Woman's Hour - Chief Inspector of Schools Amanda Spielman, Divya Chadha Manek, Dr Jen Gunter, Hira Ali & Gary Ford.

Episode Date: June 21, 2021

The Chief Inspector of Schools Amanda Spielman, talks to Emma Barnett about the problem of sexual abuse in schools and colleges and reflects on what needs to be done to bring about change. Divya Chadha Manek who has just been awarded an OBE in the Queen’s Birthday Honours List tells us about her work with the Vaccine Taskforce, and Dr Jen Gunter, an American gynaecologist, obstetrician and author of 'The Vagina Bible' explains how Boric Acid Pessaries are being used to treat bacterial vaginosis . Do men need to actively become allies to the women they work with to stop sexism and discrimination? Would challenging behaviours that disadvantage female colleagues - from interrupting women in meetings to making assumptions about the career opportunities they want - make a difference? Emma talks to Hira Ali, a leadership trainer and author of a new book called 'Her Allies' and to Gary Ford who has co-written 'The Accidental Sexist', a handbook for men on workplace diversity.Presenter: Emma Barnett Producer: Lisa Jenkinson Studio Manager: Tim Heffer

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK. I'm Natalia Melman-Petrozzella, and from the BBC, this is Extreme Peak Danger. The most beautiful mountain in the world. If you die on the mountain, you stay on the mountain. This is the story of what happened when 11 climbers died on one of the world's deadliest mountains, K2, and of the risks we'll take to feel truly alive. If I tell all the details, you won't believe it anymore. Extreme, peak danger. Listen wherever you get your podcasts.

BBC Sounds. Music, radio, podcasts. Hello, I'm Emma Barnett and welcome to Woman's Hour from BBC Radio 4. Hello and welcome to today's programme. I hope you had a good weekend. Over mine, I seem to have inadvertently stumbled into one of the biggest debates of all time. So big I didn't even know it was a debate. Whether to wear nickels or not under your pyjama bottoms. To me, it's crystal clear, of course you do. But according to clothing guru Susanna Constantine, she of Trinian Susanna fame,

you do not. Perhaps you can help me out here. I see no debate, but apparently I'm in the minority. On today's programme, apart from your answers to that burning question, of course, we shall be hearing from one of the key women from the UK Vaccine Task Force who's just been awarded an OBE for her efforts, Divya Chadamanak. 30 years on from the seminal Thelma and Louise film, what's changed? And men standing up for women in the workplace. Hope or reality? Your stories, please. 84844 is the number you need to text. Social media are at BBC Woman's Hour or email us your views, your take through our website. We look forward to hearing them. But to our first guest this morning, Amanda Spielman,

Chief Inspector of Ofsted England Schools Watchdog. The latest report from her team, which may have caught your eye, found that sexual harassment and online sexual abuse are such a routine part of school children's lives, in particular school girls, that they don't see any point in challenging or reporting it. That, along with debates over how girls dress at school, whether children should be vaccinated or not,

or even whether there should be head girls, means there's a lot for her to talk about and think about and a lot for us to ask about. Chief Inspector of Ofsted, Amanda Spielman, good morning. Good morning. Thanks for joining us today. Before we get to the experience of schoolgirls that your inspectors have been looking at, let's get to just that, girls. Over the weekend, it emerged that St Paul's Girls School

in London is doing away with the head girl term as it's too binary. There will now be a head of school instead of head girl. Do you agree? I think it's so sad if girls can't be proud of being girls um it's there's there's so much um debate isn't there and it always seems to focus on girls and and whether girls or women can be characterized that way so i just hope um that st paul's girls school and every other girls school can carry on um encouraging most of their girls or of course there'll always be a few exploring their sexuality, exploring gender. But let's hope that girls can carry on being proud of being girls. So no need for head of school should be allowed to be head girl. Any individual school is for them to make that choice. But I'd love to see I love to see girls being proud of being girls.

Because you were at that school. Is that right as well? just as an added element to this? For sixth form, yes. You were. So your personal response to that as being a former member is also quite interesting. Yes, I haven't spoken to others about it, I have to say. Okay, because just to say, St Paul's Girls School, a spokesperson said, it's reported that they said, it was a suggestion of our senior students that we change the name from Head Girl to Head of School as more modern, age appropriate and inclusive. Quote, in doing so, we're returning to our roots. From our very foundation in 1904 and for decades afterwards, a senior student was called Head of School. So in making the change, we're confirming, not denying our ethos and traditions. What do you make of that as an answer for it? Well, that's very much down to the individual school and considerations. I'd just like to make sure that the power and strength of girls and being a woman, growing into being a woman,

doesn't get lost in our society. It's so important. Are you worried about that with what you see across schools? Because you have a very unique vantage point. I think all the discussion we've seen about sex and gender can get very heated, very sensitive, and is probably making it a bit harder for young people to grow up. It's adding extra dimensions of complexity for them. So my interest, and in the subject we're just coming on to, is very much about how do we help young people grow up healthily and well and take full part in adult

life, including getting control of their sexuality as it develops. So let's concentrate on doing everything we can to help them grow up well. Well, it's not necessarily sexuality. You're talking about perhaps gender identity as well here. And I suppose the other point to put there, though, which when reading around this, is what if there's a generational gap here? What if this suggestion is coming from the girls? Because St Paul's is a girls' school, so I'll just say girls in this instance, but of course from pupils generally.

What would you say that perhaps they feel this is more inclusive? Well, I think on many issues and for many generations, we've had the same trend of the young are often the most motivated, the most radical, the most inclined to find a cause. And all of us, as we mature and get older, perhaps start looking at things with a different perspective. So who knows whether there is a genuine intergenerational change or whether it's just another manifestation of that strength

and intensity that it's absolutely right that we want young people to have that will moderate with time. I simply don't know. I don't have a crystal ball to look into the future. There was one more story to ask you about before we get to that report, but I think it's very important because of what you're trying to do in this report. Another story in The Telegraph at the end of last week was around the advice from Stonewall, the LGBT charity, that teachers should drop the terms boys and girls in favour of learners.

Would you support that, Amanda Spielman? I think it's very important that we talk about children in natural language. The more we shift away from the kinds of words that mothers, fathers, children, teachers naturally use, the more remote things get and the harder it is for people to think about them. So I'm very much in favour of using natural, comfortable terminology. Which wouldn't be learners. You would seek to continue to have teachers saying boys and girls.

Learners is used quite extensively in education legislation, precisely at the difficulty of having a concise catch-all term for every situation. But it also distances and can make it easy to forget that there are real live children and young people underneath. So that's why in everything that I talk about, I do my best to use the human terms that people actually think in and relate to. But that's very interesting because a spokesperson for Stonewall Charity told The Telegraph it was very proud

of all of its work supporting schools to create supportive and inclusive environments, which helps everyone feel accepted for who they are. And they added that they are confident that the advice that they give to schools is robust and in line with the Department for Education's guidance for schools in England and the Equality and Human Rights Commission's Equality Act Code of Practice. Although, of course, we have just learned recently that the Equality and Human Rights Commission left,

the LGBT charity left Stonewall, their programme for its own uses in March, citing concerns over value for money, just to put that reference into context. But they're talking about making it inclusive. And you're saying it's not natural language. I haven't reviewed the Stonewall guidance that's being given to schools. It's not for us to do that. I'm talking about as a general principle. I think the more we talk about things in familiar terms,

the more likely people are to absorb their messages. So there may be times when it's appropriate for schools, for example, simply to talk about children. There may be times when it's appropriate for them to talk about boys and girls. I'm not prescribing. It's never for Ofsted to prescribe what schools do. But I do reckon the importance of having people absorb what you're talking about is the prime consideration. What is most helpful given the message that you're trying to get across? A message has come in from Steph who's listening.

Good morning, saying I agree with Amanda Spielman. Girls should be proud of being girls. Females are already less visible and initiatives such as this makes them less so. I think in reference to our first discussion about head girls. So that message just come in from Steph. That in mind, and also with what you have just said, let's come to this report that you were asked to compile by the government. Rapidly so, after thousands of harrowing testimonies detailing sexual abuse and misconduct in schools were posted on the Everyone's Invited website earlier this year. Were you surprised by your findings?

Surprise is not quite the right word. We were aware that there was a significant problem building up in young people's lives. Others have been doing work over this in the past few years. I think we were surprised by the extent to which this had become a substantial problem for such an enormous proportion of girls especially and I think we were also surprised by the imbalance between the level of the scale of the problem in any given school or college and school awareness of it. Part of this is because this bleeds across between children's lives in school and out of school. Pre-smartphone technology, perhaps there was a much clearer distinction between in school and out of school. Now the things bleed into each other. So although many of the specific distressing incidents we heard about had happened outside school,

the consequences of those and sometimes sharing of images or video from them bled across into people's school lives and were making them so very uncomfortable even at school because they were there with other people who'd been part of the same incident. I mean, just to remind people who are listening who will have read the report, perhaps not recalled necessarily all the details, but nine out of 10 girls that your inspector spoke to said that sexist name-calling was part of life and that they were being sent unwanted explicit pictures

or videos, that that happened a lot or sometimes. And as I said in my introduction, happening so much that almost they don't see any point in reporting it or challenging it. And I suppose that's what makes your job right now very difficult in how to advise schools with what to do about it. Because the central recommendation, as I understand from your review, is schools must assume now abuse and harassment is happening to their pupils? Yes, and it's a strong and unpalatable message. But we visited 32 schools and colleges, and there wasn't a single one that wasn't significantly affected

by these problems. So there were some schools which thought that they didn't have a problem, and yet our conversations with their pupils said yes they do. Similarly we talked to a number of local authority, local area safeguarding partnerships and a couple of those thought it wasn't a problem in their area. What's come across very strongly for us is that this really is universal so every school, every college does need to operate on the premise that from a startlingly young age a significant proportion of young people will be affected. So the work that they can do to build a healthy culture, to do really good relationship and sex education,

which came across from young people as often being an area of weakness where the right issues weren't really being talked about, or the people who were teaching those lessons weren't really confident and competent to do so. So a very firm handle to make sure that this is addressed as strongly as possible from a relatively young age. What age do you think discussions of pornography should be introduced? Well, we certainly heard that young people, by the age of 13 or so, a very large proportion of young people had seen at least some pornographic material. Basically, once children have smartphones, it's very, very hard to stop them seeing pornographic material and natural curiosity. When you start to hear people talking about things, children just are very curious.

And we did hear in some schools, we visited a couple of primary schools and some of the schools were all through schools. Even we heard about younger children in the older age groups in primary school using highly sexualized language, clearly showing familiarity with things that it was quite concerning that children at that age should be aware of and bringing into

their games and conversation. So what age do you think it should be formally discussed by teachers? It's an important question, not least because a question that's come in here for you, one of our listeners has got in touch to say, one of the main issues seems to be girls feeling pressured into sharing and receiving explicit photos, and this is normalised. How can this be challenged? This is a very big problem. You talked about the kinds of problems

that were at the top of young people's minds, especially girls, and one strand was the things that have been going on for a very long time that most of us can remember from school um sexist name callings of inappropriate comments rumors about girls sexual activity but the other strand has been unlocked um in the last decade and being able to take nude photographs of yourself or being put under pressure to do so. That's really a new thing. And so many girls do say that this has happened to them

or to their friends. And it's very hard for them to resist. And this is one of the things they really want sex education in school to do, both to help them understand, sort of strengthen their ability to risk, but also they rightly say it shouldn't be their job to educate boys. So to get stronger messages into sex education for boys about... What age, then? What age do you think sexting, porn and this whole terrain, which is the new element of this, what age, Amanda Spielman, should that be coming in at?

Well, from the point, if you're willing to give a child a smartphone, you should be educating them from that age. We seem to be in an era where most children have smartphones from the beginning or relatively early in secondary school. So you probably do need to do it there. From 11? I don't want to be precise and say that it has to be from year seven and it's a matter from government, but at the earlier end of secondary school, not the later end. I heard about one parent I spoke to said that their daughter's school

was doing this in year 11. That's clearly too late. I mean, if you hear about porn only when you're 16, that is extremely late. And what you've just described as the landscape or anyone who's got anything to do with young people. So this is something at the early end of prime school and obviously that that adolescence and puberty adolescence um kick in um around that 11 12 30 13 age so that that probably is the age you really need to start talking about this stuff it's always that you want to get in ahead of pornography don't you to to start talking about healthy relationships um and and the boundaries of acceptable behavior before um young people start experimenting for themselves rather than after.

If you're just joining us, I am with the Chief Inspector of Ofsted, which is England's schools watchdog, Amanda Spielman. Is this safe to say inspectors are not always teachers' favourite people? Is it safe to say that you're now going to include, having done this report, this element of safeguarding and changing culture as part of what you mark schools on? We have always included all the different aspects of bullying, behaviour problems and safeguarding in our inspections. But what we started doing from 2017 onwards was was strengthening inspector training, introducing specific requirements to ask schools about reports

of sexual harassment and violence. And what we're doing in the light of this is to strengthen the expectation on inspectors to really push on this one, because one of the things that came out of introducing a requirement to ask schools for this ahead of inspection was we discovered only, I think it was 6% of schools gave us anything in response to that request. And nearly half the others gave us a nil return, essentially saying we haven't had any reports. So comparing this with what we hear from young people, it says that this point about so much not getting reported is desperately important here. And we went into this in some depth. And partly young people are concerned

that they won't be believed or simply don't think anything would be done, which is very worrying. There's also a strand about worrying that they'll be blamed because they have done something that they know an adult has told them not to do, like sharing a nude image, even though they may have been put under considerable pressure to do so. Or they can fear that once they talk to an adult, the process will be out of their control. And this is a great desire. Young people don't like processes like this going out of control when it's talking about something that's incredibly difficult and personal. So helping them understand better exactly what will and won't happen when they report does matter.

Sorry, if I may, I was just going to say, a few listeners getting in touch also say, you know, don't forget the role of parents there. It can't all be on teachers. And, you know, you're talking there, of course, about widespread culture. But what has been put on teachers lately, or certainly some of the stories that there's been a proliferation around, is around girls at school and uniform. And the idea of modesty shorts for girls as young as four so they don't show their knickers when wearing summer dresses or doing sport.

We've read reports of girls being publicly dressed down also for tight skirts, which are apparently allowed under certain school uniform policies. We've also heard about a school, even in Wales, that's banned girls from wearing skirts as they're too short. We began our conversation talking about girls. What do you make of the rise of this sort of thing and modesty shorts? I was a bit sad to read that report because it felt as though it was getting close to victim blaming and we were talking about prime primary age children and um potentially saying they shouldn't be children they shouldn't be they shouldn't be doing cartwheels in the playground or whatever unless they had some extra layers of protective clothing on i i found that rather sad i'd much rather concentrate on addressing the culture and the problem that could lead to concerns about it, rather than blaming very young girls for doing what comes naturally to children. So that's a bit of a sad one.

I know. I suppose it's also, you know, looking at this whole culture, what's feeding into schools and what's feeding into children's mind from all of this. So you find it sad, but I suppose if it's coming from teachers do you just trust that the schools will sort it out if it's coming from our wider culture it's not necessarily the teacher's fault but are you are you worried about this becoming a trend well it's it circles back round to to perhaps even in prime primary schools there may there may be a need to to start addressing some of these issues quite early if girls are feeling uncomfortable in primary school about remarks being made by, at that point, very young boys, we really need to think about what we do that.

And you're quite right. There is a partnership between schools and parents. What we've seen over the last decade is an expansion of that grey area that sits between what parents oversee directly and what schools oversee directly, which has always been there in adolescence for secondary age children, but it's got bigger and more complicated and harder. So parents and schools take each taking their responsibilities seriously and recognising the difficulties here is so important. Just finally, because this was a big theme when we were talking about the everyone invited testimonies that then led to your report. What do you make around punishment for boys? So some say necessary to change the culture.

But is it fair to single individuals out when, quote, they're all doing it or lots of them are doing it, potentially massive impact on boys who are still children too? There can be massive impact at both ends here. And what we've tried to do with this report is to help get the language, the expression, the discussion in a way that recognises, as indeed the government guidance does, that both in relation to the young person doing something that they shouldn't do, and in relation to the person at the receiving end, that there is a spectrum of seriousness. And schools have to judge and use their skill and expertise and knowledge of the circumstances to judge the proportionate response for both the doer and the receiver. And that is really, really important

because if you want to change the culture, everybody's got to listen, boys and girls, and everybody's got to feel that things are being fairly dealt with so that they don't get sort of entrenched and embattled in corners. You don't achieve that by using really pejorative terms. You don't achieve that by over-responding to an individual incident any more than you do by under-responding. So it's a tough job here to try and find that balance that encourages young people,

that deals with the specific incidents that need addressing without disappearing down a rabbit hole of extreme language and response to every incident and almost losing sight of that important piece about growing up healthily. It sounds like an absolute minefield. The teacher's got the training to do this. Well, this is why one of our recommendations is around relationships and sex education. I think it's very unfair, actually, to expect every teacher to be an expert in relationship and sex education, sometimes schools simply put this in tutor time and expect every teacher with a tutor group or class to teach it. But we wouldn't expect every teacher to teach a maths lesson in tutor time. So why in an area requiring us of different expertise, would we just say everybody must do it? So making sure sure schools really do, I think, need to focus on making sure that they've not just got a good curriculum here.

And the new government guidance that's been slightly delayed by Covid, but is just coming in pretty good here, I think, is a real step forward. But also make sure that it's being taught by people who've got the training and the willingness to do it. Not everybody can feel comfortable and confident talking about these kind of issues with teenagers. All of us can remember. All the time. It's not about confidence, it's about the time. I mean, the teachers are absolutely, you know, some of them have been saying to us on air, it's been the hardest time ever. And they've been obviously trying to do all sorts of other things as well. So never mind just the training, also the time. I'm sure many people will be getting in touch

that I can see so many are on the things that we've spoken about. Thank you for your time and your answers this morning. Amanda Spielman, I'm sure, will have you back on as things develop. The Chief Inspector of Ofsted, which is, of course,

the England school's watchdog. Some messages just to do off the back of that because so many have come in. Who wants to be called a girl at 18, says Lisa. Head of school, just going back to that debate, still celebrates the whole person. Amanda Spielman seems blissfully unaware how many teenagers prefer non-binary terms.

Boys and girls is only natural to her because she's always used it. Language constantly changes. On the idea of when we should start talking to children about porn, banned smartphones for primary school kids and strongly discouraged for younger secondary. Wouldn't that make everybody's life easier? And another message along the lines around modesty shorts or so-called modesty shorts. My daughters, my two primary school age daughters always wear shorts under their school dresses.

These are not modesty shorts, but basic common sense and liberates them. And another one, my daughter's school secondary insisted on them wearing ridiculous pencil skirts to knee. It was like office wear. Who wears that in an office now? This meant it was inevitable that girls folded up the waistband not least because they couldn't walk fast enough across a big campus to get to class.

So-called sports-focused schools effectively killed all girls' sports in breaks as they could no longer play football. Even semi-pro footballers stopped playing in school. No one wanted to wear girls' trousers as they were hideous for camel toe and very uncool. Tried to address it, but I was rebuffed by a very old-fashioned needlework teacher

who was given the role of designing the uniform. And so it carries on more messages around what do we do, around how we even refer to girls and how we dress them in school and what we do around this issue. Thank goodness for some sense from Amanda with regards to language. Children are going to get so muddled by all of this nonsense. Those messages coming in still keep them coming on 84844. It is 30 years next month, believe it or not,

since the release of the iconic female road movie, Thelma and Louise. Thelma. I'll get it! Thelma, haven't I told you I can't stand it when you holler in the morning? I'm sorry, doll. I just didn't want you to be late. Hey, how you doing, little housewife? Louise. I still have to ask Daryl if I can go. You mean you haven't asked him yet? Thelma, is he your husband or your father? Thelma and Louise are going fishing. How come Darrell let you go? Because I didn't ask him. He's going to kill you!

I left him a note. Thelma and Louise are going to catch hell. I'll have a wild turkey straight up and a Coke back, please. Thelma! Oh, boy, tell me something. Is this my vacation or isn't it? With me to talk about why this film matters after three decades and why you should see it if you haven't,

film critic Karen Krasanovic. Why is it still a big deal, do you think, three decades on, Karen, Thelma and Louise? Well, because you and me, Emma, in a car. I'll tell you why. Because there's some fantastic lines in this movie, and it's still all about female empowerment, even so many years later. You are what you settle for.

That is the whole message of Thelma and the Beast. And in the sense of why it was so and how it was so groundbreaking, not just those lines, take us back to that. Oh, my gosh. Well, don't forget now, Ridley Scott was coming out of The Duelist, which is a very male-centric film, was given a script, a friend of a friend gave him the script by Callie Corey. It was the first script.

And he didn't want to direct it initially, but Michelle Pfeiffer told him to. So we ended up with Gina Davis and Susan Sarandon in the leads. And this is about two women um sort of on the run they end up being on the run pursued by harvey kytel and it's uh it's a story about female friendship about doing the right thing about having one heck of a holiday but it's uh it really does have some wonderful lines for example uh um one of the women heckles a sexist truck driver uh and shows my husband wasn't sweet to me and look how i turned out you know there's just some fantastic some fantastic lines of course i mean it's interesting to read as well that the

two women have been uh reunited over the weekend and they've been talking gina davis and susan sarandon of course propelled to new heights of stardom by this but have been talking about the fact that they thought this was going to be such a moment that there were going to be so many movies starring women, about women, female road pictures and they say they're still waiting Yeah, well we're all still

waiting. The fact that you've got two women that are a lead and basically what Susan Sarandon said she thought was going to be a cowboy movie, outlaw movie. It shocked a lot of particularly male critics and a lot of, I think males enjoy it now. I think they were kind of, the fact that women were taking revenge on somebody that was violent toward them seemed wrong. And I think Sarandon said they got all offended because one of us accused of his glorifying murder and suicide said it didn't seem like a big deal. But apparently it was, but not enough to make this film what you would typically see in the cinema afterwards.

And do you think, though, I mean, because that backlash is something people discuss around it. I don't know if you do see it as valid. Do you see it as valid, first of all, on that? Insofar as how much violence do we want, why should we continue to find violence exciting and entertaining? That is one question. But I think having the turnaround of women taking their vengeance on men when they're being attacked, it's almost like a fantasy, really. And I can see why men at the time got upset. But now it has kind of made that a little bit more acceptable. But films like Thelma and Louise are funny and they're also exciting and they also have important points. And you very rarely get that in a film.

And still two female leads quite like that is still newsworthy. Very strong female leads with Brad Pitt being introduced. Just a little bit of eye candy. I can say eye candy. I know it's sexist. You said it. There you go. I'm not sure you can for some people, but that's the whole debate around this, isn't it?

Yeah, I'm afraid. I'm afraid it is. There's a lot of sexist fingers being pointed at Thelma and Louise and also that Ridley Scott gave his sons all of the stunt cars and Susan Sarandon said we should have got those cars. about whether you wear knickers under your pyjamas or not. And I always thought it was very clear that you did, but I'm being told I've really, really lost the plot on this one. Karen, you look uncomfortable on Zoom as I'm asking you this. It's not why we booked you. No, that's absolutely fine. I was thinking I don't own a pair of pyjamas. Sorry.

So you're not going to help me out. Karen Krasanovic, thank you very much. If you haven't seen Thelma and Louise, perhaps it's time, 30 years on. Sue on my question here says, definitely no knickers under pyjamas. Definitely. Another one here, though. Knickers under pyjamas. If you don't wear knickers, then surely you have to wash your PJ bottoms every day.

Exactly, Di. Personally, I just wear knickers and I don't bother with the PJs anyway. Well, of course, that's an option, especially when it was hot for just one minute in this country. What, knickers under nightwear? Never. As a nightie wearer, I find the comfort of knicklessness, I'm happy I said that, a bedtime pleasure. Try it, Emma.

You might enjoy it, says Jane in Chester. Good morning to you. Thanks for the tip. But Mary's not happy at all with me. Knickers under pyjamas, a dirty, unhygienic habit, the tyranny of nuns to teach shame about our bodies, like wearing knickers in the bath. Did not know that one.

Yvette though, definitely no pants underneath if you must wear PJs. Let it air, for goodness sake, and keep that thrush at bay. Very practical tips here. Thank you, but I don't want to wash my PJ bottoms every day. Sorry. There you go. Okay, back to what we've been discussing. Of course, though, that's very important. And thank you for coming in. It does seem to be I'm in the minority here, but if you wear those knickers, let me know. 84844. And a lot of you also getting in touch around our discussions of language

and what's going on in schools and the pressure on girls and boys. I'll come back to that very, very shortly indeed. And of course, any memories of Thelma and Louise. Actually, just one here. Judith says, I dislike this film intensely. I thought it was. And of course, any memories of Thelma and Louise. Actually, just one here. Judith says, I dislike this film intensely. I thought it was the opposite of feminist,

particularly the ending. Am I alone? This is the thing, Judith. You can think you're completely in the majority and then you hear something else and it takes you somewhere else. We'll see if we get an answer to that, Judith. Thank you for that message.

But my next guest, Divya Chadamanak, was given a clear message by her dad when she came to the UK from India as a teenager. And it would seem she's made good on it, having just been listed for an OBE for her work on the UK Vaccine Task Force. She's been highly praised for encouraging companies to work in the UK and then overseeing the rollout of the vaccine trials. Good morning, Divya, and congratulations. Thank you so much, Emma. I just want to go back to what your

dad said in my you know bearing in mind it's just been Father's Day as well what did he say to you about coming to the UK? Well this was this was when I was young you know 18 and sometimes I think he was he was kind of pushing me out the door at that age when you're off to university and he said to me give me some money and said to me at the airport you know make sure you're make sure you do good make sure you're always good and make sure you do something so amazing that you get to meet the queen um you know absolute royal fan so he to to us you know at least to him it was really important that you if you do good you actually go and get to meet the queen so when this honor came in it kind of the first thing that at first I said well is this true and the second thing was oh wow I've you know that this is very close to what what he actually said to me so yeah but he's he's not here to to be able

to share this news with no my father passed away in December um so so to, the fact that I only heard about it not too long ago just hit home that I've been able to do something that he wanted me to do. And fingers crossed, he's hopefully proud of me. Well, I'm sure, but also a very striking moment, I'm sure, for you to think back to his words and what you have been doing. And although I'm sure the last 15 months, you haven't really had space or time to think because of how frantic it's been. I tried to explain a little of what you have been doing. And although I'm sure the last 15 months, you haven't really had space or time to think because of how frantic it's been. I tried to explain a little of what you have been doing on that task force. Can you tell us what your job was? Yeah, sure. So in May last year, I was seconded out from my original role, which was I was head of business development at the National Institute of Health Research. So my day job at that time,

before I was seconded, was to convince companies to come and do more clinical research in the UK, life sciences companies, pharma, medtech, CRO, everyone to come and do more research. And so because of this, this kind of aspect of my job, I was, Kate Bingham called me and said, you know, did a did a five minute interview and said, we need someone to oversee all the COVID vaccine studies. Would you be if I made Kate Bingham the head of the vaccines task force in case people don't know? Yes. Sorry, Dave Kate Bingham, the chair of the vaccine task force at that moment in May, you know, asked me whether I would be interested in coming and supporting the work of the vaccine task force. So the National Institute of Health Research very happily gave my time.

And I had two things to do. The first thing was to convince the manufacturers, the vaccine manufacturers, to come and place their clinical trials in the UK. So, you know, the world is a marketplace. These companies can run their trials anywhere in the world. My job was to say come to the uk because of the great science we've got because of the nhs because of the research capability and the workforce to convince them to come and run their trials here and then

the second bit was then overseeing that portfolio of research of the trials that were happening in the uk and then kind of making good on that promise of kind of convincing them. So that was the key crux of my work. It wasn't just my work, though. That's most important. It was a massive team effort. Of course. But what was the what was the thrust of the feedback on that? Was there reticence to come? Absolutely not. I think people were, I had to, we had to create the vaccine task force and the National Institute for Agency, which I think now everyone is, it's a household name at the moment, isn't it? Yes. Interesting times we're living in. Yes. Interesting times. So MHRA, the Health Research Authority, the HR, the regulatory agencies then stepped up and said, OK, we're going to fast track COVID applications to get the regulatory approvals done quickly. The National Institute for Health Research said, OK, well, how can we collectively work on getting recruitment done quickly?

So the NHS vaccine registry was created. And, you know, a huge thank you. We have more than half a million people signed up to this registry because without, you know, the crux of clinical research is that we need the volunteers as fast as possible so the response I guess from the vaccine manufacturers when we were trying to kind of sell UK PLC for research essentially was well we had stepped up the infrastructure and and other countries particularly hadn't so this was our opportunity to shine and bring the research in. So there was a lot of interest to place the studies in the UK.

Talking of household names, as someone who's had this role on the vaccine task force and with people feeling certainly like perhaps, if I was to paraphrase, how our response has been, there's a great deal of consternation about how our response certainly was early on. But the vaccine part of it is the bit that a lot of people are feeling more positive about, although they've asked questions of if they've been double jabbed, for instance, why can't they travel and all of those things.

But if you were to just look at the household names that we now have, Moderna, Pfizer, AstraZeneca. And I was reading a piece only this morning by Zoe Williams in The Guardian who was talking about we've got vaccine tribes now. And, you know, have you had the AstraZeneca? How do you feel about that? Have you had Pfizer? Pfizer, how it's stored seems to have, you know, a kind of higher status. What do you make of the way that those names have passed into common parlance and the way people are talking about it with each other? I absolutely love it. If anything, such a positive story out of COVID-19 is the fact that this is all clinical research and the importance of research are all household names.

Let me tell you a story. When I went to get my vaccine. Who are you? Which tribe are you? Oh, I'm AstraZeneca. I'm AstraZeneca. So you can akin it, isn't it? When someone delivers a baby and the first question you ask, is it a boy or is it a girl? That's the first question. Have you had your vaccine? Which one did you have? What flavour? But actually, when I went and I was already emotional, for me, it was an emotional moment. It felt like I played a little role in actually me going up and having my own vaccine. So it was very emotional. I took my daughter along with me. And as I was sat in the waiting area, there was a lady who came in, was having a very vocal conversation with the pharmacist, asking the pharmacist what vaccines

were available that day. And the pharmacist was saying, actually, we've got AstraZeneca and that's what we've got at the moment. And the lady was saying, well, can you tell me for me as an individual, which vaccine should I have? Because I've seen the news about, you know, X, you know, another she quoted another vaccine and she said, well, this is this percentage effective. And the research has gone into this? Or put a cream on our body and said, you know, how much research has gone into this? So the importance of clinical research and what it what it is doing for us is incredible. So that to me is the huge plus point, if anything, from the pandemic and from the vaccine response specifically, is the highlight of how important research is. And hopefully that will drive people to want to take part in research because you can actually see the

outputs of what we do. Just to say on that though then, how do you feel, I mean, last week the news was dominated by the fact that COVID vaccinations are to become compulsory for staff at care homes in England. What do you make about that as someone who fought to to work with the vaccines to get them going here? Well, I'm not an expert here, so I hold my hand up and I'm not going to comment on specifics of it is. But I think what is really important is all the questions that we do get, all the questions, you know, big topics, every day is a new topic, you know, will children get vaccinated? Will we have a third dose? All of those different questions that we ask, there is only one answer out of this. And the answer is by doing clinical research and by having the results of it. So by volunteering, you know, we already have an incredible half a million people

who have signed up for the NHS Vaccine Research Registry. We still have a huge amount of research that's there, that's ongoing. An important study that's ongoing, people may not know this, an important clinical study that's ongoing is the COVBOO study, which is literally looking at people

who've had two doses and now a third dose. But unless we have volunteers who step up and sign up to these studies, we won't have the answers to all the questions. Should we make them compulsory? Should we not? Should we give it to children? All of those questions that people ask. So I'm not the scientist, so I can't answer the questions. But the important bit is that unless people play a role in clinical research, we're not going to get, we're not going to make our way out of the pandemic. I suppose then not on the actual research, though, but a question to you around the reasoning, if you like, behind that, which is the concern that some people and certain groups are not taking up the vaccine.

How concerned does that make you? You know, the latest data, for instance, you know, on the black Asian minority ethnic community, that all ethnic groups have a worse vaccine take up than white adults. This is despite efforts to to put out films, to take buses with messages. How does that make you feel? Absolutely. I mean, this is this is something that we have battled with. It's not just in the vaccine roller. Actually actually also in clinical trials, it was a problem. Because, you know, the vaccine registry, I mentioned the half a million people, our ethnic uptake is around 7% at the moment of that half a million, nowhere near representative of the population. So this in itself is a huge challenge. So I do feel passionately about this.

And the only way that we can combat it is by putting the information that is out there so that, you know, like myself, you know, I wanted to take a vaccine, but I wanted to know that it had also been tested on people like myself before I took it. So that was important to me. That's why we want people from different groups to actually take part in research so that there is more confidence when it's time for rollout, when people say, actually, this was tested on people just like myself. So it's not just about everyone taking part in research, but also people from different ethnic groups who really do need to step up and play a role and take part in clinical research, because otherwise we'll be testing it on groups of people and then

not rolling it out to people who it should be tested on. So that's absolutely important. But I do feel passionately about this, because even within my own family, when I ask people to take part in clinical research, my own family go, oh, do you know, am I am I going to be the guinea pig? Is it is it just because I'm Asian, I'm going to be the guinea pig? And for me to be able to explain that that's not the case, you know, I get asked questions such as, oh, you've done these clinical trials really fast. I'm not quite sure. It saddens me because actually part of my role, a big part of my role was to unblock all the blockers, was to make things happen faster. Could I have done this faster? Absolutely. Looking back, we could have streamlined other things. Should I have been doing it faster? Absolutely. But no

corners were cut. And I think this is the crux. It's all about people's perceptions and changing hearts and minds of people, which is really, really difficult to do. Because, you know, I know something, but even within my own family, I have to put the message out to say, this really does need to change. You need to step up and take part in research. And we can only do that when people actually change their views or actually start having the conversation. Have you managed to stop any members of your family who were feeling like that, feeling like that and get them to get jabbed? Have you had success? Yes, there are quite a lot of people who have actually put their arm out. People now asking me questions like, oh, is this going to affect my fertility, but actually asking me the questions.

So it's a conversation opener, which I really, really am passionate about that. It's actually got people talking. Well, that's the important bit. Families are definitely talking, but I think to have someone in your families received an OBE for their role on the UK Vaccine Task Force and then to have them to ask the questions of is probably quite an interesting conversation around the dinner table, I imagine.

And thank you for giving us a glimpse into that and talking to us this morning. Thank you so much, Emma. Divya Chadamanik there with her role and what that had meant and also on us this morning. Thank you so much, Emma. Divya Chadamanuk there, with her role and what that had meant and also on the personal front. I have to say, just before we go to our next discussion, I haven't worn knickers at any time for over 30 years. Back to this, knickers under pyjamas or not,

if you're just joining us, I stumbled into this one. It's so nice. Great show, says Caroline. If you go to bed after a shower or bath, then no knickers, obviously. But I'm with you, Emma. Kn time and more coming in Joe says knickers every time maybe it's a northern thing yes are you a Mancunian as well Joe as they keep you cozy and warm exactly I'm permanently cold and yes to those who got in touch saying you were worried about my thyroid it's fine I did check don't want pyjama bottoms need washing every day,

or PJ bums as you call them, either. No, of course not. And a brilliant message here, because it includes one of my favourite words, gusset. While we're talking about knickers, please can you do some research and report on gusset positioning? Most are in the wrong place and don't serve their function, even in the posher brands. No name on that message. Fantastic question. I'll personally take that upon myself. See, you have one debate, it leads to another. That's the beauty here of what you're doing with We Are Women's Hour. Now, let's talk about what we can do to support each other in the workplace, because we had a very interesting discussion a couple of weeks ago around how

training courses in the workplace may or may not be serving their purpose when it comes to discrimination and through to much more serious cases of sexual harassment. We actually started that conversation around the House of Lords and we had Michael Heseltine on, Lord Heseltine, the former Deputy Prime Minister, who wasn't convinced of the course that he had been forced to do. Today, we want to focus on the idea of men not just refraining from making unwanted advances and comments, but actually becoming active supporters of the women that they work with, away from courses, but also courses being a part of that, perhaps. This means challenging behaviours that disadvantage female colleagues from interrupting women in meeting to making assumptions about career opportunities women want. Have you had a friend at work, a male friend who's got on side with you, helped you perhaps in certain circumstances? Maybe you describe yourself as one, we have many male listeners. Or is there something holding you back from stepping up to be a supporter?

Keen to hear your views as always, 84844. Here are Ali, leadership trainer and author of a new book called Her Allies and Gary Ford who's just co-written The Accidental Sexist, a handbook for men on workplace diversity and inclusion. Both join me now. I wondered, Gary, if I could start with you to check what qualifies you to write such a handbook. Were you an accidental sexist? Yes, morning, Emma. I guess to some extent I probably was. I think we're all victims of a certain amount of cultural conditioning which means we judge women and men slightly differently. My story starts about six years ago. I was a managing director at JP Morgan and I worked within IT and we were trying to look at the reasons why very few women chose careers in technology. Typically in the UK and the US, it's less than one in five.

And we found myself in a room with as the only man with 50 women trying to explore what was going on. And as some of the women described some of the challenges and barriers that they were encountering with their careers, I began to realize that a lot of this had not been visible to me. And I've been actually quite ignorant about some of the things that were happening. So I've kind of felt that I was part of the problem, unless I sort of changed the way I kind of worked with my colleagues, this was going to carry on happening. And it also occurred to me that there were many men that needed to have a similar conversation and be exposed to similar things that previously hadn't been been visible.

So myself, Stephen, who's one of my co-authors on the book and a number of very talented men and women got together. And we talked about this idea of a male allies program where we would try to deliberately make that invisible kind of barriers to women's careers visible visible to men, and start having a conversation about that. I was going to say, to bring in here at this point, but here are some examples, for instance, presuming a woman doesn't want to travel because she's got children or presuming she might want to be in a certain part of the job than other areas. What do you make of this, Hira?

Good morning, Emma. So I think it's very important to clarify rather than assuming. And just sort of, because I think we have these preconceived notions about what women can do and what women can't do. And we have relegated women to specific industries, and we believe there are certain roles which women are meant to be for, as a result of which when it comes to choosing women for promotions or any other opportunities, we tend to be very fixated about that. And I think it's important to step back and also flip it and test it. I mean, would you be asking a man about this? I mean, would you be asking the same question if it was a man in question? And if not, then perhaps you should give women a chance to and ask her if she is comfortable. I mean, yes, women who have recently delivered a baby, new moms, it is difficult for them.

But then every situation is different. Perhaps that woman does have opportunities or does have help and she is able to travel. So rather than assuming just going ahead and asking and stepping up to make sure that you're not making the wrong decision or assumption. But I suppose these are the questions you'd like people to have in their minds, not make assumptions, ask the questions, think differently. But Gary, there's a whole other thing going on here where you'd have to get certainly men to want to participate in this.

And you can do so by trying to make it open and do what you're doing with programmes. But how do you get men to think, I would like to actually step up, especially because I'm just aware of last week, there was a report which talked about mediocre male managers doing better in the workplace than women because they know how to navigate work politics.

So they might, you know, walk the walk. They may talk the talk, but will they actually walk the walk if it's going to jeopardize their career yeah i mean i think there's definitely a conversation that needs to be had about you know what what's in it for men and i do feel that um you know there's a lot of you know clearly a lot of research and evidence showing that a more gender equal workplace and a more gender equal society is better for everyone, men included. And I think, you know, traditionally given there are multiple genders, I think one particular gender, my gender, I identify as a man haven't been doing their fair share of the work.

So I do think there's a conversation that says this will make you better at what you do. You will probably be better as a manager, if you are a manager. You will basically work in teams that are more motivated. They will deliver better products and services. So that's what's in it for men, just slightly aware of our time. How do you actually call it out?

Let me go to Hira first. Hira, if you see something in the workplace, how do you call it out? There are lots of different ways to call it out because, you know, with men especially, there's this long-standing bro code, which is difficult to violate, and men are often hesitant.

I would say, just by saying that if somebody is being interrupted in the meeting, just pausing and saying, let her finish the sentence, or can I hear her viewpoint, or let everybody speak up. But if you hear a sexist comment, just stepping up and say,

well, you know, we don't do this here, or that was, oh, ouch, did you just say that? Or asking the person to reflect. So lots of different strategies in which you don't have to be directly confrontational or assertive. But at the same time, you can respectfully call out the behavior and make sure the person is forced to reflect and not repeat that again. Well, how would you do it, Gary? I think there's a couple of things, really. I mean, I think there's certainly a need to practice this type of behaviour. Actually calling someone out and being called out are actually quite difficult things to do.

So I do think recommending that people practice this, maybe in a safe space with other colleagues. And also, we all make the same... How do you practice that? What, somebody says a sexist remark and then the other person goes excuse me you can't say that yeah absolutely i mean jill one of my other co-authors in the book and i have run workshops around this where we talk to role play so what would you say right and make some suggestions about how you step in and more

importantly if you are called out because we all make mistakes how you deal with that you don't get defensive you don't say oh you must have got it wrong i was just joking you try and treat it with the respect it deserves and i think one of the most powerful things uh any leader in an organization can do is give the people that work in their organization permission to call them out to say quite publicly um i will make mistakes. And if I do say something that makes you feel uncomfortable or you feel is not appropriate, then please let me know. You have my permission to do that. And I would try to do better next time. So I do think if you can lead from the front on this, it can make a real difference. But what about benevolent sexism? Nice guy misogynist is also a nickname where you don't even know there's an issue and maybe it's a male dominated firm.

There's only a couple of women. They're not going to start role playing that, are they, Gary? They're not. I mean, and a bit like Hira, we saw plenty of examples where people would make assumptions about, you know, the careers that they were the women that worked with them wanted to have. So I think some of this, again, is back to making it visible, having appropriate conversations, try not to make people feel guilty about this. We're all conditioned by some of these cultural stereotypes and begin to kind of co-create. I do see this as men and women and other genders working together collectively on this, but beginning to have conversations about what we can all do differently and get men talking about it and realise that they have a view. They've been traditionally silenced on this subject, but let's hear what they've got to say. Hira, you've worked in a completely male-dominated space where I imagine this wouldn't have been

something that anyone was open to. No, absolutely not. And you know what, Emma, the interesting part is most of them are well-intentioned men and they don't realize when they do engage in benevolent sexism. So seemingly innocuous compliments, which are meant to be well, I mean, I meant well, I was just complimenting you, or just snide remarks which are couched in sexist comments are delivered with humour. And research shows that when you deliver a sexist comment with humour, then the chances of being called out are going to be that much less or the chances of being confronted are that much less. Have you had somebody in your career, I mean, because the other side of this, I'm just looking at some of the messages coming in here. Have you had someone who's done this with you, a kind of a guy spoken up for you?

Because some people are also finding that whole idea quite sexist, that you might need a man in a meeting to say hang on a minute she's not she's not finished her point very quickly Hira. Yes so not as many as I would have liked to have but generally speaking I mean I'm able to say that myself and I'm able to say let me finish it but when I researched women a lot of women did say that if they had anybody who could intervene then that would have been far more helpful to them. And that would have been something they would have taken. Hira Ali, thank you very much. Her new book's called Her Allies. Gary Ford, thank you to you

who's just co-written The Accidental Sexist. And thank you to you for your company. I'll be back with you tomorrow at 10. That's all for today's Woman's Hour. Thank you so much for your time. Join us again for the next one. Are you fed up with the news? As you know, I'm fed up.

People are fed up. Next slide, please. The skewer. The skewer. The skewer. The news chopped and chomped. Welcome to the repair shop. In the repair shop today, Matt needs help with a cherished possession.

What have you brought us? A National Health Service. Oh, dear. It's everything youished possession. What have you brought us? A National Health Service. Oh, dear. It's everything you need to know. Like you've never heard it before. Have you ever dabbled in an animal? I haven't said no.

You've tried donkeys. Dating. Pierce, we had a good time at university. The biggest story. We're moved. With a twist. Suddenly, thank God, Spider-Man, they may have said. Spider-Man, I'm not feeling.

Spider-Man quite rightly was saying. Tank flat, boss walk, jam, nitty gritty, you're listening to the Chief Medical Officer Chris Whittier. Jam. By John Holmes. Crack team. Sound wizards. Kate Winslet has saved the Health Secretary Matt Hancock from the jaws of a crocodile by punching it in the face. Suppliers of racist and sexist tweets are struggling to meet demand.

The Malti Award for the name of satirical comedy. Order. You do, Link. Scott, Matt. face suppliers of racist and sexist tweets are struggling to meet demand video link scott man scott scott sorry you sound like a dalek barry gardner you are an enemy of the daleks video link paul blomfield i'll be back we'll try and get you back. The skewer. The skewer. I'm Sarah Trelevan, and for over a year, I've been working on one of the most complex stories I've ever covered. There was somebody out there who was faking pregnancies. I started, like, warning everybody. Every doula that I know. It was fake. No pregnancy.

And the deeper I dig, the more questions I unearth. How long has she been doing this? What does she have to gain from this? From CBC and the BBC World Service, The Con, Caitlin's Baby. It's a long story. Settle in. Available now.