Oxford ends women-only fellowship after university rules that it breaches equality law (the move has prompted a backlash from previous recipients)

[letsrewindit]

Oxford has ended its women-only fellowship after the university’s administrators said it breached equality law.

 

The Joanna Randall-MacIver junior research fellowship, established in the 1930s for women studying fine arts, music or literature, was deemed to be “discriminatory on the grounds of gender†by Oxford’s Council.

 

This is the first time that the university has opened up a historically female-only fellowship to male applicants, and the move has prompted a backlash from previous recipients.

 

The decision means that other research fellowships could be under threat, including those run by Cambridge's female-only college Newnham. The College say that its women-only appointments comply with the Equality Act.

 

Professor Elizabeth Cullingford, a Randall-MacIver fellow in the 1970s who is now chair of English at Texas University, said: “I feel pretty strongly that having one or two things that are special to woman aren’t going to threaten any great power structure at Oxford.

 

“The history there is totally male – for years women couldn’t even be in the university and couldn’t be fellow of a college.â€

 

She said that women do still have some “catching up†to do with men, adding: “We may have parity in numbers but do we have parity on power? I doubt that. I am the first female chair of the English department and Texas University has been around since the 19th century.â€

 

The fellowship is funded by the estate of British-born archaeologist and Oxford graduate David Randall-MacIver, who set it up in his wife Joanna's name after her death in 1932 and stipulated that it should only be awarded to female academics.

 

Former recipients include Jennifer Mundy, The Tate's head of Art Historical Research, and Georgina Herrmann OBE, an eminent archaeologist and the first woman to discover the Afghanistan’s Lapis Lazuli mines in the 1960s. 

 

Alexandra Wilson, a professor of music and cultural history at Oxford Brookes, said that her Randall-MacIver fellowship in 2004 transformed her career in academia.  

 

“These posts are like gold dust, they are highly competitive. When I was applying it was very common to find music departments that were entirely male. Things have improved, but possibly not to full equality,†she told The Daily Telegraph.

 

“I do think it’s a rather regrettable consequence of a well-intended law that this opportunity for women should be removed.â€

 

Another former recipient, now in her 80s, said: "I would like to see it continuing as women only because I think it is sometimes quite tough for women - less tough than it used to be, but it’s nice to have one or two things that are women only.

 

 â€œOn the other hand I am not sure it has swung rather far the other way. I don’t really like positive discrimination, I think that’s insulting. We can stand on our own feet and fight our corner.â€

 

Under the Employment Equality Act 2010, employers are not permitted to advertise or recruit to posts open to one gender only.

 

There are exceptions to this which allow for “positive action†to be taken in favour of a particular group if they are underrepresented in the relevant field of work.

 

Catherine Casserley, a barrister at Cloisters Chambers and one of the country’s leading experts in discrimination law, said that any institutions which have women-only fellowships will now have to reconsider.

 

She said: "What universities are going to have to do is look at their scholarships and fellowships see whether legally, in light of the Equality Act, they can offer them to only one gender and see whether exceptions or positive action provisions applies.â€

 

A spokesman for Oxford University said: “As a consequence of the [Employment Equality] Act, Oxford University has changed the terms of a number of historically-created trusts so they are no longer gender-specific. The Randall-MacIver Fellowship is the most recent example.

 

“The University is very much aware of the lack of women in academic roles at many levels and is working to end the imbalance as a priority.

 

“Several initiatives to promote equality, including strengthened recruitment processes and professional development programmes for female academics, are now well-established and beginning to show an impact at all levels, including professorial posts.† 

------------

 

Reminds me of an incident where a female and male acquaintance talking about mandatory military conscription.

Female: I want equality!

Male: then you should serve mandatory military conscription too

Female: No! Only males should serve mandatory military conscription

Me: 

 

 

 

[HRH Ayyu]

welll equality is equality.

 

edit: someone made a point about it beng okay if the number of women is very low than it should be okay. in situation like that i see no problem. but if the have to abide by equality laws it can be tricky.

[capital]

Well in my country women willingly have joined a non-mandatory army, so...

 

On the topic - I think the scholarship should be maintained for women until about 50-50 balance of men and women in academic departments is achieved. Women have been historically discriminated when it came to higher-studies and jobs, so there needs to be some measures that help them make up.

 

Also, equality is probably the most misconstrued work in social studies nowadays - it is an ideal we have to strive to relentlessly, but not something that denies historical or biological reality.

[A h n]

I think it's a nice change. Equality is equality, not having "one or two things that are women only"

[coval]

I'm all for equality.

[Nip&Hip]

This is why equality is a reductive term that should have never been the main framework to understanding and approaching social injustice issues.

[starsocks]

heyo

 

[Daddy Marx]

I think it's a nice change. Equality is equality, not having "one or two things that are women only"

[letsrewindit]

Well in my country women willingly have joined a non-mandatory army, so...

 

Voluntary conscription is different from mandatory conscription. Males in my country are conscripted against their will.

 

If the said female acquaintance wanted gender equality. It also means having mandatory conscription for females. You can't choose what you like or don't like when you want gender equality

[capital]

Voluntary conscription is different from mandatory conscription. Males in my country are conscripted against their will.

 

If the said female acquaintance wanted gender equality. It also means having mandatory conscription for females. You can't choose what you like or don't like when you want gender equality

I am against mandatory conscription. The thing is, it isn't equality to think that if men suffer women must too!

 

It has to be that - if any matter of national suffering (war or natural calamity) has arisen both genders should share in the load, to the best of their abilities. In the ideal condition, men who cannot (for physical or emotional reasons) join in army service should be set to other work - police, emergency medical training, etc. And capable and willing women should be invited to fill the empty spots.

(I hope you realise that due to biological sex - women in general tend to be physically weaker and smaller, and have a higher chance of encountering sexual violence - it makes sense for men to be preferred for military work).

[freya]

The percentage of male to female academics in arts is actually amazing- so dominantly male when undergrad is full of women. A single scholarship like this wouldn't make a dent at all but likewise shouldn't be seen as a marker for discriminatory practice- it existing is not going to hurt anything but male ego that already will look at the demographics in academia and cite some bullshit about varying gender characteristics.

[A h n]

It would be nice if we could respect others' opinions 

[Jinsus]

We don't need women only or men only things anymore. Good change imo.

[Lugoose]

I am against mandatory conscription. The thing is, it isn't equality to think that if men suffer women must too!

 

the tea has been served and it is delicious

 

[Mark Lee]

I'm a feminist and right now I'm currently sending hate tweets to oxford.

[TheBigMermaid]

Voluntary conscription is different from mandatory conscription. Males in my country are conscripted against their will.

 

If the said female acquaintance wanted gender equality. It also means having mandatory conscription for females. You can't choose what you like or don't like when you want gender equality

 

Do women in your country insist on men getting conscripted?

[letsrewindit]

I am against mandatory conscription. The thing is, it isn't equality to think that if men suffer women must too!

 

It has to be that - if any matter of national suffering (war or natural calamity) has arisen both genders should share in the load, to the best of their abilities. In the ideal condition, men who cannot (for physical or emotional reasons) join in army service should be set to other work - police, emergency medical training, etc. And capable and willing women should be invited to fill the empty spots.

(I hope you realise that due to biological sex - women in general tend to be physically weaker and smaller, and have a higher chance of encountering sexual violence - it makes sense for men to be preferred for military work).

Tldr: I don't want the negatives of equality but wanted to treated as an equal.

 

No, you don't want equality, you want privilege of being a woman.

 

There are many examples of countries making female mandatory conscription work. Mandatory conscription does not mean just army and holding guns or going to war. Woman can be deployed in non combat units for army/air force navy/ police nits. They can also be deployed as paramedics.

 

P.s. I am a woman. I just dont understand why some women in my country is so selfish. Why do they make so much noise when the govt wants to give a little more benefits to men who are forcefully conscripted against their will. Compared to male who are of my age, I dont have to waste 2 years of my life and I graduate earlier, earned 2 years more of income than them.

[capital]

Tldr: I don't want the negatives of equality but wanted to treated as an equal.

 

No, you don't want equality, you want privilege of being a woman.

 

There are many examples of countries making female mandatory conscription work. Mandatory conscription does not mean just army and holding guns or going to war. Woman can be deployed in non combat units for army/air force navy/ police nits. They can also be deployed as paramedics.

 

P.s. I am a woman. I just dont understand why some women in my country is so selfish. Why do they make so much noise when the govt wants to give a little more benefits to men who are forcefully conscripted against their will. Compared to male who are of my age, I dont have to waste 2 years of my life and I graduate earlier, earned 2 years more of income than them.

I wrote - "And capable and willing women should be invited to fill the empty spots". I and you agree on the basics of the conscription - both men and women when required must undertake the jobs necessary for national security. And they, can be army officers (of which many units are non-combative too), police, medics, code-breakers, intelligence etc.

 

Women who are objecting also suffer from the expectations inflicted by patriarchy - the idea that girls are delicate and stupid and can't be trusted to do anything responsible on their own is a damaging stereotype propagated by the masculinist structure that wants women to remain 'pregnant and barefoot' all their life.

But, biologically being a girl (and unless you're childfree), as soon as you get pregnant and start on the process of childrearing - you'll waste about a year per child not being able to work during later months of pregnancy and first months of breast-feeding post-birth. And, it is known even in the most developed countries that women earn about 3/4th to 1/2 of what men earn throughout their life. Taking that into account, do you think getting just two years of extra work-experience makes a substantial difference to your income?

[Brittany]

I don't think people have a really good grasp of historical trends whenever they cite trends from decades, even centuries ago. Senior roles are bound to be dominated by men but that stems from a problem that had taken place in, say, the 1980s (the time at which they were educated); when you distress over things like being under represented, it's like you're distressing over a 1980s issue, and not a 2019 one. 

 

Why, I must say, people have a really poor grasp on time.

[pandabear]

Tldr: I don't want the negatives of equality but wanted to treated as an equal.

No, you don't want equality, you want privilege of being a woman.

There are many examples of countries making female mandatory conscription work. Mandatory conscription does not mean just army and holding guns or going to war. Woman can be deployed in non combat units for army/air force navy/ police nits. They can also be deployed as paramedics.

P.s. I am a woman. I just dont understand why some women in my country is so selfish. Why do they make so much noise when the govt wants to give a little more benefits to men who are forcefully conscripted against their will. Compared to male who are of my age, I dont have to waste 2 years of my life and I graduate earlier, earned 2 years more of income than them.

You think any of what you wrote is that simple? Why don't men demand to be treated like women (no mandatory conscription) instead of women being treated like men (everyone has mandatory conscription)? They aren't demanding women be forced because they feel like their being discriminated against. They're doing it to punish and silence women for asking for rights. This is why it's always brought up as a counter argument to things like wage gaps or maternity rights.

[Brittany]

 

 

Women who are objecting also suffer from the expectations inflicted by patriarchy - the idea that girls are delicate and stupid and can't be trusted to do anything responsible on their own is a damaging stereotype propagated by the masculinist structure that wants women to remain 'pregnant and barefoot' all their life.

But, biologically being a girl (and unless you're childfree), as soon as you get pregnant and start on the process of childrearing - you'll waste about a year per child not being able to work during later months of pregnancy and first months of breast-feeding post-birth. And, it is known even in the most developed countries that women earn about 3/4th to 1/2 of what men earn throughout their life. Taking that into account, do you think getting just two years of extra work-experience makes a substantial difference to your income?

 

This supposed culture is ceasing, if not, has already ceased to exist, at least in the 1st world generation of milennials. I don't feel it at all, and my line of work is in a male dominated field. The 1st world has pretty much abandoned the virtue of pregnancy to populate their societies in favor of immigration. 

 

Also, you should really call to question your values if you think of a year as being ''a waste'' just cause you spent it on childrearing - mayhap it is a hindrance to your career, but to your actual happiness it comes as a privilege. One of the many ways in which capitalism is bastardizing feminism to promote materialism is to popularize the notion of children being hindrances to....exactly, what? Making profits for your company? Sad. 

 

It may make substantial differences should more and more women decide to not have children, which is already happening at a growing rate.

[capital]

This supposed culture is ceasing, if not, has already ceased to exist, at least in the 1st world generation of milennials. I don't feel it at all, and my line of work is in a male dominated field. The 1st world has pretty much abandoned the virtue of pregnancy to populate their societies in favor of immigration. 

 

Also, you should really call to question your values if you think of a year as being ''a waste'' just cause you spent it on childrearing - mayhap it is a hindrance to your career, but to your actual happiness it comes as a privilege. One of the many ways in which capitalism is bastardizing feminism to promote materialism is to popularize the notion of children being hindrances to....exactly, what? Making profits for your company? Sad. 

 

It may make substantial differences should more and more women decide to not have children, which is already happening at a growing rate.

If this supposed culture had ceased in the first world, we won't be having #MeToo or income disparity. And as you said, countries out of West Europe and North America exist, and their immigrant populations who are in First World countries have same values.

 

The prior poster calls military service a 'waste' in terms of loss of work-life, my answer is in relation to that, because pregnancy and child-rearing do too hinder work-life. Both the above-mentioned contexts are duties, and required service to the nation (as you seem to stress in your comment) - in that they are similar.

Also, pregnancy can be traumatic, it can kill you, ravage your body, depress you; child-rearing too is exhausting and a drain on personal freedoms and resources. If one is lucky, then yes both the above duties can give you happiness.

 

Ever heard of job satisfaction? Of finding a calling in a line of work? Firefighters, doctors, teachers save lives. Artists and creative personnels elevate and elucidate the act of being alive. Not everything is corporate - and even those jobs free up people to pursue hobbies like the Gates Foundation helping to eradicate deadly diseases around the world.

 

Women, just like men, have the right to not spend a life in menial housework and drudgery of carework - if they choose self-respect, independence and fulfill themselves with work, why should they be stopped?

If we did live in that ideal world - where women and men have equal share in housework, and men too could carry, then yes, maybe childbirth rates would not be plummeting around the world.

[Brittany]

If this supposed culture had ceased in the first world, we won't be having #MeToo or income disparity. And as you said, countries out of West Europe and North America exist, and their immigrant populations who are in First World countries have same values.

 

The prior poster calls military service a 'waste' in terms of loss of work-life, my answer is in relation to that, because pregnancy and child-rearing do too hinder work-life. Both the above-mentioned contexts are duties, and required service to the nation (as you seem to stress in your comment) - in that they are similar.

Also, pregnancy can be traumatic, it can kill you, ravage your body, depress you; child-rearing too is exhausting and a drain on personal freedoms and resources. If one is lucky, then yes both the above duties can give you happiness.

 

Ever heard of job satisfaction? Of finding a calling in a line of work? Firefighters, doctors, teachers save lives. Artists and creative personnels elevate and elucidate the act of being alive. Not everything is corporate - and even those jobs free up people to pursue hobbies like the Gates Foundation helping to eradicate deadly diseases around the world.

 

Women, just like men, have the right to not spend a life in menial housework and drudgery of carework - if they choose self-respect, independence and fulfill themselves with work, why should they be stopped?

If we did live in that ideal world - where women and men have equal share in housework, and men too could carry, then yes, maybe childbirth rates would not be plummeting around the world.

#MeToo is no proof for discrimination as on a gender equal world there would still be sexual harrassment and sexual assault. Plus with all factors controlled for, the wage gap ceases to exist. Pregnancy isn't valued in the West anymore.

 

False equivalent there cause military conscription isn't desirable nor is it even chosen as a personal pursuit whereas child rearing is. It's forced so, yes, it is a waste on the part of the individual (tho I am personally in favour of it for men still so long as the country is in need for it).

 

Work can be just as mentally stressful and tiring as pregnancy. Some fields of work are just as physically dangerous as pregnancy so I don't get why this is being brought up.

 

You mean the jobs for the elite? The elite is projecting their own scenarios onto the masses. Most jobs are honestly mundane and aren't hindered by childbirth. The kind of jobs hindered by childbirth are the up the ladder corporate jobs for the most part. It won't hinder you if you're an artist or firefighter.

 

They don't have to?

[capital]

#MeToo is no proof for discrimination as on a gender equal world there would still be sexual harrassment and sexual assault. Plus with all factors controlled for, the wage gap ceases to exist. Pregnancy isn't valued in the West anymore.

 

False equivalent there cause military conscription isn't desirable nor is it even chosen as a personal pursuit whereas child rearing is. It's forced so, yes, it is a waste on the part of the individual (tho I am personally in favour of it for men still so long as the country is in need for it).

 

Work can be just as mentally stressful and tiring as pregnancy. Some fields of work are just as physically dangerous as pregnancy so I don't get why this is being brought up.

 

You mean the jobs for the elite? The elite is projecting their own scenarios onto the masses. Most jobs are honestly mundane and aren't hindered by childbirth. The kind of jobs hindered by childbirth are the up the ladder corporate jobs for the most part. It won't hinder you if you're an artist or firefighter.

 

They don't have to?

#MeToo isn't about sexual harassment, it is about the hierarchy of gendered power which silences and normalizes abuse.

 

What factors account for wage gap, and how do you negate the fact that it exists on gender lines? Please cite evidence.

 

People do willingly join the army. Citizens also tend to be patriotic.

Do you think all child-rearing is consensual or even something that historicallly women got to opt in for?!

 

No. The factor is choice - you can choose to get pregnant or join a dangerous job. But being a teacher or retail worker (in non gun-proliferation countries or less developed countries) has so much less chance of being killed or maimed for life.

 

Being a teacher is a job for the elite? You know there is this thing called the middle-class?

Also, yes, going to the workplace on public transport is impossible with a 9 month pregnant belly. Doing call-center work (not a job for elites) or retail is impossible when you have morning sickness or have to pee repeatedly, leaving your work station. Tea-pickers cannot balance if they can't bend forward properly with a bump in the front, or stand for hours with swollen feet. And how would a fit-to-burst firefighter slide down the metal pole or climb rickety ladders?!

 

In many places, eg. Japan and South Korea, you do have to - choose motherhood or your job. Girls are outright fired or pressurised to quit (by bosses and husband's family).

[admiralfarizi]

yes! small little step for equal rights guys! as we all want it! woo hoo!