Because more problems

If youre the sort of gentleman who holds the door open for a lady – or the sort of woman who expects him to – then be warned.Such acts of chivalry may actually be benevolent sexism in disguise, according to researchers.Experts say this type of sexism is harder to spot than the hostile sexism we are more familiar with – because it often masquerades as gallantry. It is typified by paternal and protective behaviour, from encouraging smiles to holding doors open. 
Sexist? Boston researchers carried out a study into types of sexism in men. They say there are two types of sexists, identifiable by their smile (stock image shown)
Hostile sexist men were less approachable and less friendly while those who displayed benevolent sexism were nicer and smiled moreUS researchers argue that while women may enjoy being showered with attention, benevolent sexism is insidious and men who are guilty of it see women as incompetent beings who require their cherished protection.Professor Judith Hall, of Northeastern University in Boston, said: Benevolent sexism is like a wolf in sheeps clothing that perpetuates support for gender inequality among women. These supposed gestures of good faith may entice women to accept the status quo in society because sexism literally looks welcoming, appealing and harmless.
RELATED ARTICLES
Previous
1
Next
Strange bodies our ancestors revealed: 1.9 million-year-old…
Men dont like witty women – they just want one who laughs…
Do male tigers play dad after all? Camera trap captures rare…
Looking for love? Be FUN: Playfulness is more important than…
Share this article
Share
64k shares
Working with a male colleague, Professor Hall paired 27 men with women they had never met before and gave them a quiz game to play and time to chat afterwards. MAN UP TO GET THE TOP JOB  Ladies should behave like men if they want to work in male-dominated industries, according to a controversial study.Research by Professor Ann Marie Ryan, a psychologist at Michigan State University, suggests recruiters prefer more masculine traits to those commonly associated with women.She asked women to apply for leadership roles in male-dominated industries such as engineering in front of a panel of volunteers asked to evaluate the candidates suitability.Some of the women were asked to emphasise masculine-like traits such as assertiveness, independence and raw ambition.Others were asked to display more feminine traits – warmth, supportiveness and a nurturing nature.The panel, irrespective of the gender of those sitting on it, decided that leadership required more dominant and assertive traits to be shown during the interview process.  The men, who were aged 18 to 22, also filled in a survey designed to detect sexist attitudes. Examples of hostile sexism included agreeing that women tend to exaggerate problems at work, while someone who is benevolently sexist will believe women should be rescued before men from a sinking ship.They found men whose answers led to them being classed as benevolently sexist smiled more while playing the quiz game and chatting.They were more patient while waiting for their female partners to answer the trivia questions and warmer, friendlier and chattier than those who were hostile sexists.Writing in the journal Sex Roles, the researchers said that while such behaviour may be well-intentioned, this doesnt mean it isnt harmful. Men who are guilty of benevolent sexism see women as warm and pure, yet helpless and incompetent beings.Study co-author Jin Goh said: Benevolent sexist men hold women in high regard and are willing to sacrifice themselves to save and protect women. However, benevolent sexist men perceive women as the weaker gender at the same time. 
Thousands marched on 8 March 2015 for International Womens day. More than 1,000 women and men were marching for gender equality in New York City today – pictured here – as millions of people across the world rallied to demand changeSex Roles

Market of initially ships

Richard Branson is being sued for £200million following the collapse of a joint venture with former Norwegian Cruises CEO Colin VeitchSir Richard Branson and his Virgin Group is being sued for £200million ($300million) by the former chief executive of Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd over plans by the British billionaire to launch his own luxury cruise line.The lawsuit has been filed by Colin Veitch in Miami Federal Court, and claims that Virgin muscled him out of a joint venture to break into the industry with massive ships capable of carrying 4,200 passengers each and operating as floating resorts.Veitch alleges he presented a plan to Virgin in 2011 to launch a new cruise line focused on two ultra ships that would give it a foothold in the hard-to-enter but highly profitable luxury cruise industry, according to the complaint.Sir Richard and the Virgin Group first looked at the cruise market in the late 1970s, and our current team has been exploring the opportunity for more than a decade, Virgin Group said in an emailed statement on Wednesday.Over the years, we have been in discussions with a number of parties including the plaintiff, and those discussions ceased in 2012. We strongly believe the claim has no merits.Virgin in December announced the formation of Virgin Cruises, which intends to sail out of Miami. Its one of the newest of Sir Richards numerous business ventures, which include airlines, the Virgin Galactic spacecraft, a music label, book publishing, a travel agency, hotels and mobile phone services.As CEO of the new Virgin Cruises Branson hired Tom McAlpine, former president of the Disney Cruise Line, a unit of Walt Disney Co.
RELATED ARTICLES
Previous
1
Next
Would you LIVE on a cruise ship? The luxury vessel with 165…
Pods, huts and colourful cabins on wheels: Inside the unique…
The super liner that really is quintessentially British…
Thats one way to avoid taking the stairs! Hotel in Taiwan…
Share this article
Share
According to the lawsuit, the plan was initially brought to Virgin by Veitch, who after analysing the cruise industry concluded that a well-known brand such as Virgin could break into the business profitably by building a pair of so-called ultra ships. These vessels, such as Royal Caribbean Internationals Oasis of the Seas ship, feature a wide array of on-board attractions and command premium prices.
Richard Branson announced in December his intention to form Virgin Cruises, that sail out of Miami, US (File Photo)The May 2011 agreement between Virgin and Veitch estimated that Virgin could make between $427 million and $483 million in profits over 10 years if the venture performed as planned. Under this deal, Veitch would get nothing if the ships were not profitable but stood to make $315 million if his projections were met.Upon recognizing the potential for Virgin Cruises to be one of Virgins biggest, sexiest businesses, however, the dark side of Virgin quickly emerged, the filing says, citing language used by Branson in a video shot in 2012.Veitch claimed that Virgin later began altering the deal to diminish his earnings and leave him as an indentured servant whose ownership and rewards depended completely upon Virgins whims.  

Discrimination want send

Branko Loncar, 55, won a long legal battle against being returned to Croatia to serve four years in prison for attempted murderA man who shot his dying wife 14 times as she was hanging from a noose can continue to live freely in Britain – after judges refused to extradite him.Branko Loncar, 55, has won a long legal battle against being returned to Croatia to serve four years in prison for attempted murder, despite committing further crimes, including an assault, while living in London.He earlier won asylum after complaining he had to flee Croatia because of anti-Serb discrimination – and his lawyers argued locals would persecute him over the shooting.Last week’s High Court ruling is a sharp reminder that while the Government talks of ejecting foreign criminals, in practice the criminals routinely win the right to stay here.Loncar, who has been on benefits and had a drink problem since arriving in Britain with his two sons in 1999, made the extraordinary defence that he was not aiming at his wife when he fired repeatedly from a few yards away.In any case, his lawyers claimed, she died as a result of hanging herself, not because of the 14 bullets he ‘accidentally’ fired into her defenceless body. A Croatian court which heard the case in his absence rejected his defence, sentenced him to four years in prison, and ten years ago the country formally issued an international arrest warrant and requested his extradition from Britain.His lawyers first successfully fought against the extradition on human rights grounds, arguing that he had a new Serbian ‘partner’ in Britain – who actually lives a hundred miles away – and that he now had grandchildren in London.And last week British judges finished off the extradition bid for ever, giving Loncar the right to remain free here, after ruling it ‘oppressive’ to send him back to prison in Croatia after so long.He was also commended for raising his children alone after shooting his wife.Speaking in broken English to the Daily Mail last night at his housing association flat close to fashionable Camden in North London, Loncar said he had every right to remain in Britain, adding: ‘Croatia is dangerous – they still want me there.’
RELATED ARTICLES
Previous
1
Next
Hundreds of dangerous prisoners including 50 murderers have…
Law degree dropout is jailed for life for smashing a…
Share this article
Share
The case began in 1994, amid the chaos of the Balkan wars, when Loncar, an ethnic Serb and former soldier in the Yugoslavian army, lived with his wife Mirjana and two sons in the village of Ostrovo. The area was declared part of a Serbian republic but was also claimed by Croatia.UK court documents note: ‘After a quarrel with his wife Mirjana, she went out of the house, stood on a ladder, took a rope and indicated she intended to kill herself. As she stood from the ladder and the noose tightened around her neck and rendered her unconscious, the defendant fired a number of bullets into her body.‘The cause of death was determined to be by strangulation but was accelerated by the injuries inflicted from the defendant’s gun. The defendant was charged with murder.’The subsequent trial – by a Serbian court – heard that Loncar had fired 14 shots from his handgun ‘causing a number of injuries’.
Last week, British judges finished off the extradition bid for ever, giving Loncar the right to remain free in the UK, by ruling in the High Court (pictured) that it would be ‘oppressive’ to send him back to prison in CroatiaHe told the court ‘that when he saw that his wife had jumped off the ladder, he took the gun and ammunition out of the holster he had under his arm and fired the gun from three to four metres away, but did not know in which direction.’After a single pathologist claimed Mrs Loncar had already died of strangulation before being shot, he was initially cleared of murder.In 1999 he then flew to England with his children and successfully claimed asylum, saying that his ethnic Serbian children were discriminated against by Croatians at school – but also complaining of ‘local antipathy resulting from the death of his wife’.  We have reached the firm conclusion that it would be oppressive to extradite Mr Loncar by reason of the passage of time High Court ruling in Loncars favourWhile he began a life on benefits here, Croatia’s supreme court in 2000 ordered a retrial, with Loncar’s village now a part of Croatia, and the following year he was convicted in his absence of attempted murder. Four doctors said Mrs Loncar was still alive when her husband shot her. He was given a four-year prison sentence on the grounds that he ‘had an intention to kill’.Croatia, a member of the European Union, some years later sought Loncar’s extradition, and in 2006 British police arrested him.A UK court swiftly rejected the request, noting with sympathy that he had to bring up his children alone after shooting his wife. But in 2014 he was arrested again, and although he was immediately freed on bail the case was sent to the High Court in London.Last week’s High Court judgment in Loncar’s favour, by judges Lord Justice Aiken and Mrs Justice Popplewell, the conclusion of the long legal battle, noted: ‘The offence for which the extradition of Mr Loncar is sought is undoubtedly a very serious one. Moreover, Mr Loncar has not led a blameless life as a British citizen.‘He has a caution for theft in 2012 and a conviction for common assault in 2013. Nevertheless we have reached the firm conclusion that it would be oppressive to extradite Mr Loncar by reason of the passage of time.’The ruling was also sharply critical of the Croatian legal system, and observed that he had served a year in prison before being initially cleared almost 20 years ago.And in reference to the Human Rights Act’s ‘right to a family life’ clause, judges said Loncar had ‘been in a relationship with the same partner since prior to 2006, although they do not live together’.Far from living together, the Daily Mail has discovered that ‘partner’ helping provide him with a ‘family life’ to maintain here is an ethnic Serb born in Britain and living 100 miles from him in Leicester.