Woman's Hour - Ukraine children, Director of Wicked Little Letters Thea Sharrock, The implications of a new AI study on the brain

Episode Date: February 21, 2024

This week marks two years since Russia began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Ukraine's government says it has identified 20,000 children who have been abducted by Russian forces. Now Qatar has brokered the third and largest deal, which will see eleven Ukrainian children reunited with their families. Emma speaks to the BBC’s Hague Correspondent, Anna Holligan and film maker Shahida Tulaganova, who directed the ITV documentary, Ukraine’s Stolen Children.Wicked Little Letters is a new black comedy film set in Littlehampton in the 1920s. It follows two neighbours, deeply conservative Edith Swan played by Olivia Colman and rowdy Irish single mother Rose Gooding played by Jessie Buckley. When Edith and other residents begin to receive poisonous pen letters full of obscenities, potty mouthed Rose is charged with the crime. The director, Thea Sharrock, joins Emma.A new scientific paper from researchers at Stanford University using AI has shown the ability to spot consistent differences between men and women's brains. Gina Rippon,  neuroscientist and author of The Gendered Brain & Professor Melissa Hines, director of the Gender Development Research Centre at the University of Cambridge join Emma.How much do you know about your female ancestors? There’s a growing trend in finding out more about our family histories – but it’s harder to find details about women than men. Founder and director of the genealogy service Eneclann, Fiona Fitzsimons and Ailsa Burkimsher who successfully campaigned for mothers' names to be on marriage certificates join Emma.Presenter: Emma Barnett Producer: Lucinda Montefiore

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. Good morning and welcome to the programme. Or Wednesday, as I'm describing it. It's tipping it down in central London here. It's enough to make you swear. Don't worry, I only do that off air. But it's in my mind this morning because of this glorious clip of the

actor Olivia Colman that's doing the rounds on social media. She's being interviewed and is asked for her favourite swear word which, it won't surprise you, I can't play out, but then justifies her choice brilliantly. It's the best one. And Chaucer wrote it down so

anyone who's a little bit precious about it, it's very cultured. It's very cultured. If in doubt, quote Chaucer wrote it down, so anyone who's a little bit precious about it, it's very cultured. It's very cultured. If in doubt, quote Chaucer. Perhaps you'll be able to guess it from that. She's promoting her new film at the moment, Wicked Little Letters. It's a black comedy set in the 1920s. It follows two neighbours, the deeply conservative Edith Swan, played by Olivia Colman, and rowdy Irish single mother Rose Gooding,

played by Jessie Buckley. It centres around poisonous pen letters full of obscenities and swear words. And today I'm going to be joined by the film's director, Thea Sharrock. But it has got us thinking here at Woman's Hour this morning. The shock in this film in 1920s England at women swearing is deep. And I wonder what behaviours or actions of women in 2024 do you think are still deemed more shocking or judged more harshly if women do it as opposed to men? We're in another 20s, a hundred years on. We've come a long way, but some social mores and judgments are still stubbornly sticking around. What are those and where are those double standards in society today what comes to mind when i ask you that what are women judged more harshly for

sexual norms parenting norms perhaps swearing still how we even speak tell me what comes to mind when i ask you that it'd be very interesting to get your take 84844 that's the number you need to text we talk a lot about progress but there is that chasm between sometimes how we want things to be and how they really are. On social media, we're at BBC Women's Hour or email me through the Women's Hour website or if WhatsApp's your bag, 03700 100 444. Look forward to getting some of those messages,

or not, depending on what they say. Also on today's programme, we address one of the longest-standing debates in the scientific community and beyond. Are women and men wired differently? Are there differences between our brains? A new scientific paper being hailed as the first of its kind

says yes. But what about nurture and also neurosexism? We will get stuck in using the only brain I've got. And family trees, if you have pursued creating yours, have you found it more difficult to track your female family members down? Let me know. We'll have a bit of insight on that too.

But this week marks two years since Russia began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Two years. At least 10,000 Ukrainian civilians, including more than 560 children, have been killed since the start of the war. That's according to figures from the United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission as of December. However, it is widely believed that that real number is a lot higher. Keeping with what's happened to children during this time, Ukraine's government says it's identified 20,000 of them who have been abducted by Russian forces.

Ukrainian officials report that children were forcibly separated from their families, taken across the border into Russia, and have faced efforts to strip them of their Ukrainian identity. Russia denies this accusation and says it has protected vulnerable children by moving them from a war zone for their own safety. You may remember on Woman's Hour, we first covered the Qatar, the first Qatar-brokered deal in October, which saw four children returned from Russia to their families in Ukraine. In December, a second deal saw six

more children returned. Yesterday, it was reported that Qatar had brokered the third and largest deal with 11 Ukrainian children set to be returned. On Monday, the children were received by the Qatari embassy in Moscow and late, late last night crossed the border from Belarus to Ukraine, some of them reunited with family members who'd been waiting hours. Let's get the latest on this from the BBC Hague correspondent Anna Holligan and in a moment I'll be talking to the award-winning filmmaker and war correspondent Shahida Tula-Ghanova, who I spoke to in October when that

first deal was broken, because Shahida, you may also remember, directed the ITV documentary Ukraine's Stolen Children. Anna Holligan, to come to you first, can you bring us up to date with the very latest? Just incredible pictures I'm looking at here of children with their suitcases being put into minibuses and cars on the border. It looks as though this happened in the dead of night. They were taken from the Qatari embassy in Moscow to the Belarus border. And there they had to walk for a kilometre in order to enter Ukrainian territory. So some of them were there reunited with distant family members. Others were actually two children were rushed to hospital.

Their condition looks as though it may have been serious, although we don't know what's wrong with them. Another one was reunited. A 13-year-old boy was reunited with his mother who had been held prisoner in Mariupol. So, you know, there's so much bleak news coming from this area at the moment. It's really incredible to see these images of the children being reunited with their families. Do we know anything more about these children who've gone across?

We know a little bit more about their ages. So there's a 13-year-old and a 10-year-old. They were living with distant relatives in Mariupol again. And then it looks as though they were taken into a state children's home and then transferred to Russia. So they were reunited, I'm looking at the picture now with their uncle, a computer developer called Sergei, and he will now take them into custody. So unlike the thousands of other children who we are told have been transferred across the border, some of them from children's homes, some of them because they were taking part in holiday camps when the war broke out and have since found it impossible to go home. And,

you know, this is a kind of, I'm based in The Hague and I cover war crimes and crimes against humanity. And this is a new kind of war crime that we are witnessing here, according to the ICC, the International Criminal Court, which has issued charges against the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, and his children's rights commissioner. And she is a really interesting character in all of this, because she is Maria Lvova-Polova, and she is the kind of antithesis of what you might expect from a quintessential warlord. She delivers babies and balloons rather than bombs and bullets. She appears on her social media channels wearing flowy, flowery dresses instead of military fatigues.

And yet what she and what President Putin are accused of are war crimes just as atrocious and heinous as murder and rape. So it's really been interesting to watch how this has developed over the last two years, actually. Yes, and then let me bring you in at this point, Shahida. Good morning. Morning. Just because we were hearing there about the Russian politician and presidential commissioner for children's rights,

you know, the idea of what she is, the role she's playing, viewing her as a war criminal, you've actually interviewed her. I did indeed. And how did you find her and in light of what we've just heard about her? Well, she clearly doesn't look like a war criminal. She does look like a person who is caring about all the children in Russia and now occupied parts of Ukraine. She's very well briefed. She's very precise. When she lies, she looks in your eyes and she lies and you know that she lies. Some things she says is true. Some things she says was a clear lie. But like all Russian governmental officials, she is very glued on on the on what's happening. And she does know what's happening. Because she also just keeping it with the children and that side of things for a moment.

Is it right that she's adopted a boy, a Ukrainian teenager? She fostered a Ukrainian teenager from Mariupol called Philip Golovnya. He was in a group of 31 children from Mariupol, which were snatched by the Russians. And I mean, that must have been very difficult to see him. Did you see him? I saw him. I interviewed him too. It was hard. It was hard. You could see the transformation of the child when he came to Russia. There was footage. He was filmed a lot and showed a lot on Russian television. He was very skinny. Now he's very big, which could show that he's under stress. He's seen contempt. But when I asked him, do you want to go back to Mariupol? He said, no, I'm not going to go back because there's no city, it's about people

and there is no people anymore. So, I mean, in your documentary, which we talked about, you know, five women, mothers and guardians, go to Russia to try to retrieve missing children. Is there any update? We're getting this one, obviously, overnight and hearing about that.

Have you got any updates from the women you were talking to? All the women I spoke to, they brought their children back. But in the film, there was one case of a boy called Denis Kostev who actually stayed in Russia, allegedly willingly, even though his godmother went all the way to Moscow to get him back. But she was deported and he later sent a voice message to his brother saying, I'm staying. I love it here. Actually,

in December last year, he contacted me saying that he wants to leave Russia. He's already 18. So together with volunteers from Save Ukraine, this is a charity which brings a lot of Ukrainian children back. We helped him to get out of Russia to Belarus and from Belarus to Poland. He is now waiting for his Ukrainian documents to come through and then he's going to go to Germany to reunite with his grandmother and his brother. Wow, that's incredible. Yeah, I actually went to Poland to see him for the first time. He's a really nice boy, very well read, but like many children who stayed in Russia for a long time, he was there for almost two years. His ideas are a bit, he became, he didn't become pro-Russian,

but his ideas about the war and who is aggressor changed a little bit. Anna, coming back to you, as we reach this very grim milestone of two years of this fighting and this war, what do you understand or what have your contacts been saying to you about what Russia's objective could be in taking these children as it's being described and what you've been reporting on? Well, it depends from whose perspective. So the Russians will say they're saving these children, the adoptions, the fostering, their acts of generosity. We should be really clear. Am I here about what we're talking about. These are allegations of state-sponsored child kidnapping, forcible transfer, not by chance or accident, but by design. And whether or not these children have parents or they've been put into care because their parents are struggling or killed during the war, Raising children of another country in a different culture in a different nation can be a hallmark of genocide, an attempt to erase the very identity of that enemy nation. And the first lady of Ukraine, Elena Zelenska, says she believes the removal of children to Russia was part of a deliberate attempt to erase Ukrainian culture and identity. And there are other glimmers of hope in all of this, though, because we were covering a couple of weeks ago, efforts by Europol, European police agency,

they got together detectives from all over Europe, I think it was 60 detectives from 23 countries. And they took part in something called a hackathon. And they didn't really expect to get many results, but actually they were using some of the propaganda which has been used by Russia in videos where they show children smiling at holiday camps, carrying cuddly teddy bears, well-dressed, wearing the kind of jewellery you and I might dress our children in. And so they were able to use facial recognition

and then geolocate these children. And they actually managed to track down eight of them using the kind of telephone data and all of this open source investigation, digital investigation techniques we're familiar with now. So I think more and more we're going to start to see that kind of thing happening. And especially now, the International Criminal Court has lodged these charges. And I think another thing to note that's interesting about the fact that that's where the ICC prosecutor has focused his attention is because that's where the evidence has led them as being the place where they are most likely to get prosecutions, because the Russian state, the Russian president, as we were hearing there,

the Children's Rights Commissioner, they have publicised this. They have made no secret of moving these children. Although they say that if the parents want to, they can simply send an email and come and retrieve them. But as we've just been hearing there, it's not exactly that simple. No, far from it. Shahida, to come back to you, the idea of Qatar brokering these deals, you might hear that and think you may know nothing about international relations, but you may think, why Qatar? What's going on there?

It's a mystery, a mystery to a lot of people I speak to, to Ukrainian journalists, to human rights lawyers in Ukraine who deal with the children who are abducted. We don't understand what's going on with Qatar. And I don't understand exactly what they're brokering. But apparently, they were asked by the Russians and by the Ukrainians to help. And that's what they're doing. About the return of this 11 children. It's great that this is the largest group so far. Although tiny compared to the numbers. Tiny compared, but it's a little bit of a progress. Let's put it this way.

Maria Lvova-Bilova made a huge deal of publicity out of this return, saying that they're working according to the order of the president of Putin to reunite families. However, she failed to explain why some of the children ended up in Siberia in the foster care, why children were taken from occupied Donetsk-Lugansk regions, and who were these parents or relatives. We don't know anything about these children. Two kids were from Simferopol at occupied Crimea, which suggests good news that when Russians were leaving Kherson region from occupation in summer 2022, they took the whole baby orphanage with them and moved it to Crimea. So these two kids who were returned now were taken in ambulances. These were the kids from this baby orphanage, which we were, a story was well publicized in Western media and in Ukraine as well. And I was hoping that they will start

returning these kids because these kids with a lot of disabilities. So finally, things are moving, which is a progress, but it is still a long way to go. The process of returning Ukrainian children should be absolutely transparent. There should be one legal mechanism to do it, which is not happening at the moment. Everything which is happening is very haphazardous, ad hoc, volunteer-based, and we don't know exactly what is happening behind the scenes.

Sorry, go on, Anna. I was just going to ask a question, but go on. What were you going to say? When we're talking about babies, the really heartbreaking thing is that every day, it becomes harder to trace them because these are children who in a few years time might not know the name, their birth name. So how at that point will it even be possible to trace them and bring them home because they will have entirely new identities. And this has come from the top because President Putin made it easier for Russian families to adopt Ukrainian children. He changed the law, signed a presidential decree, and that was in May 2022. So that makes it even harder for Ukraine and Ukrainians to get their children back.

And they've also done various other things, created other incentives for the children, for families. They've prepared a database identifying Russian families who might be suitable to adopt Ukrainian children, pays them an allowance for each child who gets citizenship. Then many of the children are given patriotic, in inverted commas, education. And so all of this is kind of severing the ties that they had with their homeland. Anna Holligan, BBC Hay correspondent. Thank you. Shahida, just a final question to you, if I can. You directed the ITV documentary, as I mentioned, Ukraine's Stolen Children. As we come towards this weekend, this Saturday, I believe, two years of the Ukraine war since Russia's full-scale invasion. Did you get, in light of your documentary going out on ITV,

did you have an understanding if people knew about this? If they've taken that in about this part of war, you know, war is changing and how it's waged and how it's done strategically and how humans are used, people are used, in this case, children are used as a weapon. Did you have a sense of if people knew about it, if they'd taken it in? People knew about it, because this process started in 2014, when Russia really started attacking Ukraine. So they were moving children back then. The Ukrainians were

well aware, but they were not prepared for the scale of these deportations. Because Russians didn't just take one kid, another kid. They were taking the whole orphanages to Russia. And it's impossible to trace them down sometimes. It's a very difficult job. So that was a surprise, the scale. The scale. Thank you very much for talking to us again this morning, Shahida.

Tula Ganova there, the award-winning filmmaker and war correspondent. As ever, if you have anything to say, especially as we reach that point, do get in touch about that. We've covered many stories and many issues to do with how people have been saved or not. And again, we'll keep bringing those stories as it develops, perhaps to do with Ukrainians missing children and how that is perhaps changing on a smaller scale, but perhaps what's happening on a bigger scale too.

We'll keep with that story. I did ask you about having heard that Olivia Colman clip about her favourite swear word, which I'm sure some of you are disappointed I was not given special permission to play this morning. Some of the double standards that still exist, we're going to be talking a moment to the director of a film that looks at women's lives and men's lives in the 20s we're in a different 20s now 100 years on what isn't uh changing that perhaps should be how are women judged differently what are those double

standards some interesting messages coming in my husband can easily take our children to the pub and enjoy a relaxing pint as they coo in their prams whilst out with them he gets comments about being a great father or how cute the boys are if i even drink around them in the pub whilst with I think a lot of people will have to relate to that. Chris says, Father taught me aged five. I was doing this at work one day when distracted and my assistant was utterly shocked that a woman would whistle. She told me, a whistling woman never marries. I was married for 30 years with four children at the time, which I pointed out to her. I've never heard that one. Wow.

Jane in Bath. I'm in my 60s and I'm very conscious that when people come to our house, I am the one judged if it's a mess or there's no food. No one's ever going to say, hasn't her husband let himself go? that when people come to our house, I am the one judged if it's a mess or there's no food. No one's ever going to say, hasn't her husband let himself go? Women are still not allowed to burp or have wind. My ex-husband would be so repulsed if I did so well,

well, if I did while happily doing it himself. My dad also can't bear it if I do. Women are not allowed to perform natural bodily functions from a windy lease. I will keep going, but I do love the first message that seemed to have come in here on our text message console, our machine here. Armpit hair. There you go. Let's tell you about this film then. A new film, Wicked Little Letters, a black comedy set in Littlehampton

in the 1920s in West Sussex, follows two neighbours, the deeply conservative Edith Swan, followed by, played rather by Olivia Colman and rowdy Irish single mother Rose Gooding, played by Jessie Buckley. When Edith and the other residents begin to receive poisonous pen letters full of obscenities, potty mouthed Rose is charged with the crime. The anonymous letters prompt a national uproar and a trial ensues. Let's have a listen. The Home Secretary, Mr Edward Short, was compelled to answer a question in Parliament about the ever-growing scandal of the Little Hampton Letters. The poison pen missives, obscene and malicious in equal measure, are causing widespread distress

across the county. Now numbering over 100, Mr Short called them a national embarrassment, but said he has immeasurable faith in his exemplary police force to find the culprit in the end. The mystery of the letters continues to captivate the nation, in which every household has an opinion on whether Miss Rose Gooding is innocent or guilty? Well, that's the question. The film is based on a true story. Thea Sharrock is the director. She joins me now. Good morning.

Good morning. Double standards there. We've started there. How do you feel about it? Well, firstly, I'd just like to say I'm going to try really, really hard not to swear this morning. Are you going to do me that favour?

I'm really going to try. It's been really interesting, though, because sometimes in the last sort of week or so, as you've already proved, we keep being asked, like, what's our favourite swear word? We keep being asked, you know, to do the opposite. As you promote the film, I'm sure. But it's slightly different out there on the Wild West of the web. We're still at the BBC.

I understand. I understand. No, no, but it's interesting because of the double standards, isn't it? And do you think it was different even in the 20s if a woman swore versus a man? Or was it everybody at that time, more purian times? I would say very different to now, for sure. And without question, women were frowned upon way more than men. Perhaps one of the interesting things about the movie is the moment that it's

set is, of course, the moment after the war, and women are getting used to men coming back. So having to deal with all of those jobs, and having to deal with the men not being there, suddenly the men come back, and they have to re-find what their place is and I think that's part of where you find Olivia Colman and Jesse Buckley's characters within that society yes and dealing with that very separately because of their backgrounds and and their home lives um they are in very very different positions as we find them at the beginning of the film. Tell us a bit about them. I described her as Potty Mouth Rose, who's charged with the crime. What's her story? Because this is based on a true set of letters, isn't it? It is based on a true set of letters, absolutely. That's probably the most important thing about the About sort of 80% of the actual letters are used in the film.

Olivia's character, Jesse's character, and the character of Gladys Moss, who is the very important police officer, first female police officer, all three of those characters are based on real people, which is sort of amazing. We, of course, have made certain changes to make the story more interesting and more entertaining. So as soon as I knew Jessie Buckley could join us in the cast, I wanted to make Rose Irish. So she wasn't originally um but otherwise um her story is she's a single mum um who moves into this very small town and even that on its own is scandalous um up against the very restrained swan family yes and and i suppose knowing what you know then of what is accurate to that time how did you come across these letters? How were they found?

And I suppose in some way that must have really drawn you to it, that it's based on truth. Absolutely. I was given the script originally not knowing that it was based on a true story. And I honestly have not laughed out loud for quite a while with a script that was as well written and as tightly written as this. The thing I couldn't quite gauge when I first read it was the tone of it, because I didn't quite understand what you said, black comedy, which is interesting. Some people describe it purely as a comedy. But there is a lot going on underneath it. And these characters are very, very complex. So I met with the writer, Johnny Sweet, who is a comedian originally, which made sense of the comedy and learned that he had come across the story of these poison pen letters and that that was a massive thing 100 years ago, which, of course, the parallels to today are very obvious. and couldn't believe that this story hadn't really surfaced in some bigger format.

And so he was inspired to write the story. And as soon as I read it, Olivia was already attached. And I couldn't begin to say no. I mean, it was a dream come true. Can you imagine writing such a letter? I'm pleased to say I can't. But I didn't think that. I thought you were going to ask me something to do with again today um I want to come to but it's just the idea of trying to get yourself into you

know you've been looking at this and how to bring the characters out and put it together but just trying to get yourself into a headspace where you you would sit down because even though we'll come to it I'm sure talking about what people do online now it's much quicker and easier than sitting down and writing absolutely and that's what's so amazing about them some of them were incredibly short two sentences and vile others the ones that really make me laugh are the ones that are you can feel they're trying to be rude and it's almost like a little kid who sort of gets in a massive huff with his mom and it's like oh I hate you and it's got that sort of gets in a massive huff with his mum and is like, oh, I hate you. And it's got that sort of childish quality behind it. And yet still, as you say, in those days, if you wanted to insult somebody,

you had to get your piece of paper, had to get your pen out, choose your words carefully, fold it up, get a stamp, put it in the postbox. And, you know, there's a lot of effort that goes into it. And obviously, nowadays, that's one of the things that's so different. There was, in those days, plenty of time to change your mind.

Nowadays, maybe at most, people write a draft email that they want to send in an absolute rage, come back to it an hour later and you might have changed your mind. But I think today's society, one of the sort of drawbacks is this sort of instantaneous world that we live in that was very, very different then. It's interesting to think which is more poisonous to receive that in the post nowadays is would be huge um partly because people don't do that anymore i think well i also it's it what's interesting although it's it's very funny and there's there's all those elements to it that you can see how upset you can see the upset on people's faces when they receive it you know putting aside the the views of if it was a woman swearing or not you know and i think if more people could actually see how people looked when they received a nasty remark below their instagram post or on social media wherever you

know maybe it would give you pause for thought well would it this is i don't know no i know No, I know. And that's the issue. Absolutely. Olivia Colman isn't on social media. I don't think Jessie is either. They're not on Instagram. They don't, nor am I. And Olivia is very vocal about having been hurt by something somebody once said many years ago. And it's very painful. What they do for a living is very vulnerable making

and it's can be incredibly hurtful um and it's you know sometimes you have to ask the question and again as parents i'm sure you have this too you know you you i've had many conversations with other mums, other dads and with kids about what it is behind somebody else wanting to hurt somebody else, what that's about. And it's one thing to do that with a five-year-old at school. It's completely understandable. It becomes much more complex as people get older and are much more in charge of that choice. Are you not on social media because you also receive something and you thought maybe this isn't worth it? For me, it's more to do with the time that it takes,

that I see what it sucks up in people's lives, if I'm honest. But yet instinctively, I don't like that aspect to it. I love, there are some brilliant elements to it. I have two teenage kids, and neither one of them post things either. And somebody asked me yesterday about whether, is that a direct influence from me? I don't know, we never, I've never said you're not allowed to. You know, I don't live in that sort of household. But I've certainly seen people get incredibly, teenagers get incredibly upset.

And it's just so affecting. And it's so quick. It's so easy to do. And there's, like I said, for me, it's that time that it takes to think about what it is you've just said that is taken away with the instantaneousness of it. I don't actually think I've said this before, but I had a thing when I was on maternity leave,

I came back in September, where I got a really horrible message from a woman and I saw it. And it was a whole judgment I posted one for I barely posted while I was on maternity leave I only usually use it for work and I I posted this photo and I was going to a museum and I was on my own and I'd have got my sunglasses on and I you know I sort of thought right I'm a little bit back out there again and it was one of those sorts of I'm going to see this exhibition I had to share if I'm seeing something interesting and promote people's work you know as well you know just have that creative moment but it was also I'm out the house it was as simple

I'm having a moment for myself and she said you need to look at yourself for people who do not have your privileges to wear nice clothes it was like a really pointed and you know you you've just had a baby where's the bed it was a whole comment right and how did it leave you feeling and I felt so actually I did something I never do I wrote back did you I never do that and I rarely look at the comments and just to say and did you do that publicly or did you do that privately no I did it privately okay and I wrote because I have more followers than she will in the position I'm in and I'm aware of that platform and you know I've been on social media for more than 10 years and I'm aware of that platform. And, you know, I've been on social media for more than 10 years. And I wrote back and I said, just so you know, I think I even said,

the blaze is from Zara. It's 20 years old and costs 15 quid. Not that I need to justify. She said, you look very nice and people don't have your situation. And I sort of went, and it's my first time out and I'm really excited and I don't really know what I've done here.

But I just wanted to message you to say that that wasn't particularly fair. Whatever I said, you know, and I'm not quite sure what's going on here, but I hope you're OK. And she wrote back and said, I'm really, really sorry. I'm really sorry. I shouldn't have done that. I'm having a really bad day and I feel ashamed of myself. And then we had an OK exchange and that was that.

And I don't do it. But to do it just once, because I thought it was so mean. I thought, well, can I try and unpack that? So here's my question to you. Because presumably the first message she sent you was public. For all the world to see, any of the followers to see. If she'd sent you that privately, would that have made you feel different? I think I'd still be pretty upset.

But funnily enough, I may not have replied. Right. It may have changed. Maybe just trying to attack me. But to doily enough, I may not have replied. Right. It may have changed. You know, maybe just trying to attack me. But to do it there, there was obviously something going on. And I can't do that every time and nor do I actually look very often. But what I found so upsetting, and I've seen this time and time again, is if you actually go and talk to people,

nine times out of ten, it's more what's going on in their life. 100%. But you can't take away how it makes you feel. So that's why I get why people are not on there. Totally. And that's exactly why people are not on there. Totally. And that's exactly why I'm not on there. But what's interesting for me is the difference between making it public and keeping it private. Whereas, as I say, one letter to one person is just you're in a different sphere.

It's probably also years of being judged by critics and that's something that is inbred within my industry always has been and it's really hurtful when somebody says I don't like this production for x y and z particularly if they single you out it's even worse yes well it's it's a thing to to see on the screen in this different era, I suppose. And it does make us think of now. And it's fascinating. It is also very funny. We are getting some quite interesting responses about the double standards.

Before you go, Thea, is there anything that comes to mind now that you think we still judge women differently about? Because you are tackling that, but quite light touch if people take it from it or they don't. Yeah. touch if people take it from it or they don't. Yeah, I mean, the one thing I would say about that is, I, again, and I don't know if this is credit to my parents and my schooling. I never really felt that growing up. And I don't really feel that now even the difference necessarily. I don't feel I don't feel like if I took my kids to the pub that I would be judged in a different way. But I do have a memory. When I was 10 at school, I was chosen to be on the cricket team. I was the only girl chosen. And when the other school turned up, they saw that they had me on the team. And the other school teacher went to my teacher and said,

you've got a girl on your team. And my teacher said, yeah, it's great. And this is a while ago, obviously. And he said, well, we're not playing you if you've got a girl on your team. And my teacher said, yeah, it's great. And this is a while ago, obviously. And he said, well, we're not playing you if you've got a girl on your team. And that was the first time that it really struck me that how could that possibly be that I was literally not allowed to play because I was a girl. So I would say nowadays, no, I'd say the balance is perhaps more even. Perhaps more even.

There are examples. We will get to them. But it's a good area of thought that the film raises, as well as laughter. Wicked Little Lies is in cinemas from the 23rd of February. Thea Sharik, you're listening to there, is the director. Thank you very much for coming in. You're getting in touch with a whistling woman and a crowing hen are no good, are no God nor men is the proverb I grew up with. I think that is the origin of the anti-whistling women reads this message.

Thank you for that. Our builders asked my husband last week whether his wife could make them a cup of tea. Exclamation point, says Helen. Maria, what seems not to be socially acceptable is I'm not following my husband to his place of work abroad. I live very happily in our village in the southeast of England, the place I raised my children. I'm surrounded by awesome friends and deeply happy in my beautiful home. The stick I get is palpable, especially from women. We could carry on, but it's a rich theme.

But going from how we're treated differently to perhaps how we think, a new scientific paper from researchers at Stanford University has shown the ability to spot consistent differences between men and women's brains and shows how they operate differently. neuroscientist and author of The Gendered Brain, and Professor Melissa Hines, Director of the Gender Development Research Centre at the University of Cambridge. Professor Hines, Melissa, good morning. Good morning. This research, first of its kind, tell us a bit more. Well, I think it's probably the first of its kind to use artificial intelligence, AI, to look at such large data sets and report sex differences on the average between males and females in how the brain is

functioning. It's not a study of brain structure. It's a study of brain activity or function. And just for those who haven't followed this, what can we accept as the truth, if I can put it like that? Or what can we take from this between female and male brains? Well, we know that on the average, again, I'm not talking about individual people, but groups of people, males and females show some gender differences. So for instance, girls tend to play more with dolls than boys do, or boys tend to play more with toy cars than girls do. And in adulthood, men are more physically aggressive, again, on the average than women. And it implies that our brains are functioning differently, because what else could be going on to explain these behavioral average differences?

So other people have reported differences in the way the brain's functioning in groups of men and women. And what this study adds is a very large sample and a new technology. And it also suggests some specific brain systems that are functioning differently. And other studies have made similar points, but not in as powerful a way because the samples are smaller or the technology is not as sophisticated. Gina, what do you take from this or what should we take from this? Well, to follow the theme, I actually got told off for swearing on

GB News yesterday because I always thought of this paper and I'll have to be careful. I said I thought it was a no sure dot dot Sherlock finding that there should be differences between the brains from men and the brains from women. And I think that's also a crucial difference because the authors of the paper, A, talk about sex. And I noticed that Melissa used the term gender. And that's probably something that should be talked about. But they also talked about the female brain and the male brain. So, you know, that was genuinely established as a thing. And is it not a thing? Well the trouble is it depends what you mean by female brain or male brain.

I mean there have been people who talked about male brains who will then say of course you don't have to be a man to have a male brain and then you think well so why are you calling it a male brain? And I think actually the kind of hoo-ha that's gone on around this paper is an indication that quite a lot of what scientists say may be absolutely correct and well-meaning, but what's heard is sometimes different. So I think what a lot of people are thinking is that men and women definitely have different brains and different

in the terms of distinct. And Melissa also used the term on average, quite rightly, because if we look at any of the data, including the data in this study, there's a huge amount of overlap. So this isn't telling us very much about the difference between two groups of people, which we didn't know already. But what is great is the fantastic techniques they used to look at these differences. So you don't think just to, well, in terms of where we're at now, Gina, you don't think we can infer that there is a difference between them and how they operate broadly as men and women?

Is that not something that science can show? I think what was shown that the I think 1500 young adults that they looked at in this study you could actually by saying this is the brain from a man or this is the brain from a woman find some differences and you think well not to repeat the phrase it's the kind of dog beats the bites man sort of phrase, in that it is really unsurprising that two groups of people who, I think the ages of 20 to 30 or something will have had 20 to 30 years of different experience in the world, their brains will be different. So I think, yes, brains can be different. But I think what's being read into this finding is that hurrah, we can go back to the, you know, at last the truth.

Scientists have caught up. Men and women have got different brains. And that explains everything we need to know. And where are you coming in on this, Melissa, when you when you just hear Gina put it like that? Well, broadly, I think we're making the same point. And it does interest me that a study like this gets so much press attention. And I think that speaks to people's desire to find evidence that supports their point of view, whatever it may be. And I think we all do this. And people take evidence that isn't directed at the question they have in mind and interpret it to mean more than it actually does.

So people hear the word brain. And this applies more broadly, not just to gender. But people think that the brain is a fixed thing. We got it when we were born. And so if you see something in the brain, that's the answer. But really, if you think about it, all our behavior depends on our brain. Every time we learn something, our brain changes. And so people who behave differently, be they old people, young people, people who speak one language or another language, men versus women, if they show average

differences in their behavior, they're going to show average differences in their brain. So the brain so the brain you know it gives us a tool where we can look at mechanisms that might be responsible for a behavior at a given time but it doesn't say how it got in there yeah which is a useful context for this and gina to come back to you why do scientists then keep doing this experiment perhaps if it's not if it's not it doesn't sound like it's it's necessarily helpful but maybe there is are there applications that can be used from this right i think well absolutely yes i mean i think neuroscience has partly painted itself into a corner because it's stuck right from the 200 years ago looking at the size of different bits of the brain and drawing uh conclusions about you know a sort of yu, I've got a bigger amygdala than you type story.

That's a great composition, isn't it? Sorry, go on. What was really great about this paper is actually looking at functions. It was looking at resting state, fMRI. So it's actually looking at the brain in action. And I think that was a great breakthrough. But it's kind of a shame that the focus was still on this kind of binary idea of being male or female, as the take home message from the paper that that's, that's what made the difference. And because as Melissa said, then gives the impression that you can't do anything about these differences you know they're they're fixed because um you know that they're uh you were born with the brain in a

particular way and you know there is certainly evidence that the idea that you've got fixed brain is used in people who don't want to waste time with diversity and inclusion initiatives for example um so i think that, you know, particularly for women, I guess that's a key message. Be careful what else is being taken out of this paper and put into public consciousness. Well, people talk of neurosexism. They talk of those prejudices that you're starting to touch upon there and people being concerned that nurture being written out of the script as well. Yes, I mean, I think that's the neurosexism, Cordelia Fine coined that term, I think, was really to come back to this idea that these differences are fixed, inevitable, invariant.

So, and that was working backwards from sort of the end of the 18th century when the male neuroscientists were looking at the inferior position of women in society and focusing their efforts on trying to explain why the brain was inferior. So there is this idea that you can't do anything about a brain which gives you a set of skills. You can't learn things, which, of course, is not true. Is there anything that you think that people can take away from this, Melissa? Beyond what new technologies have been used to do this, beyond how Gina just described the brain being in action, looked at it, is there something of use? Yes, I think for the neuroscientific community, there's definitely something of use,

showing that AI can be used to provide potentially more reliable evidence on how the brain functions in different groups of people. And I think the aim of the study was to get information that might help address outcomes that vary on the average for men and women, things like depression, for instance, women are more prone to depression. So maybe it's guiding us to parts of the brain that might be usefully looked at and a technology that might be used to look at these parts of the brain to ultimately help people with, for example, depression or other things that differ on average. And it fits into other research not involving sex or gender that looks at what brain regions are involved in these outcomes. And it's a little bit sad, I think, that it gets derailed and used in an argument about whether sex differences are innate or acquired because it

doesn't really address that question. And on that Gina just just final point to you do you worry about that being used in you know in the current climate and in the way that we talk about sex-based differences? I do I mean one of the areas I'm interested in is the underrepresentation of women in science. And there is still this slightly more politely voiced thought that women don't have the right brains for science. And so even if you set up a, in quotes, equal playing field within a scientific community, women will be driven by their biology to choose some other kind of career. So I think sustaining that stereotype is quite worrying. Thank you for taking us through that.

I think my brain managed to go with most of that and make sure I was trying to accept some of the nuance. Gina Rippon, the neuroscientist and writer. And then we're also hearing from Professor Melissa Hines, Director of the Gender Development Research Centre at the University of Cambridge. While we were talking, more messages coming in. And if I can, I'll come back to them.

But just about how we still judge women differently or a double standard to men. Why do we always have to pick Ms, Miss or Mrs? Just to read a short one here. On forms of all variety, men are never asked to confirm marital status. I'm a musician, a saxophonist. I'd be considerably wealthier if I had a pound for the number of people who, when told I'm in a band, ask, are you the singer? As if that is the only job women are capable of.

And another one, it is not socially acceptable to be a thrusting female, personality-wise rather than physically speaking. But men can thrust themselves forward. We are not still really allowed to. So it carries on. As I say, I'll come back to that if I can. But from our brains to ancestry, to who we're from, it's often more difficult to find out about the women in our family trees than the men. Perhaps you've been on this pursuit.

We've had a few messages to that effect. A woman who knows more than her fair share is Fiona Fitzsimmons, Fitzsimons, excuse me, founder and director of Eniclan, an Irish genealogy and family history service. And in a moment, I'll talk to the woman who successfully campaigned for mother's names to be on marriage certificates in England and Wales.

Fiona, though, let me come to you first. Good morning. Good morning, Emma, how are you? Well, it's an interesting, it's a huge interest isn't this, this to a lot of people where they're trying to trace their family trees, but women it can be harder, is that right? Yeah, it is harder to find women in the records and there's a number of reasons for this. In the first instance, it's a really practical thing. The state only began to keep records of all the people in the early 19th century. And most of what survives are records of property and tax.

For most of the 19th century, women simply wouldn't have had the same legal and property rights as men. So we don't find them in the records. Yeah, a distinct lack of documentation throughout, it seems. And for you then, when people are coming to you or you're doing some research for them uh how do you advise them to look up those women who may be missing i think one of the first things to take into account is um women's changing identities throughout their life on marriage a woman would have taken her husband's name and if you add to that that for most of their lives women would probably have been identified in relation to the men in their lives. If you look at the census, for example, and it's one of the ones, it's one of the sources that most family historians will go to first,

women are usually identified as the wife of, or mother of, or daughter or sister of the male head of household. Yes. And so that might be a good place to start. I think just it's a good moment actually to bring in Elsa Berkhamshire who successfully campaigned for Mother's Names to be on marriage certificates and it's something that only happened relatively recently Elsa. It was it 2021 it finally changed? Yes that's right I started a campaign in 2014 but it took until 2021. And what was the reason that you started that campaign? Well, actually, it's connected to sort of my name and my identity, because I'm someone who found feminism on Mumsnet, having had my son in 2007.

And then I got to thinking, why did I change my name when I got married? And I actually took some inspiration from an American suffragist who was born in 1818 called Lucy Stone, who said, my name is my identity and must not be lost. Amen. Amen, sister. I've always kept my name. So I decided to change my name by deed poll. So I had to get my marriage certificate out as part of gathering all this paperwork. And then I thought, hang on a minute, why is my father and my father-in-law's name and occupation on my marriage certificate and not my mother and my mother-in-law? And I thought, oh, well, perhaps it changed from 2001 to 2014. And it hadn't changed. So that was, that then caused

me to sort of launch my petition on change.org which ultimately ended up getting 70,000 signatures and I think I sort of came from it a little bit from sort of the everyday sexism point of view but also I put in my campaign women are routinely silenced and written out of history well yes and and then that could come back to to haunt you if you're trying to build a family tree there's a message here saying on ancestry searches, I was given one which listed an entire male line bar one female name. And she was just listed as a pauper with not much information there. But I think a lot of people would find it very hard to believe that it's until 2021, certainly in England and Wales, that you weren't able to have your mother's name on your marriage certificate.

And therefore you wouldn't have that history. And it matters a great deal to people, doesn't it, Fiona? It matters hugely. I'm actually really surprised. I didn't realise that. We've actually had that in Ireland since 1956. And it's kind of curious because we're just going through a referendum, we're coming up to a referendum about changing our constitution to amend the words about women's place being in the home. Yes, we covered this. Yes, it's quite a live one, isn't it? But it's kind of curious that in a country which usually has a reputation for being very retrograde in terms of women's rights, that this is something that we, I won't say led on because Scotland was in there before us

in the 19th century, but we've had it for over 60 years now. Well done, brilliant campaign. It is. And I think also it's important to say you work as a finance manager, you're not a campaigner, Elsa. We've spoken before along your journey to do it. So it still must be something that I'm sure you're pretty proud of, especially when you think of what names will now be captured for future generations. Yes, definitely. I mean, I'm somebody that dabbles in looking at sort of my own family tree

and it is so much harder because you've got to, you've got a census where you've got a woman who's changed their name. You've got to link back to their marriage certificate. Then you've got to find their mother's marriage certificate to make sure that you're researching the right person. Yeah, and then, you know, not to even to mention that many people don't get married at all these days. So how they'll be able to trace that and how that will work

is a whole other level. And Elsie, you did change your name. Is that right? You went back to your own? I have, yes. Okay, how are you feeling? Despite being happily married, I'm now happily back to my name of I have yes. Okay how are you feeling? Despite being happily married but I'm now happily back to my name of Ailes of Birkinshire. Was that an interesting conversation? I think it's a journey I think we've all been on a journey in the family because I originally went

double barrelled and then I was like no I'm back to my original name and the only confusion now is if I have to fill in a DBS check, I've got to explain this whole chain of how I've come back to my original name. Well, there you go. It is a journey. And the journey that people go on with you, Fiona, do you think it's important for people to be able to have this knowledge for themselves? Do you think it gives them something? Well, in the first place, it gives you 50% of the narratives in your family history. If you actually close off the women, if you only follow how the family line is passed from generation to generation, you're going to lose half the stories. Yeah, you are. But I sort of also meant more broadly for those who haven't perhaps traced their ancestry. I wonder what you see that it gives to people about perhaps their own identity now? That's a curious one. A lot of people argue that family history is

about our own identity in a changing world. I think I would actually say no, it's not so much about identity, but it is about empathy. It's about maybe being able to reach back into the past to understand how people lived the choices they made because those choices will have affected us and maybe to have a better understanding of to have a better understanding but also a more empathetic understanding of your parents your grandparents your extended family and how your family lives yeah how you made it to this point fascinating well Fiona Fitzsimmons thank you very much Elsa Berkhamshire with that name thank you to you um many messages coming in thank you for for all of those throughout the program

and one from Claire saying listening to a feature about poison pen letters took her back to when she received one and it's never left her. She's 70. She got it when she was 12. She was written to by two girls she was on holiday with in a very nasty way. And I think when we talk about empathy, it's important to realise, I suppose, the power of those words digitally or on paper.

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. I'm meeting the people at the heart of some extraordinary online conflicts to see if understanding, even forgiveness, is ever possible. Listen to Why Do You Hate Me on BBC Sounds. I'm Sarah Treleaven, 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.