Woman's Hour - Ukrainian women on the front line, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, Dangerous women and I, Mona Lisa

Episode Date: February 28, 2022

As the conflict continues in Ukraine, we've seen footage of predominately women and children fleeing the country. But that is just one aspect of this conflict. There are also many women who have stayed in Ukraine and signed up to fight. Back in December, Ukraine's Ministry of Defence expanded the number of women who are eligible for mandatory service in the armed forces. They will be joining the 57,000 or so women, aged 18 to 60, already serving. But is there an appetite for more women to sign up? And what roles are they likely to play? Jessica Creighton hears from Lesia Vasylenko, a Ukrainian MP who describes her new reality of being trained to use an assault rifle to defend her family and her country and Dr. Olesya Khromeychuk, Director of the Ukrainian Institute, London.President Joe Biden has nominated Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court, calling her "one of the nation's brightest legal minds". She will be the first black woman to serve in the court's 232-year history if confirmed and would mean four women may sit together on the nine-member court for the first time. Kimberly Peeler-Allen the co-founder of Higher Heights, an organisation that builds the collective political power of Black women, discusses the significance of her nomination.If the Mona Lisa could speak what would she say? A new novel by Natasha Solomons gives voice to the painting and lets her tell her own story. Natasha and the Da Vinci expert Professor Martin Kemp join Jessica. What does it mean to be a “dangerous woman”? That is something Dr Jo Shaw of the University of Edinburgh has been studying and has led to a new book with fifty essays from different women reflecting on the topic from around the world. The idea that women are dangerous individually or collectively permeates many historical periods, cultures and areas of contemporary life. It has been used to describe the Labour MP and human rights activist Shami Chakrabarti, and Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, who was labelled by the Daily Mail as “the most dangerous woman in the UK”. But what lies behind this label and what does it say about the power dynamics with which women live with today? Jessica speaks to Dr Jo Shaw of the University of Edinburgh and the journalist Bidisha, whose essay is part of the collection.

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 Jessica Crichton. Welcome to the Woman's Hour podcast. Now, what does it mean to be a dangerous woman? Many have been charged with the term, including Scotland's First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, who was labelled as the most dangerous woman in the UK in a Daily Mail headline. A new book collates 50 essays from different women around the world, exploring the idea that women can be dangerous both individually or collectively. Interesting topic, this.

Looking forward to discussing that a bit later in the programme. Plus, it's the most famous piece of art in the world, the most spoken about, sung about and parodied. Now, you don't have to be an art buff to recognise Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa. But a new book gives us a fresh perspective on this masterpiece in which the painting herself talks. But the question is, if Mona Lisa could speak, what would she say? We'll be finding out from the author. And for the first time in its 233 year history, a black woman could serve

on the US Supreme Court. Judge Katanji Brown Jackson has been nominated by President Joe Biden, but is yet to be confirmed. Just how significant is this? What do we know about Judge Jackson? And how could she influence laws in the USA? I'll be discussing all of this with the co-founder of an organisation that nurtures the political power of black women in the USA. I'll be discussing all of this with the co-founder of an organisation that nurtures the political power of black women in the United States. And as always, you can get in touch with any of the discussions on the programme this morning. You can text us on 84844. Texts will be charged at your standard message rates and also social media. We are at BBC Woman's Hour on Twitter. We also have Instagram available as well if that's more to your liking and you can always email us as well through our

website. But first, as the conflict continues in Ukraine, we've seen footage of predominantly women and children fleeing the country. But that is just one aspect of this conflict. There are also many women who have stayed in Ukraine and signed up to fight. Now, back in December, Ukraine's Ministry of Defence expanded the number of women who were eligible for mandatory service in the armed forces. They'll be joining the 57,000 or so women aged 18 to 60 already serving. But is there an appetite for more women to sign up? And what roles are they likely to play?

We'll be hearing from a Ukrainian MP who describes a new reality of being trained to use an assault rifle to defend her family and her country. But first, joining us this morning is Dr. Olesya Krumachuk, who's director of the Ukrainian Institute in London. Very good morning to you, Olesya. Now, just tell us firstly about the women who are already in the armed forces. What sorts of roles are they doing currently? Hi, thank you so much for having me on your wonderful program. And thanks for covering this very important topic. So like you said, we have about 22% of the armed forces who are women in the army already.

So you mentioned 57,000 women being part of the armed forces, 31,000 of them, which is about 12% of the armed forces, are service women. So not in civilian positions, but actually serving. And 16,000 of women are war veterans already. So these are the women who have already served in this war from 2014. And they are doing all sorts of roles. They have, you know, when they joined up in 2014, they immediately just started doing that which was necessary. So everything from cooking and administrative work to fighting, to being in combat, to being snipers, to being whatever was required at the front line at the time.

The army was not in a great position at all in 2014 and throughout those years. And they just, you know, they just offered their help in any way they could. But they found themselves in a very peculiar position because the Ukrainian legislation was such, this is the hangover from the Soviet times, which was very kind of paternalistic towards women and restricted the sort of positions that women could, the occupations that women could take up in the army. So there were so-called dangerous occupations that they were not allowed to take on. But these dangerous occupations included being drivers or translators.

It's not just about being a combat fighter. So what happened was women were doing these things anyway, but they were in a semi-legal position at the front. And they started to lobby for their rights. A really formidable veteran movement formed an advocacy campaign, and they managed to achieve the lifting of restrictions. So legalizing those women who were already in combat at the front, but also opening up these positions for others. So should a woman want to become a fighter, she can do so legally now, which is an amazing achievement, really,

if you think of it. So these women were able to have the restrictions lifted, but were they able to shift attitudes? That's a very good question, indeed. So at the start, the attitudes were quite mixed. You know, for everybody who joins the army in times of war, it usually is perceived in a sort of heroic lighting, right? But when it came to women, so I heard quite a lot of stories when they started to return from wearing uniform, they would rather change because they didn't want to, you know,

arrive in their peaceful cities wearing a uniform because there were glances, you know, looking at them thinking, wow, you're a woman, you're a potential actual mother, you should be here, you should be looking after your children or whatever. Not not going to the front. That has changed. I think it has changed drastically. Also, there was a period when I think women were sort of the images of women in the army were being perhaps instrumentalized to kind of show off. Look, even women are taking up arms. That too has changed, I think. More and more we see women in uniform,

just as service women, as professionals who made their choice to join up and to serve in the positions that they chose to do, for which they are trained, essentially. So I'm not idealising the situation completely, but I can clearly see the shift happening in attitudes all over the country. And that's reflected in the fact that last year, the end of last year, December, I think it was, the government, Ukrainian government, called for women to sign up to the territorial defense. Is that correct? Who were they calling on to join this?

No, that's not quite correct. So what happened is essentially the state preparing for a potential full-on invasion of the army, of the Russian army, of the Russian troops. And that was just part of it. So this was a request to women of certain occupations to register themselves as potential conscripts should a full-on invasion happen, should the country find itself in a state of war, which it did only a couple of months later. And what they realized that the list of these occupations that they issued was so large that essentially it covered most professions. And it was simply, it would be impossible to implement that kind of legislation. So they looked at it again and they reduced the

list. And all of that was happening over Christmas holidays, essentially, in Ukraine in sort of early January. And it wasn't supposed to be having an immediate effect. Women had a year, I think, to register themselves for potential conscription. And I heard some women finding it difficult because it was bureaucratically complicated. others, you know, and others signed up. But the territorial defense is a slightly different issue. Now, women can sign up to join the territorial defense, which is part of the armed forces. I don't know how many of them are women. We don't have that data yet. But I can see that some women are joining the territorial defense as well. But they are essentially being trained and become part of the armed forces that will then defend cities should they need to.

I see. So just explain that difference then between the Ukrainian armed force and the Territorial Defence. So the Ukrainian Armed Forces are like the armed forces everywhere else. You know, they are either professional soldiers or conscripts. These are civilian volunteers who have to fulfil certain criteria to be allowed to join the Territorial Defence. But they are essentially civilians and they are being trained and they are being armed, but they are kept in reserve

and they are kept if the necessity is there to defend cities. And it's a really sad situation that civilians are making these choices, but Ukrainians are making these choices because Ukrainian army is facing an enormous Russian army completely on its own, as you know, because there won't be any other members of other international armies helping us. So it's a really sad situation that civilians have to take up arms.

And we've seen civilians, many women, many children trying to flee the country, trying to cross into other countries. But as I said before, that's not what all women are doing. Many are staying to fight. There is a clear desire here for women in particular to defend their country alongside men. Absolutely. So the general mobilization was issued in Ukraine, which means that men of certain age who are fit to fight are simply not allowed to leave the country. And they are requested to, you know, to join up should they be called up. Right. That does not apply to a majority of women. But most women are staying. They're not leaving the country. And there are various ways of defending your country. You don't have to take up arms. You don't have to join the territorial defense.

And I'm seeing this absolutely enormous volunteer movement. Again, volunteer movement existed since 2014, and it's extremely well organized. I saw this in 2017 myself. I experienced this because my brother was a soldier of the Ukrainian armed forces, and he was killed at the front in 2017. So when my mom and I came to arrange the funeral and, you know, deal with his death, we were met by volunteers absolutely everywhere from women who were service women who took his belongings back to us, to those who helped us go through bureaucratic nightmare to, you know, to arrange his funeral and so on.

So women are in the volunteer movement always. They have been there since 2014, and it's only growing now. And they do everything. At the moment, most women are involved in sort of reallocation of internally displaced people. Remember, most people who are displaced are within the country. Only some are leaving. They work in logistics, admin work in veteran headquarters.

But of course, they also do so-called feminized duties, you know, so they go to checkpoints and bring tea and coffee and food and that sort of thing. Yeah, yeah. Clearly, women are wanting to mobilize during this conflict. And I spoke to one woman who is a Ukrainian MP. Her name is Lesia Feselenko. I spoke to her earlier as she has taken up her right to bear arms so she can defend her family and defend her country as well. I started by asking her how she was. Well, I'm actually just outside of Kiev.

I have five families living under one roof. The reason being is because this house we're in has a cellar and it's just more convenient to hide. Tonight, we had to spend the night under the stairs as the rest of the family were huddling in the cellars. I didn't think it would come to this town we're staying at because it's really an insignificant small town

just outside of Kiev and there's nothing here but a couple of dozen thousand civilians and rocks. It's a rock mining town so there's no strategic industry there. There's absolutely nothing and yet missile attack sirens were sounding. And it's a miracle that the Ukrainian air defence system is working so well that it's being able to feed back every single one of them and keep all the civilians safe. It's clearly such a desperate situation. Have you considered leaving, particularly as you

have three children? I cannot leave. I'm a member of parliament and I have a duty to my people first. I swore an oath in August 2019. And if I leave now, it will be national treason, state treason. This is an act punishable by the criminal code of Ukraine. But even regardless all of this legal responsibility, I am true to my country. I am true to Ukraine. I am fighting now on all fronts that I can fight because I want my three children to live in a free and independent Ukraine. I want my three children to live in a free and independent Ukraine. I want my three children to be part of Europe and European values, not to be slaves of Russian empire.

Because what Putin is doing now, he is implementing his perverted dream of reestablishing an empire in the middle of Europe. Imperialistic days are long gone. They should be in history, not be reinstated in the 21st century. And I, again, I want freedom for myself and for my children. And myself and 44 million Ukrainians are now fighting to protect our land, our homes, our families and the future of our children. Yeah, you said you're fighting on all fronts there. What do you mean by that? I've seen pictures posted on your Twitter account of you holding an assault rifle. Is that what you mean? You mean that you are bearing arms? We are bearing arms. The assault rifle that you have seen, it's a weapon that I was issued on the day that I voted for martial law to be installed in Ukraine.

This is a protection, a defense weapon, a protection necessity. I hold two weapons at this point. I had to learn how to use them in a manner of hours. The story I'm telling is not just of myself. It's of millions of women across Ukraine who had to pick up weapons for the first time in order to be able to help their families and in order to be able to defend their homes and their children. The thing is, I was one of the MPs who was always against the free use of arms by civilians. I voted anti-weapon laws all my life in parliament. And now I'm actually really

strongly reconsidering my position because now we are in a situation of grave need and of grave necessity. The necessity is the defense, the defense of our livelihood, because Putin is fighting a war against Ukrainians with a goal to exterminate Ukraine from the face of the earth. And the worst thing is that his military strategy just changed two days ago. We as parliamentarians received information that the official strategy of the Russian military is now to target women and children, to target civilians. And we see examples of this all throughout the country. Yesterday in a small town of Kiev, 30 kilometers away, a bus was going around with Russian military dressed up in Ukrainian uniforms, telling women and children particularly to get on the bus because it was an evacuation

mission from Vucha, from that small town. And once they got on the bus, they were taken hostage. And they were used in the defense of the Russian units around the city. This bus with women and children taken hostage was put up front as an element of the defense against the Ukrainian army which was coming in. The atrocities which are being committed are awful. As a result, 16 children already died in Ukraine in five days of war because they shoot at kindergartens and they shoot at schools and they don't care if there are children inside or not.

Clearly, women are feeling desperately unsafe. Do you know of other women who are willing to use weapons, take up arms, as you have done? Yes. All the women in the Ukrainian parliament, that's almost 100 armed and ready to take up weapons. This I know for sure. And there are many more women. Ukrainian army has the largest number of women in proportion to the number of military. We are talking about tens of thousands of women who are armed and ready to protect their land and their families, and to fight alongside the men shoulder to shoulder in the most severe conditions. In the territorial defense units, women are also signing up all across the country because they are ready to fight, to fight for their lives.

Because what we are fighting for in Ukraine is we are fighting for our very existence. Who is it that taught you how to use the AK-47? My father-in-law. Is it straightforward? Did you understand how to use the VAK-47? My father-in-law. Is it straightforward? Did you understand how to use it? There's a lot of technical issues there. So I am not accustomed to arms, as I said. So it's a bit tricky.

The trickiest part is that it requires a lot of strength to, well, not to pull the trigger, but to actually you know load it unload it to hold it so you need a lot of physical strength particular physical strength in your not even in your arms

but in your hands and in your fingers so that's the trickiest part for me so I had this is a girly issues ofly issues of war, if you like right now. I had a very, very nice manicure with long nails. The first thing I did when I got my family into safety is I cut off all the nails in order to be able to use the guns that I have. Wow. And have you practiced shooting it so far?

I practiced with another gun that my father-in-law has in the house, which is a kind of a sports gun, because I can't waste the bullets that we have. We really don't have that many bullets for territorial defense. All the bullets are going mostly for the Ukrainian military. So the other appeal that we have to the international community is keep sending us ammunition,

keep sending us bullets, rifles, because there's not enough rifles to go around the territorial defence units. We need helmets, we need bulletproof vests, we need medical kits, and we need all of this for our territorial defence units to be able to stand. Have you thought about that moment

when you might have to use that weapon, that assault rifle? I see that you've posted pictures with it. You said that you're willing to use it. But that moment when you actually have to point it at another human being and pull the trigger. Have you thought about that? No, and I'm not going to think about that because giving it too much thought will desert the action. If, if the time comes, I will be using it. And that is the only mantra that I have in my head. You've already told us that you have three children and I believe one is, you know,

under a year old. How are you explaining to your children about this situation, what's happening, and why you now have weapons in the house? Look, it's a war, and they know it's a war, and it's impossible to hide it from them, no matter how much every mother would love to have their children protected from all the atrocities of war and the stresses of war but they're impossible to hide sirens are going off all the time so all we can say is that uh all that i say to my son is that look we are in this situation and there's nothing we can do about it there's no point in stressing crying right now uh or uh analyzing things we are where we are and our only goal is to keep ourselves safe each one of us is our own responsibility and uh i try to convey to my children the fact that uh they must keep safe i told them i walked them

through all the uh all the air raid rules i walked them through all the different attacks that can be happening missile attacks uh shotgun attacks on the ground uh we walked around the house figured out what walls will hold what. And how old are they? In case of every single attack. So my son is eight and my daughter is six, turning seven in a couple of months. And at this age, they're having to know how to protect themselves in a major conflict. Yes, this is their new school education. This morning, I woke up and realized that my routine is severely broken because usually I would be taking them to school.

But this morning I was not taking them to school. This morning I was telling them to go outside and play while the sirens were silent, while they could get some fresh air. And it pains me to see them trying to occupy themselves and distract themselves from the war with whatever they can find in the garden rather than being in school, learning new things and getting an education. And this is true for the millions of Ukrainian children across the country who are forced to sleep in subways, who are forced to sleep in cellars every single night not to get killed by Russian missiles and Russian fighter jets. And this is true for all of the Ukrainian children who are missing out in their lives from an education.

Ukraine was known as a country with the most, in Europe, with the most literate people, most number of literate people. We really have a good school education, which is free for everyone and mandatory for all kids. And now that is getting destroyed. The future of Ukraine literally is getting destroyed because our children are suffering now the traumas of war which are piling up. There's obviously a massive contrast here in how this has escalated for yourself and your family. This is now your new reality, having to teach your children how to survive a conflict, you yourself having to learn how to use an assault rifle, will life ever be the same again?

It will. It will because after every dark night comes a new dawn. And we are fighting for a reason. We are fighting for our freedom and the truth is behind us and the truth always prevails. Ukrainians are united now in our belief in victory in victory for our country and in victory for a safe future for our children we will fight like hell and we will get those russians out of here in order for our babies, our children to grow up as Ukrainians in an independent Ukraine. That was Ukrainian MP Lesia Vasylenko, who I spoke to a bit earlier

this morning. Now, Lesia, we heard, you know, Lesia describing the way that she says Russian troops are treating women and children, some very extreme. Now, we can't independently verify what she has said. But more generally, can you give us an overview of whether you feel women and children were likely to be weaponized in this conflict? Yes, absolutely. So we keep hearing reports of civilians being targeted by these missile strikes. So hospitals were being targeted. Ambulances were being targeted. And this is civilians. Right. But also reports of really disturbing things like soft toys are being stuffed with explosives, being spread around cities by saboteurs so children can pick them up. All of this is essentially targeting the morale of civilians,

because if children are being hurt, if civilian women are being hurt, then that's going to demoralize society. So it's a really dangerous situation. It's something that here in the UK we should really be thinking about because we are watching a humanitarian crisis unfold. And, you know, as an international community, I think we need to remember that we've essentially turned a blind eye to Ukraine's war for eight years. We can't continue doing so. We need to, you know, we need to do everything that's within our power and helping with humanitarian crisis is within our

power. And we can see European countries opening doors to Ukrainian war refugees. But that's not the case so far with the UK. I think simplifying visa applications would be absolutely essential to alleviate the pressure that is at the moment experienced by countries like Poland that are receiving the major chunks of refugees. Remember, these are not the people who, you know, most people are staying in Ukraine and are preparing to defend in every possible way. I mean, none of my friends or colleagues have left. Yesterday, the day before yesterday,

I listened to an online lecture by a professor of literature and she was giving that lecture because that's what she does. And she was just listening out for, and that was also on a feminist, modernist writer, Fada Siekl, Nezlesia Ukrainka, a sort of revolutionary feminist woman. And she was listening out for airstrikes, air raid strikes outside of her window.

People are staying, people are not leaving. Only those are leaving who are in absolutely desperate need to leave. And we need to make sure we in Europe are prepared for this. We've also seen pictures of groups of women making Molotov cocktails at the weekend over here in the UK on our TV screens. Are those the women that are part of this volunteer movement, these women that are signing up voluntarily to defend Ukraine? Yeah, yeah. I mean, they're not even signing up. There are sort of, you know, makeshift offices, headquarters for volunteers, usually based around veteran organizations, because you don't see veteran organizations have been functioning for eight years now. So they tend to coordinate the

movement of volunteers in cities. And yeah, those women who want to give their help by making Molotov cocktails choose to do that. If they want to go and reinforce checkpoints by filling sacks with sand or whatever, they do that. If they want to cook and do logistics or admin work, they do that. Different women choose different ways of helping at the moment. And a malt of cocktails is one of them, yes. Dr. Alessia Krumachuk, thank you very much for joining us on the programme this morning. Thank you. Now, President Joe Biden has nominated Judge Katanji Brown-Jackson to the Supreme Court,

calling her one of the brightest national legal minds. If confirmed, she'll be the first black woman to serve in the court's 233 year history. Now, to give us some context on this, we're joined by Kimberly Peeler-Allen, who's the co-founder of Higher Heights. Now, that's an organisation that aims to build the political power and leadership of black women. Kimberly, thank you so much for getting up at this early hour to talk to us live from the US. Much appreciated. Now, just give us some context on this.

How significant is it that Judge Jackson has been nominated? Good morning. It is extremely significant in our nation's history. There have been 115 justices on the Supreme Court since its inception in the early or the mid 1700s. And in those 115 justices, we've only had three African Americans and one Latino and five women. And to have one justice who would properly represent two of the most marginalized groups on the court is tremendous and brings a lifetime of experience and judicial experience that has been lacking from the court thus far. Tell us about that experience. Tell us about her because she has an incredible CV or resume, as I should say. Absolutely. Judge Jackson is just an impeccably talented justice. She started her career as she was involved in the law review at Harvard and then went on to be a public defender, as well as work in public practice and private practice, working for both conservative and liberal clients, and then went on to the

bench. And she was nominated and confirmed by the Senate three times with bipartisan support and has just, you know, in her 600 decisions since she has been on the federal bench, only 2% of those positions have been overturned. So she just has a tremendous record and, you know, her life experience growing up in Florida, in Miami. She has the full life experience of the criminal justice system in her family. She has two of her family members are police officers. She has an uncle who was on the other side of the criminal justice system. So she really has a just a wide life experience of how the criminal justice system can work for and work against marginalized communities. And being a public defender, she has she's acutely aware of of those intricacies that and she will bring that

incredible knowledge to the bench. When you say her uncle has been on the other side of the criminal justice, what do you mean by that? He is actually, I believe, serving time on drug charges at the moment. Okay. Just to clear that up, just in case the viewers weren't aware of that. Now, what's the reaction been to this nomination? It has been, you know, we are in a hyper-partisan America right now, so it has been lauded on the liberal side and jeered on the conservative side. historic nature of this nomination and to have a Black woman who is so immensely qualified. And there were several Black women who were said to have been in the running for this position who were all tremendously qualified. Just really shows the experience that has not been part of this discourse because there have been the opportunity

to nominate a well-qualified Black woman to the Supreme Court was, you know, the list was long. So to be able to have one is just tremendous. And then on the other side of the aisle, it has been reduced to some racial tropes. There have been senators who've said they wanted to make sure that they had a justice who was better versed in a constitutional law book than a J.Crew catalog, implying that this is an affirmative action hire and that Joe Biden, President Biden only selected her, Judge Jackson, because she was a Black woman, not because of her amazing judicial record and her, you know, qualifications to be on the bench. So, you know, we are seeing the full ramp of racism, sexism,

and misogyny that is being lobbed at Judge Jackson, as we have seen with many and actually all of the women who have been nominated to serve in the cabinet under this president and previously. So there's definitely both sides of the coin in this nomination, but I think she's going to sail through a few bumps on the way, but she will definitely be on the bench. So in spite of everything she's battling against, all the accusations being levelled at her, you do think she will be confirmed? Absolutely. I think she will be confirmed primarily because she's immensely qualified, as I said. Secondly, she has, as I mentioned before,

she has come before the Senate three times and was confirmed with bipartisan support. And lastly, her nomination does not change the dynamic of the court. So it will remain a 6-3 majority conservative court. Is that a problem? Is that a problem? Because how much power will she actually have to change things? Well, she will be at 51, she will be one of the youngest

justices ever appointed to the court. So she has probably 30, maybe 40 years on the bench. So I think we have plenty of time to see where she comes in. But I think also we have seen over the years that as much as the decisions in the affirmative are landmark coming out of the Supreme Court, we have also seen many dissenting opinions that have been studied just as much or if not more so and have been used as precedent for new trials and new legal cases on various issues. So I think her voice both in the affirmative and in the dissent will be very, very important in the next 30 to 40 years. Do we have an idea of what she's passionate about? What issues in particular she has expertise in? Well, she has been, as many justices are, very circumspect about her personal opinions. But we know from her record as a public defender that she is very much looking at how systems have marginalized or supported different aspects of

our community and the ways that and how those systems have continued injustice and looking at ways to try and right those wrongs because everything that we have seen from the cases that she took in private practice to some of her judicial writings has said that she is really a pragmatic progressive, where she wants to be able to move the needle for marginalized communities, but wants to do it in a way that is truly effective with long-term lasting results. Do we know her position on abortion services? Because that issue is currently hot topic right now in the U.S. It's currently sitting with the U.S. Supreme Court. So where does she stand on that? Well, in private practice, she did write a brief in support of NARAL Pro-Choice America, which is an abortion

rights group in the U.S. But when asked during a confirmation hearing if she was where she stood on the issue, she declined to respond, saying it would be improper. But if you look at the response that she's been receiving from pro-abortion groups, they have definitely been lauding her nomination. And you look at the anti-abortion groups and they are jeering and saying that she is a pro-abortion, radical appointment. So I think that kind of tells you what we anticipate, trying to read between the lines in her judicial writing. Wow. If confirmed, it would be a significant moment in history. Kimberley Peeler-Allen, thank you so much for joining us on the programme this morning. Thank you. Now, there is a painting which, even if you aren't an art fanatic you will

immediately be able to visualize when I name it. It's of course Mona Lisa. Leonardo da Vinci's 1503 masterpiece is the most famous piece of art in the world. Now a new book called I, Mona Lisa is told from the point of view of the painting herself. We're joined now by the author of the book, Natasha Solomons, and by art historian and Da Vinci expert, Professor Martin Kemp. Welcome to the program. Now, Natasha, we will be listening to you reading an extract from the book to come. But first, please just explain this concept. I'm so intrigued by this. After all these years of feeling like this painting is staring directly at us, you've now made her able to talk to us as well? I have. I have. I was looking at the Mona Lisa behind her layers of glass in the Louvre. And I was thinking that everybody who goes to look at her says it looks as though she's just about to speak.

And I thought, well, what if she is speaking? as though she's just about to speak and I thought well what if she is speaking what if she's been speaking for years it's just we haven't been listening and so in my in my novel she does not everyone can hear her but a few choice few and um and I've I've given her her voice back which has been which has been a joy. Absolutely intriguing. Okay, let's just hear an extract from the book. I'm Mona Lisa. Most prisoners have committed a crime. Not I. A gilded palace, no matter how splendid

or filled with silent treasures, is still a jail when one cannot leave. The visitors to the Louvre queue for hours and then gawk without seeing me. I'm now a fixture in the travel guides and the package tours of Europe. I've become ill-tempered and full of black bile in my old age, but the manners of the tourists are despicable. They complain to one another how small I am or that my smile is more of a grimace. Once I used to jostle with hundreds of others in an undignified dormitory of pictures,

half forgotten except by those who came to seek me. Yet nowadays I'm everywhere, so you no longer see me even when I'm right before you. You all come here to linger in my presence, to pay homage for your allotted seconds before you're hurried away by my jailers. Still, you choose to record on your phones the moment of your not looking while your back is turned to me. It conjures up an image of being at a concert where everyone's got their phones in the air

and they're all recording what they're seeing through a screen rather than using their own eyes. Now, Natasha, before Mona Lisa was obviously put on display, this book goes back to the beginning, the early 1500s, when Mona Lisa was originally brought to life by Da Vinci's brush. What gave you that idea? Well, as I said, I wanted to have her narrate her own story. And from the moment she swims into consciousness at the end of Leonardo da Vinci's paintbrush, and it's a sort of Renaissance trope in a way, the painting who comes to life and the painter falls in love with his own painting.

And in this version, it's the painting loves the painter falls in love with his own painting and in this version it's the painting loves the painter back and as I was writing the book I sort of it because I wrote it during lockdown I had so much research to do but all the libraries were shut and so it was so difficult I had everything I could from from Amazon and I sort of reached a little bit of a brick wall after a while. So I sort of I sent a desperate plea out into the ether to Martin pleading for his help, saying, I've got this crazy idea for a novel with a talking Mona Lisa, but I need a bit of help with my research. Would you mind helping me? And to my amazement, he said yes, which was amazing. Of course. Of course you said yes, Martin.

You have probably analysed this painting in every way possible over many decades. What did you make of all this, Martin? Does this book make you view the painting differently? I absolutely love it. It does in a whole number of ways. But I'm fascinated by what a novelist can do and what a historian can do. And I think we're in complementary business.

I picked up, and I've got a quote here from Natasha, there was only one painting like me. The other pictures could be looked at, but none of them could see. Now, one of the things I've been emphasising with Mona Lisa is a very daring picture. We take it for granted. But for a woman in the Renaissance picture to look at you directly is bad manners. That's not done in portraiture. And to smile and react to us is even more. So the picture, part of the point of the picture, in a sense,

the sitter, she, Lisa Garadini, is actually looking at us and reacting. I've seen it or her twice out of the frame, and it's absolutely uncanny. So the novelist gets there in a much more beautiful way than I do, but I get there in my plodding way as a potential historian. I reject the idea that you're plodding way as a potential historian. I reject the idea that you're plodding, Martin. I absolutely reject that, but I do absolutely agree that

Mona Lisa is a rebel, because I think we've been too much influenced by Walter Pater and the idea of Mona Lisa as this vampire of the deep, and we've been looking at her through her bulletproof glass for too long, and the colours by now seem muted, and we stare at her through her bulletproof glass for too long and the colors by now sort of seem muted and we stare at her through the sea of other tourists and what I

wanted to go back to was this idea of Mona Lisa the rebel and that I think was what Leonardo tried to convey was this daring woman who stares not only directly at us but she smiles and he knew when he was painting her that he was painting a painting and painting a woman who would change painting and change history. And that was the voice that I tried to create in this novel was a daring woman and a bold woman and a Renaissance rebel,

not this sort of mysterious sphinx, but a Renaissance rebel. And I think that was the woman that Martin in his art history describes and that was the voice that I wanted to capture in this novel and she's an adventurous my goodness the painting goes on adventures it really does it really does over the 500 years I mean tell us some of the things that you discovered and unearthed about this painting's journey well I mean she crosses the Alps on the back of the mule when she's I mean Leonardo is he sort of he gets rather fed up being in Italy and being overlooked

for his commissions by the Medici and so it's Francis I tempts him across to France and he accepts that commission. But then he needs to get to France, which isn't sort of, you can't jump on EasyJet when you're in the Renaissance. So it's a perilous journey. And how old was he then, Martin? He was in his late 60s. In his 60s, yeah. And the way to cross is on the back of the mule So now to think of the Mona Lisa And the Leda And John the Baptist

Swaddled in their cloths and in boxes But on the back of the mule crossing the Alps Is quite something And then later on of course The Mona Lisa notoriously was stolen in 1911 from the Louvre yes tell us about this because you you want to have something uh that no one else really knew about didn't you well I mean people have known about the theft for for many years um she was she was stolen in 1911 and Picasso was arrested for the theft of the Mona Lisa.

But I think one of the things that I noticed was that Picasso, he's been he's been painted in his paintings of the woman seated. This series of paintings that Picasso has done sort of all through his life when you look at the series of paintings sort of if you just do a google image search what is remarkable when you look at them side by side really whoever the muse is whether it's Dora Maar whether it's Eva really they're all of Mona Lisa the contrapposto pose, they all strikingly, beneath all of them, they're of Mona Lisa. And we know of the connection. We know that Picasso was in the Louvre in the 1910s and earlier looking at Mona, and there they all are.

And it's uncanny. Wouldn't you? I mean, I feel that. How do you feel, Martin? Yeah, Martin, what did you make of that discovery? I thought, well, that's OK. But I then started trawling the internet and getting up all these images of seated women.

And although they're very different, Picasso's style goes all over the place and he's always trying something new. There was a kind of common factor behind it, not just a seated woman on a chair, which is common enough, but also the sense of mystery. And Picasso's women, I think, although he was a great womanizer, I don't think he ever really understood women all that well. So they remained rather mysterious. And there is an

emotional sense in which Mona Lisa is playing a role for Picasso, not just the sense of a formal sense of the woman sitting in a chair. I became converted and thought, wow, that's actually a real insight. And Martin, the eye in the title of the book. I mean, do you think that's right? Have we stopped really seeing the Mona Lisa? Well, it's the picture that's most difficult to see in the world in a way, not just the physical setup in France behind all these armored barricades and glasses and so on. But also you look at it and you can't stop all this stuff pouring back into you.

You just get so much deluge of things. And I've written a book with Giuseppe Palanti about Mona Lisa, which tries to strip things back to the original and really get back to the historical sources and say, let's look afresh. And Natasha helps us do that. She really does. Very much enjoyed talking to you both, Natasha Solomons and Professor Martin Kemp. Thank you for joining us this morning. Pleasure. Thank you very much. Now, what does it mean to be a dangerous woman? Pleasure. Thank you very much. historical periods, cultures and areas of contemporary life. It has been used to describe the Labour MP and human rights activist, Shammi Chakrabarty, and Scotland's First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon,

who was labelled by the Daily Mail as the most dangerous woman in the UK. But what lies behind this label? And what does it say about the power dynamics with which women live with today? I'm joined now by Jo and the journalist Bidisha, whose essay is part of the collection. Good morning to you both. Welcome to the programme. Jo, I'll start with you.

What led to you wanting to explore this idea of dangerous women? Well, it was two triggers, really. The first one you've already mentioned, the fact that a number of women, particularly in the UK, but i've no doubt this happens around the world as well have been picked out as being the most dangerous but also we were also very much animated when we started the project and this was quite some time ago by issues around online danger for women and the fact that the online space is by no means one where there is equality between men and women because women do face a disproportionate amount of harassment online and that was something that we also wanted to pick out. That was where it

grew from. It grew much bigger than that. It definitely has. I mean, look at this book now. Padisha, what is a so-called dangerous woman? The idea of calling a woman dangerous is always a warning to women. Every single time, it's about authority and power. Look at the women in public life who are deemed to be dangerous. They're called dangerous by their political enemies, by media commentators, by people who resent the idea of women who take up space and who refuse to be simply seen rather than being decorative objects who dare to speak up. So you have a woman stepping out in public life as a political figure or a cultural figure.

Let's not forget Vladimir Putin called Pussy Riot dangerous women. Why? Because he was threatened. He is so fragile that these young ladies who are artists and musicians made him react and say, these are dangerous women. And the reason I say it's a warning is because the people who are threatening women and calling us dangerous are willing to make good on their threats.

They're willing to go online or if you're a political player yourself to use your power and get these women harassed, hounded out of the public space, punished, thrown into prison, strung up somehow, or to use a 21st century phrase, somehow cancelled. But it's usually worse than that. The dangerous woman is a sign that all is not right in society. And how dare these women open their mouths and step up and speak our truth. Are you a dangerous woman, Patricia? I very much hope so. I feel dangerous all the time. I felt dangerous when I woke up this morning. My cup of tea is dangerous as I speak.

Of course, between women, we can joke. We can say, well, I'm powerful and beautiful and dangerous. I'm an apex predator, a gorgeous cougar. In fact, when it's used as an insult, there's a lot more menace in it. When someone from the outside, essentially a stranger, a political enemy, says that you're dangerous,

it's really a very clever sign. It's them saying to you, you be careful. I've noticed you. There's now this little mark against your name. You're not going to proceed in public life as you think you're going to. We're going to somehow string you up. It's the rite of spring. It's punish the witch. It's kill the dangerous, the bad woman. It's positively medieval. It's

positively classical, in fact. Jo, Bidisha is clearly embracing the term dangerous. Are there other women out there that want to view it as a positive or empowered by it rather than viewing it as a negative term? Absolutely. I think that the majority of our contributors, and I want to say that there aren't just the 50 essays that are in this book,

but there are actually nearly 400 contributions that we put online on a website that's still there and you can see that. But towards the end, we asked people to reflect on what the Dangerous Women Project had meant to them. And they said things like, the Dangerous Women Project stirred up in me a voice previously silent, a gutsy voice that had questioned ideologies surrounding femininity. It gave me confidence in the woman I am choosing to be.

So, you know, there were there were many, many testimonies of that type, which I think are very powerful and indicated that although the idea of dangerousness can be a little complex and can be sometimes a little challenging to people. On the whole, many people felt, if a little provoked by it, certainly that there was space to embrace it in much the same way that Bidisha has done so very eloquently just now. And are there women who are genuinely seen as dangerous? We've been speaking about women in Ukraine who are taking up arms to defend themselves, you know, dangerous in the sense that they could cause people harm. Do those type of women feature in this book? They very much do. We have essays that focus on women's dangerousness. One perhaps that might resonate very directly with the situation in Ukraine is about the women partisans in Yugoslavia during the Second World War.

And that was, I think, one of our most popular posts in the sense that it was widely embraced across social media because I think that virtually everyone has a grandmother or a great-grandmother who had been a partisan person, a partisan now in the countries of the former Yugoslavia. that what was partly dangerous about them was not only the work that they did in a very effective partisan movement, but also how that turned into their agency after the Second World War, how they were seen and how they were able to act within political space after the Second World War. And that's going to be something that we can watch with Ukraine to see what changes as a result of the incredible

bravery of those like the person you were speaking to earlier on to stand up and embrace literal dangerousness. Bidisha, what do you want women to take away from this book? To realize that all of the insults against women, they're a sort of diversionary tactic because the real danger in the world comes from male violence, which is universal and ubiquitous. Of course, that doesn't mean

that all men are violent perpetrators, but it does mean that the worst thing in all human societies, as we're seeing in the headlines right now today, is male violence against women and girls and male violence against men and girls and male violence against men and boys. And you can call women so many insults. You can come up with an entire thesaurus worth of misogynistic insults that won't detract from the factual truth.

Bidisha and Dr. Jo Shaw, thank you so much for joining us. And that's all for today's Woman's Hour. Join us again next time. 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.