The Sydney Writers' Festival looks insanely awesome this year!! Are you going to be there?
There are the likes of Barack Obama's Chief Digital Strategist, Anne Summers, Ruby Wax, Slam Poetry... ahhhh! I am so excited!
Are you going to be there? Who are you excited to see??
If you are free and around, maybe you can pop by and check out lil ol' me talking about big ol' issues like Women and Power and a "young lady's survival guide to life on the rigs"...
Should be fun ;)
So, life on the rigs never stops with the amusement! This series, 'Crazy Rig Conversations', chronicles a few of the G to PG rated things that get said on a rig in an everyday context that make me internally chuckle in disbelief and misguided mirth. Enjoy...
NB: Generally, each person is referred to as ‘old mate’, or OM for short. ’Old Mate’ is Australian for ‘that random dude’, or someone whose name you have forgotten.
***
OM: Oh it's good you're back on shift. The other guy was too hard to understand, I could never get what he was sayin' over the radio.
Me: Oh, was he talking too fast? Sometimes he talks too fast...
OM: Oh nah, he just talks too Asian. It's like COPYYY, and he's like *puts on an unidentifiable ethnic accent* "wha?! wha?!*
***
During a long winded, mostly joking argument with a roughneck about women are in general, he comes back with this:
OM1: Listen Yassmin, men were created first. Women? They were an afterthought, and only made for company.
In hindsight, I should have said something like "Oh yea? We were just version 2.0, the latest edition...but at the time I was too busy scoffing.
***
I asked someone how they got to their position, as I usually do. Had they been on the rigs for long, etc.
OM2: Oh yeah, I've been around for a while. But you know, I just kinda slept my way to the top. Even from school, that's how I got my grades you know, and I mean I was Captain of the Rugby team and ripped and all that, so it was no wonder with all those young teachers and that... yeah. Just kept doing it, and it worked for me ya know?
Well, that was one bit of career advice I was not going to take...
***
OM3 is the Aussiest bloke around. He starts off this conversation very clearly telling me about how he doesn't really subscribe to any type of religion. I braced myself, and got my comedy-wit boots on!
OM3: So, like, do you hang around only African people living in, like, your own world that has nothing to do with the rest of society?
Me: No, well that's not how I see it, and most of my friends are from everywhere because I went to a Christian [ecumenical] high school...
OM3: Oh okay, so you don't get together and do like, bomb throwing practice or anything?
Me: Oh... nah not really...
OM3 starts laughing.
Me: ...but of course, if that was something you were interested in.. ;) [I start laughing, he sort of stops.]
[and now I am worried I have jokingly written this on the internet, I am so going to be tracked by some sort of law enforcement]
At the end of the conversation, which was surprisingly quite detailed and extensive about what we Muslims do, where I pray and what I eat etc, OM3 starts to leave. He stands at the door and turns around, cheekily.
OM3: Now I'm gonna tell all my mates I spent time hanging round a Mozzie! Doing crazy practice throws!
***
If you haven't seen it yet, check out my interview on the ABC with The World - it was quite exciting and an honour to be on the show!
***
Hi everyone! How are we this fine Sunday?
I've had an interesting week, not least as I was interviewed by the ABC (live! zomgsh) on my piece in the Griffith Review. Check out the video HERE!
How many times do we have to say this? The use of the word "illegal" is ignorant and mischievous!
[box] While the Coalition may have hoped to score political points with the reappearance of its "illegal boats" billboard this week, it has shone a spotlight on its feeble grasp of international law. Opposition Leader Tony Abbott is wrong to say that the Refugee Convention says asylum seekers are "illegal". [/box]
On the topic of the Boston Marathon Bombings: why is it considered terrorism and Aurora and Sandy Hook not?
Wise words on Bahrain from an unlikely source: Joe Saward, the F1 journalist...
[box] Some would argue that it is necessary to remove all religion from the political process and that until Bahrainis stop thinking about being Shias or Sunnis there cannot be a truly democratic country. If you go back in history you see many nations going through similar religious troubles, notably in Europe in the 16th and 17th Centuries when Catholics and Protestants murdered one another in large numbers. We do not live in a perfect world, but sport is one of the few ways in which nations can unite, transcending internal divisions and thinking as a group. Thus looking at a much bigger picture one has to say that the Grand Prix is a good idea for Bahrain. No doubt some will disagree…[/box]
Finding a way of being a girl that doesn't hurt... again going to a question of where the feminist movement is?
Again on the issue of feminism...Five Myths about Feminism. How do you feel about the label?
A massive discussion about social media's do's and don'ts. Really interesting - how do you use social media, as an individual and as a company?
Seth Godin asks the question: What is your critical mass?
[box] If your idea isn't spreading, one reason might be that it's for too many people. Or it might be because the cohort that appreciates it isn't tightly connected. When you focus on a smaller, more connected group, it's far easier to make an impact.[/box]
This is old news but I think I forgot to link it in my hubris - the first female, Muslim MP in Australia!
I am a sucker for beautiful photography (who isn't), and beautiful photography of beautiful machines? How could I resist...
Oh and don't forget to check out my posts this week; one on Global Migration and Identity and the other on Stirling Moss's comment's on women in F1. If you want to keep in touch more regularly, you can always check out my Facebook page!
This piece originally appeared on Richard's F1...you can see the original piece here!
Sometimes a public figure will say something that makes you want to check your hearing just in case you didn’t hear it right the first time.
“I think women have the [physical] strength,” former Grand Prix winner Sir Stirling Moss said to BBC Radio 5 Live, of female F1 drivers.
“…but I don’t know if they’ve got the mental aptitude to race hard, wheel-to-wheel.”
He goes on: “The mental stress I think would be pretty difficult for a lady to deal with in a practical fashion. We’ve got some very strong and robust ladies, but, when your life is at risk, I think the strain of that in a competitive situation will tell when you’re trying to win. I just don’t think they have aptitude to win a Formula 1 race.”
Well, well, well…
To be honest, my first reaction was a very diva-like “Oh no, he didn’t!”, with the side-to-side head movement to boot!
On further thought, however, there unfortunately is a little more to it than just that, as it has clearly started a conversation on the prospects of women competing alongside men on the F1 grid.
Firstly, we have to remember what era Moss hails from. The 1950s and ’60s, during which he raced and probably formed his opinions on such matters, weren’t exactly the most egalitarian.
When you put it in context, given the fact that women were only really allowed to vote only thirty or so years before, that attitude (unfortunately) makes a little more sense.
At that time, women weren’t even allowed to run in the Boston Marathon! The first lady to do so only officially competed in 1967. Check out the video of what happened when she ran:
Fast forward a few decades, and the first female fighter pilot in the US Airforce was only accepted in 1993. Two decades ago only…?!
There have always traditionally been ‘male domains’ and ‘women’s domains’, and it is only really in the last few decades is that starting to change. It’s slow going though…and traditionally technical areas, like my field of engineering, still have less than 10% (9.6% in Australia!) female representation.
It is true though that Formula 1, and motorsport in general is one of the few sports where men and women compete head to head and not in separate series. That in itself, is a strange type of egalitarianism, but that isn’t enough.
There is no question of whether women can be Formula 1 drivers – they have already proven they can. The first woman competed in the 1958 Monaco GP, Maria Teresa De Filippis, in Moss’ era (has he forgotten being snapped with her, pictured above?):
While she never achieved a points finish in F1, Maria Teresa de Filippis’ very presence on the grid in 1958 was a victory for women’s participation in motorsport.
The last woman to compete was Giovanna Amati, in 1992, although she failed to qualify on each of her three outings in a Brabham.
Sure, females only have half a point combined between all five of them, but that is beside the point. Clearly, women do have the capacity to compete in the sport, whether Moss likes it or not.
Outside F1, there are a heap of awesome women who race and they are all inspiring.
Danica Patrick in undoubtedly the most high-profile. She became the only woman (to-date) to win an IndyCar Series race in 2008 before making a full-time switch to NASCAR racing last year.
Finally given a competitive engine and team in which to race, Simona de Silvestro has proven herself to be a frontrunner in the IndyCar Series.
Take the case of Venezuelan Milka Duno, the former IndyCar racer who has shown excellent pace in the Daytona endurance scene. She’s more than just a racer, however. Duno is a qualified naval engineer with four master’s degrees and has published a book for young children on the impact of an education.
That’s what I’m talking about.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| F1’s Famous 5 Females (L-R): De Filippis, Lombardi, Galica, Wilson and Amati |
But the true issue underpinning Moss’ comments is that this highlights the strongly held belief one of the most respected men in Formula 1, and ‘kind-of, sort-of’ backed by Bernie Ecclestone himself, who said he could not see a woman racing for a top team in the near future.
“There’s no reason why a woman shouldn’t be able to compete with a man,” he said recently, when asked about women’s roles in F1 in the wake of Danica Patrick claiming a historic pole position in the season-opening NASCAR race.
“Unfortunately, the way things are, I don’t imagine a lady will ever get the chance to drive a Red Bull or a Ferrari.”
If the top men in the sport (a sport where support is paramount to success) can’t even fathom women competing on the same level, how is it ever going to happen?
“Regretfully, the problem is that many ladies who could compete probably as well as the guys won’t get chance.” Ecclestone added.
Why won’t they get the chance? Is it because the movers and shakers won’t give them a chance?
The problem with comments like this is that they back up sexist views that do nothing to help women that do want to get involved in motorsport and are interested in racing, engineering and all manner of technical things.
If the guys at the very top aren’t even giving the idea a chance, no matter how archaic or old school they are, people subconsciously take it in. It isn’t about affirmative action or making allowances, it is about being open to the idea.
Is it fear of change? Possibly.
Is change going to happen anyway? Probably.
There was once a time when men didn’t think women could run, and that it was bad for their health.
There was also once a time when men didn’t think women could compete in Formula 1…and win.
I can’t wait until the day we can joke about the ludicrousness of such a statement!
A small incident occurred in my life a couple of weeks ago that I had trouble processing.
On my way to a flight, travelling through airport security, the lady standing at the metal detector stopped to ask me about my head covering.
"What do you mean it's because of your religion?" I was asked.
"...uh, it's what I wear for a hijab. I am a covered Muslim woman and I have to wear this because it's compatible with my field engineering job..." I was a little confused and at this point frustrated; they were holding up the entire line and the questioning was causing an unnecessary scene.
"Yeah look it really isn't religious enough. Aren't you guys supposed to wear the..." She trailed off, looking at me.
"You mean the full veil/hijab?"
"Yes, that. You have to wear that for it to be religious. Guys who wear turbans can't come in with a baseball hat covering their hair and say that is religious, because it is a baseball cap, not a turban. Look do you have a veil with you to prove that this is religious?"
I looked at the lady, incredulous. Was she serious?
"No, I don't carry an extra scarf with me in my hand luggage". The lady didn't seem to pick up on my dry tone.
"Oh okay. Well in the future, carry with you a scarf so you can show the security"..
"Wait, wait a minute." By this point I had all my luggage and was ready to leave, but I just had to clarify. "So you're telling me that I can't wear what I am wearing because it isn't religious enough for you and I need to bring a 'proper scarf' with me to prove to you that I am Muslim?"
"Yes. Do you understand me and where I am coming from?"
"...no, not really. But I'm going to go catch my plane, I'll just go with it. Thank you for your advice..."
***
Women's bodies, in particular Muslim women's bodies, seem to be a battlefield for all sort of political debates and concerns, exemplified by the never ending French battle with the burqa/niqab/hijab. This particular incident and raised questions on two levels: one a personal level, and one around the question of Muslim women, their clothing and bodies in general.
***
Firstly, it must be clear that I am not assigning blame to the security lady per se, as such an incident is likely due to a combination of ignorance, poor training and miscommunication. If a Muslim individual had made the same comment - 'this isn't religious enough' - I would have taken umbrage for a completely different reason. In this case however, it is more an unfortunate reflection of the understanding of Muslims and their traditions in Australia society.
There are two sides to this coin. On one hand, there is an onus on the Muslim community to go out and educate the wider community on traditions, so as we are not taking on a 'victim mentality', as we did so often after September 11.
On the other hand, it is also important that members of our security forces, particularly those in sensitive areas such as the airports, be properly educated and trained. It is quite likely (though I am making the assumption) that the training consisted of explaining "what a Muslim woman looks like" and subsequently only showing the traditional/stereotypical image of a Muslim woman in the classic hijab.
Unfortunately (ahem, surprised?), not all Muslim women look the same and dress the same, and as the community matures in Australia, looks will diversify further. Stereotypes should not be the way we expect our community to look.
Perhaps recommendations can and should be made to the security department in order to improve their training. If their existing programs are already quite extensive, perhaps it was an isolated case...? The tendency is to give people the benefit of the doubt (although in this case, that may be counter intuitive).
***
On a personal note, it was uncomfortable being told by a complete stranger that I wasn't dressed 'religious enough'. I don't take offense to much at all, but I personally felt affronted by someone judging whether or not I was practicing my religion appropriately or 'enough', particularly by, essentially, a random individual...
Religion is a purely personal thing, and so is clothing choice. In a nation which prides itself on all sorts of freedoms, the fact that individuals are made to feel uncomfortable due to either choice may require us to have a look at ourselves, and if our societal norms and expectations are eroding those freedoms.
***
The second point this incident raised is related to the debate about Muslim women and Muslim bodies more generally. The existence of organisations such as FEMEN and the responses from the Muslim women around the world exemplify the battlefield that is the 'Muslim Woman'. I might leave this point for another day actually, there is a lot to it...
***
Hi all! Just wanting to share some exciting news with you all. I have the amazing fortune to be a contributor in the Griffith Review’s awesome 40th Edition of Women and Power! It will be available in late April.
The blurb for the edition is as such:
The empowerment of women it is one of the most remarkable revolutions of the past century. But like all good revolutions it is still not settled.
In a generation women have taken control of their economic fate, risen to the most powerful political positions in the land and climbed to the top of the corporate ladder. Just when it seemed there was general acceptance of this change, a misogynist backlash persists.
The impact of this revolution extends across the whole society – from homes to schools, politics to the military, marriage to media – challenging long held verities.
In Women & Power, Griffith REVIEW will bring an international perspective to these dilemmas, exploring the changing relationship between women and power in public and private spheres, here and abroad.
Have social changes caught up with economic changes? Are children paying a price for the rise of the two-income household? Can women have it all? Does it matter whether Julia Gillard's fruit bowl is empty or full?
Women & Power will bring provocative and insightful perspectives on these questions. The empowerment of women was one of the great changes of the past 50 years, handling its consequences remains a pressing challenge.
***
The piece is a short memoir about my life so far on the rigs… it comes out in late April! I will also be at the Sydney Writers Festival speaking on this, so quite excited indeed at the opportunities, Alhamdulilah!
The Griffith Review, edited by my amazing friend and mentor Julianne Shultz…
…celebrates good writing and promotes public debate. It steps back from the issues of the day and gives writers the space to grow on the page.
Essays reflect on the underlying significance of events and trends, explain the details that get lost in the news and examine the unintended consequences of public policy.
I am really excited about contributing to this wonderful edition, so stay tuned – and maybe even get the edition!
I wrote this piece for FutureChallenges.org, an awesome site. Check it out originally here.
***
The questions of women in the workforce and how that affects society’s fabric have been posed since the early days of the feminist movement. The question of what is gained – or lost – as women assume a larger role in a country’s economic burden is not so much just about the economic aspect, but spans the issues of the political, social and cultural impacts as well.
Women on the job in Afghanistan, by United Nations Photo, on Flickr, 2012 CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
As a young woman growing up in a Western country with heritage and cultural influences from the East, the question of women’s role in society more broadly has been of interest. The different cultural expectations of women, and the interestingly underlying and sometimes unexpected similarities give an indication of how far women have come, but also how far we still have to go.
In terms of what is gained, there is much to be said. From a numbers point of view, between 1984 and 2009, the number of working women has increased from 44 million to 72 million (in the US). Not only do the sheer numbers of individuals contributing to the workforce make a difference, but women are said to bring particular skills to industry that change the tone.
Women are said to be more intuitive with different values, including empathy and support. They are also said to be better team players and are able to look at problems more holistically. On a more extreme level, workers in traditionally male dominated industries such as oil rigs have anecdotally welcomed women as they “make it seem more like the real world” and “bring a different mentality so we even end up talking about different things”.
These are all sweeping generalisations though; can it really be said that “all women are empathetic” and that is why they are good for the marketplace? Is it fair to pigeon hole an entire gender into an expected set of stereotyped values?
Perhaps these generalisations are more damaging than beneficial and are part of the reason women are thought of in a particular way, limiting their ability to contribute in a meaningful manner.
An interesting article on the Financial Times also questions this focus on “what women bring”, concluding that perhaps it just comes down to the skill set of the individual and this is where the focus should remain. This particularly applies to women in senior and leadership positions in companies.
Or to put it another way, the women who “make it” perhaps do so because they are far better than the men. It might mean the focus should be less on “what women bring” and more on getting them into leadership roles in the first place. (Source)
Generalisations aside though, the increase in the number and proportion of women in the workforce does have implications on society more generally. There is no more obvious platform for this societal shift than of the oft asked question “Can women have it all”. Interestingly, it is a question posed usually by women themselves.
“Busy Mom”, by gwilmore, on Flickr, 2005, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0
Anne Marie Slaughter’s well read essay in the Atlantic, “Why Women Still Can’t Have it All” in 2012 was a profound example of an ambitious, accomplished female role model who argued that women weren’t able to have it all – ‘all’ meaning an ambitious career and a fulfilling family life. The article, based on Slaughter’s personal life as a senior US Department of State employee, provoked responses from around the globe and shocked many, opening up a public conversation about what the result of having women in the workforce meant for our society.
It would seem that from a purely economic point of view, having women a part of the workforce and contributing to nation building in a corporate sense does nothing but improve, gain, increase and enrich productivity and our work place environment. Where things are perhaps lost is not in the office or on site but outside that world – in homes and within families. This is not to say that having women in the workforce is purely detrimental to families, but that society needs to accommodate the fact that women spend more time away from the home and the resultant shift needs to be accounted and allowed for. Society has accepted that women are part and parcel of the working world, now the cultural change needs to follow so that the overall outcome is of one positive benefit for all.
Women collectively breastfeeding for IWD – the right to work and family, by Amadeus Sanz, on Flickr, 2008 CC BY-NC-SA 2.0
Sometimes images like this suggest that even with women in the workforce and contributing to our society, mentalities still have a way to go.
This week, I was honoured and humbled to be asked to speak at the Institute of Public Administration Australia’s ACT Breakfast for Young Professionals and CEO’s on International Women’s Day. Although not focused on IWD as such, it is an opportunity for IPAA to bring young female speakers to share a little about their experiences, and I chose to share thoughts on how to truly and effectively engage young people.
I should note the event itself was fabulous; held at the National Gallery of Australia in Canberra in a fabulous hall, it was also playing host to a great concept, bringing the graduates and the heads of department together on the same table. More of this needs to be done!
The crux of the presentation was around the two following slides:
From an organisation’s point of view (best practices):
From an individual’s point of view (best practices):
I won’t give away all the explanations, but one of the key points from above is the biggest learning I have taken away from my recent experiences:
Looking for uncommon opportunities.
Stretching your mind, erasing the boundaries of the box and redrawing them, finding stimuli and inspiration in unlikely places – this is all related to taking advantage and looking for uncommon opportunities. Opportunities and experiences that may not have obvious or direct relevance to your current role still have the capacity to broaden your mind and perhaps send you on paths that you may have not considered, but paths that are equally worthwhile.
Personal Example: accepting a role on the Board of the Queensland Museum as a young engineering student.
Unlikely benefit: gaining an understanding and appreciation for the cultural precinct and the important of the museum, but also effectively enabling and encouraging the inclusion of young people (and minority groups) in the Museum’s target audience.
***
Offering the skills you have rather than the skills you think they need is also a big learning, and one that really reshaped the way I looked at being involved at the consultative level as a young person.
***
So this is just a brief snapshot of some of the things talked about at the presentation, and practical ways young people can be involved and at the same table as the movers and shakers.
Hope this is useful! Would love to hear your thought on true youth engagement!
It’s a law that gives a whole new meaning to curves in the road.
In Indonesia’s conservative Aceh province, an Islamist government has put women on notice that female passengers cannot straddle motorbikes because the “curves of a woman’s body” are too alluring unless they sit sidesaddle.
“Muslim women are not allowed to show their curves; it’s against Islamic teachings,” the mayor of the Aceh city of Lhokseumawe told the Associated Press on Monday.
The energy-rich northern province adopted Sharia law in 2009, after it won autonomy from the Indonesian government in a bitter separatist war. It imposed strict morality laws that regulate women’s dress, require shops to close at prayer time and other measures
Indonesia is the world’s most populous Muslim nation, and some of its regions are increasingly stringent in applying religion-based laws. But it pales in comparison with Saudi Arabia, where women are lifelong dependants of men, must be covered in public from head to foot and cannot drive cars, let alone motorcycles.
…and so the article continues.
Reading the above article evokes sadness and frustration on behalf of the Indonesian women, yes. This was most likely the aim of the article, but rather than focus on that topic alone, the article goes on to make links with the difficulty apparently all women face in Muslim countries around the world due to draconian regimes enforcing “Islamic” values.
What compounds the frustration however, is the fact that this is a trend in Western based media. The news so regularly focuses on the 'terrible plight of women' in Islamic countries, blaming the “Islamic” regimes in power and in turn, blaming the belief system as if to say: 'Oh, these women need saving and liberating and freedom from their situations'. This is done while completely neglecting to mention the opinions of the women themselves, the good work the women do in their own countries and fails to understand that there are different cultural expectations around the globe. Often this is a result of culture, tradition and the patriarchal aspects of the society rather than the belief system.
Based on the article, one would think that women are desperately in need of liberating, but that is not always the case – or at least, not always Western society’s role to play.
For a more authentic view, here is an example of what Indonesian women are concerned about in terms of their welfare in their own country.
Yes, there are desperate inequality issues around the world, including in Muslim countries, there is no doubt about that at all. However I grow weary of reading pieces that blame a belief system for the inequality and seek to “save women” (by Western standards) without any consideration of the women as people with a belief system they value rather than objects that fill a convenient role.
A fine case of orientalism indeed.
Here is an article I recently published as an opinion piece for the Brisbane Times. Check it out here…or comment below!
***
Are women really getting paid less?
When I first came across the article on the apparent "gender pay gap doubling in a year", I couldn't believe my eyes.
However, when I stopped to think about it, the concept didn't make sense to me, particularly from a graduate point of view. In my field of engineering, salaries for graduates are set for everyone, regardless of gender. In fact, I was sure that the females in my graduate class were getting the higher salaries! Where then was this information coming from?
A quick investigation showed there was a misinterpretation of the Australian government's Workplace Gender Equality Agency's report. There was, in fact, no actual change in percentage of difference since last year which remained at 3 per cent (WEGA, 2012).
Advertisement
However, a difference of 3 per cent is still a discernible inequality. Why does this gap exist? It cannot be that employers are actively paying women less. We are in the 21st century, after all.
It would seem that the view that the WEGA report is taking is a macro view, one of graduates generally, as opposed to the micro perspectives of men and women in particular fields. For example, males are clearly overrepresented in fields such as construction (88 per cent), mining (85 per cent), and manufacturing (75 per cent), according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Females on the other hand, are overrepresented in the social services; Health care and social assistance employs 78 per cent females, education and training 70 per cent, and 56 per cent in retail trade. Furthermore, ABS data shows 76 per cent of those in clerical and administration are females. It is no secret that the fields of mining and construction pay more than health care and education.
So it isn't that employers are paying women differently, it is that there are more females in the lower paying roles and industries.
Is this something that needs to be changed? Perhaps, and it raises questions about social bias, work-life balance, gendered roles in society and possible disadvantages within the workforce.
Personally, I don't think there is a systemic disadvantage to women, especially not at the graduate level. There are plenty of equality acts and antidiscrimination laws to protect the rights of almost any group in the workforce, particularly women. However, there are definitely social biases that play a part.
Engineering, for example, still has extremely low rates of female participation; not because women are less capable, but because girls don't always see it as a natural option (I am still approached by high school girls who say "I'm considering engineering, but isn't that a guy's job?").
Compounding this, the social industries (that have an overrepresentation of women) have lower income levels than technical roles. Does society undervalue our 'caring' roles, or is it just a case of different jobs deserve different pay levels?
From a long term career perspective, there are numerous studies that indicate women don't find themselves in the pipeline to leadership due to a variety of reasons. For instance, men hold 2148 crucial line positions in the ASX 500; women hold 141 similar positions. (Australian Census of Women in Leadership, 2012).
So not only does a gap exist at the graduate level, it compounds exponentially throughout the progression of a career.
The question of the pay gap or women's participation and influence in the workforce isn't going to be solved overnight. It is clear that although there have been great inroads made into women's equality of opportunity in the workforce; a discrepancy still exists at a macro level.
If we want to achieve true equality of outcome, as a society we need to think of more effective ways of unlocking the potential in half our population.
***
So what do you think?
Anyone who has been paying even the slightest attention to Australian politics for the last day or so would know about Julia Gillard’s impassioned performance in parliament yesterday, labelling the opposition leader Tony Abbott as sexist and misogynist.
The reaction in the media and social spheres have been interesting indeed, and worth analysing to determine underlying agendas. The speech has gotten international acclaim and praise from around the Western world.
Firstly, let it be said that there is no doubt that is was a fantastic and riveting monologue. I love a well delivered speech, and the great leaders of in the past have often been lauded for their ability to rouse audiences and crowds into frenzies with addresses that stir the soul. This was definitely one such example for Australia – especially given the performance of our parliament generally over the couple of years.
Another part of the reason that the speech was so well received was that the Prime Minister finally spoke about the issue of sexism when she hadn’t really (to my knowledge) publically broached it before, and seemed genuine in doing so. She cuttingly pointed out a number of instances where Tony Abbott made statements that were clearly sexist, highlighting the entrenched (and quite possibly subconscious) culture of sexism that exists in the highest levels of government. I believe we live in a relatively patriarchal society and though that is changing, sexism will continue to exist in implicit and explicit forms. For this to truly shift, the culture must be acknowledged and brought to account; this is what the Prime Minister was doing, and this is to be applauded.
Mama Mia rightfully said:
It was an erudite, honest speech on the sexism that has repeatedly been levelled against her by her opponents, led by Tony Abbott, with language including “ditch the bitch” and “make an honest woman of her”. To miss that is to completely miss the point.
The Prime Minister’s speech had about as much to do with Peter Slipper as a superb double-twist-summersault dive does a diving board. The Slipper case was nothing but a catalyst for a more important debate. It was, frankly, long overdue.
However.
I believe the timing of the speech, the way in which the Prime Minister has conducted herself since the Question Time session and the overt way in which she framed the debate was a cunning political move indeed.
Why? Well who, in all the hullabaloo, is paying attention to the now resigned Peter Slipper? Where did that conversation go? I don’t necessarily think it was fair of most of the mainstream media to blast the PM as they did, however I do think they were right in pointing out that this was a brilliant political pivot on behalf of the PM and Labour.
As with all things in politics, perhaps it is best to look at the facts.
Yes, a brilliant and inspiring speech was made. This has been done often in history, often to very powerful results.
The difference in history however, is such speeches are often followed up by some form of action, or a call for action. Without action or follow up, great speeches turn into riveting…rhetoric.
I am yet to see any “calls for action”. Perhaps I missed the memo.
“Well done” is always better than “Well said”.
***
Sidenote: Call me cynical, but I continue to be frustrated by the reactionary nature of our government. They say bad times breed good policy…but I don’t know if we are there yet. Interestingly enough, did you know that Indonesians (by and large) tend to think of our politics as unstable? Weird right…
…but then I guess with “banning live exports after a TV show” and “putting in a rotational US base at Darwin without consultation”…all happening within a few months of each other, one begins to understand why…
***
Sidenote 2: Does the nature of the response to her speech (“a ferocious personal attack”, “aggressive”) suggest that even the response to an impassioned speech is sexist? If it were a man talking in a similar fashion, would those views still be held so negatively? Hmm…
Have you ever had your fundamental beliefs about your role in society challenged?
I never thought it would be so…confusing.
Having recently returned from a four month stint in Sudan, I have been trying to reconcile what I saw and experienced there with my experience growing up in Australia as an Aussie chick. I think I am still figuring it all out…
I never really considered myself a true victim of the “identity crisis” issues that were said to plague first and second generation migrants that make Australia their home. I considered myself ‘Straylian through and through, from the way I talked and thought, to my mates and sports of choice (except for cricket…soccer girl all the way). I loved the fact that I could walk into a pump shop at a mine site in central Queensland as a hijabi-wearing-Sudanese-born gal and instantly relate to the old mates working maintenance because, well, I grew up here. This was my country, these were my people.
I felt comfortable with the choices I had made: my degree and career (mechanical engineer, pretty butch), my sport (boxing: yup, as feminine as they come) and the belief that my gender played no part in the role I was to play in society. My mantra was pretty much “well if the boys can do it, I can do it too”. My father was naturally horrified, but hid it well and mostly accepted that was who I had become.
Boy, was I in for a treat when I got to Sudan.
My first month was…interesting. Not because of the heat, or the conditions or the lack of system…but because of the cultural expectations that were placed on me that I just wasn’t accustomed to. I understood and accepted the bare bones of it all (after all, my parents brought me up as a Sudanese woman), but what frustrated me was the clear discrepancy between the roles of men and women and the unwritten rules that I was expected to adhere to.
Sport was a big one – my grandmother couldn’t understand why I wanted to train on the local track, competed with my uncle in pushups or was so interested in exercise. It wasn’t even the obviously masculine things that were different: Apparently the way I walked, sat, talked, laughed…the issues I wanted to debate (politics isn’t for women!) and the interests that I had were all unfeminine and undesirable in a respectable Sudanese woman.
I used to joke to my aunt: “Someone should write a rule book on “How to live life as a Sudanese woman” so I don’t keep putting my foot in it and doing the wrong thing”
She would just laugh. “This is how it is here…”
At first, I found it funny. I loved being the odd one out, flying in the face of what was acceptable, just being me. Then it began to frustrate me. Why was I being judged on things that had nothing to do with my true character? Why weren’t my cousins fighting for their rights as women!
It isn’t as if my cousins were “oppressed”. Hardly. My cousins are all studying or working and my aunts all have higher degrees. Their English is great and they are all well educated and well read. In fact, one aunt is running one of the biggest businesses in Sudan! So the opportunity for women to do things is there. Yet… I still couldn’t understand how the women were living with such cultural restrictions.
My cousin shed some light on her perspective one night and said something that I had never considered before.
“It is so cool that you are travelling and doing all this stuff and seeing the world Yassmina, but that is your world. You have to accept what we have accepted that this is our world and we have to operate in it. It’s not as bad as you think! We know what we have to do and the role we have to play to be a good woman, a good wife, a good Sudanese and a good Muslim, so we do that. We don’t want to make our lives harder by looking for things that we don’t really need…”
My aunt echoed a similar sentiment. “You might look at me and say woah, she has a degree but she is sitting at home taking care of the house, how oppressed is she! But I love doing this! I love taking care of the house, cooking and being there for my family, and many others do as well. I work [she has a teaching job], but I work hours that will suit the family because at the end of the day, the family is most important. You might disagree Yassmina, but the woman is better suited to bringing up a family; you can’t have a home without a mother…and I am happy to fill that role”.
Hold up! I thought. Yes, there were some societal inequalities that women had issues with and were wanting to have resolved…but by and large they were happy with the role they were playing in life? They **wanted** to be caregivers and homemakers? Wait…does this mean our entire definition of success differs? Huh? Didn’t they want to be liberated?
Yikes. Now I was confused and I began to wonder…
Maybe there is some validity in the way my family see the role of a woman. Maybe it is too crazy for me to expect a man to have an equal share in the housework. Maybe, as a woman, I have to think about my role as a procreator and a homemaker as just as, if not more important, than my career…
If you know me at all, you would know those thoughts are truly at odds with how I tend to see the world.
There is another aspect to it too, one that I haven’t talked about here, and that is how the women see it as their Islamic duty to be the caregivers and the homemakers. This was harder for me to deal with, because I don’t have the scholarly Islamic knowledge to confidently refute what they were saying.
So I reached a point where I was at a loss.
Do I forget about everything I saw and learnt in Sudan and continue living life the way I had been in Australia, with gender not being a factor in my decisions because “that’s how I grew up”?
Or, do I follow the path described by my cultural background, where all my decisions are largely based on gender and gender roles… because that is “where I am from?”
I had – and sometimes still have – difficulty reconciling what I grew up with and what my background encourages. The thing is, I think the expected role of a Sudanese woman in society is at odds with the expected role as an Australian woman in society.
How does one deal with that?
***
I guess for me, I think I am beginning to realise that the idea that “women can have it all” is fair enough, but perhaps for me should be amended to “women can have whatever they want”. If they want the house and kids that’s great, and if they want the career that is within their rights as well. Having it all at the same time though… that might be a little more difficult.
I don’t have a concrete answer to my mental dilemma just yet. All I do know is that I feel there needs to be a middle ground, and that is the one that I choose to take, inshallah. A path that takes into account that I am a woman, but that doesn’t limit my choices, it informs them.
If there is one thing I took away from the trip, it is this: It is important, as a woman, to recognise that if (and inshallah when) you choose to have a family, the role as a mother is invaluable and cannot be substituted… and that gender does play a factor in the family dynamic, whether we like it or not.
***
How it will all play out and how much will I take from that lesson? I guess only time will tell…
What about you? How do you see the role of women in society? Have you ever had your views so challenged?
***
