How Epstein’s influence shaped the exclusion of women in STEM

IAll 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 originally generated by Feminist Legal Clinic and does not necessarily reflect our views.

In 2018, an elite group of academics and scientists planned to gather for an exclusive retreat at a luxury farm in the woods of Connecticut. The guests had been hand-picked by prominent New York literary agent John Brockman, who frequently hosted similar salons for luminaries in science, technology and media. 

The problem? Brockman had included two women on the list, and his staunch supporter and biggest funder wanted them out. 

“John, the old conferences did not care about diversity. I suggest you not either,” Jeffrey Epstein wrote in response to an email about the programming. “The women are all weak, and a distraction sorry.” 

In reply, Brockman justified the women’s inclusion, and says they’d been a part of a related book about AI, which needed to be inclusive to sell. “Today, it’s impossible to get a publisher to buy such a book with essays by 25 men and no women,” he wrote. 

Larry Summers, the former president of Harvard University, who emailed with Epstein hundreds of times, made a joke in one email about how “half the IQ In world was possessed by women without mentioning they are more than 51 percent of population.” 

In another exchange, Epstein and Jeremy Rubin, a bitcoin developer and MIT researcher, went back and forth over whether there are any games that women are actually better at than men. It would be “interesting to attempt to make an intellectually stimulating game where women outperform men,” Rubin wrote in 2016. “Unless women are inherently inferior to the maximally talented man at all tasks ;).”

For women like Lauren Aulet, a neuroscientist and assistant professor at the University of Massachusetts, the files revealed conversations that were more brash than she expected. “I think what was most shocking was simply how blatant and explicit the misogyny was.”

“We have this narrative that explicit misogyny is something from the ’50s and ’60s, and what we have now is like implicit bias and microaggressions,” she said, adding: “I think this made clear that explicit misogyny is still out there in science and in academia, it’s just perhaps behind closed doors.”

Source: How Epstein’s influence shaped the exclusion of women in STEM

Met Police ordered Freemasonry revealed after ’16 reports highlighted concerns’ | Mirror

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 originally generated by Feminist Legal Clinic and does not necessarily reflect our views.

The Metropolitan Police’s decision to compel officers to declare Freemasonry membership came after 16 intelligence reports highlighted concerns over the organisation, the High Court has been told.

It included a WhatsApp message uncovered during a criminal investigation in which one officer told another: “It’s a brotherhood and that’s where a lot of people tend to bend it a little in terms of promotions if you catch my drift”.

Staff and cops are now required to reveal membership “past or present” of any organisation that is “hierarchical, has confidential membership and requires members to support and protect each other”.

Two serving Freemason police officers and three bodies representing the organisation are now seeking to take legal action over the decision at the High Court. Claire Darwin KC, for the claimants, told the court on Wednesday that the move was a breach of their human rights as it allows the force to create a “black list” and is an “institutional signal of suspicion”.

The hearing before Mr Justice Chamberlain is due to conclude later on Wednesday with a ruling expected later this month.

Source: Met Police ordered Freemasonry revealed after ’16 reports highlighted concerns’

OHCHR | Call for input to thematic report to HRC62: Violence and discrimination experienced by lesbian, bisexual, and queer (LBQ) women

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 originally generated by Feminist Legal Clinic and does not necessarily reflect our views.

Background

The Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity (IE SOGI), Mr. Graeme Reid, is preparing a thematic report on violence and discrimination experienced by lesbian, bisexual, and queer (LBQ) women worldwide, to be presented to the 62nd session of the United Nations Human Rights Council in June 2026. This investigation seeks to understand the distinct and intersecting forms of violence and discrimination that LBQ women face across diverse contexts globally.

Source: OHCHR | Call for input to thematic report to HRC62: Violence and discrimination experienced by lesbian, bisexual, and queer (LBQ) women

“It doesn’t touch me”, Rachel Ward is unbothered by online trolls – The Australian Women’s Weekly

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 originally generated by Feminist Legal Clinic and does not necessarily reflect our views.

Rachel Ward speaks out after receiving an on-slaught of online hate simply for ageing and choosing to do so naturally.

It was days before Christmas – mid-summer – and cicadas trilled in the background as actor, director and beef cattle farmer Rachel Ward posted a video to her Instagram feed thanking friends and neighbours for their support throughout the year.

No one – least of all Rachel – imagined this chatty, generous and otherwise innocuous post would attract a band of ill-mannered (and inarticulate) trolls.

‘OMG!! What the hell happened to her. Wow!! She has aged really bad.’ ‘I wish I never saw her like this!’ ‘She looks ravaged.’ And worse.

Her daughter, Matilda Brown, also an actor and food producer (at The Good Farm Shop), was incensed. She jumped to her mum’s defence and reposted the comments, calling out the idiocy of criticising a 68-year-old woman for, essentially, looking 68. “Warning!! Naturally aging woman. Proceed with caution,” she wrote and posted a series of exquisite photographs of Rachel with her grandkids, and at work on the farm.

The resulting pile-on of love is what Rachel has focused on, she says, sitting in her kitchen, enjoying a morning cuppa as she chats with The Weekly.

“Why are we giving ourselves these expectations to maintain youth, and what is perceived as attractive? It’s so great to not weigh into that anymore. Maybe if I was 40, I would mind the comments, but now I’ve so left any kind of attachment to youth and beauty behind … It doesn’t touch me because it’s not important anymore.”

Rachel let her hair colour grow out last year, against Bryan’s advice. It was a conscious decision.

“I’d been wanting to do it for a while,” she explains. “It was Bryan who was very resistant. I was just, ‘Well, you’re grey, why does it matter?’ And he was like, ‘You don’t need to go grey yet.’

“I had no idea it was going to be this white, but I like it, and my daughter cut it, so it’s her haircut. My kids like it, the grandkids don’t have a problem. and even Bryan seems to have come around to it, so there we go.”

Source: “It doesn’t touch me”, Rachel Ward is unbothered by online trolls – The Australian Women’s Weekly

Women have fought hard to be recognised as farmers. There’s still more work to be done | The Conversation

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 originally generated by Feminist Legal Clinic and does not necessarily reflect our views.

Women’s labour has long been central to the success of Australian farming. But farming itself is still largely seen as a “masculine” job. That’s why the Australian women in agriculture movement has fought hard to change this perception.

Our research has reviewed the story and impacts of this movement over the past 40 years.

There have been some big wins for women – particularly in terms of cultural recognition. But they still do not have equal access to the economic rewards of farming.

In the 1990s, rural women started meeting and formulating agendas for change at what were known as the “Women on Farm Gatherings”.

In 1994, the movement was successful in challenging the existing legal status of women on farms as a “sleeping partner, non-productive”.

This impacted women’s position in divorce and injury settlements, impinging on their claims that they were contributors to the farm business and deserved recognition as such.

The movement was making gains in disrupting the masculine idea of what it was to be a farmer. But it also faced backlash.

Like many Australian women’s movements, the momentum of the rural women’s movement stalled from the late 1990s onward.

Farmers were encouraged to “get big or get out” to maintain farm viability. They were also encouraged to become more professional and entrepreneurial.

Policies targeted at women in agriculture and women in rural areas focused on tapping into rural women’s potential to make farms professional and less reliant on government support.

This included building skills related to the farm office. These programs helped to legitimise the policy of economic restructuring, as it was seen to be empowering for women.

These programs did little to improve women’s access to the economic rewards of agriculture. Key politicians still appeared to see women as secondary farmers.

For example, in 2013, then federal agriculture minister Barnaby Joyce said agriculture would “fall flat on its face without the prominent and incredible role that women play”, but then described that role as “basically as the assistant farm labourer, with the partner or with the husband”.

Women’s on and off-farm labour is crucial for family farm viability in Australia, but they still do not share equally in the economic rewards of farming.

The flexibility and underpayment of family labour is arguably one of the key reasons Australian farming remains largely in family rather than corporate hands.

This does not recognise women as independent farmers in their own right. It also reinforces and normalises women’s contribution to agriculture and rural communities as underpaid or unpaid.

Source: Women have fought hard to be recognised as farmers. There’s still more work to be done

‘Pretty birds and silly moos’: the women behind the Sex Discrimination Act | Feminism | The Guardian | 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 originally generated by Feminist Legal Clinic and does not necessarily reflect our views.

In the 50 years since equal rights for women were enshrined in UK law, the campaigners have been reduced to caricatures, or forgotten. But their struggle is worth remembering.

Along with Conran, Brayfield also joined Women in Media, a pressure group set up in 1970 to challenge sexism in the industry and beyond. Its activities have been largely forgotten, and many of those involved have died. But it played a key role in the campaign to outlaw sex discrimination and enforce equal pay – as well as lobbying bosses for equal opportunities at work. One policy that especially riled them, and became a focus, was the broadcasters’ refusal to let women read the news. The public would find this “unnatural”, the BBC executive Robin Scott told the Daily Mirror in 1972. “There’s always bad news about and it’s much easier for a man to deal with that.”

There had been a women’s movement pressing for employment rights since the 19th century, when pioneering female trade unionists campaigned for safer conditions and higher wages in shops and factories, and middle-class women fought for access to the professions. But even after the second world war, during which millions of women took on roles previously reserved for men, sexism was baked into workplaces. It was standard practice for women to be paid around four-fifths of what men earned for the same job, and sexist attitudes meant that women were routinely refused promotion. Senior and leadership positions were largely off-limits. Powerful politicians, employers and some trade unionists were determined that it should stay that way. When the House of Commons supported an amendment calling for equal pay for female teachers in 1944, Winston Churchill, the prime minister, was so determined to block it that he made the next vote on the issue a vote of confidence in the wartime government – effectively threatening to resign if it became law.

On 7 March 1968, the Labour backbencher Joyce Butler challenged the prime minister, Harold Wilson, directly in the House of Commons: “Is my right honourable friend aware that women are fed up with being exploited as pretty birds when they are young, and as silly moos when they get older?” She wanted to know if he planned to mark the 50th anniversary of the 1918 women’s suffrage bill with a law against sex discrimination.

Between 1968 and 1971, Butler tried four times to introduce an anti-discrimination bill that would make it illegal for employers to treat male and female workers differently.

But Women in Media – which drew in young journalists like Brayfield and Mary Kenny, as well as an older generation including Mary Stott, who was Guardian women’s editor from 1957-72 – was determined to push a bill through.

Not everyone was enamoured of Women in Media’s self-appointed role. There was a cross exchange of letters with WLM organisers, and in 1974 Dodie Wheppler wrote to the Guardian on behalf of the Socialist Woman journal to complain about “the Women in Media group going from bad to unbelievable.

In March 1974, Women in Media wrote to the prime minister, Harold Wilson, to say that a sex discrimination bill “must, in justice, be considered an urgent priority in any socialist programme”.

In the summer of 1974, Women in Media decided to increase the pressure on Wilson by putting up its own candidate in the next election – expected to be soon as Labour did not have a majority. The woman chosen was Una Kroll, a 48-year-old deaconess and GP in south London, with a remarkable family history which included growing up partly in the Soviet Union where both her parents were spies. A campaigner for the ordination of women, she described herself as having been radicalised by a patient who had died from cervical cancer, aged 29, after doctors refused to take her symptoms seriously.

Since Women in Media was not a suitable name for a political party, the Women’s Rights Campaign was established on 6 September. In a bizarre coincidence – or what some feminists hoped was a panicked reaction to their bold move – the Home Office launched a white paper, Equality for Women, on the same day.

Christabel Pankhurst had been the sole candidate for a Women’s party in 1918, and lost by 775 votes. But while this disappointing coda to the suffrage movement was forgotten, Kroll’s supporters decked themselves in the suffragette colours of purple, white and green, and celebrity supporters including the actor Glenda Jackson donned sashes for photos. The manifesto was a checklist of issues including contraception, childcare and pensions as well as pay.

In electoral terms, the Woman’s Rights Campaign was a flop. Kroll won just 298 votes. Records of the campaign in the Women’s Library suggest that its activists fell down on canvassing. Most volunteers worked full-time and evening door-knocking sessions turned into chaotic late nights. In obituaries of Kroll, who died in 2017, her candidacy is referred to only briefly.

But while the campaign did not succeed, it was an audacious stunt. It would be more than 40 years before the Women’s Equality party would try something similar on a larger scale. And in publicity terms, it had an effect. Newspapers reported on the Women’s Rights Campaign with interest and when Labour won a majority, it quickly announced that sex discrimination would be outlawed.

Feminists did not win all the arguments. The equal opportunities commission (as the board was named) gained the power to investigate but only “with the agreement of the secretary of state”. Women in Media described the bill as “timid tinkering with a problem that needs all-out assault” and criticised the exemption for small employers and partnerships including solicitors: “We notice that the law, as usual, has protected its own bastions.” But the inclusion of indirect as well as direct discrimination was a victory. And members were happy enough that when the bill passed one of its stages in October, they threw a party.

The Sex Discrimination and Equal Pay Acts both came into force on 29 December 1975, on the same day that the equal opportunities commission (EOC) was established in Manchester.

In 2006, New Labour legislated to dissolve the EOC. Its replacement, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, came into existence the following year, fulfilling the ambition first voiced in the 1970s for one body monitoring discrimination across different characteristics. In 2010, earlier anti-discrimination laws were combined in the Equality Act.

“These things are always a compromise,” says Patricia Hewitt. “By 1980 we were saying ‘there’s not enough in this act’, but I think in 1975 we felt we’d done pretty well.”

Source: ‘Pretty birds and silly moos’: the women behind the Sex Discrimination Act | Feminism | The Guardian

If you’re pregnant, do you have to tell your boss? And what are the rules for employers? | The Conversation

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 originally generated by Feminist Legal Clinic and does not necessarily reflect our views.

A Sydney warehouse worker fired by text message within two weeks of telling her employer she was pregnant has won her job back, along with A$15,000 in backpay.

The recent Fair Work Commission ruling about an Adecco contractor working at an Amazon warehouse highlights how employers and employees can interpret the rules on pregnancy and workplace discrimination very differently – sometimes leading to disputes.

Whether you’re newly pregnant or you’re a boss trying to look after your staff, these are the legal rights and obligations you need to know about.

I’m pregnant and applying for work. Do I have to mention it?

No, you don’t. As the Sex Discrimination Act makes clear, an employer can’t ask you about it either.

Even indirect questions – “Are you planning to have a baby in the future?” – are not allowed.

I’ve found out I’m pregnant. Do I have to tell my boss?

No. When you tell them will depend on your job, your pregnancy and your preferences.

I’ve had fewer opportunities since telling work I’m pregnant. Is that allowed?

Under the law, employees can’t be discriminated against because they’re pregnant.

But discrimination often isn’t as obvious as being fired or demoted.

Can I ask for flexible work?

Yes – and that’s new.

Since June 2023, pregnant women have been able to ask for flexible work arrangements, after an update to the Fair Work Act.

Can I ask for my job to be modified?

Yes, you can ask for a “safe job” or “no safe job leave”. That’s true for casual workers too.

A pregnant employee who’s generally fit for work, but can provide evidence that they can’t do their current role because of illness, risk to their pregnancy or hazards at work can ask to be transferred to a “safe job”.

The challenge for employers – especially smaller businesses

There are lots of good employers wanting to do the right thing. But especially for smaller businesses without a human resources department, it isn’t easy.

My employee’s told me they’re pregnant. Do I have to do anything now?

The Sex Discrimination Act now contains an obligation known as a “positive duty”. It came into force in late 2022.

It means employers need to take reasonable and proportionate measures to eliminate sex discrimination – including discrimination because of pregnancy.

What if I’m worried my worker can’t safely do the job while pregnant?

If you’re an employer, even if you have genuine safety concerns you can’t unilaterally decide a pregnant worker can’t do their job.

Many jobs can be adjusted for pregnancy. Employers need to work with their employees to figure out the best solutions.

Source: If you’re pregnant, do you have to tell your boss? And what are the rules for employers?

Woman loses case against her employer over transgender toilet policy  | Sky News | 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 originally generated by Feminist Legal Clinic and does not necessarily reflect our views.

An engineer who took aerospace giant Leonardo UK to an employment tribunal for having to share women’s toilets with transgender colleagues has lost a discrimination claim.

Maria Kelly alleged harassment related to sex, direct sex discrimination and indirect sex discrimination.

Ms Kelly took action after lodging a formal grievance with the company.

The tribunal was heard in Edinburgh in October, but all of her claims have now been dismissed by employment judge Michelle Sutherland.

Ms Kelly said she believes the outcome “fundamentally misunderstands both the law and my case”, as she announced plans to appeal.

Maya Forstater, chief executive of charity Sex Matters, said: “This judgment interprets the law as transactivists would wish it to be, and is incompatible with the Supreme Court ruling in For Women Scotland in several places.

“It is incredible that even after the highest court in the land has ruled that the law recognises men and women in terms of biological sex, there are lower courts still trying to see the world in terms of gender identity.”

Source: Woman loses case against her employer over transgender toilet policy

Men earn nearly $10,000 more than women in bonuses and overtime pay, fuelling the gender pay gap: new data

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 originally generated by Feminist Legal Clinic and does not necessarily reflect our views.

Men are earning on average A$9,753 more than women each year in the form of performance bonuses, allowances and overtime pay.

That’s according to the latest gender pay gap data released on Thursday by the Workplace Gender Equality Agency. It covers more than 8,000 private companies for 2024–25, employing more than 5.4 million workers across Australia.

The overall gender pay gap fell to 21.1%, compared to 21.8% in 2023–24. But the gap in discretionary pay makes up a big chunk of the total gender pay gap of $28,356.

The share of all parental leave being taken by men grew to 20% in 2024-25, a rise of three percentage points from the year before.

Source: Men earn nearly $10,000 more than women in bonuses and overtime pay, fuelling the gender pay gap: new data

President Donald Trump Tells Female Reporter ‘Quiet, Piggy’ – YouTube