Woman's Hour - Isabel Allende, Sex Matters, Julia Gillard, P Diddy trial

Episode Date: May 14, 2025

Nuala McGovern is joined by the best-selling author Isabel Allende about her latest book My Name is Emilia Del Valle. It follows a young female journalist intent on covering the civil war in Chile in 1891 despite having to write under a man’s name. This week we'll be hearing different perspectives on the recent Supreme Court ruling on the definition of a woman under the Equality Act, and how it could and should be interpreted on the ground. Today we hear from Helen Joyce, Director of Advocacy at Sex Matters and author of Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality Broadcaster Yinka Bokinni discusses the latest in the Sean 'Diddy' Combs trial. He’s been charged with sex trafficking, racketeering conspiracy and transportation to engage in prostitution. Combs has denied all charges. Today the Global Institute for Women’s Leadership is launching the Gender Equality Index UK (GEIUK). It measures gender equality across 372 local authorities and says no area has achieved full parity between women and men. Exploring the complex links between gender equality, regional disparities and economic productivity we discuss how it can lead to a better future for women and men? Dr Caitlin Schmid who has lead the project and ex- Australian Prime Minister and Chair of GIWL -Julia Gillard are in the Woman's Hour studio.Presenter: Nuala McGovern Producer: Kirsty Starkey

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK. The Dear Daughter podcast received some fantastic letters from our listeners recently. I just had a lot of emotion and I had to put it somewhere. Together, we're creating a handbook to life for our children. Feelings that you don't know how to express verbally, write it down. Enjoy the life you have. No one can tell you what tomorrow will bring. Dear daughter from the BBC World Service, listen now wherever you get your BBC podcasts. BBC Sounds music radio podcasts. Hello, this is Nuala McGovern and you're listening to the Woman's Hour podcast.

Hello and welcome to the programme. Don't give up on love. That is just one of the uplifting lines this morning from the bestselling Chilean-American novelist Isabel Allende. She has a wide ranging interview with me coming up. Also today, we continue to hear different perspectives on the UK Supreme Court ruling that decided the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex. We'll hear from Helen Joyce from the charity Sex Matters, one of the organisations who intervened in the ruling. We will also hear other views in coming programmes.

And as you tune in, have you already done more than your fair share of unpaid work in your home compared with your male partner? Well we're going to be speaking to Julia Gillard, the ex-Australian Prime Minister and Chair now of the Global Institute for Women's Leadership. She's going to talk about a new tool that sheds light on how gender, social inequalities, and geography intersect and shape our lives. And part of the analysis shows that when men spend more time on unpaid work,

it creates greater gender equality and higher outcomes for everyone. So we're asking, in your home, are you doing more than your fair share? Why? And also, are you ever guilty of gatekeeping some of that unpaid work? And if so, why? Why do you prefer to do it instead of letting others or insisting

that another take the reins? Now, some of what I've heard is that sometimes it's just quicker and easier to do it yourself, or perhaps that it won't be done right if it's not you doing it. And so I want to know what is that work that perhaps you're holding on to? It could be planning trips, maybe it's doctors appointments, we know women do the majority of that. De-ironing? Your experiences. You can text the program the number is 84844 on social media or at pbcwomanshour or you can email us through our website. For a WhatsApp message or a voice note that number is as always 03700 100 444.

But let us begin this morning with the trial of Sean Diddy Combs. It begun this week. You might have seen the 55 year old hip hop mogul and rapper is facing five charges of racketeering, sex trafficking and transportation to engage in prostitution. He has denied all the allegations. Seen by many as one of the most instrumental figures in shaping music, fashion and TV and the wider cultural scene for decades that has happened through his music and also his influence on the music industry. The charges you might have seen relate to what have been so-called freak-offs in which prosecutors say he forced women to engage with commercial sex workers and filmed them. If he's found guilty he

could spend the rest of his life in prison. I want to bring in broadcaster Jinka Bikini who is a presenter of the BBC documentary P. Diddy The Rise and Fall. Welcome Jinka. Perhaps you can give us a little bit of a background on Diddy. He's had a number of names, he's also known as P Diddy. How would you describe his significance in the hip-hop world? Good morning. Well for me he has been somebody who has always been involved in my world. So I sort of came up through the music industry to be a broadcaster. P Diddy, known as Puff Daddy back in the 90s, started as a record label executive,

and then he was a label president. He was also a music producer, and he has been responsible for so many hits and a lot of the artists that are household names today, from the likes of Biggie, he's worked with Faith Evans, Mary J. Blige, 112, the R&B group, and he also has avenues outside of music. He had a fashion label, Sean John. He was one of the co-directors of Siroc Vodka and also had a TV station called

Revolt TV. So his reach has been far and wide and he sort of reached the pinnacle of this fame and the pinnacle of influence with white parties in the Hamptons and these were coveted events where who's who of A-list celebrities would be there. I sort of don't want to name celebrities because of the connotations of the white parties now but we're talking musicians, we're talking record label executives, journalists, actors, you know, socialites would all want to be invited to these ditty parties so now with the allegations coming out and of course the trial beginning this week it seems that there's a much darker side to what most of us see as a life that we want to emulate.

Yeah the white parties they were like a moment on the social calendar, shall we say, within those spheres. This trial, why has it come about now? So there are two prongs to this. There are civil allegations against him. Cassie Ventura, who is his ex-girlfriend and also one of the artists that he had signed to his label, who is his ex-girlfriend and also one of the artists that he had signed to his label, she filed a lawsuit in November of 2023. And after that, there was, I would say nothing short of a barrage of other people, dozens of civil lawsuits against him. But coinciding with that were these federal charges. The police searched various residences of his in 2024, in the summer of 2024. He was subsequently arrested. But we don't know what the sort of straw that

broke the camel's back or the catalyst was for that arrest or those searches. But what we do know is that he was denied bail until his trial, which began this week. There was, many will remember, the publication by CNN of a surveillance video from the Intercontinental Century Hotel in LA in 2016. It had this shocking footage of Combs hitting his former partner who you mentioned there, Cassandra Ventura, known as Cassie. She was in that relationship on and off for about 11 years but she took to the stand yesterday

and she is one of the two central witnesses, central really for the prosecution. Can you give me a summary of what was said? Well before she took to the stand it was very interesting because the defence wanted her to be seated before the jury came in and that's because Cassie is currently eight months pregnant and they worried that you know pregnancy is a beautiful time but it's also a time that can evoke sympathy from people. But I think that that motion was dismissed because the jury was seated before Cassie came in. She testified to her experiences of her relationship with P Diddy. So she spoke about these freak offs in which she was almost demanded, directed is the word that she used to engage in sexual

activity with escorts that her and her ex boyfriend, Sean Coombs, would select on various websites. Craigslist was listed as one of those. And she spoke about the coercion. She also spoke about not being able to leave and that she used drugs as a method of escaping and coping with what she was going through. She spoke about physical violence and what the consequences that were for her as she didn't partake in those actions. It was a very, very emotional testimony. Some tears

were in there as well from her. He has PDD and through his lawyers denied all the allegations. What else have his lawyers said? Well his lawyers they haven't questioned Cassie yet so but what they did before the trial is they have been very very vocal in the fact that they believe that this is a domestic violence case, rather than racketeering and the transportation to engage in prostitution and sex trafficking. They don't believe that her testimony is relevant to those charges that are against him. So it will be really interesting to see their cross-examination of her.

And what is expected to come later this week? So far we have heard from one of the central witnesses, which is Cassie Ventura. We are expecting the defence to cross-examine her and maybe have some further questioning from the prosecution. That should take place today. We've also heard from an escort who was alleged to have been hired by Sean Coombs and Cassie. He testified on Monday and we heard from a security guard who was allegedly at the presence, present in the assault, that hotel in Beverly Hills. So we're expecting more witnesses.

We are expecting that cross-examination and I think we're really expecting another witness. There is a second key witness to the prosecution that we don't know who that is yet. So it'll be very interesting to see who that is and see if it goes further to helping either prove or disprove these allegations against PDD. And just in my last 30 seconds or so, that is the backdrop that many people are focusing on but there are many civil lawsuits also taking place. Yes, there are dozens of civil lawsuits. I spoke to a lawyer as part of my BBC documentary and it seems as though we are waiting for the outcome of that criminal trial to see what happens with the civil lawsuits.

And PDD continues to contest those civil lawsuits that filed against him and denies any wrongdoing. That is the broadcast from presenter Inge Bukini. Thank you very much for joining us. And the documentary I mentioned at the beginning, P. Diddy, The Rise and Fall is available now on BBC iPlayer. If you have been impacted by anything in this discussion, you can find support on the BBC Action Line. Now, we are currently hearing different perspectives on the Supreme Court ruling that took place last month that the terms woman and sex in 2010, a quality act refer to a terms woman and sex in 2010 equality act refer to a biological woman and biological sex. The judgment has implications for many organisations.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission, the EHRC, has issued interim guidance on the April 26th. For example, in workplaces and services that are open to the public, trans women, those people with gender recognition certificates and those without, should not use women's facilities such as toilets or changing rooms. We are looking at the practical dilemmas this ruling creates for organizations, businesses and individuals. On Monday, if you were tuned in, you will have heard from the barrister Robin Moira White, who is a trans woman and activist who specialises in taking discrimination cases. Today we hear from the human rights charity Sex Matters who supported the group for Women

Scotland in challenging the Scottish government at the Supreme Court. Sex Matters were one of only four organisations allowed to intervene in the appeal. Helen Joyce is the Director of Advocacy at Sex Matters and also author of Trans When Ideology Meets Reality. Welcome to Woman's Hour. It's lovely to be on. Well a month on from the ruling as we are now, what would you say has been the reaction from supporters of your organisation Sex Matters?

Feelings of vindication and joy because this clarifies the law as it always has been in the 15 years since the Equality Act was passed and it makes it clear what women have always known, which is that if you want to have single sex spaces, you want to protect women's human rights, then you're going to actually have to talk about sex and those single sex spaces are going to have to be on the basis of sex. You can't have a female-only space that allows some males in, that's really oxymoronic. MS. What we're talking about though, Helen, as you know, is some of the issues that are raised by this ruling and I'm wondering what sort of questions your supporters might be raising

with you about this clarification of the law, really about it being interpreted at ground level. So people overwhelmingly want to know what they can say to their employers or what they can say to service providers. So what I would say to them is that they can say to their workplace, where, you know, 1992 regulations require that you have single sex bases and that really means sex, that if they have not been clear to your co-workers that that means no men, no matter how they identify, are to use the women's bases, that now they must actually make that clear. We wrote to the Health and Safety Executive and they replied

to us. We've tweeted out the letter and put it on our website and the HSE says that it's not enough to put up the signs male and female. Employers actually have to make sure that people understand what those mean and that if a man comes into the women's toilets, you can go to HR, you can say, can you ask him to stop doing this please? If he continues, you can ask them to raise a disciplinary. If your employer won't do this, you can write to the HSE or your local authority. Because a man who keeps coming into women's spaces is committing sexual harassment. And just to clarify to our audience, in reference there when you say men, who are you talking about?

I'm talking about all male people, however they identify and whether or not they have paperwork saying that they have an acquired gender of female. So that would all biological men, including those who would refer to themselves as trans women. That's correct. And for our audience also, do with the term trans women, is it that you won't use it or don't use it? So it's a belief system that I just don't share. I don't think that people have inner essences that make them male or female. I recognize that

human beings are mammals, that we can't change sex and my main concern is women's human rights. Women cannot have human rights if we can't name who's a man and who's a woman, because some of women's human rights require us to be able to exclude all men, for example from spaces where we undress or where we are vulnerable. And if I call some men women, then I can't explain why those men aren't able to come in. So it's not about being mean or rude to anyone. Man, male, he, him, these are not nasty words. They're just the ordinary words for the half of humanity who are male. And of course, some

are not asking to be called women. Some maybe. They're asking to be called trans women. But they're still men. Trans women are men. And that's what the Supreme Court confirmed. Did you ever use the term? Trans women, I suppose when I started out looking at this subject, but then I realized that I wasn't being asked for a polite accommodation, I was being asked to give up the rights for women. So now I could understand how somebody would use these words to a friend in polite conversation and so on, but when we're talking about arrangements that are for everybody, when we're talking about workplace toilets, changing

rooms, rape crisis centers and so on, we've seen how if we've given an inch they've taken 10,000 miles. So I now just call all men men and I call them trans-identifying men and then we're really clear about who we're talking about. This isn't to insult anyone. People can believe what they like about themselves, they can believe what they like about humanity, but they can't impose their beliefs on other people. So I use my words and I'm fine with other people using their words and hopefully we can all rub along together that way. Yes, although there has been massive conflict instead of rubbing along together. You know,

you mentioned domestic abuse services there. There are some, as you will probably have seen, that say they will continue to accept trans women refuge, for example, that are just specialist domestic abuse organisation in the UK. On the day of the ruling, said it would not change the way it operates. Just some of the words from their statement.

We remain firmly committed to supporting all survivors of domestic abuse, including trans women. Their CEO, who is Gemma Sherrington has clarified in a statement it will continue to provide single sex accommodation and services in full accordance with the law as well as other safe housing and community based options to support all survivors of domestic abuse. Ultimately the way Refuge operates will not change and we will continue to adopt an inclusive approach that meets the needs of all survivors. Your view on that? That sounds exactly right. You need to meet the needs of everybody. But female people often need

there to be no male people in spaces. So you can support everybody but you don't do that by pretending that some men are women. Of course some men are subjected to domestic violence. Both men who identify as trans and men who don't. And a domestic abuse charity may well seek to support them too. But if it pretends that some men are women and it puts those men in spaces that are called female only, they're now breaking the law because you can't operate a single sex service and allow some people of the opposite sex in. You've lost the basis whereby you are running that service. So what would you expect people to do in terms of refuge for example?

I'm not running refuge so I don't know what the numbers are but what you will find in any domestic abuse service is that most of the people who are domestically abused, seriously domestically abused especially are women, female people and so that will be your main thrust. And then you can think how do do you have add on services for other people? For example, men who have been abused by women, abused by other men, trans identifying men, and you will provide services for them. Are you concerned that they are not going to change their practices? Yes, I am quite concerned because there's been a lot of disinformation

and misinformation, including, I have to say, on Monday in this show. Well, we'll talk about and that is your interpretation often, and we'll speak about some of what Robin brought up and your thoughts on them. If I go back indeed to the terminology, which things often come back to as well. This is the reason it's a tricky one, right? For some people, some of our audience listening will be with you, maybe even outraged that I'm asking you about your choice of words. And at the same time, other listeners will find the terms that you use offensive, antagonistic or even a way to erase trans women.

You brought up Monday's program, that was Robin Moore White, who's a barrister, who's a trans woman and an activist, and reacted to being described as a man saying those who do it are being deliberately offensive generally when they do. The choice of referring to someone in an unpleasant way is a choice. It was great that you then brought up the things that Robin has said about me and my organization. He has called us vile, evil, he's called Sex Matters a hate organization and then he went straight on to, if you remember, the Battle of Cable Street. So what he was doing there was that he was positioning women who campaign for female-only spaces, women like me, as directly equivalent to Oswald Mosley's

branch arts to fascists. And he was positioning men like him, trans- identifying men like him, who are a small minority of men, who insist that despite the law, he said he was going to keep using women's spaces despite the law, he is positioning men like him as being brave human rights defenders. This is a complete inversion. What he is doing is he's seeking to destroy women's rights. So you know I don't really feel very sympathetic to men who say they want to destroy women's rights. And with that language which he used for example, some would consider it inflaming and others would

also consider your organisation Sex Matters as anti-trans, some you will have heard even calling it a hate group, which is a really strong allegation and feel by not meeting halfway with the choice of language reinforcing that? I mean, I just don't see why I should be tiptoeing around the fact that there is a man who is saying that despite a Supreme Court ruling, he is going to come into spaces where he is by definition excluded for the sake of women's human rights. I don't feel like tiptoeing around somebody like that. And if I call that man a woman, what I'm saying is that there

are some women who don't belong in women's spaces. That's not the fact. The point is that no men belong in women's spaces. And the men who argue for this are precisely the sort of men we most need to keep out. It's absolutely essential that we use these words. And I would remind your listeners that I work for a human rights charity and that the barrister who is our chair and the lawyers who are on our board are the people who have been on the winning side of case after case in the employment tribunal and now in the Supreme Court and that the arguments that we make are based on human rights. You can only find this Supreme Court ruling surprising if you don't pay attention to women's human rights. It's 88 pages of clarity on the subject

of how everybody has the same human rights and that women 88 pages of clarity on the subject of how everybody has the same human rights and that women in particular need to be able to say no to all men in order to protect our human rights. And Robin identifies as a trans woman just to underline that. On your website Sex Matters you say many organizations are now digging in and resisting complying with the law. Even those that want to do the right thing are confused and frightened. You go on to say your organisation, how can they be confident in treating people based on their actual sex when there is no way of accurately verifying that information? It

was also reported by the BBC a couple of weeks ago that more than 1,000 cultural figures have signed an open letter which claims the judgment overlooks the need to protect trans people and non-binary intersex from discrimination and that the majority of cultural venues are unable to magic up toilet facilities and they're also unable and unwilling to police which toilets people use. And although coming from different viewpoints the outcome is the same. What is your organisation advise of people to do on the threshold of toilets in changing rooms? I mean everybody knows what sex outcome is the same. What is your organisation advising people to do on the threshold of toilets and changing rooms? I mean everybody knows what sex they are

and the first thing to do is to set really clear rules and expectations. It's a bit like speed limits. We don't say we can't have a speed limit just because you might break the speed limit on a country road at 4 a.m. and not get caught. You set clear rules and you expect people to follow the clear rules. I don't start from the position that people who identify as trans can't be expected to follow clear rules. They can be expected to follow the same rules as everybody else when those rules are fair and lawful. So just make it clear that you have male facilities and female facilities and that whenever possible you

have a third unisex option that is there for anyone who is not happy using the facilities for their sex. And then remember, you know, for a long time women have been told that we must be kind and we must be inclusive. It's really time that men budge up here. So I mean, Robin seemed very sure that if he went into the men's toilets, the other men would be mean to him. I wouldn't be so sure about that. I think that most men, really, most men we know from opinion polls think that transifying men should stay out of women's spaces. They're actually very keen on that. So I think most men will be much more welcoming than Robin thinks. I think what Robin was saying is that they have never had an issue using women's facilities.

It's simply not true. We know this. We hear from thousands and thousands of people in our inbox But also when we have done focus groups and opinion polls We know that women care about single-sex spaces. Everybody does. Yes. There are some women who don't mind but also, you know Robin is very tall. He's a very imposing character. Very very big I've been with him in person and that is not somebody that I would want to challenge in a space where he's not meant to be But there are these questions about who's going to police in a space where he's not meant to be. But there are these questions about who's going to police the toilets. Do you have an answer to that?

No, there are no toilet police. I expect people to follow the rules. In a workplace, a man who keeps going into the women's toilets, you can report him to your HR department. You can ask HR to bring a disciplinary against him and you can say that he is committing sexual harassment. But as you've heard, Ellen, just some of the examples I've put forward, people are not, some people and some organisations are not complying with the law in the way that you

would like them to and don't seem to have any intention to. Yeah, so I'm hoping that the HSC will go beyond just replying to us in the letter that, as I say, we've put on our website. They really need to put a statement on their own website saying what they told us, which is that yes, workplaces are expected to make it clear to everybody that they don't use facilities for the opposite sex. But in the last analysis, a man who keeps coming into spaces where women get undressed is a man who is committing a sexual harassment crime. MS. MCNAMARA Although they are also to be afforded privacy, dignity, and to not be harassed or discriminated against.

Yes, absolutely, but that doesn't mean that they come into women's spaces. Women's spaces are for women, that's non-negotiable. Then the second order question is how do you accommodate men who are not happy in men's spaces? And of course that's important, but you can't do it by putting them into women's spaces because then the women's spaces cease to be women only. All I'm saying is that they are there at the moment and some organizations, as it appears to me, don't seem ready or willing to change that despite the ruling. We've seen in the last four weeks, sorry in the last week

I would say we've seen an encouraging sign that organizations are starting to ask their general counsel rather than their EDI function. For example, Wetherspoons have made it very clear. They've just said clearly the women's toilets are for female people, the men's toilets are for male people, don't use the wrong ones. So more and more of them are starting to go to the right part of the company which is the part that talks to them about legal liability. You do know that Victoria McLeod, the High Court judge who is trans, has told the BBC she's gone to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Yes, I did hear that.

Why do you laugh when you hear that? Well, I talked to a lot of barristers and lawyers who were on the winning side in these cases and none of them were at all worried about this. It's not usual for the ECHR to take cases at all from people who weren't party to particular cases so I wouldn't really expect there to be much traction on this. Very, very different take than what I got on Monday. What about boys, young boys being brought by their mothers into toilets, if in the ruling boy and man is the same thing?

Yeah, that was a very interesting bit of legionnaire there by Robin Wasn't There. It's quite standard for places to put up a sign saying this is the ladies' toilets and you can bring in minors with you up to say age seven. But there is no guidance on it. No but I mean people are you don't have to assume that people are going to be idiots on this everybody knows the difference between a grown man and a child. It's not about being an idiot Helen it's about people having very different ideological views and interpretations of what the words are on a ruling or on guidance. Yeah, but the Supreme Court has really said very, very, very, very, very clearly that when we say

male or we mean man and when we say female we mean woman, yes, organisations can have an agreement where you can bring an accompanied minor of the opposite sex in, that doesn't mean an unaccompanied Until what age? It will depend from organisation to organisation. I will leave it there because I want to give equal time to everybody who's giving me some opinions on this particular ruling. That engenders strong feelings. Thank you very much to Helen Joyce, Director of Advocacy for Sex Matters.

Going forward we will be hearing from more of the organisations that submitted evidence to the Supreme Court in this case. On Friday Anita will speak to Amnesty International UK. On Monday I'm speaking to LGP Alliance. And if you missed the barrister activist and trans woman Robin Moir-White who we're speaking about, who was on Monday's program, you can catch up on that on BBC Sounds. It's the 12th of May episode on Women's Hour. Thanks very much, Anne. The Dear Daughter podcast received some fantastic letters from our listeners recently. I just had a lot of emotion and I had to put it somewhere. Together, we're creating a handbook to life for our children.

Feelings that you don't know how to express verbally, write it down. Enjoy the life you have. No one can tell you what tomorrow will bring. Dear daughter from the BBC World Service, listen now wherever you get your BBC podcasts. Thank you. And I just want to move ahead now. 84844, something completely different. Well it's still related to gender. I am asking for your questions on the unpaid work that you do at the home. Why are you doing it and what are you gatekeeping? Some stories

coming in already 84844 if you would like to get in touch for that. But before that take a seat back and listen to Isabel Allende. She's the best-selling Chilean-American author loved by so many, including me. She's considered the world's most widely read Spanish language author, winning Chile's National Literature Prize. She's also an American literary icon. In 2014, she was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Barack Obama. And her work includes The House of the Spirits, one of my favourites, it's not all about me, Eva Luna and Violetta. She also wrote a memoir for her daughter, Paula, who died at 29. You might remember that it's had people still very much read it now when dealing

with grief. The protagonists of Isabel's fiction books are often strong women. Her latest work, My Name is Amelia, the Baillet is no exception. Isabel spoke to me yesterday from her home in California and I began by asking her about the book's main character, Emilia. She's a young, feisty, rebellious, curious woman ahead of her time because this is the late 1800s when women had very few options but she's good at writing and she manages to get a job in the examiner, the newspaper of San Francisco at the time, with a male pseudonym because women were not supposed to do anything. They didn't have a voice.

But eventually there is a civil war in Chile, and because she speaks Spanish and she has roots in Chile, her biological father is Chilean, she gets to be sent to Chile to cover the war. And this woman who is young and adventurous and thinks she's going to a great trip, an adventure really, finds herself in the middle of the battlefield and then she gets in touch with the reality of death and violence and pain and war. And why did you want to write about this particular period you mentioned there? It's Chile, it's the Civil War of 1891.

Because it has echoes with what happened in 1973 with Salvador Allende. Both presidents, Balmaceda and Allende, wanted to change many things in the country and things that would benefit the anti-privilege. And of course, they found themselves confronted by a horrible opposition of the conservatives. And in both cases the armed forces intervened, and also the United States intervened by the way, and Great Britain because they had interests in the mines in the north. And in the first case in 1891, the armed forces split. And therefore there was a confrontation, a military confrontation, a horrible civil war in which more Chileans died in four months

than in the four years of the war against the Pacific, against Peru and Bolivia called the Pacific War. And then in 1973, Salvador Allende also confronted horrible opposition, but in this case the armed forces did not split and we had a military coup and 17 years of dictatorship. In both cases, Balmaceda and Allende committed suicide. And this, also for those that aren't familiar, of course they will hear the name, but President Salvador Allende was your father's cousin. And what happened at that point really threw a whole different fork in the road for you

and what was to become of your life. And before I go to that, though, I want to still stay with the book for a moment, because I learned about people in the book who were involved in the war, women that I really didn't know about before. You wrote about Angelita Ailef and the Mapuche woman who was part of the so-called Cantineras women. Tell us a little bit about them. Well in order to put together this story I start with

questions. So I say for example who is going to narrate the story? I want a neutral voice, not someone that is on one or the other side of the conflict. So I choose someone that comes from abroad. And asking the questions about the war, I ask myself, who provides water, food, washes the clothes, who helps the soldiers? And then I found out that there were women, they have no voice or name in the history books, but they existed. And they did a lot of the work and then they were in the battlefield providing

water and support and often taking care of the wounded. And so these canteen girls were really essential and they are totally ignored by history. And they come to life instead in your book. You know, when you were describing Amelia, they're, you know, curious and strong and wants to be a journalist. I was like, there are some similarities here. Definitely with yourself. I don't have to look too far.

And there is a part in the book where she begins writing, as you mentioned, under a man's name, her stepfather says to her, remember, Princess, that you will have to make twice as much effort as any man to get half the recognition. Are you speaking from experience? Absolutely. And I think that any woman in any field can say the same thing. But in my field, when I wrote The House of the Spirits, it was the boom of Latin American literature. Great names, famous names, not one woman in the lot, not one feminine voice. And so when I wrote The House of the Spirits and it became very successful, they said that

I was the only woman in the boom. And then immediately a week later, they said, no, no, no, she does not belong to the boom. She is just another narrator from somewhere. So it has taken me a long time, especially in Chile, to be recognized and have the respect that I have in other places. It's so interesting. When you speak, you remind me of the great Irish author, Edna O'Brien, who got such success internationally before ever being recognized at home, particularly in the pantheon of mainly Irish male writers. Exactly the same in Chile. My colleagues in Chile don't consider, I'm not part of the lot And that is mainly because I sell more books than they do. That really makes

them very angry. Yes, yes. I can imagine. And you've definitely done that by the bucket load. I want to turn back to when you were a journalist, though, however, and perhaps you could tell our listeners this anecdote of meeting with the great Chilean poet, Pablo Neruda. Yeah. He called the publishing house where I was working and asked me to go visit him. So I thought I was going to interview him and I felt so proud that he would have chosen me as the best journalist in the country to interview him. So I went, it was winter, raining, two hours the road, and I got there and we had lunch,

we had a bottle of wine. He showed me his collections of junk, really, bottles or whatever. Then around three o'clock, I said, look, I have to do the interview because I need to get back home before it gets dark. And he said, what interview? I said, well, I've come to interview you. Oh no, he said, I would never be interviewed by you. You are the worst journalist in this country.

You put yourself in the middle of everything. You cannot be objective. And if I'm sure that if you don't have a story, you make it up. Why don't you switch to literature where all these defects are virtuous? I should have paid attention then. You know, this was two months before the military coup. So two months later he was dead.

Oh my goodness. And did that advice that you got from Pablo Neruda, did it enter your brain? Did you think maybe he's onto something? No, no. At the moment I felt insulted. And I never, never paid attention or remembered because life just turned upside down after the military coup. Yes, you had to flee. Yeah, I had to get out. And then when I got to Venezuela, I had to make a living and support my kids. The idea of becoming a writer, that never crossed my mind for years and years. So what happened?

Well, journalists were left behind because I didn't have a choice. And I became a writer, I think that out of longing. I felt that my life was going nowhere. I was going to be 40 years old and I had nothing to show except my two kids. And then at that point, on January 8, 1981, I got a phone call that my grandfather was dying in Chile. And I started a letter for him to prove to him that I remembered everything he had ever told me.

He was a great storyteller, and I come from a Gracie family. So the anecdotes of all my relatives, I remember them. And they are all in The House of the Spirits. So my grandfather died and I kept on writing and writing. And by the end of the year, I had more than 500 pages on the kitchen counter. And that was my first novel. What a story. And I love that you're dipping into your family's history as you write. I'm so sorry for the loss of your daughter. Many will know that Paula died. You were on speaking

on Woman's Hour a number of years ago about that. But I was thinking about the words that she said to you once, moving on, because this is woman's hour, that the word feminism isn't needed anymore. I know you said you were a raging feminist even by the age of five. What are your thoughts on that now? Well, I was a feminist without knowing what I was. I was just very angry because I had never heard the word. It was not used at that time. Imagine, I was born in the end of the world in 1942.

And then when I was in my late teens, I heard about the women's liberation movement and I realized I was not crazy and that many other women were feeling like me. And there was not only a community out there, but there were books that I could read. And I could get an articulate language to express what I was feeling. And then when I began working as a journalist, it was in a feminist magazine, the first one in Chile. And then when my daughter said that, my daughter must have been in her around 16, 17 years old.

And when she said that, I said, you have no idea how it is, because you have not gone out into the world, and you will then realize what the aggression you get, how limited your options are, and how difficult it is for a woman. And sure enough, as soon as she went to university, she became a raging feminist as myself. And she always worked with women, actually. Yeah, yeah.

I'm very sorry for your loss. I'm sure when it's the loss of your daughter, it is still very sharp, the grief that you must endure. You mentioned the year you were born. So you are 82 now. And I know you're interested in observing the aging process. So I want to know know what are you learning? A lot. I think that probably the aging process started for me when Paula died. I was 50 years

old. I turned 50 that year. And it was the whole year that Paula was in a coma, there was nothing to do. Just sit by her bedside in stillness and silence and hold her hand. So it was a year of reflection and a year of profound change. And I lost at that moment, if I ever had, any ambition, any idea of a career, any plans, all that was gone because I realized that I couldn't control anything. Things just happen.

And another great threshold is when you turn 80. Really? And you see, yes, because at that age, first of all, my parents died very late. My stepfather was 103 and my mother 98. So I lost my parents late in life, in my late 70s. So I didn't have to take care of them. My grandchildren were in their 30s, gone.

My son doesn't need me. He's very close to me, but he doesn't need me. And pets die, friends get sick and die. You learn to let go of almost everything, to begin with everything material. But then you have to let go also of your abilities, your capacities. You lose memory, attention, capacity to focus, to stay with a book, for example, in my case, for eight, ten hours as I used to do before. I can't do it anymore. So it's just a matter of maintaining what you have so that you don't lose it so fast, but you will lose it. And I want to talk about your mum for a moment, because I understand the next

will be a memoir of daily letters you sent to your mother since you turned 16, potentially 24,000 letters. Yeah. I mean, this is just the most fascinating story to me that you took pen to paper for your mother each day. Well, we live separated most of our lives. So my mother and I wrote every single day. Of course, it was not a dialogue.

It was like keeping a journal because the letters would take a month or two to get to each other, and then we kept on writing always as a habit. Every night I would write a letter to my mom. So that meant that I had to pay attention to what was happening during the day to have something to write in the evening. And my mother died in 2018. And since then, I go through life, I don't know, like sleepwalking. I don't pay attention to anything. The days blurring, blend into each other.

Everything is foggy because I don't have to write the letter. And I started collecting the letters in 1987 when I came to live in the United States. And then email was invented. And then my mother went crazy. She would write to me two or three times a day, sometimes five times a day. But the correspondence with my mother is so wonderful because I realized I don't remember 90% of what happened in my life. And the 10% I remember didn't happen that way. Yeah, yeah. It didn't. But if you ask me what happened, for example, on the 27th of June in 1990,

I pick up the box and I know exactly what happened that day with the emotion of the day. Such a treasure. It's a treasure. My whole life and my mother's life is there. And you knew her intimately, I know, through these letters, obviously, but that sometimes when you met in person, it was a bit more uncomfortable than the written word? Yes, because you know the written word, you have time to think what you are saying. But when we were together, if I would visit my mom in Chile, the first week would be wonderful.

And then very soon, she would be scared that I would go on television and talk about abortion, for example. She was, oh, that I would shock her prayer group by saying that I'm an atheist. When can I look forward to your next book? Oh, my dear. I started it on January 8th, and I have had to interrupt because I'm doing all the book tour for Amelia. And I will see when I come back, it's been very difficult to write this book because I'm much better with fiction. A memoir, especially at this age, you have to try to get to the truth of who you are

really, of what my life has been. And this book is only about the last few years, my divorce when I was 74, and a time of solitude and reflection, and my new love. Because look, I got married very late in life for the third time. If I could get a husband, anybody can. So don't give up. And I know he- Don't anybody can. So don't give up. And I know he... Don't give up on love. Never give up on love.

He didn't give up on you. I know he emailed you incessantly, but look, look where you ended up. Thank you so much for speaking to us. It's been a real pleasure. Thank you. Thank you. Isabel Allende there and her book, My Name is Emilia de Valle is out now. I was asking about the unpaid work that you do that you just won't give up.

Jennifer says ironing. It's just easier for me to do the ironing because my husband, despite lessons, still doesn't know how an ironing board unfolds. I caught him trying to iron a pair of trousers on an ironing board, which was only three foot from the ground. He was ironing in a squatting position, having failed to pull it up to its full height. I finished off the trousers." You see, that term learned helplessness.

Why am I talking about that? Well, today the Global Institute for Women's Leadership is launching the Gender Equality Index UK. This measures gender equality across 372 local authorities and says no area has achieved full parity between women and men. The Institute says the index is a tool that will shed light on the interwoven threads of gender, social equalities,

and geography that shape lives across the whole of the UK, and also show how gender equality can lead to a better future for women and men. Now to explain further, my guests in studio are Dr Caitlin Smead who is lead researcher on this and also the former Australian Prime Minister and chair of the Global Institute for Women's Leadership, Julia Gillard. Welcome to both of you. Thank you. Now Julie let me begin with you. You've described the index as a tool. It was your idea. Explain how it works.

You are giving me far too much credit. It was Caitlin's idea. One of the great delights of being at King's College London at the Global Institute for Women's Leadership is I get to hang out with really smart young people. But it is an important tool for showing us which parts of the UK are doing better on gender equality and which parts are doing worse and disaggregating the factors that feed into that. And I think one important finding in this is that very economically advantaged areas show high levels of gender equality, but we also see in disadvantaged communities gender equality in some places, which means in those locations

both men and women are doing badly. We also see areas that are disadvantaged where there is high levels of gender inequality. What you don't see is people doing well and high levels of gender inequality. So if there's gender inequality, nobody's doing well. Maybe nobody's doing well, maybe the men are doing slightly better, but the thing that makes everybody do well is rising levels of gender equality. And so I think this is an important contribution. We often hear gender equality spoken about as like it's a zero sum game, more for men means less for women, you know, it's back and forth. Actually, we can all rise together.

But what do you mean by gender equality? Well this comes to the data that's been collected, which is across multiple domains, and Caitlin will be able to explain that. Hop in there, Caitlin. Yes, thank you. So we are looking at 19 indicators across six domains of women's and men's lives. We are capturing paid work, so issues related to employment, looking at unpaid work as well, so childcare and domestic work, but then also outcomes related to education, health, and power and participation, which captures leadership at the local level.

Oh, that's interesting, power and participation. So those making the decisions. So active limited companies, who's heading those and also local councillors. Then we're also looking at how much women and men participate in their local communities, as well as who voted at the last and that was the 2019 general election. so democratic engagement. So can you give us some examples perhaps of how you've seen it manifested? So we can see that in areas such as Wandsworth, women are more likely to have economic security. So they're more likely to have or work full time, have managerial positions and higher wages. They're also more likely to have a partner, a man, who is more engaged in unpaid work.

Contrast that with Hartlepool, where we see women more likely to be shouldering the majority of the unpaid work, and also being more likely to have economic insecurity. And this points to the fact that our economies are gendered. If we are developing regional economic policies, we have to look at unpaid work or we're missing a key component. Yeah, I did see that the, Alice, you mentioned London there, for example, and the Northwest, they dominate the top most gender equal regions of the UK,

but for different reasons. Explain that for us, Julia. For different reasons. London, economically more advantage than the rest of the UK. That economic advantage has correlated with it high levels of gender equality. So picking up on what Caitlin's just said, women are more likely to be in work, men and women are more likely to be sharing the burdens of childcare, all of the rest of the domestic duties, getting the ironing board up to the right level to get the ironing done. And then we see, you know, further north, gender equal places, but they're places of high disadvantage.

So both men and women not doing well in the formal economy, not doing well in terms of life chances, education, health, those sorts of domains and likely too to be quite voiceless. You know I did see the headline that says you know no local authority had achieved full parity in an area between women and men. How likely do you think Julia it will happen? I'm an optimist over time, and I believe the kind of evidence that Caitlin generates is going to help us get there. So how do you envision this being used? So we want listeners to go to www.genderqualityindex.uk

and start exploring the data. We want this to be used by policymakers at the local and the national level. I want to emphasize, again, we see that regional development needs a gender lens. We need to look at the multiple ways in which women's and men's lives and living standards differ. That includes unpaid work. We want advocates to be able to use this resource for their local campaign activities. And of course we want to use this ourselves at the Institute to continue our research and understand why do lives of women and men differ so much across the four nations? You know, I was asking a little bit tongue in cheek this morning about the unpaid work, that women are gatekeeping, that they won't give up.

Here's another. I always hang out the washing. My partner doesn't shake the clothes to remove the creases. When I hang them on the line, I ensure the heavier items get the area with the most sun. I will say, however, he cooks and cleans. So we're quite equal in that respect. But I mean, I think when I read this and when I look at the map, it's a culture change that is needed. It's a mindset. It's things happening even within a domestic setting, as well as within, you know, government policies, for example, or local authority policies. How do you expect change to come and for that balance to happen? Partly by shining a light on it. I mean, I think the message from this is gender equality is good for men and good for women. And if we can have the conversations we need to about

regional development, about creating an inclusive economy, but also about who's doing what at home. They're the right conversations to be having. And the research actually shows that leaning in to domestic work and caring for children is actually good for men. But how, yes, you can have the thinking and the reasoning and the evidence, but what about the actual practical application? So normalizing flexible working is a key component for this and also getting more men to access flexible working so they can do more of the childcare and the domestic work. Then also we want longer and better paid paternity leave for men.

We need to start normalizing men being involved from the early stages of children's lives because we know from other research that colleagues have done that down the line this helps keep them involved in children's lives and that is better for the children, for the individuals and for society. Here's another one. Sophie says my mom, nearly 86, insisted that my two brothers learn to cook, launder their clothes and look after themselves. That's made them good partners and husbands. What needs to stop is the criticism and judgment mostly from other women about levels of cleanliness at home. That keeps us all trapped.

Focus on what you do with your life rather than doing chores. Thanks for that Sophie. 84844. Something's got to give as people say. But I'm wondering, Julia, with this, how you see the change coming about or whether that's something that is tangible? Yeah, I do think that there's something tangible about this, which is organizations, governments, regional authorities and individuals. I think there's a striving generally for improvements in life, for change. We live in a very stressed and confusing time, but I think people are still

trying to maximise life satisfaction. And a data set like this, yes, we're an academic institute, King's Business School, King's College London, yes we are, but we do think it speaks very practically to the kind of changes government can make, businesses we are, but we do think it speaks very practically to the kind of changes government can make, businesses can make and individuals can make that would enhance their living. I found it really interesting going through the map and having a look, you know, places you might have a connection to, etc. that I was taking a look at. But were you surprised, I'll ask both of you, with the findings when it came out? I was surprised by the finding that you could have gender equality in very disadvantaged

areas that both men and women were doing equally badly. You don't often see data sets like that and it takes us to looking at those areas and how you build opportunity for all. I was very positively surprised, or not surprised, but glad to see that in areas with greater gender equality, we also see greater productivity, economic activity, and higher wages. And while we can establish causality, this does back existing research from the UN, World Bank, and OECD that shows gender equality is good for the economy. Thank you both so much for coming in. Dr. Caitlin Schmeid, lead researcher on this.

Also, the former Australian prime minister and chair of the Global Institute for Women's Leadership, Julia Gillard. Thank you both for coming in and also for the messages. My apologies also for an earlier slip of the tongue regarding pronouns and speaking about Robin Moira White. And thanks to our guests that, of course course are coming in and more that will as we speak about differing perspectives on the Supreme Court ruling. Tomorrow Strictly Winner and actor Rose Ailing Ellis will be talking about her new ITV ex-drama Code of Silence, also the ex-Conservative

MP Theo Clarke on experiencing and drawing attention to the issue of birth trauma. I know many of you will have stories. So do join my colleague Anita Raney tomorrow right here at 10 on BBC Radio 4. That's all for today's Woman's Hour. Join us again next time. Hello, I'm Manishka Matandodawati, the presenter of Diddy on Trial from BBC Sounds. Sean Diddy Combs is facing a fight for his freedom as his hugely anticipated trial starts for sex trafficking, racketeering with conspiracy and transportation for prostitution. He denies all the charges.

I'll be bringing you every twist and turn from the courtroom with the BBC's correspondents and our expert guests, so make sure you listen, subscribe now on BBC Sounds and turn your push notifications on so you never miss a thing.