Country Music + Reflection for your Saturday morning?

On a recommendation by a fellow colleague, I have been making my through the TV series 'Justified'.

Not my usual show, and I find myself questioning how I can barrack for a protagonist who clearly acts as a the law onto himself. In that sense the show is not completely unlike Dexter, but I cannot abide that show at all! The moral grey area that inhabits does not sit well with me.

Nonetheless, Rayland, the old-school-Kentucky cowboy US marshall is an interesting character and the supporting cast is multilayered, intriguing and keeps you involved.

The show's soundtrack is (to my ears) true Southern country, but this particular song - You'll Never Leave Harlan Alive - caught my ear. Harlan, the town wherein the show is based, is an old coal town and this particular tune sings a sad melody around the trials of digging coal.

***

This time last year I spent a little over a month in Houston, Texas, training for work. To be honest, travelling to the 'deep south' was something I had not really grown up wanting to do but I treated it like I treat everything: an adventure and an opportunity to learn something about the way other people see the world.

I took away a number of things from the experience, there is no doubt about that. One of the most unexpected takings however, was an appreciation for country music (did I really just type that?!). It was the first time I had spent time around people who listened to country regularly (almost exclusively!) and what was the draw card? The songs were about the lives, loves and dramas of life. There seemed to be a depth to the music that is not always present in the top 40 pop charts, and so I began to appreciate, just a little...

***

But the times got hard and tobacco wasn't selling And ole granddad knew what he'd do to survive He went and dug for Harlan coal And sent the money back to granny But he never left Harlan alive

***

Something about the song struck a note. Our parents, their parents, generations before us knew, seem to have known that life was hard and just worked through it, fighting for better but accepting that was how life was. The obsession with 'happiness' played itself out a little differently. Art and music of those days are drenched with tales of woe and sacrifice. What my own parents did, in leaving Sudan and traveling to the other side of the world! for the future of their children - that level of sacrifice is unimaginable.

So the question is this: is our generation different? Are we so caught up as a society in the pursuit of our own happiness that the level of sacrifice we have seen is no longer, or are we going to be alright? What does this mean for us as communities?

Only time will tell...

SMH: Youth issues drowned amid sound bites

Just after the Australian election, my  first 'real-life' paper opinion piece appeared in the Sun-Herald paper, the Sunday edition of the Sydney Morning Herald. Icing on the cake? Malcolm Fraser himself retweeted it!

In case you missed it, check it out below...

***

It has been a long five weeks. It would be fair to say it has been a long seven months; since the first election announcement on January 30, the political onslaught has been relentless.

The cycle of topical and divisive issues such as asylum seekers, the economy, the national broadband network and the paid parental leave scheme have dominated. Tiringly, these issues are only ever discussed in sound bites.

The debates made conspicuous by their absence however, were those about the policies that directly address issues of importance to young people and the longer-term future of our nation.

Climate change has been spoken about only in so far as to scrap the carbon tax. It would seem Maslow's hierarchy of needs is at work, with parties playing on voters' survival instinct rather than longer-term attitudes towards morality. In an environment where the fear of the "budget emergency" and the "rise in the cost of living" are touted as immediate crises, the apparent "ethical luxury" of a shift to sustainable development is no longer part of the debate.

The fear-mongering flies in the face of data from the National Electricity Market, which indicates a 7 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 2011-12 to 2012-13. Naturally, the entire reduction cannot be attributed simply to the tax and it alone is not the whole answer. Nonetheless, the objective remains: to reduce our society's impact on the environment by whichever means are most effective.

Young people have been left behind at both ends of Maslow's hierarchy. Not only has the issue of climate change been removed from consideration, but the physiological and safety needs in employment and housing have been underplayed.

The unemployment rate for people aged 15 to 24 is 11.5 per cent, double the general number and up from 8.8 per cent in 2008. For those between 15 and 19, it is 27.3 per cent, up from 15.5 per cent in 2008. The Foundation for Young Australians' How Young People Are Faring 2012 report shows opportunities for them to take up full-time work have declined over the past 25 years.

Furthermore, the demographics of our workforce are changing. Job vacancies are low, with one in five unemployed for every vacancy in some states. Even for the 73.4 per cent of young people engaged in full-time education or training, their prospects once their training is over have been diminished.

The difficulties are further compounded for the vulnerable. Students from low socio-economic backgrounds (13.8 per cent) are twice as likely as their wealthier counterparts (5.2 per cent) to be out of employment, education or training. For indigenous youth and those with a disability, the rate is three times as high.

Housing is another sleeper issue largely ignored by public debate, with numbers showing a continuing decline in the value of loans taken out by first home buyers. Young people are also over-represented among the homeless.

The solutions provided by each side of the house are insufficient. The structures within the labour force, entry to employment and the effectiveness of traditional pathways need to be reassessed. To do that, however, these issues need to be on the table.

Perhaps the voting power of young people is not enough to set the agenda yet, but climate change during the 2010 election implied the opposite. The short-sightedness of our leading parties, however, means the burgeoning issues of our time are left aside for emotive discussions that play on voters' fears.

We can only hope that now that the decision has been settled, we will see some long-term visionary thinking. Optimistic perhaps, but isn't that the blessing of youth.

Read the original on the Sydney Morning Herald Website here. 

***

So what do you think? What issues are now missing from the agenda?

How do you eat a prawn with chopsticks?!

I stare into my bowl, the steam slightly clouding my glasses.

'Should have just gone with the beef tepanyaki'...my mind wanders.

***

I enjoy taking a punt on foods and eating things that I don't recognise (as long as they are Halal!).  It keeps life interesting and I've had some great experiences and well, some not so good ones.

This was shaping up to be a 'not-so-bad-but-should-have-gone-with-something-else' category.

I'm sitting at an 'authentic' tepanyaki house, if by authentic it means frequented by locals and staffed by people who look like they know what they're doing.

It is in a mall in Kuala Lampur though, so I am not sure how 'authentic' it can be called really, in the grand scheme of things.  10 meters away from this step into another world is a Burger King.  The magic of globalisation...

***

It was the first non-franchised chain I had come across in the mall and seeing I was running out of Rinngets in cash and didn't want to exchange any more money the prices were relatively reasonable I stopped and looked at the menu.

Beef Tepanyaki - something I'd never had but was always curious about, 12.90 RM.  Sukiyaki, a dish I had never heard of with an interesting looking picture in a pot, 10.90 RM.

Ah, the bottom-line wins! Sukiyaki it is!

I mumbled to the man standing at the entrance, he nodded, ticked a box on a paper and handed me the slip.

I stood there, waiting and looked expectantly.

He gestured again, slightly impatiently.  I ventured into the restaurant, bumped into a lady holding hot tea - sorry! ah, terimakasi! - and sat on an empty stool, one of the many at the large oval table surrounding the cooking surface in the middle.  I placed my paper in front of me, hoping that was the right thing to do. Do I talk to someone? Who knows.  Let's just look at what everyone else does...

***

Eventually a chef walks into center of the oval, looks at my sheet of paper, looks at the paper of those sitting next to me, yells a few things at the kitchen behind the counter, and begins cooking.

Ah! The fluidity of the movement! The gestured flippancy in the applications of herbs and spices as if he was merely miming how to put a dish together. I am mesmerised.

He isn't cooking for me though. My pot comes out after a wait, steaming, and definitely not what I expected.  It is a bowl, hotter than hot, with at least three servings of broth, random eggs and bits of protein and full of thin, clear noddles that prove to have a very low friction factor.

I struggle slightly, sure that all the staff are secretly sniggering at my balancing attempting to balance a ladle with chopsticks, eating with the right hand and attempting not to splash myself.  Such self indulgence, to think everyone is paying enough attention to be laughing at you.

So vain! I mentally kick myself and return my attention to tackling the enormous portion.

A family comes in; mother , father and son, and sit near me on the oval table.  They stare at my pot; perhaps I have ordered a family size my accident? I suddenly feel self conscious and clumsy.

***

Having gotten the hang of the noodles and tackled the bits of chicken in the soup, I am left with copious noodles and...a prawn.  With the head, tail and shell intact.

This was something I hadn't prepared for. I am yet to see anyone use their hands to peel a prawn, and I don't want to make a mess.

How do you peel a prawn with chopsticks?

I try to spear it with my chopsticks unsuccessfully.

Attempting to remove the head with my ladle isn't successful either.

I end up with a chopstick in each hand, attempting to leverage the shell off.  The father sitting opposite me observes me with a strange expression.  The wife and son then begin watching the battle in turn...

For the first time in my life, I have a question that I am too embarrassed to ask. How was I expected to eat this prawn?

***

I arrange the chopsticks and ladle neatly next to the half finished pot and scurried to the counter to pay.

The prawn lies in the black pot, its head slightly peeking above the surface of the broth.

Prawn, you may have won this battle...

***

On the taxi ride to airport I ask the driver what he would do.

"No idea! I would probably use my hands. I am not very good with chopsticks..."

Daily Life: What it's like to work on an all-male oil rig

This piece originally appeared on Fairfax's Daily Life.

My first posting on the oil and gas rigs happened shortly after graduating from mechanical engineering.  My mother was quite proud; my father on the other hand took a while to come around.  He couldn't understand why his Muslim daughter wouldn't accept a solid, stable job offer in the city.

“What are you doing out here?” my friends would ask, “Is it just for the money?”, “What is it like working with blokes all the time?” or, more often than not: “Are you insane?”

I remember walking into a meeting in the early days as one of the guys was taking a sip of his instant coffee.  "Tastes like date rape", he said.

I froze, looking at my fellow rig worker.  I wasn’t quite sure what to say.  If I overreacted he would badge me as being ‘over sensitive’ and avoid me for the rest of the job, but my inner feminist nonetheless cringed at the idea of letting such language slide. Sensing my unease, he finally said, "I guess we can’t say that sort of thing anymore now that you are here."

Working on oil and gas rigs isn't the first career path that typically comes to mind for many women. By and large, it's seen as a rough, tough, blokey world that is does not welcome female employees.   Notwithstanding this, I was attracted to the adventure, the practical aspect of the operation and the challenge of working in such an unusual environment.  It seemed like the ideal first job for an engineering experience junkie like me.

Given the fact that I have met around six women working in the field in the entire time I have been employed, one can say there is truth in the 'boys club' perception. But working in this masculine, testosterone-drenched environment has also been an interesting exercise in backyard sociology.

Here are some of the things I’ve learnt in the time I spent at the oil rigs:

Firstly, there is a significant generational difference in the male workers' attitudes towards women.

An older colleague once said, "Girly, when I started drinking, women weren't even allowed in bars." Men of his age share an antiquated view of women, but they are products of their time.

Then there are those who feel the need to be protective. “My mother, my father, my grandparents, my aunties...they'd not just roll in their graves, they'd right come out of their graves to give me a de-nozo slap if they heard me using any sort of language in front of a lady!”

Young guys, on the other hand, are often more 'gender blind'. Women being denied access or opportunities simply due to their gender is seen as old-fashioned.  They are also keenly aware of the legislation that protects that equality and will err on the side of caution so as not to put their foot in it.

They tend to test the waters and gauge what they can and can’t say around their female colleagues before they are rebuked.  It does give us a modicum of power, as they follow our cue.

However, 'formal' equality does not necessarily reflect a true change in their social attitudes and underlying expectations.  And the biggest giveaway is in the way the workers speak.

The language used by men on the rig is indescribable - and that is what they choose to say in front of me.  It’s relatively easy to complain about offensive or derogatory language in a modern mix-gender workplace.  However, when operating as the sole female in a male dominated environment, there are some awkward challenges.

Yes, we can go in, guns blazing, demanding things happen on our terms. The legislative framework exists, and is there for anyone to use if they feel discriminated against in any manner.

The protection we have as women in these environments is unprecedented when compared to attitudes two short years ago.  Legal change is the first, extremely important step.  However, forcing change in that manner inevitably fosters dissent and confusion in some cases.

In other words, the rules are changing for these men, but they don't quite know how to deal with it yet.  It is this behavioural change that we must now strive and push for, and it will be an uphill struggle.

In the end these are people I work with, live with, laugh with and rely on to keep me alive around pretty heavy machinery.  Most of them have fallen over themselves to help me and make sure that I am protected and looked after.  Although they can be painted as uneducated chauvinists, many of them are also a product of their society and what is expected of them to be ‘men’.

As my rig manager said, “This is a completely different world to [the one] out there... There is no way I would speak the same way I do on the rig in the street, that wouldn't be right.  It's just a way of keeping yourself a little sane'.”

***

I enjoy what I do and the company of the people I work with.  I don't envy the difficulty they have though, in dealing with the changes in societal expectations.  We live in unprecedented and interesting times...

What do you think?  

Women in the LNP Cabinet: What's Next?

 

In April this year, we had a female Prime Minister, a record number of women in our cabinet and a rich and interesting public debate around the role of women in our society, evidenced through books like the Griffith Review's Women and Power, and the capitvating campaign, Destroy the Joint.

Fast forward a few months and where are we?  In a nation where the discourse around women in leadership seems stifled and the cabinet has fewer women than that of Afghanistan.  That comparison is apt.  It illustrates that even in a country struggling with a war torn history and one that is generally portrayed in Western media as an oppressive environment for women has the systems in place to enable more females to play a leading role in the governance of the state.  Part of me thinks this is more about the fact that there is a lack of understanding about the role the women play in Eastern countries, but that is another discussion in itself.

Should this lack of women in our cabinet be something we discuss, analyse or just accept?  Should we be worried? It is definitely had the fingertips on keyboards, and for good reason.  

On Meritocracy

For what it is worth, I will throw my hat in the ring here by saying that I am sick of people saying that 'women shouldn't be promoted for the sake of a quota or a target'.  It is a common sentiment when quotas or targets are mentioned, and quite often by other women.  There seems to be a sense that a quota will take away from the sense of legitimacy of a woman's position, and there will be a perception that gender was the only reason that position was awarded.

"It's got to be a meritocracy." said Brownyn Bishop to Radio National.  On that basis, has the current 'meritocracy' has deemed that women aren't able to govern our countries or run our boards? I highly doubt it.  Also, does this mean that every man is promoted on the basis of merit?  James Diaz rings a bell for someone who might not fit that depiction.  

Yes, a meritocracy is important.  What seems to be forgotten however, is that a meritocracy is only as good as the access and equity of the pathways available.  If there are 'women knocking on the doors' of the cabinet as Abbott has stated, what is stopping them from jumping that threshold? Is that door locked?

Yes, he is focusing on 'stability and consistency', and it is understandable he doesn't want to cause too much change.  He said he is disappointed, but clearly not disappointed enough to make any changes.   Is there a systemic issue, or is it one of circumstance?  

The alarming lack of diversity among those who lead our nation is something we should care about.  As Nareen Young so eloquently put it, leadership should reflect the community that it serves.   No one can better represent a group that someone from that actual group - a woman for women, an indigenous for the First People, a culturally and linguistically diverse for the many migrants, and so on and so forth.  The current lineup insinuates that the group - all from a similar socio-economic demographic an gender - are able to speak for and represent all of Australia.  It does seem a little...disingenuous.  

Our Future

The best way to encourage the young and bright to any discipline is by having role models who are walking the walk.

Right now, who do we have? Our last role model in the area, Julia Gillard, was treated by the media and public perception with insults and vitriol that were lower than low.  The fact that the this was said by people who are on our airwaves boggles the mind!  Political correctness gone wrong they say - gah! There was no correctness at all.

So with the events of the last few months, what on earth would encourage a young woman to enter politics? Society inculcates enough self esteem issues related to appearance growing up as a teenager, you would hope people had moved on by the time they 'grew up'. Not so, it seemed.

Now, with even fewer women gracing our tv screens in a governing role, who will we look up to?

On one hand, it is amazing and awesome that we had a female PM, a female Speaker and now a female Foreign Affairs Minister.  It would seem though that these are more exceptions that prove the rule.  The way they were treated and their circumstances indicate that really, there is still a way to go.

What Next?

The thing is, the country has chosen. Decisively, it chose the Coalition of the Liberal and National Party to represent us for the next three years. So no matter how we feel about their policies, we must accept the decision of the people and work with what we have.  

What we shouldn't accept though, is a return to being represented by those who don't reflect the make up of the nation.  We should keep talking about the role of women in society - in governing roles such as on the Cabinet and in the Boardroom.  We should talk about the equality of opportunity and fairness.  We should talk about allowing women the freedom to stay at home if they so choose, and respect that role equally - but understand that isn't the only role that they can play in our societies.

We should also, remember to bring men into this conversation.  At the end of the day, they are our fathers, our husbands, brothers, uncles, friends.  They are also dealing with finding their role in society, and getting them on board, to understand why this needs to happen and why it is important is imperative.  Hey, no one said it would be easy, after all, no group likes sharing power.

At the end of the day though, if we really want to see any change, we have to shake the system up enough, get enough of a critical mass behind us, and demand change ourselves.

Isn't that democracy?

***

Bonus: The Principle of Gender Equality...cannot be articulated better than by this video.

It may seem old fashioned and ridiculous, but one wonders at times, how many of these views are actually still held today but simply suppressed due to the current climate of political correctness...

Election Night: Is there an echo?

Election night, Australia 2013.

Instead of switching on the telly when I got home (post the Brisbane Writers' Festival Great Debate which was much fun...) I flipped my laptop screen open and basked in the cool light of my facebook newsfeed.

Oh the woe.

But then the thought: If almost everyone I know is upset by the election results as per my newsfeed, who on earth voted for Tony Abbott?

(Correction. Who voted for the LNP? Such presidential style language.  A political party is a party is a party not a person).

Curious.  I think I saw only one congratulatory status update.  It could have been because all the LNP supporters were hitting the town in celebration and excitement, but the following few days saw little change in the tone of my feed (with occasional bursts about Syria).

It reminded me of the book published a few years back: "The Filter Bubble: What the Internet is hiding from You", which talks about the Google and Facebook algorithms that 'personalise' what you see in search results.  

The synopsis paints a dystopian picture.

[box] Though the phenomenon has gone largely undetected until now, personalized filters are sweeping the Web, creating individual universes of information for each of us. Facebook-the primary news source for an increasing number of Americans-prioritizes the links it believes will appeal to you so that if you are a liberal, you can expect to see only progressive links. Even an old-media bastion like The Washington Post devotes the top of its home page to a news feed with the links your Facebook friends are sharing. Behind the scenes a burgeoning industry of data companies is tracking your personal information to sell to advertisers, from your political leanings to the color you painted your living room to the hiking boots you just browsed on Zappos. In a personalized world, we will increasingly be typed and fed only news that is pleasant, familiar, and confirms our beliefs-and because these filters are invisible, we won't know what is being hidden from us. Our past interests will determine what we are exposed to in the future, leaving less room for the unexpected encounters that spark creativity, innovation, and the democratic exchange of ideas.[/box]

Is it really that bad? Should we be scared? Digging  a little deeper, it would seem that the Facebook PR machine has been doing a little work of its own to combat this image, publishing a study that disputes this claim.

But on this I am...undecided.  What is it that we are arguing exactly? That the 'online echo chamber' doesn't exist, or arguing about the effects of personalisation on creating such a 'chamber'?

Well, the personalisation exists, there is no question.  What effect is this having? Well...

Facebook's research concludes:

[box] Although we’re more likely to share information from our close friends, we still share stuff from our weak ties—and the links from those weak ties are the most novel links on the network. Those links from our weak ties, that is, are most likely to point to information that you would not have shared if you hadn’t seen it on Facebook. [/box]

This links to the concept of EdgeRank (Facebook's algorithm for its newsfeed) .  As I understand, it says it doesn't matter how close you are to people in real life, what appears on your feed is what you interact with - whether they are 'strong' or 'weak' ties.  Because we share things from our 'weak' ties, it means this is likely to be information we wouldn't have accessed any other way.  Therefore, they are saying that in fact, the newsfeed system actually diversifies what you see.

I would recommend reading this slate article, which is a good summary of the research and findings.  I tend to the opinion that it isn't as fabulous a result as it is painted to be.  Although both strong and weak ties are sources of information, it would seem likely that weak ties would also include those who largely share ideologies...

Regardless of what the research says though, something doesn't feel right.

Yes, it is great that my friends seem to share my ideologies (judging by what I see/read on facebook for example), but the fact that rarely are widely differing ideologies  presented (or any that seem to reflect a popular ideology outside my immediate circles) seems disingenuous.  There might be other answers.  Perhaps my strong and weak ties are by and large young people who have similar concerns on the whole or those who don't share my opinions don't spend their time on facebook, or I don't actively spend my time interacting with perspectives/videos/links outside my ideologies so I don't get shown these on my newsfeed...

The question then becomes, how do I make sure that I don't fall into the trap of group think? Punters have talked about the narrowing of perspectives that is caused by a possible filter bubble, but what concerns me more is the increased likelihood of 'willful blindness'.

If everyone around you agrees or shares a similar world view, how will you be exposed to 'disruptive' views?

It is reminiscent of the story of a scientist whose partner's sole job was to disprove her theories and find the flaws until the theory was solid and foolproof. Only then did they publish the work.

It is so important for us to actively listen to opposing views and try to understand where they are coming from, right?  Isn't that the way we will truly broaden our scopes and try to bridge those chasms? Otherwise we are just looking at shades of the same primary colour, forgetting there are two other colours out there...

The Quraan says:

[box] O mankind! We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another. (49:13) [/box]

We are all different, but ultimately human.  Getting to know each other is part of the deal.

What do you think?

#BWF13 Comedy: Australia needs Politicians, Not Leaders

 Literary festivals are wonderful feasts for the mind; the Brisbane Writers' Festival was no exception.

Held over the 5th - 8th of September at the beautiful State Library of Queensland, it brought together some amazing - truly amazing - writers and authors and I was humbled to be speaking alongside some of them for a few events.

The photo above is with the authors Tim Cope (on my left) and Chris Sarra on my right.  Both of their stories are amazing and worth checking out; Tim rode along the steps of Genghis Khan, and Chris is the former Principal of Cherbourg School, who was able to change the culture of low expectations and attendance at this Indigenous education facility.

The second event I had the honour of being a part of was The Great Debate.  Held on election night, it meant that I didn't have to watch the telly or really think about politics... except our topic was 'Australia needs leaders, not politicians', and we were on the negative.

My fellow debaters were William McInnes and Julia Zemiro from Eurovision (and Rockwiz). We were pitted against Tim Fischer, Anita Heiss and the delightful Ben McKenzie.

Unlike the debates I have previously been involved in, I soon found that this was to be a 'hilarious' debate (as the crowd below can attest to). Here is a little excerpt of what I had to say...(or what was on the script anyway!).

***

#SATIRE ALERT#

***

I'm just want to start by saying that I'm an engineer by trade, so I am very serious, my points are bullet pointed, and there will be numbers.

I have been chosen to rule over you, though I am not the best among you.  Help me if I am right; correct me if I am wrong.

These are the words of Abu Bakr Al-Siddique.  Abu Bakr was the first ruler – and politician – in Islam.  He was referred to as the ‘Khalifa’, and Khalifa in Arabic means ‘custodian’ – of the people, the principles of the religion and of the land.

He was chosen.  Politicians are representatives, leaders are not.

#Rebuttal

I will argue two points tonight, both which will prove to you undeniably that Australia needs politicians, not leaders, regardless of what the election says.

Firstly, I will argue that we as don’t want to be lead, we want to be represented.  Politician are those who represent us.

It is no secret that Australians aren’t a fan of tall poppies, people who think they know what’s good for us, or authority figures in general.  

We don't we want people who will tell us where they think we should go,we want to tell them where we want to go and have them take us there. Or that's how Its supposed to work - ours don't quite have that down yet.

Secondly one of the main differences between leaders and politicians is that leaders are assume power, while politicians are entrusted with power to make decisions by the us, the people – the citizens they represent.

After all, who will a leader be answerable and accountable to?

Putting this aside, one of the most important contribution politicians make to our society is that they entertain us. They keep our journalists employed and without them, who would Annabelle Crabb talk to in Kitchen Cabinet? Phillip, what would you write about if there were no pollies? The pages of the Australian would be laid bare...

While googling the answer to this topic, I came across the following quote by Gourcho Marx.

Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

SO in essence, politics is the art of trouble.

This is definitely what Australia needs.

Leaders inspire us, yes this is true.

However, our National Anthem says 'Australian all let us rejoice, for we are young and free...'

We clearly don't want to be inspired. We want to be entertained.  Politicians do just that.

***

#END OF SATIRE#

***

What do you think? Did you go to the Brisbane Writers' Festival? Any favourite sessions?

Lessons Learned from Australia’s Entrepreneurial Prowess

What are the ingredients required for a sustainably innovative, entrepreneurial, and growth-oriented environment? Australia was recently named among the top quartile of G20 countries in which to be an entrepreneur. There were five criteria: access to funding, the country’s “entrepreneurial culture,” the tax and regulatory framework, access to education and training, and the amount of collaboration and support between the private and public sectors. Australia placed fifth, behind the United States, South Korea, Canada, and Japan.

These benchmarks reflect the factors required to engender strong entrepreneurial capacity within a nation and also point to how companies can turn the entrepreneurial capital within their ranks into profitable innovation.

What can we learn from Australia’s high ranking? How can companies make the most of the current environment and foster an innovative, entrepreneurial culture? Must governments take the lead in creating such a culture, or can companies create it themselves?

Ream more on my blog for the Global Economic Symposium on the Future Challenges Website! 

LOLs on a Monday morning: Cosmo?!

So, I am not a huge fan of asking people to 'vote for me' - it was one of the reasons I was never really interested in University politics (that and it always seemed to be like a lot of drama...)

...but for some cray reason I've been nominated as a finalist for Cosmo's 'Fun Fearless Female' Awards?! In the role model category.  You guessed it, it needs votes!

So what do you say? Head over to their website and maybe read about all the other nominees too. Give me a vote if you reckon I deserve it, but there are some amazing other women in the bunch too so spend some time to learn about them and be inspired... It's an honour to be counted among these ladies at any rate. Damn Australia has some fine talent!

Thank you if you do :)

Crazy Rig Conversations: Part 7

One of my favourite parts about working out on the rigs is the crazy/hilarious/random/unexpected things people say.

Here are a few of the gems of conversations I have been a part of recently!

NB: In the interests of privacy and what-not, I have referred to individuals as Old Mate, or OM for short.

***

Me: Oh mate, I got woken up this morning by a cow! It was right next to my window like MOOOO!

OM: Oh you shoulda just opened the door and been like 'Oh mate, I don't do cattle'.

OM2: Yeh but then he woulda been like 'Oh but I'm built like a horse!'

OM: ...and hung like a donkey!

Laughter ensued...

***

I learnt a new phrase the other day...(apologies for possible offense!)

OM: Oh yeah we're doing a job up there for so-and-so

Me: oh yeah what kind of operation is it?

OM: Oh it's a bit of a n***a show.

I shook my head and made sure I heard correctly.

ME: A WHAT??

OM: You've never heard of the phrase n***a-rigging? It's when it’s real rough-like and you make do with what you've got. N***a rigging man! It's a worldwide thing!

I looked around. All the other guys seems unperturbed.

OM2: It’s true aye.

Me: *shock*

***

I was chatting to a colleague about things we did as kids...

OM: Oh I once branded my mum with a hot poker on her bottom!

I burst out laughing

OM: Yeah! We were on the farm and they'd been branding the cattle all day so I though that's what I should do too! I put the poker in the fire and then just poked her on the bottom.

She swears she's got the scar till this day...

She won't show us though!

***

I was chatting to a colleague from the United States' deep south.

OM: I guess I was lucky because I grew up not seeing colour... I mean, we've done that - everyone drinking from their own fountain and you can sit on the back of the bus...

Me: So when did segregation stop?

The Old Mate smiled.

OM: When did it stop?  We're still waiting for that to happen...

***

Everyone was doing it.

Originally written for Westpac's Ruby Connection

'Everybody else was doing it'...

That was the first answer that popped into my head when asked by my parents why, at the ripe old age of 10, I had decided to don the hijab.  The first answer, but definitely not the whole story…

***

The hijab is an Islamic head covering and an all-round code of dress that encourages modesty and self respect.  A simple piece of fabric and a mindset perhaps, but one that carries connotations and political ramifications beyond what I understood at the time.  It is now, 12 years on, it is an irremovable part of my identity and expression as a Muslim, but the decision to wear it is something that is constantly under question.

***

As I attended the local Islamic primary school at the time, the hijab was part of my school uniform.  It wasn’t therefore a huge jump; I was already a part-time ‘hijabi’ and this was my conversion to full time.  It was the year 2001, and the date I chose for my conversion was November the 10^th.  Why? It was the federal election, and I wanted to choose an auspicious date just in case I forgot.  Forward thinking, always!

I walked to the house door wearing a huge white scarf, wrapped clumsily around my head and shoulders, pinned at the base of my neck.  I distinctly remember my father looking at me with slight concern and asking,

“Are you sure you want to do this? This is it?”

“Yes, yes, I am sure”.  Off I went…

What I didn’t realise at the time of course, was that I had chosen to wear the hijab in a politically charged environment.  It was only a few months after September 11 and Muslims were now sharply visible and constantly in the media. However, wearing the hijab for my 10 year old self wasn’t about political statement or being forced into following a cultural expectation. I believed I had come of age and it was time for me to wear the scarf!  Other girls might have wanted to start wearing makeup out or be allowed to date as a way of ‘growing up’; I chose to cover myself.

***

Why? Why do you do it, people ask. Doesn’t the concept oppress women? Don’t you miss the wind in your hair? Don’t you miss wearing a bikini to a beach?

To be perfectly honest, I don’t think I understood the full implications and reasons behind the concept when I made the decision, however I have settled into it with heartfelt conviction.

***

The concept of the hijab is cushioned in the value of modesty and of personal freedom.  It means something different to each individual who wears it, that is certain.

For me personally, the hijab is about being judged for who I am rather than what I look like.  There is extraordinary freedom in that, especially in a society where a woman’s looks, physicality and beauty are of such ‘importance’.

It is about being visible and proudly so, of my religion and what it stands for.

It is about saving my body and its womanly ways for those who I choose to see it (i.e. the eventual husband! Women, children and family are also allowed the hijab-less experience. The idea is to be covered from those who are marriageable).

That is not to say that those who don’t wear the hijab or choose to interpret it differently are any lesser, let me make that point clear.  We tend to get very defensive about personal choices such as dress.  I have respect for every woman’s choice, and that respect is the basis of all interaction. This is just how I choose to express myself.

***

Yes, some versions of hijab, such as the Burqa, are used as tools of oppression and invisibility in places such as Afghanistan.  However, this is not the case around the world!  Particularly in the West, those who choose to wear the hijab are most often following a personal choice and conviction.  For some, it is their way of becoming closer to God (Allah), forgoing the material obsessions of this world.  For others, it is about public expression as a Muslim.  The reasons are as many and as varied as the women themselves.

In fact, the concept of wanting to ‘free’ the ‘oppressed’ covered woman is insulting to the personal choice being made. It is presumptuous; assuming that one idea of freedom of expression is socially acceptable.  If it strays from such a path, it clearly must be backward and oppressive, right?

Women do not give up their voice and their thoughts when they choose to wear the hijab.

In fact, part of its intention was to give woman more agency and capacity to interact in a society, taking out the judgement of beauty.

I personally find it freeing, and it allows me to be more creative with my outfits!

***

So when you ask if me and my hijabi sisters are oppressed, I’ll likely just cock my eyebrow at you.

Who was it that won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2011? Three women, all who were covered when they received their awards.

That’s what I thought.

Let’s move away from the conversation of being ‘saved’.  There are thousands of more constructive dialectics to be had – ones were hijabed women are partners rather than mere silent victims.

Isn’t it ironic that in the very act of ‘saving’ women from oppression silences them?

It could happen to anyone of us.

Salacious photos are not something to generally be given the time of day.  When the topic comes up as part of another 'scandal' in politics or a celebrity's life, I tend to shake my head and wonder what the person was thinking.

Notwithstanding this, a subplot running through this week's 'The Newsroom' episode was cause for reflection, particularly around this idea (or myth!) of privacy in today's world.

The subplot in question was explosively introduced in the opening scene. Nude photos of one of the characters, Sloan (a respected TV anchor), had been posted up on a site.  These photos quickly went viral, and the channel is left to deal with the results.  The interesting thing about these photos was that they were taken with her consent by an man she was dating and trusted implicitly at the time.  When she dumped him, he took the due 'revenge' he felt was 'owed' to him through by utterly humiliating her.

'I am feeling something very I don't know how to describe right now', Sloan says on the show.

Betrayal perhaps?  Insecurity? Utter helplessness?  One can only imagine what it must feel like to have a truly intimate moment be broadcast online.

Her confidante at the time said it was rage - or will quickly turn into rage.  Sloan finishes the episode in the boardroom of said jilted lover, punching him out and getting a little revenge of her own.

***

There are a number of interesting readings of this plot.  Sloan's character is a genius; she's a well respected economist and commands audiences of hundreds of thousands.  Surely, a thirty year old highly educated woman wouldn't put herself in this situation.  Surely she would think to delete identifying photos if they were taken, even if she had consented?

Well if recent history is anything to go by, people do very silly things with cameras and phones without seeming to think about the consequences (or in the case of Anthony Weiner, even seeming to care). In this case however, Sloan wasn't doing anything technically 'wrong', so that argument is less substantial.  It does raise the question about the line between an individual's public and personal life though, particularly in an age where this is becoming increasingly blurred.

She sights her implicit trust in this guy as the reason she didn't expect this sort of revenge. 'It wasn't a bad breakup - but even if it were, would this be okay?!', she asks, and rightly so!  Humiliation and the essential defamation can regularly - and do regularly - annihilate reputations.  We all know that reputations are the easiest things to damage and the most difficult to repair.  So the act of distributing the photos we can agree, is immoral.

Is it criminal?

Whose responsibility is it to ensure these things don't happen?

Is your privacy always your individual responsibility or should is there an implicit trust in relationships with people - and institutions - that should also bear part of the burden?

It feeds into a larger question about an individual's right to privacy, particularly with the exposing of PRISM, the actions of the NSA and even the likes of Google implying that privacy online is a myth.

Unfortunately, it is increasingly difficult to effectively operate in this society without being online.  So how does one walk the line?  Are we all to always be on-guard and take precautions, accepting that being selective about what we share - even to our closest friends - is never really actually private?

What will happen when people growing up in this online society become leaders of state?  Will there never be any surprises because everything is already online? Will our moral appetites change because we become accustomed to every single infraction being displayed and obsessed with the world over?  Or will there be an industry based around the erasure of online profiles to give people an opportunity to 'start afresh'.

What do you think?

***