Working in 42+ degree heat

Open the door, and you literally walk out into the desert. It is a strange feeling, working in the Cooper Basin.

Right in the heart of Australia, a few clicks out of the Queensland and Northern Territory Border.

The heat is scorching and dry, sapping any moisture that dares to make its presence known.  It enscones you like a heated blanket you can never take off, the sun beating down on your hi-visbility long sleeve shirt, warming up the little buttons and the metal zip on your coveralls, pricking your skin.

Everything warms up; the toilet seat is strangely heated, like one of those smart Japanese loos.  Tools burn your hand when picked up and even the doorknob is touched only tentatively.

It is an environment we are pretending to conquer by being here, drilling away for its hidden treasures.

In reality it is an environment so harsh that without all the aids - the gallons of water drunk, the air conditioning on overdrive and the convenience of vehicles - we would perish like the delicate desert flowers that we are.

It has happened: any person coming to work out here gets told the stories.  The stories of the guys who decided to walk away from a broken down vehicle and were found; death by dehydration.  Of the people sent a little loopy and those who never came back.

'Heat stress' is something that is all too possible and can creep up on you without you noticing, so you check the colour of your pee obsessively, pinch your skin and let it drop, hoping it will snap back and not 'peak', indicating your skin has started to dehydrate.  You keep an eye out on each other, but sometimes things slip through the cracks...

I walk out of my cramped room with the too-many monitors for a stretch.  Climbing the sand dune behind the shack, the sky is huge and the landscape barren.  A gray brush covers most of the ground and in the very distance, a Mad-Max like set of structures can just be seen.

Two minutes and my collar starts to burn.  Back into the ice box I scurry...

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.

Richard's F1 Comment: F1 boring in 2014? Not a chance…

Check out my opinion piece on Richard's F1.com! 

So it would seem the F1 online world is abuzz with the news that Sebastian Vettel – a four-time World Champion, no less – fears that Formula 1 will lose its ‘excitement’ in 2014.

Firstly, it has to be said that the epitome of ironic is that Vettel – the man who has spent most of the last four years at the front of the pack, relegating most fights to ‘who will get second place’ – is complaining about F1 becoming boring.

That aside…

Vettel’s comments were made at the AUTOSPORT Awards ceremony on Suday night:

Read on at Richard's F1.com!

Book Review: STOP PRESS

Just finished reading this short and punchy 'history' book, written by Rachel Buchanan.

'STOP PRESS' is one of the Published Scribe's Media Chronicles, a series of first person accounts about the changes in the mass media that we are now a part of.  I was actually sent this particular book by Crikey as part of my subscription which I am thoroughly enjoying and is probably where I get most of my Australian news from.

Shameless promotion aside, the book and the Chronicles are timely, given never-ending public lament on the death of the newspapers.  Circulation is down across almost all dailies in Australia, revenue is plummeting and it seems the grieving has begun before 'Time of Death' has even been called.

It is interesting to ask whether this is a history book or not.  Rachel's friend, quoted in the book, seems to think so.

[box] "I started to explain that I was writing about the present, about how newspapers were made now, but my friend interrupted. 'Yes it is,' she said. 'We are history Rachel. You are writing a history book.'" [/box]

Perhaps.  Buchanan chronicles the huge change in the world of newspapers over her lifetime, a change that has occurred so rapidly it is no wonder folk are blinking their eyes, shaking off twittering birds circling above their head.  The fall of newspapers has been rough and undignified in a way.  Rachel writes nostalgically of hot metal presses; proud, loyal distributors who would do anything to get the paper out on time, an entire industry devoted to reporting, writing, producing; intellectuals in their own world that are unused to this recent loss of importance.

Again, like other books and films, I become nostalgic for a time I never knew.  The world seems foreign yet romantic in a way that reminds me of period-films; movies set back in time that make you wish you were there.  Sometimes though, you realise if you were, you probably wouldn't have been living the life shown on screen.  After all, when in history were coloured people ever the ones inhabiting mansions?  Downton Abbey, for shame.

What Rachel does well is highlight that the (alleged?) death of the traditional press (if it can be called a death - after all, the book claims that the national circulation is still 11 million) does not just mean the loss of jobs for reporters and journalists, but of the entire industry around the 'press' itself.  This was an angle I had not really considered before.  Newspapers were a 'manufacturing' industry, and with the decline in manufacturing around the West generally, newspapers naturally followed suit.  The book does well here, giving life to all from the paper mills to the ink stained men working the presses and the local distributors, stuffing papers with inserts every night.

Yet, I feel there is a unnecessary conflation between the death of the newspaper and the death of 'quality journalism'.

I was born early enough in the nineties to not have grown up with the internet as integral to my life as air.  I grew up in a family that lived on newspapers; until today I pick up copies of The Australian (I do love a broadsheet) and the Financial Review (and SMH/The Age if travelling) whenever I get the chance.

However, it strikes me that all the lament is coming from those who played a role in the old world of the press.  Personally, I feel like news is news is news.  Online I can be my own curator, add to the discussion and diverse voices can be heard, and, well, that is just fine with me!

Yes, the traditional world of the press is not as ubiquitous as it used to be (in the West, the East is still a little different).  Neither is the world of vinyl, or horse driven carts.  New technology is different, but it doesn't make it any less valuable, if we treat it with the same level of respect as we did its predecessor.

The old school press might be dying, but journalism doesn't have to.  In fact, I don't think it is.

Stories that are truly investigative and revolutionary might not occur every day, but the recent Edward Snowden upheavals are examples of the fourth estate really showing why it remains a pillar.

The internet has shaken things up for the capitalist world, which thought it had its revenue streams all figured out.  In a way, I like the upheaval and the change.  It means the power has shifted - or at least, has the potential to shift - from powerful (single-demographic) men who controlled it all, including what the public saw as the truth.   Too much power with the one demographic is never really much fun.

I've never heard a person my age lament the death of the paper; we read the news on our laptops, phones, iPads and just get on with life.

Yes, things are different.  The money for editors, sub editors and the like isn't what it used to be.  The structures are changing.  Buchanan's book is a chronicle of that change.

Still...

Change brings new beginnings, and I am excited to see what we young people make it.

It's going to be a fun ride :)

Speech: IQ^2 Debate (BBC World)

 

On the 7th of November, I had the honour of debating with the likes of Julian Burnside, Uthman Badar and Thomas Keneally on a pretty interesting topic: whether God and His Prophets should be protected against insult.

I was pretty nervous and excited about the affair, as can be seen in blog posts here prior to the event.

The debated was screened on BBC World to an audience of about 70 million on the last weekend of November, and you can check out the video here.

This is the transcript of the speech...

***

God / The All-Compassionate / The All-Merciful / The Source of Peace / The Creator / The Maker of Order / The Shaper of Beauty The Forgiving / The Knowing of All…

And then we have us.  Flawed, fallible, full of passion and fire, and so very…human.

How can we deign to think that we – the creatures that we are – should protect God from insult?

Good evening ladies and gentlemen

The topic we have before us today is ‘that God and His Prophets should be protected against insult’.

Tom Keneally and I effectively are arguing against this hypothesis.  From a definitional point of view, the topic is understood as follows:

‘God’, in monotheistic religions, is taken to mean ‘the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being’.

The word is also sometimes used for emphasis to express a particular emotion, such as “God, what happened here?!” although that is not always approved by everybody.

‘Prophet’ is ‘a person regarded as an inspired teacher or proclaimer of the will of God’.

‘Should’ is used to indicate obligation or duty.

‘Protect’ is to keep safe from harm or injury.

‘Insult’, in its noun form, is a disrespectful or scornful remark.

***

There are a couple of interesting questions that this topic raises.

What (or who) deserves our protection, as individuals and as society?  Should we be protected only from things that will harm or things that have the potential to cause harm?

On the other hand when it comes to insult it must be asked: Is freedom, or freedom of speech absolute?  It clearly isn’t, as the existence of laws, rules and regulations mean that there are levels of restrictions on what we can and cannot express.

What is the difference between freedom of speech and expression, and the allowance for insult or incitement of hatred? What is the difference between the two? If freedoms are not actually absolute but do come with restrictions, what limits do we have? Who upholds these limits?  How does freedom fit around the concepts of responsibility and society?

***

Tom and I will be tackling this topic from different perspectives.

I will address three arguments.

Firstly, I will posit that God, as a supreme being, does not require the protection of mere humans to protect Him from any harm or injury.  Where the damage is being inflicted is on the followers, and so protection, if any, is more about the practitioners of the religion.  Furthermore, if God is known to be above insult, then what is the anger really about? It is there something else going on?

Secondly, I will argue that freedom of expression is important to sustain a functioning, thriving, growing society and that said freedom is protected within religions.  This does however, come with important caveats if we are to live in a functioning civilisation.

Thirdly, I will wrap up by addressing violence as a response to insult.  This is unequivocally unacceptable, although perhaps unfortunately, understandable.  I will humbly suggest that the end does not justify the means, and that in any response to insult, the best examples should be followed.

Tom will then continue by talking about how the concepts of blasphemy and sacrilege, and punishments for them, are not viable in a ‘free speech’ society and how mutual respect is the only ultimate guarantee of respect for God and the Prophets.

***

The concept of ‘protection’ brings to mind a dynamic whereby the strong protect the weak and those with power protect the powerless.  Do we honestly think that we can protect God and His Prophets? For the insult to be incitement to hatred and beyond, the recipient would be harmed by it.  God and His Prophets are surely above our mere words…

So what is going on here then, beneath the anger at an insult?

When people stand against insult, mockery and derision of God and His Prophets it is unlikely due to the fact that they think the words will cause harm or injury directly.  It is more likely a reflection of the pain they have felt due to what they love and revere being treated with contempt and ridicule.

Mockery and derision are manifestations of a disrespect and a lack of sensitivity.  God and His Prophets shouldn’t necessarily be ‘protected’ themselves, rather, we should focus as a society on respecting people, as we are the ones who feel the pain and hurt.  If we are to live in a civilised society, a level of respect towards what others deem sacred is critical.

There is also the added factor of where the insult is coming from and its intent.  Reactions in the Muslim community, for example, that may seem disproportionate may be exacerbated by what some regard as worsening attitude towards Muslims by, dare I say it, the West.  That frustration may manifest itself in a grievance towards free speech.

What is it we are trying to achieve? If it is a civilised society where we all respect one another’s sacred beliefs, is the any protection truly going to be the key or will it be a band aid forcing attitudes underground?

***

My second point touches on the universal concept of freedoms, and more specifically, freedom of speech and expression.

It’s a freedom that cannot be understated, and it is enshrined in the Universal declaration of Human rights, in article 19.  It is why we are able to be here and I am able to have this debate.

There is danger is presenting religion and free speech as mutually exclusive, as incompatible.  Without freedom of expression, which is a bedrock of democracy, open discussion of ideas becomes difficult.

However, if an insult comes with an intent to incite hatred then it moves out of the realm of simple freedom of speech.   I would argue that incitement to hatred is a different beast altogether.  That’s not an insult, it is a vindictive act driven by altogether sinister motivations.

Freedom of expression comes with a level of personal responsibility.  We are all individually responsible for our intentions, choices, sayings and actions in the community that we live in.

There shouldn’t be a need for protection because individuals who practice free speech should bear the responsibilities of their expression.

***

With that, I come to my third point.

I believe we should follow the examples of those who lived their lives with virtue.  It may not be surprising to find that such figures, such as the Prophet Mohammed, did not demand protection from insult.

On the contrary, he was insulted and abused often in his life.

He never responded to these events with violence.  In fact, he often did the opposite.

There is one particular example that I enjoy.

God sent the Angel Gabriel to the Prophet after what we shall call a particularly bad day.

'Muhammad! Allah (The Glorified and the Exalted) has heard what your people have said to you. I am the Angel of the Mountains and my Lord has sent me to you to carry out your orders. What do you want now to be done? If you like I may crush them between the two mountains encircling the city of Makka.

The Prophet (may Allah's blessings and peace be upon him) replied with this:

(I do not want their destruction) I am still hopeful …

So those who have used violence in order to ‘protect’ the Prophet cannot say they were following the example of the very man they model their life on.

***

Ultimately, ladies and gentlemen, God and the Prophets are surely above our insults.  They, if you will, transcend the limitations of humanity and the mere concept of us being able to protect them is irrational.

Furthermore, the concepts of free speech and freedom of expression are extremely important to a functioning democracy, so that ideas can be exchanged and built upon. It should always be remembered though that with the right to freedoms does come some level of personal responsibility.

Moreover, violence is an unacceptable form of protection in any situation, particularly when it comes to religion and spirituality. So even in the face of insult, which may be hurtful and derogatory, we would do well to respond in the best way possible, not only in the interests of civilisation but in the interests of showing the best sides of what faith can provide.

***

16:125 Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best…

Reflection

Check out my reflections on the event here!

What are your thoughts?

Cheers,

Yassmin Abdel-Magied

Safety: Seriously Super or Silliness?

Anyone who works in an industrial setting is familiar with the concept of Occupational Health and Safety (OH&S, HSE, or one of the multitude of variations on the name).

Working in the field, the battle around OH&S and its acceptance is relentless.  Every company has their version of a set of 'Golden Rules', a specific training course designed to get you up to date and a regime of hazard observation and constant reporting that is allegedly designed to make workplaces safer.

Does it? Well, perhaps the proof is in the pudding...

Incidents are certainly occurring at a lower rate than they were 20 or 30 years ago.  However, there is something to be said for trying to avoid a safety culture that is about stifling productivity.

So where is the line between taking care of people and stifling their ability to work and think?

The answer isn't clear; obviously, since thousands of corporate man-hours have gone into thinking about this.  It does not help that we live in such a litigious society, meaning a portion of the motivation is what I like to call "booty insurance" (or better known in the industry as CYA - Cover Your A***).  In the absence of academic knowledge in the area, I have decided to go with my personal-anthropological-observational-learnings and extrapolate wildly from there.

In a couple of interesting conversations recently, starkly different attitudes towards safety have come to light in sharp relief.  Here are a couple of the different characters people (by and large) fall into.

The old bloke who does NOT think any of the safety initiatives make an ounce of a difference.

"Back in my day..."

The standard call of the old-timer is that back in his day things were different and people were fine.

Except they weren't always fine, and when you dig a little deeper they usually admit a lot of people were hurt ("oh yeh, he put his back out, oh yeh, well he only has three fingers now").

They do have a fair point in saying that excessive reporting  does not necessarily mean people are thinking more about the task at hand.

These (mostly) men usually have their hearts in the right place and seemingly the largest frustration is not at the interest in safety, but the tools used to implement them.  Extra paperwork, repetitious reporting and superfluous systems often cause rejection of the concept outright rather than a tenacious engagement the rest of us green hands could use.

The young one who has just accepted it is a numbers game.

A fair few of young lads and ladies coming into the system fit into this category.  We understand it is a requirement - we haven't known the system to be any different really - and follow only because we must.

Write one hazard per person per day? Done.

Think about one hazard per person per day? Hmm, not so much.

True engagement in the system isn't guaranteed, and this is the weakness in the system.  How do you force people to think?  The frameworks in place are supposed to do this, yet...

The safety lad / lady who has never worked on the rig/in the workshop/on the track.

The archetype of the disliked safety official.

An individual who exists more in people's minds than in reality, this the type of individual who enjoys reporting on others without a conversation first, does not necessarily take on feedback from the field operators and generally is a blight on the safety cause.

Perhaps companies are more this character than individuals though.  People can be reasoned with, most of the time. Corporations and institutions are much more behemoth.

The safety person who has seen too many people get (or almost get) hurt and wants to do something about it.

...and this is the person who has the capacity to make the most difference.

Fortunately, the vast majority of the safety personnel on site that I have met are of this variety.  It is just unfortunate that they have to seemingly fight a battle with their institution to be able to communicate the culture and restrictions on site to the rule makers in the office.

***

The cowboy culture of doing things crazily and dangerously is not as prevalent as people think (or as I thought it would be), particularly in Australia.  So suffocation of field operators with rules and regulations can be self defeating if it is excessive and the monotony or ineffectiveness of the tool removes from the outcome.  For example, operating procedures that are 50 pages long when all that is needed is a simple step-by-step 'this is how you use this piece of equipment' in a way that mitigates the hazards.  By over-complicating the tool, people are dissuaded from using it.

Another example is the banning of products in a reactionary manner due to an involvement in a single incident.  There is a rumour that a mine site banned rags as they were involved in some sort of incident, only to reinstate them a few days later as they realised the workshop couldn't really operate without rags.

Ultimately, however, we all want to go home, and being safe in a workplace is imperative in allowing that to happen.  For that to happen, safety must be a part of the equation.  The trick is to getting the balance right.  Like everything else, that involves communication, respect and a healthy teaspoon of cement.

(I kid).

What do you think?

Airing of the IQ Squared debate on BBC World!

 

You may remember a little while ago my mentioning the debate whether "God and His Prophets should be protected against insult" that I was being a part of.

I got an email a few days ago informing me that it will be shown four times globally on BBC World News this weekend (OMG!) at the following times (GMT).

Times in GMT are as follows:

30th November   09.10, 20.10 1st December    02.10, 15.10

The estimated audience will be 70-80 million.

Slap it in your diaries yo and tell me what you think!

I will be posting the video and transcript of my speech shortly after it is broadcast.

Khair inshallah!!!

Cheers,

Yassmin Abdel-Magied

Crazy Rig Conversations: Part 9!

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

Here are a few of the gems...

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

Also, by way of announcement: I've joined the instagram bandwagon!

There are loads of rig photos that will be going up, so join me on the adventure...

***

OM1 (speaking to a group of the rig fellas): Ohhhh we saw Yassmin pissed off last night! You should have seen the scowl on her face! She was talkin' all serious maaaan!

Me: Aw nah man, yeah I haven't gotten annoyed at anyone before, but I just had to say a few things.

OM1: Oh now you gotta be careful pissing you off ay! I wouldn't be messing with someone of your background, you're from all sorts of volatile places! (Turns to the crew).  Oh I tell ya, you know you piss her off, then get in the car and it's like BOOM you're gooone!

(laughs)

OM1: Or it's like a bunch of IED's on the road back to camp or something to take care of ya hay...Nah, I wouldn't be wanting to be messing with Yassmin. Got that Egyptian and all that sorta crazy stuff in ya.

Everyone turns to look at me.

Me (at a little bit of a loss for a smart witty comment...): Ah, indeed. We be crazy...?

***

One of my colleagues is a very Eastern European man who has lots of bits of wisdom to impart on everyone around him.  This was  a particularly funny piece of wisdom he imparted to a younger colleague on life, love and women...

OM:  Look let me tell you something about marriage aye?

First three years is the fight for the boss, the second three years is the fight for equality (in the household, between the wife and the husband), and after that you just fight for survival!  If any man tells you he wears the pants he is delusional. Women know us too well! They just somehow know.  You know, if my wife comes in the room and says "we have to talk", well!   It's not we who have to talk its she who has to talk!  When women say they are the weaker sex, rubbish! They are winning!  They are winning I tell you!

***

OM: You know what I don't like? When people say things about life that sound great and hippy but don't actually mean anything. It's like that saying from Forest Gump.  "Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're going to get..." or whatever it is.

Me: Yeah, it's a nice enough saying...?

OM: No! You never know what you're gona get maybe if you're illiterate!  All you have to do is turn the box over and look at the map on the back and figure out which one you want! How does that saying make ANY sense?

***

OM: I think I was a good dad. I said to my daughter: you do drugs, I kill you.  Simple!

Hmm, I think a few 'CALD' (culturally and linguistically diverse) daughters could probably relate...

***

'Tripping pipe' is the process of building up the drill string, or sending pipe down a hole that has been drilled (in or out, depending on what is going on).  It's the essence of being a roughneck (one of the rig crew members).  This particular old mate was trying to reinforce the fact that he thought I was a little too young.

OM: I used to trip pipe in Baghdad before you were in your dad's bag!

Very clever, I see what you did there...

***

Have you heard any interesting bits of conversation lately?

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...

Links, Links, Links! 17th November 2013

Here are a few great pieces I came across on the internet this week:

***

"The Logic of Stupid Poor People"

Why do poor people make stupid, illogical decisions to buy status symbols? For the same reason all but only the most wealthy buy status symbols, I suppose. We want to belong. And, not just for the psychic rewards, but belonging to one group at the right time can mean the difference between unemployment and employment, a good job as opposed to a bad job, housing or a shelter, and so on. Someone mentioned on twitter that poor people can be presentable with affordable options from Kmart. But the issue is not about being presentable. Presentable is the bare minimum of social civility. It means being clean, not smelling, wearing shirts and shoes for service and the like. Presentable as a sufficient condition for gainful, dignified work or successful social interactions is a privilege. It’s the aging white hippie who can cut the ponytail of his youthful rebellion and walk into senior management while aging black panthers can never completely outrun the effects of stigmatization against which they were courting a revolution. Presentable is relative and, like life, it ain’t fair.

 ***

The not-so-secret secrets to success

We imagine ultra-successful individuals being endowed with almost superhuman talents. In so doing, we surround greatness with a certain kind of mystique and deem it somewhat inaccessible to the average person. However, success is not contingent on having extraordinary, innate ability. Nor does greatness depend upon some mysterious approach to life. There are no secrets to success—only simple truths, principles, and disciplines that have been around for thousands of years. Sadly, we obscure the reality of success by making a number of misjudgments about it.

***

The Lost Female Scholars of Islam

Dr Akram Nadwi is soon to publish his 40-volume collection on Muslim women scholars.  In 2007, Mehrunisha Suleman and Afaaf Rajbee analysed the lost legacy of women scholars and its impact on today's world in emel's feature on The Lost Female Scholars of Islam.

...

Since women today participate so little in the teaching of Hadith and the issuing of fatwas, there is a wide misconception that historically they have never played this role. As Shaykh Akram describes, “when I started, I thought there may be thirty to forty women,” but as the study progressed, the accounts of female scholars kept growing and growing, until eventually there were no less than 8,000 biographical accounts to be found. Such vast numbers truly testify to the huge role that women have played in the preservation and development of Islamic learning since the time of the blessed Prophet Muhammad. The women encountered by Shaykh Akram were far from mediocre when compared to men, indeed, some excelled far beyond their male contemporaries. There were exceptional women who not only actively participated in society but also actively reformed it. Most striking was the high calibre of their intellectual achievements and the respect that they received for this.

***

Senator Nova Peris's Maiden Speech

It is what it is. The past is the past and no matter how hard we try we cannot change that history.

But let’s start to undo the wrongs with what is right and just. I urge all my Parliamentary colleagues to become champions for the recognition of Australia’s first nations people in our constitution.

To Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples this has always been part of our story of struggle, injustice and heartache. But we are here today – I am here today – because of this history. Aboriginal Australians are symbolic of triumph over adversity. We represent knowledge and wisdom held in land and country.

Because in our hearts we know that we do not own Mother Earth, the Earth owns us.

As a child growing up, I dreamt big.

Most people would have looked at an Aboriginal girl from the Territory, where the statistics of alcohol abuse, youth suicide, domestic violence, imprisonment rates and sub-standard education point to every reason why you should not succeed.

But I was determined to be successful.

And yes I am a product of that history, and I continue to live in a society whereby the odds are stacked against Aboriginal people.

***

Abbott's new world order

As a senior executive with one of the charities says: ''I wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat, worried that one day we may have to face a royal commission and have to answer for the conditions under which these people were treated and which we didn't have the guts to challenge the government on.''

***

Economics students demand an education that reflects post-crash world

The economic crash brought back a host of long-forgotten truths, or rather lack of truths, as academic economics closed itself away from the beauty of competing, different ideas. Classroom economics failed to adapt itself to the essence of the world and fails to search for its own failures, to seek and wrestle with new truths.

We now have an opportunity to extend economics beyond the orthodoxies, to reach out to branches of economics that do not allocate resources through simple supply and demand, but theories that directly address the issue of sustainability and aim to ensure people's decisions are born out of social responsibility.

It is essential that future financial and commercial leaders realise the direct consequence of their actions on the wider society, and the best way to do this is by expanding the range of economic thought they are able to engage with.

***

 The Saturday Paper is coming to town!!

THIS IS GOING TO BE AWESOME.

***

Of course, there was also the pieces on this blog in case you missed them, published in the Financial Review and lamenting on what to do with our lives (fulfillment?)

What have you read that you really enjoyed or found thought provoking?

Can't wait to share!

Cheers,

Yassmin Abdel-Magied

Do we follow our dreams or take the safe route?!

Should we focus on getting jobs that fulfill us, or is it all about putting food on the table? I guess there is more than one way to earn a living, yet it is much easier said than done.

It's no secret that youth unemployment is an issue in this nation, and one that doesn't often get the airtime that it deserves.  Granted our situation is a far cry from the malaise that is the European situation, with the likes of Spain and Italy seeing double digit unemployment numbers. However, in the economic situation that we are in today, is traditional job creation the answer?

One of the ways in which the United States has continued to be an attractive location for entrepreneurs and budding start ups is its welcoming policy framework around innovation and enterprising.

Furthermore, the extraordinarily capitalist nation that America is means that young people 'must' make it - they don't have the same safety net of HECS (Higher Education Commonwealth Support) and Centerlink that we take for granted here in Australia.  As such, young people graduate from university with lukewarm prospects of traditional employment and debt to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The system, although not perfect, rewards enterprising and entrepreneurship.

In Australia, although we are placed in the top 10 nations for entrepreneurship culture around the world, doesn't necessarily reward it in the same way...

However, is it becoming a more important piece in the puzzle to fight unemployment?

This isn't the only problem either.

On an ideological front, the idea of following your dreams if often sold.  We are taught coming up through school that we should follow our passions, do what we love, never give up, keep trying and it will all work out.

On the other hand, society shuns failure, and we still need to find ways to put food on the table.  Furthermore, the workforce itself hasn't changed.  It's seems to be full of people who 'put the hard yards in' to get to where they are now, and see a job as a form of employment and a duty for the pay check as opposed to a place for self fulfillment.  Our bosses aren't there to help us find our purpose in life.  They've hired us for a job and it's that job they are interested in.  If you've been one of the lucky ones to find a job that perfectly aligns with your love in life then you're doing well, but as has become clearer to me as I have moved into the workforce, not everyone has that luxury.

Once we start asking ourselves these questions, it seems like everywhere you turn you can find the blog of someone who has turned their passion into paying job.  'I want to do that!' You think...I want to do what makes me happy!

Of course, this then goes to the point about happiness, and whether life is about finding happiness or about meaning...and what does that mean anyway?

This leads me back to the original question.  Should we forgo security and working ‘for the man’ to ‘follow our dreams’ which is a much riskier path, or do we take the safe option and do what we are ‘supposed to’ by getting a good, less risky, stable job and figuring the rest out on the side?

I don't know. I haven't figured it out yet. People keep telling me I have my whole life to go (Insha' Allah), but sometimes I feel this anxiety about whether the choices I am making about my career and path and the right choices or whether I am closing doors that I will regret.

...then I think of the words of my friend who very simply said:

'You are in the place you are meant to be right now, and it's perfect.  All the choices you've made have brought you here, and so it's all perfect for right now'.

I guess it is times like this I find solace in the concept of fate and destiny.  Alhamdulilah...

***

What do you think?

Cheers,

Yassmin Abdel-Magied

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