esmaspäev, 21. jaanuar 2013

Women and the media

From Practices with Potential to Good Practices in promoting gender equality in the area of Women and the Media – Consultation meeting

Experience Exchange in the context of EIGE’s Study

Collection of methods, tools and good practices in the field of women and the media (as described by area J of Beijing platform for action) in the EU 27 Member States and Croatia

16/17 January 2013
Artis Hotel - Liejyklos str. 11/23 Vilnius, Lithuania


Description of criteria and of their application
The operational process undertaken to identify 10 examples of good practice in the field of women and the media entails different steps that range from assessing against general criteria of good design and efficiency    related to the specific practice being considered    to criteria directly connected with the field of women and the media and, more specifically, directly connected to the notions of “access and participation to expression” and of “access to and participation in decision-making” that are at the core of this project.

Three different sets of criteria have been developed, corresponding to the three steps of the evaluation process. The 1st and the 2nd sets of criteria are used to identify 20 practices with potential (based on collection of methods and tools from questionnaires); the 3rd set of criteria are meant to be used in the consultation process leading up to the selection of the final 10 examples of good practice. This last set of criteria has been drawn up considering the criteria/elements specific to each of the intervention's relevant fields: monitoring of access and participation of women to expression; monitoring of access and participation of women to decision-making; self-regulation; gender training and; awareness raising initiatives.


1st set of criteria

Basic elements for defining a practice with potential

works well
transferable
learning potential
embedded within wider gender main-streaming strategy


The 1st set of criteria are basic elements which, according to EIGE methodology, should be present so that a practice can be considered as a 'promising practice' or a 'practice with potential'. These are as follows:

The first two criteria – works well and transferability – are general good-design and efficiency criteria . In particular, in the the assessment of the practices' efficacy, the criteria works well, focuses on:

·         Relevance: objectives are consistent with beneficiaries’ gender-equality needs and priorities

·         Efficiency: the minimum necessary amount of resources/inputs(funds, expertise, time, etc.) are used to produce results

·         Effectiveness: gender equality objectives initially set for the intervention have been achieved and intended beneficiaries are able to take advantage of the changes

·         Impact: it can be demonstrated that a significant increase in gender equality took place

·         Sustainability: both regarding the intervention's continuation and the permanence of the results it has produced after the end of the initiative

The third criterion, learning potential highlights the importance of the practice's potentiality to be used as learning tool that may capacity build stakeholders.

The last criterion: emphasises the importance that a practice can be embedded in a wider gender main-streaming strategy and that can guarantee a structured approach and continuity over time and possibly attract financing.

 
2nd set of criteria

Women’s participation and access to expression and decision making specific criteria

common for all practices with potential

1.                  Approach centred on the role of women in the social construction of reality
2.                  Clear, appropriate, comprehensive definition of women’s access and participation to expression in and through the media
3.            Enables women to access prestigious roles in and through the media
4.            Enables women to access all the professional roles involved in media production
5.            Increases women’s chances of having a voice in all the thematic domains covered by media 
6.            Contrasts women’s segregation in the thematic domains considered to be for women’s interest/expertise only
7.            Increases women’s chances of having a voice in all the media products
8.                  Clear, appropriate, comprehensive definition of women’s access and participation to decision-making within media organisations
9.                  Promotes balanced participation of women in decision-making within media organisations (understood as access to top level positions and to the highest editorial positions, entitled with responsibility and agency in media policy making and production)
10.         Increases the attention given to women’s social, economic and cultural issues
11.         Promotes the creation of women’s formal or informal networks
12.              Promotes work/life balance and worker’s well-being
13.         Promotes women’s careers within media organisations at any level
14.         Ensuring gender equality by promoting the transparent organisation of work, based on clearly-defined and shared criteria in evaluation and tasks management
15.         Acknowledges and contrasting forms of multiple discrimination that intersect gender discrimination

 The 2nd set of criteria encompasses criteria that are meant to integrate those of the 1st set by focusing on the specific field of women and the media. In particular, following our understanding of the assignment, these criteria have been elaborated in order to assess whether a method/tool – regardless of specific area of intervention it falls under - has a potential to promote women’s participation and access to expression and decision-making in and through media.

The overall approach underpinning the elaboration of the 2nd set of criteria was cantered on the role of women in the social construction of reality; such an approach is clearly formulated in Criterion n. 1: the background requisite for a method/tool to be considered a ‘practice with potential’ is the contribution it gives to enhancing the role of women in mediated representation, interpretation and analysis of reality. A practice with potential, according to this criterion, enables women to express their voice about current issues and about issues of collective interest; it enables women’s access to the media products that are more relevant in providing pictures of the world, shaping common knowledge and influencing public opinion. Reference here is mostly to ‘factual genres’ (news genres/formats, forms of documentary and current affairs productions) but fictional genres representing social reality and addressing the problems of everyday life are considered relevant as well.

According to the Criterion n. 2, in order to consider a method/tool as a practice with potential it has to be grounded in a clear definition of ‘expression’ that, in our view, means ‘creation of meaning’, ‘expression of one’s personal voice/opinion’, ‘expression of one’s personal expertise and intellectual skills’. The two dimensions of ‘expression’ that are important in this context are: a) expression ‘in’ media: participation of women in the creation of media products; b) expression ‘through’ the media: the weight of women’s voices within media content.  Practices with potential, in our view, increase women’s access to production and/or to content in all types of media products, in all types of thematic domains/subjects, and in all the professional roles.

Criterion n. 3. A practice with potential enables women to obtain roles enhancing their opinion-leadership, competence and intellectual skills in a plurality of areas. It increases women’s access to roles, in and through the media, enabling them to express their voice and view-point on a plurality of subjects/topics. Focus here is on anchors, journalist, reporters, experts; women quoted as primary source in news and media contents.

Criterion n. 4. The practice increases access of women to all the roles involved in media production, with particular reference to those enabling to express one’s voice, creative and interpretative skills or technical competences. Focus here is on: anchors, journalists, reporters, text writers, screenplay writers, dialogues writers, responsible for TV and radio grids, camera operators, video editing operators, photographers, video makers, schedules-makers, etc.

Criterion n. 5. It is important that women’s access to expression, in and through the media, is defined with regard to a wide array of topics, and particularly with regard to: current issues and the public sphere issues, the subjects of ‘hard news’ (politics, economics, business, international affairs, current affairs), the domains of expertise that are traditionally male-dominated (science, technology, philosophy, social criticism), the ‘high culture’ domains (‘high’ literature, essay cinema, etc.)

Criterion n. 6. Preventing segregation, in and through the media, of women’s voices and expertise in the private sphere issues (child bearing, family and interpersonal relationships), in ‘soft’ stories (arts, lifestyle, celebrity, etc.), in ‘pink issues’ (fashion, body, interior design, housekeeping, women’s cultural production) is key to women’s access to expression

Criterion n. 7. The practice increases women’s access to expression in and through all the media products, with particular reference to those committed to provide pictures of the world that are relevant to shaping public opinion (news genres/formats, ranging from infotainment to ‘high quality’ journalism; factual entertainment and fictional products that represent different aspects of the contemporary world and everyday life; political and social satire).

Criterion n. 8 needs a more detailed explanation, as it concern decision-making. As in the case of ‘access and participation to expression’, we believe that any practice with potential needs to be grounded in a clear definition of ‘decision-making’, here this is to be understood to be access to top level positions (e. g. general managers, chief executive officers, heads of human resources) and high editorial positions, entitled with responsibility in media policy making and production. Such position are particularly relevant because, with regard to news making, they put into practice the ‘gate-keeping’ and ‘agenda-setting’ functions of the media (their power to set the priority issues/topics in the public debate); more generally, those roles entitled to decide which social phenomena, actors and (power) relations will be ‘visible’ and which will not.

Criterion n. 9 specifies the professional roles endowed with decision-making power: general managers, chief executive officers, heads of human resources. A good practice promotes women’s access to the highest editorial positions. For broadcast media, these are the following: producers, executive producers, channel editor, deputy editor (in public broadcasting only), responsible for a section/genre, such as news, entertainment, etc.; responsible for programming; program director (for radio), broadcast programming manager (for TV); for print media: editor, editor in chief, deputy editor; for on line media: editor in chief, deputy editor.

Criterion n. 10 is more general, aiming at verifying whether the tool/method is capable of increasing  the attention given to women’s social, economic and cultural issues. A good practice should aim to ‘make room’ for these issues in the vast array of media products and genres. Good practice promotes the expression of a gendered perspective in addressing the vast array of topics. Good practice encourages the constitution of new ‘spaces’ dedicated to these issues (radio and TV programs, newspapers pages, blogs, etc.).

An important specification concerns the application of criteria 1-10 in the selection of practices with potential: within the context of media work organisation and contents, ‘access and participation to expression’ and ‘access and participation to decision-making’ two very different aspects could be identified. It can be argued that a practice that increases the number of women in decision-making bodies within media organisations – for instance, a code of conduct or another self-regulation tool -  is also a practice that increases women’s access to expression in and/or through the media; yet the opposite is not automatically true: a practice that has proved to have a positive impact, for example, on the number of women featuring as reporters in TV news broadcasts does not have any impact, per se, on decision-making as well, as reporters are not professional figures endowed with decision-making power. For these reasons, whereas a method/tool pertinent to the decision-making dimension was expected to satisfy many of the criteria 1 to 10, a method/tool related to the dimension of ‘expression’ was expected to satisfy criteria 1 to 7 plus criterion 10.

Finally, criteria 11-15 are important features of a practice with potential, but we did not necessarily expect them to be present in all practices, as they identify gender equality issues that are not only specific to the organisation of work within media industries.

Criterion n. 11. It is important that through the practices the creation of women’s networks, mentoring, and overseeing committees is encouraged.

Criterion n. 12. Any practice approach and strategy should aim to create favourable conditions for workers, independently of their gender, as well as an inclusive working environment.

Criterion n. 13. Any practice approach and strategy should have as a clearly-stated and explicit goal to promote women’s career opportunities within media organisations.

Criterion n. 14. Any practice approach and strategy which contrasts tacit forms of discrimination, in promotion and in tasks assignment, based on gender, race, sexual orientation and other personal conditions. A good practice contrasts promotions and tasks management based on personal preferences/prejudices. Women’s chances to experience gender discrimination are increased by the non transparent organisation of work.

Criterion n. 15. Any practice approach and strategy which attempts to favour those who are the object of multiple discrimination based on their gender, race, sexual orientation and other personal conditions (e. g. migrant women, lesbian women, women with a disability).

 
3rd set of criteria

Practices with potential specific elements for the field of intervention

Monitoring of access of women to expression
Monitoring of access of women to decision making
Self-regulation
for gender equality
Gender
training
 
Awareness
raising
Clear definition of the monitoring purposes
Clear definition of the monitoring purposes
Self-regulation tools intended to increase women’s access to roles enhancing their intellectual skills and competences
Clear definition of gender training purposes
Clear definition of awareness-raising goal(s)
Monitoring grounded in a clear definition of ‘access to expression’
Monitoring grounded in a clear definition of ‘access to decision-making’
Self-regulation tools intended to give women  a voice in the media products that are more relevant in public-opinion shaping
Well-developed strategy
Clearly defined target
Monitoring conducted on a regular basis
Monitoring conducted on a regular basis
Self-regulation tools intended to promote women's participation in media production process at any level
Well-designed agenda
Clear message
Dissemination of monitoring results
Dissemination of monitoring results
Self-regulation tools intended to promote access of women to decision-making in media
Addressing real problems
Cantered on women’s expertise and skills
Monitoring  conducted
using a clearly-defined and consistent methodological approach
Monitoring conducted using a clearly-defined and consistent methodological approach
 
Self-regulation tools aiming to promote a transparent organisation of work, based on clearly-defined and shared criteria in promotion and tasks management
Not holding women responsible for discrimination
Well disseminated
Involvement of gender experts and media experts in monitoring
Involvement of gender experts and media experts in monitoring
 
Stable, long-lasting nature of self-regulation tools adopted to redress gender imbalances. Strong basis in women and the media issues
‘Gender and the media’ specific content
Addressing gender imbalance as a community problem
 
 
Strong basis in women and the media issues
Gender skills and expertise of trainers
 

Lastly, the 3rd set of criteria  are intended to be used in the consultation process leading to the selection of the 10 examples of good practice. This last set of criteria has been drawn up taking into consideration the criteria/elements specific to each relevant intervention field: monitoring of access and participation of women to expression; monitoring of access and participation of women to decision-making; self-regulation, gender training and; awareness raising initiatives. The criteria of each intervention field have been developed balancing the need for overall requisites (e.g., well-developed strategy, clear definition of target and message) with the specific requisites coming from women and the media sector.

pühapäev, 23. detsember 2012


Igaüks meist vajab kodusoojust,

Südamesse päikest, mis ei looju.

Puhtaid mõtteid,

Millest hing saab valgust.

KAUNIST JÕULUAJA ALGUST!



 
aastaajad,fotod,ilm,kõnnumaad,loodus,lumesadu,maastikud,metsad,päikesepaiste,puud,taimed,talv

John või Jennifer?

Helen Walden: John või Jennifer?

25.11.2012
Helen Walden Postimees
Ma olen teadlane. Ühtlasi olen ma naine. Kaitsesin doktorikraadi 2001. aastal, mil ligikaudu 45 protsenti kõigist Briti biomeditsiinidoktorantidest olid naised. Järgmisel tasandil, doktorijärgses õppes, oli naisi 45 protsendi lähedal. Nooremprofessoritest oli naisi vaid 30 protsendi ringis. Kõige kõrgemal, professorite tasandil, jagus naisi ainult 15 protsendi jagu. Täpne statistika muidugi erineb riigiti, aga üldiselt võib öelda, et vahekorrad on arenenud riikides laias laastus samasugused.
Niisugust erinevust on ikka ja jälle püütud seletada. Üks levinud hüpoteese väidab, et naised jäävad ise kõrvale, langetades valiku laste saamise kasuks (keskmiselt lõpetatakse doktorijärgne õpe 28. ja 35. eluaasta vahel), ning tõepoolest tundub, et akadeemilises seltskonnas on suhteliselt palju lastetuid naisi. Teaduslikku tööd peetakse sageli kokkusobimatuks tasakaalustatud perekonnaeluga. Ometi on piisavalt vastupidiseid näiteid, mis muudavad selle seletuse parimal juhul vaid osaliseks.
Mõnikord käiakse välja ka hüpotees, et meestel ja naistel on juba kaasasündinult erinev võime teadust teha, mis on kindlasti kena hüpotees, aga millest paraku ei jää kuigi palju järele, kui võtta hoolika vaatluse alla kõik tegurid, mis mõjutavad edukat teadlaskarjääri.
Mõistagi on üks tegur, mis oma suuruse tõttu võib kergesti kahe silma vahele jääda, võimalus, et naisi ei kohelda samamoodi nagu mehi. Ma võin enda kohta öelda, et olen karjääri algusest peale olnud täiesti teadlik, et pean olema meestest parem, et mul oleks võimalik saada pakkumine enne neid. See on muidugi ainult mu isiklik kogemus ega pälvi niisugusena teaduslikku üldistavat väärtust.
On aga uurimus, mis pälvib. Möödunud kuul avaldati USA teaduste akadeemia toimetistes rühma Yale’i ülikooli teadlaste töö, milles leiti, et teaduses valitseb kerge sooline eelarvamus naiste suhtes. Sellele järeldusele jõudsid autorid elegantse eksperimendiga, mille käigus loodi kraadiõppes nooreteadlase CV ja saadeti see 127-le nii mees- kui naissoost ülikoolitöötajale, paludes neil hinnata kandidaadi kompetentsust, teha palgapakkumine, hinnata soovi teda juhendada ja kandidaadi üldist meeldivust. Uurijad rõhutasid uuringus osalevatele teadlastele, et tegu on tudengiga, kes vajab tagasisidet «näidisõppejõult», ja õhutasid neid olema tagasisides, mis jõuab tudengi kätte anonüümselt, võimalikult aus. 63 taotlust saadeti kandidaadi John ja 64 taotlust kandidaadi Jennifer nimel. Taotluste ainuke erinevus oli taotleja nimi.
Tulemused olid väga selged. Jenniferi ei hinnatud nii kompetentseks kui Johni ning talle pakuti keskmiselt peaaegu 4000 dollarit väiksemat esialgset palka kui Johnile. Lisaks olid teadlased vähem valmis Jenniferi juhendama, aga iseäralikult leidsid, et ta meeldib neile rohkem kui John.
Ja kõike seda vaid üheainsa dokumendi põhjal! Ma pean siinkohal märkima, et mees- ja naisteadlastest vastajate vahel puudus statistiliselt märkimisväärne erinevus, samuti ei erinenud eri tasandi teadlaste arvamused, mis annab mõista, et eelarvamused ei ole hierarhiliselt jagunenud.
Milliseid järeldusi saab sellest siis teha? Uuringul oli oma nüanss: CV oli spetsiaalselt loodud selline, et kandidaat oleks hea, aga mitte täht. Ma usun, et see oligi kõige tähtsam. Kui tegu on ilmselgelt erakordse kandidaadiga, ei arvestata sugu kuigi sageli. Hiilgavad anded lihtsalt torkavad kohe tugevasti silma. Samamoodi heidetakse üsna kergesti kõrvale kandidaat, kelle kehvus on ilmselge. Ent suur osa inimesi langeb omamoodi halli tsooni, kus muutub oluliseks subjektiivne ja objektiivne hindamine, ning siin näitaski uuring, et meestel on kergem läbi murda, naistel raskem.
Ma olen arutanud seda uuringut paljude sõprade ja kolleegidega, kes on olnud nii mees- kui naissoost, ning nende reaktsioon on olnud paljuski õpetlik. Paljud, sealhulgas mina ise, ei olnud sugugi üllatunud. Uuring kinnitas nähtust, millega me iga päev kokku puutume. Aga isegi need, keda see ei üllatunud, olid rõõmsad, et lõpuks on nende käsutuses konkreetsed andmed, mis toetavad seniseid tähelepanekuid.
Osa inimesi sai aga uuringu tulemustest vapustuse. Paljud, eriti mitteteadlased, ei tahtnud kuidagi uskuda, et üht ja sama CVd võidakse erinevalt hinnata ja veel nii suure vahega palgas ja juhendamisvalmiduses. Mitte nii meeldiv reageering, mis tuli eranditult meestelt (aga igal juhul mitte kõigilt meestelt), oli ärritumine ja tulemuste kohe kõrvaleheitmine (isegi ilma uuringut ennast lugemata), mõnikord isegi vihastamine.

Minu jaoks oli raske ühitada niisugust reageeringut inimestega, kes seda väljendasid: lõppeks olid paljud neist teadlased, kes peaksid ju teadma, et andmed on asjad, millega on raske vaielda. Ma oskan seda seletada vaid sellega, et alateadlikult käsitavad nad neid andmeid tõendina, et mehi ei hinnata teaduses alati ainult saavutuste põhjal ja veel enam, et nende naissoost konkurente lausa diskrimineeritakse. See tundub nähtavasti ohtlikuna, mistõttu reageeritaksegi kaitsesse tõmbudes.
Mida nende tulemustega peale hakata? See on üpris keeruline. Tulemused näitavad, et kõigest naiste osakaalu suurendamine töölevõtukomisjonides probleemi nähtavasti ei lahenda, sest eelarvamus on omane meile kõigile. Uuringu autorid ise pakuvad välja teadlaste seas selgitustöö tegemise, et nad oskaksid paremini mõista neis endas peituda võivat eelarvamust.
Mina astuksin sammukese kaugemale. Kuna uuring näitas, et diskrimineerimine toimub vähemalt osaliselt kandidaadi dokumentide hindamise etapil, siis ma soovitaksin töölevõtukomisjonidel koostada «parimate» naiskandidaatide edetabeli. Ma mõistan, et see tähendab positiivset diskrimineerimist, mis on iseenesest väga suuri vastuolusid tekitav nähtus.

Aga kui taotluse esitab näiteks sada kandidaati ja nende seast valitakse välja kuus, siis kui raske peaks olema neile lisada kaks parimat naiskandidaati? See tagaks nende pääsu järgmisse etappi, kus kohtutakse kandidaatidega juba näost näkku ja mille puhul alateadvuslikud mõjutegurid on väiksema tähtsusega. Üks asi, mis on mind kogu mu teadlaskarjääri vältel masendanud, on seisukoht, et «head naised taotlusi ei esita». Kõnealune uuring näitab, et vähemalt osaliselt võib see olla subjektiivne seisukoht.
Lõpuks tuleb öelda, et naiste kestev puudumine teadlaste kõrgemas ešelonis on tekitanud sama kestvalt elavat arutelu. Mõned mu vanemad kolleegid on veendumusel, et on vaid aja küsimus, kuni kaalukausid tasakaalu langevad ja et erinevus püsib veel ainult sellepärast, et see oli varem olemas. Kuid mulle tundub, et see uuring näitab: naiste diskrimineerimine algab juba nende karjääri avaetapil ja et see on süstemaatiline. Ilma probleemile proaktiivselt lähenemata püsime praeguste suhtarvude juures veel sadakond aastat. See ei ole just asi, mida ma tahaksin selgitada oma pojale või tütrele.
Helen Walden on Suurbritannia vähiuuringute organisatsiooni Londoni uurimisinstituudi teadlane. Ta kaitses doktorikraadi 2001. aastal St Andrewsi ülikoolis ja läbis doktorijärgse õppe USAs Memphise St Jude’i lasteuuringute haiglas. 2005. a asutas ta nooremrühmajuhina oma uurimisrühma, sai 2008. a esimese ja 2010. a teise lapse ning on alates 2012. aastast vanemrühmajuht.

esmaspäev, 26. november 2012

25. novembril tähistati rahvusvahelist naistevastase vägivalla vastu võitlemise päeva

Neljapäev, 22. novembril toimus Riigikogu konverentsisaalis sotsiaalkomisjoni avalik istung "Naistevastase vägivalla ohvrite abistamisest".
 
Istungil tegid ettekanded ENÜ vägivalla vastase töörühma juht Eha Reitelmann, Tartu, Järva ja Võru naiste varjupaiga psühhoterapeut Kait Sinisalu, Lõuna Ringkonnaprokuratuuri ringkonnaprokurör Raul Heidoja Sotsiaalministeeriumi soolise võrdõiguslikkuse osakonna peaspetsialist Helen Sööl.
 
 Istungile järgnes ENÜ tänuüritus naistevastase vägivalla vähendamise ja ohvrite abistamisega tegelevatele organisatsioonidele "10 aastat naiste varjupaiku Eestis"ja anti üle ENÜ Valge Lindi auhind Lõuna Rinkonnaprokuratuuri ringkonnaprokurör Raul Heidole.
 
Istungi salvestis sotsiaalkomisjoni kodulehel http://riigikogu.ee/index.php?id=174803
 
Tartu Postimehe online Valge Lindi auhinna üle andmisest
 
Postimehe Naine 24, psühhoterapeut Kait Sinisalu lähisuhtevägivallast
 
AK Nädal  naistevastasest vägivallast ja naiste varjupaikadest: