Oxshott Village WI

Oxshott Village WI Oxshott Village WI

11/12/2025

Our CVWI Christmas Party this Thursday will start with a Christmas Crafts session - followed by party food, a glass or two of wine, festive food and fun!

CVWI meets on the second Thursday of the month in Claygate Village Hall 7.30 for 7.45pm. New members always welcomed - just message [email protected] for more details. Surrey Federation of Women's Institutes

11/12/2025
09/12/2025

In 2004, Geena Davis was watching a children's show with her two-year-old daughter when something stopped her cold.
Where were the girls?
The show was made for the youngest viewers. Yet male characters dominated nearly every scene. She started paying attention. Movies. Cartoons. Animated films. The pattern was everywhere.
Davis had won an Oscar. She'd starred in films like Thelma & Louise and A League of Their Own. She'd spent years in an industry that celebrated her on screen—while quietly erasing women in the background.
But she didn't write an op-ed. She didn't give angry interviews.
She built a research institute.
The Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media became the first organization to systematically study how women and girls appear in children's entertainment. Her team partnered with USC researchers and analyzed thousands of films and shows.
The findings were staggering.
For every one female speaking character in family films, there were three male characters. Crowd scenes averaged only 17 percent female. And the ratio hadn't changed since 1946.
But Davis didn't show up to studio meetings with complaints. She showed up with data.
She walked into rooms full of executives and presented numbers they couldn't argue with. Her approach wasn't accusation—it was invitation. Here's what we found. Here's what we can fix. Here's how easy it could be.
Her motto became a movement: "If she can see it, she can be it."
Studios listened. Disney began using the Institute's software to analyze their scripts. Producers started adding female characters to crowd scenes. Writers began switching character names from male to female—and discovered the stories got more interesting.
By 2019, something remarkable happened: for the first time in history, family films reached gender parity in lead roles. Female leads had doubled from 24 percent to 48 percent in just over a decade.
The woman who noticed what was missing had helped put it back.
Geena Davis proved something Hollywood rarely admits: you can change an industry—not by shouting louder, but by showing up with facts no one can dismiss.
And sometimes the most powerful question isn't asked in a boardroom.
It's asked in a living room, through a child's eyes.


~Humans of Club

09/12/2025

The heats are done and dusted! 🦌🔥
Meet our quarter-finalists who will now go head-to-head for a spot in the semi-finals. Congratulations to all the heat winners!

Addlestone Oaks Women's Institute
Dorking Hens WI
Shrewton And District WI
Foxdale and District WI, IOM Federation
St Johns WI
Weybridge WI
Ottershaw WI
Camberly WI
Quinton WI, Northamptonshire Federation
Oxshott Village WI
West Horley WI
Send Evening WI

If you don’t see your name, you didn’t make it this time - but there’s always next year!
Congrats to all our heat winners heading into the next round! 🎉

07/12/2025

She was already gravely ill, cancer spreading through her bones, yet the corporations trying to discredit her had no idea. She made certain the truth of her illness stayed hidden from them.

In mid-century America, the nation was swept up in a love affair with a so-called miracle of modern chemistry. DDT was touted as the gleaming solution to global hunger, disease, and agricultural failure. It was sprayed everywhere: across orchards and fields, down suburban streets, even in playgrounds where children ran beneath misting clouds of pesticide.

Advertisements promised a bright new future. “Science will save us,” they said. “Chemistry will deliver a better life.”

Rachel Carson noticed something the ads didn’t mention: the silence where birdsong used to be.

Carson was a marine biologist and a writer, a quiet, meticulous scientist who spent her days studying the sea. She wasn’t a crusader. She wasn’t looking for enemies. She simply wanted to understand why birds were dying after pesticide applications, why fish were vanishing from treated bodies of water, and why farm workers were falling mysteriously ill.

As she dug through the research, a devastating truth emerged.

DDT wasn’t dissolving after use. It was accumulating in the bodies of insects, then birds, then humans, becoming more toxic as it moved up the food chain. It was linked to cancer, metabolic disorders, genetic damage, and ecological collapse.

Someone needed to explain what was happening. So Rachel began to write.

For four painstaking years, she investigated the chemistry, interviewed scientists, reviewed field reports, and shaped her findings into a manuscript. The result was Silent Spring—a work that blended hard science with lyrical prose, a book that revealed how pesticides were infiltrating every part of life: air, soil, water, and the creatures that depended on them. Its title warned of a world where springtime arrived with no birds left to sing.

Rachel carried a private burden as she worked.

In 1960, doctors discovered an aggressive breast tumor. Surgery and radiation followed. The cancer advanced nonetheless, seeping into her lymph nodes and ultimately her bones. She often wrote in pain, and some days could barely stand. But she told almost no one.

Silent Spring came out in September 1962—and detonated like a bomb.

The chemical industry launched a coordinated assault on her character. Major companies, including Monsanto and DuPont, accused her of fearmongering and fanaticism. They tried to block reviewers, pressured newspapers, and funded “expert” responses meant to discredit her research. They mocked her as a spinster, an amateur, a hysteric.

They attacked her with every weapon they had.

Rachel’s reply was unwavering calm. She appeared on national television with quiet clarity. She testified before Congress with evidence, not emotion. She answered every accusation with data and patience. All the while, her illness progressed in secret.

In letters to her closest friend, she admitted why she stayed silent: if the corporations learned she was sick, they would use it against her. They would claim her warnings came from fear, that her mind was clouded, that her work was shaped by personal anxiety instead of scientific fact. Her credibility, she feared, would crumble.

So she endured chemotherapy sessions, radiation burns, and relentless fatigue quietly, while publicly confronting some of the most powerful companies in the world.

And the facts supported her.

President John F. Kennedy called for a federal investigation. Reporters began to question the industry’s narrative. Families asked what was being sprayed on their lawns. Citizens demanded safeguards. Carson’s work had sparked something enormous.

She lived just long enough to witness the shift.

By 1963, her cancer was everywhere. Standing became painful. Breathing was hard. Yet she kept speaking, kept writing, kept pushing for change.

Rachel Carson died on April 14, 1964, at her home in Silver Spring, Maryland. She was only 56.

Her impact, however, kept growing.

Silent Spring sold millions of copies. It changed public consciousness. It helped inspire the founding of the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970. DDT was banned in the United States in 1972. Bald eagles, peregrine falcons, and other nearly extinct species returned in numbers once believed impossible.

Today, Rachel Carson is remembered as the mother of the modern environmental movement—a scientist whose clarity and courage reshaped national policy and global awareness.

But her greatest act of bravery may have been this: she did it while dying.

She could have spent her last years in rest and privacy. Instead, she chose to challenge industries with vast resources, knowing her voice might be drowned out, knowing her illness might be used to silence her if it were discovered.

Yet she kept going.

She showed the world that science carries an ethical burden. That truth matters. That one person, speaking with clarity and integrity, can confront giants.

More than sixty years later, we still grapple with the questions she raised: What do we put in our soil? What do we release into our air? What chemicals seep silently into our bodies?

Every time those questions are asked, Rachel Carson is present—still urging us to listen, still reminding us to look closely, still echoing her quiet insistence that someone must speak for the living world.

She refused to be silent.

And because she spoke, the world still has its springtime songs.

07/12/2025

When Margaret Atwood published The Handmaid’s Tale in 1985, many critics insisted she was being hysterical. A future America where women lost their jobs, their bank accounts, their bodily autonomy? Impossible, they said. Too extreme. Too paranoid. A writer letting her imagination run wild.

Atwood didn’t argue with them. She didn’t need to. She had a private rule while writing the novel: she would include nothing that humans hadn’t already done somewhere, at some point in history. Not a single punishment, policy, or oppression in the book was invented. Every horror was based on a real precedent. She had the newspaper clippings and historical records to prove it.

People claimed it could never happen in the modern Western world. Atwood simply smiled and said, “It already has. Just not to you.”

Her understanding of fear and power didn’t come from theory. She grew up spending long stretches of the year in the forests of northern Canada, where her father conducted insect research. With no electricity and no television, she devoured every newspaper her parents brought back from town. Those papers were full of stories about women being denied rights—stories from courtrooms, countries, and communities where the lives of women were shaped by laws written almost entirely by men.

She read history too. She knew about forced reproduction in Romania, public punishments in 17th-century New England, laws that made women property, and societies where reading was forbidden to them. She saw the pattern clearly: whenever women said they were afraid, they were mocked, minimized, or ignored. And when the rights vanished, it always felt sudden to the people who weren’t paying attention.

So Atwood wrote a novel designed to eliminate the comfort of “that could never happen.” She held up a mirror large enough for the world to see what it preferred to look away from.

When the book first came out, it was considered powerful but abstract. The story was unsettling, but it felt distant—a hypothetical future shaped by religious extremists. Most readers treated it as a warning they would never need.

But as the decades passed, the world began drifting closer to Atwood’s imagined landscape. Debates over reproductive control intensified. Politicians proposed tracking pregnancies and limiting access to healthcare. Laws appeared that forced women to carry pregnancies even in cases of r**e or threat to health. Some leaders invoked religion to justify restricting women’s bodily autonomy.

By the 2010s, The Handmaid’s Tale didn’t feel like a warning about the future anymore. It felt like commentary on the present.

Then came 2017. The television adaptation of the novel premiered, and suddenly red cloaks and white bonnets appeared at protests around the world. Women stood silent outside courthouses and capitol buildings in that unmistakable uniform, sending a message without saying a word: “This is not fiction. Pay attention.”

Atwood had written more than a novel. She’d created a symbol.

One of her most quoted observations captures everything she’d been trying to explain: “Men are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid men will kill them.” A perfect summary of how society treats fear as equal even when the stakes are not.

Throughout her career, she watched women’s warnings dismissed as dramatics. She watched governments insist that rights were secure until the moment they weren’t. She watched people call women paranoid for describing experiences men had the luxury of never encountering.

By the time reproductive rights were rolled back in parts of the United States and other countries, readers came back to her with the same question: “How did you know?”

Atwood never claimed to be a prophet. “I didn’t predict the future,” she said. “I just paid attention to the past and the present.”

She pointed to court cases, political speeches, and legislation that had been circulating long before anyone noticed. She pointed to history repeating itself with uncanny precision. She pointed to how quickly rights disappear when people assume they’re permanent.

Atwood is 84 now, still writing, still insisting that warnings matter even when they make people uncomfortable. Her work has been translated into dozens of languages and taught on nearly every continent. The red cloak from The Handmaid’s Tale has become one of the most recognizable protest symbols in the world.

Her legacy is larger than literature. It lives in every woman who knows her fear is data, not exaggeration. It lives in every movement that recognizes oppression before it fully forms. It lives in the understanding that dystopias don’t arrive with fanfare—they creep in through legislation, language, and indifference.

Margaret Atwood wrote a novel critics said was impossible. Then the world began proving her right. And she keeps writing, because she knows the most dangerous mistake a society can make is dismissing women when they say, “I’m afraid.”

07/12/2025

They rejected her scientific research because she was a woman—so she wrote children's books and bought 4,000 acres of wilderness to prove them all wrong.
Her name was Beatrix Potter. And the world tried very hard to make her invisible.
Born in 1866 into wealthy Victorian society, Beatrix was expected to become exactly what her world demanded: decorative, obedient, intellectually docile. Marry well. Fade quietly into domesticity.
But Beatrix had other plans.
While other girls learned embroidery and piano, Beatrix collected insects, sketched animals with scientific precision, and studied fungi with an intensity that alarmed her parents.
She didn't just draw mushrooms—she dissected them, documented them, theorized about them with meticulous detail.
By the 1890s, Beatrix had developed a revolutionary theory: that lichens were not a single organism, but a symbiotic relationship between fungi and algae—two completely different life forms living together. This idea was decades ahead of mainstream understanding.
In 1897, armed with rigorous research and beautifully detailed illustrations, Beatrix prepared a scientific paper: "On the Germination of the Spores of Agaricineae."
She submitted it to the Linnean Society of London—the most prestigious scientific institution in Britain.
The rejection was swift and absolute.
Not because her science was flawed. Not because her research lacked rigor.
But because she was a woman.
Women weren't allowed to attend Linnean Society meetings. She couldn't present her own work. Couldn't defend her findings. Her uncle had to read her paper on her behalf—and even then, it was dismissed. Ignored. Buried.
The doors to science were locked, and no amount of brilliance could open them.
Beatrix could have given up. Countless women did.
Instead, she pivoted.
If the scientific establishment wouldn't let her in through the front door, she'd build her own door—through children's literature.
In 1902, Beatrix Potter published "The Tale of Peter Rabbit."
It became an instant sensation.
Over the next two decades, she wrote and illustrated 23 books featuring animals rendered with scientific precision. Every whisker, every leaf, every landscape was based on direct, meticulous observation.
Her stories were fairy tales, yes—but they were also natural history lessons disguised as children's entertainment.
She became one of England's most successful authors, beloved by millions.
And here's where the story becomes even more extraordinary: Beatrix used her fortune not for luxury, but for conservation.
She bought thousands of acres in England's Lake District—farms, forests, meadows. She became a pioneering conservationist decades before environmentalism was mainstream.
She wasn't just writing about nature. She was saving it.
When Beatrix Potter died in 1943 at age 77, she bequeathed over 4,000 acres to the National Trust, ensuring those habitats would be protected forever.
Those lands remain preserved today—living monuments to her vision.
But the story doesn't end there.
In 1997—54 years after her death—the Linnean Society of London issued a formal, public apology for rejecting Beatrix Potter's scientific work solely because of her gender.
They admitted what history had already proven: she was right. Her theory about lichen symbiosis was confirmed by modern science. Her research was groundbreaking. Her exclusion was profound injustice.
Today, Beatrix Potter's scientific illustrations are housed in prestigious institutions. Scholars study her mycological drawings not as curiosities, but as legitimate scientific documentation.
She was more than a children's author.
She was a self-taught scientist whose work was decades ahead of its time. A meticulous naturalist whose illustrations rival professional botanists. A visionary conservationist who protected thousands of acres of wilderness.
And a woman who refused to disappear when the world demanded her silence.
They locked her out of the laboratory.
So she built a legacy that outlasted all of them.
She wrote stories that generations of children would love. She saved landscapes that still exist today. She proved that when one door slams shut, you don't beg to be let in—you build something so magnificent they spend the next century apologizing.
Beatrix Potter was told she couldn't be a scientist.
So she became a scientist, a bestselling author, and a conservation pioneer—all while the establishment that rejected her slowly crumbled into irrelevance.
The rabbits in her stories weren't just cute characters. They were drawn with the precision of someone who understood anatomy, behavior, habitat.
The landscapes weren't just pretty backdrops. They were ecosystems she studied, purchased, and protected.
Every page she wrote was an act of defiance. Every acre she saved was proof that they were wrong.
When they wouldn't let her into their institutions, she created her own institution—one that would outlast theirs.
And 54 years after her death, they finally admitted what she'd known all along:
She belonged there. She was right. And they were foolish to ever doubt her.

07/12/2025

The members of Surrey Vixens Virtual WI joined in a lengthy and meaningful discussion during our meeting on Wednesday night, mere hours after the announcement excluding trans women from WI membership beginning April 2026. Our members were not supportive of this policy change and have pledged to do all we can to support and welcome our trans sisters in any way possible moving forward as we also act for change.

Edit: Due to some abusive behaviour, we are closing the comment section of this post.

06/12/2025
06/12/2025
06/12/2025

They ended her education at age 10 because 'girls don't need books'—so she taught herself and won the Nobel Prize.
This is Grazia Deledda. And her story will remind you that the world has always underestimated women—and women have always proved the world wrong.
Born in 1871 in the mountain town of Nuoro, Sardinia, Grazia's future was decided before she could choose it. Marriage. Children. Silence. That was the path laid out for every girl in her village, carved into stone by centuries of tradition.
Her formal education ended at ten years old. Not because she wasn't brilliant—but because schools believed girls didn't need more than basic reading and arithmetic. Why would a future wife need education?
But Grazia had something they couldn't control: an unquenchable hunger for stories.
So she taught herself. In stolen hours, in the margins of her prescribed life, she devoured Italian literature, foreign novels, poetry—anything she could find. While other girls learned embroidery, Grazia learned the architecture of great writing.
At seventeen, she did the unthinkable.
She wrote a short story and submitted it to a magazine. They published it.
Her village erupted in scandal. A woman? Writing? Publishing her thoughts for strangers to read? The gossip tore through Nuoro's narrow streets. The priest condemned her. Neighbors whispered. Even her own family turned cold, ashamed of their daughter who refused to stay quietly in her place.
"A woman should care for her home, not write novels."
But criticism didn't silence Grazia. It transformed her into something unbreakable.
She wrote at night when judgment slept. She filled pages with stories of Sardinia—its harsh landscape, its trapped women, its suffocating traditions. She wrote what she knew, what she felt, what she lived.
Year after year, she published. Each story a quiet rebellion. Each novel proof that they couldn't stop her.
Then she met Palmiro Madesani.
Palmiro didn't see scandal when he looked at Grazia. He saw brilliance. Talent that deserved support, not suppression.
When they married in 1900, they made a revolutionary choice: they moved to Rome, and Grazia would continue writing. Palmiro would support her completely—emotionally, practically, as an equal partner.
In that era, this was shocking. A husband who didn't demand his wife abandon her work? The gossip followed them from Sardinia. How shameful. How unnatural.
But they had something more powerful than approval: they had partnership. While the world mocked them, they worked together in profound silence—two people who knew exactly where they were going and didn't need validation to get there.
In Rome, freed from her village's suffocating judgment, Grazia's writing flourished. Novel after novel poured from her pen, each one revealing universal human truths through the lens of Sardinian life.
She wrote women fighting fate. Men struggling with honor. Families torn between tradition and change. She wrote with the authority of someone who had lived these tensions, who understood what it cost to be different.
Slowly, the literary world noticed. Critics who might have dismissed "a woman from Sardinia" found themselves unable to ignore the power of her work. Awards came. Recognition grew.
And then, in 1926, the impossible happened.
Grazia Deledda—the girl whose education ended at ten, the scandal of her village, the writer they said should have stayed home—was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature.
She became only the second woman in history to receive this honor.
When she traveled to Stockholm to accept her prize, Palmiro stood beside her. The man who had believed in her when her own family doubted. Who had loved her without requiring her to be smaller than she was.
Grazia continued writing until her death in 1936. She never forgot Sardinia, never abandoned the landscape that shaped her, never stopped telling stories that mattered.
Today, her childhood home in Nuoro is a museum. She appears on Italian stamps and currency. Her novels are still read worldwide.
But her legacy goes deeper than literary achievement.
Grazia Deledda proved that being told "no" doesn't mean you have to stop. That being born a woman in a world that undervalues women doesn't determine your worth. That education happens anywhere hunger for knowledge exists—in secret reading, in stolen writing hours, in the refusal to accept limitations others impose.
She proved that real partnership is possible even in times that don't believe in it.
And she proved that the stories society dismisses—women's stories, rural stories, stories from the margins—often contain the deepest truths.
They ended her education because girls "didn't need books."
So she taught herself, wrote anyway, and won the Nobel Prize.
That's not just a victory. That's a revolution written one page at a time.

06/12/2025

Rose Valland spent nearly four years in a museum office surrounded by German officers who assumed she was harmless, mute, and culturally insignificant. They spoke freely, issued commands, documented plunder, and discussed train routes for stolen masterpieces. They believed she understood none of it. What they didn’t realize was that Valland was quietly fluent in German and meticulous beyond measure. She wrote down everything—artist names, crate numbers, departure dates, warehouse locations—and copied coded catalog lists late at night when no one was watching. She memorized routes when she couldn’t risk paper, then passed information to Resistance contacts who safeguarded each detail as if it were a life.

When Paris was liberated and N**i art caches were uncovered, her secret notebooks became maps. Because she had listened when listening was dangerous, Rembrandts, Picassos, tapestries, altarpieces, and Jewish family portraits were traced back to owners who had been murdered, displaced, or silenced. Her quiet defiance challenged the myth that espionage belongs to those with guns and uniforms. Valland’s weapon was observation; her battlefield was a gallery desk. She didn’t recover art for glory, but to repair a world torn from families and memory—one shipment, one signature, one whispered detail at a time.

Address

Oxshott

Opening Hours

9am - 5pm

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Oxshott Village WI posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Share