Two thirds feel misogyny is problem in UK, Women's Institute polling suggests
Misogyny is defined by the Cambridge dictionary as feelings of hating women, or the belief that men are much better than women.
The polling, carried out by Opinium last month, was commissioned by the WI ahead of International Women's Day this weekend.
Just over a quarter of men surveyed said they had challenged misogyny – a lower proportion than women (28% of men compared with 31% of women).
This included actions such as refusing to take part in misogynistic conversations (16% of all adults surveyed), having conversations about gender equality with men (15%) calling out sexist or misogynistic language in conversations (13%), and calling out or intervening when a woman is being harassed (8%).
Of the 64% of UK adults who think misogyny is a problem, some three in ten consider it a serious one (32%).
The polling highlighted dangers felt by young women in society, with 41% of women aged 18 to 34 saying they avoided eye contact or limited their interactions with strangers in the past year while 37% shared their live locations with friends or family members when travelling alone (37%).
Four in 10 (42%) pretended to be on a call when walking on their own, while just over a quarter (27%) said they held a key between their fingers for safety.
The proportions were lower for men, with just one in 10 (14%) in the same age group using a phone as a prop when walking on their own, less than a fifth (18%) sharing their location for safety, and 10% saying they would carry their key in their hand.
The Labour Government has pledge to halve violence against women and girls in the next decade.
Melissa Green, WI chief executive, said. 'Our polling makes for depressing reading, at a time when women and girls' rights are being challenged on every front.
'More than half of all women (56%) are more likely to have taken an action in the past 12 months to make themselves feel safer, and clearly women are experiencing misogyny more personally and profoundly.
'For women to feel that UK is a far less safe place for them is unacceptable and deeply concerning – and needs to be tackled through social prevention, as well as political deterrence, and in allyship with men.'
:: Opinium surveyed 2,050 UK adults online between February 19 and 21.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
BLS firing 'erodes institutional integrity': Mohamed El-Erian
Queens College Cambridge president Mohamed El-Erian joins Morning Brief with Julie Hyman to discuss President Trump's firing of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) chief. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Morning Brief. President Trump reiterated his criticism of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, said he was close to picking a new Fed chair and teased new tariffs on semiconductors. Joining me now, Mohamed El-Erian, President of Queen's College, Cambridge to talk about that and many other things. Mohamed, good to see you. Good morning, Julie. I would like to start with this whole situation over the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the BLS. Um with President Trump's removal of the person who heads up that agency, what does that do to confidence in future statistics? We've got, for example, CPI coming next week from that agency. So, I think the three takeaways, Julie. The first one is that the way the head was fired, and she was fired just following data releases that the president like, that erodes institutional integrity. And institutional integrity is very important um in the US economy. The second focus is on the problems we having collecting and estimating data. These have been long-standing problems that have been getting worse. Um as you know, the reporting level has come down. As you know, the methodology used for estimating when you don't have the data um is breaking down. So, there are fundamental issues that have to be addressed and that includes not incorporating enough new data new data sources because we saw during the pandemic that there are all sorts of non-conventional data sources that shed a lot of light. But the third issue, the one that's not talked enough about, is when you tend to have such large revisions, they tend to be at point of economic inflection. They tend to be when things are changing in the underlying economy and the data simply cannot keep up with what's changing. And I think that third element is going to be important as we go forward. Okay. So, let's dig into that third element because that revision those revisions were alarming, right? And on Friday it seemed to sort of fundamentally shake the assumptions that a lot of market participants had had about the labor market, that it was holding up okay. So, A, do we believe those revisions? Do they reflect what's going on? And how concerned are you then about the labor market? So I think the revisions are consistent with a lot of anecdotal data that comes from talking to households, that comes from looking at companies' earnings. And what you basically get is the following, pricing power for those who sell to low household incomes is very low because low household income income, low income households are suffering. We also have seen other signs of weakness. So I think what the labor revisions have picked up is a weakening economy, not an economy going into recession, but a weakening economy. And ironically, two days later in terms of trading sessions, the bond market has priced in a weaker economy. The pricing of Fed cuts, that probability, as we heard, is up to 90%. So the fixed income side of the markets has understood what the data is telling us. The equity side is being supported in a fundamental way by two things. One is the notion of FOMO. Every time you bought a dip recently in in the recent few years, it has been profitable. So people have been conditioned to buy a dip. And second, this distinction between tech and AI and the rest. And tech and AI is enough of a locomotive to drive the whole market up.
Bloomberg
4 days ago
- Bloomberg
Nobel Laureate Claudia Goldin on Birth Rates, Women and US Government Data
Markets Magazine The Harvard economic historian finds that differences in fertility rates in rich countries reflect the persistence of traditional gender roles. Claudia Goldin has been talking about babies a lot during the past year. The 79-year-old Harvard University professor, who won the Nobel Prize in economics in 2023 for research on the history of women in labor markets, has recently been investigating birth rates. The topic has been an area of focus for the Trump administration and billionaire Elon Musk, who point to the drop in the US birth rate as a threat to economic growth, while they push against immigration that could offset it. 'The decline in almost all developed countries today has been going on for about 40 to 50 years,' Goldin says over Zoom from her office in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in early July. 'So why are we just talking about it now?'
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
Harvard and Trump admin await judge's decision as deadline ticks closer
As Harvard University is in talks with the Trump administration over a potential deal or settlement, the university is waiting with bated breath to hear the decision of a federal judge over canceled government funding for the university. The institution requested that Judge Allison D. Burroughs make a decision before September 3, when much of the damage from the Trump administration's billions in research grant and other funding cuts would be irreversible. Burroughs has yet to make a decision since a court date on July 21 during oral arguments, when she said she will get an opinion out as soon as possible. However, during the court date, she expressed her uncertainty with the Trump administration's actions, calling the lawyer's arguments 'a little bit mind-boggling.' During the hearing, Burroughs pushed back on whether the federal government could cancel grants across the institution en masse without substantially proving that researchers or labs had engaged in antisemitism. She added that the 'consequences of that in terms of the constitutional law are staggering to me.' President Donald Trump, for his part, took to Truth Social to take aim at Burroughs the same day, calling her a 'TOTAL DISASTER' and an 'automatic 'loss' for the People of our Country.' He also signaled that the federal government would appeal her decision if she sides with Harvard. Legal experts believe the case could wind up going as far as the Supreme Court. Read more: Is Harvard considering a $500M deal with Trump? Faculty don't think so Harvard's second lawsuit over the federal government's attacks against international students is more settled. Read more: Trump admin appeals federal judge's decision rejecting ban of foreign Harvard students Burroughs granted two preliminary injunctions related to the case in late June. One preliminary injunction rejects a Trump administration attempt to ban Harvard foreign students from entering the country to study. This decision was appealed by the Trump administration and will now go to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. The other preliminary injunction allows Harvard to host international students. No appeal has been filed on that decision. What has happened between the Trump admin and Harvard? The Trump administration has gone after Harvard since April, cutting billions of dollars. Demanding an overhaul of Harvard's leadership structure, admissions and hiring — the federal government warned the school could risk losing $9 billion in funding. Harvard rejected those demands, stating they seek to 'invade university freedoms long recognized by the Supreme Court.' Then the fight over funding occurred. It began with a $2.2 billion funding freeze on April 14 after the school refused to comply with the federal administration's demands. In response, Harvard filed a lawsuit on April 21, arguing that its constitutional rights had been violated by the government's threats to pull billions of dollars in funding. Harvard President Garber also signed onto a letter with hundreds of other university presidents pushing back against 'government overreach and political interference' by the Trump administration. At the beginning of May, the Trump administration said it would bar Harvard University from acquiring new federal grants while the school continues to refuse to comply with the administration's demands for change on its campus. A few days later, eight federal agencies cut $450 million in grants and then the United States Department of Health and Human Services cut $60 million in grants from the university. Harvard went on to amend its lawsuit against the Trump administration. Read more: Trump used her story to attack Harvard. She says 'don't destroy the university in my name' On May 16, a wave of nearly one thousand federal research grant terminations began, amounting to more than $2.4 billion, according to an analysis by Nature. In response, Harvard established a new Presidential Priorities Fund, asking for donations in the midst of federal cuts. Some of Harvard's schools, including its School of Public Health, took to social media to ask for donations after nearly every single federal grant had been terminated. Other investigations and threats have been made against the institution, some of which have focused on threatening the university's ability to enroll international students. This prompted Harvard to open a second lawsuit against the Trump administration over its ability to accept international students. Most recently, the State Department opened an investigation into Harvard University's use of international visas. The Department of Homeland Security has also subpoenaed Harvard over its failure to provide documents concerning the misconduct or criminal actions of foreign students. More Higher Ed 'They fear deportation': University student newspaper sues Trump admin over free speech Is Harvard considering a $500M deal with Trump? Faculty don't think so Here's who is pushing Trump to upend higher ed — and what they want Trump admin brings Harvard antisemitism case to Justice Dept. after 'fruitless' discussions Trump used her story to attack Harvard. She says 'don't destroy the university in my name' Read the original article on MassLive.
