Category: Inequity

Army officers ordered to cut ties with men-only members’ clubs | The Telegraph | UK

All entries on Feminist Legal Clinic’s News Digest Blog are extracts from news articles and other publications, with the source available at the link at the bottom. The content is not generated by Feminist Legal Clinic and does not necessarily reflect our views.

Army officers have been ordered to “disassociate” themselves from private members’ clubs that refuse to allow female soldiers to join.

Lt Gen David Eastman told regiments to review their affiliations with exclusive organisations that restrict women from joining or bar them from accessing certain rooms, urging troops to “advocate for change”.

The marching orders, believed to be the first of their kind seek to determine whether the rules and culture of the traditionally male-only clubs matched “the Army’s values and the principles of equality and respect”, the general said.

Writing to troops, the military chief said it had come to his attention that some corps and regiments maintained historical ties with clubs whose rules flew in the face of “inclusivity”.

In the letter, Lt Gen Eastman expressed his concerns not only for organisations that barred women entirely but those whose membership rights, access and participation varied based on gender.

Affiliations between the regiments and private members’ clubs are informal and membership is funded by individuals rather than by units. However, the links for some have been historic and long-standing.

Lt Gen Eastman warned that endorsements of such groups carried “weight” and must now be reviewed in an effort to better promote inclusivity.

“It creates an environment in which service personnel may feel an implicit expectation to join to fully participate in social or professional life,” he said.

News of the letter comes days after The Telegraph revealed the Army was facing a major probe into the alleged sexual abuse of recruits at medical testing centres.

Wiltshire Police launched the investigation, with detectives saying the abuse spanned between 1970 and 2016 and involved multiple “perpetrators” across “several locations”.

Source: Army officers ordered to cut ties with men-only members’ clubs

SURVEY: Freedom in the Arts – Campaign Club

All entries on Feminist Legal Clinic’s News Digest Blog are extracts from news articles and other publications, with the source available at the link at the bottom. The content is not generated by Feminist Legal Clinic and does not necessarily reflect our views.

Entries Close December 6th, 2025

Freedom in the Arts (FITA) has launched three new confidential surveys exploring how boycotts, censorship and political pressure are shaping the UK’s cultural sector.

This is the first research of its kind, designed to inform the creation of a practical FITA Toolkit — a set of clear, lawful, and supportive resources to help artists, venues, and agents navigate pressures with confidence and integrity.

We’re asking everyone across the arts to take 10 minutes to share their experience — honestly and confidentially. Your input will help us defend freedom of expression and rebuild resilience across the sector.

Source: SURVEY: Freedom in the Arts – Campaign Club

Met Police set to splurge £5m a year on 64-strong woke taskforce as mounted officers face job losses | Daily Mail

All entries on Feminist Legal Clinic’s News Digest Blog are extracts from news articles and other publications, with the source available at the link at the bottom. The content is not generated by Feminist Legal Clinic and does not necessarily reflect our views.

Britain’s biggest police force is to spend a staggering £5.2 million a year on employing 64 diversity staff, despite paring frontline services to the bone, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.

The Metropolitan Police is committed to expanding its woke workforce despite slashing thousands of officers’ jobs as it grapples with a £250 million funding gap, according to data exclusively obtained by this newspaper under a Freedom of Information request.

The document also reveals the mind-boggling array of inclusivity projects in the force.

Among 63 events celebrated on a ‘diversity calendar’ are International Pronouns Day, Pansexual and Panromantic Awareness Day, Be Kind To Humankind Week and National Tsunami Awareness Week.

There are also 47 staff support networks including the Bisexual Support Group, the He For She gender equality movement, and the Borderline Personality Disorder network, as well as 19 associations for various ethnicities – including Ibero-American, Polish, Italian, Slavic and Romanian – and support for followers of every major religion.

The revelations come after the MoS revealed that Britain’s public sector is splurging £70 million a year on woke equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) officers as frontline services are stretched to breaking point.

Our analysis of the diversity gravy train found the NHS alone spends £40million on EDI jobs each year, despite the waiting list standing at 7.4million.

Sir Mark Rowley, the Met Commissioner, has said that the force would lose 3,300 police officers in 2025 and 2026 and close ten more police station front counters.

The Met is about to axe close to half of its mounted division to help the force shrink its £260 million debt – and officers expect to learn in the next few weeks who will be redeployed elsewhere.

Earlier this year the Met announced it will have to lose 1,700 officers, PCSOs and staff and axe several services, including the Royal Parks police and officers in schools.

Forensics and historical crime teams also face cuts, and station front-counter opening times could also be reduced.

Source: Met Police set to splurge £5m a year on 64-strong woke taskforce as mounted officers face job losses

24 Years Later, Michigan Still Ignores the Whistleblower Who Tried to Save Family Court — and Survivors Like Christine Morrison Are Still Fighting – clutch.

All entries on Feminist Legal Clinic’s News Digest Blog are extracts from news articles and other publications, with the source available at the link at the bottom. The content is not generated by Feminist Legal Clinic and does not necessarily reflect our views.

In 2001, former JTC director Daniel J. Henry warned Michigan that family courts were violating rights and operating without oversight. Twenty-four years later, survivor Christine Morrison is still fighting the same corrupt system.

In a detailed letter to then–Attorney General Jennifer Granholm, Henry described a judicial landscape that had abandoned its purpose entirely. Family courts, he warned, were acting with impunity; disregarding constitutional rights, retaliating against litigants, and operating without meaningful oversight. He called for immediate reform.

It was a chance for Michigan to course-correct before decades of damage piled up. But the state did nothing. And to this very day, it continues to do nothing.

It’s now 2025, twenty-four years since Henry’s whistleblower letter, and the system he tried to fix is still broken.

In many ways, it’s way worse.

Every week, new stories emerge of parents bankrupted by drawn-out custody battles, children placed with or forced to see abusive parents, and judges retaliating against litigants who dare to speak publicly. Family court still operates like a closed society, shielded from public scrutiny, insulated from legislative oversight, and free from consequences, yet raking in thousands in revenue through court and child support fees.

If you want proof that nothing has changed, look no further than Christine Morrison.

Clutch Justice is diving into Christine’s story; not just as one woman’s nightmare, but as a window into a broken machine that’s been grinding people down for decades.

We can’t undo the decades of harm that came from ignoring Daniel Henry’s warning. But we can refuse to let another 24 years pass without change. That means demanding:

  • Mandatory transparency: Hearings, orders, and performance metrics must be public.
  • Independent oversight: A new accountability body with investigative authority outside the judiciary.
  • Real consequences: Judges who abuse their power must face removal, not quiet admonishment.
  • Accessible appeals: Families must have realistic avenues to challenge unlawful decisions.
  • Public pressure: Citizens, journalists, and advocates must keep this issue in the spotlight. Relentlessly.

Henry did his part. Christine is doing hers. The question is whether we’ll do ours.

Clutch Justice stands with the whistleblowers — past and present — and with survivors like Christine Morrison who refuse to be silenced.

[Ed: Interesting to see how similar these problems are to the continuing issues with the Australian Family Court. We need to make similar demands.]

Source: 24 Years Later, Michigan Still Ignores the Whistleblower Who Tried to Save Family Court — and Survivors Like Christine Morrison Are Still Fighting – clutch.

From the manosphere to tradwives – why are young women embracing traditional gender roles? | The Conversation

[R]ecent signs suggest young adults may once again be embracing the idea that men should be dominant, while women play a supporting role.

Our research explored a concept called benevolent sexism – a set of patronising attitudes that appear positive while reinforcing women’s subordinate status.

This type of sexism is “benevolent” because it offers praise and protection to women who support traditional gender roles, while protecting patriarchal dominance as the status quo.

Our research, not yet peer reviewed, looked at two aspects of benevolent sexism.

1. Protective paternalism (“paternalism”): the belief that women need men’s protection

2. Complementary gender differentiation (“gendered roles”): the belief that men are naturally providers and protectors and women are naturally best suited to looking after home and family.

In the 2010 cohort, 57% of women disagreed with gendered roles, compared to 43% in 2024. In the intervening years, the dial shifted from “no” to “yes”.

In my 2010 focus groups, many young Australian women believed their male partners would be unlikely to share household and caring duties with them. As a result, they (reluctantly) expected to give up or reduce investment in their careers once they were partnered and had children.

Why do young women seem to expect even more conservative outcomes in their relationships 14 years later?

Some insight may be gained from two online trends that actively promote a return to traditional gender roles: the manosphere and the tradwives movement.

Denizens of the manosphere are loud and aggressive in expressing their criticisms of women.

One criticism has been gaining prominence: that men’s wellbeing is suffering as a result of women becoming more independent.

Misusing ideas from evolutionary psychology, the manosphere promotes the view that women and men are “naturally” suited to different roles.

The female equivalent to the manosphere is a collection of online female influencers. Many of these are “tradwives”, short for traditional wives.

Tradwives mirror the ideals of the manosphere, encouraging women to focus solely on looking after the home, the man and the family.

A key message of the tradwives movement is that “having it all” is too hard and women should allow themselves the freedom to focus on home and family.

This may appeal to young women feeling pressured to achieve in a world where the system is stacked against them.

But in romanticising the homemaker role, the tradwives movement wilfully ignores the risks in these traditional arrangements for women. One such risk is women who are financially dependent on their partners may find it harder to leave abusive relationships.

Source: From the manosphere to tradwives – why are young women embracing traditional gender roles?

If Harriet Harman strips me of my free speech, I’ll give up my job as a barrister | The Telegraph | UK

Baroness Harman’s independent review of bullying, harassment and sexual harassment at the Bar, published earlier this month, sent ripples across the barrister community for its potential to lead to censorship and the repression of free speech.

Speech should only be a criminal or regulatory matter if a very high bar of offence is crossed. Certainly I don’t think I’ve ever crossed it. Yet, in our culture now, mere disagreement is seen as violence, and not having a prevailing view about issues such as sexuality or transgenderism is seen inherently to be bigoted.

The thing that really worries me from Lady Harman’s new report is recommendation number 24, which reads: “Regulatory enforcement action must be taken against online bullying and harassment,” particularly if it’s motivated by misogyny or racism.

But who is deciding an unknown individual’s motivations for a tweet? Somebody who is upset enough to get the whole apparatus of either the criminal law or a regulatory offence moving? It’s very dangerous.

Of course, there should be fetters on my speech. I’m a member of a regulated profession. That carries with it privilege, and I respect that. However, having a view about Brokeback Mountain does not bring my profession into disrepute. Neither does upsetting people through the lawful exercise of my Article 10 rights [to freedom of expression, according to the European Convention on Human Rights].

I think we all agree the line needs to be drawn somewhere. It’s about where we draw it.

Another facet of the report also caused me deep concern: “Micro aggressions such as… sarcastic remarks… may also meet the threshold of bullying, harassment or sexual harassment” it says.

Barristers are aggressive by nature because we have to be. We’re in an adversarial profession. The problem is when it tips over into unacceptable bullying and harassment, which does happen. I was a victim of it, and my profession did nothing to help me or to stop it. If the Harman report is designed to end that sort of behaviour, then it gets my vote, but I’m worried it’s going to sweep up a lot of casualties in its wake, and one will be Article 10.

For example, you’re not allowed to discuss immigration because then you’re a racist, and you’re not allowed to discuss gender identity because then you’re a transphobe.

In my daily life, I work in public law care proceedings, in cases where local authorities are looking to take children into adoption. It’s getting less rewarding, because resources are being cut and there is less help available for parents and children.

This is why reports and recommendations like Lady Harman’s make me so angry: they risk being performative and a distraction from the bigger, more significant problems in society.

Source: If Harriet Harman strips me of my free speech, I’ll give up my job as a barrister

How long before UK Jobcentres move from encouraging unemployed women into OnlyFans to mandating it? | Nordic Model Now!

UK job centres are encouraging OnlyFans as self-employment for unemployed women, while stories emerge of male job coaches seeking free access to their ‘content’.

OnlyFans is seen as a bit of a joke and no big deal, partly because, unlike Pornhub, the name allows us to gloss over the true nature of the site’s content. In the Jobcentre, as in life, there is profound lack of understanding of what these sites truly entail, the dynamics involved in making money from them, who drives the profits and who pays the price. For clarity, OnlyFans is a site of primarily pornographic content. Not exclusively but, as its doomed 2021 attempt to shut down sexualised content demonstrated, it is young naked female bodies that keep the site profitable.

[N]ot only does an OnlyFans creator have to pay subscriptions for her own potential exploitation, and possibly fees to a third party acting as a pimp or procurer, she is then required to pay tax on her income for no discernible benefits. That’s a lot of people making money from a so-called employment situation that can’t and won’t protect creators from exploitation that occurs within it.

What is most outrageous is the fact that the DWP regards prostitution as a legitimate career path. In society, the narrative being pushed is that OnlyFans is sexy, fun and empowering. In the DWP, the narrative is that it’s authentic self-employment.

If a Work Coach mandates a claimant to apply for a job and the claimant fails to do so, it is very much within the Work Coach’s purview to nominate that claimant for a sanction on their monthly benefit payment. This sanction is very often a reduction to zero, meaning that the claimant is left with no money to cover essential expenses for the month. So, what becomes of the woman who struggles to find a job but won’t accept sexual exploitation as an alternative? Her benefit will be reduced and she’ll be edged further into poverty. What if she encounters a vindictive Work Coach who seeks to make an example of her for not providing him with ongoing free content? Likely the same.

Right now, in the DWP, sexual exploitation is being reframed as an employment issue. People should know about this and we should fight against it.

Source: How long before UK Jobcentres move from encouraging unemployed women into OnlyFans to mandating it? | Nordic Model Now!

‘Girls need to carry things too!’: How women’s pockets became so controversial | BBC

Why do men’s clothes have so many pockets, and women’s so few? For centuries, the humble pocket has been a flashpoint in the gender divide of fashion. Now, with a #WeWantPockets hashtag gaining momentum on social media, is that finally set to change?

When pockets do exist, they’re usually shorter and narrower than those on men’s clothes. Or, at their most maddening, nothing more than sheer illusion. Earlier this year an eight-year-old schoolgirl wrote to UK supermarket Sainsbury’s asking why their girls’ school trousers had fake pockets and the boys had real ones. “Girls need to carry things too!” she said. A representative from the retailer promised to look into the issue.

At the autumn/winter 2025-26 fashion shows earlier this year, which set the trends for what we’ll be wearing in the coming months, there were signs that the industry is taking note. Many models swaggered down the catwalks with their hands pushed firmly into deep pockets – carrying an extra dose of confidence compared to those with their arms flailing freely.

All the things that might go in pockets – money, keys, notes – symbolised things that weren’t meant to concern women, like property, power and privacy. Some women started carrying small bags instead. “That was another thing that made you more vulnerable because it meant you couldn’t really use your hands,” says Stevenson.

While a lack of pockets was no doubt as frustrating to women then as it is now, it didn’t really emerge as a political issue until the early 20th Century. “The suffragettes demanded votes for women, but also pockets,” says Stevenson.

This is still a factor today. “The fashion industry is invested in women having handbags, so it makes sense for them to push this idea that women should be carrying their belongings in something that’s very separate from their garments,” says Stevenson.

Source: ‘Girls need to carry things too!’: How women’s pockets became so controversial

Ben Shephard called out over gender equality debate | Metro

Commentator Ashley James joined co-presenters Ben and Cat Deeley to talk about whether women should pay less tax than men on the ITV daytime chat show.

As Ashley argued, there are still several fields where women are at a disadvantage to mean when it comes to their financial situation, including the pink tax.

‘[This] means that products marketed to women cost more than they do for men. And you can see this, and the studies about it. Whether it’s razors, deodorant, even more so if the packaging is pink.

‘But men’s deodorant costs less than women’s deodorant,’ she explained as Cat shared her agreement.

Ben then said: ‘Can women use men’s deodorant because my wife uses mine, so why don’t they just buy men’s?’

‘Well lots of people do, but lots of people don’t know about the pink tax,’ Ashley responded, as she continued her point.

The 50-year-old presenter’s comments left a bad taste in some people’s mouths, as they pointed out that he had missed the point Ashley was trying to make.

The Co-operative Bank released research in October 2024, which found that on average, across seven commonly purchased toiletry products, women paid nearly 40% more for their lower-cost essentials.

More specifically for deodorant, there was a 34% markup, with men’s costing 73p compared to the women’s at 98p.

Source: Ben Shephard called out over gender equality debate

THIS IS HOW MEN KEEP WIFE SLAVES: MAN DEVALUES WOMEN’S LABOR SAYS IT’S EASY TO TAKE CARE OF 6 KIDS – YouTube