Despite exuding confidence, narcissistic people relentlessly crave admiration. In other words, they are unable to convince themselves of their own brilliance.
Growing research shows the gap between perception and reality for narcissistic people goes far deeper than their inflated views about their appearance, accomplishments and abilities.
Narcissism is a personality trait that exists along a spectrum, where the lower end reflects a healthy balance of self-esteem and confidence. At the extreme end of the spectrum, however, narcissism is considered a personality disorder which affects 1-2% of the population. Most of us manifest narcissistic traits to varying degrees, but the more elevated the features are, the wider the gap between perception and reality.
Narcissistic people with elevated features frequently belittle anyone who fails to provide them with the special treatment they feel entitled to. Ironically, they continuously undermine the false self they are trying to build and maintain.
They can also be quick to respond with anger and aggression to criticism, in an attempt to protect their grandiose yet fragile sense of self. A 2021 UK study found they experience more paranoia, even when there is no evidence of people meaning to harm them, compared with people with lower levels of narcissism.
Similarly, recent research by US psychologists found that narcissistic people experienced heightened fear of being left out, and accused others of deliberately ostracising them when there was no evidence to support their belief.
The study found that participants high in narcissistic traits were more likely to interpret ambiguous social cues as rejection (for instance, a delayed text message). This suggests their perceptions of social behaviour may be distorted.
Narcissism and ostracism fuel one another
Narcissism can be expressed in “vulnerable” features (socially-inhibited and neurotic) as well as “grandiose” features (dominant and extroverted). People with more grandiose features are overtly assertive and self-promoting. People with more vulnerable features tend to be outwardly distressed, hypersensitive and inhibited.
Although these are separate forms of narcissism, they share a core of entitlement and an antagonistic character style. And just like we all exhibit varying degrees of narcissistic traits, we also fluctuate between these two expressions of narcissism.
The US researchers chose to focus on grandiose narcissism only. The study differentiated between two facets of grandiose narcissism: narcissistic admiration (the ability to charm and manipulate people) and narcissistic rivalry, which includes devaluing and acting aggressively towards others.
The research team analysed data for more than 77,000 participants from a series of seven studies by other scientists spanning 2009-2022. The first two studies investigated the relationship between narcissism and ostracism using surveys and experience sampling (a method used to investigate participants’ cognition and behaviour outside the lab – for example, using participants’ smartphones to track their behaviour).
The first study found people who reported higher narcissism levels said they experienced significantly more ostracism, compared with other participants. This was backed up by the second study, in which participants completed the narcissism assessments then reported feelings of ostracism within a 14-day period, using a mobile app.
The remaining experiments examined how people with higher levels of narcissism perceive ambiguous social interactions, and how others respond to narcissistic traits. After a group task, people with higher traits in narcissistic rivalry were more likely ostracised, even when other participants weren’t told the target had elevated levels of narcissism.
This supports the findings of a 2017 meta-study showing that people high in narcissistic rivalry may provoke direct conflict through their behaviour, and perceive others more negatively.
The US researchers concluded that, while narcissistic features can fuel social exclusion, ostracism itself can, over time, contribute to pronounced narcissistic traits. It appears that ostracism can make people already high in narcissism even higher in these traits.
Other research has similarly shown disparity between the narcissistic self and reality, and the role paranoia plays in this relationship. For instance, a 2015 study found that elevated levels of narcissism are associated with belief in conspiracy theories. This association was driven by paranoid thought.
These findings are concerning given the harmful consequences of conspiracy theories for society. They can fuel violence, climate denial and vaccine hesitancy.
Narcissistic personality features also tend to be higher among political leaders than the general population. Conspiracy theories may be appealing to politicians – particularly during times that challenge their entitled need for superiority and power.
The ideal self and the actual self
The US study’s findings carry practical implications for interventions aimed at people with high levels of narcissism. The researchers said interventions should not only try to improve relationships by identifying personality risk factors (in this instance, the rivalry component of narcissism), but also consider the perceptions of the person involved.
Narcissistic personality disorder comes with a higher risk of suicide and mental health difficulties, and treatment rarely makes much difference. This is partly because of patients’ resistance to abandoning the “ideal self”, leading to frustration, anger and conflict with their therapist.
But some interventions could target the cognitive distortions of narcissistic people that hamper their ability to function in society. For example, psychological therapies could aim to help them process the defensive mechanisms (overvaluing themselves) that mask underlying feelings of vulnerability.
Helping narcissistic people develop greater insights into their habitual reactions – such as responding aggressively to self-esteem threats and feelings of social exclusion – could help them foster skills that reshape their cognitive distortions. This could ameliorate distress, anger and hostility for narcissistic people – and the people around them.
Ava Green does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
A displaced Yemeni woman makes food for her children in the camp where they live in the city of Taiz.akramalrasny/Shutterstock
International Women’s Day, marked each year on March 8, is all about celebrating women and furthering efforts towards gender equality. Companies are keen to join these conversations and shout about their achievements on a day when minds are focused on female empowerment. But this has led to accusations of hypocrisy.
In 2021, one user on X created the Gender Pay Gap bot. Until 2023,this automated account reposted companies’ supportive messages about International Women’s Day, quoting information about their gender pay gap. The bot’s posts received tens of thousands of views and shares, showing an appetite for calling out misleading corporate claims about women’s empowerment.
Activists and researchers label these misleading actions “gender washing”. It describes communications and practices that present corporations as taking action on gender inequalities even as they engage in things that may be harmful to women and girls.
Gender washing takes many forms. It might be, for example, sponsoring girls’ education programmes without addressing known practices of child labour and sexual harassment in supply chains. Or it could be applying for corporate social responsibility awards while facing lawsuits for discrimination against female employees.
Our research examines global arms manufacturers, including Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman. It is estimated that the global arms trade as a whole was worth US$138 billion (£109 billion) in 2022 (the last year for which data are compiled).
It is hard to say how many people are killed by these weapons, but at a minimum it numbers in the tens of thousands each year. Beyond this, the after-effects of weapons use include displacement, starvation and health emergencies, as has been seen in Yemen.
Arms manufacturers continue to produce and sell weapons that cause untold suffering (including to women) across the world. But interestingly, arms manufacturers also issue communications celebrating International Women’s Day.
Careers in science and tech
Where previous research highlights how gender washing shows corporations or their products in a positive light, our research revealed bigger effects. We found that, through joint communications with governments and militaries, arms manufacturers were engaged in the process of gender washing war itself.
By posting for International Women’s Day, these companies portray the technologies and corporate operations of warfare as empowering to women and girls. They show women succeeding in science and technology careers, and girls receiving inspirational talks and science education, while saying nothing about what that science is being used for.
For example, Lockheed Martin Middle East and Africa shared a video on X showing a group of female engineers at the company’s innovation centre in Abu Dhabi, UAE. The post states that the company is “committed to inspiring the next generation of scientists and engineers through real-world #STEM education”.
The video shows a group of women wearing traditional Emirati dress in futuristic labs. They are interacting with touchscreen images of helicopters flying over deserts, examining a drone and sitting next to magnifying glasses. The soundtrack is like something out of a Hollywood action movie.
But the women do not speak for themselves. We are supposed to assume that, thanks to Lockheed Martin, they are being educated in cutting-edge technology and empowered to pursue careers in science. They get hands-on experience using the very military technologies being deployed in many parts of their region.
Lockheed Martin’s sale of weapons to warring parties in the Middle East, including arms sold to Saudi Arabia with devastating consequences for Yemeni women, is presented as a learning opportunity, “inspiring” women of the Middle East into science careers.
For its part, Lockheed Martin said in its 2023 gender pay gap report that it had closed the salary gap by 12.1% since 2017. It also said its investment in STEM activities helped it to focus on a future pipeline of female talent.
We also found that some corporations attempt to join progressive conversations without actually saying anything at all. We label this “constructive silences”. This is where companies say nothing of substance on gender issues, and do not reveal any efforts to tackle gender inequalities within their own practices. But nonetheless they tap into conversations about International Women’s Day that might enhance their reputations.
A post on X from Lockheed Martin India uses International Women’s Day hashtags. But there is no clear link to the accompanying text, which does not mention women specifically. Nor is there any connection to initiatives to address gender inequalities. Instead it talks about how “an inclusive environment” helps employees to “develop innovative solutions”.
This matters because – through social media – arms manufacturers present technologies of war as a force for public good. It is easier to deflect criticism of the harms created by your products when you can point to your efforts supporting women’s empowerment.
These posts for International Women’s Day, and other gender-washing practices, make it easier for governments to continue subsidising the arms industry, buying and using weaponry, and issuing licenses for the sale of weapons in conflicts across the globe. All the while, they give the impression that the corporations producing those weapons are educating and empowering women and girls.
This International Women’s Day, take a look for yourself. Think about which companies are professing care for women and what harms might they be obscuring.
In a statement to The Conversation, a spokesman for Lockheed Martin said: Lockheed Martin’s core business safeguards human rights by advancing cutting-edge technologies that help US and allied defence forces promote deterrence and protect their people. We adhere to strict and ethical business practices guided by US government laws, regulations and policies related to international military sales and the use of products sold to international customers. Our company culture is collaborative and respectful, which allows all of our team members to impactfully contribute to our mission-critical work.
Raytheon and Northrop Grumman were also approached for comment about the claims made in this article, but did not respond by the time we published.
Rosie Walters receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council, the Arts and Humanities Research Council and the Learned Society of Wales.
Natalie Jester does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – Africa – By May Darwich, Associate Professor of International Relations of the Middle East, University of Birmingham
US president Donald Trump famously called Egyptian president Abdel Fattah el-Sisi his “favourite dictator” in 2019, but their relationship has been complex. Trump’s return to the White House for a second term has sent ripples of concern through Cairo. In January 2025, Trump proposed a resolution to the ongoing Israel-Hamas war in Gaza: forcibly relocating Palestinians to Egypt and Jordan. Trump simultaneously threatened to withdraw US aid if these countries didn’t comply with the proposal. Sisi’s Egypt will need to navigate Trump’s ambition without sacrificing the regime’s own survival. May Darwich, who has studied Arab states’ foreign policies and alliances in the Middle East, explains what’s at stake.
US aid has been a cornerstone of Egyptian-US relations for decades.
Since 1979, Egypt has been a central pillar of US policies in the Middle East. Military aid is deemed essential to ensure that the regime in Egypt aligns with US interests. At the same time, this aid is widely seen as contributing to the survival of Egypt’s authoritarian regime.
But history shows that Egypt can soften the potential impact of the US freezing assistance during periods of strained relations.
After a period of review, the Barack Obama administration released aid to Egypt to preserve US interests. As US secretary of state John Kerry once explained:
We are getting a return on that investment that is not inconsequential. The army also is helping us enforce security in the Sinai (in Egypt). The army is also helping us enforce the Gaza peace.
Should this relationship come under strain again, Egypt could learn to become even more independent. China’s influence in Egypt is growing, and the Gulf states that enjoy a close relationship with Sisi may also decide to commit funding.
How has Egypt balanced its interests with Arab states, Israel and the US?
The signing of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty in 1979 marked a shift in Egyptian foreign policy. The treaty aligned Egypt with the west in recognising Israel. This decision, however, led to Egypt’s isolation in the Arab world and its expulsion from the Arab League (it was readmitted in 1989).
Egypt condemned Israeli aggression against Palestinians and against Lebanon in 1982 and 2006, and froze efforts to normalise relations with Israel. This reinforced its pivotal position in Arab circles without jeopardising its peace with Israel.
Meanwhile, Egypt helped US military assets to move across the region and oil to flow through the Suez Canal. It maintained peace and stability with Israel by pressuring Palestinian resistance movements into de-escalation. This balancing act allowed Egypt to become a mediator between Palestine and Israel.
Egypt under Sisi has made efforts to maintain the balancing act. However, the ongoing Gaza war has intensified Egypt’s challenges. These include refugee flights and instability at its border. The war has also threatened Egypt’s longstanding role in the Middle East region.
How has the Gaza war threatened Egypt’s balancing act?
The onset of the Gaza war in October 2023 put Egypt on edge. Cairo is apprehensive about Israel’s potential strategy of forcibly locating Palestinians to the Sinai Peninsula, which is on its territory. Egyptian officials have deemed that scenario as a red line. Cairo doesn’t want to be seen as undermining the Palestinian cause.
Also, Egyptians harbour concerns that the presence of a substantial Palestinian population in Sinai – which links Africa to Asia, and borders Israel and Gaza – could transform the region into a launchpad for attacks on Israel. This would compel Egypt to either suppress such activities or face retaliation from Israel.
This concern stems from a 1955 incident. The Israeli army raided an Egyptian military camp in the Gaza strip, which was then under Egyptian control. Seventeen soldiers were killed following a Palestinian militant’s killing of an Israeli. A plan to move Palestinians to Sinai sparked protests in the Gaza strip, bringing the Egyptian military in direct confrontation with Palestinians.
This historical event has continued to shape Egyptian foreign policy, which rejects any relocation of Palestinians in Sinai.
The current war has highlighted structural weaknesses in the already precarious Egyptian economy. The Houthi attacks in the Red Sea that began in 2024 caused a sharp drop in revenues from the Suez Canal, a critical source of foreign revenue for Egypt.
Sisi played on European fears that what happened in Gaza could harm Egypt’s economic situation and lead to mass migration to Europe. But cash infusions won’t solve the deep-seated economic challenges facing the country.
Cairo’s role as a mediator between the west, Israel and the Arab world is facing renewed challenges. Other mediators, like Qatar, have emerged.
What could affect Egypt’s response to Trump’s proposal to relocate Palestinians?
Trump’s proposal places the Egyptian regime in a precarious position. If Egypt agrees to the plan to relocate Palestinians from Gaza, it would signify a dramatic departure from its foundational foreign policies. It could also reignite discontent among its population.
Rejecting the proposal would strain Egypt-US relations, potentially undermining the support for Sisi’s regime, which might then have to seek aid from other countries.
The Gaza conflict underscores Egypt’s historical and political entanglement with the Palestinian issue.
May Darwich does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Leaders of the 27 EU countries have agreed in principle to a massive increase in defence spending at a summit that was hastily organised in the wake of Donald Trump’s withdrawal of support for Ukraine.
Talks over European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen’s €800 million (£670 million) military spending package went on for ten hours before an agreement could be reached. And while the deal is in place, leaders can’t agree on how to finance it.
With pressure from the United States to increase their contribution to Nato, European states have also agreed to increase defence spending as a share of their GDP.
Many EU countries wanting to spend more on defence argue they can’t afford to do so because they are already struggling with government debt. However, France has the largest debt as a proportion of its GDP in the EU and is still increasing defence spending.
The challenge for nearly all EU member states has been how to go about spending more on defence without over-borrowing and putting the euro currency in danger through government defaults on existing loans.
The European Commission has set out new funding for defence industries which could lower the cost of defence procurement for EU member states. However, the EU doesn’t have enough funds to sustain a high level of defence investment.
Hungary and Slovakia have stated that they are not interested in an EU defence budget. They would rather see individual member states increase their budgets. Both Hungary and Slovakia are resistant to EU calls to further isolate Russia over the war in Ukraine.
Hungarian president Viktor Orbán was the holdout at the Brussels meeting. Orbán has been far more lenient than others on Moscow since the start of the war.
Slovakia’s prime minister, Robert Fico, wants a more constructive relationship with Russia and the return to the supply of natural gas that is piped through Ukraine. He did, however, ultimately fall in behind other member states at the Brussels meeting.
Now that a package has been agreed, the challenge for European leaders and the EU is how to grow defence budgets without breaking the budget, forcing many governments into determining what they are not going to spend money on even before they can figure out how to grow defence spending.
The nuclear dilemma
At the summit, French president Emmanuel Macron also presented a plan to bring other European nations under France’s nuclear umbrella, effectively making France’s deterrent their joint deterrent.
The rationale here is the concern that the US could withdraw from Nato or at least water down article five, the commitment by Nato countries to treat any attack on a member state as an attack on all member states. Doing so would mean Europe could no longer rely on the US nuclear deterrent for protection.
But while European countries want to prepare for a potential US withdrawal, they also don’t want to signal to Washington that the US deterrent is no longer needed. In fact most European Nato countries would like the US to maintain its nuclear posture in Europe and are working hard on a diplomatic level with Washington to slow the retreat.
At the same time, European member states want security guarantees so talks on Macron’s proposal will continue.
European support for Ukraine
The EU showed renewed commitment for Ukraine at the summit with meetings between Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and several European and EU leaders.
A joint statement was agreed, stressing that peace talks must include Ukraine and confirming the EU’s support. Orbán was, again, the only leader not to sign up to the statement.
The hope is that, with these actions, Europe can pressure the Trump administration to continue to engage Ukraine as it seeks a peace with Russia. But it is unclear how much of an impact such European solidarity for Ukraine will have.
Europe cannot be ready for a new defence reality overnight but this defence summit has been a good start. Now the really hard work begins.
David J. Galbreath has received funding from the ESRC, AHRC, British Academy and Leverhulme Trust.
In Germany’s snap parliamentary elections, Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) doubled its vote share to 21%, leaping from the fifth-largest party in Germany’s lower house to the second. In the UK, Reform UK is rising in the polls.
The populist radical right is on the rise across Europe, and mainstream parties are grappling with how to respond.
The German “firewall” approach involves treating them as a pariah. This means refusing to enter coalition with them, as well as excluding them from parliamentary posts and refusing to debate or engage with their parliamentary motions. After Germany’s election, the first-place party, the Christian democrats (CDU/CSU), has no majority and will need at least one coalition partner to form a government. But it will not ask the AfD – and nor will any other party due to the firewall.
There are clear threats to this approach. Often the appeal of the populist right is that they are plucky outsiders, challenging a self-interested political cartel that ignores the views of the people. What better way to prove this case than by ignoring the democratically elected populists too?
Furthermore, the firewall has clearly not worked in dampening support for the populists in Germany, as well as in France. This is especially the case when the populists have allies in the media, have privileges given them by the constitution or parliamentary rules (for example, membership on committees), or strong regional bases.
Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.
Mainstream parties must also decide whether to maintain their own policy positions or ape those of the populist radical right, especially on key topics like immigration and welfare.
For social democratic centre-left parties, academic research is clear: do not move towards the populist radical right on policy.
Typically, the voter base of social democratic parties is made up of two coalitions: the educated, urban and liberal middle classes, and the old core of industrial workers who tend to hold more authoritarian attitudes. In attempting to win over voters lost to the populist right by copying their policies, these parties tend to lose more voters on their liberal-left wing than they win on their populist-right wing.
For the centre-right, the decision is harder. They face a similar challenge to the centre-left in that their support coalition is often made up of social authoritarians (who are more likely to be populist radical right-curious) and more centrist free-market liberals. Moving towards the populist right will alienate the latter camp, so it is not a silver bullet for bringing voters back into the fold.
By not talking about policy areas which are clearly salient to the public, centre-right parties risk seeming out of touch. In contrast, talking about these issues increases their salience and highlights their rivals’ positions – but the centre-right may not be rewarded for this if they are seen to have been forced into changing policy by the populist radical right.
Academics have explored this question in various ways. A 2021 study looked at voters’ ideological positions and subsequent propensity for voting for the centre-right or populist radical right. Another, published in 2022, examined changing party positions through manifestos and subsequent voter flows between the populist radical right and the centre-right across 13 western European countries. The evidence suggests that when parties adopt populist radical right positions, voters are more likely to defect to the radical right instead.
The final strategy is the complete opposite to the German firewall: bring the populist radical right into government. The Austrian case is instructive here. In 1999, the centre-right Austrian People’s Party (OVP) entered a coalition with the populist radical right Freedom Party (FPO), which lasted until 2005. The pressures of government resulted in the FPO imploding and losing roughly two-thirds of its seat share in the next general election.
But the FPO has increased its seat share in every subsequent election, reentering government in 2017 and emerging as the largest party in the 2024 general election. The centrist parties have now taken a firewall approach, forming a coalition without the FPO – and the FPO have soared in the polls. By bringing them into government in the first place, the OVP legitimised the FPO in the eyes of many voters.
What should mainstream parties do?
For the centre-left, the choice is obvious: resist the urge to ape the populist radical right and instead (following the lead of the Danish Social Democrats) adapt to a party system where the populist right cannot be gotten rid of, but is a problem to be managed.
Centre-left parties need a robust message on immigration but they should not forget economics. They should primarily focus on traditional concerns around social protection and defending workers against the effects of globalisation.
This has clear implications for the debate around Blue Labour ideology – that the Labour party should combine leftwing economics with more socially authoritarian stances on crime and immigration, plus a greater emphasis on community over the state and market – and how closely Keir Starmer should be paying attention to it.
For centre-right parties like the UK’s Conservatives, there are no easy options.
The UK does not have the historical baggage of Germany which sustains the firewall against the AfD. But Reform UK is also less extreme than its German counterparts, so its electoral ceiling is likely to be higher than the AfD’s. And the first-past-the-post system makes the consequences of a three-party system much harder to predict.
Reform – like Ukip in the early 2010s – cannot be treated as a pariah, especially since it already has parliamentary representation which will probably be extended to Holyrood and the Senedd. The party also has a largely friendly rightwing media landscape. And perhaps most importantly, the Conservative party is split about whether to do a deal with Reform – if, of course, it actually wants said deal.
Openly ignoring the issues Reform campaigns on will not work. Immigration is too much of a salient concern among voters (especially on the right) to ignore. While banging on about immigration will only add fuel to Reform’s fire, the Conservatives do need to say something – and that should start with “sorry for the last 14 years”.
The Tories cannot openly move to the right without losing some of their centre flank. Of the seats won in 2024, Reform came second in nine, while Labour and the Liberal Democrats came second in 87 and 20 respectively. In 2024, for every vote the Conservatives lost to Reform, they also lost a vote to the Liberal Democrats or Labour.
There is no “magic formula” for the centre-right to vanquish the populist radical right. Instead, they need to nail a tricky combination: a clear vision of what they believe, a consistent policy platform that flows from these beliefs, and a charismatic leader who can communicate this to the public.
David Jeffery does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The complexities of history have always posed problems for commercial cinema. With rare exceptions, mainstream historical films tend to flatten the inconveniently irregular textures of individual biographies and their context into simpler templates of good and evil, valour and villainy.
This is abundantly true of dramatisations of German resistance in the Third Reich. Of course, there can be no overstating the enormity of Nazi crimes, the unquestionable courage of the regime’s all-too-few committed opponents – and the terrible price they almost all inevitably paid. So it’s perhaps understandable that people such as Claus von Stauffenberg (leader of the July 20 1944 attempt on Hitler’s life), or student dissident Sophie Scholl, have been portrayed in fairly one-dimensional ways.
Yet acts of extraordinary courage and integrity are thrown into even sharper relief when we appreciate the flaws as well as the nobility of the people who undertake them. Not to do so risks turning these heroic, yet all too human, people into plaster saints.
Sadly, director Todd Komarnicki’s earnest but painfully reductive new biopic of the Lutheran theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-45) falls into all of these familiar traps.
Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.
Executed in the final days of the second world war, Bonhoeffer’s heroism is beyond question. From the very start of Nazi rule, and fully aware of the likely consequences, he stood in uncompromising, public opposition. He saw Nazi tyranny, above all, as an assault on Christian values.
Bonhoeffer drove a campaign to repudiate the Nazi efforts to co-opt and “Aryanise” mainstream Protestantism. And he helped to establish the dissenting “confessing church”.
Eventually he became a peripheral part of the network seeking to assassinate Hitler, though he was not a prime mover. By the time of the failed July 1944 bomb plot (one of several botched assassination attempts), he was already imprisoned.
The film’s publicity, with its tagline “Pastor. Spy. Assassin” and ludicrous poster image of Bonhoeffer (Jonas Dassler) brandishing a pistol, erroneously implies otherwise.
The trailer for Bonhoeffer.
The real Bonhoeffer
Bonhoeffer’s opposition to Nazism was moral, spiritual and expressed principally in his work as a theologian and teacher.
His posthumously collected writings run to 17 volumes. Yet Bonhoeffer fluffs the essential task of making its hero’s religious faith dramatically compelling.
The film prefers to imagine him as a figure of conventional derring-do, conspiring in cafés, infiltrating Nazi intelligence and personally ferrying Jewish fugitives across the Swiss border.
All these scenes have some minor basis in Bonhoeffer’s biography. But cumulatively they misrepresent the essence of his anti-Nazi dissidence to the point of seriously distorting the historical record.
One glaring example is the film’s depiction of his response to the Holocaust. Bonhoeffer denounced Jewish persecution at Nazi hands earlier, more forcefully and more consistently than almost any of his colleagues. Yet his opposition remained limited and complexly bound up with his Christian convictions.
He was not, as the film suggests, a proto-Schindler rescuer; nor was he, or could he have been, impelled to action by viewing (non-existent) clandestine film of the death camps, as a very ahistorical scene implies.
Bohoeffer imposes a wholly anachronistic modern comprehension of the Holocaust as Nazism’s defining crime, as if this will make its protagonist’s actions more admirable. In doing so, it ends up muffling the more complex particularities of his courage.
Such inaccurate scenes abound. Bonhoeffer is mystifyingly slipshod on basic historical accuracy. Switching confusingly and with inadequate signposting between his final hours and his earlier life, the film includes such howlers as dissidents threatened with transfer to the “eastern front”, apparently in the mid-1930s.
There’s also a cartoonishly lurid depiction of the Nazis’ attempted “Aryanisation” of the church. Swastikas block stained-glass windows and Bibles are swapped for Mein Kampf in pulpits.
Melodrama over history
The film’s portrait of German society during the Third Reich is also grossly misleading. Cadre of uniformed Nazis aside, we encounter barely a single German citizen who supports the regime. Wider German society is represented by the congregation who enthusiastically applaud a (fictitious) anti-Nazi sermon while the SS stage a huffy but mysteriously peaceful walkout.
Again and again, Bonhoeffer substitutes difficult history for conventionalised melodrama. Shortly before his arrest in 1943 the 36-year-old Bonhoeffer became engaged to his former confirmation pupil, a girl of barely 18.
His filmic avatar, by contrast, seems to lack any personal life whatsoever. Beyond, that is, an admittedly endearing affinity for jazz acquired during his seminary studies in New York (though seeing Bonhoeffer replace a Black female pianist onstage at a Harlem club, to apparently universal enthusiasm, leaves a sour taste).
Even Bonhoeffer’s execution – which may have in reality been protracted and excruciating – is rendered as a bloodlessly ethereal affair. The moment is as sentimentally devotional as any studio-era Hollywood hagiography.
Bonhoeffer’s posthumous standing, like that of other German anti-Nazis, has grown immensely. Since 1998, his limestone effigy has stood above Westminster Abbey’s west door as one of ten “modern martyrs.” But Bonhoeffer misses the opportunity to breathe credible dramatic life into this sainted figure.
The Conversation approached the director and writer of Bonhoeffer, Todd Komarnicki, for comment.
He told us that his screenplay was informed by the biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer written in 1966 by Bonhoeffer’s best friend, Eberhard Bethge. As part of a lengthy response, Komarnicki also maintained that the film’s depiction of Bonhoeffer’s involvement in a plot to assassinate Hitler is accurate. He also argued that it was reasonable to speculate that Bonhoeffer could have seen the footage from the death camps. While he agreed that Dietrich did not literally take the Jewish prisoners into Switzerland as a proto-Schindler rescuer, he said: “I took the dramatic license in the film to illustrate the fact that his bravery did save actual Jewish lives.”
He continued “Bonhoeffer is not a documentary. I have written many true life movies, and the necessity to alter timelines and to choose metaphor over fact (only when the metaphor supports the fact) comes up now and again … It is the job of cinema to entertain and inspire, to instruct and imagine. That is what the art form requires if it hopes to be any good at all. Every frame of my film tried to honour the man at its centre. And to tell the truth.”
Barry Langford does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The US-EU relationship is at its most fragile point since the build-up to the Iraq war in 2003. While President Donald Trump openly questions Nato and President Volodymyr Zelensky’s desire for peace, EU leaders have continued to voice their unequivocal support for Ukraine against Russian aggression.
Between the two lies Britain. In a flurry of diplomacy, Keir Starmer has attempted to navigate the country’s tricky position: close to the US diplomatically, while staying aligned with the EU’s Ukraine policy.
I argue that Starmer could use Britain’s island identity – separated from its closest neighbours just enough to allow a global outlook – to his advantage. Acting as an effective link between the US and the EU could turn this time of crisis into an opportunity. What Britain may lack in material capabilities, it can make up for in skilful diplomacy.
Britain’s position as a “geopolitical bridge” stretches far back into the last century. As Britain was decolonising and reckoning with the growing power of the US and a uniting European continent, acting as a bridge was an effective way of ensuring relevance and maintaining alliances while its status as an imperial great power waned.
This position was especially favoured by Labour politicians keen to emphasise how a socialist Britain could act as a link between the capitalist and communist worlds. In (sometimes reluctantly) arguing for Britain’s entry into the European Economic Community, some Conservatives posited membership as allowing Britain to bridge the Atlantic, given the UK’s strong postwar ties with the US.
Even older is the idea of Britain as an “offshore balancer”. The UK’s proximity to the European continent meant it has always had an eye on political developments there. It has thus sought to maintain alliances in order to prevent Europe being dominated by one power (Napoleonic France, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union) who could threaten the island sanctuary.
With Britain no longer in the EU, this time of heightened transatlantic tensions provides an opportunity to reclaim these geopolitical stances (and some lost relevance) as a vital interlocutor between America and Europe.
Nato on the brink
Trump is notoriously erratic and unpredictable, yet one of his most consistent motifs has been to question Nato and “free-riding” allies. Herein lies the spectre of the most terrifying British nightmare: an American withdrawal from Nato.
Britain and the US have, historically, both articulated their role as that of offshore balancer in relation to continental Europe. The threat against which they have been balancing since the end of the second world war is the Soviet Union and then Russia.
If the Trump administration ceases to regard Russia as a threat or sees no utility in acting in its historic balancing role, the UK-US relationship will be placed under serious threat. For all of the importance of Anglo-Saxon identity tropes, kith and kin and the special relationship, alliances are best nurtured in conditions of shared interests.
Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.
Nato has been the real cornerstone of UK foreign, defence and security policy since the North Atlantic treaty’s inking in 1949, and is beloved of both Labour and Conservative politicians. US abandonment would be devastating. Thus it is Starmer’s greatest challenge and opportunity.
The reality is that Nato is centred on continental Europe and always has been. Starmer can gain common ground with Trump at this critical juncture by emphasising Britain’s islandness, and the US’s similar separation from the continent.
Starmer could position Britain as a mid-Atlantic interlocutor, close to Europe but not of Europe – appealing to the antipathy of some in the Trump administration about the continent. And his government has already gained Trump’s approval by increasing defence spending, an act that will also please nervous European governments.
Global Britain?
At this moment, Britain seems closer to the EU than it has been since 2016. Foreign and defence policy remain, to some extent, unfulfilled gaps in the EU’s portfolio. If Starmer can forge a close relationship around these issues, he can undercut some of the disappointments around Brexit, such as Britain being viewed as less relevant internationally and losing a seat at European security discussions.
Yet its leaders remain high profile and listened to, with Starmer managing to cut a dignified figure in an era of posturing strongmen. He will need to convince Trump and his team that Europe (and Nato) is worthy of their time and attention. He must emphasise their common ground as offshore balancers, capable of providing a counterweight to Russia.
EU leaders will also need to be reassured of Britain’s commitment to the continent after Brexit. Pressing harder for a UK-EU security pact is one way Starmer could signal this.
Starmer’s White House visit was seen as a diplomatic success, but the mood has changed after Zelensky’s visit. Number 10/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND
Trump repeatedly emphasises the personal aspect of politics, seeing states and alliances through a prism of which leaders are willing to flatter him or, at the very least, be “respectful”. Starmer grasped this early on and thus has a shot at forging a productive relationship with Trump, however painful it might be for some in his party.
Yet the stakes are much higher than disgruntled backbenchers. The Labour party, with its internationalist roots, is deeply proud of the foreign policies of Clement Attlee and Ernest Bevin (although less so of Tony Blair’s). Although it may be stressed in different terms to their Conservative opponents, the party is just as concerned with retaining relevance and influence on the world stage.
If this Labour government can find a way to successfully act as a bridge – by interesting Trump in Europe and convincing the EU that they are a reliable partner – then this not only salves some of the wounds of Brexit, it also potentially keeps Nato alive, for now.
Nick Whittaker does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Heejung Chung, Director of the King’s Global Institute for Women’s Leadership, Professor of Work and Employment, King’s College London
It’s a difficult period for the feminist movement. Space has opened up in public life for people who argue, very loudly, that efforts to level the playing field for women have come at the expense of men.
Many political parties don’t merely neglect women’s interests – they put anti-feminism at the forefront of their agenda. There are strong powers at play, pitting women against men.
The question, then, is what can be done? Here are three starting points.
1. End the ‘backlash’ narrative
Anyone interested in equality needs to fight back against those pushing a narrative that claims misogyny and backlash against feminism is inevitable or the norm. It is in fact only a small fraction of the population who feel this way. Most young men support women’s rights.
For example, a survey my colleagues and I ran in 2024 found that 16% of young men in the UK aged 16-29 believe that feminism has done more harm than good, but more than double that number (36%) think it has done more good to the world. Similarly, 36% of young men say feminism has not gone far enough, while only 18% think it has gone too far.
Humans are social animals. We are influenced by what we perceive as the accepted norm. This is why it is vital to challenge the idea that figures like the self-styled misogynist influencer Andrew Tate represent a majority viewpoint.
This narrative is not only misleading but also politically motivated. Under the Donald Trump administration, there is political gain to be made when tech oligarchs such as Mark Zuckerberg call for more “masculine energy” in organisations or society.
There are financial gains to be made for media outlets desperate for engagement in a clickbait economy. The prevalence of content that promotes anti-feminist worldviews risks shifting attitudes over time, as people often conform to what they believe is the dominant social norm.
To counteract this, we must consistently highlight that the majority of people support social justice and gender equality. Most people believe in the goals of feminism, and want greater freedom for both men and women. The real norm is not regressive attitudes, but progress.
2. Acknowledge men’s grievances
Having said that, we must also acknowledge that a significant proportion of young men feel frustrated and disillusioned, and that this is a genuine issue. In a recent YouGov survey, a quarter of young men said they support Tate.
However, they do so despite his misogynistic views, not because of them. They are drawn to his rhetoric about masculinity. This highlights a broader issue – the awkward positioning of young men in the evolving conversations around equality and diversity.
For decades, campaigns have rightly encouraged girls to pursue their ambitions, break away from being squeezed into traditionally female roles, break into traditionally male-dominated spaces, and redefine gender norms. Just look at the number of girls taking STEM subjects in A-levels and how well they are doing, or how girl’s football has exploded.
However, we have not done the same for boys. Boys are not doing traditional “girl” subjects, nor are they engaging in traditionally girl spheres like netball or ballet.
In effect, society has embraced the “masculinisation” of women but has not equally shattered the barriers to enable the “feminisation” of men. Feminism was always intended to be about the liberation of all genders, yet we have neglected the other half of the equation – enabling boys to move beyond rigid masculinity.
To truly advance gender equality, we must create space for compassionate masculinities to be valued. Boys need to be empowered to explore identities beyond the traditional mould of “being a man”.
This includes embracing traits and roles historically coded as feminine – such as caregiving and emotional openness – without stigma. Only by expanding the possibilities for all genders can we achieve true equality.
3. Counter populist exploitation
Finally, the rise of populist movements across the world is partly attributable to economic inequality. Young people today are less likely to own their own house, many are also earning less than their parents.
This may feel particularly pronounced for young men who once benefited from a system that privileged them – many of whom saw their fathers hold wealth and power. For them, equality can feel like a zero-sum game, where gains for others mean losses for them.
Populist politicians and media exploit this frustration, directing young men’s grievances away from the real source of economic inequality – the extreme concentration of wealth among the richest, and exploitative labour market systems – and instead blaming women, migrants and other marginalised groups.
Gender equality and economic social justice are deeply interconnected. We need to show that the challenges we face, and the causes of the problems we face are also shared. Likewise, the solutions to those problems benefit men and well as women.
Male role models are everywhere: we can choose who to elevate. Shutterstock
Many of the things feminist groups have been long arguing for, such as well-paid parental leave for both parents, directly benefit men. Better leave for fathers helps them and children as well as supporting mothers’ employment and the wellbeing of the entire family and community.
In other words, what we want is not very dissimilar. We need to be able to share that our utopian vision of feminist futures is a place where both women and men would also want to live. The equal society we dream of is one in which men will thrive as well.
Finally, we need better male role models. There are a wide range of masculinities that are compassionate, brave, support communities and protect the most vulnerable. We not only know they are possible but see them existing in the world in the men we know.
We need to put greater efforts in to stop the problematic narrative of manhood that is being spread on social media algorithms and hack and flood these channels with more positive visions of the world.
The next stage of feminist activism is going to be challenging. We therefore need all genders to come together to fight the good fight with us. Are you ready? Don’t be afraid. I guarantee, you will also love the future it will bring us.
Heejung Chung receives funding from the Productivity Institute, Norwegian Research Council, the European Commission, Nuffield Foundation, and the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea(NRF-2023S1A5A2A03083567). She is the Director of the King’s Global Institute for Women’s Leadership which receives funding from a wide range of philantrophic foundations and individuals. She has previously received funding from the TUC, Government Equalities Office, NORFACE, ESRC, European Commission and others. She is currently an academic advisory board member of the NGO Working Families.
Parks and other green spaces are vital for life in a city, providing places to exercise, relax or meet friends. But for many women, these spaces can feel unwelcoming and unsafe. Concerns about personal safety can create significant barriers for women and girls, reducing their access to the benefits these spaces can provide.
A 2022 survey revealed that four out of five of women in Britain feel unsafe in parks after dark, compared to two out of five men. Although women feel safer during the day, they are still three times more likely than men to feel unsafe (one in six women compared to one in 20 men).
Public spaces are often designed with male users as the norm, overlooking the specific needs of women and girls and other vulnerable groups. For example, common recreational facilities in parks often include games areas, skateparks and BMX tracks, all traditionally considered male interests.
One study found that men are five times more likely to use basketball courts, four times more likely to use exercise areas, and almost 20 times more likely to use skateparks compared to women and girls. This results in girls feeling unwelcome and unaccommodated, avoiding spaces that do not cater to their essential needs, or are dominated by men and boys.
Safety work
Women often engage in what researchers call safety work. This is the hidden mental and physical effort needed to navigate public spaces in the threat of male violence and harassment. This can take the form of avoidance, where women bypass parks entirely, or at certain times. After dark or when alone, women often elect, to take longer routes to avoid parks, even if going through them is the most direct and efficient route.
Women are more likely to feel unsafe and more likely to change their behaviour as a result. In 2022, a survey revealed revealed that 37% of women and 24% of men reported avoiding quiet places, such as parks, after dark due to safety concerns. Generally speaking, men face fewer safety related inhibitions and use parks more frequently in their daily routines.
Women also engage in hidden safety work to access the benefits of parks. They preemptively plan their visits, considering time of day, busyness of the space and location. Once in the park, they are hyperaware of their environment, assessing social situations and monitoring unfamiliar men for potential threats. These strategies highlight the extra mental load women carry simply to use public spaces.
Research suggests that women are significantly more likely than men to experience “dysfunctional worry”, when worry and precautionary behaviour negatively impacts their quality of life and wellbeing.
What makes parks feel unsafe?
We have conducted research into what makes parks feel safe and unsafe for women. We found that it is a mix of things, from the immediate social and physical features of environments to broader patriarchal structures, misogyny and fear of men.
A few examples highlighted in our research and other studies show what features make parks feel (un)safe:
Factors like socioeconomic status, race, disability and age can exacerbate the experience of feeling unsafe for some people. And people in marginalised communities are already more likely to live near small, unsafe poorly maintained parks and further away from larger and higher quality green spaces. These combined factors are the subject of an innovative new study we are leading to ensure parks meet the needs of different users.
Features like exercise equipment and skateparks may not be welcoming to all users. Macrovector/Shutterstock
Urban planners and policymakers must prioritise, and actively incorporate women’s safety in park design and management. Community engagement with women from different backgrounds is essential for creating safe and inclusive parks and green spaces.
Initiatives like the Safer Parks Guidance, which one of us (Anna Barker) produced with Keep Britain Tidy, Make Space for Girls and West Yorkshire Combined Authority, aims to improve perceptions of safety by incorporating better lighting, open sight lines, regular maintenance and inclusive programming.
Simply having a park nearby is not enough – they must be welcoming and safe for all.
Anna Barker receives funding from Mayor of West Yorkshire via the Home Office Safer Streets Fund and the Economic and Social Research Council. She is affiliated with University of Leeds and a Trustee of Love Leeds Parks.
Jennie Gray receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council. She is affiliated with the University of Leeds.
Vikki Houlden receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council, and the Medical Research Council. She is affiliated with the Univesity of Leeds.
Rhodopsin kinase – GRK1 – is a GRK found in the retina of your eyes.Priyanka Naik, CC BY-ND
Each cell in your body relies on precise communication with other cells to function properly. At the center of this process are the molecular switches that turn communication signals in the body on and off. These molecules are key players in health and disease. One such molecular switch is G protein-coupled receptor kinases, or GRKs for short.
Their involvement in a broad range of diseases makes GRKs an attractive drug target. Around 30% to 40% of all drugs currently on the market focus on these proteins. However, designing drugs that selectively target specific GRKs is a difficult task. Because they are structurally similar to each other and to other proteins, molecules binding to one GRK might also bind to many other enzymes and cause unwanted side effects.
A better understanding of how GRKs interact with their targets can help researchers develop better drugs. So my work in the Tesmer Lab at Purdue University focuses on uncovering more information on the structure of GRKs.
What do G protein-coupled receptor kinases look like?
What researchers know about the structure of GRKs has advanced significantly over the past two decades, revealing the intricate mechanisms by which they function.
The ability to physically look at proteins is highly useful for drug development. Seeing a protein’s structure is like looking at a jigsaw puzzle – you can find the missing piece by knowing its shape. Similarly, knowing a protein’s shape helps scientists design molecules that fit perfectly into it, making drugs more effective.
GRKs consist of several modules, or domains, that serve a particular purpose. Together, these modules assemble into a structure resembling a Pac-Man with a ponytail.
The kinase domain – the Pac-Man – is the catalytic center where the protein does its main job: adding a phosphate group to its target to control its activity. It has two subdomains – one small and one large lobe – connected by a hinge that can open and close. Like Pac-Man, this domain closes around reactants and reopens to release products.
The three domains of GRKs resemble a Pac-Man with a ponytail. Shown here is GRK2. Priyanka Naik, CC BY-ND
The RH domain – the ponytail – stabilizes the kinase domain. It guides and docks the GRK to its target protein.
Humans have seven GRKs, each specialized for different tissues and functions, and each unique in structure. Some regulate vision, while others affect your brain, kidney and immune functions, among others. Their structural differences dictate how they interact with their targets, and understanding these distinctions is key to designing drugs that can selectively target each one.
In 2003, researchers in the lab where I work uncovered the first known structure of a GRK – specifically, GRK2, which is involved in heart functions and cell proliferation – by using a technique called macromolecular crystallography. This involved bombarding a GRK2 sample with X-rays and tracing where they bounce off to determine where each atom of the protein is located.
Current state of GRK research
By determining how the three modules of GRK2 are arranged and where its target molecules would bind, my colleagues and I can design drugs that strongly interact with GRK2.
GRK2 with Paxil bound to its active site. Priyanka Naik, CC BY-ND
For example, in 2012, one of my colleagues discovered that the antidepressant Paxil could inhibit GRK2. To build on this discovery, our team designed drugs with similar shapes to Paxil to identify ones that effectively and selectively inhibit GRK2. The goal was to develop treatments that could target GRK2-related diseases such as heart failure and breast cancer without interfering with other proteins, thereby minimizing side effects.
After determining what Paxil looks like when bound to GRK2, we designed a series of derivative compounds that better fit into GRK2’s active site – the missing jigsaw puzzle pieces. Some of these compounds were able to better block GRK2 compared with Paxil, improving the ability of heart muscle cells to contract. While the research is still in its early stages, our findings suggest that these compounds could potentially be used to treat heart failure.
An important missing piece of the story is what GRK2 looks like when bound to its primary target in the cells. These protein complexes are highly shape-shifting, making traditional imaging methods very difficult.
However, recent advances in imaging have made it possible to determine the structure of these molecules. Cryogenic electron microscopy, or cryo-EM, flash-freezes proteins and bombards them with electrons to capture their structure. These studies have thus far revealed what GRK1 and GRK2 look like when bound to two different target proteins, offering critical insights into how they work.
Cryo-EM was the subject of the 2017 Nobel Prize in chemistry.
My work focuses on uncovering how GRK2 function is different from GRK1. These proteins play different physiological roles – GRK1 primarily regulates vision, while GRK2 is involved in heart function and cell proliferation. Identifying structural differences in different GRKs will help researchers design drugs that only target the GRK of interest, thus preventing side effects.
By combining cutting-edge imaging techniques with decades of research, scientists in my lab and others hope to one day unlock the full therapeutic potential of GRKs, offering pinpointed treatments for a wide range of diseases.
Priyanka Naik receives funding from Purdue University. The Tesmer Lab, discussed here, is funded by Purdue Institute for Cancer Research, National Institutes of Health and the Walther Cancer Foundation.
If you are starting your career today, you will hopefully see evidence of how far gender equality has come at work. You may have experienced little gender difference in educational attainment, see plenty of women leading companies, and be aware of legal protections and policies to combat gender discrimination in pay and promotions. Your office may even put on events to mark International Women’s Day.
But, as I have found in my research, this overall progress can mask gender inequalities that still exist in the workplace. Many young professionals will be surprised that gender pay and pension gaps still exist, that women are still overlooked for leadership opportunities, and that sexism is still rife in many workplaces.
So, what do you do if you encounter gender inequality at work? If you aren’t a manager or executive, it might feel like there isn’t much you can do to change your workplace culture. But here are a few practical steps you can take today to promote gender equality at work.
1. Develop your gender bias radar
The first thing you can do is learn to spot gender bias. It is often difficult to tell where gender inequalities might be at play. Did you not get this promotion or that career-accelerating project because you are a woman, or because you haven’t demonstrated the right skills?
You might want to ask your manager for feedback on how the decision was made, and note if any of the reasons given have to do with gendered traits – such as being seen as “aggressive” rather than “assertive”, or that you do not “fit in” with a team. These might be indicators that gender is relevant here.
Ready to make a change? The Quarter Life Glow-up is a new, six-week newsletter course from The Conversation’s UK and Canada editions.
Every week, we’ll bring you research-backed advice and tools to help improve your relationships, your career, your free time and your mental health – no supplements or skincare required. Sign up here to start your glow-up at any time.
It can be useful to discuss with your colleagues what their experience of getting a promotion has been. Beyond that, you might want to compare salaries with your colleagues of different genders to see if there are any patterns. In some cases, gender might not be at play at all.
It is also helpful to notice wider patterns in your workplace. How many women are in leadership positions or given opportunities to chair committees? Who is asked to take care of “office housework”, such as organising leaving dos or taking notes in meetings? Are sexist comments frequent, and how are they dealt with?
2. Call out gender biases
Research shows that making stereotypes visible is central to overcoming them. For example, you might spot that Sarah’s contribution to a meeting is ignored but then Tom repeats the same thought – and suddenly, it is seen as a fantastic idea.
In such a situation, you can comment that Sarah had made that great point beforehand. In this way, the potential gender bias is called out and can be addressed. If the gender bias persists, you may want to keep a record of such incidents, get input from your colleagues, and ultimately raise the issue with your line manager or HR.
If the behaviour is more overt, such as misogynistic comments or sexual harassment, it may be even more important to keep a detailed record of evidence and seek support from HR.
3. Enlist allies
If you are the most junior person in the room, calling out bias might not always be a realistic option. In such cases, you can enlist others – both women and men – to support gender equality.
Let’s say you were not able to praise Sarah’s suggestion in the meeting itself. What you can do is find someone to address this gender bias on your behalf. For example, you could ask the chair of the meeting to bring it up next time that Sarah makes a great contribution.
These may feel like small incidents, but drawing attention to them repeatedly will reduce gender inequality the long run.
Becoming an advocate for gender equality means actively supporting and encouraging gender-inclusive practices at work. This can mean attending events or workshops on gender equality, but it can also mean suggesting new policies and practices that might improve gender equality.
Both men and women can be advocates for gender-inclusive workplaces. While women are often seen as natural supporters for gender equality, men can be effective change-makers too. If you are a man, discuss gender equality with others or attend gender equality-focused events. If you are woman, bring up the topic with men or invite them to events where gender equality is being discussed.
Role models are important in the workplace because they allow us to see our possible selves in the future. However, very often we limit ourselves when it comes to gender – women look for women as role models, and men often only pick other men.
Finding a range of role models – and acting as a role model yourself – can help make workplaces more equal by challenging stereotypes and creating opportunities for diverse individuals.
Pick a variety of different role models and specify what you appreciate in them – the more specific the better. You do not need to look for perfection. Instead, look for what practices you admire in them.
Elisabeth Kelan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The UK could be poised to cut billions of pounds from its welfare spend as the Treasury takes the view that there is less room for manoeuvre in the finances than hoped. Only last October, Chancellor Rachel Reeves believed she had almost £10 billion of so-called “fiscal headroom”, essentially a buffer in her budget if the economy changed. But things have changed very quickly for Reeves.
Welfare spending in the UK is around £50 billion a year – and predicted to rise to more than £75 billion by 2030. Regardless of other pressures, the government had already been expressing concern about the size of the bill, even attempting to make a “moral case” for ensuring people who can work are doing so.
But none of this gets around the fact that the UK has been dubbed the “sick man of Europe”. The rise in health-related economic inactivity since COVID – people leaving the workforce because they’re too ill – has certainly attracted widespread political attention. Some commentators have recently challenged the narrative however, pointing to differences in how economic activity is measured in other countries.
We have researched the reasons why British workers leave their jobs after their health declines. When deciding whether to make cuts, the government should try to understand what is really happening with the health of the UK workforce.
The overall picture is stark. More working-age people have a diagnosed major health problem than ever before and numbers are due to rise by 500,000 by 2030. Improvements in life expectancy have stalled and regional differences in health are large and growing.
Almost one in four working-age people are classed as disabled, a diverse and growing minority. Meanwhile mental ill health rates are rising, particularly among young people.
Poor work quality is one of the things that is harming health in many ways. Long hours, shift work and work-related stress all take their toll.
These problems are not unique to the UK. Other countries are grappling with similar issues but have been quicker to respond, including with high-quality occupational health systems and specific legislation around work-related “psychosocial risks”.
These are factors like workloads, long hours, a lack of autonomy and support at work and workplace harassment. The UK has been slower to grasp the nettle and act.
Our recent study explored why British workers quit their jobs following a decline in their health. We surveyed 1,117 business leaders, reviewed occupational health approaches and studied the employment journeys of 9,169 workers aged 16-60 over a four-year period.
We found that nearly one in ten employees (9%) who experienced a decline in their health left their job within four years. Critically, nearly half of these exits were in the first 12 months, suggesting that once sick pay entitlements run out, people who have not recovered may face little choice but to quit and enter the welfare system.
Workers grappling with multiple health challenges face even greater risks. Those with three or more conditions are 5.6 times more likely to quit work than their healthier peers. And those with poor mental health are almost twice as likely to leave.
The role of healthy ‘job design’
Our study found that workers without flexibility were four times more likely to leave after their health declined. And for those with low levels of control in their job, the risk was 3.7 times higher.
A previous study found that people in insecure work, for example through a temporary or zero-hours contract, become workless at higher rates when their health deteriorates.
Despite the fact that job design can determine whether people stay in work, in the UK it has largely been left to employers to decide the types of jobs and protections they offer. This hands-off approach to workforce health is what sets the UK apart – and not in a good way.
In the Netherlands, employers carry the financial burden for statutory sick pay for up to 104 weeks. This has motivated them to help people return to work by adapting their jobs. In Australia, employers have to implement return-to-work programmes, assisted by regional coordinators.
Our survey of UK business leaders revealed that while 64% recognise the economic impact of poor employee health, only 48% offer flexible working arrangements. And just 37% provide occupational health services. They acknowledged several workplace factors that exacerbate problems, such as excessive workloads (75%), long working hours (73%) and a lack of breaks (74%).
But implementation of preventive measures is low. Only 36% assess mental health risks and 37% adjust workloads to ensure they are manageable.
The state pension age is set to rise to 67 by 2028 and potentially to 71 by 2050, meaning more people may have to work for longer. Yet, as people live and work longer they are also becoming sicker.
In this context there is an urgent need to promote healthy, sustainable work. This means achieving living and working conditions that can be sustained across a lifetime. It requires a joined-up employment and welfare system that supports people to take breaks when they need to, such as for health-related and caregiving needs.
Practical measures include raising statutory sick pay and ensuring working time protections and flexible work rights mean everyone has a healthy work-life balance.
Government must also legislate to ensure that employers take steps to address known work-related causes of ill health.
The UK government’s Get Britain Working agenda aims to support inactive people, including those with long-term illnesses, back into suitable work. And the employment rights bill should strengthen worker protections. But these changes will take time. Cutting welfare now will affect hundreds of thousands of people who are out of work on health grounds, and do not have a viable alternative.
Britain’s welfare bill is not about sudden mass exits from the workforce but rather a steady drip of workers leaving, compounded by insufficient protections and workplace insecurity. With a growing population of older workers and rising health challenges, guaranteeing good-quality work is no longer optional for the UK — it is essential.
Alice Martin works for the Work Foundation, an independent UK think tank focused on overcoming labour market inequalities and improving working lives.
Stavroula Leka is Professor of Organisations, Work & Health and Director of the Centre for Organisational Health and Well-being at Lancaster University. She is also the President of the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology.
Stavroula’s research is currently funded by the Institution of Occupational Safety & Health, ESRC, and the European Commission.
Women and girls are disproportionately affected by the climate crisis. They are more likely to suffer health consequences as a result of floods, droughts, heatwaves, air pollution, wildfires and other environmental disasters.
At the same time, women also tend to be responsible for securing food, water and energy for the rest of their families. When extreme weather makes these resources scarce, their lives and livelihoods are at risk.
Despite all of this, women are alarmingly underrepresented in climate change and environmental reporting. A global analysis by the non-profit Media Diversity Institute found that only one in four sources quoted in online news stories about climate change, published between 2017 and 2021, were women. That means the stories being told about climate change are mostly through the eyes and experiences of men.
I study how the media covers environmental issues in authoritarian countries like Iran and throughout the Middle East and North Africa, one of the world’s most climate-vulnerable regions, which faces extreme heat, water shortages and sand and dust storms.
As part of research for my recently completed PhD, I have found that women are rarely quoted as sources in news about climate change and environmental degradation, and those that do speak up are often threatened.
Not enough women ‘on record’
Finding sources in authoritarian countries is already difficult, but finding women who are willing to share their testimonies with journalists is even harder.
In Iran, environmental issues are highly politicised. Discussing water shortages or air pollution can be interpreted as criticism of the government. Anyone speaking to a journalist can expect intimidation, arrest or even death. Naturally, many sources hesitate to talk. But for women, the barriers are even greater.
In 2024, I reported on a heatwave in Iran where temperatures exceeded 50°C in some provinces. Through “off-the-record” conversations, I learned that the extreme heat was causing women to suffer heatstroke, menstrual problems, even miscarriages.
Yet, when I analysed the media coverage, there was little mention of this. Most articles focused on how the government had to shut down schools and offices.
I reached out to women in different parts of Iran, including mothers, students and medical professionals. Some spoke to me anonymously, but even women in leadership positions within the government or environment sector wouldn’t talk for fear of a reaction from the state intelligence apparatus.
This is a pattern I’ve seen throughout my research and reporting. If women cannot safely speak out, their struggles remain invisible.
Though, there is some imbalance in media coverage of women too. For example, Swedish activist Greta Thunberg has been recognised in media consumed mostly in wealthier countries in Europe, North America and Australasia (what is often called the global north). But in Asia, Africa and Latin America (often called the global south) where climate change is hitting hardest, I have found women leading environmental movements rarely get the same level of attention.
This is despite the fact there are numerous women environmental leaders in this part of the world. In Iran, wildlife and conservation activists Niloufar Bayani and Sepideh Kashani were imprisoned and tortured for over six years after being falsely accused of espionage by the intelligence arm of the Islamic revolutionary guard corps.
Their work was dedicated to protecting Iran’s environment, particularly the critically endangered Asiatic cheetah, highlighting the risks faced by those advocating for conservation under repressive regimes. Bayani wrote a manifesto about the climate crisis and educated women in Tehran’s notorious Evin prison in 2023, when she was still serving a decade-long sentence.
Another woman, Juliet Kabera of Rwanda, is an advocate for banning plastic bags and single-use plastics and attended global treaty negotiations to tackle plastic waste and cut global production. These women, and their work and sacrifices, are often missing from media coverage about the environment.
My PhD research on environmental reporting in the Middle East and North Africa, which echoes other work in this area, found that women are often depicted as victims of climate disasters rather than experts, leaders or solution-makers. Women in the global north are more frequently included in discussions about climate policy, activism or research, than their counterparts in the global south.
When the media misses the perspectives of women living through crises, we miss their ideas and experience. As a result, environmental policies may not reflect the breadth of the problem, or address the needs of those who are most affected.
If women are more impacted by climate change and are leading the fight, why aren’t they also leading the conversation in the media?
Sanam Mahoozi does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
International Women’s Day is the perfect time to celebrate how far we’ve come in transforming the lives of women and girls around the world.
Historically, women have faced subjugation and limited freedom, with societal expectations confining us to marriage and child-rearing. In the UK, the suffragette movement in the early 20th century was a pivotal moment in the fight for women’s rights. The efforts of activists like Emmeline Pankhurst and the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU), along with parallel movements worldwide, laid the ground for future advancements.
Fast forward to the 21st century and increased access to education and healthcare has shattered the notion of women as passive, opening up a world of new opportunities. Here are eight examples of social changes that have made the world a more equitable place for women in their 20s and 30s than things were for our mothers.
No one’s 20s and 30s look the same. You might be saving for a mortgage or just struggling to pay rent. You could be swiping dating apps, or trying to understand childcare. No matter your current challenges, our Quarter Life series has articles to share in the group chat, or just to remind you that you’re not alone.
In the 1960s, career options for women were generally limited to roles like domestic servants, teachers, nurses or dressmakers.
Thanks to decades of relentless advocacy and progress, today, women are breaking barriers across all industries. Although challenges still exist, we can now find roles in traditionally male-dominated fields such as technology, engineering and finance.
Policies supporting work-life balance and combating discrimination are more prevalent. And the rise of remote work and flexible schedules allow many women to more effectively balance their careers with their personal lives.
2. We are experiencing an education revolution
Women’s education was limited in the 1960s by societal norms that prioritised marriage over academic achievement. Young women often left school early, and few could pursue higher education.
Today, the education landscape has transformed dramatically, offering more opportunities for women to pursue higher education and specialised training. Scholarships and grants, as well as online education platforms have made education more accessible and affordable.
In the UK, diverse family structures, including single parenthood, cohabitation and LGBTQ+ partnerships are now recognised by the law. This means we have the freedom to make choices in our relationships based on our own needs and desires.
4. We have gained control over our reproductive choices
Reproductive rights were severely limited in the 1960s. Most women had little access to birth control and limited knowledge about family planning.
Today we have greater control over our reproductive choices, supported by legal rights and medical advances. Increased access to contraception and comprehensive reproductive health services are empowering us to make informed decisions.
The social and cultural landscape has undergone a seismic shift, empowering women like never before.
Movements such as #MeToo (a social campaign against sexual abuse and harassment, empowering survivors to share their experiences), and Time’s Up (a movement founded in 2018 by celebrities that aimed to support victims of workplace sexual harassment and advocate for gender equality), have shattered the silence on gender inequality and harassment.
Oprah Winfrey’s Golden Globes speech marked an important moment in the Time’s Up movement.
6. We have gained legal rights and political influence
More women are now lawyers, judges and lawmakers, leading to more equitable laws and policies addressing workplace discrimination, domestic violence and reproductive rights. As of 2024, women make up over 50% of law firm associates and more than 40% of the nation’s lawyers. In the 1980s women comprised only about 8% of the legal profession.
Our political influence has also grown. Today, women occupy more significant positions in government globally than ever before , from local councils to prime ministers and presidents. Our voices are now crucial in shaping policies and representing diverse perspectives.
7. We are making strides internationally
Worldwide, between 2012 and 2020, the proportion of girls completing lower secondary school rose from 69% to 77%, while the proportion completing upper secondary school rose from 49% to 59%.
The adolescent birth rate has fallen globally from 51 to 42 births per 1,000 girls aged 15-19 since 2012. Meanwhile, the proportion of young women married as children has declined globally from 23% to 19% over the past decade.
And the proportion of girls aged 15-19 who have undergone female genital mutilation in countries where it is highly concentrated has decreased from 41% to 34% over the past decade.
The fight continues
Despite significant progress, many outdated and oppressive laws against women persist globally. In conflict zones, women often bear the brunt of brutality, and the continuing refugee crisis puts thousands of women and girls at risk of sex trafficking and exploitation.
Education also remains a critical issue. Nearly 30% of girls worldwide still do not complete lower secondary school, and around 48% do not complete upper secondary school. And in the least developed countries, adolescent birth rates remain alarmingly high at 94 births per 1,000 girls aged 15-19. The barriers to accessing effective contraceptives include cost, stigma, lack of accurate information and limited decision-making autonomy.
We’ve made incredible strides in advancing women’s rights, but these setbacks remind us that the fight isn’t over. We must continue to advocate and take action to ensure equality and protection for all women, not just on International Women’s Day, but all year round.
Hind Elhinnawy does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Patrick E. Shea, Senior Lecturer in International Relations and Global Governance, University of Glasgow
The US vice-president, J.D. Vance, recently told Fox News that “the very best security guarantee” to prevent Russia from invading Ukraine again was “to give Americans economic upside in the future of Ukraine”.
The implication is that the much-debated minerals deal, in which an investment fund managed by Kyiv and Washington would receive revenue from Ukraine’s natural resources, would create American economic interests in Ukraine. American security interests, it is suggested, could soon follow.
Vance’s comments came with the deal hanging in the balance. A meeting at the White House on February 28, where the deal was expected to be signed, turned into a shouting match between Vance, the US president, Donald Trump, and his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky.
Zelensky has since attempted to patch up relations with the Trump administration, announcing that he is ready to sign the deal at “any time and in any convenient format”. And Vance, when asked whether an agreement was still on the table, said Trump “is still committed” to reaching a deal.
Having access to Ukrainian minerals is an important opportunity for America’s missile system electronics and electric vehicle industries. Ukraine is, for example, home to around one-third of all European lithium deposits, the key component in batteries.
This access is particularly important now that China, which currently accounts for a high proportion of certain US mineral imports, has imposed a ban on exporting rare minerals to the US in retaliation for Trump’s tariff policies.
But, while Ukraine’s minerals are tempting to the US and other world powers, a deal with Trump won’t help Ukraine’s security situation.
Trump’s approach has two main flaws. First, research shows that investment typically follows security commitments, not the other way around. Investors seek markets that are stable and protected, rather than hoping their investments create those conditions.
Previous US presidents have touted similar strategies without success. President William Howard Taft (1857-1930) championed “dollar diplomacy” in the early 20th century, promising that American investments would create stability across Latin America by “substituting dollars for bullets”.
The reality proved quite different. Throughout this period, the US frequently used military force to protect oil interests in Latin America. But, because these interventions focused on extraction sites rather than defending entire countries, instability continued elsewhere in the region.
Trump’s “America first” mantra suggests a similar pattern of defending American assets, and not necessarily the countries in which the assets reside.
Second, the overall US commitment to protect American assets abroad is uncertain. The US has, since the end of the cold war, been selective about when and how it uses military force to protect overseas assets.
Since 1991, the US military has intervened to protect American property in only four documented instances: Haiti in 2004, Lebanon in 2006, Egypt in 2011 and Yemen in 2012. These cases involved embassies and other smaller properties during periods of civil unrest, rather than defending economic interests.
Recent presidents, including Trump, have been reluctant to use force to protect threatened American investments. US agribusiness giant Cargill, for example, had to close its operations in Ukraine’s eastern Donetsk region following Russia’s invasion in 2014.
Building state capacity
That said, economic relations with America can indeed bolster a partner state’s security. But my own research shows that this is largely through indirect channels, rather than the threat of military intervention.
For example, US government departments, such as the US patent and trademark office, provide comprehensive training to partner states. Programmes involve training judges, police officers, prosecutors and policymakers to enforce intellectual property protections, administer land registries, combat counterfeiting and develop legal frameworks that protect investments.
This capacity building not only helps American investors in these countries, but also improves the partner state’s overall capacity. More effective and capable bureaucracies are better able to manage and finance their military capabilities.
Following Russia’s 2014 invasion of Ukraine, the US launched the agriculture and rural development support program. The initiative aimed to develop Ukraine’s institutional capacity for managing property rights and attracting diverse investments.
The US Treasury brought in loan advisory firm First Financial Network to help Ukraine navigate its financial crisis after the invasion, while simultaneously building frameworks for foreign investment.
By 2020, this partnership facilitated US investment firm Allrise Capital’s purchase of Odessa’s Chornomorets football stadium. This deal was described by John Morris, the president of First Financial Network, as demonstrating Ukraine’s ability “to sell assets to the international community”.
These efforts did not deter Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022. But they helped the Ukrainian government implement several administrative reforms in the years leading up to the invasion, including more efficient tax collection and professionalisation of civil servants. The government was better prepared for war than it would otherwise have been.
If the US wants to enhance Ukraine’s security through economic means, the Trump administration would need to make two drastic changes.
First, it would need to reinstate programmes that promote American investment abroad. After assuming office, Trump froze and began dismantling the United States Agency for International Development (USAid). The agency’s capacity-building efforts have security consequences.
Second, for the US to have both an economic and security impact, Trump needs to reassure America’s allies. Assurances are not Trump’s speciality. On February 26, for example, Trump declined to say whether the US would defend Taiwan if it was attacked by China.
Unless Trump changes how he operates on the international stage, the economics of the mineral deal will not help Ukraine’s security situation.
Patrick E. Shea does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
In a musical number, Lisa of Blackpink, Doja Cat and Raye sang the Bond theme songs “Live and Let Die,” “Diamonds Are Forever” and “Skyfall,” respectively. No Bond films had been nominated for an award, and none of these singers has a connection to the Bond franchise, though they did all recently collaborate on the single “Born Again.”
The strange exercise felt less like a celebration and more like a big flashing question mark for a screen icon whose future has never felt more uncertain.
Since the shocking news dropped on Feb. 20, 2025, that Jeff Bezos’ Amazon MGM Studios would assume creative control over the James Bond film franchise, commentators and fans have wondered why.
Why would the Broccoli family, which has long held the rights to Bond movies through their company, EON, cede control of the film series to a tech partner they’ve been at odds with?
A second reason could be Amazon’s impatience with EON. In December 2024, The Wall Street Journal reported that Barbara Broccoli balked when Amazon Studios executive Jennifer Salke proposed several Bond spinoff projects, including a Bond series with a female lead, for Prime Video. Perhaps frustrated with the stalemate, Amazon may have made Wilson and Broccoli an offer they couldn’t refuse to get them out of the way and get production of Bond content rolling.
The speculation is certainly intriguing. But a more central question shouldn’t be overlooked: the “what.”
What, precisely, has Amazon MGM acquired? And what can it actually do with the Bond story?
Long before “Star Wars” launched in 1976 and the Marvel Cinematic Universe launched in 2008, Bond relied on a range of mediums to tell its story.
The Bond franchise began in 1953, not with a film but with a novel, Ian Fleming’s “Casino Royale.” One year later, “Casino Royale” was adapted for American TV as a live anthology show. Four years after that, in 1958, a popular Bond comic strip made its debut.
It was only in 1962, with “Dr. No,” starring Sean Connery, that the now-iconic film series began.
Here’s what’s crucial: With its new deal, Amazon MGM has a controlling stake only in the rights that EON holds. EON has licensed the right to produce future films and TV shows from Fleming since 1961. EON secured worldwide merchandising rights in 1964 and production rights to video games in the early 1990s.
Other 007 media – the literary, comic and audio series – are managed by the Fleming Estate and Ian Fleming Publications.
EON produced most of the James Bond films, such as 1969’s ‘On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.’ EON/United Artists
The James Bond media franchise is what I call a shared rights and licensing network.
No one company controls all of the Bond rights, and no one company produces all of Bond media. Though this arrangement is a complicated one, the sharing and licensing of rights has allowed Bond to emerge as a lucrative and fecund product line. According to my calculations, it now boasts over 330 original stories in 72 years of media production.
In other words, Bond is much more than the 25 films released by EON.
James Bond’s many lives
Until now, rights sharing and licensing have ensured that the Bond franchise remains creatively distinct from “Star Wars” and Marvel.
The companies that produce these series – LucasFilm and Marvel Studios – are owned by The Walt Disney Company. With their rights pooled under one corporate entity that also oversees all production, “Star Wars” and Marvel have been able to drive toward high levels of creative consistency and unity among their stories. Across films, TV, comics and video games, “Star Wars” and Marvel aspire to what media specialists call “transmedia storytelling.”
By sharing rights, the Bond franchise has arrived at a very different type of storytelling, one that fragments the story and multiplies the James Bonds to be experienced across distinct media. The effect isn’t transmedia storytelling, or even a Marvel-style multiverse. In Bond, characters can’t cross over to alternate realities and meet other versions of themselves.
James Bond exists in many different worlds and leads many different lives.
The James Bond in Ian Fleming’s novels has a biography that differs from the version of Bond who appears in other media. Jim/flickr, CC BY-NC-SA
To name a few: There’s the Bond of Fleming’s 1950s and 1960s novels, who loses his first love, Vesper Lynd, and hunts down her killers, who are members of SMERSH, the assassination arm of Soviet intelligence agencies. Fleming’s Bond also lives on in the novels of Kingsley Amis and John Gardner, which were published in the 1970s and 1980s.
There’s EON’s silver screen Bond, who, from 1962 to 2002, never falls in love with Vesper, but loses his wife, Tracy di Vicenzo, to the crime syndicate SPECTRE and remains scarred by the loss. And in the modern era, there’s the Bond who appears in author Samantha Weinberg’s “Moneypenny Diaries.” Published from 2005 to 2008, the series depicts a version of Bond who has retired to a small Scottish isle with his lover, MI6’s Miss Moneypenny.
The effect of Bond’s shared structure is what I dub “threaded storytelling.” The novels present various versions of Bond’s life, at different points in history. The film series creates two of its own. The comic series offers yet more lives of 007.
Each version of Bond runs alongside the others in the market, focusing on a Bond character who exists only within his unique story world. This gives fans an unpredictable, ever-expanding canon of stories to follow and even compare, like one grand spot-the-difference game in time.
If it goes through, Amazon MGM will have a strong property on its hands. Over the decades, EON has reinforced certain elements to the character and the story: James Bond is a debonair hitman. MI6 chief M gives him high-stakes missions. MI6 armorer Q fits him with the latest gadgets. And Bond lives large, enjoying beautiful women, fine dining, Savile Row fashions and Omega timepieces.
Yet some fans fear that Amazon MGM will develop “woke” storylines. Others foresee the product being diluted with countless streaming spinoff series.
To me, the more intriguing possibility is whether Amazon will try to create a more unified Bond universe, akin to the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Yes, the Fleming Estate will continue to manage the novels, comics and radio. But with creative control over EON’s rights, Amazon MGM could, in theory, develop an elaborate transmedia strategy never before explored in this franchise.
A relaunched film series, perhaps serving as Amazon MGM’s “mothership,” would feed into satellite series in video games and streaming shows. These games and shows, in turn, would tie into and expand the universe of the films.
Were that to happen, the Bond franchise would truly enter a new phase and risk losing much of the creative flexibility it’s possessed in the past.
Colin Burnett does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
In the nearly 75 years since then, it has lost over 60% of its population, becoming the defining example of a postindustrial city in decline.
Chronic population loss creates a significant mismatch in the housing market. An ongoing reduction in the demand for housing leads to an oversupply of vacant properties. Vacant properties can quickly deteriorate due to neglect, arson, vandalism and crime.
Shuttered and repossessed homes line the streets of a middle-class neighborhood on the East side of Detroit. Charles Ommanney via Getty Images
Rehabilitating abandoned and neglected properties is often not possible. It can take just a few years for vacant homes to transition from being habitable to blighted. What should policymakers do with the growing unwanted inventory?
One option is to do nothing and wait for real estate developers to clean up the parcels and hopefully rebuild.
As a group of economistswho studymunicipal finance of cities experiencing population decline, we took a deep look at the success of razing blighted properties in Detroit.
Detroit removes thousands of blighted homes
Between 2014 and 2019, the city demolished 20,800 blighted properties through the Detroit Demolition Program. The heaviest concentration of demolitions occurred in the lowest-valued areas of the city such as the Brightmoor, Burbank and Midwest neighborhoods.
Location of demolitions and property sales prices in Detroit from 2009 to 2019. The heaviest concentration of demolitions occurred in the lowest-valued areas of the city, as shown in red and orange. Alvayay Torrejón, Paredes, Skidmore (2023), CC BY-NC-ND
From 2014 to 2019, many of the demolitions were funded by the federal government’s Hardest Hit Fund. The goals of the fund are to help reduce homeowner foreclosures and stabilize neighborhoods. This fund spent US$52 million tearing down homes in Detroit.
As with any government intervention, it is critical to evaluate costs and benefits so leaders can be sure they are implementing the most effective revitalization strategy.
From the perspective of city finances, the success of razing a property can be assessed in two ways.
First, does it increase the value of nearby properties? A study that two of us published in 2017 answered this question in the affirmative: Tearing down an abandoned building in Detroit does increase the value of nearby properties by a small amount: $162.
Second, how do changes in the value of those nearby properties affect Detroit’s property tax revenue? If property values increase, property taxes increase too, so it is possible to calculate how long it takes for the city to recoup its costs. On average, demolishing a blighted structure in Detroit costs $21,556.
In the case of Detroit during the period examined, our research shows the benefits of the program in terms of increased property values are limited and do not fully cover the demolition costs.
Even if you optimistically assume the benefits of demolition extend to properties as far as about 2½ blocks away, the increase in property tax revenue generated from the demolition is too small to cover demolition costs.
To understand why, imagine drawing a circle around the razed property with a radius of about 0.125 miles, which is how we defined 2½ city blocks, and then examining the change in property value and tax revenue of the properties within the circle. While removing a blighted property is a win in many other ways, it doesn’t have much effect on neighboring home values.
Our findings indicate that vacant lots also have a negative effect on the property values of surrounding homes. For example, for homes within 2½ city blocks, the net effect of a demolition without redevelopment is an increase in neighboring home prices of $162. In this case, it would take 50 years for money collected via property taxes to equal the costs of demolition. It’s hard to say what happens if the lot is redeveloped because so few are.
If you measure the effect using smaller rings around the razed property, full cost recovery times get even longer.
However, additional property taxes to cover demolition costs may further put the city at competitive disadvantage in the region, nationally and globally. Detroit already has among the highest property taxes in the country.
Allowing the state to foot the bill would keep property taxes affordable, but support for such programs is mixed in the state Capitol in Lansing due to resource constraints and the fact that other Michigan cities such as Flint have also struggled with declines in population.
Lessons learned from Detroit’s razing
Detroit and other postindustrial American cities such as Cleveland, Ohio, and Gary, Indiana, have experienced population declines in recent decades, but these challenges are by no means exclusively a United States phenomenon.
Throughout history, cities such as Rome have experienced enormous drops in population. Paris lost population in medieval times. Some ancient cities such as Carthage and Petra have been fully abandoned.
That means lessons learned from Detroit may be helpful to policymakers in other places. Many leaders in Detroit did not imagine that the population would decline over decades, and they didn’t plan for that happening.
Other cities have an opportunity to prepare. They can start by diversifying their economies and city revenue streams so that government has the funding to step in and ensure that quality of life is maintained as population shrinks.
Mark Skidmore receives funding from the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Camila Alvayay-Torrejon receives funding from Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Dusan Paredes Araya receives funding from Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Prakash Nagarkatti, Professor of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, University of South Carolina
Protesters on the University of Illinois Chicago campus raise concerns over funding cuts for medical research on Feb. 19, 2025.Scott Olson via Getty Images
On March 5, a U.S. district judge in Boston issued a nationwide injunction blocking the administration from implementing the proposed cuts to NIH funding, arguing that the planned cuts were unlawful. However, the White House will almost certainly appeal.
We are a husband-and-wife team of immunologists who have been funded by the NIH for several decades. We believe our research has led to a better understanding of inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. In addition, one of us (Prakash Nagarkatti) served as vice president for research at the University of South Carolina for over a decade, managing all NIH grants awarded to the university.
While we believe such cuts will be detrimental to the entire country, they will disproportionately hurt states that traditionally have received very low levels of NIH funding, the majority of which are red states that supported Trump’s election to a second term. This is because such states lack resources to develop advanced research infrastructure necessary to compete nationally for NIH funding.
Several Republican senators have vocally opposed the funding cuts, including Susan Collins of Maine, who said they “would be devastating, stopping vital biomedical research and leading to the loss of jobs.”
Support for cancer, Alzheimer’s research
NIH funding is crucial for advancing biomedical research, improving public health and fostering innovation. It has a broad impact on different facets of society.
The agency funds biomedical research leading to the development of vaccines or new drugs to prevent and treat infectious diseases and clinical disorders. The NIH played a crucial role in funding research on pandemics and global health crises caused by HIV/AIDS and COVID-19.
Similarly, the NIH supports research in other focused areas, such as Alzheimer’s disease, through the establishment of specialized research centers.
The NIH also supports Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer opportunities. These programs stimulate technological innovation by funding small businesses to commercialize new research ideas.
Moreover, the agency provides funding to train the next generation of biomedical scientists, clinicians and public health professionals. Thus, the NIH awards create jobs at universities, biotechnology companies and related industries. Together, such NIH programs promote local and national economies.
Therefore, any cuts to the agency’s budget will have far-reaching and significant consequences on health outcomes and the economy.
How the NIH funding process works – and how the cuts will affect research.
Caps on indirect costs
When the NIH awards grants, it is divided into two separate categories: the direct costs, which include expenses that are necessary to pursue the proposed work and that are provided to the scientists, and the indirect costs. These cover expenses such as maintenance of lab space, utilities, grant management, federal regulatory compliance, security and other miscellaneous needs. These funds are provided directly to the institution.
Indirect costs are negotiated between the institution and the federal agency and expressed as a percentage of the direct costs. Because each institution has unique operational expenses, the indirect cost rates vary from 30% to 70%.
The new policy rolled out by the NIH capped the indirect costs for all institutions at a fixed rate of 15%. In 2023, NIH spent $35 billion to support research at various institutions, of which $9 billion was used to cover indirect costs. Thus, NIH estimates it could save $4 billion by capping indirect costs at 15%.
Inside an NIH lab in Bethesda, Md., where researchers work on treatments and cures for disease, including cancer. Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images
How red states get hurt the most
There is a significant geographic disparity in NIH funding that most people are unaware of. There are 27 states in the U.S. that receive 94% of NIH funding, while the other 23 states receive only 6%. Moreover, the NIH funding received by the 23 states has remained relatively unchanged for the past 20 years.
There are many reasons why the latter states are less competitive. These include: lack of large medical centers, hospitals and research-intensive universities; thin and more rural populations; less robust economies; and lack of cutting-edge research infrastructure driven by less investment by the states in research and development.
It is for these reasons that Congress in 1993 authorized the NIH to start a new program called the Institutional Development Award, or IDeA, to support the 23 states plus Puerto Rico that have traditionally received low levels of NIH funding. Such states are commonly called IDeA states and contain predominantly rural and medically underserved communities.
These awards, which constitute less than 1% of the total NIH budget, are expected to help these states grow their research infrastructure and make them more competitive nationally.
The IDeA states are: Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming, plus Puerto Rico. All the states but Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island and Vermont voted for Trump in the 2024 election.
Indirect costs pay for cutting-edge technologies
Indirect costs, in addition to supporting the management of specific grants, are also helpful in promoting the institutions’ research infrastructure.
The indirect costs help purchase and upgrade state-of-the-art research equipment and technologies. They help institutions develop high-performance computing facilities that are critical for research missions and provide access to journals and books through the library facilities. These costs also renovate old labs and help create new cutting-edge facilities such as germ-free facilities for microbiome research.
Thus, the indirect costs are critical for IDeA states that have limited resources such as state support for pursuing research.
According to the Higher Education Research and Development Survey, in 2023, non-IDeA states like California invested $548 million and New York over $303 million in R&D. In contrast, IDeA states Kentucky and West Virginia invested $49 million and $15 million, respectively, in R&D.
Such data clearly demonstrates how challenging it would be for IDeA states to face cuts in NIH funding and advance research infrastructure.
In our view, it is critical that all states have access to NIH research funding to enable the states to solve the unique challenges they face, such as environmental issues and population health disparities.
For example, biomedical scientists and clinicians trained by NIH grants are addressing locally relevant issues such as coal workers’ pneumoconiosis, commonly known as black lung disease, which occurs when coal dust is inhaled. This is an occupational hazard linked to the coal industry in West Virginia and Kentucky.
Similarly, Hawaii, with its tropical climate, has mosquitoes that can carry dengue virus, so dengue infection can pose a unique health and economic problem for this state when compared with the others in the U.S.
Training the biomedical workforce and physicians in IDeA states also helps with retaining health providers in the state to further address these local challenges and prevents brain-drain to other non-IDeA states.
IDeA states heavily rely on NIH funds to pursue and advance their research capabilities and address local and general health challenges. For such states, already struggling to receive NIH funding, reducing indirect costs would further exacerbate their disadvantages, increasing the risk of falling behind in medical research, patient care and regional economic growth.
President Donald Trump launched his second term with a series of executive orders, asserting his authority more decisively than in 2017. His moves, shaped directly by unfiltered public opinion, align – for now – with what many Americans want. Pollsters are tracking this public sentiment in real time.
A pollster – of which I am one – measures and analyzes public opinion, serving as an interpreter between those who govern and those who are governed. While the horse race poll during elections is the most visible aspect of our work, our role is much broader.
Pollsters wear multiple hats, ensuring accuracy while also advising decision-makers on how to communicate with the public and to anticipate shifts in sentiment. At its core, polling is both an analytical and interpretive discipline. Pollsters do more than measure public opinion — they amplify the public’s voice, ensuring that leaders understand the concerns of those they represent.
Because truth reveals itself on Election Day, a pollster’s credibility is always at stake. If the industry collectively misses the mark, public trust erodes, and confidence in the democratic system itself is called into question.
2024 polls: A mixed verdict
How did pollsters perform in 2024? The answer depends on perspective.
From an analytical standpoint, the broad story that pollsters told was correct. Americans were frustrated by inflation and the cost of living, unable to reconcile their financial struggles with the Biden administration’s assurances that the economy was strong. Polls also revealed deep disillusionment with the political system, with many believing it was rigged against them. Trump successfully positioned himself as the champion of this discontent.
Statistically, the industry performed well by international standards. A 2018 Nature Human Behavior study analyzing 30,000 polls from 351 elections in 45 countries since 1942 found the average polling error to be about 2 percentage points. In 2024, national and swing-state polls outperformed this historical benchmark.
In the 2024 presidential race between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, the political right claimed that polls systematically underestimated Trump, while the left accused pollsters of falsely portraying the race as close. Scott Olson/Getty Images; Bill Pugliano/Getty Images
Compared with the last 17 presidential elections, polling in 2024 was more accurate than in eight, roughly on par with five and worse than four. A postmortem will reveal areas for improvement, but from a technical standpoint, the numbers fell well within the 2-percentage-point standard mentioned above.
Yet, despite statistical accuracy, public perception tells a different story. The gap between what pollsters measure and how the public interprets their work continues to widen.
Facing a trust crisis
Many Americans across the political spectrum viewed pollsters as unreliable, if not outright deceptive, in 2024.
Journalist and Trump biographer Michael Wolff even declared: “One of the lessons from this campaign, as it should have been from prior campaigns, is, kill all the pollsters.” His sentiment, while extreme, reflected a broader frustration.
A deeper issue is that pollsters are increasingly seen as part of an establishment that no longer represents the public. Pollsters are now lumped in with politicians and the media, being trusted by only 21% of Americans, according to an Ipsos poll, where I serve as head of polling. This climate of distrust means that even minor polling errors are interpreted as signs of bias.
Yes, pollsters underestimated Trump in 2016, 2020 and again in 2024. These errors have clear methodological explanations: Some Trump voters were hard to reach, others were reluctant to disclose their preferences, and flawed turnout models assumed lower Republican participation.
While such methodological challenges are common in any scientific field, polling faces an added burden – its results are immediately tested in high-stakes elections. But to many, getting it wrong three times in a row suggests not error, but intent.
Trust, once lost, is difficult to regain.
Illusion of precision
This credibility problem is compounded by the rise of probabilistic forecasting – an approach that, while mathematically sound, often creates misleading narratives.
For two decades, these poll-based probability models have dominated election coverage. Forecasters like Nate Silver have shaped public expectations about such metrics.
Probabilities describe what might happen – but they fail to explain why events unfold as they do. This lack of diagnostic power makes probability-based forecasts feel both vague and misleading. They provide an illusion of precision while obscuring critical data trends.
Consider Silver’s 2024 forecast, which gave Harris and Trump each a 50% chance of winning. The final result – Trump 49.8%, Harris 48.2% – fell within the expected range of outcomes. Yet to the public, a 50/50 probability implied total uncertainty, masking underlying factors that pointed to Trump’s advantage.
Other indicators consistently suggested Trump had the upper hand, such as weak Biden approval ratings, belief that the country was on the wrong track, and the strength of candidates on the main issue, inflation.
Polling is just one tool. The industry has other ways to tell a more nuanced story. But the overreliance on poll-based probabilities – by both analysts and the media – has narrowed the focus, limiting our ability to contextualize broader electoral dynamics.
Put differently, pollsters failed to set the correct expectations for 2024.
To rebuild public trust, perception matters as much as accuracy.
When polling errors consistently lean in one direction, many assume bias rather than statistical uncertainty. Addressing this requires both technical precision and clear storytelling.
Polls do more than predict winners. They reveal shifts in public sentiment, offering insight into how and why opinions change.
Yet accuracy alone no longer suffices. While the 2024 polls performed within historical norms, public expectations have raised the bar for what qualifies as accurate polling. In a polarized climate, even small perceived failures fuel distrust.
Meeting this challenge means refining polling methods – in particular, ensuring that pollsters are vigilant in capturing a representative sample of Americans.
But pollsters are more than election forecasters; they are interpreters of public sentiment. The overreliance on the horse race poll has narrowed the field’s impact. Polling must be framed within the broader context of political and social change, making sense of uncertainty rather than just quantifying future likelihoods.
Election surprises stem from incomplete narratives. Precision matters, but a pollster’s job is ultimately about understanding and communicating what drives public opinion.
Restoring trust will require embracing this broader role with clarity and conviction. The polling industry’s problem isn’t just about data – it’s about narrative failure.
If pollsters get the story right, the future shouldn’t surprise. This requires more than just methodological adjustments – it demands a fundamental shift in how pollsters communicate their findings to the public.
Clifford Young does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Not all news sources are created equal.Noah Berger/AP Images
Political spin is nothing new, and identifying reliable news and information can be hard to do during any presidency. But the return of Donald Trump to the White House has reignited debates over truth, accountability and the role of media in a deeply divided America.
Misinformation is an umbrella term that covers all kinds of false and misleading content, and there is lots of it out there.
To stay informed while also arming yourself against misinformation, it’s crucial to practice what I call good “news hygiene” by developing strong news literacy skills.
Algorithmic recommendation engines that power everything from X to YouTube can even contribute to a slow-burn destabilization of American society by shoving consumers into partisan echo chambers that increase polarization and erode social trust.
Rather than passively consuming whatever appears in your feeds – allowing brain rot to set in – actively seek out a variety of sources to inform you about current events. The news shouldn’t just tell you what you want to hear.
And spread the word. People who simply understand that algorithms filter information are more likely to take steps to combat misinformation.
2. Understand the economics of corporate news
Media outlets operate within economic systems that shape their priorities.
For-profit newsrooms, which produce the bulk of news consumed in the U.S., rely heavily on advertising revenue, which can reduce the quality of news and create a commercial bias. Places such as ABC, CNN and FOX, as well as local network TV affiliates, can still do good work, but their business model helps to explain sensational horse-race election coverage and false-balance reporting that leaves room for doubt on established facts about climate change and vaccines.
Nonprofit newsrooms and public media provide alternatives that generally prioritize public interest over profit. And if you have the budget, paying for quality journalism with a subscription can help credible outlets survive.
Traditional journalism has never been perfect, but the collapse of the news business is unquestionably bad for democracy. Countries with better funding for public media tend to have stronger democracies, and compared with other rich nations, the U.S. spends almost nothing on public service broadcasting.
3. Focus on source evaluation and verification
Particularly with AI-generated content on the rise, source evaluation and verification are essential skills. Here are some ways to identify trustworthy journalism:
Quality of evidence: Are claims verified with support from a variety of informed individuals and perspectives?
Transparency about sources: Is the reporter clear about where their information came from and who shared it?
Adherence to ethical guidelines: Does the outlet follow the basic journalistic principles of accuracy and independence?
Corrections: Does the outlet correct its errors and follow up on incomplete reporting?
Be cautious with content that lacks the author’s name, relies heavily on anonymous sources – or uses no sources at all – or is published by outlets with a clear ideological agenda. These aren’t immediate disqualifiers – some credible news magazines such as The Economist have no bylines, for example, and some sources legitimately need anonymity for protection – but watch out for news operations that routinely engage in these practices and obscure their motive for doing so.
A good online verification practice is called “lateral reading.” That’s when you open new browser tabs to verify claims you see on news sites and social media. Ask: Is anyone else covering this, and have they reached similar conclusions?
4. Examine your emotional reactions
One of the hallmarks of misinformation is its ability to provoke strong emotional responses, whether outrage, fear or validation.
These reactions, research shows, can cloud judgment and make people more susceptible to false or misleading information. The primitive brains of humans are wired to reject information that challenges our beliefs and to accept information we like, a phenomenon known as confirmation bias.
When encountering content that sparks an emotional reaction, ask yourself: Who benefits from this narrative? What evidence supports it? Is this information informative or manipulative?
If the answers make you suspicious, investigate further before acting or sharing.
5. Guard against propaganda
Everyone in politics works to shape narratives in order to gain support for their agenda. It’s called spin.
Meanwhile, he amplifies information and people who support his political causes. This is called propaganda.
Understanding the mechanics of propaganda – its use of repetition, emotional appeal, scapegoating, scare tactics and unrealistic promises – can help inoculate people against its influence.
6. Stay engaged
Democracy relies on an informed and active citizenry to hold accountable their government and the officials who work in it as well as other powerful players in society. Yet the sheer volume of misinformation and bad news these days can feel overwhelming.
Rather than tuning out – what scholars call “news avoidance” – you can practice critical consumption of news.
Read deeply, look beyond headlines and short video clips, question the framing of stories, and encourage discussions about the role of media in society. Share reliable information with your friends and colleagues, and model good news hygiene for others.
Correcting misinformation is notoriously hard, so if someone you know shares it, start a dialogue by asking – privately and gently – where they heard it and whether they think it’s really true.
Finally, set goals for your consumption. What are your information needs at any given moment, and where can you meet that need? Some experts say 30 minutes a day is enough. Don’t waste your time on garbage.
Practicing good news hygiene isn’t just about protecting ourselves – it’s about fostering a media environment that supports democracy and informed participation.
Seth Ashley does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Joseph Patrick Kelly, Professor of Literature and Director of Irish and Irish American Studies, College of Charleston
Donald Trump is the third U.S. president to pardon a large group of insurrectionists. His clemency toward those convicted of crimes related to the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection – including seditious conspiracy and assaults on police officers – was different in key ways from the two previous efforts, by Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Ulysses S. Grant in 1873.
But they share the apparent hope that their pardons would herald periods of national harmony. As historians of the period after the Civil War, we know that for Johnson and Grant, that’s not what happened.
Further, as a Southerner, he wanted to maintain the social conventions and economic structure of the South by replacing enslavement with economic bondage. This economic bondage, called sharecropping, was a system by which tenant farmers rented land from large landowners. Tenants rarely cleared enough to pay their costs and fell into debt. In effect, Johnson sought to restore the nation to how it was before the Civil War, though without legalized slavery – and sought every avenue available to thwart the plans of the Radical Republicans who controlled both houses of Congress to create full racial equality.
Johnson signed an amnesty that gave a blanket pardon to all former Confederate soldiers. However, he required formerly high-ranking Confederate officials to individually seek pardons for their involvement in the rebellion. These officials faced permanent disfranchisement and could not hold federal office if they did not seek a pardon.
When Congress was in recess, Johnson vetoed two bills that had been passed: one to help find homes for formerly enslaved people who could no longer live on the property of their enslavers, and the other to define U.S. citizenship and ensure equal protection of the laws for Black people as well as white people.
Johnson also told Southern states not to ratify the 14th Amendment, whose purpose was to enshrine both citizenship and equal protection in the Constitution.
In 1986, the Ku Klux Klan marched through the streets of Pulaski, Tenn., to protest the national celebration of Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday. AP Photo/Mark Humphrey
The rise of the KKK
Nathan Bedford Forrest was not covered by Johnson’s general amnesty. As a former Confederate general, he had to apply for a personal presidential pardon, which Johnson granted on July 17, 1868. Two months later, Forrest represented Tennessee at the Democratic Party’s national convention in New York City.
After his pardon, Forrest perfected a rhetorical technique for his extremism. His biographer Court Carney described it as a multistep process, starting with, “Say something exaggerated and inflammatory that plays well with supporters.” Then, deny saying it “to maintain a semblance of professional decorum.” Then, blur the threats with “crowd pleasing humor.” It proved an effective way of threatening violence while being able to deny responsibility for any violence that occurred.
Nathan Bedford Forrest, center, in a Confederate uniform, joins a caricature of an Irish immigrant, left, and Democratic Party chairman August Belmont in trampling the rights of a Black Union veteran, depicted lying on the ground. Thomas Nast, Harper’s Weekly, 1868.
Under Forrest’s leadership, membership in the violent, racist Ku Klux Klan spread almost everywhere in the South. Records are sketchy, so it’s impossible to say how many people were lynched, but the Equal Justice Initiative has documented 2,000 lynchings of Black Americans during Reconstruction. Black women and girls were often raped by klansmen or members of its successor militias.
It’s also not possible to say how many pardoned ex-Confederates participated in the lynchings. But the violence was so widespread that just about everyone, North and South, thought the political violence was a resumption of the Civil War.
In the Piedmont of the Carolinas, klan violence amounted to a shadow government of white nationalists. Grant ordered the U.S. Army to apprehend the klansmen, and a newly minted Department of Justice prosecuted the insurrectionists for violating civil rights guaranteed by the 14th and 15th amendments. After several trials that proved to be what the federal judiciary’s official history calls “dramatic spectacles,” federal judges handed down conviction after conviction.
The federal government’s decisive action allowed for a relatively free presidential election in 1872. Black voters helped Grant win in eight Southern states, contributing to his landslide victory.
But after his reelection, Grant appointed a new attorney general, who dropped the pending klan cases. Grant also pardoned klansmen who had already been convicted of crimes.
Grant hoped his gesture would encourage Southerners to accept the nation’s new birth of freedom.
It didn’t. The pardons told former Confederates that they were winning.
John Christopher Winsmith, an ex-Confederate who embraced racial equality and whose father had been killed by the KKK, wrote to Grant in 1873, “A few trials and convictions in the U.S. Courts, and then the pardoning of the criminals” had emboldened what he called “the hideous monster – Ku Kluxism.”
And a new gang arose, too: the Red Shirts, who began to murder Black people openly, not even in secret as the klan did. Two of the Red Shirts were later elected to the U.S. Senate.
The federal government took no substantive action against this for a century, until the 20th century’s Civil Rights Movement sparked change. And it wasn’t until 2022 that Congress passed an anti-lynching bill.
I was for several years a volunteer with the Charleston County (SC) Democratic Party.
David Cason does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Paulo Carvão, Senior Fellow, Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business and Government, Harvard Kennedy School
One of President Donald Trump’s first executive orders in his second term called for developing an AI action plan.Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
Imagine a not-too-distant future where you let an intelligent robot manage your finances. It knows everything about you. It follows your moves, analyzes markets, adapts to your goals and invests faster and smarter than you can. Your investments soar. But then one day, you wake up to a nightmare: Your savings have been transferred to a rogue state, and they’re gone.
You seek remedies and justice but find none. Who’s to blame? The robot’s developer? The artificial intelligence company behind the robot’s “brain”? The bank that approved the transactions? Lawsuits fly, fingers point, and your lawyer searches for precedents, but finds none. Meanwhile, you’ve lost everything.
This is not the doomsday scenario of human extinction that some people in the AI field have warned could arise from the technology. It is a more realistic one and, in some cases, already present. AI systems are already making life-altering decisions for many people, in areas ranging from education to hiring and law enforcement. Health insurance companies have used AI tools to determine whether to cover patients’ medical procedures. People have been arrested based on faulty matches by facial recognition algorithms.
By bringing government and industry together to develop policy solutions, it is possible to reduce these risks and future ones. I am a former IBM executive with decades of experience in digital transformation and AI. I now focus on tech policy as a senior fellow at Harvard Kennedy School’s Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business and Government. I also advise tech startups and invest in venture capital.
Drawing from this experience, my team spent a year researching a way forward for AI governance. We conducted interviews with 49 tech industry leaders and members of Congress, and analyzed 150 AI-related bills introduced in the last session of Congress. We used this data to develop a model for AI governance that fosters innovation while also offering protections against harms, like a rogue AI draining your life savings.
Striking a balance
The increasing use of AI in all aspects of people’s lives raises a new set of questions to which history has few answers. At the same time, the urgency to address how it should be governed is growing. Policymakers appear to be paralyzed, debating whether to let innovation flourish without controls or risk slowing progress. However, I believe that the binary choice between regulation and innovation is a false one.
Instead, it’s possible to chart a different approach that can help guide innovation in a direction that adheres to existing laws and societal norms without stifling creativity, competition and entrepreneurship.
Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Tamlin Bason explains the regulatory landscape and the need for a balanced approach to AI governance.
The U.S. has consistently demonstrated its ability to drive economic growth. The American tech innovation system is rooted in entrepreneurial spirit, public and private investment, an open market and legal protections for intellectual property and trade secrets. From the early days of the Industrial Revolution to the rise of the internet and modern digital technologies, the U.S. has maintained its leadership by balancing economic incentives with strategic policy interventions.
In January 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order calling for the development of an AI action plan for America. My team and I have developed an AI governance model that can underpin an action plan.
A new governance model
Previous presidential administrations have waded into AI governance, including the Biden administration’s since-recindedexecutive order. There has also been an increasing number of regulations concerning AI passed at the state level. But the U.S. has mostly avoided imposing regulations on AI. This hands-off approach stems in part from a disconnect between Congress and industry, with each doubting the other’s understanding of the technologies requiring governance.
The industry is divided into distinct camps, with smaller companies allowing tech giants to lead governance discussions. Other contributing factors include ideological resistance to regulation, geopolitical concerns and insufficient coalition-building that have marked past technology policymaking efforts. Yet, our study showed that both parties in Congress favor a uniquely American approach to governance.
Congress agrees on extending American leadership, addressing AI’s infrastructure needs and focusing on specific uses of the technology – instead of trying to regulate the technology itself. How to do it? My team’s findings led us to develop the Dynamic Governance Model, a policy-agnostic and nonregulatory method that can be applied to different industries and uses of the technology. It starts with a legislative or executive body setting a policy goal and consists of three subsequent steps:
Establish a public-private partnership in which public and private sector experts work together to identify standards for evaluating the policy goal. This approach combines industry leaders’ technical expertise and innovation focus with policymakers’ agenda of protecting the public interest through oversight and accountability. By integrating these complementary roles, governance can evolve together with technological developments.
Create an ecosystem for audit and compliance mechanisms. This market-based approach builds on the standards from the previous step and executes technical audits and compliance reviews. Setting voluntary standards and measuring against them is good, but it can fall short without real oversight. Private sector auditing firms can provide oversight so long as those auditors meet fixed ethical and professional standards.
Set up accountability and liability for AI systems. This step outlines the responsibilities that a company must bear if its products harm people or fail to meet standards. Effective enforcement requires coordinated efforts across institutions. Congress can establish legislative foundations, including liability criteria and sector-specific regulations. It can also create mechanisms for ongoing oversight or rely on existing government agencies for enforcement. Courts will interpret statutes and resolve conflicts, setting precedents. Judicial rulings will clarify ambiguous areas and contribute to a sturdier framework.
Benefits of balance
I believe that this approach offers a balanced path forward, fostering public trust while allowing innovation to thrive. In contrast to conventional regulatory methods that impose blanket restrictions on industry, like the one adopted by the European Union, our model:
is incremental, integrating learning at each step.
draws on the existing approaches used in the U.S. for driving public policy, such as competition law, existing regulations and civil litigation.
can contribute to the development of new laws without imposing excessive burdens on companies.
draws on past voluntary commitments and industry standards, and encourages trust between the public and private sectors.
The U.S. has long led the world in technological growth and innovation. Pursuing a public-private partnership approach to AI governance should enable policymakers and industry leaders to advance their goals while balancing innovation with transparency and responsibility. We believe that our governance model is aligned with the Trump administration’s goal of removing barriers for industry but also supports the public’s desire for guardrails.
Carvão advises tech startups and invests in venture capital.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Benjamin Jensen, Professor of Strategic Studies at the Marine Corps University School of Advanced Warfighting; Scholar-in-Residence, American University School of International Service
War is a numbers game. Each side involved must marshal the supplies, troops and firepower needed to sustain the fight, thwart advancing armies and, hopefully, prevail.
But it’s also a game of uncertainty.
For the past three years, Ukraine’s military planners have had to approach every battle with a series of cold calculations: How much ammunition is left? How many air defense interceptors can be fired today, without running short tomorrow? Do we have the men and equipment needed to advance or hold position?
But now, with U.S. military assistance on hold and European support constrained by economic realities, that uncertainty is growing.
As an expert on warfare, I know this isn’t just a logistical problem; it’s a strategic one. When commanders can’t predict their future resource base, they are forced to take fewer risks, prioritize defense over offense and hedge against worst-case scenarios.
In war, uncertainty doesn’t just limit options. It shapes the entire battlefield and fate of nations.
Trump orders a pause
On March 3, 2025, President Donald Trump announced a suspension to all U.S. military aid to Ukraine. It followed a fractious Oval Office meeting between the U.S. president and Volodymyr Zelenskyy, after which Trump declared the Ukrainian leader “not ready for peace.”
Two days later, Central Intelligence Agency Director John Ratcliffe announced Washington was also pausing all intelligence sharing and ordered key allies such as the United Kingdom to limit the information they give Kyiv.
National security adviser Michael Waltz has linked the pause to ongoing U.S.-Ukrainian negotiations, stating that weapons supplies and intelligence sharing will resume once Ukraine agrees to a date for peace talks with Russia.
U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy argue in the Oval Office on Feb. 28, 2025. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
While the level of support is debated – it is often skewed by how one calculates equipment donations using presidential drawdown authority, through which the president can dip into the Department of Defense’s inventory – the U.S. has undoubtedly delivered critical weapons systems and a wide range of ammunition.
Though this assistance has decreased U.S. military stockpiles, it has helped Washington invest in its domestic defense industry and expand weapons production.
In addition, while Europe is starting to increase its own defense expenditures, EU members are stuck with flat economic growth and limits on how much they can borrow to invest in their own militaries, much less Ukraine.
This makes the U.S. a critical partner for Ukraine for at least another two years while Europe expands its military capacity.
These conditions affect the design of Ukraine’s military campaigns. Planners in Kyiv have to balance predictions about the enemy’s strengths and possible courses of action with assessments of their own resources.
This war ledger helps evaluate where to attack and where to defend.
Uncertainty skews such calculation. The less certain a military command is about its resource base, the more precarious bold military maneuvers become.
It is through this fog of uncertainty that any pause in assistance shapes the course of the war in Ukraine and the bargaining leverage of all parties at the negotiating table.
A new uncertain world
The White House has indicated that the pause in military aid and intelligence sharing will be lifted once a date for peace talks is set.
But even if U.S. weapons and intel begin to flow again, Ukrainian generals will have to fight the duration of the war under the knowledge that its greatest backer is willing to turn off the taps when it suits them.
And the consequences of this new uncertain world will be felt on the battlefield.
Ukraine now faces a brutal trade-off: stretch limited resources to maintain an active defense across the front, or consolidate forces, cede ground and absorb the political costs of trading space for time.
Material supply has shaped operational tempo over the course of the war. When Moscow expects Kyiv to be low on ammunition, it presses the attack. In fact, key Russian gains in eastern Ukraine in 2024 coincided with periods of critical supply shortages.
Russia used its advantage in artillery shells, which at times saw Moscow firing 20 artillery shells to every Ukrainian artillery shell fired, and air superiority to make advances north and west of the strategic city of Avdiivka.
Looking to the front lines in 2025, Russia could use any pause in supplies to support its ongoing offensive operations that stretch from Kherson in southern Ukraine to Kharkiv in the north and efforts to dislodge Ukrainian units in the Russian Kursk region.
This means Ukraine will have to decide where to hold the line and where to conduct a series of delaying actions designed to wear down Russian forces.
Trading space for time is an old military tactic, but it produces tremendous political costs when the terrain is your sovereign territory.
As such, the military logic of delaying actions creates political risks in Ukraine – sapping civilian morale and undermining support for the government’s war management.
A horrible choice
This dilemma will drive where and how Ukraine weights its efforts on the battlefield.
First, long-range strike operations against Russia will become increasingly less attractive. Every drone that hits an oil refinery in Russia is one less warhead stopping a Russian breakthrough in the Donbas or counterattack in Kursk. Ukraine will have to reduce the complexity of its defensive campaign and fall back along lines deeper within its own territory.
Second, Russia doesn’t fight just on the battlefield – it uses a coercive air campaign to gain leverage at the negotiating table. With U.S. military aid on hold, Moscow has a prime opportunity to escalate its strikes on Ukrainian cities and infrastructure, forcing Kyiv into painful choices about whether to defend its front lines or its political center of gravity.
From Vietnam to Ukraine, airpower has historically been a key bargaining tool in negotiations.
President Richard Nixon bombed North Vietnam to force concessions. Russia may now do the same to Ukraine.
Seen in this light, Russia could intensify its missile and drone campaign against Ukrainian cities and infrastructure – both to weaken defenses and to apply psychological and economic pressure. And because Kyiv relies on Western assistance, including intelligence and systems such as U.S.-built Patriot surface-to-air missiles to defend its skies, this coercive campaign could become effective.
As a result, Ukraine could be faced with a horrible choice. It may have to concentrate dwindling air defenses around either key military assets required to defend the front or its political center of gravity in Kyiv. Interception rates of Russian drones and missiles could drop, leading to either opportunities for a Russian breakout along the front or increased civilian deaths that put domestic pressure on Ukrainian negotiators.
Uncertainty reigns supreme
The real problem for Ukraine going forward is that even if the U.S. resumes support and intelligence sharing, the damage is done.
Uncertainty, once introduced, is hard to remove. It increases the likelihood that Ukraine’s leaders will stockpile munitions to reduce the risk of future pauses, rather than use them to take the fight to Russia.
And with battlefield decision-making now limited, Ukraine’s military strategists will increasingly look toward the least worst option to hold the line until a lasting peace is negotiated.
Benjamin Jensen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Danny Bradlow, Professor/Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Advancement of Scholarship, University of Pretoria
South Africa took over the presidency of the G20 at the end of 2024. Since then the world has become a more complex, unpredictable and dangerous place. The most powerful state in the world, the US, seems intent on undermining the existing order that it created and on demonstrating its power over weaker nations. Other influential countries are turning inward.
These developments raise concerns about how well mechanisms for global cooperation, such as the G20, can continue to operate, particularly those that work on the basis of consensual decision making. Danny Bradlow sets out how the G20 works, and what’s at stake.
What’s the G20’s purpose?
The G20 is a forum in which the largest economies in the world meet regularly to discuss, and attempt to address, the most urgent international economic and political challenges. The group, which includes both rich and developing countries, accounts for about 67% of the world’s population, 85% of global GDP, and 75% of global trade.
The G20, in fact, is a misnomer. The actual number of G20 participants in any given year far exceeds the 19 states and 2 international entities (the European Union and the African Union) that are its permanent members. Each year they are joined by a number of invited “guests”. While there are some countries, for example Spain and the Netherlands, that are considered “permanent” G20 guests, the full list of guests is determined by the chair of the G20 for that year. This year, South Africa has invited 13 countries, including Denmark, Egypt, Finland, Singapore and the United Arab Emirates. They are joined by 24 invited international organisations such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the United Nations and eight African regional organisations, among others.
The G20 should be understood as a process rather than a set of discrete events. Its apex is the annual leaders’ summit at which the participating heads of state and government seek to agree on a communiqué setting out their agreements on key issues. These agreements are non-binding and each of the participating states usually will implement most but not all the agreed points.
The communiqué is the outcome of a two track process: a finance track, consisting of representatives of the finance ministries and central banks in the participating counties, and a “sherpa” track that deals with more political issues. In total these two tracks will involve over 100 meetings of technical level officials and policymakers.
Most of the work in each track is done by working groups. The finance track has seven working groups dealing with issues ranging from the global economy and international financial governance to financial inclusion and the financing of infrastructure. The sherpa track has 15 working groups dealing with issues ranging from development and agriculture to health, the digital economy, and education.
The agenda for the working group meetings is based on issues notes prepared by the G20 presidency. The issues notes will discuss both unfinished business from prior years and any new issues that the president adds to the G20 agenda.
The working group chairs report on the outcomes of these meetings to the ministerial meetings in their track. These reports will first be discussed in meetings of the deputies to the ministers. The deputies will seek to narrow areas of disagreement and sharpen the issues for discussion so that when they are presented at the ministerial meeting the chances of reaching agreement are maximised.
The agreements reached at each of these ministerial meetings, assuming all participants agree, will be expressed in a carefully negotiated and drafted communiqué. If the participants cannot agree, the minister chairing the meeting will provide a chair’s summary of the meeting. These documents will then inform the communiqué that will be released at the end of the G20 summit. This final communiqué represents the formal joint decision of the participating heads of state and government.
The G20 process is supplemented by the work of 13 engagement groups representing, for example, business, labour, youth, think tanks, women and civil society in the G20 countries. These groups look for ways to influence the outcomes of the G20 process.
What is the G20 troika and how does it operate?
The G20 does not have a permanent secretariat. Instead, the G20 president is responsible for organising and chairing the more than 100 meetings that take place during the year. The G20 has decided that this burden should be supported by a “troika”, consisting of the past, present and future presidents of the G20. This year the troika consists of Brazil, the past chair; South Africa, the current chair; and the US, the future chair.
The role of the troika varies depending on the identity of the current chair and how assertive it wishes to be in driving the G20 process. It will also be influenced by how active the other two members of the troika wish to be.
The troika helps ensure some continuity from one G20 year to another. This is important because there is a significant carryover of issues on the G20 agenda from one year to the next. The troika therefore creates the potential for the G20 president to focus on the issues of most interest to it over a three year period rather than just for one year.
The G20 was first brought together during the Asian financial crisis in the 1990s. At that time, it was limited to a forum in which ministers of finance and central bank governors could meet to discuss the most important international economic and financial issues, such as the Asian financial crisis.
The G20 was elevated to the level of heads of state and government at the time of the 2008 global financial crisis.
The G20 tends to work well as a cooperative forum when the world is confronting an economic crisis. Thus, the G20 was a critical forum in which countries could discuss and agree on coordinating actions to deal with the global financial crisis in 2008-9.
It has performed less well when confronted with other types of crises. For example, it was found wanting in dealing with the COVID pandemic.
It has also proven to be less effective, although not necessarily totally ineffective, when there is no crisis. So, for example, the G20 has been useful in helping address relatively technical issues such as developing international standards on particular financial regulatory issues or improving the functioning of multilateral development banks. On other more political issues, for example climate, food security, and funding the UN’s sustainable development goals, it has been less effective.
There’s one less obvious, but nevertheless important, benefit. The G20 offers officials from participating countries the chance to interact with their counterparts from other G20 countries. As a result, they come to know and understand each other better, which helps foster cooperation between states on issues of common interest. It also ensures that when appropriate, these officials know whom to contact in other countries and this may help mitigate the risk of misunderstanding and conflict.
These crisis management and other benefits would be lost if the G20 were to stop functioning. And there is currently no alternative to the G20 in the sense of a forum where the leading states in the world, which may differ on many important issues, can meet on a relatively informal basis to discuss issues of mutual interest. Importantly, the withdrawal of one G20 state, even the most powerful, should not prevent the remaining participants from using the G20 to promote international cooperation on key global challenges.
In this way it can help manage the risk of conflict in a complex global environment.
Danny Bradlow, in addition to his position at the University of Pretoria, is working as a G20 senior advisor to the South African Institute of International Affairs and is co-chair of the T20 Taskforce on Financing of Sustainable Development.
It’s a cold winter morning in the bleak and bare arable fields of the East Anglian fens. At the edge of a field, a scientist dips a long pole into a ditch. So, what is a climate researcher doing here?
We are measuring greenhouse gas emissions from ditches and canals by collecting samples of ditch water and analysing them in the laboratory. We also use floating chambers – a low-tech creation (sometimes coupled with high-tech sensors) made of a plastic bucket and noodle-shaped swimming floats that sit on top of the water and collect the gases emitted from it.
As freshwater biogeochemists, we investigate how elements like carbon and nitrogen are cycled through freshwater ecosystems such as rivers, lakes and ponds. We study how human-induced pressures including eutrophication – when excess nutrients cause algal blooms that deplete oxygen – and climate change affect these cycles.
Unlike many other scientists, we have a fondness for ditches and canals (we’ll call them all ditches from now on), which don’t tend to receive a lot of attention in the freshwater research world.
Researchers have previously calculated that ditches emit up to 3% of the total global methane emissions from human activities. In our new study, we find they also emit a lot of CO₂ and nitrous oxide.
In fact, when comparing the same surface area, ditches emit more CO₂ and nitrous oxide than ponds, lakes and reservoirs – probably due to the high nutrient inputs that go into ditches.
Using a rough approximation of the global surface area of ditches, we estimate that including ditches would increase global freshwater CO₂ emissions by up to 1% and nitrous oxide emissions by up to 9%.
These percentages might seem small, but they add up. When accounting for all three greenhouse gases, the world’s ditches emit 333Tg CO₂e (teragrams of CO₂ equivalents – a common unit to express the total climate impact of all greenhouse gases). This is nearly equivalent to the UK’s total greenhouse gas emissions in 2023 (379Tg CO₂e).
For this study, we collaborated with ditch experts from the UK, Netherlands, Denmark, Australia and China. We collected existing data of greenhouse gas emissions from 119 ditches in 23 different countries, across all major climate zones.
We estimated that global ditches cover about 5,353,000 hectares – about 22% of the UK’s total land area, or the whole of Costa Rica. However, researchers still don’t definitively know the global extent of ditches – they may actually cover a much larger area.
They also transport water for irrigating crops. Some are built to create desirable waterfront properties. Bigger canals play a role in shipping and transportation, while roadside ditches serve to redistribute storm water runoff.
The global length of ditches is unknown but very large. In many European countries, the total ditch length rivals that of their streams and rivers. The Netherlands has 300,000km of ditches criss-crossing agricultural land. In Finland, networks of forestry drains total around 1 million km.
Ditches can emit large amounts of greenhouse gases (CO₂, methane and nitrous oxide) that contribute to global warming and climate change. Ditches often contain stagnant water and are commonly found in agricultural and urban landscapes, which means they can receive high nutrient inputs from agricultural runoff containing manure and fertilisers, and from stormwater runoff containing lawn fertilisers, pet and yard waste.
This creates the low-oxygen, high-nutrient conditions ideal for the production of greenhouse gases – especially methane and nitrous oxide, whose global warming potentials are much higher than CO₂. Given their extent, ditches therefore make a notable contribution to freshwater greenhouse gas budgets in many countries throughout the world.
Fence, plant and dredge
By considering ditches when reporting their annual greenhouse gas emissions, nations can build a more accurate picture of the problem. Proper quantification can also help researchers target ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from ditches. For example, stronger legislation can limit the use of fertilisers and manure near ditches.
In Australia, installing fences to prevent cattle from entering farm dams has reduced methane emissions from dams by half. A similar strategy could be applied to ditches to minimise the amount of nutrient-rich manure flowing into them.
Planting more trees along ditch banks could help take up some of the nutrients and lower water temperature through shading, which also reduces greenhouse gas production. Dredging ditches can remove nutrient-rich sediments, while aerating ditch water can make conditions less ideal for the production of methane.
So, solutions do exist – but they’ll only be employed and scaled up once the significance of emissions from ditches is quantified and more widely recognised.
Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Teresa Silverthorn has received funding for ditch research from from Defra, the Environment Agency, and EPSRC (UK research councils).
Mike Peacock has received funding for ditch research from Defra, the Environment Agency, NERC and EPSRC (UK research councils), and Formas and VR (Swedish research councils).
American rugby player Ilona Maher has risen to global fame. Not just because of her athletic ability (though that is remarkable, winning an Olympic bronze in 2024 in the USA rugby sevens team, and now signing a professional contract with England’s Bristol Bears), but because of what she represents.
Maher received widespread attention during the Paris Olympics as she shared her journey to sporting success and acceptance on TikTok. It’s a streak she’s continued with a recent turn on the US reality contest Dancing With the Stars, in which she finished second.
Now in Bristol to play 15-a-side rugby in preparation for the 2025 World Cup, Maher’s popularity (she has 3.4 million followers on Tiktok, more than any other rugby player in the world, of any gender) signals a generational shift. One that is increasingly rejecting outdated notions of femininity, fragility and women’s place in sport.
On Dancing with the Stars, Maher reversed conventional gender roles by lifting her partner during routines. After the show, she spoke candidly about the financial challenges of being a professional athlete in women’s rugby. She highlighted how lack of investment in the sport has forced her to find additional ways to sustain her career, such as participating in the dance show.
Maher lifted her partner on Dancing with the Stars.
Breaking barriers
This rebellion against gender norms is both personal and political. Sport has long been a site of this struggle for women.
Participation itself was once radical, as women had to fight just to step onto the field. When American runner Bobbi Gibb broke the rules to run the Boston Marathon in 1966, it was a subversive act that sparked backlash. She ran without permission, having been told women weren’t capable enough, and completed the race easily.
In our new book, Open Play: The Case for Feminist Sport, we explain how women who excelled in physically demanding sports were often vilified for threatening the traditional gender norms that placed them in passive or nurturing roles, rather than active, competitive ones.
Athletes who showed strength, endurance and skill in these domains challenged deeply ingrained stereotypes of women as physically inferior and fragile. As a result, they faced intense scrutiny, both socially and publicly. Their achievements were often dismissed as anomalies, and they were frequently subject to sexist criticism, questioning their femininity or even whether they were “real” women at all.
Maher, too, has faced this misogynistic criticism, with online trolls questioning her gender identity. She has spoken openly about the shame she felt as a child, growing up in a body which defied traditional expectations of femininity that are defined by smallness. Yet by confronting these prejudices, she offers the world a new example of what a woman’s body – and a woman’s power – can look like and do.
Feminism and sport
Feminism has historically focused on achieving equality in social, political and economic realms. Yet thinkers like Mary Wollstonecraft recognised early on that physicality was central to maintaining men’s dominance. Wollstonecraft argued in 1792 that women’s perceived physical inferiority wasn’t natural, but a product of their subjugation.
Sport has since become a pivotal arena for challenging the myth of feminine fragility, which persists in part because of the supposedly objective proof that men outperform women in many physical feats. But Wollstonecraft’s insights remain relevant: men and women still do not compete on equal terms. Women’s sports receive a fraction of the funding, resources and cultural support of men’s.
And the inequalities extend far beyond economic and cultural support. Women are often discouraged from participating in sport, and shamed if they excel.
We argue that the segregation of women’s sport, often framed as necessary to “protect female athletes”, actually perpetuates inequality. Around the world, women are still barred from competing against men no matter how exceptional they are, while men retain access to the best facilities, funding and opportunities.
In our book, we argue that this structural segregation reinforces the myth of women’s inferiority while denying women and other athletes with marginalised gender identities the chance to push boundaries and showcase their full potential. Ending this segregation would challenge the narrative of feminine fragility and open the best of sport to everyone.
We believe that Maher embodies this challenge. Her fans see in her a bold rejection of outdated gender stereotypes and a celebration of what women can achieve when given the chance. But her visibility also threatens those invested in maintaining traditional hierarchies. The backlash she faces is a reminder of how high the stakes are.
Sheree Bekker is Co-Director of the Feminist Sport Lab. She is also affiliated with the UK Collaborating Centre on Injury and Illness Prevention in Sport, an International Olympic Committee Research Centre.
Stephen Mumford is Co-Director of the Feminist Sport Lab.
AMY GOODMAN: President Trump addressed a joint session of Congress in a highly partisan 100-minute speech, the longest presidential address to Congress in modern history on Wednesday.
Trump defended his sweeping actions over the past six weeks.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We have accomplished more in 43 days than most administrations accomplished in four years or eight years, and we are just getting started.
AMY GOODMAN: President Trump praised his biggest campaign donor, the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, who’s leading Trump’s effort to dismantle key government agencies and cut critical government services.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: And to that end, I have created the brand-new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Perhaps you’ve heard of it. Perhaps.
Which is headed by Elon Musk, who is in the gallery tonight. Thank you, Elon. He’s working very hard. He didn’t need this. He didn’t need this. Thank you very much. We appreciate it.
AMY GOODMAN: Some Democrats laughed and pointed at Elon Musk when President Trump made this comment later in his speech.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: It’s very simple. And the days of rule by unelected bureaucrats are over.
AMY GOODMAN: During his speech, President Trump repeatedly attacked the trans and immigrant communities, defended his tariffs that have sent stock prices spiraling, vowed to end Russia’s war on Ukraine and threatened to take control of Greenland.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We also have a message tonight for the incredible people of Greenland: We strongly support your right to determine your own future, and if you choose, we welcome you into the United States of America. We need Greenland for national security and even international security, and we’re working with everybody involved to try and get it.
But we need it, really, for international world security. And I think we’re going to get it. One way or the other, we’re going to get it.
‘A declaration of war against the American people.’ Video: Democracy Now!
AMY GOODMAN: During Trump’s 100-minute address, Democratic lawmakers held up signs in protest reading “This is not normal,” “Save Medicaid” and “Musk steals.”
One Democrat, Congressmember Al Green of Texas, was removed from the chamber for protesting against the President.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Likewise, small business optimism saw its single-largest one-month gain ever recorded, a 41-point jump.
REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMEMBER 1: Sit down!
REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMEMBER 2: Order!
SPEAKER MIKE JOHNSON: Members are directed to uphold and maintain decorum in the House and to cease any further disruptions. That’s your warning. Members are engaging in willful and continuing breach of decorum, and the chair is prepared to direct the sergeant-at-arms to restore order to the joint session.
Mr Green, take your seat. Take your seat, sir.
DEMOCRAT CONGRESS MEMBER AL GREEN: He has no mandate to cut Medicaid!
SPEAKER MIKE JOHNSON: Take your seat. Finding that members continue to engage in willful and concerted disruption of proper decorum, the chair now directs the sergeant-at-arms to restore order, remove this gentleman from the chamber.
AMY GOODMAN: That was House Speaker Mike Johnson, who called in security to take Texas Democratic Congressmember Al Green out. Afterwards, Green spoke to reporters after being removed.
Democrat Congressman Al Green (Texas) . . . “I have people who are very fearful. These are poor people, and they have only Medicaid in their lives when it comes to their healthcare.” Image: DN screenshot APR
DEMOCRAT CONGRESS MEMBER AL GREEN: The President said he had a mandate, and I was making it clear to the President that he has no mandate to cut Medicaid.
I have people who are very fearful. These are poor people, and they have only Medicaid in their lives when it comes to their healthcare. And I want him to know that his budget calls for deep cuts in Medicaid.
He needs to save Medicaid, protect it. We need to raise the cap on Social Security. There’s a possibility that it’s going to be hurt. And we’ve got to protect Medicare.
These are the safety net programmes that people in my congressional district depend on. And this President seems to care less about them and more about the number of people that he can remove from the various programmes that have been so helpful to so many people.
AMY GOODMAN: Texas Democratic Congressmember Al Green.
We begin today’s show with Ralph Nader, the longtime consumer advocate, corporate critic, former presidential candidate. Ralph Nader is founder of the Capitol Hill Citizen newspaper. His most recent lead article in the new issue of Capitol Hill Citizen is titled “Democratic Party: Apologise to America for ushering Trump back in.”
Medicaid, Social Security, Medicare, all these different programmes. Ralph Nader, respond overall to President Trump’s, well, longest congressional address in modern history.
Environmentalist and consumer protection activist Ralph Nader . . . And he’s taken Biden’s genocidal policies one step further by demanding the evacuation of Palestinians from Gaza. Image: DN screenshot APR
RALPH NADER: Well, it was also a declaration of war against the American people, including Trump voters, in favour of the super-rich and the giant corporations. What Trump did last night was set a record for lies, delusionary fantasies, predictions of future broken promises — a rerun of his first term — boasts about progress that don’t exist.
In practice, he has launched a trade war. He has launched an arms race with China and Russia. He has perpetuated and even worsened the genocidal support against the Palestinians. He never mentioned the Palestinians once.
And he’s taken Biden’s genocidal policies one step further by demanding the evacuation of Palestinians from Gaza.
But taking it as a whole, Amy, what we’re seeing here defies most of dictionary adjectives. What Trump and Musk and Vance and the supine Republicans are doing are installing an imperial, militaristic domestic dictatorship that is going to end up in a police state.
You can see his appointments are yes people bent on suppression of civil liberties, civil rights. You can see his breakthrough, after over 120 years, of announcing conquest of Panama Canal.
He’s basically said, one way or another, he’s going to take Greenland. These are not just imperial controls of countries overseas or overthrowing them; it’s actually seizing land.
Now, on the Greenland thing, Greenland is a province of Denmark, which is a member of NATO. He is ready to basically conquer a part of Denmark in violation of Section 5 of NATO, at the same time that he has displayed full-throated support for a hardcore communist dictator, Vladimir Putin, who started out with the Russian version of the CIA under the Soviet Union and now has over 20 years of communist dictatorship, allied, of course, with a number of oligarchs, a kind of kleptocracy.
And the Republicans are buying all this in Congress. This is complete reversal of everything that the Republicans stood for against communist dictators.
So, what we’re seeing here is a phony programme of government efficiency ripping apart people’s programmes. The attack on Social Security is new, complete lies about millions of people aged 110, 120, getting Social Security cheques.
That’s a new attack. He left Social Security alone in his first term, but now he’s going after [it]. So, what they’re going to do is cut Medicaid and cut other social safety nets in order to pay for another tax cut for the super-rich and the corporation, throwing in no tax on tips, no tax on Social Security benefits, which will, of course, further increase the deficit and give the lie to his statement that he wants a balanced budget.
So we’re dealing with a deranged, unstable pathological liar, who’s getting away with it. And the question is: How does he get away with it, year after year? Because the Democratic Party has basically collapsed.
They don’t know how to deal with a criminal recidivist, a person who has hired workers without documents and exploited them, a person who’s a bigot against immigrants, including legal immigrants who are performing totally critical tasks in home healthcare, processing poultry, meat, and half of the construction workers in Texas are undocumented workers.
So, as a bully, he doesn’t go after the construction industry in Texas; he picks out individuals.
I thought the most disgraceful thing, Amy, yesterday was his use of these unfortunate people who suffered as props, holding one up after another. But they were also Trump’s crutches to cover up his contradictory behavior.
So, he praised the police yesterday, but he pardoned over 600 people who attacked violently the police [in the attack on the Capitol] on 6 January 2021 and were convicted and imprisoned as a result, and he let them out of prison. I thought the most —
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Ralph? Ralph, I —
RALPH NADER: — the most heartrending thing was that 13-year-old child, who wanted to be a police officer when he grew up, being held up twice by his father. And he was so bewildered as to what was going on. And Trump’s use of these people was totally reprehensible and should be called out.
Now, more basically, the real inefficiencies in government, they’re ignoring, because they are kleptocrats. They’re ignoring corporate crimes on Medicaid, Medicare, tens of billions of dollars every year ripping off Medicare, ripping off government contracts, such as defence contracts.
He’s ignoring hundreds of billions of dollars of corporate welfare, including that doled out to Elon Musk — subsidies, handouts, giveaways, bailouts, you name it. And he’s ignoring the bloated military budget, which he is supporting the Republicans in actually increasing the military budget more than the generals have asked for. So, that’s the revelation —
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Ralph? Ralph, if I — Ralph, if I can interrupt? I just need to —
RALPH NADER: — that the Democrats need to pursue.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Ralph, I wanted to ask you about — specifically about Medicaid and Medicare. You’ve mentioned the cuts to these safety net programmes. What about Medicaid, especially the crisis in this country in long-term care? What do you see happening in this Trump administration, especially with the Republican majority in Congress?
RALPH NADER: Well, they’re going to slash — they’re going to move to slash Medicaid, which serves over 71 million people, including millions of Trump voters, who should be reconsidering their vote as the days pass, because they’re being exploited in red states, blue states, everywhere, as well.
Yeah, they have to cut tens of billions of dollars a year from Medicaid to pay for the tax cut. That’s number one. Now they’re going after Social Security. Who knows what the next step will be on Medicare? They’re leaving Americans totally defenceless by slashing meat and poultry and food inspection laws, auto safety.
They’re exposing people to climate violence by cutting FEMA, the rescue agency. They’re cutting forest rangers that deal with wildfires. They’re cutting protections against pandemics and epidemics by slashing and ravaging and suppressing free speech in scientific circles, like CDC and National Institutes of Health.
They’re leaving the American people defenseless.
And where are the Democrats on this? I mean, look at Senator Slotkin’s response. It was a typical rerun of a feeble, weak Democratic rebuttal. She couldn’t get herself, just like the Democrats in 2024, which led to Trump’s victory — they can’t get themselves, Juan, to talk specifically and authentically about raising the minimum wage, expanding healthcare, cracking down on corporate crooks that are bleeding out the incomes of hard-pressed American workers and the poor.
They can’t get themselves to talk about increasing frozen Social Security budgets for 50 years, that 200 Democrats supported raising, but Nancy Pelosi kept them, when she was Speaker, from taking John Larson’s bill to the House floor.
That’s why they lose. Look at her speech. It was so vague and general. They chose her because she was in the national security state. She was a former CIA. They chose her because they wanted to promote the losing version of the Democratic Party, instead of choosing Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders, the most popular polled politician in America today.
That’s who they chose. So, as long as the Democrats monopolise the opposition and crush third-party efforts to push them into more progressive realms, the Republican, plutocratic, Wall Street, war machine declaration of war against the American people will continue.
We’re heading into the most serious crisis in American history. There’s no comparison.
AMY GOODMAN: Ralph Nader, we’re going to have to leave it there, but, of course, we’re going to continue to cover these issues. And I also wanted to wish you, Ralph, a happy 91st birthday. Ralph Nader —
RALPH NADER: I wish people to get the Capitol Hill Citizen, which tells people what they can really do to win democracy and justice back. So, for $5 or donation or more, if you wish, you can go to Capitol Hill Citizen and get a copy sent immediately by first-class mail, or more copies for your circle, of resisting and protesting and prevailing over this Trump dictatorship.
AMY GOODMAN: Ralph Nader, longtime consumer advocate, corporate critic, four-time presidential candidate, founder of the Capitol Hill Citizen newspaper. This is Democracy Now!
The original content of this programme is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States Licence. Republished by Asia Pacific Report under Creative Commons.
On March 3, US President Donald Trump paused all US military aid to Ukraine. This move was apparently triggered by a heated exchange a few days earlier between Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office.
In response, European Union leaders have now committed to rearm Europe by mobilising €800 billion (about A$1.4 trillion) in defence spending.
26 of the EU leaders (excluding Hungary) signed an agreement that peace for Ukraine must be accompanied by “robust and credible” security guarantees.
They agreed there can be no negotiations on Ukraine without Ukraine’s participation. It was also agreed the EU will continue to provide regular military and non-military support to Ukraine.
This jump in defence spending is unprecedented for the EU, with 2024 spending hitting a previous record high of €326 billion (A$558 billion).
At the same time, the United Kingdom has committed to the biggest increase in defence spending since the Cold War.
The EU’s united front will create strong defences and deter a direct attack on EU nations.
However, for Ukraine, it will not lead to a military victory in its war with Russia. While Europe has stepped up funding, this is not sufficient for Ukraine to defeat Russian forces currently occupying about 20% of the country.
For Ukraine, the withdrawal of US support will severely strain their ability to keep fighting. Ukraine will likely need to find a way to freeze the conflict this year. This may mean a temporary truce that does not formally cede Ukrainian territory to Russia.
A Trumpian worldview
The vastly different approaches of the US under Trump and the EU point to a deeper ideological divide.
While the Trump administration has acted more quickly and assertively in foreign affairs than many expected, its approach is not surprising.
Since Trump won the US presidential election in November last year, Europe and Ukraine have known that a shift in US policy would be on the cards.
Trump’s approach to Ukraine is not only about economic concerns and withdrawing US military aid. It is about a deeper, more significant clash of worldviews.
Trump (and, it appears, his core support base) hold a “great power politics” approach to world affairs.
This approach assumes we live in a competitive world where countries are motivated to maximise gains and dominate. Outcomes can be achieved through punishments or rewards.
Countries with greater military or economic strength “count” more. They are expected to impose their will on weaker countries. This viewpoint underpinned much of the colonial activity of the 19th and 20th centuries.
This worldview expects conflict – and it expects stronger countries to “win”.
Consistent with Trump’s outlook, Russia is a regional power that has the “right” to control smaller countries in its neighbourhood.
Trump’s approach to Ukraine is not an anomaly. Nor is it a temporary and spontaneous measure to grab the global spotlight.
Trump’s worldview leads to the logical and consistent conclusion that Russia will seek to control countries within its sphere of influence.
Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine represented an attempt to impose its will on a militarily weaker country that it considered to be in its rightful domain of control.
The EU alternative
Contrary to this view, the EU is founded on the premise that countries can work together for mutual gains through collaboration and consensus. This approach underpins the operation of what are called the Bretton Woods Institutions created in the aftermath of World War II.
This worldview expects collaboration rather than conflict. Mutually beneficial and cooperative solutions are found through dialogue and negotiation.
According to this perspective, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is about a conflict between the values of a liberal democracy and those of an oppressive authoritarian regime.
Zelensky has himself consistently framed the conflict as being about a clash of values: freedom and democracy versus authoritarianism and control.
A mix of both?
Since Trump’s second inauguration, European leaders have presented a united front, motivated by facing a world where US military backing cannot be guaranteed.
However, there is internal division within European countries. Recent years has seen a sharp rise in anti-EU sentiment within EU member states. The UK’s exit from the EU is an example of this phenomenon.
EU leaders previously followed a path of cooperation with Russia, with limited success. Following Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, France and Germany helped mediate the Minsk Agreements. These agreements, signed in 2014 and 2015, were designed to prevent further incursions by Russian-backed groups into Ukrainian sovereign territory.
This did not prevent Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
In an emerging new world order, leadership might require going beyond the seeming contradiction of a focus on military strength or cooperation. Leaders may need to integrate both.
Jessica Genauer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amy Peden, NHMRC Research Fellow, School of Population Health & co-founder UNSW Beach Safety Research Group, UNSW Sydney
Social media is awash with images of surfers chasing waves as Cyclone Alfred whips up seas off Australia’s east coast.
Queensland Premier David Crisafulli has branded beachgoers as “idiots”. On Friday morning, he said those going to the beach as the cyclone approaches put themselves and emergency services at risk, adding:
I plead to the people who might think that now is a great time to go out on the surf – it’s not. It’s not just for you I’m concerned, but for the innocent person who has to go in after you.
In Queensland, surfers have been warned they may face fines up to $16,000 for reckless behaviour.
Despite all this, surfers and others continue to enter the water. It’s important to ask why – and what will it take to get them to stop?
Only a surfer knows the feeling
I research injury prevention with a focus on drowning and safety in the water. As cofounder of the UNSW Beach Safety Research Group, I have also led research into surfing.
Surfers frequently chase waves in big surf. Research by my colleagues and I shows under normal conditions, surfers have a lower risk of dying during this activity than people taking part in other water-related activities such as swimming, wading, snorkelling and scuba diving.
Although drowning is the leading cause of death while surfing, other severe injuries are relatively rare.
Of course, injuries can occur. These include cervical spine fractures and other spinal cord injuries, head injuries and lacerations. These can be due to collision with a surfboard, a fin, or the ocean floor.
Yet most surfers usually manage to avoid serious injury. Throw some mega waves into the mix, however, and things can turn deadly, fast.
Research shows the risk of injury is almost 2.5 times higher when surfing in waves that were over head height or bigger, relative to other waves.
Research shows surfers are motivated by what’s known as “sensation seeking”. In other words, they are more likely to seek out intense experiences than those who participate in other, less extreme sports.
The desire to “master nature” – or go into battle with a big wave and come out on top – has been documented in analyses of surfing motivation.
For big wave surfers, the reward – and the risk – can can be even greater. The physical and mental preparation needed to take on such extremes are immense. Tragically, deaths do occur even when attempts are made to improve safety.
Beyond the waves, other hazards can cause increased risk of ill health and injury in stormy seas. Debris can increase the risk of blunt-force trauma, while fecal and other bacteria in stormwater can cause illness.
Sea foam should not be considered harmless either, having been implicated in rescues and tragic cases of drowning in the past.
In the long term, coastal erosion due to storm surges and powerful surf can create permanent changes, impacting infrastructure and changing the location and strength of rip currents – the number-one coastal drowning hazard.
Having a cyclone this far south is a rare event, so it’s only natural for people to want to take a look. But sometimes there’s no safe viewing distance, and the safest place to be is at home.
Unsafe behaviours in and around the surf are rife on social media. Mainstream media outlets often model unsafe behaviours too, with reporters delivering their “piece to camera” about the importance of staying away from the beach while themselves standing on the shore.
Conditions are unpredictable. These include powerful waves and storm surges that can knock you off your feet and sweep you out to sea.
Remember, emergency services are stretched right now. If you get into trouble in the surf, there may be no one to rescue you. Or untrained bystanders may come to your aid and get into trouble themselves.
With numerous flood warnings in place and roads closed, as well as the risks present on the coast, it’s best to stay away from beaches, rock platforms and coastal areas for now. Hit the waves again when conditions have calmed down.
Amy Peden receives funding from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, Surf Life Saving Australia and the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service. She maintains an honorary (unpaid) affiliation with Royal Life Saving Society – Australia.
People in southeast Queensland and northern NSW have spent days racing to prepare their homes ahead of Tropical Cyclone Alfred, now expected to make landfall over several hours on Saturday.
It’s not possible to completely cyclone-proof a house. But there’s a lot you can do – in the short and long term – to boost the resilience of your home and reduce damage caused by future cyclones.
How winds affects pressure on and in the house
Strong winds generate pressure pushing and pulling on the outside and inside of a house.
When wind gusts hit a building, the wind is pushing on what we call the windward wall and going up and over the roof, creating a suction effect. The wind is trying very hard to peel the roof off your house, and in a cyclone is hammering the building for many hours.
If a windward window or door blows in or gets broken by debris, wind instantaneously enters the space. This almost doubles the load that the roof now has to resist.
In southeast Queensland and northern NSW, housing is not typically designed to resist that extra upward load on the roof if a door or window blows in.
Cyclone resilience is about maintaining the function of a building during severe weather, so even if there is some damage, it still can be used after the storm has passed. So it’s vital the roof stays on.
In practice, that means thinking about what’s known as the “tie down chain” – how all pieces of the house are held together to carry the wind loads from the roof to the ground.
A weak link in this tie down chain can lead to winds lifting entire roofs from homes. All the connections involved in keeping a roof on the house are exceptionally important.
Weather resistance in building codes is generally designed for rain that falls straight down and flows off the roof.
But in a cyclone, rain can come horizontally. It can get pushed under the the roof, into gutters and under sliding doors. And it’s not just a little bit – buckets and buckets of water can inundate a house.
Wind pressure can also mean water is blown into the house through gaps you may not even know existed. Wind-driven rain ingress can happen at wind speeds that don’t cause structural damage.
It comes in under doors and through windows, including holes in window sills. It can lead to buildings being unusable and a large number of insurance claims.
Dispelling major myths
You might have seen people taping a big “X” on their windows and glass doors. Unfortunately, this doesn’t really do much to improve window strength.
Some people put the tape on and then, during the cyclone, sit there watching their glass flex, falsely believing tape magically makes the window stronger. This is incredibly dangerous. If that glass shatters, the bystander would be hit by shards of glass travelling at high speed.
Sometimes people open a window to reduce pressure inside the house that happens if a door or window breaks. It’s true this might reduce some pressure, but it depends which side of the house is currently being hit by wind. And given wind direction can change during a cyclone, emergency services recommend it’s better just to stay sheltered in the smallest room; they don’t want you standing in front of a window during a cyclone.
Close all internal doors so if any windows do blow in, the high pressure is restricted to just that room (not spread throughout the house).
Designing beyond the bare minimum
Building codes require buildings to build to a “wind classification” according to the “wind zone” of that area.
Buildings are often built only to the minimum standard of the Building Code. However, if we want a house to function after an extreme tropical cyclone, we should consider building beyond the minimum standard using resilience features that will keep your roof on in a cyclone and minimise the entry of rainwater.
Cyclone resilience also includes incorporating resilient building materials in your home – such as linoleum or vinyl floors instead of carpet, and ceilings from fibre-cement sheeting instead of plasterboard.
It’s also important all elements holding your house together are well maintained through the life of the building.
That means ensuring regular inspections by a trained professional to identify any potential weaknesses such as rot, rust or UV damage.
These inspections are not something you and a mate can do yourselves. It requires a building professionals to get into the roof and look for weak spots.
Think beyond your house. What about the carport? A pergola? That shed or patio you added? Are the solar panels installed correctly with the right fixings and brackets to resist the wind forces?
If all these things are not fixed down and maintained well, strong winds can pick them up and throw them at your house or your neighbours.
Just as you get your car serviced, you should get your house checked every five to seven years. Our homes have many important parts and a failure in one can lead to disastrous and expensive problems.
David Henderson serves on committees for Standards Australia. He is a member of Engineers Australia and has done consulting work with the Resilient Building Council.
Geoffrey Boughton serves on committees for Standards Australia. He is a member of Engineers Australia and has done consulting work with the Resilient Building Council.
.jpg){kind=link}
