Daily Life: World Hijab Day should only be the start

Check out this piece I wrote for the Daily Life a little while back!

***

World Hijab Day was celebrated by a reported 116 countries around the world on 1 February this year.  The initiative, started by New Yorker Nazma Khan, seeks to promote understanding and harmony by celebrating the hijab and encouraging non-Muslims to try it on and see what it 'feels like to be a Muslim'.

It is fantastic that the world came together to celebrate the hijab.  If, however, the aim is to foster true connection and understanding of Muslim women, the focus has to be on more than simply focus on what they wear.

The campaign has its merits; there is no denying that there is a space for symbolism in the public realm. But the initiative can also be seen as exploiting the symbolic nature of the hijab by using the style of covering as a gateway for people to engage with the religion in an introductory fashion.

The fact is, for better or for worse, the visibility of the hijab (and the ease in which it can be policed) has made it a powerful symbol. It has evolved into a lightening rod around which debates and discussions about Islam's role in the West are centered and goes some way towards explaining why the concept of a 'World Hijab Day' is popular.

However, if the conversation stops at symbolism, which it so often does, the effect becomes to trivialise rather than achieve any sort of deeper connection and understanding.  By focusing on an item or style of clothing, we again run the risk of reducing Muslim women to objects.

Ironically, this is the complete opposite of what the hijab is designed to achieve.  By intimating that donning the hijab will allow the wearer to 'see what life is like as a Muslim woman', it also subtly implies that the hijab is one of the only things that makes a woman Muslim.  This does have the unfortunate side effect of ostracizing Muslim women who choose not to wear the hijab.

This is not to say that the concept of World Hijab Day is entirely flawed.  By demystifying it in some sense, progress is made.  However, it becomes concerning when time and time again, the only discourse about Muslim women is confined to the hijab.

To enrich and broaden the narrative, we should instead focus on the stories, lives and achievements of Muslim women across the board, regardless of their choice of clothing.  We should recognise Muslim women as active and engaged members of the community. These are women who are doctors, engineers, accountants as well as  mothers, politicians and scholars.

Women like Ayesha Farooq, a female fighter pilot in Pakistan, or Ibtihaj Muhammad, a female fencing Olympian.  Women like my very own mother, who tells stories of standing up to soldiers during the coup in Sudan when she was a student.  She was never defined by her clothes but always by her steely determination to make the most of life and provide the best opportunities for her children.

It has to be said though, that part of the impetus is also on us as Muslim women.  We cannot simply continue to be defined by, and allow the world to define us by, the clothing and modesty choices we uphold.  We cannot wait for others to tell our story.  Although it may be frustrating to have to do so, these are the times we live in and so we have to actively ensure that the narratives we tell about ourselves are more than just about our physicality.

When we reach the point where the hijab is no longer something 'remarkable' in the literal sense of the word, we have reached a true understanding. Let's aim for that.

Feminism versus Culture?

The question of feminism in the space of race and religion is one that can often be divisive, particularly given the history of the word ‘feminism’ and the connotations it presents.

A recent post by an Aboriginal Feminist titled "Aboriginal Feminism – So what does this entail?” highlighted some of these difficulties translating ‘western’ feminism to the Aboriginal - and by extension, culturally diverse - space.  For example, she cited the use of the didgeridoo.

"One such example I can think of are the constant questions we get about women playing the didgeridoo. It is considered culturally inappropriate for women to play this instrument which is commonly interpreted by mainstream feminism as sexist. However, black women don't tend interpret it this way, rather it is seen as “men's business” and therefore a respected part of culture.”

She continues by illustrating something I have found difficult to articulate without sounding exclusionary myself.

"If it were an issue, it would be an issue for black women to challenge. White women challenging this would not only come across as an act of imperialism, it would also severely diminish our right as black women to enact change within our own communities.”

Indeed.

This may be part of the reason why the concept of feminism is so divisive and polarising in communities, such as for example, the Muslim community that I am familiar with.  At times, the very act of mentioning feminism immediately sidelines you from being a participant in the discussion.   It is assumed you then embody the value system of ‘Western Feminism’, a concept disparaged and associated with man-hating, bra-burning and a rejection of any traditional role and expectation in society.

Unfortunately at times, the world of western feminism seems to reinforce these perceptions.  A classic example is that of Femen, a group who claim fight patriarchy in its manifestations in religion, and to speak on behalf of ‘oppressed Muslim women’ among other things.

To be fairly frank, I don’t get it.  However, as a covered Muslim woman, I don’t think I was ever going to ‘get’ protesting through toplessness.  More critically however, by deciding that wearing the hijab was oppressive and actively fighting against it, two things happen:

1. The perspectives, beliefs and norms of those whose right they are claiming to protect are actually ignored, and

2. The right of Muslim women to fight for their rights is undermined.

There is no doubt that there are oppressed Muslim women around the world, but there seems to be a lack of nuance as to how to fight that oppression.  This arises from a lack of understanding of the cultures in which these women operate.

If the very act of fighting FOR someone silences the very person that is meant to be liberated…should it be done at all?  Personally, I feel that groups like FEMEN do more damage to Muslim women who chose to wear the hijab and follow the religion in their own ways than it does to help those who are oppressed through its misinterpretation.

The question then is this: how do we talk about feminism in a space that respects the diversity of races and religions as well as the norms and beliefs they expect and demand?  

A tougher nut to crack indeed.

What do you think?

Is feminism even really a word that we, as culturally and linguistically diverse women, use without being tainted and rejected by our communities? 

TBC...

Maybe we should 'get over it'?

Should women take every advantage offered to them, even if it is on the basis of gender?

 

Is this fair, equitable and in the line of the values of our society?

March the 8th this year, like every year, was International Womens’ Day.  It is a day (usually is preceded by a week) of celebrations and commentary about the status of women in society, how far we have come in affirming womens’ rights and how far we have to go.

In the world of women in technical roles, the role of women and the gender balance is something that is often talked about but remains divisive.  Quotas in particular are something that are hotly debated, by men and women alike.

“Are quotas a good thing?” is something young women often ask.  “I don’t want to get a job on the basis that I am a woman to even up the gender balance if there is a man that is better than me.  I want to know that I am there on merit…right?”

Perhaps.  Perhaps however, we should - as some senior women say - just ‘get over it’.

Now this may be a radical view point. Scratch that, it is definitely seen by some as a little crazy.  However, it was suggested to me firstly by an unlikely source: a fellow rig-worker.

“Rather than trying to achieve equal numbers in the engineering workforce,” he mused,  "why not publicly encourage those girls who want to 'do' engineering that they have the advantage because there are so few of them Vs their male counterparts?”

Curious, I thought. He then elaborated, and essentially said that there are huge advantages for women because of the push to level the playing field.

Why shouldn’t women learn to exploit every offer that could help them, and then show that success to others, he asked. Won’t that success then breed further success?There is a strange logic to such a perspective.

There are also alternative ways of looking at it. Would a man say no to any advantage he was offered because he wanted to be chosen on ‘merit’?  Don’t we accept quotas on the cultural diversity side of things?  What makes that different?

Clearly, we live in a society where there are discrepancies between the outcomes for men and for women, and not all of these can be pegged to biological differences.

Legislative changes in Australia have been around for a while, so it is safe to say that sometimes making the legal environment conducive to a change will not always guarantee the results expected.  Sometimes a little more encouragement is required.

I recently made a lovely acquaintance in the TV make up industry and asked how she got the position. Did she have to apply?

“No,” she laughed and shook her head when I asked.  “My dad works in the industry.”

“Oh wow,” I nodded, thinking that made sense. “So it’s all about having the contacts.”

“Yes… but you know what Dad said to me? I can get you in, but I can’t keep you there.  You still have to be good.”

There lies the crux of the argument.  Quotas, targets, positive discrimination - all of those techniques are about opening the door for people who wouldn’t usually get a look-in due to something they cannot control: their race, their gender, their age.  If they aren’t up to scratch, no doubt that will become known and further opportunities won’t be as easily made available.  As my new found friend said: the door may be opened for you, but after that it is on you to prove yourself and earn the right to stay.

Furthermore, almost every single person I know who represents some sort of diverse background will work harder simply to prove that they belong in a position, as they know that they, whether they like it or not, are somehow defacto representatives of an entire demographic.

Women have yet to earn the right to be mediocre so to suggest that quotas or targets will mean that less competent people will make it up the top is short-sighted.  We as women should also stop underestimating our own capacity, support one another and jump at every open door and opportunity that is made available.

Whether it is a door that is opened by a sponsor or a window opened by a quota, does it really matter? You tell me.

(Also, here is an interesting ten points as to why quotas can be beneficial. Check it out)

SBS Comment: I'm an undercover hijabi too?

Check out this piece I wrote for SBS Online!

When I'm at work on the rigs, it turns out I'm an undercover hijabi.

The experience I have reflects what blogger Leena talks about in her piece 'I took my hijab off for a day'. She describes a complete shift in the way she was perceived by society after she accidentally covered her hijab up with a knit hat and scarf.

The style of hijab I usually wear is flowy, full of tassels and in some ways an occupational health and safety hazard around heavy machinery. While on site I wear a head covering that has been described by coworkers as a 'tea cosy'; a beanie and bandana combination similar to a style favoured by Egyptian ladies. I wore it for a while without realising my coworkers didn't see it as a religious head covering.

I was loving the fact that I wasn't experiencing the racisim in country Australia that I had expected. This fantasy was ubruptly burst when a colleague asked if I ever took the tea cosy off.

'Nah,' I replied easily. 'I'm a Muslim woman, this is what I wear as a hijab on the rig.'

A look of confusion crossed his face and the topic was dropped. It didn't take me too long after that to join the dots.

'Hey, you know I'm Muslim, right?' I asked another fellow that I'd become friends with.

'What? Really? Nah I didn't know...'

'Oh, well why do you think I wear this?' I asked, pointing at my head.

'Oh, I thought it was a fashion thing, or maybe for safety ...'

Like Leena in her piece, this left me feeling confused. The next day, I wore a full hijab (the traditionally wrapped kind) to the crib room for breakfast. You could have been forgiven for thinking people thought I was a completely different person.

It wasn't until I began interacting like the loud, feisty person I always am that people warmed to my presence. The experiments was repeated at a bigger mining style camp and again, the difference in attitudes was startling.

With a beanie, you are just a chick who is cold. With a headscarf, you are the new local tourist attraction and smiles are returned only occasionally and almost fearfully. Suddenly, you're are a foreigner in your own home.

Being a hijabi in the West has its challenges. You're extremely visible as a representative of the religion and people on all sides of the fence see it as their role to police, have an opinion, and a right to comment on your choice. You are constantly asked to justify the actions and mistakes of every extremist that chooses to do something crazy and inhumane in the name of your religion. These are roles that we hijabis have simply become accustomed to filling, part of the deal in a way.

To get a 'get out of jail free card' by wearing something not recognisable gives me mixed feelings. Occasionally, it feels like cheating to be wearing something that people don't associate with Islam for practical reasons while also working to fulfil the conditions of my belief. At the same time, religion and politics are two topics that are avoided like the plague in any blue collar crib room, and so keeping it as personal as possible is a natural default in this environment.

It would be fair to argue everyone should be accepting regardless of what kind of head covering is worn, be it a beanie, a hijab or a ninja-style niqab. Realistically, many are just not ready yet for such changes in their environment and find hijab - for better or for worse - confronting. An effective response is akin to tailoring a message for different audiences: if a group is not at all primed, they'll close their minds off completely to confrontational messaging. The hope is that perhaps as my colleagues now see me as a person first, the common ground found will help reduce ignorance and forge understanding.

When I'm not on the rig, I go back to wearing my classic brightly coloured flowing pieces. They feel like 'me', a part of my identity, something I do for God and an external representation of my faith. It is interesting to consider how many interactions have been missed because people have already made their decision on what I represent based on the type of wrapping I have used on my head.

My way around it at the moment? Grabbing every opportunity to chat to those people, and the more traditionally dressed I am, the better. A slightly inappropriate joke, or a comment about my love of motorsport and knowledge of engines usually shocks them enough for them to forget what I look like for a moment and be drawn into a chat. Then, everyone wants to know what the bikie and the hijabi are laughing uproariously about. Nothing breaks down barriers in Australia like a well timed self deprecating joke.

It may not be perfect, but until all facets of our society become comfortable with seeing displays of faith like the hijab and what they represent, we may have to be more creative about our engagement and representation. After all, to be seen as a foreigner in the only country we know as home is a lonely place indeed. It is a two way street though, and ultimately, it is all about finding the place where we belong in the patchwork fabric of Australia's identity while holding (and displaying) the true values of Islam and faith dear.

Life isn't all about men.

"Oh, I much prefer hanging with guys. They're just so much simpler and there is isn't as much drama"

"Yeh, most of my friends are guys. I prefer it that way. Chicks are just so harsh to each other"

...and so on, and so forth.

Women hating on other women is an interesting phenomena, and more common than one would think.

In all honesty, I shared these very same sentiments for a long time.  My actions reflected it: I did mechanical engineering and ended up in the oil and gas field, areas where women cannot be said to be the majority.  The decisions were not made consciously because I knew there would be less women, but I dare say it somehow tapped my subconscious.

However, as I have become more interested in the concepts of (formal?) feminism, equity of opportunity and diversity (particularly in the workplace) I found that this attitude was something that I consciously had to stop.  It was destructive, petty and I couldn't figure out why I was doing it!

On reflection, it may have something to do with the relationship between women and the male gaze.  

This occurred to me early on in my oil and gas stint when I heard about a new lady joining the crew, doubling the female population.  My instantaneous mental reaction was 'Oh, I wonder what she looks like / what the guys will think of her'.

Then... I mentally frowned (which is like a normal frown but no one knows you are doing it).

Why on earth did I care what she looked like or what the guys thought of that? Why was I making it some sort of competition? 

It occurred to me that some of my thinking had become about (embarrassingly) competing for male attention.  For someone who prides themselves on being an 'independent women' a la Bey, Queen Latifa, Aiysha (RA) and the like, it was a little bit of a shock.  

In some ways, the hijab helps remove the dependence on the male gaze. In some ways it says (and this is something I have appreciated as I have aged), "well I don't want to be subject to your gaze, and I am not going to let you have the power to make a judgement on my worthiness.  I am removing what you find desirable from your view.'  But what I have been learning is that a simple veil and code of dress wasn't enough, it is also about changing the mindset.

Male friends have been confused at this choice:

"But why would you want to hide your beauty if you have it? Why wouldn't you want to share it with the world?"

Perhaps because it isn't all about you?

***

I am now working at a location where there is a large camp and plenty of female staff.  It's awesome to have other women around, even if they are mostly in the admin and catering roles.  I made a couple of acquaintances yesterday, who inquired about my role and expressed their delight when I shared that I was working on the rigs in a technical job.

"You go girl! Show them how it's done!"

"Oooooo!" the Philippino lady in the kitchen also remarked. "So good to see girls get out there!"

That's the sisterhood that I'm talking about.

Perhaps 'sisterhood' is too nerdy a term, or one that has negative connotations around, but we should be in a place where we back each other up rather than compete for some level of acknowledgement from the men around us.  Unfortunately it isn't so easy, or at least it is easier said than done. In a world still mostly run by men (sorry Beyonce), acknowledgement and preference by the patriarchy adds an awful lot of social capital to one's account, and usually opens up more doors to achieving.  Females who do in some way tap into that without compromising their integrity (perhaps by being a woman in a male dominated field...).  Still working on ways around that one...

Whatever it may be, at the end of the day we should consciously choose to shift our attitudes in each and every interaction. Let's support each other and not pretend life is a zero sum game where only one woman may win.

Let's create our own worth and be proud in that.

Everyone is getting married!

I felt like it crept up on me, but I was warned on my 16^th birthday.

“Oh you’ll get excited about 16^th’s!” she said.

“But then it’s 18ths, then 21^sts, then graduations, then engagements, weddings, baby showers, first birthdays…”

I remember being all like “whaaaaaaaaaaat? That shiz is so far out, yolo!” (but yolo wasn’t a thing yet. Trendsetter).

…but it is here!

All of a sudden, I’m being invited to weddings, engagements and baby showers, my facebook feed is full of pictures of children (?) and various issues relating to child rearing (!!).  There are epic debates about the virtues or sins of being married, worries about settling down, friends talking about mortgages and shares and buying houses…

I am super excited for all my friends that are going through these exciting and obviously life changing experiences.

On the other hand, I think I missed the memo.  When did this all start to happen?

What exactly is going on?

Growing up, I guess…

***

There’s an article that’s making the rounds at the moment: 23 things to do instead of getting engaged before you're 23.

All in all, the tone of the article is a little self-interested and condescending, but hey.  The reply, 24 things to do… is a little more aligned with my personal values, however both articles, and the respective responses (vehement, opinionated, passionate in approval or disapproval) illustrate something larger is at play. Something, I feel, particularly as a young Muslim woman from a traditionally conservative background who has grown up in a thoroughly Western society feels quite keenly.

What social norms are we meant to adhere to?

The world of my parents was simpler in a way: the roles that were to be played were understood.  As my cousin said to me: “We know what we are meant to do to live a ‘good’ life by society’s standards, and how to be a ‘good’ woman. Being good in that way, and making my family happy and proud of me, that is what will make me happy’.

It’s simple. 

Get an education but get married young,

have children,

be a good mother,

hold down a good house.

If you have a career alongside that, great, but your family is more important.

In Western society though, things aren't nearly so prescribed. In fact, the freedom of choice is lauded as revolutionary and liberating.

Yet…there is such anxiety in the twenty-somethings I know.  There seems to be so much confusion around what is what; in relationships, in life, what we are meant to be doing and if we are meant to be settling down (am I behind? Should I find someone to settle with? Am I settling too fast?).

Seeing everyone else’s life, described daily for you in painstaking detail everywhere you look (phone, laptop, tablet…) only exacerbates the FOMO (fear of missing out).

It isn’t even just fear of missing out on an awesome party, it’s the fear of missing out on *life*. It’s the fear that, at its root is the most primal of fears – the fear of ending up alone.

I don’t know if this is something that *all* twenty-somethings go through and have gone through for decades and I am just discovering. This isn’t something I’ve been through before, personally.  I’d also wager society is in a drastically different place to where it was even 20 years ago, so the experiences of previous generations are incomparable.

For me, it will be interesting to see how this year plays out. 

Turning 23 for an Arab/African girl is definitely a point where family and community members start making noises about ‘settling down’ (you should have heard the conversation with my father as soon as I graduated from University…at 20!).

I am not against the idea of marriage as an institution in itself, far from it.  It’s a huge part of Islam (half our ‘deen’, or belief in fact, so marriage is seen as a fundamental part of the way of life), and if I am being perfectly honest, as a Muslim, there are things I can only do as a married woman that the rest of society tells me are really quite fun, so I’d like to get to it!

At the same time though, there seems to be a perception that marriage brings about the end of all the fun. The responsibility, the kids, the family, the mortgage… and for women, the point where you start to think about juggling career and family.

So I don’t even know if I should be anxious about missing out, or living it up because I’ve only got a little while as a young free bird left!

All I know is this.  I believe in fate, so I believe that what happens will happen, and what is meant to be shall be.  I have control over my choices and how I respond to what does happen.

Some things are outside my control.

Being anxious about those things isn’t going to change anything.

So, I’ve decided I will do what I’ve been doing. Living life, being grateful Alhamdulilah, learning as much as I can, appreciating those around me and taking it as it comes.  The fact that other people are at other stages in their life is exciting, but it should not affect how I live my life.

At the end of the day, we are the only ones who have to put up with ourselves forever.  So we better make sure that we’re happy with the choices we make, regardless of what society says (or doesn’t say) we should be doing.

#yolo

SMH Opinion Piece: Early start a must for girls to go technical

This piece appeared in the Weekend version of the Sydney Morning Herald this weekend...what do you think?

A recent YouTube sensation has reignited an age-old conversation about the dearth of women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

GoldieBlox, the crowd-funded toy company claims to be on a "mission to inspire the next generation of female engineers". It is doing so by selling toys themed around invention and construction, and pitching them to girls. The concept of encouraging girls into these disciplines at an early age has merit. Yet if society is serious about encouraging more women into technical areas, a variety of factors must be addressed. It must start early, but effort needs to be spread across the board to entrench change.

An Early Start

An introduction to the technical world at an early age would be a great start. Unfortunately, these disciplines continue to be seen by society as largely unfeminine, leading to an unconscious bias in the way we talk about them with young girls. This bias is then internalised, affecting their interests, subject and career choices down the line.

However, an early introduction does not necessarily have to be swathed in pink and lace to appeal. It can simply be in the types of activities young girls are exposed to. My father, an engineer, took my brother and I to science and rail museums, bought us a microscope and Meccano sets from a very early age. Our gender was no point of difference and the family environment was such that science and engineering were seen as interesting and exciting for all.

That kind of introduction needs to be reinforced by conscious (and unconscious) encouragement of girls into technical subjects throughout school. The numbers now are not encouraging; in 2010, there were 33 per cent more boys in advanced mathematics in year 12 than girls, and girls only made up a third of the physics cohort.

To say that female minds are less attuned to technical fields is fallacious and dangerously misleading. Correlation does not equal causation; and anecdotally, girls tend to do quite well in technical subjects. Perhaps that can be related to the fact girls are unlikely to choose a "male-dominated" subject unless they excel at it, because of societal expectations. We have not yet earned the right to be mediocre.

By actively engaging girls, the exciting realities of what science, technology, engineering and mathematics actually involve can be better illustrated and communicated. A clear understanding of what engineers do is often lacking, and the stereotype prevails. The image of a mechanical engineer as a man working on cars and covered in grease is all too common, notwithstanding the fact that it is often far from the truth.

Role Models

Another critical component of attracting girls and retaining women in these fields is the use of role models. This is imperative, and they should not only be celebrated simply as anomalies due to their gender but as inspiration by virtue of their achievements. The talent pool of role models to choose from at the moment is solid and inspiring, but hardly expansive. Engineers Australia's Statistical Overview of the profession describes the situation diplomatically. "Australia has some extraordinary women engineers but this should not be confused with improvement in the status of women in engineering." For more role models to exist, we need more women achieving at higher levels in industries. To do so, labour market imbalances and obstacles to women's true engagement in these sectors must be addressed.

In 2011, the proportion of women in the engineering force was 10.9 per cent. Unemployment numbers between men and women in engineering were also starkly different, with 2.5 per cent for the former and 9 per cent for the latter.

Ultimately, the numbers will remain low if society continues to perceive technical disciplines as a fundamentally male-dominated space. Until this deeply entrenched gender expectation shifts, girls and women who choose these fields will continue to exist in minorities. We must focus on the way we talk about and present these disciplines to our young girls to ensure they grow up with choices free of gender bias.

See original.

An advert deserving of a Gruen Planet appearance

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOjNcZvwjxI

Now here is an advertisement that is a little different.

Brands - particularly cosmetic brands - for their tendency to play on and reinforce gender stereotypes.

This ad for Pantene in the Philippines throws this right back at us, displaying various behaviours and highlighting the differences in the labeling of men and women in the different situations.

'Boss' versus 'Bossy'

'Smooth' versus 'Show-off'

...and so on.

This disparity in labeling is well documented and is often reported to be a challenge for female leaders, and honestly, probably women in general.

[box] “If women’s behavior confirms the gender stereotype, it lacks credibility and is deemed incongruous with the leader prototype; and if it matches the leader prototype, it lacks authenticity and they are not thought to be acting as proper women. It is a lose-lose situation.”[/box]

It is an interesting dilemma, and one without an easy answer.

What is interesting is that Pantene has decided to profit from highlighting this double standard.  In a way, I am skeptical of capitalist, for-profit corporation use of advertising to send a positive message because at the end of the day, their bottom line is what is most important - they simply want to move product, right?

Perhaps .

What this also indicates though, is that advertising gurus up in Pantene Philippine's head office decided that women would want to buy something from a brand that realised there was a double standard at work and seemingly wanted them to do well regardless.

It implies that although you, as a woman, may be labelled 'bossy', or 'selfish', your actions were actually that of a 'boss' and someone 'dedicated'.

An interesting tactic.

I wonder if Pantene Australia would ever go for something like this, or whether women in places such as the Philippines connect more strongly with this sort of message?

What do you think of the ad?

Photos from around the net.  Click for source.

On the Stalking of Julia Gillard

"How did we ever let her go?"

Those were my first thoughts.

The Julia Gillard who graced the stage with Anne Summers in conversation a few months ago now was charismatic, charming, engaging, articulate, wise (I could go on!) and pretty well looked like someone who would be a fantastic leader for our country.

The woman on stage in the Sydney Opera House for the hour and a half special seemed miles away from the Julia Gillard that the Australian people had become accustomed to.  Was this really the same women that the country so desperately hated while she ran the Government for just over three years? Was this the same Julia Gillard that graced our television screens for such a brief period of time?

So what happened? Where did this lady go in all the hullabaloo... and how or why did it all go so wrong?

The Book

I recently finished an interesting book by Kerry-Anne Walsh, 'The Stalking of Julia Gillard'.

The Allen and Unwin published piece is an interesting blow-by-blow account of the years of Julia Gillard's reign.  It illustrates how relentless white-anting from within her own party coupled with the obvious campaign against her in the predominantly Murdoch-owned media led to the misrepresentation of our first female leader and her eventual downfall - and for what?  It was an interesting read, and brought up feelings quite similar to guilt.

How did we not see the good work that she was doing, the book asks.

We, the Australian public, were not allowed to, Walsh replies.

It is an angry read in parts; angry for the treatment of our first female Prime Minister, angry for Julia as a fellow human being, angry at the press gallery for failing in their role as the fourth estate. I felt like I was having a heated conversation with someone who really cared about Gillard, and someone who in hindsight, wished more were done. What could have been done by us isn't really explained, but as they say, admitting there is a problem is half the battle.

Naturally, Gillard is not blameless. Many Australians still hold deep resentment that she arrived on the scene in the way she did, through what was seen as the 'knifing' of a colleague.  Whether that is an accurate representation of the events we may never truly know, but that is how the picture was painted for the public.  Unfortunately, perceptions like that tend to stick around.

Walshes writing had an obvious bias, but in the wake of the conversation with Anne Summers, I began to wonder - how will history remember Gillard, and what lessons do we as a community take from the last three years?

That question: gender? 

As Julia herself admitted, the fact that she was a female in her role doesn't explain everything, but it doesn't explain nothing either.

My hope is that there is more 'nothing' than 'everything', and that the way that Julia was treated - not only by the media and colleagues but by the public in general - does not deter other young women from aspiring to a similar role.

There is evidence to suggest some women who strive for such leadership positions do not even consider their gender as an impediment or a factor until they get there and realise that it somehow plays a part. The 'ugly, violent sexism' that Gillard and her image were subjected to during her term however, were shocking for many - not least of all Gillard herself, as she fit nicely into the aforementioned category.

The public discourse has been drenched in questions around the role gender played in Gillard's treatment.  Prominent feminists such as Anne Summers herself have admitted to being truly shocked at the capacity of our progressive society to produce such callous content.

However all is not lost, and sometimes success is the best form of response.  Rather than focusing what hateful individuals propagate, or dwell on the fact that a TV show was made about a sitting PM, let us focus on the fact that we had a female PM who had a relatively successful parliament.  Let us use her example as incentive for other young women as proof that you can make it.

Yes, it might be a rose tinted view accented by the optimism of youth but surely it is the way to go.

If people have a problem, they will find any flaw or weakness they can to exploit.  The fact that the female gender is seen as an exploitable weakness is unfortunate, but if someone's gender is the best insult thrown at them, well it isn't much of an insult at all!

This is not to say that we should brush issues under the rug, or investigate why there remains a strong undercurrent of misogyny in our society.  By giving the detractors so much attention in the public discourse though, we are legitimising their actions and beliefs in a way that they don't deserve.

My father always repeated a common Arab saying to me while we were growing up:

The camel walks while the dogs keep barking...

There will always be those who are vocal, violent and sexist.  The fact that we now have a history of females in the highest offices in the land though, is an indicator that gender is not an insurmountable obstacle.  It might not be easy, but hey - societal change never is.

Let's just keep walking - after all, no self-respecting camel deigns to even acknowledge the barking dogs...

AFR Talking Points: Inequality in executive ranks

As I read the Business Council of Australia's target in the paper last week, I knew I had a fair bit to say! Luckily, the Australian Financial Review was partial to giving those opinions a megaphone... Here is what I wrote.

***

There is little chance women will ever make up half of senior executives in engineering intensive industries, let alone in 10 years time, unless there is a real push for more women in these sectors in the first place.

Companies have to look beyond rapid promotion and mentoring plans to the impediments that exist for women at the beginning of the executive pipeline if any change is to occur.  s (BCA) bold target of increasing the number of women in senior roles is a promising development. However, the lack of diversity at the upper levels of management in companies is a symptom of a problem that begins much earlier. It is the product of a range of obstacles that prevent women from reaching positions in which they are visible options, and, taking a further step back, from even considering these industries at all.

When I graduated in 2011 with a Bachelor of Mechanical Engineering I was one of seven females in a class of a few hundred. This ratio highlights a flaw in the way woman approach science, engineering, technology and maths (STEM) based disciplines.

Part of the problem is how STEM subjects are marketed to young women, or not marketed at all, from a young age. Far too many girls are studying maths in their final years of high school, effectively shutting down a whole lot of career options. This is reflected in university enrolments, graduations and industry employment patterns.

In oil and gas extraction in Australia, the percentage of females working in the industry is less than 12 per cent. As a fly-in, fly-out, high-visibility gear wearing field specialist, it is extremely rare to meet another female on any land rigs. Granted, the work is not glamorous and the environment is not suitable for everyone (male or female) but if, at the grassroots level in the field, there are very few females working, what is the chance of female talent making it to the top?

Field experience in engineering provides a level of depth and understanding of the industry that is critical to higher management roles. Recent counsel by a senior engineer at an oil and gas conference indicated that part of the reason females were not reaching upper management positions was due to the lack of field knowledge (and the networks and understanding of the culture that comes along with field experience) compared to their male counterparts.

The field environment is not nearly as hostile as people expect. With more women visibly taking on these roles, hopefully more will be encouraged; enough to achieve the critical mass required for real culture change. However, lack of field experience is not the only barrier.

Due to the low numbers of women in engineering, there is an extra layer of difficulty for women returning to the workforce after maternity leave.  In a field where experience on different projects is paramount and the work is extremely resource and time intensive, missing the months or years is more than just disadvantageous, it means that real opportunities for growth are missed. As a female just starting out in the industry, this is something that is always at the back of my mind. There is an opportunity for companies to play a much more significant role in this space, although ironically the understanding of the needs of female employees will be best addressed by female directors.

Women who study and work in engineering-based fields are not always comfortable discussing gender in the workplace either, due in part to the stigma associated with the discussion in such a blokey environment. In a world where women are outnumbered more than five to one, it is important that men are involved in this conversation. The report released by the Male Champions of Change is a symbolic move that should not be understated, as it signals that gender diversity is not simply a ploy by women to ‘move up the ranks faster’ and ‘be rewarded for gender not talent’, as some critics may choose to believe. It highlights the value of gender diversity to the business.

Cultural change is never an easy endeavour but it is worthwhile. The BCA’s move is timely and important. Working with industry to develop solutions that focus on the root of the problem can make audacious targets a reality.

***

So what do you think? Is the target a reality?  Would love to hear your thoughts!

Cheers!

Yassmin Abdel-Magied

We need more men like Malala's father

Malala Yousfazi's story is well known around the world now, and as a one of the nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize this year, her passion for women's education has been given an international platform.

She is clearly an inspiration for many, although there are those who would take away from her achievements by claiming she is a 'good native'; someone who can be used as an example to justify the actions of Western nations.

Looking beyond this though, the story of Malala is not about Malala herself, because as many have pointed out, there are many like her around the world.

The story is rather that of the Yousfazi family, and particularly her father Ziauddin.  This story is about the strength of fathers in a world where bucking the cultural norm not only reflects on the individual, but on the entire family and is one of the more difficult - but worthwhile - paths to tread.

***

I cannot speak for Pakistan or Afghanistan, but as a Sudanese born child to parents of mixed heritage in Northern Africa, our cultures have many similarities in expectation and tradition.

In Sudan, the levels of education that women attain - or allowed to attain - are often restricted by the income bracket and cultural expectation of the family.  Middle to high income bracket groups often see school education (including for women) as a given.  Those from poorer parts of the country do not always have that luxury. Unfortunately, most of the nation's wealth resides within the three central cities of Khartoum, Omdurman and Bahri and so many living in rural and remote areas miss out.

The kicker? The level of influence of the attitudes of men in the family.  Sudan, like many Middle East and North African nations, is intensely patriarchal.  No matter how much 'gumption' a woman may have, or how 'brave' she is, without the support of the family and the alpha men in the unit, some things are unlikely to be tolerated.  This is not to say 'all the women are oppressed', as media often regurgitates, but it does mean that men continue to control much of the public discourse and the public domain more generally.

It is very difficult for a woman to support herself in a house alone, for example.  One's reputation and the way they are seen by the world is the most valuable currency in a collective society.  It is a dis-empowering situation in some senses, particularly if one is used to the freedom of choice and independence women are allowed in other parts of the world to .  However, it is the lay of the land...

It is against this backdrop of patriarchy that the importance of male support begins to be clear.  I see my own father in Malala; a man who values education, opportunity, and sees his daughter not as a less capable member of society who should be married as soon as possible to produce grandchildren, but as a functioning, contributing citizen who has the ability to do so much more than the minimum expected.  My father moved across the world for these opportunities for his daughter, and supported me in every educational pursuit that he felt added value.  He encouraged my passions, even though traditionally, fields such as mechanical engineering and working in very male dominated environments is not always seen as 'appropriate' or fitting for a 'good Sudanese girl'.  I am where I am today largely because of both my parent's efforts, and the blessing of his support has allowed me to be in a role that will hopefully inspire others in some way.

My point is this.  It is unlikely that Malala would have been able to do the things she did - write for the BBC, continue her education - if it weren't for her father's support.  Without the blessings of the patriarch in Sudan, life decisions become quite fraught and difficult; I have little doubt this would be the same in Pakistan. Her father's attitude likely legitimised her actions in the area and allowed her to communicate and make a stand without ostracising her own family in the process.

It is the support of men like Malala's father which is absolutely required in the fight for women's equality, education and liberation in countries such as Sudan and Pakistan.

Without their support, it is an uphill battle that is unlikely to be overcome any time soon.

With their blessings and bolstering however, a difference can be made.

Here is to the fathers of our daughters.

 

SBS Online: If quotas are not the answer, what was the question?

The piece was originally posted on SBS News Online!

Since the announcement of Prime Minister Tony Abbott's one-woman cabinet, the discussion around quotas and representation of women in levels of influence has been rekindled with passion.  Both sides of the debate have defended their position with vehement enthusiasm.

"Oh, I am all for equal and fair representation of women - but quotas? No, I want women based on merit", is the most common argument.

Women themselves - even those who would be in a position to benefit - seem particularly sensitised to this argument. They'll shy away from being given an 'unfair advantage' or reject it outright, presumably in the belief that to do otherwise would be to affect their perceived legitimacy.

Liberal MP Bronwyn Bishop is a strong opponent of quotas. ''I never want to see affirmative action - that is, you got the job because you were a woman - because that makes you a permanent second-class citizen,'' she says. Her fellow Member of Parliament, Julie Bishop, shares this sentiment.

The discussion around targets, quotas or affirmative action is extremely polarising, yet the underlying question seems to be unclear. What exactly is it that we are trying to achieve - and why? If quotas are not the answer, what is?

If "more women in leadership positions" is the overall aim, then the data from around the world proves that the concept of affirmative action appears to be working.

Norway is touted as the classic global example, having introduced a mandatory quota for women on boards in 2002 and passed by the Norwegian parliament in 2003. In this Scandinavian nation, the percentage of women on boards did in fact increase from 9% in 2003 to 39% in 2009. The first study on the effects of the quota was undertaken by the Norwegian Institute for Social Research and the results reinforced the benefit of affirmative action on the 'bigger picture'.  It was reported that the majority of directors surveyed indicated that more women on the board led to new perspectives and more issues being added to the board agenda.  A seeming win-win situation, right?

But if the aim is about promoting those with this intangible and extremely subjective criteria of 'merit' - well, perhaps our society's entire process of promotion needs an overhaul!

In pure numbers, the Australian Bureau of Statistics reported that women have the edge on their male counterparts in Bachelor degrees and higher qualifications.  27 per cent of women compared to 24 per cent of men hold these type of tertiary degrees.  If we are looking at entry requirements for merit, wouldn't these numbers reflect an even - or even female oriented - outcome?  Understandably, leadership positions aren't just based on degrees. Industry and management experience and networks play a significant role, as well as the fact that often women take time off work to raise families.  But if we are talking about 'merit', qualifications are surely an indicator.

If society functions by promoting, hiring and being led by the best, why do all our 'best' look so similar at the top - but things work so differently at the bottom? The difference between entry points is striking.

The Australian Financial Review's 100 Women of Influence, for example, is a list of some of the most inspiring ladies around the country. Yet the significant contribution and capacity of women doesn't seem to leave the  impression that it should. Whether this is because we, as females are predisposed to more nurturing roles, or whether this is because people hire and promote those who are like them is up for debate - but it remains a thorn in our sides.

Jane Caro asks some of these questions in a timely piece, where she also highlights that the idea of quotas and targets are not new and they continue to be utilised for a variety of representations.  It would be inconceivable for a regional representative or a youth representative for example, to refuse a position solely because they were selected on the basis of location or age.

Why is gender different? What makes us all so uncomfortable with forced structural change around gender?  I struggle to understand the deep seated resentment against the idea.  Is there a sense of illegitimacy if a woman feels like she is only there to 'fill in a quota' and if so, where does that sense of illegitimacy come from?

I am not a social engineer and don't have the answer.  I am simply a 22-year-old who wonders: is inducing change to have women around the cabinet table and in the boardroom the best way to achieve our collective desired outcome?  Quite possibly yes - if the aim is for our leadership and the pipelines to these positions to be fair, equitable and representative.

By equity and fairness, I mean that the characteristic of gender is not an obstacle to being considered, and that a woman's capacity is readily identifable. Of course, removing unconscious bias is easier said than done.  By representative, I mean that our leadership reflects the makeup of those being led.  Given a majority of our population is women, a largely male dominated leadership is not really representative at all.

One thing is for sure : affirmative action makes the talents of women more visible.  It is a mechanism to force people to look outside the usual traps for talent, and that is what gives the concept potential.

Philosophically, we might not feel comfortable with it - but if the aim is to have our leadership as diverse as our population, perhaps the end justifies the means.

The piece was originally posted on SBS News Online!