Suki has a cracker of a post just up – an open letter to Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration Andrew Robb. Acerbically noting what others of us have observed before – Suki argues that the Government’s commitment to gender equality extends only as far as it’s useful for dogwhistling about erm, people of a certain faith. She has an apposite example of gender inequality in the ADF. Many more could be chosen.
Since it’s a core Australian value, might I respectfully suggest that the commitment be enshrined in Liberal Party policy, and perhaps if we have “family impact statements” on legislation and cabinet submissions, the same might apply to the impact on gender equality? Or perhaps the Government could actually listen to their own advisor Pru Goward on things like work and family, the cost of childcare and parental leave? Maybe single mums shouldn’t be forced onto the dole? Perhaps the provisions in WorkChoices which effectively dismantle the enforcement of equal pay for work of equal value could be repealed?
Or is the Government un-Australian?
Great post. Gets to the heart of this whole “values” debate. Values are deployed or appealed to as if they have an objective reality. But ala Bhabha’s “doubled address of the nation”, they are simultaneiously subjective. If I am Australian and gender equality/mateship/a fair go/tolerance are (objectively) Australian values, they must also be my subjective values. All these people demanding certain sections of our community accept Australian values never stop to ask whether they themselves accept and live by those values.
These values are real and meaningful, but when they become deployed as if they have only an objective reality, they become nothing other than ontologically empty rhetorical devices for exclusion and delegitimization.
I like this tack. Gender equality has to be the government’s most vulnerable point.
And while we’re at it, let’s call on the Catholic and Anglican archbishops to allow women into the priesthood. Let’s smoke out these hypocrites.
Err, most of the Anglican Archbishops do, silkworm.
Just sayin…
Silky, you forgot to demand chicky-babe imams! I recommend you fly off to Iran and stage a sandwich-board protest immediately.
Don’t forget the kevlar.
Whilst there are many other inequalities (no female perspective is currently represented on the High court) the ADF example was the only one I knew had government sanction.
In most other cases, as women, we are told that the workplace is a level playing field and we just have to work harder. In reality we know that this is not the case.
We can confirm that more than 50% of law graduates are female, yet they do not represent close to 50% of law firm partners, nor judges, nor AG’s.
The girlchild considered studying Law in 2003, these sobering figures dissuaded her, as did the anecdotal evidence provided by a female relative (and her female peers) who have Law career’s that have endured profound non-prospects.
Those Aussie values are only compulsory for immigrants (especially Muslims). Current Australians are exempt.
Prue is spelt “Pru”.
This idea of selective feminism also extends to commentators like Paul Sheehan. Sheehan has written about some victims of rape perpetuated by “blokes of Middle Eastern appearance”. Bravo for him, but some women are raped by “blokes of Anglo appearance”. Let’s write about that, as well.
Indeed, a relative of mine was raped years ago. The accused was a middle-class white boy whose parents could afford expensive legal representation and she was a working-class girl who’d grow up in a family addled by booze and violence. Don’t need to tell you how the trial went.
Nevertheless, Australian women are doing quite well these days, so there’s no equivalence between a woman living under a despotic regime fueled by religion and we females lucky enough to be living in a democracy.
Mind you, I think we should make sure these “selective feminists” show some consistency in their views.
You think women are being oppressed by not being recruited into direct combat roles in the army?
Do you realise the implications of the argument you’re making? If the principle you’re putting forward were accepted as “gender equality” it would mean that in the next war women would have to be conscripted in equal numbers to men.
How would you feel being conscripted and potentially suffering a violent death on the battlefield? Traditional men might think of this in terms of duty; I’m dumbfounded if anyone would think of it as “liberation”.
well put Kim…I suspect there are those in the Cabinet who would luv to force women to resign from their careers/work upon marriage…or ensure they received psychiatric help if they deviated from their idea of ‘the norm’…& put ‘em back in the kitchen where they can be least ‘heard’ & do the meat loaf, roast & yummy cake thing…a tribe of male littluns tearin’ round their feet, munchin’ loudly on sugar sandwiches…gettin’ all hyped up & testosterzoned, ready to climb into battle gear upon reaching deep voice moment…those sweet baby girls all dressed in flowery things, playin’ w/ the toy house they intend she’s imprisoned in for the bulk of her days…whilst Dad does the daily grind thing, after work, pops in for a ‘lady of the night’ on the side for more grindin’ (the job bein’ such a hard slog & all he deserves a reward when the ‘old ladys’ all knocked up)…& every weegend its off to the parents place at the coast, flag waving & lifeguard observin’ compulsory.
My partner knows all about glass ceilings…she experiences the glare from that thing everyday.
I imagine the Howard Govt. are definately NOT fans of Kissing Jessica Stein, Go Fish, I’ve Heard the Mermaids Singing, All About My Mother & Desert Hearts…:)…
but hey, i could be wrong.
Nasking, I think not liking those movies just shows good taste. I’ve seen three of those films, and all that can be said is that often so-called “queer” films forget about plot and character development because they are too busy being queer and taking their audience for granted. The best “queer” movie I have seen lately is Bound.
Nasking, you’re suggesting in your post that there is something wrong with being a) a homemaking woman b) a masculine male and c) a heterosexual.
each to their own…i’d add ‘When Night is Falling’, ‘Better than Chocolate’ (I reckon the Canadians have made some goodies)…& ‘If These Walls Could Talk 2′. ‘Bound’ wasn’t a fave. I’m just yer average movie lover…i like a movie for its plot, technical strengths, direction, mis-en-scene, characters, themes etc…plenty of reasons…not just because its a ‘queer’/gay/lesbian film…
nope, i’m implying, perhaps incorrectly assuming, that some in the Cabinet may hark back to days when few women had careers outside the home…& due to biased/patriarchal laws, felt forced to conform to a stereotypical lifestyle. Nothin’ wrong w/ havin’ kids…provided you also have some choice in which direction you’d like to take your life…& whether or not you want to stay in a career if you get married. Or whether you even want to enter into a marriage…or relationship w/ the same sex…or…you get the idea…i hope…kinda.
As for the masculine male comment…’masculine’ is an odd word…how do you define it?…if ‘masculine’ refers to males who think it’s their ‘God given’ right to rule the roost & screw around on their partner whenever they see fit…well yer damn right i have a problem w/ it.
As a heterosexual I have no probs w/ them…:)…provided they don’t resort to using ‘superiority complexes’ and myopic & discriminating religiously-based actions/words to give my gay mates or any others who don’t conform to their expectations, a hard time. Most don’t.
If these Walls Could Talk 2 was fun, and a bit saucy.
Women should be whatever they want to be, (within their physical capacities), whether mother and wife or full-time career chick. All women should retain their independence and sense of self. Projecting too much onto the wife/mother role can be dangerous.
The only thing I have to wonder about is what gender equity actually means in practice, because, after all, there are differences between men and women. We have different shaped genitals for a start. So, given that men are women are not the same, what conditions will have to exist for us to be able to say that gender equity has really truly actually been achieved in practice? Certainly equal pay should be on the list. As should the chance to serve in all branches of the armed forces – although, given the latest photos of our brave ANZACs relaxing, I am not sure that any reasonable person would want to serve with such progressive open minded guys. But the fact that there are currently no women on the high court is not necessarily proof of the fact that the high court is somehow biased against women. There is probably a much larger pool of male candidates in the first place – again, for all sorts of reasons. One reason probably is that women have more difficulty in achieving the pre-eminence in the law that is needed to be considered for a slot on the bench. We heard for years that it was the education system that contributed. But higher education – including high schools – has been slanted towards women for a long time. To the point where females routinely outperform males by almost every measure you care to use. But this appears to have little impact on redressing the balance – as yet. Maybe it will in the future. Who knows? But I think the question of where the ultimate causes of gender inequality are to be found is still very much an open question. And, if and when we can identify these causes, what then should and could be done to make them go away?…
Cheers…
This post is a little unclear in parts. Are you suggesting that women should be combat roles?
Personally I have no problem with women in combat roles provided they are expected to meet the same physical standards as the men. Women have proven themselves in combat in the Vietnam war, among other conflicts.
Suki says:
“We can confirm that more than 50% of law graduates are female, yet they do not represent close to 50% of law firm partners, nor judges, nor AG’s.”
Yes, Suki, but let’s not be glib about this. It has only been in the last few years that women have gone into law en masse. It will take decades for anything like parity to achieved. In fact, parity will probably never be achieved because significant numbers of women will always choose to put family and child rearing before work. It is also worth noting that in Victoria the state Labor government has promoted almost identical numbers of men and women to the judiciary.
It is a disgrace that the Government is targeting single mums for benefit reductions. The long term social cost of this policy will far outweigh any short term monetary savings. No children should be living in poverty in a country as rich as this.
So, Mick, you’re suggesting that the fact that women are outperforming men in higher education, yet still not making it to the higher ranks of the workforce is not evidence of gender inequality?
The reason that females aren’t allowed in Combat Arms Corps in the Army is a societal one. It is not much different from the reason why females do not play in mixed gender sporting teams in most sports. Combat Arms Roles are not considerably different to playing contact and collision sport. So, when society demands that females be allowed to play in mixed gender Football, Ruby Union and League up to the elite level – then will be the time for females to be allowed to join the Infantry, Armoured, Artillery and Combat Engineer roles in the Army. (I think they may have already been allowed into the Engineers.)
Through personal experience I have come to believe that we should not have mixed gender units in the ADF due to the problems that this causes, removing focus from core roles. However, I recognise that because most civilians have almost completely no understanding of what life in the ADF is like (most recent example – the beat up about the pictures from Iraq) and that the current arrangements area political compromise.
“Traditional men” … would they be a different gender from “actual men”?
From the above description of them, “traditional men” seem to be distinguishable by their inability to think for themselves.
Do women have a greater propensity than men to be able to think for themselves?
And if so, why isn’t this capacity marketable?
Surely, people who can think for themselves ought to be able to demand a higher salary and position of authority than those who can’t.
Razor, why can’t females be snipers? Not many mixed combat unit issues there, In fact, I believe the Israeli army does have female snipers.
Spiros – I’ll address the two points in reverse.
The Israelis and Canadians were the world leaders in gender equity in combat units. The policy in both forces have been unsuccesful for a number of reasons I won’t go into for the sake of brevity and have generaly been heavily scaled back.
I have no doubt that females would make excelent snipers. Snipers are always selected from very good Infantry soldiers. So for a female to become a Sniper, she would need to first be an Infantry soldier, and the problem with that has already been addressed above.
To expand on just one of the problems your proposal raises – what would be the career path for a female sniper once she has finished that job? You don’t stay a Private – Corporal Sniper all your career. Hopefully you get promoted. There isn’t a career path available within the Infantry for a female Non-Commissioned Officer.
Razor is as sharp as a tack on this if I can be blunt!!
Women have outnumbered men in law schools at Uni since 1987.
Thanks BBEP.
Spiros – I forgot to point out that in the Australian Army and interntionally in general – Snipers are a Section (generally the smallest formal organisational group in the Infantry) within an Infantry Battalion. So th mixed gender unit thing is an issue. From WWII throught to post Vietnam the Sniper Section was within an Infantry battalion Headquarters. Now it varies between the Australian Battalions because of there different roles and more organsiational flexibility.
In my experince, many Snipers aspire to being Special Forces.
The israeli defence force is full of women …
They probably have this gender equality thing in the military as sorted as it’s gonna get.
Interesting that this thread on dog-whistling gender equality has focussed only on women in the armed forces – is that all there is to talk about? Howard’s divisive and hypocritical “values” debate is intended to define our difference from “them” but only succeeds in spotlighting his own dismal record.
For example, it it sensible to force single women with young children to work at shitty casual jobs with low pay, long hours, no holidays, and no prospects?
How about the fact that women in the workforce are still paid less than men? Or that working women are unfairly targetted by the tax system?
Or the fact that Australia rates lowest on the OECD ranking on expenditure and investment in early childhood education? Tried to get your kid into childcare or preschool recently?
And what about the commercially driven sexualisation of young girls? Is this what Howard means by respect for women?
Are there enough women with varied backgrounds, ages and interests in parliament, the law, the media after 10 long years of the Howard Government? We are 51% of the population after all. By the way, there is a woman on the High Court – Susan Crenna – but only one.
Part of the problem is that the women in the media who shout so loudly in support of the Howard Government, such as Miranda Devine, Janet Albrechtsen, Angela Shanahan, Bettina Arndt et al, don’t really represent the values of Australian women at large, just the values of the men who pay their salaries and tell them how clever they are.
In fact my intention, Grace, was to shift the focus from Suki’s example to a broader one. Hence the second para of the post.
Grace, Grace, Grace,
I am interested to know of any employment situations that exist where there is a gender element to the pay scale.
Just asking – I thought equal oay for equal work was won a long time ago.
Evidence, evidence, evidence.
Not really much to ask for is it?
Razor
Check the ABS for stats on earning inequality. No there are no longer specifically “female” classifications in awards, but that hasn’t banished pay inequity. If you do a bit of googling it shouldn’t be too difficult to locate information on it and its causes. But I would recommend a perusal of the very comprehensive report which formed the Queensland Government’s submission to the QIRC Pay Equity Inquiry:
http://www.dir.qld.gov.au/industrial/publications/submissions/submissions/qirc/payequity/index.htm
Kim:
Bloody brilliant. But do be careful: calling for Family Impact Statements could put you in breach of the unspecified parts of the Sedition Laws and lead to you being rendered to Macquarie Island or Casey or to other unspecified locations for unspecified actions related to national security. Before they haul you away, thanks to you and to Suki for exposing yet another bit of hypocrisy.
Razor:
I fully appreciate your point of view but disagree with it. There are indeed many serious problems with mixed-gender units but they are not insurmountable ones ((Be quiet you lot in the peanut gallery!)). There are, for instance, generally problems of sheer strength – particularly in Artillery and Engineer units. There are problems, too, of body shape (breasts do seem to be fashionable among ladies these days) which do affect the wearing of standard webbing and equipment; this can degrade the effectiveness of Infantry soldiers. And then there are all the social, moral, cultural, religious, psychological, sexual and disciplinary problems too.
But all of these problems arise because we are talking about trying to make women fit into the existing structures, equipment and doctrine of existing armed forces. Gender equality as such is rather impractical but the active participation of men and women is almost every aspect of military service is not only practical but desirable ((alright, naval and air service too)).
Why not go right back to Square One and take the bold step of designing an Armed Forces from the ground up? An Armed Forces that starts with the assumption that women as well as men will serve in it. That rough design is something I’ve already done just for fun ((couldn’t afford SimCity and the crosswords were too boring)). Such an innovative Armed forces is something I regard as practical but it is likely to alarm traditional officers and senior NCOs who dislike change.
I dislike radical change too …. especially the one that comes when your own armed forces are defeated because they insisted on living in the comfortable past ……
On the gender equity thing, it often comes down to relative valuation of skill, which can be pretty subjective. But performance appraisals in both public and private organisations which rely on them to advance people up pay grades or scope out talent for promotion can also be very subjective. Often this is where the earnings gap comes in for people basically doing the same work. But blatant bias and favouritism is possible with AWAs because of the secrecy provisions.
You said it Grace! It’s all about ‘bring me the money!’.
Just had an odd thought. As it seems the Rumsfelds of our world are more interested in creating a ‘high-tech’ military to take on ‘rogue’ & ‘evil’ States, particularly focusing on ‘tactical nukes’, it’s quite possible that women will play the most important role in the military. Flying a jet & pushing a button that will deaden an area for hundreds of years might be considered as the ultimate expression of equality in the military. Yikes!
To add to what I said before, the same inequity often occurs at the point of selection. In many large organisations you might have a pay band that is as big as 10k with numerous points. Men often negotiate or are offered higher points on the scale when jobs are offered as “54-63k” or whatever.
Mark,
Had a quick glance at the report and it clearly stated that equal pay was not an issue. “Pay Equity” was the issue.
“Pay equity” is very much a case of “lies, damn lies and statistics”. Qualitative judgements on what are comparable occupations and the amount and value of human capital are open to debate.
Tha fact is that, as detailed in the report you pointed me to, equal pay for equal work.
Nasking – females have been pilots in nuclear capable airforce aircraft of various nations for decades and been entrusted with the command responsibility of employing nukes.
As for “deaden an area for hundreds of years” – last time I looked, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving, as are the Monte Belows (?sp) islands, among other places that have been nuked.
Do you know something about quantum leaps in the destructive power of weapons that no one else does?
The ‘deadness’ is at a sub-cellular level…mutations occur within the DNA of humans & other species, like a genetic memory.
Read specifically Chapter 5: Medically Accepted Effects of Radiation on Humans
http://www.country-liberal-party.com/pages/Bob_Varney_Thesis-Ch1-2-3.htm#two
Nasking:
Razor’s partly right – Hiroshima and Nagasaki were rebuilt as thriving cities.
Looks like he was wrong about the long-term harmful effects of exposure to ionizing radiation.
Razor – I used the term “pay equity” not “equal pay”. Though as I demonstrated, it’s possible, and not uncommon, for men to get paid more for the same work.
I disagree with your flippant dismissal of the statistics.
Mark:
Spot-on about Pay Equity.
We’ll call it a draw…:)
Yer spot on Mark.
looks like Kim & the ladies have left us guys to debate & they’ve escaped thru the glass ceiling…
(pinch)…crikey I musta fallen asleep, fancy thinkin’ stuff like that happens under this Government.
Suki says:
âWe can confirm that more than 50% of law graduates are female, yet they do not represent close to 50% of law firm partners, nor judges, nor AGâs.â?
Steve Munn says:
“Yes, Suki, but letâs not be glib about this. It has only been in the last few years that women have gone into law en masse. It will take decades for anything like parity to achieved. In fact, parity will probably never be achieved because significant numbers of women will always choose to put family and child rearing before work. It is also worth noting that in Victoria the state Labor government has promoted almost identical numbers of men and women to the judiciary.”
The people who graduate law NOW are not partners yet. To know whether equality was happening in the work place, you’d have to work out the average age of the partners, and so when (on average) they graduated university, what percentage of the class that year was women, and whether the same percentage of partners are women.
Saying over 50% of graduates are women is disingenuous.
Not that I disagree with the fundamental assertion that there ought to be equality and isn’t, mind you.
Rebekka, as I pointed out above, it was in 1987 that female law students outnumbered males for the first time. Based on 4 to 5 years for a law degree, that means that a majority of law graduates have been women since 1990 or 1991, and most of those graduates would now be in their mid to late 30s.
There are many similar instances where the “pipeline” theory can be shown not to have worked.
Nothing to say really. Just that I appreciate in a nostalgic way this 70s discussion.
Thanks
I was just thinking about ‘The Second Sex’…& Simone De Beauvoir…& what a lucky, & astute man Jean-Paul Satre was…the wakening takes so much out of you…but ultimately the vividness of true colors, the living, the memories…so worth the wait, & the struggle.
Wasn’t saying the pipleine theory HAS worked, was pointing out what you’d have to do to assess whether it has or not.
Also I think the average age of partners in a law firm would still be well over mid-to-late 30s. The ones I’ve seen all appear ancient and crusty.
And there’s an interesting policy piece in New Matilda today on women’s participation in the work force –
http://www.newmatilda.com//policytoolkit/policydetail.asp?NewsletterID=260&PolicyID=511&email=1
Rebekka, in the big law firms now you’re considered a failure if you don’t make partner by mid 30s. Or so I read regularly in the Legal Affairs section of the Fin.
Anyway, the more relevant test would be to look at the current composition of the legal workforce from that age bracket and the relative position of men and women.
Yes, but just because you’re a failure if you *don’t* make partner by then doesn’t mean the average age of partners isn’t still quite a lot older.
But you’re right, the test you suggested is more relevant.
I don’t think we’re disagreeing, Rebekka.
Female lawyers I’ve spoken to point to things like the blokey focus on rugby and drinking, and the closed old boy (literally) networks as big problems. I chatted to one a few years ago who’d specialised in construction law and found out that the newly minted male solicitor she was being asked to train up had been hired on a higher wage than her, despite her six years’ experience. He came from the same school and University college as the dude who hired him.
Anecdotal evidence from my industry
When I graduated more than 50% were women.
By the time I had completed professional qualifications the proportion of women completing the course had dropped to about 30%.
By the time it came to get a practising certificate (which you need to become a partner or set up yourself) there were 2 women in a course of 50. Both of us were setting up our own practices.
Of those that I studied with there is not one single female that made it to partner level in a medium to large firm yet I know a couple quite a few males who have reached that level.
Most of the women I know in the profession can attest to instances during their own careers where they have experienced inequity – the nature of the work given to female is that which is less likely to receive recognition, is less challenging, is less likely to enable to network building etc. I also know of instances where women were being paid less for the same work as the bloke at the next desk was doing.
No, we’re definitely not disagreeing, Mark!