Pants for Parisian women, just don't dress gay in Antwerp

In a long-delayed advance for women's equality, women in Paris now have the right to wear pants. The law from 1800 had previously been updated in 1909 to allow women to wear pantaloons when riding a bike or horse, but now it has finally been repealed. 

Meanwhile, in Antwerp, the mayor has decided that civil servants are not allowed to dress in a manner that identified them as openly gay. The example used was a rainbow shirt, but the concept was explained such that a civil servant cannot dress in a way that "makes clear that he or she adheres to this obedience". By all means, Mr Mayor, please give us the official homosexual dress code so that styles that are too obviously gay can be banned. Also, to achieve your desired neutrality, please ban all dress styles that are too openly heterosexual. 

Women in Molecular Immunology

It is easy to discuss equality in science through anecodote. Just by spending most of my waking adult life on university campuses across three continents I am fairly confident in saying that sexual equality is better in biology and medicine than in chemistry or physics, is great at undergraduate level and lagging at professorial level, and is better in Australia than in Belgium. Much better than anecodote, though, is quantitative analysis, which is why I love this website. If you don't publish your research it is a hobby, not science, and a good publication record is the A to Z of career success for a scientist. This website collates data on authorship across time and across disciplines, at a global level, and assesses the participation of women. There are a few caveats: papers are only assessed if they are listed in the JSTOR database, and a gender is only assigned by first name analysis (using the US Social Security database as a reference, so it probably fails for first names not commonly used in the US). Still, it is an absolutely beautiful reference point.

There is an wealth of knowledge in this database, but my interest is in molecular immunology, so how are we performing? Well, the question kind of depends on "compared to what?" In 1991-2010, 29.7% of authors on molecular immunology papers were women. This is an improvement from 1971-1990 (23.9%), and a huge improvement from pre-history (being everything from 1970 and before, at 13.7%). It is also outstanding compared to fields such as mathematics, where women still only account for 10% authors (maths clearly has a problem with women; anyone who says the reverse is kidding themselves). But 29.7% is still a long way from 50%. Even among first authors (typically PhD students or post-docs), only 33.2% of molecular immunology authors were women, and among last authors (typically professors) only a dismal 15.4% were women. 

I've said before what I think the problem is (hint, it is men), but this database gives us a resource to see who is fixing the problem, and how fast, and who is content to live in the stone-age and try to do science with a 50% lobotomy. So many questions arise. Why has virology been more equal than immunology throughout the time period? I would love to see a break-down by country to know if this is a discipline-thing, or is a statistical quirk due to regional differences in sexism correlating by chance with regional differences in research focus.

Oh, and for the trivia-minded, within molecular biology the most equal area of research is heat shock proteins, while the most sexist is prostaglandins. In the entire database, the most female-dominated area of research is gender studies (57.8% female authors), while the most male-dominated area of research is a discipline of mathematics called Riemannian manifolds (99.3% male authors). Check it out.

Race and the American election

Have the 2008 and 2012 election wins ushered in a new era for American race relations? After all, this is a "post-racial America", where a black man was voted President twice by a clear majority of citizens. Right?

No. Barack Obama won both elections for one reason only - demographic change. If it wasn't for demographic change, both McCain and Romney would have won landslides equal to that of Ronald Regan. Consider this - Obama lost the white vote by 20 points (60% Romney, 40% Obama). In 1980 this was the margin of loss by which Carter lost the white vote to Regan. The difference is just that in 1980 the white vote was 88% of the electorate, now it is only 72%. Obama badly lost the white vote (39%), but he overwhelmingly won the black (93%), hispanic (71%) and Asian (73%) votes. If you give Romney his 2012 results by race, but use the 1980 demographics, Romney would have won the election 53% to 45% - almost the same spread as Regan beat Carter (8 points vs 9 points). This is not to say there hasn't been enormous improvements in race relations in America, but the election of Barack Obama does not mean that race doesn't matter.

The Republicans need to be really, really scared. The white vote is just going to decrease in every election from now on. In 2011 white babies were a slight minority in America - using the demographics of the 2011 birth cohort, Obama would have won 59% of the vote. This is going to be a slow process, but unless the Republicans stop their race hatred they are simply doomed. Actually, I'll go a little bit further: they need to stop their race hatred, their homophobia, their Christian supremacy ideas and their misogyny. Among people who identified as LGBT, 90% voted for Obama. Among the non-religious, Obama won 70% of the vote. Among women, Obama won 55% of the vote (although he lost white women). Every growing demographic is being alienated by the Republicans - whether they are Black, Hispanic, Asian, LGBT or atheist. The only groups that the Republicans can really rely on are white men (62% voted Romney) and the highly religious (59% of weekly Church-goers voted Romney). That is a dying demographic, and the Republicans need to wake up and realise that from now on, America is a pluristic society.

Finally, the election result that may have the most profound, long-lasting impact on politics in America: Puerto Rico just voted for Statehood (61%). Now a petition for Puerto Rico to become the 51st state of America will go before Congress, and once it is accepted (I assume the Republicans try to block it for awhile), Puerto Rico will become a proper State. This will be huge. For the first time, ~4 million American citizens will get to vote in Federal elections, having 2 Senators, 5 Representatives and 7 Presidential Electors. For the first time ever, a new state will be accepted into the Union that is non-white (all other states were not accepted until they were majority white, even if now a few have become minority-majority). For the first time ever, there will be an officially bilingual state in the US (Spanish/English). The new America is evolving, and it is going to look more diverse, more multicultural and more mutually respectful.

Halloween

This. But also this.

It couldn't be easier for men to be equal parents (so why aren't they?)

Even if this generation is better than any previous generation, very few men actually perform 50% of the parenting. There are always so many excuses: "I earn more money, so it makes financial sense for the mother to be the main caregiver", "She is on maternity leave, so she can do most of the parenting",  "I just don't have her knack for getting baby to sleep", etc, etc, etc.

To them all, I say bollucks. If women can manage 99% parenting, like they have for generations, men can manage 50% parenting. You have a job? Boo hoo, so do many mothers*. You are tired when you get home? Wow, who would have thought having a baby would involve loss of sleep. You are not as good at getting the baby to sleep? Of course not, if you haven't put in the hours of frustrating practice**. It is not just men making these excuses. I often hear them from women: "Babies just need their mothers, it is biological". Pfft, now that we have formula milk, there is nothing the father couldn't do, if he just made the effort. "There is only a changing table in the women's bathroom, so Mummy should change him". Sorry Daddy, just go in there and change him, if women complain we'll get more co-sex changing tables. Perhaps women are giving men a free pass because undoubtably most of their partners are doing more parenting tasks than they saw their fathers do.

If anything, it is easier for men to be equal parents than for women to do so. Whenever I take Hayden for a nappy change or give him a public feed I get nods and smiles of approval from the women around me***. I take Hayden for a night and people tell me it is great that I am giving Mummy a night off. I bring Hayden to work for a day and I am a role-model for fathers. For every small action I take in parenting I get so many signs of social approval. For a woman, on the other hand, every step she takes towards equal parenting results in social disapproval. If Lydia goes out without Hayden she gets asked if I am "babysitting" (her wonderful reply, "no, he is parenting"). The insult I personally find most aggravating is when a woman retreats from 100% parenting and gets told "Oh, I could never do that!", with the unstated "because I am a better mother" hanging patronisingly on her lips. 

So men, lift your game. You don't get to bask in the glory of doing 25% of the parenting; if you are not doing 50% you are a moocher****. You've been coddled and congratulated for under-performing for too long - if you aren't going to equal parent you shouldn't be a parent at all. And women? I'd like to ask you to judge the mother and the father by the same standards.

* And let's face it, work is relaxing after parenting

** I mean really, would you do all the house-work if your husband said "I just don't have your knack for mopping the floor"?

*** I get frowns of disapproval when I then tuck him under my arm and drink beer, but that is another story

**** Even if you work full-time and she doesn't, tough luck you still need to do 50% of the parenting. Parenting is not a job like any other, it matters who is doing it, not just that it gets done. If you're not doing 50% of the parenting, you are not a father, you are a sperm-donor.

Saudi women gain right to vote in meaningless elections

From the headlines you would imagine a huge leap forward in women's rights in Saudi Arabia - from the New York Times "Saudi Monarch Grants Women Right to Vote" or from the Guardian "Getting the vote could herald real change for Saudi women". 

Really? Because as great as it is that Saudi Arabia has joined the rest of the world in allowing women to vote (except of course the Vatican City, as the last bastion of male exclucivity), those elections are not going to be worth a dime. In the last 50 years there has only been one election that anyone could vote in, and it was a local council election where the monarchy determined eligibility to stand for election and directly appointed half the members. So at some point in the future there will be another local council election with the result pre-ordained by the Monarch, but a few women will be allowed to vote for the remaining window dressing. Whoop-e-bloody-do.

It is hard to imagine this move as anything other than a (successfull) attempt to give the illusion of progress and democracy where none exist. The King of Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarch, who bloody cares who can "vote"? What is a vote without democracy! Progress would be the women of Saudi Arabia getting rights that they can actually use, such as the right to marry who they want and travel where they want. Anything else is just PR.

From i'm at two with nature.

Evolution prevents revolution, political edition

I was thinking today about the diminishing effect of democracy as a progressive force. Democracy is (or at least, should be) entirely a numbers game, so it is very effective in creating change when the majority are denied a right. When, however, it is a minority that is denied a right, democracy is often found lacking. When the vast majority of the population were below the poverty line it was straightforward to petition for welfare, education and social mobility. Now that we have pulled a majority over the poverty line, that same majority tends to look with contempt on those remaining underneath.

One of the most interesting examples to me is the diverging history between England and France. Prior to 1214, both countries were absolute monarchies, yet in 1214 King Philip II of France decisively crushed the armies of King John of England at the Battle of Bouvines. From that year on, the fate of the monarchies of two countries seperated. King John, weakened by defeat, was forced to slowly capitulate on the absolute rights of the monarch, signing the Magna Carta in 1215. King Philip II, by contrast, passed on the crown to his son, Louis VIII, who ruled with even more authority. For 500 years, the influence of the Magna Carta led to a slow erosion of the monarchy and a strengthening of the rights of the people, with limited elections in 1265 and a slow progression to the English Bill of Rights in 1689. The writers of the Magna Carta certainly did not want the common people to have independent rights, but the effect was to provide a release valve, where social pressure for equality could boil over and produce minor changes. In France, by contrast, the iron first of the King prevented any social change, with the French Revolution of 1789 the final result. Now, 800 years after the Battle of Bouvines, France is a modern Republic, while in the UK the monarchy has still been able to hang on, by just giving up drips of power every hundred years or so. Evolution prevents revolution.

Another interesting comparison is between South Africa and Switzerland. Switzerland was one of the cradles of equality, considered to be a functional democracy since 1848, and yet women did not achieve the right to vote until 1971 - a 123 year wait! South Africa, by contrast, was the posterchild of injustice until 1994, when Nelson Mandela won the first multiracial elections, with the jump in equality occuring simultaneously in men and women. And this is not just true on gender equality, South Africa now has a more liberal constitution with regards to sexuality than Switzerland. I would hazard a guess that among the population, Switzerland is less homophobic than South Africa, but at the constitutional level the polarity is reversed. By becoming a democracy earlier Switzerland locked in some profoundly regressive policies, while South Africa, writing its constitution in 1997, does not have these archaic notions of the 19th century engraved in stone.

Or look at democracy in the United States. While it was not the first democracy, the democratic movement in the US was one of the earliest and among the most significant. America, in principle, became a democracy in 1776, yet women only gained the vote in 1920 and the Civil Rights Act was only passed in 1964. Today among the functioning democracies, the United States has among the most unrepresentative Congress, with 5 million citizens denied the vote due to geographic location (Washington DC, Puerto Rico and the other territories), another ~5 million with voting rights removed due to criminal records. And don't get me started on the Senate, where a resident of Wyoming has a vote >65 times more powerful than a voter in California, or the two party first-past-the-post system which essentially locks out independents and third-party candidates.

The point I am trying to make is not that the US has a bad democracy (although it does), it is that when the democratic revolution occured in a country early, the revolution locked in some very undemocratic ideals. Countries that had later democratic revolutions were more able to learn from the mistakes of others, and the pressure-cooker of social inequality had longer to boil before it exploded - creating a greater leap forward.

I've given a handful of examples, but of course it is easy to come up with counter-factual examples. Does the principle hold true in general? What would you see if you plot the year that a country became a functioning democracy versus the number of years women had to wait to participate in that democracy? The graph below shows an inverse relationship - indicating that the earlier a country became a democracy, the longer on average women had to wait to gain equal voting rights. The first stirrings of democracy gave rights exclusively to rich white men, who (once they gained power) were happy to keep power exclusive to themselves. Countries that had to fight longer for democracy were more likely to grant it simultaneously to all.

Description of graph: A scatterplot of the year a country first became a democracy, versus the number of years that female suffrage was delayed. The year of first democracy was taken to be the year that the country first achieved a Polity score of 6 or above, indicating basic functioning democracy. The data of female suffrage was taken from wikipedia. All countries for which both data points were available were included. Countries are colour-coded by region - red indicates the Americas, blue Europe, orange Pacific, green Africa and purple Asia. The trendline is calculated across all countries as a linear regression, and has a r2 value of 0.803.

What are the political implications of the observation that incremental change can actually be a detriment to reaching the destination? Could the message be to insist on total equality in a single step, as partial equality may simply entrench the remaining inequality? In sexuality rights I can imagine this as a real risk. I would have preferred to see a bill before the US Congress granting full equality based on sexual and gender equality, rather than the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" alone. To me, if we could have kept same-sex marriage and gay military rights as a single cohesive issue we may have reached the destination of equality faster. Likewise the idea of "civil union" may undermine the push for marriage equality. Denmark was the first country to pass civil union rights, with the registreret partnerskab in 1989, ten years later France passed the pacte civil de solidarité, before any country in the world had legislated for same-sex marriage. Today the LGBT communities in Denmark and France are still living with second class rights, with the social conservatives using civil unions as a shield against same-sex marriage.

Conservative Malta

We just landed in staunchly Catholic Malta, the most religious country in Europe. Malta is so conservative that divorce is still illegal, one of only three countries in the world not allowing any form of divorce (the others are the Phillipines and the Vatican City). Discrimination against homosexuality has been legally disbarred, for the country to remain complient with EU law, but support for same-sex marriage is only at 18%.

As you might expect, for such a conservative country, abortion is completely illegal, under all circumstances. Maltese girls that want an abortion need to fly to Italy. Even then, the anti-choice brigade try to interfere, in our Air Malta inflight magazine was this anti-abortion ad, with a link to a religious propaganda website full of medically incorrect advice.

Update on Tuesday, February 22, 2011 at 5:26PM by Adrian Liston

I was asking Duncan about this, and actually there is news afoot on Divorce in Malta. While the government is against legalising divorce, the opposition is in favour of it. Now one of the Labour opposition members has put forward a private members bill to allow divorce, and he has the support of at least one member of the government - his estranged wife who would really like to divorce him in return. Now that is bipartisan support!

A new plan for the French Far Right?

Here is an interesting article about Jean-Marie Le Pen trying to pass leadership of the French far right party, the National Front, to his daughter, Marine Le Pen. It is quite an insight to read about the young Le Pen "reforming" the far right - stop talking about holocaust denial and anti-semitism, reduce campaigning against women's rights and homosexuality - and instead campaign against Muslims and immigration. Marine Le Pen sees this as the electable face of the far right in Europe, and I am afraid that I rather think she is right.