Tag Archives: Current affairs

#WE: celebrating the Women’s Equality Party online today

19 Aug

WEP membership cardMy shiny new Women’s Equality Party “Founding Member” card arrived last week, just in time to join in today’s online celebrations for #WE and to get #WeAreWe and #WEPnesday trending.

The card arrived with a matching WEP sticker and we were asked to “put the sticker on your phone, take a picture in the mirror and post the picture on Twitter and Facebook as the clocks strike noon. If WE all post at the same moment – WE will be noticed!”

I have zero talent for taking selfies, with or without stickers, so I did my own take on the suggestion:

WEP launch selfieAnd indeed, we are being noticed – #WE is trending, alongside the announcement of the latest recruit to this year’s Strictly Come Dancing celebrity roster.

Great people to follow on Twitter for more WEP (@WEP_UK) details include founders @catherine_meyer, @sanditoksvig and leader @sophierunning – and there’s lots more detail about the WEP (the what and the why) on my blog post from last month and their website.

On ruling against banter

15 Aug

Professional contrarian Katie Hopkins is currently appearing on a little watched TV channel called TLC, sort-of-but-not-quite (because Mark Dolan is really doing it) hosting her own chat show called “If Katie Hopkins Ruled the World”. This rather laboured format sees Ms Hopkins and her guests propose assorted laws which they’d implement if they had the power to do so – thus, the studio audience can vote on such proposals as:  only men should propose marriage (to women), “if you’re not groomed, you’re doomed” and, a particular favourite of Katie’s, anything to do with being overweight, because she’d actually like to ban the existence of people with a BMI of 25+.

Along similar lines and when I was recently asked to draft my own updated 100 word bio in which I was asked to indicate a light hearted point of view, the idea that I would also like to ban Something came to me.

And the Thing that I would like to ban is the use of the word “banter” in the workplace – in one particular context.

I’m not in any way a killjoy and of course chat, wit and humour between peers is a great thing and is often what people miss when they move jobs, change offices or even work from home.

However.

My “gripe” is that is that the concept of “banter” is  often used as a dismissive term to disguise the fact that people use it as a shield to hide behind when they’re making remarks (at work, specifically but also in social media posts, emails, text messages or on a football pitch) which others may find offensive. So sexist, racist or homophobic comments are cloaked as “banter” and then when the recipient of said remark objects, they’re often told “it’s just a bit of banter” and are accused of having no sense of humour, taking themselves too seriously or (the horrors) being politically correct.

“Sheer bant”, as my friend’s teenage daughter refers to it, between friends/peers = no problem, but as a device to allow people to say what the hell they like to others and pass it off as “banter”? No.

And,  if we don’t hold people’s feet to the fire and call them out when they come out with utter rubbish and hastily re-badge it as “banter”,  how will we ever effect change in our language, customs and behaviours?

The People Stuff blog covered this from an HR perspective last year – take a look; Gemma makes a lot of sense.

(Image (c) @the100)

Banter_(c) @100

“Here’s the thing. Banter is never, ever a defence or an excuse for discrimination, bullying or harassment. Not in the employment tribunal, not anywhere. … Instead of the banter justification, I would instead advocate using the complete pillock defence. As in admitting you have behaved like one. Followed by a grovelling apology. You can’t undo harassment or bulling once it has taken place. But you can avoid pointless legal expense, or the implication that you just don’t care about equality, by leaving this particular word where it belong. With The Inbetweeners.” 

#WE: I’m in.

27 Jul

#WEP logoTo possibly the surprise of, oh, pretty much nobody,  I’ve just joined the newly-minted Women’s Equality Party as a founder member. After a year out of work,  I haven’t yet started earning again (that comes next week,  when I start my new job)  but somehow,  paying to support and join a party which has women’s equal participation as its sole manifesto feels likes something that I want to do now that I’m in a position to do so. I felt so frustrated and disillusioned with the way in which the main political parties approached gender issues during the most recent UK election that being a positive part of a different way forward feels like something that I can really get behind.

One of the things that I didn’t predict happening when I moved out of London in 2013 was how very isolated I would feel, politically. I’ve gone from living in one of the most diverse cities in the world, in a Labour held constituency with female and Asian candidates on not only my own constituency’s candidate list but also on the lists of the adjacent constituencies,  to being an invisible resident in a location where every single candidate who was fielded here on May 7th 2015 was a white man.  My general voting approach,  if I’ve been after a tactical plan rather than voting for the majority candidate,  has been to consider voting for the female candidate on the docket – but here,  for the first time in my entire voting life that I can remember,  there was no female.  I did get quite excited when I saw that the Labour candidate was called Kim – but no, Kim was a bloke too. I did vote for him,  as it happens,  along with a few hundred others but it made no difference,  either to Kim, the constituency profile or of course,  the majority Government.

So. A new way forward.  Although I loathe everything they stand for,  UKIP have shown us that being a single issue party can be a platform on which to build success and a profile and what could be a bigger single issue than bringing about more equality for 51% of the population?

Repeat after me: “Women are not a minority …”

Here’s the link to the BBC story on the party being set up by Sandi Toksvig in May. And here’s the #WE party objectives:

Our objectives

#WE are pushing for equal representation in politics, business, industry and throughout working life. 

#WE are pressing for equal pay and an equal opportunity to thrive. 

#WE are campaigning for equal parenting and caregiving and shared responsibilities at home to give everyone equal opportunities both in family life and in the work place. 

#WE urge an education system that creates opportunities for all children and an understanding of why this matters.  #WE strive for equal treatment of women by and in the media. 

#WE seek an end to violence against women.

Why women? A few suggestions

17 Oct

Yes – still here,  still blogging and prompted to do so again by noting that there’s a link to the Gender Blog on my new employer’s intranet – so hello, new colleagues from the Women Professionals Portal!

Here I am in my new hard hat,  as handed out during induction on Day One a couple of weeks ago.

My next post will be about what I’ve been up to in recent months but here in the interim is a useful reminder,  courtesy of Forbes Women, as to the value women bring to leadership positions.

List compiled by Magus Consulting.

• “…. Companies with three or more women in senior management functions score more highly on average (on nine dimensions of company excellence). It is notable that performance increases significantly once a certain critical mass is attained, namely, at least three women on management committees for an average membership of 10 people. “ (Women Matter, McKinsey 2007)

• “Fortune 500 companies with the highest representation of women board directors attained significantly higher financial performance, on average, than those with the lowest representation of women board directors.” (Catalyst, October 2007)

• “A selected group of companies with a high representation of diverse board seats (especially gender diversity) exceeded the average returns of the Dow Jones and NASDAQ Indices over a 5 year period.” (Virtcom Consulting)

• “An extensive 19-year study of 215 Fortune 500 firms shows a strong correlation between a strong record of promoting women into the executive suite and high profitability. Three measures of profitability were used to demonstrate that the 25 Fortune 500 firms with the best record of promoting women to high positions are between 18 and 69 percent more profitable than the median Fortune 500 firms in their industries.” (European Project on Equal Pay and summarized by researcher Dr. Roy Adler in Miller McCune).

Women and the 1911 census

28 Mar

If you’re in the UK,  did you fill in your census form this weekend?  I did,  and it made me think … about how much my life has changed in the last 10 years (I got married,  moved to my current house, have done all sorts of things in work terms) and also about what stories my house could tell if it could talk.

It was built in 1909 (here’s a rather wonky photo of the street from an old book of the era)  and so the house would have been quite “new” at the time of the 1911 census.  I wonder who lived here then and what they did for a living? How many people lived in this house and how did they keep warm? What did they wear, what did they eat?

Of course,  assuming that there were female residents,  one thing they couldn’t then do (or, indeed do for between the next seven and seventeen years) was to vote,  given that women were then denied that right and the UK was in the grip of the suffrage movement. My friend Rachel shared a link to this fascinating article from The Times,  published back in the glory days of 2009 when access was free,  which details how some 1911 women used the census forms to make a protest, as part of a coordinated boycott over their continuing lack of the right to vote.

“The documents show how women refused to fill in their names and left comments in the margins. One suffragette taking part in the boycott arranged by the Women’s Freedom League wrote: “If I am intelligent enough to fill in this paper, I am intelligent enough to put a cross on a voting paper.”

“Another glued a poster over the form stating: “No votes for women, no census.” A piece of paper stuck to the form suggests that the women stayed away from households where the census was taken to attend a protest in Trafalgar Square.”

As I often do when considering history, progress and change, this has made me reflect upon the privileged era in which we live. How lucky we are today that we can use the 2011 census form as just that – a tool to capture socio-economic data about the world in which we live.

Desperate housewives?

14 Jan

I love (actually, maybe “love” is too strong – OK, I’m “interested in”) the way that Mad Men’s Betty Draper is now being used by picture editors as visual shorthand to illustrate articles referring to, variously, housewives, stay at home mums and ladies who lunch.

(Similarly, photos of Joan now inevitably accompany an article about “curvy figures”.)

Dr. Catherine Hakim’s recently published report – Feminist Myths and Magic Medicine: The Flawed Thinking Behind Calls for Further Equality – which concludes that mainstream feminist thinking is defective and that the UK government should stop trying to promote it (there’s an accurate, if somewhat right wing summary of her arguments here in this Daily Telegraph article) and that women tend to marry for money rather than love – has caused a rash of newspaper reports, published from London to Sydney and (probably) all points between – and the two highlighted here both feature lovely photos of the former Mrs Draper, as does a recent article along similar lines in Grazia.

Tanya Gold’s piece in the Guardian:  

“Inequality between the sexes is not a big deal any more, a new study tells us. That is only true if you are happy for women to have less than men …”

does at least make some fleeting Mad Men reference to the assumptions in the report, commenting that perhaps Dr Hakim’s work is:

“ … based on a weird, Mad Men themed dream she had on Boxing Day …”

Female writers across the world have decided that actually, it’s OK to want to marry for money, to not have your own career or income and to stay at home, surrounded by items from Cath Kidston and Emma Bridgwater (ironically, two women who manage to be married and have their own eponymous businesses). And of course, yes, it is fine, I suppose. But this lifestyle framework is surely only OK if there’s someone to fund it – and what happens if that someone isn’t there anymore – either through death, divorce, a change in their own or their employer’s financial circumstances?

(This rather gloomy article from 2008 suggests a potential increase in divorce due to the credit crunch, with:

“… about 80 percent of those surveyed believe that the turmoil — and lower bonus payments — will prompt more women to seek a divorce before their husbands’ wealth evaporates further.” )

Obviously, nobody goes into marriage or life as a stay at home mum thinking “one day we’ll split up or he’ll lose all his money in some huge, unprecedented global melt down and then what will happen to me?”.

But as this cautionary tale, Regrets of a stay-at- home Mom, recently published on salon.com shows, it can happen:

“Fourteen years ago, I “opted out” to focus on my family. Now I’m broke.”

(For more on the wildly radical idea that “a man is not a financial plan”, check out The Feminine Mistake: Are We Giving Up too Much?  by Leslie Bennets on the Recommended reading tab above).

* * * * *

In other news … the flyer I designed for Educators’ Trust India has now been printed up and is ready for use – if you’d like to see what they’re giving out to tourists in Goa in order to raise awareness of the issues of child poverty and of the need for literacy programmes, you can take a look and download a copy from my freelance writing site, Collaborative Lines.

Is Julia Gillard heading for the Glass Cliff?

20 Aug

(c) BBC

Tomorrow sees a general election in Australia, and the two main parties are currently neck and neck at the polls.

Julia Gillard, Australia’s first female Prime Minister, is facing a fight to the finish with conservative coalition leader Tony Abbott.  Ms Gillard became Prime Minister in June after ousting her predecessor, Kevin Rudd.

But reports say that she faces a backlash at the ballot box over a range of issues,  including the way she replaced Mr Rudd as head of the Labor party and her policy directions on climate change and immigration.

If the Labor party,  currently just ahead in the polls at 52%,  does lose the election,  what will this mean for Gillard’s career? Will she be left to carry the can and blamed for the loss?  Or will there be an appreciation for the political status quo that she inherited so recently, at a time when the Labor Party’s popularity was sliding in the opinion polls?

Apparently, say the BBC, Kevin Rudd “surrendered without a fight” after realising that his support amongst government colleagues had collapsed.

That sounds like a poison chalice of a job to me – in fact,  it sounds like the roles described by researchers at the University of Exeter in their paper a few years ago as the “glass cliff”,  in which they suggest that senior women are:

“… more likely than men to find themselves in positions associated with a high risk of failure and are correspondingly precarious. … A female candidate is overwhelmingly favoured if the opening is described as difficult and involving a high risk of failure.”

The paper,  entitled “The Glass Cliff: Evidence That Women Are Over-Represented in Precarious Leadership Positions”, summarises the glass cliff position as follows:

  • While men are given safer and more secure jobs, women at all levels often feel that they have been “set up to fail”;
  • Such leadership roles can lead to increased stress for women leaders, and can contribute to larger numbers of women departing senior management positions;
  • Glass cliffs may also have repercussions for organisations, leading to poor communication and decision making

The research,  conducted in 2005 and updated in 2007, was conducted across a range of sectors which included business,  the law and, crucially here, politics. Significantly,  Julia Gillard was not handed the role of Labor Party leader/first female Prime Minister,  but actively sought it out – so in that regard,  the concept of being appointed to  a doomed, risky role does not apply to her.

However,  should her party lose at tomorrow’s election,  the blame will undoubtedly be laid at her door and you don’t have to be psychic to predict that there’ll be a media firestorm suggesting that the Aussie electorate didn’t vote for her due to her gender,  and/or because they didn’t want to have an elected (as opposed to an appointed) female Prime Minister.

Whilst,  as outlined here in this guest blog for Catalyst,  Australia does have a relatively high proportion of high profile, successful women in senior political roles,  the amount of media attention focussed on Gillard over the last two months has been intense and has been largely centred on her gender and personal life.

So, irrespective of whether she strode to the cliff edge herself or was parked there – I see that Australia’s first female Prime Minister is  poised on the edge of the glass cliff at the moment – and only the Australian electorate can keep her there or send her tumbling over the precipice.

However, on a lighter note,  just as we had Paul the Octopus making (ultimately) successful forecasts during the World Cup last month,  Australia now has psychic crocodile Dirty Harry making election predictions. Of course,  given that crocodiles are a bit more vicious and unpredictable in their behaviour than are our eight legged “friends”,  the selection protocol is a bit more feral:  this time,  Harry has to indicate the electoral winner by lunging for some raw chicken hanging below images of Gillard and Abbott.

Watch the video link here to see who he picks – and may the best crocodile win tomorrow.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 942 other followers

%d bloggers like this: