at nearly 100 amatuer players, females showed five times the amount of brain tissue damage than males on scans.
Seems the warming hasn’t changed,even if the reason for it has. Who knows, it might even be right this time. But people have been saying sport’s very bad for women for some time now. Wombs fall out or summat wasn’t it?
About one in four heterosexual couples that the census looked at had wives that earned more than their husbands. In those cases, though, husbands over-reported their income while their wives under-reported their own. (The census sorted all this out when it matched couple’s answers to their actual IRS filings.)
Now, we can’t know for sure why the exaggeration happens – perhaps couples want to present themselves as more traditional to the census, maybe husbands feel insecure about making less or wives are anxious that their salary difference will “emasculate” their spouse. Whatever the reason, though, it serves as a good reminder that it’s not just political equality we need to fight for – it’s equality in the culture, and our relationships.
If we don’t have parity in our homes, we won’t have it in our country. And if men and women aren’t even comfortable talking about equality, how can we expect anyone to fight for it?
Well, no, living with someone is a constant experiment in compromise. We could even mine Jessica’s past columns for the things that men really should do for the women in their lives. You know, be honest about bum look big in this, compliment the new haircut, have chocolate available one week in four. If in return fragile male egos need a little massaging about who is bringing the cash into the household well, why not? You know, swings and roundabouts?
I’d no more listen to a physicist’s advice on my fertility than I would let a mechanic cut my hair.
You mean you don’t? OK, random rudeness about Guardian columnist’s photos over. This is intensely annoying:
The backlash against birth control apps is growing. Yet, women do need more readily available information about their own fertility, as well as about the side-effects of the contraceptives they are prescribed. Technology appeals because the medical profession too often dismisses and fails women, and has ignored the concerns of many women disenchanted with the side-effects of hormonal contraception. No wonder Silicon Valley steps in, seemingly offering a natural and smart solution that looks – and is – too good to be true.
But doctors should ask why so many women would consider trusting an app over a medical professional, and researchers should look at why so many people are unhappy with the prescribed pills, injections and implants, and work to improve them. All of us emerged blinking into the light from a uterus: fertility should be taken more seriously, and women should be trusted when reporting symptoms and anxieties, rather than be treated as unreliable witnesses and hysterics.
The thing is, anyone who came up with a better form of contraception would make a fortune. In fact, all those people who did come up with marginal improvements on the previous methods did make a fortune. It’s all one of the things that capitalism has done the best that is possible given the current state of technology. It’s even one of the things, under that capitalist impulse to gain pelf and lucre, driving technology along.
Sheesh, we’re all doing the very best we can and yet still complaints?
Meanwhile, the transgender lobby, still on its surreal march to deny reality, is insistent that men who transition to being women can suffer very badly from period pains. Despite not having a uterus. And those who deny their right to suffer period pains, despite the fact they cannot possibly have them, are bigots.
Of course men suffer period pans. Not, admittedly, anything to do with their own lack or presence of a uterus. But those shards of broken crockery are dangerous.
Terms like “mumpreneur” and “lipstick entrepreneur” are stopping young women from starting businesses, MPs say.
In a report the All Party Parliamentary Group for Entrepreneurship said that girls were being put off launching careers as science and tech entrepreneurs because of a perception that women’s businesses belonged in the lifestyle sector.
“The media often portrays women as running ‘lifestyle’ businesses, which have little opportunity for growth. Terms like ‘mumpreneur’ or ‘lipstick entrepreneur’ do little to tackle the stereotype,” its report warns.
There mere use of a word disturbs the shrinking little violets.
A new study reveals an “alarming” 50 per cent rise in levels of prenatal depression in a single generation.
Researchers believe that while many women continue working throughout the bulk of their pregnancy due to career aspiration, others are forced to stay in their jobs longer than they would like because of financial demands such as increased house prices.
Both are contributing to a rise in anxiety among expectant mothers, with a “compare and compete” culture on platforms such as Facebook also fueling the trend.
One contributory factor to those house price rises is the availability of two incomes to pay for them of course.
We’ve thus got women working, women having careers, as a cause of this unhappiness and depression.
OK. The implication being? Well, either we withdraw the career bit or we put up with the depression, no?
In its report, the commission said trustees failed in their legal duties to manage the charity’s resources responsibly and protect it from reputational damage. The regulator highlighted the “purchase of clothing for female staff to wear and instructions on how female staff should appear, neither of which we consider acceptable in a charitable environment”.
Trustees were aware before the dinner of the risk of “inappropriate behaviour” and members were reminded at the beginning of the evening of a new code of conduct, the report said.
Despite that, trustees did too little to prevent harassment or ensure that the agency who employed the women put in place procedures to allow them to voice any concerns.
So, boys night out. Blokes get lewd. And nowt else happens except lots of money raised for charity.
The Charity Commission says this must all stop.
The commission said nobody who worked at the gala dinner had come forward to complain in answer to a call for evidence, which was published on a government website. It did not issue any sanctions against the trustees, instead offering them “formal regulatory advice”.
Liberal Democrat MP Jo Swinson, who headed the group of MPs that called on the regulator to investigate, said this did not go far enough. “The report is scathing about the trustees, yet disgracefully they are getting away with no more than a slap on the wrist,” she said. “The Charity Commission should not be afraid to use its full powers and should disqualify these individuals from holding trusteeships until they can prove they are fit for the role.”
Yep, boys night out.
Where the lads got a bit lewd.
Britain’s record on incarcerating women has been a national scandal for decades. In the vast majority of cases it has been pointless, enormously expensive and wildly destructive, reinforcing a cycle of damaged people and broken homes that affects not just the women, but their children, families and the society that bears the subsequent costs. Now, after more than four decades of compelling critical reports on the issue, and years of earnest statements of goodwill from assorted politicians, David Gauke, the justice secretary, is at last unrolling a serious, comprehensive strategy to keep non-violent offenders out of jail.
Does the argument work if we drop the “wo-” there?
Then you’re being a sexist shit, aren’t you?
Several of the players at this year’s championships have also spoken of the guilt they feel about leaving their children when they train or play in matches.
Give in to that guilt and you’ll be a better or worse player?
For most people who have a baby, it is inconceivably hard. Modern society protects us from most of the ravages of nature – serious illness, cold, discomfort and pain. But in childbirth and looking after a newborn, we experience the harsh realities of our basic existence; we get closer to our primal selves. And we’re not used to it. Coupled with this, a lack of social support structures means women often end up isolated and struggling. As a facilitator for Mothers Uncovered, a Brighton-based charity that focuses on the mother rather than the child, I see it all the time.
Those men have gone out and built a society around us that takes the pain out of near all that primal existence. But they’ve still not managed to stop that pain of childbirth.
Those social support structures like neighbours, grandparents, aunts – you know all that the modern left has insisted must be replaced by government. And that pain – pretty sure that anaesthesia helps. As does the risk of death in any one pregnancy falling from 2 % to 0.002% I’d guess (no, really, 2,000 per hundred thousand to 2 these days).
But what bastards, men, eh?
There will be no deafening indie music, no boozed-up moshing and definitely no queues for the urinals. There, will, however, be vaginal steaming, feminist debate, and a chance for contemplation in the sacred womb tent.
Make way for Women Fest, Britain’s first ever all-women festival, billed as an event of radical participation that aims to explore the “power and magic” that happens when women gather together, and the impact it can have on the wider world.
After a year of sexual politics dominated by women’s marches and the #MeToo and Time’s Up movements, the festival hopes to bring together 400 women on a farm outside Frome in Somerset in August.
Women only being just as much sex discrimination as men only?
Apparently it’s important to be civil. Whatever pageantry of violent intolerance is playing out in the news, liberals and women and people of colour must moderate our language so that certain sensitive Caucasian gentlemen in the room aren’t made uncomfortable. We must remember that their feelings matter. We must not, for example, point out that violent misogyny – from online harassment and stalking to domestic abuse – is the live wire running through the machinery of mass murder, white supremacy and far-right mobilisation in Trump’s America and beyond.
Yes, Laurie. I’m sure it’s not long now before the revival of Hostess Twinkies is a symbol and symptom of misogyny.
It’s the theme that connects the “incel” movement with Islamic State, the refrain that runs from 1930s Berlin to Washington in 2018.