It's PC gone mad, the Feminazis are winning!

Cross posted from my home site.

I’ve found it fascinating watching the men and women around me and on social media discussing a high profile case this week.

Roger Sutton resigned from Cera after sexual harassment claims were made.

There has been an overwhelmingly male chorus singing from a familiar song book. I may be being unfair to men, in that in most cases they spoke over the top of, or instead of women, so the women may have shared their view – I just didn’t hear it. These voices were at work, on radio panels (I’m looking at you RNZ) and on social media. The songs were “it’s PC gone mad” and “he is a really nice guy” “He is really well respected” “he is just a touchy feely guy”.

Most people are.                

 Very few people have their friends and colleagues spouting off to the media about what an asshole they are. Most people have a place where they fit in and feel at home. Most people have mates who think they are a good bloke, a top guy, a bit of a hard case.

It doesn’t mean that for some people they aren’t a danger, an unsafe person, a creeper, that person at work that you avoid. And just because your mother/colleague/wife loves you, doesn’t mean you aren’t a total asshole to someone else.

I would really like people to remember two key things.

      1)     It’s REALLY important to remember that safe is a movable line, and it is set by the receiver of contact, not the giver.

      2 )     Creepy out of line behaviour doesn’t happen because people are always sneaky. It happens because people are entitled and the people around them let it happen.

Here is an easy example of that movable safe line…

People who catch crowded commuter trains in Japan will feel safer with someone standing close next to them on public transport than people that commute on NZ trains. Your personal bubble is what you are used to, and it is often the same among people of the same living environs/culture. But even within a one similar group, not everyone is the same, and direct physical contact beyond a basic handshake should be carefully evaluated. People who have their personal safety violated in the past will not feel safe with hugs from randoms that might be seen as totally okay by the other 60% of the workforce.

As a self-aware professional, it is part of my job to assess how I interact with my colleagues just as much as I do my clients. I can easily go a day without physical contact and come to work for the next twenty years. Missing out on physical touch is nothing compared to the feeling of someone encroaching on your personal space and feeling like you are in a constant state of defence. People need to stop seriously thinking that their right to touch others as they see “normal” is equally important as someone else’s right to NOT BE TOUCHED WITHOUT ASKING.

Any sense that your way is the best way and people should just accept your behaviour involving their space and body is a massively entitled view. This is an especially odd view when you consider that most of the men I was listening to today were deeply concerned at their rapidly vanishing super important right to act how they choose at work. So they DO UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAVE RIGHTS.

Our right to feel safe just isn’t as important as their right to do what they want.

Heads up lads. You will know when the feminazis are winning, and it won’t be because you can’t harass us at work. It will be when you are held accountable for those actions and the population stops seeing you as a nice guy for it. I'm gonna add in an extra wish that the media ceases it's witch hunts of women who dare to complain.

It doesn’t seem that extreme to me. But then, what would I know?

Please feel free to fill in this survey – it is asking about your experience on both sides of the equation, so by all means, if you are feeling hard done by because someone has complained at work, fill it in.

Royal Society of New Zealand 2012 Research Honours Dinner

Cross Posted from my usual home-base.

The annual awards evening celebrating top NewZealand researchers was held at Auckland Museum on Wednesday.

Huge congratulations to Distinguished Professor Margaret Brimble, CNZM FRSNZ, School of Chemical Sciences, The University of Auckland, who last night became the second woman to win the Royal Society of New Zealand's Rutherford Medal.

She was quoted by Fairfax at stuff.co.nz

“I am personally very pleased that New Zealand has now recognised me, not for being a woman in science, but for my science.”

The Rutherford Medal was awarded to chemist Professor Brimble, for her world-leading contributions to the synthesis of bioactive natural products. Part of her work in chemical sciences has been research benefitting those who have experienced brain injury by modifying a naturally occurring peptide found in the brain after an injury, which helps to prevent secondary cell death.

If you are interested in reading more about her research, please go to the university website for more information.

Other women who won during the presentation of thirteen awards on Wednesday night were:

The Dame Joan Metge Medal for excellence and building relationships in the social science research community.

Professor Linda Tuhiwai Smith, Pro Vice Chancellor and Dean of the School of Māori and Pacific Development, University of Waikato, for inspiring, mentoring and developing Māori researchers.

Professor Janet Holmes FRSNZ, Chair in Linguistics, Victoria University of Wellington, for her outstanding contribution to linguistics.

Congratulations to all the winners on Wednesday night, you are inspirations.

I am going to try and focus more on the amazing work of New Zealand women, who, unless they are in film and television tend to slip through the cracks of NZ media, making small headlines no matter how outstanding their work is. Those who are already in their field appreciate them for the work they do, lives they change, and ideas they bring forward.

I will be recognising them here with the original drive due to the fact this is a feminist space, but in the hope that the circle of people who appreciate the work being done will widen. Please don’t hesitate to link to further information on the work these women are doing, or information about their achievements.

Too few women leaders

Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg talking at TEDWomen

Sheryl Sandberg's TEDWomen talk on the lack of women in boardrooms is worth a watch.  There is a very helpful transcript as well as multi-lingual subtitles available too (at the same link)

Three ideas she puts forward for addressing the lack of women in leadership:

1.  Sit at the table - Sandberg contends that women often systematically underestimate their own abilities, and success and likeability tend to be negatively correlated for women (and positively for men). 

2.  Make your partner a real partner - The idea that we've made more progress in balance outside the home than inside it. 

3.  Don't leave before you leave - Meaning don't make changes in your work plans to accomodate children you don't even have yet.

Watch/listen/read for an interesting expansion on all the above.

As is often the case with these kinds of analyses from women who have "made it" there is more focus on the choices of individual women than looking at the systematic and cultural stuff that drives those decisions, which I find annoying. It's as if we just devalue ourselves and make crap decisions about our lives for absolutely no reason whatsoever. While there is some implicit stuff for men to take out of this talk too, it isn't made very explicit, although that may be due to the audience of the talk (i.e. mainly female I think).


What did you think?

Politicians are not robots

Earlier this week Auckland Council's Governing Body (the mayor plus 20 elected ward councillors) voted at an Extraordinary Business Meeting to approve additional ratepayer funds for the Rugby World Cup.  The vote was incredibly close, and not without controversy.  The mayor had to use his casting vote to pass the funding. 

Why am I writing about this on a feminist blog?  Is my concern that (yet more) public money is being spent on rugby-related expenses that would never even be considered for a women's sports tournament?  Did all the men vote for it and the women against? 

While the former is true, the latter is not.  And neither are what this post is about.

This post is about some very awful sexism that Councillor Cathy Casey (Albert Eden Roskill ward) has faced because she had to leave before the vote was taken. 

Now for a bit more context.  Cathy Casey is a friend of mine; I wouldn't say a close mate or anything, but we did run on the same ticket and she is one of the two councillors for the ward I represent at Local Board level.*  We agree about a lot, politically, and she is a staunch feminist too, as her presence at Auckland's SlutWalk this year attests to.  Cathy and I have had disagreements too, not least when we were both very involved in the Alliance party and wanted that organisation to go in different political directions.  We haven't discussed this privately at all, although I have expressed some of the sentiments in this post on Facebook, including on her public page there. 

Casey has spoken of her opposition to extra local government money for the Rugby World Cup passionately, publicly, and repeatedly, including stating on her (public) Facebook page "I think enough ratepayers' money has been spent on this rugby tournament."

The Herald article reports on the vote split and notes Casey as the only councillor absent.  Actually two other councillors were absent - Michael Goudie (Albany ward) and Penny Webster (Rodney ward) who are both overseas at a planning conference I believe.  I suspect both of them would have voted against.  Of the centre-right contingent on the Governing Body, predominantly represented by Citizens & Ratepayers, one of their number, Noelene Raffills (Whau ward), voted for the funding. 

Yet all the heat is on Casey, for leaving before the vote.  Her integrity has been repeatedly questioned, with the implication that she left early to avoid voting against her centre-left colleagues who were supporting the funding. 

Comments have been made, on the Facebook page of Councillor Cameron Brewer (Orakei ward) (also public), such as:

"Casey needs a kick in the arse for that 'performance' what a pathetic cop out"

"...the dissenter (Cr CASEY) had to leave (convenient), instead of speaking up and having the guts to go against her political allies to vote according to her conviction on this issue. Paid to vote and take a stand!"

"if you are being paid to be a councillor of NZ's biggest city ...you should be at every damn thing !"

"Ah. So the democratic decision-making process for a big decision with public interest for New Zealand's biggest city is not as important as getting on time for a step-daughter's birthday party."

There was a letter similar to the last comment above in the Herald today, although by a different person.  And I'm having a wee Facebook scrap with someone who started out by stating "$1.5M dinner!"

Yes, Casey had to leave to attend her step-daughter's birthday.  The meeting was called very last minute, for 5pm on a Tuesday.  Casey stayed as long as she could, until 6.30pm, but eventually had to go rather than let her family down entirely.  She was supposed to be cooking her step-daughter's favourite meal for dinner, instead she missed the mains entirely and they had to have something else.  She clearly communicated her time constraints to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Auckland Council's CEO beforehand.  Casey has made all this public, via her Facebook page, and not hidden a skerrick.

Going to the meeting at all was a significant compromise on her part, in my opinion.    That the vote was taken after she had to leave is not Casey's fault.  In fact she could not have known how close the vote would be when she left; they continued debating for another hour before voting.

Of the five comments I've mentioned above, at least two come from members of Citizens & Ratepayers (the centre-right ticket).  One comes from a fellow member of mine on the Puketapapa Local Board.  Their extreme scrutiny of Councillor Casey is not only unreasonable, it's also hypocritical given they seem to be failing to make any criticism of their C&R colleague who voted for the funding.  Plus Casey has one of the highest attendance and voting records on Auckland Council. 

Politicians are not robots.  We are people, human beings, and sometimes, just sometimes, we might take a holiday, or get sick, or attend a family event.  Sometimes the commitments we have as elected members clash, so while we may not be at meeting X it's because we're off at meeting Y instead.  I recall Mike Lee saying earlier this year that he had been booked to attend three meetings simultaneously - in Henderson, the CBD and on Waiheke.  Can't be in two (or three) places at the same time.  Family time is important too, yet the dismissive comments imply that a step-daughter's birthday just wasn't important enough. 

I think Cathy made the correct choice, as hard as it might have been for her both then and since.  Women so often seem to be in lose-lose situations when it comes to holding positions of power; stay at work and disappoint your family, go home and disappoint others.  

What does it say about Auckland Council as an organisation that elected members and staff are being asked to make these choices?  It's not family-friendly, and more than that, it's not actually people-friendly, at all.  i look forward to working to change that.




*   Puketapapa is part of the Albert-Eden-Roskill ward.

Only in our dreams

Unrequited Love No. 31 Sleeping Beauty.  Princess, recently awakened:  "I was dreaming of a place where household tasks were shared equally between men & women"  Prince, with moustache:  "Really?  Doesn't sound like any kingdom I've ever heard of."

Part of this month's cartoon series on the theme "Sleep and Sleeplessness" by the wonderful witty Judy Horacek.

Flexibility

An old moan: women with small children end up taking all the flexible working hours (because there's a limited amount to go round?) and when they are absent or work shorted hours their workload is dumped on non-parents. I'm sure this happens - though I'm disturbed by how often it's used as another excuse to bash parents (usually mothers) in paid work, rather than an issue with the organisation and structure of the workplace.

But my experience has been just the opposite. Particularly in my current workplace, I've found working with people who have small children leads to an understanding that (a) there are other things in our life that need attention and (b) the measure of good performance at work is not clocking in at 8:30am and out at 5pm. Have I covered for people because of childcare related needs? Sure. But I've also been granted flexibility and/or had people cover for me when studying, or when I was house buying and needed to pick up documents and once when I came in two hours late because I couldn't find my shoes.

Of course my experience isn't universal - it's not even universal in the history of my own employment (I've worked in call centres. Yeah.) but I want to get experiences like this out there not so much to counter what people are claiming to be the case, but to show what can be the case, and in doing so focus on what the problem is and isn't. And it isn't people (and we know that usually means women) having kids.

Next Week, Next Week, Next Week

Everything is going to happen Next Week.  Next Week will be perfect and filled with plenty of time that I can spend on things other than meetings and childcare.  Next Week, always Next Week.

I don't live in Next Week though, I live in This Week.  And This Week is always packed, filled to the brim, with plenty of commitments for family and community.

Being on a Local Board and having two young kids equals awesome.  The chance to have a positive effect on my community, which sorely needs some local institutions that connect people and build our capacity, is a great privilege.  And to be able to raise children who are funny and bright and happy is a wonder too.

To try to keep track of the busy-ness and avoid childcare calamaties I have been using *cough* Outlook *cough* to colour-code my life.  Purple is for Board stuff, Orange for family, Green for my day job (starting two days a week from March 28th, eeek!), Yellow for childcare by others, Mauve for feministy stuff, Light Blue for me time.  The Light Blue has largely been medical appointments so far.  But today I'm getting my haircut!!ZOMG1!!  I feel so decadent. 

Maybe next week could actually be Next Week.  I could meet a fellow feministy mum for a playdate, do some ironing that isn't focused on just the clothes I need to wear in five minutes' time, even read a book for a while with a hot chocolate and some baking I made myself.   Maybe, just maybe, I could even write a blog post that was about more than whining about how I am too damn busy to write blog posts...

Hmmm, maybe that'll have to keep until the Week After That.

20 hours childcare =/= twenty hours of work

Cross posted

I want to explain some basic facts of life to our Prime Minster, about how work and childcare fit together for people who don't have a wife at home to keep everything running smoothly.

New Zealand's Welfare Working Group has recommended that people who receive the DPB (Domestic Purposes Benefit), should be subject, in certain circumstances, to work testing. The DPB is mostly paid to sole parents, to enable them to care for themselves and their children, and as it turns out, those sole parents are for the most part, female. According to the Welfare Working Group, instead of bludging off the nation (I'm being sarcastic), those wretched women should be working. In some cases, they should be working from when their child is 14 weeks old, and in all cases, they had been look for work when their youngest is three years old.

Mr Key is a bit queasy about that 14 week requirement. But...

...work testing when the youngest child was aged three was more reasonable. The parent would only have to work 20 hours.

"That makes sense because it ties up the the Government's 20 free hours... I think that basically makes sense.

Source: Key: Work-testing when child three makes sense

In other words, because you can get 20 hours of free childcare, then you will be able to work 20 hours a week.

Mr Key has come up with this thought in response to the Welfare Working Group's final report on how welfare should be reformed in New Zealand. It is, as you would expect, nasty. But oddly enough, it is not unrealistic with respect to childcare. Unlike Mr Key.

What our Chief Executive Officer Prime Minister doesn't understand is that 20 hours of child care doesn't equal 20 hours at work. Even if you are lucky enough to have childcare provided at your place of employment (and hey, good luck with finding that), you still need to allow a few minutes each day for dropping your children off, and collecting them again. More realistically, if you need to take your children to childcare, and settle them in, and then get from their childcare centre or preschool or kindergarten to your place of work, you need to allow extra time. My guess is that you need to allow an hour a day, depending on where you live. I suppose that if you are lucky, you might be able to find a job where you work your 20 hours over three days, so that you limit your drop-off-and-travel time to 3 hours. But then you will need to allow time to take lunch breaks, but of course, your child still has to be cared for. My conservative guess is that in order to work for 20 hours a week, you need 25 hours of childcare.

But that only works if you have pre-school children. If you have school age children as well as a pre-schooler, then you'll need to arrange school holiday care, for the 12 weeks of the year when schools are closed. You will be able to cover four weeks with your own leave, but that's still eight weeks when you will be juggling children and childcare and work. Not an easy task at all.

The Welfare Working Group itself acknowledged these problems. Even though it recommended that sole parents receiving the DPB be required to look for work, this was only possible:

...subject to the Government addressing issues with the current availability and affordability of childcare and out-of-school care which we recommend are urgently addressed...

The final report also noted that:

We have proposed that sole parents (and other carers of children in the welfare system) be required to work at least 20 hours per week once their youngest child turns three years old. To meet this work obligation, these parents may need more than 20 hours of care per week, once travel time to work is factored in.

And:

The expansion of out-of-school services would enable more parents to work full-time and have hassle-free care for their children before and after school and in the school holidays. Increased availability and affordability of these services is critical to enable a full-time work expectation to be introduced for sole parents once the youngest child reaches school age. In addition, it may be necessary to require schools to open earlier to give parents more flexibility about when they can start work. We propose that the Ministry of Education urgently develop proposals to facilitate the expansion of out-of-school services on school property, including during the school holidays.

(Emphasis mine)

Whatever else may be, shall we say, problematic in the Welfare Working Group's report, at least they were not unrealistic about the connection between a parent's ability to work, and the availability of good childcare.

Unlike our Prime Minister, who clearly has little idea about just how much work it takes to combine paid employment with parenting. And that worries me. The Welfare Working Group's report is just that - a report. Now it is up to the government to read and understand that report, and decide which bits it will adopt as policy. And the leader of our government has just demonstrated, in one simple little phrase, that he has no understanding of the reality of day to day life for working parents.

***************

I realise that it's been a week since the Welfare Working Group's report came out. But take a look at the datestamp on the article I linked to: 11.16am, on Tuesday 22 February. Slightly over an hour and a half later, Christchurch was torn apart by a lethal earthquake. All this last week, we have been watching and waiting and grieving with the people of Canterbury. However as I said last Friday, something we need to do now is get on with it. Get on with working and thinking and writing, because "they are depending on us to keep the place running and to support them while they work to get their lives, their homes, their communities, back together again."

I hope to write some more about the Welfare Working Group's report in the next few days.

having it all

via a friend on facebook, this piece from holly robinson at the huffington post asking whether women can really have it all:

Fast forward 18 years. Husband #1 and I are divorced (but still friends). I have, for the most part, continued to raise our children while he has traveled. He rose through the ranks of his company to become a Really Big Cheese. Meanwhile, I kept freelancing. I took more jobs as the kids got older, but I was still the one on call for snow days and sick days, school vacations and summer, juggling what needs to be juggled by mothers everywhere.

I put motherhood before my career. That was my choice. Little did I know that, just by having a baby, I was jeopardizing my career and putting myself at risk for poverty, as so many studies around the world show....

Husband #2 is a wonderful domestic partner when he's at home. He'd be a better stay-at-home parent than I would be in many ways. However, again the reality is that he makes more money than I do, and he has the health benefits. So, when somebody has to take a day off to meet the appliance repairman or take a kid to sports practices, it's me.

It's me, and it's most working mothers, who -- even before we get to our desks every morning -- have to wake kids and get them dressed, make breakfasts and lunches, throw in loads of laundry, bake for the PTO sale, fill in the permission slips for field trips, schedule haircuts and oil changes, figure out summer camp and daycare and dinner. And, oh yeah, try to get to to our desks on time to meet deadlines. Maybe even while wearing matching socks.

this puts me in mind of blue milk's post that i linked to a while back, and the difficult choices we all have to make. to me, one of the main issues is that, as a society we need women in leadership positions. we will all benefit when that happens. but how much are we prepared to let individual women sacrifice for them to reach those positions? how much as a society are we prepared to support women so that they can get there?

another important point that comes up in comments to the post is the fact that women need to be financially independent if they are to avoid poverty in case of a divorce. i have a friend who works for a budget advisory service, and she is always surprised at the number of women who haven't planned or even thought about how they'd survive if a divorce happens.

A quick note

A quick note to let you know I'm rejoining The Hand Mirror team. I'm very, very pleased that when I asked if there was space for me, the women posting here were happy to have me back. I'll see how my work pressures go, but at the very least, I will re-start the Friday Feminist series.

Cheers!

Mum vs mum

Deborah Hill Cone has been going through the process of becoming a solo mum lately, and last week she wrote about motherhood along these lines:

...Girl two: "My daddy helps people. He's a lawyer." "What does your mummy do?" "My mummy makes the dinner."

Is Devonport the suburb that feminism forgot? I have been wondering about that since my marriage split up. I seem to be the only solo parent in this suburb of shiny, happy people. Certainly I'm the only one who lets her kids draw on the walls with impunity and considers Banana Up & Go a vegetable. I have always felt simpatico with Devonport but now I am not in a pristine nuclear family I feel a bit of a freak. I didn't realise separation still had such a stigma...

New blogger (but not new writer) and fellow Devonportian Cath responds, including:

...I know I will return to work at some point. I like it. But I’ve learned a bit from this year about having one parent around the home. It’s good. And I don’t think people who choose this as a full time occupation should be sneezed at, DHC. Many people make huge sacrifices to keep one partner, male or female, in the home. Weighing up working in an interesting job with the regular drudgery of making dinner is hardly fair. It isn’t about picture perfect families, or perfect 1950s marriages with 1950s division of labour, it’s about people making choices that work for them...

Both are well worth a read and a mull. For the record I agree with Cath.*

I tend to think the Mommy Wars are something of a myth, encouraged by a media that prefers to paint in black and white than those pesky shades of grey. In everyday life most mothers in Camp A also know mums in Camp B, and get along ok much of the time. When we dislike each other I venture to suggest that it's not because one person is in a full-time job and the other is not, but actually it's because we don't like each other as individuals, and probably wouldn't if our lives were identical. Just because we are mothers doesn't mean we've signed up to love and befriend all other mothers for everymore.

Women dip in and out of paid work as their family and (I hope) personal needs require. Regardless of whether we are engaged full time at home or otherwise, in many homes the adult females pick up most of the unpaid domestic work. The latter is changing (fingers crossed) and the old ideas about women belonging primarily in the home are becoming more fluid too, in more and more places and families across the world.

If I'm being brutally honest I can recall vividly times during pregnancy and motherhood when I felt trapped. Not by Wriggly himself, but by the societal expectations around women who become mums and step-mums, and by the workload of mothering.

For me my paid work is something that usually helps me to be free; it challenges me and extends me in different ways to motherhood. I feel privileged to be able to do both - my day job and my night job, if you will.

I tried staying home for a while, and after a time it didn't suit me well. I don't think it would suit me now either, and luckily I have some choices around that because of my circumstances, in particular the willingness of my partner to command most of the private sphere for a while. But being at home full time may be me again some time, I just don't know. Maybe next time I'm home I'll wonder what mad trance I was in that I ever though working full time was what I wanted to do. Who knows?

In the meantime I do consider my stay home sisters and sometimes look forward to the possibility of being amongst them in the future. That work has its stresses and strains too, and not just dirty nappies either. And it is work. It's all work. In a society that indicates the value of something by its monetary cost it's easy to dismiss the unpaid as without value, to render it invisible. But it's neither; in fact the private sphere work largely carried out by women and girls allows the public sphere work to happen. Without a full belly and a good night's sleep and clean clothes how well would any of us in paid work function in our employment? And without homes and families and friends to come back to at the end of the day and to enjoy our weekends and holidays with, what is the point?

We work together, the paid and the unpaid. I hope I never forget that.


* But then I would say that, given we discussed this obliquely not that long ago at lunch!

Waste not, want not

The Guardian, in an article about food wastage, writes:

There are nearly a billion malnourished people in the world, but all of them could be lifted out of hunger with less than a quarter of the food wasted in Europe and North America. In a globalised food system, where ...we are all buying food in the same international market place, that means we're taking food out of the mouths of the poor.

I'm a food-wasting culprit - or at least I have been in the past. When we were a two income family, the culinary week would run the same way every time...

Weekend: go grocery shopping, full of wholesome cooking ideas for the week.
Monday: cook something semi-decent.
Tuesday-Thursday: come home from work exhausted, and veer between half-arsed cooking and possibly takeaways.
Friday: abandon our family shamelessly to takeaways, as a reward for cooking (?) during the week.

The waste was staggering. Rotting veges that I couldn't find time or energy to cook would reproach me from the smelly interior of my fridge. I'm one of those who likes sharing mealtimes with the family - and collapsing exhausted with takeaways just isn't the same as sitting down for a home-cooked dinner together. My dad was, I think, rather disturbed by my wasteful ways. It's a generational thing: growing up in postwar Scotland, he is programmed to use up every last speck of leftovers, switch off every unusued light, and generally use resources to their utmost.

I'm sure that busy lifestyles aren't the only cause of waste. A university study found that school kids throw out huge quantities of untouched food from their lunches everyday, starting with fruit, yoghurt and other health foods. It's hard to say why - maybe kids have such a wide range of food choices to them that healthy food just isn't attractive.

We dealt with the food-wastage problem when we dropped down to one income. Less money and more time lead to better domestic economy, plus health and welfare benefits for our family. How do other THMers prevent themselves and their kids from wasting food?

demographic imbalances

i thought this press release from the equal employment opportunities trust was of interest:

A new analysis of the age and gender profiles of more than 30 professions shows skews in various fields – which could pose problems in future.

The Equal Employment Opportunities Trust (EEO Trust) analysis of 1991-2006 Census data shows that professions currently dominated by older men and younger women – such as law, medicine, veterinary medicine and planning – are likely to experience a double blow over the next decade. As large numbers of older workers approach the traditional retirement years, some younger women may leave to have children.

the EEO trust singles out medicine, law and accountancy in its press release. it highlights the fact that both older males and younger women are more likely to want "more flexible options" to the current 50-60 hour working week, "such as working from home, part-time work and flexible start and finishing times." given the way the demographics lie, both of these groups will want these options at the same time.

depending on what the unemployment figures are doing, this could be a good thing in that there would be more jobs available. in terms of fairness and a balanced life, it would be an excellent thing that employers get only one person's worth of work out of one person's salary. on the downside, it is likely to mean lower wages because of the increased overhead costs involved in having more staff.

dr reed of the EEO goes on to say:

“These types of [flexible] options are not just for women. They support anyone with caring responsibilities, including the increasing numbers of fathers who want to be more involved in childcare. “They also support older people as they move towards retirement, and may help keep older people in the workforce for longer.”

the research is aimed primarily at employers, to alert them to issues they need to be planning for. i'm sort of hoping that along with the demographic changes, there will be social and cultural changes, particularly in the area of unpaid work, that makes things a little easier for everyone.

The link between female employment and fertility rates

One of the most significant social issues in Japan and a topic of extensive soul-searching is the declining birthrate. The population in that country has now reached a point where it is not replacing itself and this leads to massive concern about what will happen in the future. However, while living in Japan it also became very clear to me that Japan's awful working culture seemed to have much to do with this. It is very difficult in Japan to be a working mother, and as the economic situation has deteriorated it has become more and more difficult for a family to get by on one income.

A recent special report in the Economist explores the issue of aging populations and declining fertility levels. In New Zealand, which has a relatively youthful population and good levels of immigration it is difficult to imagine the angst that this topic causes in countries such as South Korea, Italy and Japan. What does the Economist say is the reason for the decline?

[Florian Coulmas] reckons that the only way Japanese women can manage their difficult lives is by postponing marriage and having fewer, if any, children. Because of the country’s culture of long working hours, husbands with good jobs spend little time at home and expect their wives to cope with all domestic tasks. No wonder that 70% of Japanese women stop work when their first child arrives. If they return to it at all it is usually much later, and then mostly to badly paid and unchallenging part-time jobs. By then they may already be caught up in another domestic bind: looking after their husband’s old parents.

This is not just something being seen in Japan.

Japan is an extreme example, but many other rich countries have similar problems. One reason why there are fewer babies is that women everywhere are marrying and having children much later in life. Between 1970 and 2000 the mean age at which women had their first child in a range of OECD countries rose by more than a year every decade, and many more women now have their families in their 30s. The question is whether they have the same number of children as before but later, or whether they will have fewer overall.

Anna Cristina d’Addio, an expert on fertility policy at the OECD in Paris, thinks they will probably have fewer children in total than if they had started earlier, even though more of them now give birth in their 40s. Surveys show that women generally start off wanting bigger families than they end up with. If the children do not start arriving until later in life, there is less time to reach that ideal number. And once people have got used to smaller families, the number of children they say they want shrinks too. Demographers talk about a “low-fertility trap”.

The good news is that there is a proven solution to this problem: high female employment and high fertility do go together.

For a while birth rates were lower in countries where lots of women worked outside the home, but more recently that trend has been reversed: higher fertility and higher employment rates for women go together.

That may not be as counter-intuitive as it seems. In a modern society children are an economic liability, not an asset. They have to be fed, clothed, housed, looked after, educated and entertained. As a rule of thumb, economists reckon that a family with one child needs 30% more income than a childless couple to maintain the same living standard. The obvious way to keep the household financially afloat is for the mother to go out to work.

If governments anxious to rejuvenate their populations want her to do that, they can help in a number of ways. Extensive research in 16 OECD countries has shown that there is a strong correlation between high female employment rates and large government cash transfers to families, generous replacement pay during parental leave, the availability of plenty of part-time work and lots of formal child care. Where all these things are present, fertility rates tend to go up. France and most of the Nordic countries have embraced such policies and been rewarded with a rise in fertility close to replacement level. It does not come cheap: the OECD reckons that they spend 3-4% of GDP on direct benefits to families, far more than do Germany, Japan and southern Europe.

Full article here.

children at work

i was quite interested by the discussion around this story about an australian MP who took her child into the house for a short while:

Politics has to be, perhaps along with long-distance road transport, one of the least family-friendly occupations in the country.

Even your average backbench Federal MP works long hours. They’re away in Canberra 19-20 weeks of the year, and with a long schedule of electorate events and duties when they’re back home. Ministers, shadow ministers and swing vote senators, who have to get their heads around every piece of legislation and work out whether to back it or amend it, work even harder.

This time of year, the last sittings before the winter recess, are particularly intense.

Sarah Hanson-Young is to be commended for having her child with her in the chamber yesterday. It was for a division, not a debate, and her daughter was about to leave to return to Adelaide.

Instead there has been some remarkable vitriol, particularly on radio, and from at least one of her colleagues, Barnaby Joyce, who accused her of pulling a stunt. That was one of the lowest jibes I’ve seen in this place for a while. The distraught look on Hanson-Young’s face as a staffer took her daughter outside didn’t look much like a stunt.

the debate is mostly between those who think there's no place for children at all in the workplace, and those who think workplaces should be more accommodating of family needs. and then there are those who are saying that this was just a one-off event in the case of a particular crisis, and why is everyone making such a huge deal of it.

as for me, i'm a working mum & well know the pressures associated with that. i'm really lucky to have a workplace where my employers are really understanding, and i'm also lucky to have an office of my own. which means that i've had one or other of the children with me during the day, now and again, when childcare has fallen through in the school holidays or when one of them is sick. it does mean i'm not as productive as i would have been if the child wasn't there, but it's at least a lot more productive than if i hadn't been there at all.

when my eldest was really little & i was working at a university, i'd often take her in with me to lectures. she'd be well fed and sleeping on the floor near me in her little carry cot. or, when she was a bit older, i'd sit her to one side with a few toys and she'd play away quietly. of course, once they're toddlers who want to be running around, there isn't the scope for that.

i know that many workers don't have the luxury of having their kids with them in the workplace, and i'm sure this places stress on many families. it's probably high time that we, as a society, put much more thought into the structure of workplaces. at least this aussie MP has gotten a real debate going in her country.

where are all the women doctors?

is it just me, or is it really difficult to have access to a woman doctor? i've found it really quite difficult in the last 10 years or so. i'd rather see a woman doctor for personal matters, and even for things like listening to my breathing when i have a cold or taking my blood pressure.

the problem is that there aren't many women doctors available. those who are available often dont' work in the later afternoons, presumably because they have children who they would like to be with after school. or they work only two (maybe three) days a week, and it's inevitable that i will fall sick on the days they aren't working.

which makes it difficult for a working mum, who finds that having to keep taking time off work for my own and the children's appointments really difficult. or when it's urgent but there are no women doctors available. i've shifted clinics to try to sort out the problem, but my new clinic is just as bad as the old one. and there aren't any women doctors in single private practice in hamilton.

it's something i have a real dilemma with. because i'm working, i want healthcare to be provided at times that are convenient for me. but these doctors are also working mums and want the same. i don't know a way around it, other than to stay sick and wait another day or two for an appointment, or to succumb and see a male doctor, which feels yukky.

so why are we having this shortage of women doctors? is it because there are not enough women entering the profession? or some other reason?

Leisure inequality alive and well in New Zealand

Men in all 18 countries examined by the OECD (including NZ) have been found to have more leisure time than women. Original Economist article here.

Quick hit: To the boardrooms I say

At present there are only 45 women on the boards of the top 100 companies listed on the New Zealand stock exchange - only 8.65 per cent of the available directorships. Former PM Jenny Shipley is amongst a group of high-profile businesswomen who want to change that. They are setting up a women's business group which hopes to mentor and identify women with potential from all walks of life and groom them for the boardrooms of New Zealand and abroad.

The group already as a number of sponsors: IBM, Westpac, NZ Post and Vodafone.

You can read more about the group here.

The Secret Journal of Wriggly's Mother II

A work day
Had to be away before Wriggly awoke this morning, although I watched him while he snored before the taxi arrived. V lucky plane home landed early, opened front door to find Wriggly just crawling to his bedroom for nigh-nighs. Gave me big grin, said "Me, me," came over to cuddle me. Awwww. Best thing to happen all week.

A sick day
Wriggly is toddling around like he's had too many wines. So glad I was home sick today, cos got to hear my son say "Mummy" for the first time ever. And it was his first word!

A work day, out of town for two days
Surprised I am not missing Wriggly more. Too busy thinking about work to think about son.

About to leave for work
First time since I went back to work, don't want to go, want to stay home with my little boy and play with him. Good that it took six months, and is just cos away so much this week. He is as happy as ever.

A weekend evening
In-laws looked after Wriggly while we went walking. When we got back was past his bedtime but he was wide awake and v hyper after seeing us. Asked him where Daddy was and he looked straight at his father and then walked over to hug his leg. Makes me smile just typing it.

A weekday night
Report-back from Wriggly's Nana who looked after him today: son can now say Mummy, Daddy and, of course, Nana. Am dubious.

Quick hit: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

The Herald yesterday reported that women are suffering an "exhaustion epidemic":

Director of the Sleep/Wake Research Centre at Massey University, Professor Philippa Gander, said the expectation of working long hours is detrimental to our health.

"We talk about it as being an epidemic because it's dangerous and many, many people suffer from various sleep issues.

"Women will often work two jobs or work nights, which is where you are more likely to make an error because your body is less functional and sleeping through the day is harder because you are working against your normal body clock."

Bartle said those who found they only had two or three hours of sleep a night should try to take a nap during the day or catch up on "sleep debt" on the weekends.

"Our lifestyle does need to change and you need to make the time to sleep," he said.

Click through for the whole article.

Excuse me, I need to go nap.