Speech given to the VIEW Clubs ND International Women’s Day Luncheon, 9th March 2018
A couple of weeks ago, I was at Circular Quay, waiting for a ferry. It was not particularly late – about 8.00 on a Thursday night. I had been to a show at the Opera House with a friend and we were both catching ferries home. The wharf was crowded. I looked around and said to my friend, “Nowhere to sit”. A man – middle aged, plump, for some bizarre reason wearing a hat at night – was sitting on the seat in front of where we were standing. He looked up at me and said “You can sit on my lap if you like luv”.
It took a moment for the reality to sink in of what this complete stranger had just said to me, and in that moment, my ingrained politeness took control and I said, “No, thank you very much.” My brain caught up in that split second, and I followed it with “Why on earth would I want to do that?”
I’m in my sixth decade and in the eyes of most of the stylised heterosexual world, I’m pretty much washed up as an object of sexual desire, and I’m fairly sure this man’s comment had nothing to do with any actual desire or expectation on his part that I would sit on his lap. So what did he actually want?
Of course I can’t possibly know exactly what was going through his mind at the time. Perhaps he genuinely did think to himself, “Oh, there’s a hot looking older babe. I’ll ask her to sit on my lap and I know she’ll be delighted and happy and we’ll have fantastic sex and maybe fall in love and get married and then she can look after me.” Or maybe the limit of his thinking was “Woman. She should be paying attention to me.”
Fundamentally, in some basic and unacknowledged way, he wanted my attention. More than that, he felt entitled to my attention and he wanted me to know that he was entitled to it. He wanted me to feel all the things I did feel – surprised, disgusted, annoyed, sick. He wanted me to know that all he had to do was say something like this in order to gain a measure of control in my space.
And it worked. Because here I am, using it as an example at the beginning of my talk here today.
This tactic where men control women’s spaces plays out very successfully, in myriad forms, countless numbers of times every second of every day here on planet earth, and it has done since records began. As women, we are constantly aware of the male presence. Whether it is walking home at night, internal radar on overdrive, keys in one hand, mobile in the other, walking faster than we normally would, sticking to the middle of the road, avoiding dark shadows and bushes…. Or on public transport, wishing the man next to you would close his legs so your knee didn’t have to be in contact with his; squashing yourself into the corner to try and avoid this unwanted contact. Or at work, wondering if that casual male hand that just drifted across your buttocks was intentional, or wishing that the male client would talk to your face and not somewhere between your shoulders and your hips.
With all of this going on, it is hardly surprising that a fundamentally pointless comment from a stranger on a ferry wharf can put us on instant alert. Is this person a threat or just an idiot? Is he getting the same ferry? Is there somewhere I can sit so he can’t see me? What do I do if he gets off at the same stop and follows me to my car, parked in a dark street near a park because that’s the only place to park?
The bottom line is that it is exhausting being a woman in this world. The sense of safety and unconcern that most men seem to carry around with them has never, ever been mine. And I’m pretty sure it’s never been any of yours either.
Do any of you sometimes think about what it might be like to go for a walk around your neighbourhood at night, on your own, when it’s cool and quiet, for the simple enjoyment of walking? I do. When I watch movies where the male protagonist goes off to a cabin in the woods to have some “me time” and stays there, unconcerned for his safety, for several days, I wonder what that must be like. I would never do either of these things, because the training of my entire life – to never put myself in a vulnerable situation in case some man takes advantage of my vulnerability – would make it an unpleasant experience of watchfulness and fear.
As it happened, the man at the ferry wharf was just a silly person making a pointless comment. He and his female companion – yes, he said what he said in full view and hearing of her – caught a different ferry and I did not feel threatened. But the line between that and how it could have played out is a very thin one indeed.
So here we are, International Women’s Day 2018 and the theme for this year is “Press for Progress”. I’m probably not supposed to say this, but I confess this theme made me sigh and mutter, “What, again? Why hasn’t gender inequality been relegated to the history books already?”
In a small act of rebellion, I devised my own hashtag for IWD this year – hashtag-why-aren’t-we-there-yet – because I think this is a far more important question that everyone needs to be focusing on for IWD now. We talk fairly constantly about how women are constrained from reaching a variety of goals that men seem to achieve as a matter of course. We all know that gender inequality is real – well, there are a fair number of both overt and covert Men’s Rights Activists who would dispute that statement, but as they tend to be hostile towards women generally, I habitually discount their points of view – we all know that gender inequality is real.
We know that the world is shaped around masculine privilege and that as women, we have basically had to fit in with it for a very long time indeed. Masculine privilege pervades almost every aspect of our lives and because we grow up with it being normalised, we often don’t begin to even see it until something happens that crystallises our awareness. And once we do become aware, it is impossible to stop being aware.
Let’s think for a moment about women’s toilets. Ladies’ loos are an oblique form of masculine privilege – there are never enough of them, they tend to be small and awkward, and because going to the loo for a woman is usually a two-handed job, there’s never anywhere to put your handbag and coat so that they aren’t draping in something unmentionable or getting wet next to the hand basins. Men get to wander in, do their business and wander out again in fairly short order, women invariably have to queue. We know this is how it happens – we’ve lived with the queues for the ladies’ loos every day of our lives. I reckon that the day somebody builds a public venue with enough women’s toilets so that there is never a queue for them will be the day that we know we have real equality.
Masculine privilege pervades every aspect of our lives, and in some very dark and unpleasant ways. The recent #MeToo movement has brought into public consciousness the dark side of entitlement, but as our Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins, said, it’s nothing new. What’s new about it is that now we talk about it. Back in the day, we didn’t talk about it. Like the queues for the toilets, we just accepted that this was a normal part of our existence as women and did our best to manage it.
In my first job as a receptionist in a car repair outfit in Brisbane, there was an old guy who all the girls knew to steer clear of. He would always stand just a little too close, position himself near your desk so he could see down the front of your top, be the first one to open a door for the ‘ladies’, and then stand in the doorway so we had to squeeze past him (impossible to do without some part of your body coming into contact with his). He was the epitome of the “dirty old man”. Nobody censured him or took him to task over his behaviour. Instead, all the girls took responsibility for avoiding him whenever possible, giggling politely at his antics because if we displayed irritation or distaste, that was an invitation to tell us we shouldn’t be so sensitive.
In my next job as a secretary in a multinational, we girls used to serve catered food to the all-male boozy boardroom lunches our bosses regularly held with clients, and clear up afterwards. No woman ever got to sit at the table, of course, other than to take the minutes. After one of these events, I was cornered in the kitchen by a male client who put his hands where they shouldn’t have been and tried to kiss me. I pushed him away and said a few choice words. When I raised it with my male bosses, they told me not to take things so seriously, and that the client had complained about how I behaved towards him. And a career opportunity in that organisation was suddenly no longer available to me.
Fast forward ten years and I was living overseas. I had been working as an office manager and my boss and I had a flirty thing going on. I was most definitely a willing participant in this. But when it came to the crunch, good sense prevailed, I drew away and said yeah, probably not a good idea. He agreed and the flirty thing was over. A little while later, I started dating another man and lo and behold, while I was on holidays in Australia, I got a phone call from the boss to tell me my services were no longer required.
Ten years later, I was a full-time university student in Australia, finishing my Honours year and preparing to start my PhD which – through a few twists and turns – eventually became about gender inequality and feminism and sexism and how it just never seems to really change. I was at a Christmas barbecue with all the neighbours in the street in 2006 ish. It was late, most people had staggered home and I was helping the hostess clear up the empties. One male neighbour was still there and as I bent down to pick up an empty bottle, he grabbed my hips and did something sexually suggestive to me. I was shocked and horrified and disgusted and I dropped everything and went home, feeling angry, frightened and tearful. This was only – what? – maybe 12 years ago? And even then, his behaviour, while disgusting and degrading and all those things, was seen as “just a joke” by everyone except me. The man in question seemed to think I should have been flattered.
So… I finished my PhD 5 years ago and started working in the field of gender equality and diversity and inclusion, and while I acknowledge that we have come quite a long way, still I find myself asking that question every day: “Why aren’t we there yet?”
There’s no question that progress has been made. Women do now sit in some boardrooms and occupy positions of power and influence. Education for women to the highest levels is now pretty normal in our society and the idea of married women and mothers being in paid employment is no longer shocking or illegal. Women have easier access to birth control and are less at the mercy of their reproductive organs than at any time in history. Women’s voices are raised and given airtime, albeit in some cases selectively and often with a substantial backlash from the Men’s Rights Activists and other online trolls.
Did you know that on Wednesday this week, in protest at International Women’s Day, Men’s Rights Activists wore face masks – you know, those blue face masks that surgeons wear in all the best TV medical dramas – with anti-women slogans on them? One said “Never support women”. Never support women. That man clearly felt he had to make that statement in public. The wonderful thing about social media is that his face with its abhorrent mask is now plastered across every corner of the internet. Face mask or not, someone will recognise him….
So yes, there has been progress and there continues to be progress. Since the last International Women’s Day we have seen some amazing movements. We have seen #MeToo start and build up a good head of steam, and then #TimesUp joined it, along with #MenToo. The Everyday Sexism movement has highlighted the kind of nonsensical comment that the ferry wharf guy made to me, and the foundational disrespect for women that such comments illustrate. The Pussy Hat movement, derivative of the wonderful women’s marches spurred by the election of Donald Trump, has given a symbol to the modern face of feminism.
But feminism itself is struggling to progress. The ‘third wave’ as it is known, or as I prefer to think of it – “Me” feminism – is becoming entrenched. Women are being told repeatedly that our experiences of inequality are, in fact, because we don’t know how to ask for what we want, we let other people take the lead and for some reason lack confidence to go after our goals. Neoliberal feminists such as Sheryl Sandberg write best-selling books on the topic, choosing to ignore the inherent position of privilege from which she writes. The rather myopic idea that an individual’s experience is representative of all women is a persistent barrier to gender equality and to embracing diversity of all kinds.
What we appear to be seeing is a new backlash, and one which is even more dangerous than earlier backlashes against women’s rights, because this one primarily comes from women, and particularly young women. Young women have been rejecting feminism and feminist thought in droves for the past couple of decades. Some say feminism is an out-of-date, old-fashioned term with unfortunate connotations of hairy legs and burnt bras and they don’t want to be associated with it. They say they believe in all the things feminism is about but don’t want to identify themselves as ‘feminist’; that they don’t want to adopt a label.
But as Nakkiah Lui – an icon of young feminist women – said in an All About Women panel last Sunday, young women need to use the feminist label because the more people who use the label, the harder it is to ignore what the label represents. Male privilege, or the patriarchy, is the system that is designed to maintain the status quo. Sexism is the mechanism used to ensure that women are kept within the boundaries of the system. Feminism is the resistance.
The interesting thing is that back in the days of burning bras, this movement that wanted to gain rights for women wasn’t widely known as ‘feminism’, it was known as Women’s Liberation. Back then – and I remember this clearly from my years of growing up in Joh Bjelke-Petersen’s Queensland – women marched, frequently and loudly. They clashed with police and got arrested and thrown in prison and made a lot of noise about how they felt about the male privilege dominating their world.
The 70s and 80s saw some real progress – it was no longer illegal for married women to work; rape within marriage was criminalised; women could apply for loans as individuals without needing a husband to guarantee their repayments. Sex Discrimination legislation was introduced. A swathe of changes were made that enabled women to interact with the world of work and money in ways that had previously not been available to them.
These gains were made by collective action of like-minded women who took the very clear view that the personal is political and who repeatedly challenged the institutions of the day to implement real change.
The current generation of young women has been raised in the age of neoliberalism where the individual is held responsible for everything that happens to her. If you want equality, neoliberalism whispers, you need to go out and take it. Only you can make it happen for you. If it doesn’t happen for you, well, you just didn’t try hard enough.
It’s a very neat and incredibly successful way to hamstring feminism. It also meshes well with modern sexist behaviours, or benevolent sexism as Professors Peter Glick and Susan Fiske theorised.
Glick and Fiske developed their theory of Ambivalent Sexism on the basis that sexism is a mechanism for maintaining the gendered power imbalance so that men retain the bulk of the power and women don’t get access to much of it. They suggested (and a great body of research has since supported their ideas) that there are two poles of sexist behaviour – hostile sexism and benevolent sexism. We are all familiar with hostile sexism – the overt devaluing of women as inferior to men, and expressions of hostility towards all things female. “What are ya, a big girl’s blouse?”
Benevolent sexism is an altogether more insidious beast. Benevolently sexist behaviour has the same goal as hostile sexism – to devalue women and femaleness – but it is cloaked in expressions of admiration and even love. So benevolent sexism might come in the guise of admiration for women’s remarkable mothering skills. A benevolent sexist might say that women are such gorgeous creatures, they can’t imagine why any of them would want to be in a boardroom instead of gracing the nearest day spa. Benevolent sexism is also often cloaked in ideas of protection for women – a very common example of this is telling women not to walk alone at night to avoid being attacked.
‘Me’ feminism gives power to benevolent sexism because it makes women responsible for fixing the system which is designed to prevent them from gaining power, and it cloaks itself in empowering rhetoric of self-actualisation, while ignoring the reality that without men moving over to give women space at the table, progress simply cannot be made.
Feminism – the social and political ideology that offers the strongest and most consistent hope for success in building a gender equal world – is being undermined from within and yet, here we are, being tasked with pressing for progress in a system that is designed to make sure progress is limited and patchy and ultimately unsuccessful.
And this is my question to all of you here today – What is modern feminism? What does it look like? How does it reverberate for young women? What will it look like for girls in education in the future? In terms of what the VIEW Clubs are all about, where does feminism sit? Does it have a place at all? And how is feminism responsible for our lack of progress? What does feminism need to do to help progress the gender equality agenda further?
My mother, a staunch supporter of women’s liberation who had never heard of the gender pay gap and would not have called herself a feminist, died before I got myself organised, dropped out of the mainstream of my life and became a mature age full time university student. I think she would have been very surprised but quite chuffed to see me being awarded my PhD in 2012. I think she would have been delighted to see me standing here and talking to all of you today about this particular topic, from a place of knowledge and understanding. So, as this is International Women’s Day, I’d like to finish my talk today by taking a moment to celebrate and say thanks to a woman who, certainly different, gave me the fire and understanding that took me on this journey, all the way to right here, right now. Here’s to you, mum.
Speech given by Dr Linda Peach at the Northside Forum (Home safe? Domestic violence – a shameful cost to society) on Saturday 7th May 2016. [I present this work as an individual and not as a representative of my employer.]
[Photo from Sydney Morning Herald article published 30 April 2016]
On the 24th April 2016, the body of a woman was found in Snapper Point Blowhole and was later identified as Mengmei Leng, a 25-year-old international student living in Sydney. A male relative has been charged with her murder. Mengmei Leng was the 28th woman to lose her life to violence in Australia since 1 January 2016.
On April 26th, Violet Tamvakis was found stabbed to death in her home in Victoria. Her son has been charged with her murder. Violet was number 29.
On May 1st, Karen Belej was found shot dead at her home. Her male partner has been charged with her murder. Karen was the 30th woman who died violently in Australia since January 1 this year. This makes the current average 1.8 women killed by violence each week of 2016. Last year, the average was 1.5 per week and in 2014 it was 1.6.
Despite the daily rhetoric abhorring this state of affairs, we don’t appear to be making much progress in bringing these numbers down.
I suppose if we want to feel better about these figures, we could compare ourselves to Mexico, where the most recent estimate is 6 women murdered per day.
The World Health Organisation estimates that one in three women experience physical or sexual violence over their lifetimes, mostly perpetrated by an intimate partner.
The latest figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that 72% of family and domestic violence deaths in Australia are women killed by an intimate partner, and that 79% of physical assaults against women occur in their own homes. Women are also the victims in 100% of attempted murders by an intimate partner and 97% of sexual assaults by an intimate partner. Men commit 80% of all physical assaults in Australia – 81% of physical assaults against men and 76% of physical assaults against women (ABS 2014-2015).
These statistics give us a fairly clear picture of how violence in our society is perpetrated differently according to the genders of both victims and offenders.
Today I am going to take you on a journey that I hope will lead us all to the same destination – an understanding of why these statistics exist in the first place, and how we, as a society, ensure that they don’t change much.
Why do women get involved with men who treat them badly? This is the question we often hear when we talk about domestic violence. I think this is fundamentally the wrong question. The right question is, “Why do so many men treat so many women so badly?”
I’d like to start addressing that question by talking about fairy tales. In any self-respecting fairy tale, there comes a point at which Prince Charming leans down from his white charger, silver plated armour glinting in the sunlight, scoops up the damsel in distress and carries her away to a fortified castle somewhere. Or he spends every waking moment outside her house, throwing roses, singing ballads, pouring champagne, wooing wooing wooing…. until she gives in, and then he gets to carry her off to his fortified castle. Everyone says “Aw. Sweet. Lucky little lady, that one.”
No one ever asks what happens next. Or why an adult conversation about their potential future together never seems to take place.
Instead, the man takes charge, the woman gets swept along, apparently perfectly happy to have her life determined by the chap on whose horse she is sitting, and they all allegedly live happily ever.
Our society has been building romantic fantasies and spoon-feeding them to our unsuspecting children for centuries. Hollywood continues to churn them out for both children and adults. The problem with these fantasies, of course, is that they almost exclusively ignore women’s wants, needs and desires and in doing that, they make women objects. Objects to be glammed up by fairy godmothers, to be admired by throngs of men, envied by just as many women (and hated by a few), and completely subject to the hero’s wants, needs and desires. And it’s all painted in a glorious, rose coloured picture of gentle women who need protection and strong, dominant men who provide that protection.
The problem is that this places women in a position of weakness and men in a position of strength, and that creates the gendered power imbalance from which all forms of gender inequality derive.
Domestic violence is a product of romantic fantasies that can never, ever, survive in the real world.
Domestic violence is an outcome of one gender having more power than the other.
Domestic violence is an outcome of the belief that women need men’s protection and that men need to be dominant and strong.
Domestic violence is an outcome of the belief that providing protection confers ownership: Because I provide for you, I have rights over you and you are here to please me.
Women need protecting, right?
The idea that women need to be cared for and protected is not new. For many centuries, women had no choice but to be under the protection of men because they had no rights to be financially independent. If they wanted food, shelter and clothing, then their primary option was to become attached to a man who could provide it.
Being able to attract a man was therefore essential and women’s value became inextricably embedded in their physical attractiveness to men, and in their abilities to bear and rear children. Once married, a woman had virtually no rights – no option to leave, no option to earn her own income, no option to own property independent of her husband. The husband became her master in every way. And yet, without women, men could not have offspring to carry on the family line.
This, according to Professors Peter Glick and Susan Fiske, is the source of ongoing tension between the sexes – the dominant group of men has power over the subordinate group of women, but is also dependent on the subordinate group for child bearing. This is one of the underpinnings of Glick and Fiske’s Ambivalent Sexism Theory (1997, 2001).
In this theory, the dominant group needs to ensure that the subordinate group never truly understands or wields its independent power. So women who are perceived to be sexually attractive to men are accorded higher status than women who are perceived to be unattractive to men. Women who defer to men’s wishes or who accept a lesser role in life receive greater rewards than women who refuse to conform or who seek independence. These seem like medieval ideas, yet they still apply today, seen particularly in the treatment of women who attain powerful positions that have previously been held by men.
This system of rewards for being good girls and punishment for being bad girls maintains the status quo very effectively.
Women as objects
When women are objectified as having value only in their attractiveness to men or their abilities to bear children, their own needs and wants are overridden by the needs and wants of men. This creates a culture of entitlement among men – that is, entitlement to women’s bodies. To look at, to touch, to be physically intimate with.
The recent University of Melbourne scandal where photographs of female students were posted online and rated by male students as to their sexual attractiveness is a very good example of the sense of entitlement that can grow out of seeing women’s needs as irrelevant.
Consider also the recent furore at the University of Queensland when some enterprising feminist students wanted to sell cupcakes that were priced according to the gender pay gap. So women paid, on average, 17% less than men for a cupcake. The response was jaw-droppingly severe. The people running the stall were publicly vilified and threatened with violence, including rape and death. Over cupcakes. How much distance is there between that and abusing a woman for not getting the dinner ready on time?
Why is there still such a strong negative reaction to anyone who stands up for the rights of women to be treated as equals of men?
Domestic violence is a product of the belief that women’s needs and desires are unimportant.
Domestic violence is a product of the belief that women exist to please men.
Research from the University of North Dakota published in the journal, Violence and Gender, in 2014 reported that 30% of a sample of college men said they would force a woman to have sex “…if nobody would ever know and there wouldn’t be any consequences.” One in three. The sample size was admittedly small (73) and the study needs to be repeated on a much larger scale to be confirmed, but even with a small sample, this is a chilling result.
Rape in itself is another form of power and control, and the threat of being raped is used consistently to maintain control over women’s movements. At the same time, women are held to account for men’s behaviour towards women. Girls are told from an early age that they need to cover up, be modest, not put themselves in situations where a man or men might be unable to control their desires for sexual gratification. Girls and women are taught that they must not do anything to encourage men to take advantage of them and they must be protected from the possibility that a man will rape, assault or otherwise harm them.
I often hear parents worrying about how much anxiety they have about their daughters. They – naturally – want their daughters to be safe. So they warn them about where they go and who they go with, about what they wear and about how much they drink. They tell them not to walk alone at night, not to go into isolated places on their own, not to take unregulated taxis, not to catch public transport after a certain time, not to go into car parks on their own at night…. The list of restrictions that women live with every day is a very very long one.
What I have never so far heard is any parent say that they worry that their sons might be tempted to rape girls. I never hear parents suggest that their sons should not go near any girls who are drunk in case they decide to rape them. Sons are not told not to walk in parks late at night in case there is a lone woman who they decide to rape. Nor are they told to avoid public transport or not go into car parks late at night in case they are there at the same time as a woman they might rape.
But 1 in 3 college men said they would force a woman to have sex if nobody would ever know and there would be no consequences.
So if we aren’t teaching our boys to avoid being alone with women in case they decide to rape them, what are we teaching our boys about respect and consent?
From casual sexism, through to the recent scandal over Facebook pages where women at Melbourne University were sexually evaluated, through to the frankly rape-based corners of the internet, to the astonishing survival, so far, of Wicked Campers with their deeply offensive slogans – rape culture is clearly something we need to address. … There is a war we need to fight to change the mindsets of boys, young men, and wider masculinity, to end the awful history of sexual violence against women and girls.
I don’t necessarily agree with all of Steve Biddulph’s argument because he suggests that rape culture derives from the teenage boy’s psyche and is a product of his fear of rejection. I believe this to be wrong.
Rape culture derives from long-standing and deeply embedded social norms about women’s lack of power in our society.
Rape culture and victim blaming devalue women and teach disrespect of women’s autonomy.
Domestic violence is a product of lack of respect for women.
Teaching boys to be men
What does this lack of respect for women say about men? Australia, it has been suggested quietly in the background, has a problem with masculinity. The problem starts with how girls’ behaviour and boys’ behaviour is regulated differently in pre-school, and it grows from there. Take the Bob Marley meme pictured. Let’s deconstruct this meme and look at what it is really telling boys and girls, women and men:
“If she’s amazing, she won’t be easy. If she’s easy, she won’t be amazing.” So a woman who is straightforward and clear about who she is and what she wants is not amazing. A woman who is difficult to access and resistant is amazing.
“If she’s worth it, you won’t give up. If you give up, you’re not worthy….” So if you come across a woman who is amazing to you, but who is not easy and is resisting your charms, then you should pursue her relentlessly because if you give up, you are not worthy.
Nowhere in this meme does it give any airtime to what this amazing woman-prize wants. It only suggests that a man can tell an amazing woman-prize from a dud by how easily available she is.
I’ve picked this simple meme because it shows objectification where women’s worth is linked to sexual availability; rape culture where relentless pursuit and eventual domination without regard to the object’s feelings are held up as laudable masculine behaviours; and dominant masculinity where you are only considered worthy as a man if you pursue your object relentlessly.
And this leads me to my final point for today: men are just as disadvantaged as women by inequality between the sexes, but their disadvantage takes a different shape and form. Because men have more power, their disadvantage is more about how their own power and access to power dictates their behaviour towards women, and also dictates what women expect of them and how women behave towards them.
The need to maintain power means that boys and men are taught to be invincible. The more invincible you are, the better man you are. The stronger you are, the better man you are. The more dominant you are, the better man you are. We teach boys not to cry, not to do things that are girly or feminine, not to feel any emotion other than aggression, and not to allow girls (the least respected people) to tell them what to do. At the same time, we tell boys they must use their strength and their invincibility to protect women and to provide for their families.
Nowhere in this perfect man-being is there room for fallible humanness. Men spend their lives trying to be impossible super-heroes while women spend their lives trying to be impossible super-models/mothers.
Domestic violence is a product of how boys and men are taught to be men.
Is there any hope for the future?
How do we change this picture? How do we create a new future so that the coming generations can live without this blight on our society? We are beginning to see change in the way that children are spoken to about gender and relationships. We have seen campaigns like “Like A Girl”, “Man Up”, and “He For She”, which challenge the assumptions we make about gender at their very core. These are good, solid, public information campaigns that do a great job to raise awareness.
To create real change, however, the message needs to be delivered consistently across our education system from pre-schools to universities. A good current example is a program that the University of Melbourne is running, designed to connect schools with gender respect.
This programme is about challenging gender norms where they start – in children’s first classrooms. And the fact that it exists gives me hope that the next generation of young women and men will have greater respect and autonomy and will be less restricted and dictated to by a set of outdated social norms. Once that happens, we should start to see decreasing numbers of women who die each year as a result of domestic violence.
If we are to create change that will enable the women and men of the future to live in a safe society where relationships are based on mutual respect and equality – a future in which domestic violence is a rarity instead of a norm – then Australia needs to work to change its culture of masculinity and of disrespect for women. For that safer and more respectful Australia to emerge….
- We need to teach our children about equal, respectful relationships grounded in reality, not fairy tales.
- We need to create a society where both women and men are respected and valued equally.
- We need to give equal value to women’s needs as we do to men’s.
- We need to teach boys that women’s bodies are not their property and we need to teach girls that they – and only they – have the right to decide who can touch them.
- We need to teach girls the difference between being treated as an object and being treated with respect.
- We need to teach and model a different type of masculinity to boys – one which is based on respect and consent, and which is grounded in very real humanness.
By Linda Peach and Heidi Sundin
If you or someone you know is experiencing domestic violence, you can ring the Domestic Violence Line for help on 1800 656 463. More information is available here: http://www.community.nsw.gov.au/parents,-carers-and-families/domestic-and-family-violence/domestic-violence-line.
What is domestic and family violence?
Domestic and family violence is a violation of human rights, characterised by the intentional and systematic use of violent, abusive or intimidating behaviours to threaten, manipulate and control family members, intimate partners or former partners. Domestic and family violence can include physical assault, sexual assault, emotional abuse, verbal abuse, social abuse and financial abuse. Abusive behaviour usually increases over time, meaning that without intervention, people who remain in these relationships are at risk of escalating harm as time goes on.
There is clear evidence that gender inequality is the primary underlying cause of domestic and family violence, via a male sense of entitlement to women. Behaviours that signal a dominant attitude towards women (and others perceived to be weaker or subordinate) usually emerge in childhood.
Approximately one in six women will experience some form of domestic and family violence in their lifetime. The NSW Police receive reports of around 125,000 incidents of domestic and family violence annually, and they estimate that more than double that number are not officially reported. The cost of domestic and family violence in NSW alone is estimated to be a staggering $4.5 billion each year.
What are our governments doing about it?
The Federal Government released the Third Action Plan of the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010-2022 in 2016. The Third Action Plan, National Priority 1: Prevention and early intervention places a strong emphasis on the need to embed gender equality in workplace culture, increase women’s workforce participation and economic security and to increase men’s involvement in efforts to improve gender equality and reduce violence.
The NSW Government Office for Women released the It Stops Here. Domestic and Family Violence Framework for Reform in 2014. In many respects, the “It Stops Here” framework provides a useful guideline for employers. It includes a range of strategic approaches including referral pathways to people who are trained in the most effective ways to respond; broad education of people about domestic and family violence, what to look for and how to respond; and a clear policy that embeds these actions in workplace culture.
How does domestic and family violence affect workplaces?
Domestic and family violence can have a range of consequences in the workplace. If an employee is experiencing domestic violence, they may find it difficult to concentrate, may be slow to complete work, may have an increased number of unscheduled absences, and may find it difficult to cope emotionally with even small changes in their environment. They may have lost confidence in their abilities, may show signs of increased anxiety and/or depression, may become socially isolated at work or may be uncharacteristically moody or emotional.
Workplaces can become refuges for people who are experiencing domestic and family violence, providing a relatively protected place to escape from violence for a time. When employers also intentionally provide best practice support to people experiencing domestic and family violence, they have a better chance of limiting the negative impact on the workplace and on the person or people involved.
Someone who perpetrates abusive behaviour at home may not be readily identifiable at work or in any situation outside the home. Indeed, many abusers are charming and affable people outside the relationship/s they control. Abusers may also show similar signs at work as the person they abuse, such as increased absenteeism and reduced productivity. While the victim of abuse is most likely absent through injury or incapacitation, and may be less productive due to anxiety, fear, depression and emotional trauma, a perpetrator may have increased absenteeism and reduced productivity because they are perpetrating abuse through stalking or monitoring the victim during working hours.
Domestic and family violence can also affect the workplace if a perpetrator makes threatening phone calls or sends abusive emails or text messages to someone at work or makes personal visits to the workplace of someone they are abusing. Perpetrators may also use technology they have access to at work to perpetrate abuse against someone inside or outside their workplace. Abusers may also enlist colleagues in their workplace or their victim’s workplace as ‘enablers’, often first convincing them that they (the abuser) are the victim.
While there is a limit to what employers can do if they think an employee is perpetrating domestic and family abuse, they can take some steps. Paying careful attention to informal and formal complaints about workplace harassment and bullying, particularly when there are repeated complaints about one person from different people, and taking appropriate steps to deal with any issues in the workplace. Appropriate steps may include performance management, referring a person on to professional services or taking disciplinary action. A note of caution: as an employer, the focus of any action needs to be work-related, limited to providing practical support, taking steps to ensure the workplace is safe, and referring employees on to professional sources of help.
Four ways employers can support people in the workplace experiencing domestic and family violence.
1. Make gender equality your goal
The link between gender inequality and domestic violence is unequivocal. Employers who work to embed equality in their workplaces will be improving the lives of women who work for them and contributing to the change in social attitudes that is needed for violence against women and children to be stopped. Develop and implement a gender equality strategy to ensure your workplace is free from discrimination, that women have equal opportunities to participate and progress, that there are no gender pay gaps in your remuneration structures, and that flexible working arrangements and support for people with caring responsibilities are workplace norms.
2. Embed acknowledgement and response activities in policies and enterprise agreements.
Develop and communicate widely policies about how to support people in the workplace who are experiencing domestic and family violence. These should include clear roles and responsibilities for managers and senior leaders to support people in these circumstances. Policies should also specify how employees who perpetrate violence or abuse in the workplace are dealt with, linking in to bullying and harassment policies and procedures. Policies should include practical steps such as who to contact and what to do under different circumstances. Policies and enterprise agreements should include details of domestic and family violence leave provisions, creation of flexible working arrangements, and access to psychological services.
The first point of contact when someone is experiencing issues in the workplace is usually an appointed harassment and discrimination officer. Those designated people can be trained to specifically manage situations involving a person in the workplace who discloses they are experiencing domestic and family violence. Ensuring that harassment and discrimination officers can respond in the most effective ways possible is key to providing support.
In addition, all employees should have some level of training on how to appropriately support and work with people who are experiencing domestic and family violence. Managers and leaders should have more comprehensive training that focuses on how leaders in an organisation can engage in conversations about domestic and family violence and how to effectively and confidently manage situations involving victims, survivors or perpetrators.
Technology that is available in modern workplaces can be used to perpetrate domestic and family violence. It is important that employers have a clear, concise and well-known policy on the appropriate use of information and communication technology that includes penalties for misuse, and specific information about misuse in perpetrating domestic and family violence.
Domestic and family violence is not only a personal or private matter; its prevalence and cost make it a whole-of-society issue. Workplaces can be impacted through absenteeism and loss of productivity, as well as potential threats to workplace health and safety. People who are experiencing domestic and family violence can be supported through workplace mechanisms, including policies and enterprise agreements that include specific provisions, formalised leave and access to flexible working conditions. Employers can also help to reduce violence against women and children in our society by making gender equality a norm, training staff and leaders to effectively respond to colleagues who may be experiencing domestic and family violence, and ensuring that all employees are held accountable for their appropriate use of an organisation’s technology.
Original post published by The Agenda Agency: https://www.theagendaagency.com/blog/2017/12/12/4-practical-ways-employers-can-support-employees-experiencing-domestic-and-family-violence
By Linda Peach and Heidi Sundin
Stereotyping and prejudice
The most persistent and pervasive barrier to achieving gender equality in workplaces, and in society generally, is the attitude that people hold about it. In psychology-speak, people hold stereotypes about women and men and their expected behaviours and roles in life. Stereotypes start out as schemas or shortcuts to make sense of the world. We learn to create schemas based on what we are told and what we experience. So a schema most of us have is that clouds in the sky mean it might rain. We have learnt this schema probably because our parents told us about what happens when there are clouds in the sky. After we test this out for truth and get wet a few times, the schema reminds us to take steps to stay dry and warm. Sometimes it rains and sometimes it doesn’t, but the schema stays in place.
An obvious and widely-held schema about gender is that women are better at caring for people than men. The schema becomes a stereotype when we apply it to all women indiscriminately (i.e., all women are better carers than all men), and it becomes a prejudice when we use it to judge the behaviour of all women based on it (e.g., women who prioritise motherhood are ‘good’ women and women who don’t are ‘bad’ women). So a woman who aspires to be a CEO may be passed over for the role because the people making the decision have an embedded schema that women are best suited to mothering, and – often without conscious awareness – they react negatively to women who do not conform to that schema.
We hold stereotypes and prejudices about men as well of course, which we apply in the same way – judging individual men based on whether they do things we think men should do (be strong and dominant, for example) rather than things we think are inappropriate for men (be gentle and caring, for example). A man who aspires to be a nurse or a receptionist may be passed over for a role because the people making the decision have an embedded schema that only women are suited to this work. We all have unconscious biases (prejudices) about a range of things and while unconscious bias training can lead people to have an ‘aha!’ moment or two, it rarely leads to any sustainable behaviour change.
How to understand the beliefs that people hold about gender equality
As a general rule, we don’t talk about our schemas or prejudices with other people (except maybe in unconscious bias training) and often we have no real awareness of how much they affect our decision-making. This is one of the reasons why changing your recruitment practices is vital if you genuinely want to improve gender equality in your organisation – people who recruit on ‘gut instinct’ are always operating on a schema, and schemas can be wildly inaccurate, even though they make the person holding them feel comfortable. Consider these two scenarios:
I’m taking my umbrella today because there are clouds in the sky. I know the forecast says there will be no rain, but I am taking my umbrella anyway, because I will feel safer if I have an umbrella with me today.
I’m not going to hire that young woman I interviewed for the position. She has a great degree and excellent experience but I felt more comfortable with the young man I interviewed, even though he had less experience.
In both cases, these people were making decisions based on how comfortable they felt rather than on objective facts (it isn’t going to rain today; she is a better candidate than him). That’s how prejudices or unconscious biases work.
To understand the beliefs that people in your organisation hold about gender equality, you need to find a way to have that conversation or gather that information. It might be through a survey, focus groups, interviews, employee forums… there is a wide variety of methods you can use to find out what people think.
Tapping into attitudes and beliefs that lie outside conscious awareness requires in-depth knowledge and understanding of the behavioural theories and processes that underlie schemas, along with well-developed skills in how to devise questions or conduct focus groups/interviews that can reveal those unconscious belief structures, and how to analyse and interpret the data.
Someone conducting this kind of research might use validated scales and inventories such as the Harvard Implicit Association Inventory (IAT), or they may develop their own constructs and questions to measure them. While many people use the IAT as a kind of ‘look-see’ at unconscious biases, the interpretation of results should only be done by someone qualified and who has a solid and deep understanding of the behavioural theories that underpin the tests.
What to do with your new understanding
Once you have undertaken some research that tells you about the attitudes your employees hold about gender equality, the interpretive analysis should identify the most common beliefs among them. This presents an opportunity to address these issues in the workplace. An ethical consideration at this point is whether an employer has the right to demand change in relation to an individual’s deeply held belief structures. An excellent rule of thumb is, ‘only in so far as they affect their behaviour at work’. Essentially, you are asking people to adopt a set of behaviours in the workplace that are consistent with your organisation’s stated values in relation to gender equality. Whether they choose to adopt them outside the workplace is an outcome that employers can’t control.
Changing people’s attitudes and behaviour can be difficult, and it is not possible to design a half-day course that will lead to any sustainable attitude or behaviour change. For this reason, creating change in this space means taking the long view. You might adopt a number of strategies to challenge traditional beliefs over time, such as:
- Use deliberate gender flipping in communications – e.g., pictures of men doing parenting work and women doing construction work; receptionists called Bruce and engineers called Katie.
- At ‘women’s events’, interview some men about how they balance work and family responsibilities
- Review and change policies and procedures that allow or support traditional attitudes, particularly in recruitment, promotion and performance review. For example, set up unambiguous guidelines around recruitment practices – shortlists and panels that must be gender balanced etc. Put checks and balances in place to help ensure fairness in the process. Create sign offs on the process as well as the outcome. These things may not change a person’s attitudes or beliefs, but they place controls around how those attitudes manifest at work.
- Engage an expert in the field to undertake regular discussion forums with small groups of employees to talk about ways to change behaviours that affect gender equality in the workplace.
How can we help
If you are looking to better understand the beliefs and attitudes held in your organisation, and improve gender equality in your organisation, we’d love to help. Check out theagendaagency.com.
Originally published by The Agenda Agency: https://www.theagendaagency.com/blog/2018/4/8/giving-people-a-voice-on-your-diversity-agenda-conducting-a-diversity-survey-by-linda-peach-and-heidi-sundin
This is a narrative about the journey from apathy to activism in working towards gender equality. From the early 1990s to around 2009, the conversation on gender equality had stalled. Young women (incorrectly) thought they had equality and that they could relax into a newly equal world. Thankfully, that apathy has now shifted and the conversation has been reinvigorated, giving us new hope for a gender equal future.
Dr Linda Peach
At the recent (October 2017) Growth Faculty summit in Sydney, Women World Changers, renewed hope about where the conversation on gender equality is taking us as a society was firmly on the agenda. Professor Cordelia Fine’s work on neurosexism, emphatically debunking the myth that women and men come from different planets; Richard Denniss’ willingness to tackle the male dominance of economic privilege and his clear advice to young women – with things the way they are, don’t have children if you want to have an equal chance at financial security as the men in your sphere; Elizabeth Broderick’s work on sexual harassment and sex discrimination in Australia’s universities and her continued work to change attitudes to women in our society; even just the fact that there was a reasonable sprinkling of men in attendance speaks of new conversations and new sources of hope for a gender equal future.
Back in the late noughties when I was researching and writing my Ph.D thesis, the conversation about gender equality had stalled. I was constantly dismayed about how many young women would say “We don’t need feminism” and “We already have equality” with the silent addendum, “Silly old duck”. My consternation turned to concern and eventually to anger at the ways that women had been cheated out of their own deserved sense of injustice by a world that was determined to protect the interests and privileges of the patriarchy. When I had the opportunity to do a Ph.D, this was my burning interest – what was driving young women towards mute acceptance of an unequal future?
A Ph.D, by its nature, means burying yourself in literature and other people’s research. Over those five years, I read roughly a thousand academic papers and books (possibly not every word, but certainly enough to get a really good grasp of the plot). From Susan Faludi’s ‘Backlash’ to Alice Eagly’s Social Roles Theory to Bandura’s Social Learning Theory to Glick & Fiske’s Ambivalent Sexism Theory… taking side roads into Catherine Hakim’s rebuttal of feminist thought and looking into religious tenets that influence gender equality. I began to understand – really understand – the nature of inequalities, of patriarchy and power, of feminism and femininity, and of traditional and emerging masculinities.
In my research, I ran focus groups with women of all ages from 18 onwards and listened to their stories of limitations, denigrations and denials, of wishful thinking and frustrating ignorance. I sighed at their fundamental acceptance of the fate of being female, born of their understanding that fighting it was too hard. I did online surveys with hundreds of young women and young men and despaired at their responses. I wondered if it was futile to even try to change such a deeply entrenched system of inequality.
I went to feminist seminars and listened to women who had fought the battles of the Women’s Liberation Movement in the 60s, 70s and 80s. I heard weariness, defensiveness and despair. I saw women who had fought all their lives for justice and who just kept trying, even when they were being told to shut up by younger women. I presented at conferences in Australia and in Europe that were about academic research into women’s careers, mostly focused on work-life balance, motherhood and health. Even at these conferences, the spectre of the patriarchy was not often directly challenged. Young women at some of these conferences said to me, “That may be what your research participants say, but it’s not what any of my friends expect to happen!”
Sometime in those first couple of years of my research, Elizabeth Broderick came to speak at the University of Queensland. She had just finished her first listening tour around Australia and I had avidly read everything I could find about it. I listened to this powerful woman who so clearly wanted to make a real difference, and I felt a glimmer of hope.
I finished my Ph.D in 2012 and around that time, a number of things happened that began to shift the conversation about gender equality forever. Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn were becoming serious knowledge exchange platforms with clout and people started using them to talk about issues that the mainstream media preferred to ignore. On those platforms, women’s rights and gender equality began to have a voice again.
Julia Gillard became Australia’s first female Prime Minister (I heard about it first on Facebook). Malala Youfsazi was shot in the head on her way to school for the crime of being a woman who wanted to be educated (Facebook again). Tony Abbott began to offend women all over Australia and the world with his attitudes and behaviour towards women in general and Julia Gillard in particular (discussed at length on every social media platform known to humankind). The Misogyny Speech happened (have you heard the Australian Voices’ song about it? If not, listen here: https://youtu.be/tpavaM62Fgo).
Issues that had been buried for decades began to resurface – suddenly the gender pay gap was news; commentary about the lack of women in leadership roles had some statistics to back it up and the Workplace Gender Equality Agency was born under new legislation developed by the Gillard government. Elizabeth Broderick’s Male Champions of Change took off, White Ribbon started making a noise, International Women’s Day gained global momentum. The conversation began to get louder and better informed, and it began to develop a sense of purpose. The aftermath of the 2016 US presidential election saw the global Women’s Marches that sent shockwaves around the world.
And still, the conversation is too easily sidetracked and undermined by the male-led and largely neoliberal framework of our business and political worlds. That framework rests on the premise that if you can’t get there without us having to change the way we do things round here, there is something wrong with you personally, so stop blaming structures that restrict your access to opportunity, OK? We let you in the door; if the lift is programmed to operate faster and more efficiently for men, that’s just something you will have to overcome by being patient and taking the stairs. And from there we end up on the “fixing women” road that ultimately leads us nowhere.
We understand the impact of the problem – lack of women in senior roles; gender pay gaps across every industry and in every organisation; women facing financial hardship and homelessness in retirement; the loss of a huge pool of talented women as pipelines leak successful women who also want to be mothers.
The problem underlying all this – the factor that persistently plagues all attempts to improve gender equality – is that women still do most of the caring and men still largely think they are required only to ‘help’. The young women in my research overwhelmingly wanted to have children, and they also wanted to work and have careers…. and they already knew at 18 years of age that the men in their lives were very unlikely to take up 50% of parenting duties. They already knew, at 18 years old, that at some point they would give up part or all of their paid work and careers to be parents. They knew it with sadness in their hearts and eyes, they knew it with wisdom well beyond 18 years on the planet, and they knew it regardless of what their own parents had done.
Despite so much progress, this is the major barrier to gender equality that just refuses to budge in any meaningful way.
And when Cordelia Fine’s research repeatedly tells us that women’s brains are not in fact hardwired to do caring work; and Richard Denniss looks us all in the eye and tells us the hard, clear, economic reality that women who have children lose out financially; and when we hear from Elizabeth Broderick about the impact of sex discrimination and harassment, and people are nodding their heads at all of this…. Well, that’s hope.
The conversation is no longer stalled. It is alive and kicking and – despite players on the world stage who do pose a serious and not-to-be-underestimated threat to progress – the apathy and denial that characterised the landscape 10 years ago is no longer in control. New voices are being raised and heard, offering different perspectives and new insights, and those voices are the hope on which a more gender equal future can be built. Our job now is to keep the conversation alive, and face the realities that, when changed, can create those better futures.
The words we use to describe successful people are different for women and men – and the words we use for success typically describe traditionally masculine traits. This is a problem because, in the now-famous words of Justin Trudeau, it’s 2015 (or 2016 if we want to be particular). Really, we should be past this by now. Instead, the Australian has today shown us – again – that when it comes to gendered descriptions of achievement, we have a very long way to go.
The Australian just published its annual list of the 30 most influential people in higher education. The list includes five women, four entities that are not, strictly speaking, ‘people’, and the remaining 21 influencers are men.
The list is unsurprising in its general makeup. 17% of the list is female, which is consistent with the proportion of women in positions of business influence more generally. That three of the list are members of the current government and two others are either politicians or closely aligned to politics is also to be expected.
I began reading the list and was immediately struck by the language used to describe these influential people. In particular – and unsurprisingly, given my particular interest – I noticed how the language used to describe the characteristics of influential men was different from that used to describe women.
Some of the terms used to describe the men were: ambitious; reformist; focused; consultative; a born salesman; has political sway; innovative; entrepreneurial; influential; a political animal; resilient; admirable; buzzes with excitement; very funny and droll; has gravitas; hugely relevant; in demand; assured; clear-eyed; highly credible; cranky; crafty and crinkled; imposing; a terrier; a stayer; sharp; witty; Machiavellian (as a positive trait); charming; never fazed; savvy; confident; independent; mover & shaker; scholarly; dauntless; a poster boy for persistence; and hard working.
And the women: a fantastic communicator; savvy lobbyist; on board the Turnbull innovation train; a world champion in finding consensus; pragmatic; supports a reform narrative; an engaging straight-talker; tough; cool; the single most powerful medical researcher in the land; an advocate; has the courage of her convictions; a distinguished researcher; poster girl for the Turnbull government’s innovation future; she’s the ‘real thing’ (I’m still confused about that one); an award-winning chair; knows it is lonely at the top for women in science; and unflinching.
Differences in describing the traits of women and men
The first thing I noticed that is different between these two lists is that it seems to take more words – whole phrases or sentences, in fact – to describe women’s capabilities and achievements. Men’s, on the other hand, can be described in powerful single words. Men are ambitious, assured, imposing, charming, savvy, confident… etc. Women support other people’s agendas, have achieved a particular distinction, are willing to stand firm even in the face of negativity.
The second thing I noticed was the dearth of positive overtones in the ways the women are described. The overall sense is that women get there in spite of it all and have to be tough and cool cucumbers to make it, while men are there because… well, just because they’re these great guys, you know (a nod to Zaphod Beeblebrox here, fantasy fiction’s best loved narcissist).
The third thing I noticed was that men get all the ‘leading’ words – ambitious, confident, independent, hard-working, assured, credible – while women get all the ‘caring’ words – supportive, communicative, consensus-seeking, engaging.
And the fourth thing I noticed is that the women are spoken of in relation to the achievements or agendas of powerful men. Nalini Joshi is supporting Malcolm Turnbull’s innovation agenda (in fact, according to the list, she is a primary reason Malcolm Turnbull got his innovation train underway in the first place); Michelle Simmons is the poster girl for Turnbull’s science and innovation agenda; Belinda Robinson apparently herds cats for a living and found support for Christopher Pyne’s unpopular reforms (but is now on the Turnbull innovation train); Vicki Thompson, meanwhile, managed to rally a lack of support for the same reforms but is now – thank the stars! – on board the Turnbull innovation train. Only Anne Kelso seems to avoid being portrayed as a woman supporting a male agenda or travelling on a very crowded train, and that might be because – in the words of the article itself – she already has her work cut out for her.
And the problem is?
The problem is that the way the people on this list are described shows a consistent difference in language based on each individual’s gender.
Because our society has a legacy of men being the most powerful in political, social, economic and educational roles, with women the largely invisible supporters of male success, the words we associate most easily with power and success are the words that describe masculine qualities. Change should be a relatively simple matter of applying those words to women as well as men, but the human psyche – at least that of a journalistic nature, it seems – finds this very difficult to do.
What would it look like if it was different?
Let’s try it. Here are a few sentences that could be used to describe these women differently, and a few that could also be used to describe some of the men a little differently too, just for fun.
With single-minded assurance and a knowledgeable eye on the future, Vicki Thompson has driven a well-constructed and ambitious reform agenda through the Go8, heralding ground-breaking change to the way research is funded in Australian universities.
Universities Australia Chief Executive, Belinda Robinson, has brought her confidence and clear-eyed understanding of the sector to achieve remarkable results in a short time.
Michelle Simmons received a phenomenal $46m to develop the world’s first quantum computer. An award-winning scientist with an impressive international reputation, her work has placed Australia at the forefront of innovation in the sphere of quantum computing.
Nalini Joshi is the University of Sydney’s award-winning Chair of Mathematics. Aside from the world renown she has as a leading researcher in her field, Nalini has a clear and consistent approach to gender equality. She firmly believes that unless unconscious bias is addressed in tandem with practical steps to address inequality, change will be slow in coming, if it ever does.
And for the men:
Simon Birmingham’s consultative approach and desire to advocate for consensus across the University sector has made him a popular choice of Education Minister. His excellent interpersonal communication style will be sure to help him garner support for the Turnbull reforms he is supporting.
As the new chair of Universities Australia, Barney Glover has much to offer the institution, bringing his capacity to develop narratives around collaboration and cooperative endeavour. Many Google executives have complimented Barney on his gentle approach to the delivery of reform ideas on behalf of the government.
Brian Schmidt, the much-valued new VC of ANU, has been applauded widely for his research achievements, including the conferral of a Nobel Laureate. As a politically aware communicator, Brian has a list of influential people he can call on for support when needed. This should stand him in good stead as he settles into his new role.
Hopefully by now you’ve got the general idea. Language matters. And making conscious efforts to use language that is non-gendered when describing people’s achievements is extremely important as we move towards a more gender equitable world.
Published in Women’s Agenda, January 2016. See the original article here: https://womensagenda.com.au/latest/words-for-women-and-words-for-men-gendered-language-shouldn-t-still-be-such-an-issue/
We need women on boards for many reasons: ethics isn’t one
There are many good reasons for increasing gender diversity on boards: better decisions, better performance, and better representation of the consumer base.
But the idea, put forward in a variety of research over the past twenty years or so, that women on boards improve the moral and ethical decision-making of those boards has a number of problems for both women and men, in the boardroom and out of it.
First, having gender equality on the board is increasingly part of corporate social responsibility initiatives. Rather than ethical standards improving when women are on boards, it may be that organisations with a corporate social responsibility focus create a climate of gender equality. This may mean their boards include more women simply because corporate social responsibility and equality are related concepts.
Second, the idea that women will set improved standards of moral and ethical behaviour for boards is based on the (faulty) assumption that when boards are made up of only men they will be morally and ethically lax. Surely that is a sexist view of men, based on notions of men as irresponsible risk-takers?
Third, it places the burden of responsibility on women to make sure that boys on boards don’t behave badly. Surely that is a sexist view of women, based on the idea that a mother will be the moral and ethical compass for a family unit?
Women on Australian boards
Australia – like most other countries in the world – has a distinct lack of women on its corporate boards: just 17.6% of ASX 200 directors and only 5% of ASX 200 chairs are women, according to the Australian Institute of Company Directors. Australia’s Gender Equality Scorecard shows that in Australian organisations with 100 or more employees, 23.7% of directorships and 12% of chairs are held by women. More worryingly, only 8.8% have set targets to increase gender diversity on the board, yet 48.5% of employees in these organisations are women.
Researchers (and others) have consistently noted that this poor representation of women at board level is a problem and have sought to convince male-dominated boards to make room for women. In looking for evidence to support their arguments, some research linked women on boards with “…a strong moral overtone…”, with increased corporate social responsibility and with less unethical behaviour. Other research found the more women directors it had, the more likely a company was to appear on lists such as “The world’s most ethical companies”. And so over time women have come to be seen as the ethical “saviours” of boards.
Considered in the light of ambivalent sexism theory, this suggests that women might be allowed to join the – predominantly male – boardroom club provided they do so as nurturing, caring, peacemaking, ethical gatekeepers. In other words, boards might be convinced to accept women so long as those women conform to traditional ideas of feminine behaviour. I wonder what would happen if women turned out to be ineffective as ethical watchdogs in the boardroom?
Diversity benefits boards
Putting aside the faintly fishy idea of women on boards as ethical gatekeepers and men on boards as lacking in ethical and moral principles, what are some of the valid and non-sexist reasons for taking steps to increase the gender diversity on boards of directors? Here are a few:
- Diverse groups of people bring a greater variety of experience and different views to the decision-making process and then make better decisions
- Gender diversity on boards helps to ensure that the entire consumer base is represented. This is particularly important because women now control the bulk of household spending globally, according to the World Economic Forum
- Financial performance is better in companies that have gender diversity on the board. When women are included on executive committees, average return on equity improves by 47% and average earnings before interest and tax improve by 55%
- Diversity in the membership of groups making investment decisions may lead to more social responsibility in decision-making around fossil fuel divestment.
Personally, I constantly wonder why we need to justify to the world that 50% of the adult population should have equal access to the same opportunities as the other 50%. It seems the argument that women should hold 50% of board positions because they comprise 50% of the population is not good enough.
There are many good arguments for ensuring there are more women on boards. That women have the moral and ethical high ground over men and will therefore be ethical gatekeepers on boards is possibly not a very valid justification and one that should not be given too much airspace.
One day my prince will bomb: why teenage girls love a killer
Prince Charming and the boy accused of the Boston bombings may not seem to have much in common. But thousands of teenage American girls appear to be falling in love with 19-year-old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, and the explanation may lie in a very awkward place indeed – somewhere between the shining armour and the poisoned apple.
Tsarnaev has become the focal point for a number of fan clubs on social media, largely comprising teenage girls protesting his innocence and professing undying love. Two Facebook groups have 8,400 and 13,500 members respectively.
Teenage girls are reported to be leaving messages of love for Tsarnaev. One young fan announced on Twitter she wanted to have his words tattooed on her arm.
There is also much existing research about Stockholm Syndrome and its variations, including women who are attracted to infamous criminals, terrorists, murderers, rapists etc. All of these are no doubt a part of what is driving pro-Tsarnaev sentiments among young girls.
And yet I find myself wondering if it might be symptomatic of a wider social issue. While – clearly – not all young women are falling for Tsarnaev, there are enough to suggest something may be going on that is bigger than a few misguided teenage girls wanting to raise a middle finger at authority in a very public way.
Social roles theories
What does it say about our society that a potential terrorist can have such widespread appeal to young women? One perspective comes out of social role theory and ambivalent sexism theory. These theories suggest that we are a product of the social roles we inhabit, and I think this might add another piece to the puzzle of teenage girls’ infatuation with Tsarnaev.
The plot of social roles theories is more convoluted than a Mozart opera, but here are the sharps and flats of it: the foundation of social psychology professor Alice Eagly’s theory is that we’ve come to associate men with being physically strong, dominant, competitive, aggressive and assertive.
Women, on the other hand, are identified more readily with being caring, nurturing, unaggressive, dependant and communal.
They suggest that modern benevolent sexism portrays men as providers and protectors for women. Women who value masculine power and who place themselves under the protection of a male are rewarded with approbation and approval. Women who do not are censured with disapproval and dislike.
The result is a gendered power imbalance in heterosexual relationships where men are physically, socially, and financially dominant, while also depending on women for intimacy, reproduction and caregiving.
This is an uncomfortable dependency for any dominant person or group. After all, if you’re going to dominate another sector of society, you don’t really want to have to rely on them for any goodwill, right?
So there needs to be a sweetener for the pill. Another psychology professor, Laurie Rudman, identified it by linking the provider-protector role with the romantic idealisation of potential partners.
Enter Prince Charming
Fairy tale notions of Prince Charming and knights in shining armour help to maintain stereotyped ideas of men as strong, dominant, competitive and powerful – and therefore desirable as protectors.
The same fairy tale notions place women in dependant roles where charming (and not-so-charming) princes can protect them. You don’t need to go very far to find a myriad of examples of fairy tales being spoon-fed to children (and adults) in everyday life.
Young women and young men have come to idealise the heroes who will go to any lengths of violence or sacrifice to save the damsel and/or the world. In doing so, it may be that Prince Charming – for some – has morphed into an altogether more sinister proposition.
If you’re not minded to examine your chosen Prince Charming too closely, Tsarnaev appears to be socially dominant and powerful, and therefore a prime candidate for protector.
He has natural appeal for adolescent girls because he is of their age group, has been described as “too beautiful to be a terrorist”, and is attributed with statements such as:
Big tick for stereotyped Prince Charming superhero.
So, young women’s reactions to Tsarnaev, at an individual level, are no doubt associated with fame and rebellion. But teenage girls’ infatuation with Tsarnaev may also be an extreme example of the roles that women and men are expected to play in our world.
Romantic fantasies of heroes can leave women vulnerable to “dangerous men”, whether of the celebrity boyfriend type or the closer-to-home domestic abuser. Viewed like this, it’s not so surprising that Tsarnaev fan clubs have popped up, and that adolescent girls are romanticising him to such an extent.