Tag Archives: Women

A woman

Posted on by
12

I know a woman in her mid-30s concentrating hard on reconciling herself to a future without children. In forfeiting the path more trodden, she directs her energies to the endless possibilities available through travel. She is relieved at the prospect of entering worlds unknown; of infinite corners up ahead. She never wants to stop turning into them, they are all she has ever known.

I know another woman who spent the bulk of her child-bearing years trying not to get pregnant. She craves a child as the final curtain is lowered on her fertility; uncertain who the victor will be – chance, or the clutch of luck.

I know one woman who finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy. In choosing a termination, she rationalises the biological status of twin blue lines in the context of her body and soul. She also reasons that it is the end of a potential dream in another place and time. She perceives it as the end of potential life. Of something. Of conception. She says she would do it again but thinks the question daft. The present cannot be re-written.

I know a woman who struggles against the odds to cling on to potential life that threatens to slip away along with two blue lines a few short weeks after they first appeared. Hope began before conception. Biological truths mean nothing to her in the context of her body and soul. Of what could be one week; of what might not be the next. The lines disappear the following week.

I know a young woman standing on the precipice of the grown-up world.  She is looking down trying to locate her potential place within it. She casually predicts the number of children she will likely have once she gets the hang of it. Her audience is her best friend who is just as fond of inhabiting the role of clairvoyant to herself.

I know a woman with a young child who points to the luggage under her eyes reminding her of her advanced maternal years. Too advanced to chance a punt on luck for another.

I am all of these women.

“Equality is all in the surname, ladies”

Posted on by
4

So ran the headline on an opinion piece by Barbara Scully  yesterday in response to the ‘news’ that Yvonne Connolly had legally shed her Keating title three years following the split from her husband, Ronan Keating.

One can only speculate, but some practices are demonstrably more personal than political. Just as she chose to change her name originally, the pursuit of gender equality is unlikely to have been the sole motivator in changing it back now, if at all. But sparked a public debate, it did. The ensuing clash of on-line opinions ranged from head-scratching mystification at the thought of ever changing a name; tossing about comprises and re-configurations informed by pragmatism and family practicalities, to the merits of blokes changing theirs. Romance featured in there somewhere, back in the early heady days. Overall, it’s a topic that tends to animate a few folk.

“I got married, not adopted. Of COURSE I didn’t take his name”

This is a common refrain among the particularly shrill participants in the debate. As an exercise in dabbling in logic, it’s impressive. Great strides in comprehension demonstrated there. As a statement with the potential to provoke a beating with a beetroot encrusted kipper, it’s irresistible.

Of course, the commentary wasn’t directed at Yvonne Connolly personally, and like any cultural practice, name-changing should not be immune to some form of periodic collective scrutiny and the obligatory on-line kicking. But horror and high octane gasps veer dangerously close to being as out-dated and inflexible as the charges laid against it.

Citing Iceland’s no-nonsense standardised name-changing traditions, Scully interprets it as an influencing factor in the country emerging as the most gender-balanced nation in the world according to The World Economic Forum Gender Gap Report. The corollary being that if Ireland were to take a similarly uniform approach, greater strides would be made in achieving the elusive goals of gender equality. Presumably, Scully, though she doesn’t elaborate on it, is being more considered than this over-simplification.

It’s not unreasonable to suggest the potential that dropping the habit would have in helping diminish inherited sexist attitudes and erode the disproportionate grip domestic life has on women’s identity, however subtly (or not) these are currently played out. How much is another question. The complexity of cultural norms is such that it would require a longitudinal study in attitudes to capture its impact, and few need more than a basic grasp of economics and politics to understand that equality in Nordic countries hinges on a little more than stringent naming traditions, or whether your fella volunteers to change his. As a weapon to combat sexism and equip women with the confidence and ability to invade the legislative arena, it would be foolish to over-state its reach. It also, worryingly, despite thumbs up to Icelandic and Canadian law, invites an over-reaching arm of the State to meddle in the private affairs of its citizens.

Furthermore, there is the implication that women bear the responsibility for promoting changes in equality, and opting to change their names runs counter to the overarching feminist cause. The one for which there is no actual consensus.

Is that not a little outdated in the *thinks for second* 21st century? Interpreting ‘traditional’ rituals in a contemporary context and soldering a neat link with inequality fails to stack up. Take that logic to its conclusion and we see women who have no-one to blame but themselves. With all the subtlety of a brick, many critics of name-changing view the practice as a direct attack on feminism. By feminists! So they can’t be feminists! Can they?

Well, of course they bloody well can.

The history of feminism is fairly static and indisputable, but the context of it is in a perpetual state of flux. Rifling through issues and holding them up for a good sniffing to reject or accept doesn’t undermine women’s appreciation or recognition of the battle that paved the way for strides in gender equality. But not every contemporary personal decision is a direct action against progressive political policy.

Women aren’t any less equal because they have chosen to change their name, or because they haven’t chosen to abandon ritualistic traditions associated with the wedding ceremony. We live in a Western World where women enjoy the freedom to make choices on which traditions they want to pick and choose, and attach their own personal meanings to them in the process. When it comes to name-changing, one person’s political meaning can’t be superimposed on the personal view of another. These simplistic arguments only serve to debase the meaningful fight for equality.

There’s a striking similarity between what these critics assert, and the claims put forward by more radical elements within feminism. The hyper surety of the dominant force of one innate characteristic, and its apparent ability to undermine all others. That to be truly feminist, women most embody all aspects of feminism, all of the time. How exhausting would that be? You can’t wear a white wedding dress, and fight for equal pay; you can’t freely enjoy traditional expressions of femininity, and attack the exploitation of women’s bodies; you can’t be well-off, and speak out against injustice; you can’t be white, and object to the racist sexism against black women.

You can’t be a Ms. Whatever feminist or a Mrs Whatever-Whatever feminist without signing up to the principles of equality; no more than you can’t be a onesie-wearing make-up free feminist without doing the same. As an argument, it has more aggression than logic, and ignores the fact that is it perfectly acceptable for women to reject absolutisms on issues appropriated by feminism. Issues that have a bearing on their own lives, to be adjudicated on privately. It doesn’t undermine their commitment to equality to do so, or the right of other women to do different. It didn’t prevent me from not changing my name.

The rights of women in Western Europe and those in more conservative and unequal societies are not mutually exclusive. Participation in traditional wedding rituals is not indicative of the subservient conditions women live in; inequality, poverty and social exclusion is. Domestic violence, misogyny and unequal pay transcend naming-practices. Individual women, as women, as feminists, as advocates of equality, as cheese addicts, as name-changers, as Bono-bashers, as dishevelled Wurzel Gummage lookalikes, are not duty bound to carry and exhibit all the apparent tasks of feminism all of the time, or prove their integrity by discarding name changing. Integrity trumps all labels and snooty dismissals of fairly benign practices.

Practically, I get the quiet life appeal of integrated names, but not having experienced any pressure to conform, the thought of changing it never occurred to me. As the bearer of an already inconvenient polysyllabic name, I’m often met with officials’ urgent need to know if I go by it. Well, I often get wench and gobshite, but generally yes. I was delighted when all the Eastern Europeans showed up, and those delightful Africans with their penchant for intricate naming traditions that renders each family member with a different surname. They would give Iceland a run for their newly minted money any day of the week, but they would also give us all a lesson in the dangers of holding too much stock in the correlation between non-patriarchal name-changing and growth in gender equality. That’s probably in The World Economic Forum Gender Gap Report, too. Only in more sober language.

Deconstructing careers

Posted on by
Reply

“Floor five: Subway muggers, aggressive panhandlers, and book critics. Floor six: Right-wing extremists, serial killers, lawyers who appear on television. Floor seven: The media. Sorry, that floor is all filled up. Floor eight: Escaped war criminals, TV evangelists, and the NRA.”

Fans of Woody Allen films will recognise Harry Block (Deconstructing Harry) on his elevator descent into the bowels of hell to reclaim his true love from The Devil (a wicked Billy Crystal). A scene that always gives me a chuckle for its accuracy; even with the glaring omission of global rawk star charity spokespeople, baby manual writers, and Lucinda Creighton.

No matter how potentially inglorious, self-serving, or inherently corrupt certain most sectors are, the status of ‘career’ confers on its membership a quietly understood respect and immunity. “Wait a second! You can’t attack me for moving virtual money around the globe! It’s a career!”

There they go. Those determined folk armed with personal goals, attempting to scale the heights of potential and self-fulfilment, as the rest of us ‘checked-out’ women ‘choose’ to watch on in a supporting role. *needle screeches across record*

Call me a party pooper, but I’m finding all this leaning out, checking in business a tad tedious. Much like the inevitable direction of this post.

Some statements of the obvious:

  • Of course certain jobs are more vital than others, and require specialist training and education. I read about it somewhere (think incubators, coffee grinding etc.)
  • It’s unlikely everyone, given the opportunity, would have the required competencies/flair compatible for training in these roles. Some require a life-time of learning. A stark truth I learned when thrown out of NASA.
  • The pursuit of personal potential, self-fulfillment, and some degree of job satisfaction is universal. Otherwise what is the point of living, or enduring school for all those years; particularly sacramental preparation.
  • Ambition and drive aren’t dirty words, unless it’s the first day of the January sales.
  • Women are under-represented in ‘traditionally’ male sectors, their absence keenly felt in the boardroom, and efforts to redress this are fair game. It’s all the rage.

I’m not talking about the priesthood here either (Floor six? OK, seven it is). Those chaps reside in the untouchable category of ‘vocation’, transcending all careers; puzzlingly overtaking saints serving curry chips to incoherent drunks at 3am, and the fairies who lovingly assemble Reese’s peanut cups. But that’s life, that’s what all the people say. Besides, women can’t sign-up unless they defect to the other side. And they must be chosen by God for that particular gig anyway.

Rumour has it he also chooses teachers, nurses, social workers, and community workers. And they’re mostly women. At least one of those groups is more flattered by the gift of poverty. The Big Man chose effective unions to come to the aid of the others. Other lesser spotted beatitudes: Blessed are the state vocations, for they shall inherent the airwaves. A few more bullet points:

  • The national obsession with third level as the only proven pathway to a ‘career’ shows no sign of losing steam.
  • Time was, careers were confined to medicine, teaching, law, some manly areas of engineering, medjia, the odd scientist, the Rose of Tralee, maybe one economist, the person who rang the Angelus bells on TV, the ESB, funeral director, minister of the eucharist, accountants, and an assortment of civil servants. It’s safe to say, they were a bit of a mixed ability group, too. And still are. Not unlike my own fellow lobotomists. Only last week, one of them removed an ear by mistake.
  • Traditional areas of vocational training and on-the-job courses continue to be brought under the sphere of university influence and learning with the knock-on effect of raising entry criteria. We’re all about the National Framework these days. Which requires a proliferation of universities, and the slide of same in league tables. Remember when nurses didn’t require a degree; and corporate finance wasn’t the global bastard it is today. And 15 to One would be on after Sons and Daughters. Ah, they were the days.
  • Credit should also be given to Benchmarking and the sterling work of unions for tripling the number of careers, and single-handedly sustaining the clip-board industry.
  • That said, it’s unlikely there will ever be enough to go around everyone.
  • Access to third level education remains inherently biased and discriminatory for reasons that don’t need to be spelled out here. Do they?

The last load:

  • Large sections of mothers comprise the paid workforce. You might’ve read about it. They generously allowed the married ones back in after 1974. Thumbs up to Europe for the wrap on the knuckles for that. Although if you were a teacher, you received a special dispensation. And if you were from the Gaeltacht, ever further dispensation with a lowering of entry level requirements to the ‘profession’. Ahem.
  • Middle class fathers and mothers are underrepresented in the paid service, retail, and caring sectors. These are propped up by low-paid women, and the least lucrative areas of work offering fewer opportunities for advancement, or fairness.
  • ‘Choice’ of job or career is not a luxury available to many of them.

The mother on maternity leave from a ‘career’, and the mother  on maternity leave from a ‘job’, share the same aspirations for their children. And, in the main, dedicate themselves to improving their family’s circumstances by whatever means possible, striving to offer them secure futures laid out with opportunities for better lives than they had.

To attempt to crudely capture their efforts at achieving this through limiting one-liners around ‘choice’ and ‘leaning in’, or ‘checking out’, is symptomatic of the rise in creepy magazine-article friendly soundbites shaping a mainstream narrative that tears the rug out from under the complexities of every mother’s hopes and visions.

Bullshit, in short.

The latest phrases to box off a diversity of mothers by their assumed ‘choice’; judge their attitude to self-fulfilment, and the parking or pursuit of their potential. It implicitly filters the assessment of their job-worth through the contribution it makes to the world of work, not the actual world (two subtly but significantly different things conflated to further distort perceptions of the value of careers versus jobs, and partly why child-rearing/caring is excluded). It homogenises women, and their psychological bandwidth; and reduces the multiple determinants of women’s progression in the workplace, and by extension – life, down to a zippy strap-line on a book cover. Is this where we’re at? Oh go on then, insert some handwringing here.

All this without regard to the right of all mothers to compete for a career, or enter pathways to better education, and release their untapped potential.

At times, it’s impossible to interpret current discussions as anything other than being primarily concerned with safeguarding the careers of women already in possession of them. Consideration of the right to a work-career continuum that serves all mothers from every socio-economic background is drowned out by the premium attached to glass ceilings and boardroom pews. A career appears to be a predetermined right hinging on pre-existing conditions to access them. The preserve of a certain section of us.

suits

Sean forgot it was St. Patrick’s Day. He hoped this wouldn’t affect his promotional prospects.

The stench of silence around inequality of access to the labour market and higher education amid feverish talk of ceilings and boardroom imbalances, contributes to maintaining the status quo. That’s not to suggest the latter shouldn’t be fought for. It’s just that those women whose potential and aspirations never get to leave the starting blocks don’t have access to the airwaves or the argument. So they depend on those who do to acknowledge them, at best. There are enough obstacles.That’s not an unreasonable request; it’s a responsibility, and surely middle class sensibilities can stretch to it. Except yours Sandberg, obviously.

Crude self-satisfying conclusion

Career or job. Yeah, whatever. Either one is a reliable measure of hard work, a sound work ethic, and efficient results. The value and effort required for one downplayed, the other colonised and re-packaged by go-getting corporate ambassadors to sell back to us an even more crude version of it.

No thanks. I’m choosing to check out of that one. I might even make a career out of it.

Happy Mothers Day.

*presses number 9 in the elevator*

Discussions that don’t matter shit to working class women in Ireland today

Posted on by
4

1. Gender quotas

Be it on to state boards or corporate boards. Elevating white, educated, relatively privileged women to positions of power and influence isn’t really going to have much of a revolutionary impact. Unless the reasons for the current imbalance includes a sober squaring up to reasons for the lack of diversity in the level below i.e. equality in the broadest sense.

2. The dilemma of hanging on to a ‘career’ after having children

The prevailing narrative is concerned with the assumed entitlement to hang on to a career, with the ever-so-subtle understanding that it is more important, worthy work; therefore a no-brainer. Buoyed up on a third level education and therefore invested with more meaning, the safeguarding of one’s career is a priority. Threats to this include the risk of “having to undertake low-skilled work” and the understanding that these women shouldn’t have to do this. Presumably this is for other women to undertake instead, without any of their fanciful notions of pursuing their personal aspirations for improvement or access to the high table of success considered a right or a fight in the mix.

3. The consensus on the apparent elimination of discrimination, misogyny or sexism in the workplace or society

White middle class workplaces tend to have a considerably lower tolerance for that these days. They also have more effective recourse to action and protection, if it does arise. Just because other white middle class women don’t experience it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. Some of my friends’ friends are black and working class. Ghastly. More rioja?

4. The right to funded childcare services for the purposes of returning to employment only 

Creche care and childminding support is also an integral component in the support apparatus women depend on to return to education to enable them broaden their employment and well-being prospects. And maybe one day attend that conference on gender quotas. That’s without due consideration to the incompatibility of current provision with the haphazard unsociable hours within the services industry that many have no choice but to work in.

5. The revolutionary impact of social media

When it is predominantly concerned with narrow discussions around points 1 – 4, and a platform for selective research findings that support the portrayal of white middle class mothers as the most put-upon group of women in Ireland , it’s hardly surprising.

Mná na hÉireann: Súil eile

Posted on by
Reply

turf cutting

Pinkpanther

50 year old woman from Dublin. Hi. Looking for love. Isn’t everyone. I would like to meet that special woman. between 40 to 55 years old in the dublin area ireland and that the lady is a nondrinker also . not interested in women who drinks. Females only.

Rafe58

Hi I am honest, genuine, caring, very easy going with good sense of humour. I like to socialize but I also like nights in, I am comfortable with who I am and like my own company at times.I would like to meet someone who is somewhat like me.I like a woman to look like a woman so no butch please. (I am Gay no men, I wont respond and you will be blocked)

Tall Protestant Lady

Likes things nice with a lot of TLC WLTM same type Gentleman. Lady likes man to be 5’10 – 6ft, 63 – 68, NS, no ties.

Reserved Lady

Kind and respectable, 63 years. Would like to meet gentleman with similar qualities for long-term friendship.

Widow, no ties

No ties retired professional. Age 73, 5 ft tall. Slim and attractive. Good sense of humour. Would like to meet an attractive, nice gentleman for outings, foreign holidays etc. Likes theatre, cinema, music, meals out and in and walks along the beach.

Christian Lady

Overweight, sincere. WLTM Christian gentleman aged 53 and over for love and marriage.

Hey there

49 year old female looking for a male aged 40 – 50. I’m a country girl at heart, and I live in a little house at the edge of a deep, dark wood. There’s nothing wrong with the city for a visit, but I wouldn’t like to live there. I like good books, good movies, good conversation – I enjoy the odd meal or night out, but my pubbing and clubbing days are well behind me. Marital status: separated. Education:degree. Children: 3.

Alexil

Professional woman, loves to laugh, black sense of humour. Enjoys good conversation, good company, and the simple things in life. Age: 45. Marital status: divorced. Children: 2

Marbrid02

69 year old female looking for a male aged 50 – 75. I’m an energetic, happy, good-humoured single female who would like to meet “youthful” male of similar disposition and qualities. Life is good but would be better if shared with someone who likes to travel, walk, dance, holiday at home and abroad, who enjoys the theatre and all the finer and lighter things in life. Marital status: never married. Children: none.

Aroma

52 year old female looking for a male aged 47 – 54. I am a loving, trustworthy woman. I am looking for a man with a decent sense of life. Key words: chatting, music, reading, cooking, eating out. Marital status: separated. Occupation: retired.

Samantha, 54

Been without a steady man in my life for several months. Not looking anything serious, just a bit of fun and naughtiness. Not interested in anyone who is in a relationship, as have strong feelings about cheats. So if you are unattached and up for a good time, get in touch. Discreet relationships and One night stands. Interests: Dogging, Oral – receiving, Oral – giving, Anal, Role Playing and Voyeurism.

Joanne, 52

I would like to meet non smoking men between the ages of 36 and 45 You must have a full head of dark hair that means no baldies/crew cuts/shaved heads or greying/receding/white or red haired men. You must also have no facial hair. What I really want to meet is Tall (I won’t meet anybody below 5ft 7 and won’t go above 6’1) dark and handsome with a nice slim body. You must enjoy being with the older female and accept that I have to like what I see when you send me a picture. YOU MUST send me a RECENT face picture if you respond to my profile. One other thing men covered in tattoos do nothing for me (sorry guys) a few discreet tattoos are fine. I am also not into guys with one or two or any piercings at all. I will not just shag you because you sent me a few emails and a RECENT picture. I like to take my time to get to know you first using the likes of Skype messenger, if the chemistry is not there then sorry we won’t ever be meeting. I am not interested in guys from Scotland.

Frances, 49

Dont really know what to write on here but hey here goes, normal kinda woman from belfast, im single and thought id give it a go on here, im looking to have some fun, but nothing serious im not into long term relationships at all, far to messy for me, i like my life the way it is. xx

Sources: All genuine adverts posted by Irish women in the following: Spark, Belfast Telegraph, Marital Affair, Mingle, Dating4u

This woman’s work

Posted on by
6

Work eh. Who’d be bothered. And don’t give me that women-can-do-anything routine with a tampon ad voiceover quality to your enthusiasm. That’s all fine and dandy until you hit your forties when you just want to put your feet up and whinge about what you could’ve been if only you had gotten off your arse on time. But as a mother (not merely a lowly ‘parent’) to a female member of the species, I’m morally contracted to keep up this Lean In On Me routine till she finds out about the ways of world for herself. (Future awkward conversations.. “Well, you fell for Santa, and the Tooth Fairy, and *scratches back of head* I just sort of lost of the run of myself after that. You did drink milk from those things lying at my feet though.”)

I’m not allowed to admit to anyone that I hope she gives university a wide berth unless she’s planning on becoming an astrophysicist, or enters well after she’s left her teens behind her. I once shared a house with an astrophysicist and distinctly remember indignantly remarking “I don’t remember seeing that on the prospectus” as if the sector was robbed of my scientific genius. That was after he regaled me with tales of chasing brown dwarfs around space, and before one of my mates chimed in to ask if he could read star signs.

Some other things not in the prospectus I hope she discovers…

  • A healthy scepticism towards third-level education: whether it’s the only route available to what she wants to do with her life, while recognising the value and privilege of education for its own sake; not just a route to work, or an entitlement to work based solely on it. Graduates are a mixed ability group like any other. Look around your office. Actually, just look at your management.
  • Be suspicious of folk who define themselves by the letters trailing their name. They haven’t done enough waitressing to know what a knob they sound like, or what the application of ‘interpersonal skills’ really means.
  • Wanting to do something ordinary is OK. That’s what the majority folk end up being as they contend with modern life. Except those people who make the buns in our local bakery, and Enya. But if doing battle with the piped cream, or wandering round naked in a field on the grounds of a castle howling at the moon isn’t her thing, that’s OK. Every modest job contributes to making our world spin.
  • She doesn’t have to fly to the moon, gesticulate weirdly in an ill-fitting power suit in a boardroom; cream her knickers discussing Sheryl Sandberg at her book club, or facilitate unethical financial transactions over obscenely priced lunches with people looking rougher than the photo accompanying their inflated Linkedn profiles, to break the gender mould. She can also build beautiful walls, thatch cottages, repair car engines, or be a real hero and fix washing machines. Plumbers are the unrecognised feminists of this world after all. The world will always need plumbers. Most jobs with an element of manual labour are extraordinary.
  • A job is not guaranteed for life. Anyone with that expectation is divorced from the real world.
  • If it all goes to shit and she needs to bow out of the mainstream workforce for whatever reason – that’s OK. Generations before her fought hard for workers’ rights. The right to sick pay, the right to get well. The right not be ashamed for being human.
  • Chances are everyone is under some degree of stress. Comparing your own work stresses to others is futile and, if you’re a teacher, will only win you a few headbutts. Remember that in the modern age, the union representative is the message. And most sectors of hardworking people don’t have a union to negotiate conditions or fight with Matt Cooper on Thursday evenings while she wonders what’s in the fridge for dinner.
  • Not to worry if she’s exhausted by the ‘professional’ persona she strives to cultivate or the bizarre ‘professional’ persona of others that appears at odds with their regular personalities. Work is all about suspending disbelief and leaving your normal personality at the door. Just remember to pick it up on the way out.
  • Life isn’t fair and until there is a universal definition of what constitutes worthy work, the wealth from work will continue to be distributed unevenly, with or without an education.
  • The composition of discussion panels in the media regarding the status of women in the workplace is usually skewed in favour of middle class women and their corresponding problems. Valid and relevant though they are, and she might well be one of them, if she filters the same problems through a person with half the wage, and a quarter of the opportunities, it’ll aid perspective.
  • Email read receipts are unnecessary and the scourge of the instant gratification generation. Ignore them.
  • That reminds me. Folk who will pride themselves in pointing out her grammar or spelling mistakes are just working through their feelings of guilt  and shame around masturbation.
  • It’s only work.

wall

A barrier to women in the workplace

On Ireland and gender quotas

Posted on by
Reply

From the usual rotation crop of controversial issues, it was the return of gender quotas for petri dish analysis last night on Prime Time. When I heard the topic advertised, I turned to my fella who was already wondering how he could delicately extricate himself from the room without making it too obvious. That’s what the bathroom in our house is for: a safe passageway from another debate on wimmin. Or rather my participation in the debate with comments audible to no-one other than myself. I made him wait to see if I was right in my predictions that the panel would likely comprise a fairly homogeneous group of women in terms of class, ethnicity, and success. Guess what? He went to the kitchen. I don’t always get it right.

The host was joined by two business women, one barrister, and a politician. Presumably they represented not just the divided views on the merits of quotas, or the savvy articulate Irish woman, but the broad interests and experiences of women in terms of the barriers encountered and the rounded view their respective positions as well as life experience affords them. So far, so run-of-the-mill.

Consideration was given to the need for interventionist gender quotas to re-boot the political system and encourage participation from women in politics and the board room. Those in favour (the politician and one business owner) cited the successes in Scandinavia and the political imperative to build a government reflective of the people it represents. Counter arguments from the other two panelists (the barrister and another business owner) challenged the assumed successes in Scandinavia, and pointed to the risk of undermining women by accelerating them into positions and systems for which they are not adequately experienced, and so on. All were unanimous in recognising the need for better childcare to create and sustain the family conditions necessary to help women overcome the barriers to participation in the boardroom and the ballot paper.

Like the elusive representative government that will unlikely exist in my life time, it would be impossible for a discussion panel to be wholly representative of the gender group being discussed. But at some point during the discussion, it was not unreasonable to expect someone to pick up on the mention of qualifications strewn throughout like conversational confetti. Ireland may have an impressive number of women with a third level qualification, but its record in supporting women in working class and low-income families into third level education is abysmal, and they are still heavily disadvantaged and excluded from getting on a rung on the ladder where the issues of childcare and family supports are the only issues that matter. If we’re serious about mobilising a diversity of women into the boardroom, then that must include commitment to paving their way into the higher education classroom, whether as young students or mature return learners. ‘Career’ and choice can’t be the preserve of those with letters already trailing their name.

Additionally, the near obsessional over-emphasis on those qualifications in Ireland as a benchmark for ability and experience further compounds the status quo for women on the margins, and for those whose qualifications have gone past their sell-by date through participation in the home. Talk of women’s qualifications speaking for themselves is all very laudable, but it is not representative of the reality of a vast majority of women. The higher educational and class biases within these debates often serves to erode the quality of them. And the neat equation of qualification equaling the right to – and the demand for – employment, with little value placed on education for its own sake is worryingly Tory.

In highlighting the risks of appointing women beyond their capability, the barrister panelist pointed to the new Arts Minister, Heather Humphries, as someone inexperienced who came into office on the back of preferential treatment based on apparent gender and geographical factors. And it shows. I couldn’t help but feel Humphries must have surely been hanging her head in defeat knowing that the only person present to defend her appointment was her colleague, Mary Mitchell O’Connor. An elected representative who proves that irrespective of quotas, the electorate are not to be trusted.

Perhaps Ivana Bacik was already booked last night, but given she has been driving legislation on gender quotas, her input would’ve been timely. Whether or not the audience agreed with her, at least she would’ve been relied on to broaden the discussion to highlight the need for other critical supports necessary for the participation of women in politics as well as childcare etc. Because politics is not the preserve of ballot seekers or political parties, it belongs to all citizens in common. Jump-starting women’s politicisation begins in schools, where politics and philosophy occupies minimal curriculum time, if at all. Another missed opportunity to cite the inarguable strides made in Scandinavia. Political reforms don’t happen in a vacuum. It is no accident that gender equality there is head and shoulders above its European neighbours. They have a systematic approach to citizen engagement with the inclusion of critical thinking from a young age upwards.  Building maturity takes investment and effort. Ireland lags embarrassingly behind on many fronts.

Pathways to politics no longer rely exclusively on higher education, though those in office have traditionally emerged from places of privilege. In drawing gasps at the mere suggestion of quotas, the amnesia concerning our long tradition of tinkering with democracy through political family dynasties never fails to amuse.  Perhaps it informs the resistance towards them from some.

Whatever one’s view on quotas, meaningful civic democratic politics are built from the ground up through effective consultation with women, open debate in which policies and issues concerning them are rigorously scrutinised and torn apart to flush out the range of competing views as diverse as women themselves. Add to this, community development programmes and empowering leadership opportunities that seek to inform and support the participation of women from all backgrounds in politics and ensure the labours of working class women undertaking critical work on the ground in their communities are converted into a place in public debate in the round. Women whose political labour is often invisible, unpaid but heavily depended on, or insecure, underpaid, and a form of employment in a sector subject to the most catastrophic funding cuts.  Severing commitment to grassroots political participation guarantees the further exclusion of swathes of women from having their voices heard and assuming their rightful place at the high table of decision-making. Whether that is as an elected representative, or not.

Gender quotas – always worthy of debate, but a more rounded discussion would be worthy of refraining from shouting at the TV for. There’s only so many times my fella can read the paper.

Study: Women with more cardigans are more productive at work

Posted on by
5

A word of encouragement for any wool-loving working woman: You are actually more productive than your cardigan-less peers.

That’s the conclusion of a recent study from Leitrim Credit Union, which found that over a 30-year career, cardigan-wearing women outperformed women without cardigans at almost every stage of the game. In fact, women with at least two cardigans were the most productive of all. This comes on the back of a similar study reported in the Washington Post earlier this week.

Here’s how the researchers (all cashmere lovers, by the way) came up with those results: They wanted to understand the impact of wearing cardigans on middle-lower skilled women, but their work is often just too easy to quantify. How do you determine the negligibly greater productivity of a cash teller or a toll-booth operator or a fast-fast counter worker?

They decided to ignore the amount of research published by more than oh… a gazillion academics on the glaring fact that women occupy the majority of lower-skilled, lower-paid work in the market force, which is more than enough for a proxy for their performance. A job in the lowly houses of the service industries requires straight forward, frequently hard graft by definition, and their work and contribution to the economy is easily measured.

The results were surprising. For men, owners of one cardigan and those with none performed similarly through their careers. But men with two or more cardigans were more productive than both groups.

The effect for women was even more dramatic. Using their own method for remembering when they wore a cardigan, the authors found that within the first five or so years of their jobs, women who never wore cardigans substantially underperform those who do. (The difference in productivity between women with one cardigan and those with no cardigans is more muted using a different ranking for research. But in both cases, women with at least two cardigans perform the best.).

It’s important to point out that the authors are examining a very wide group of women with under-privileged circumstances. A more satisfying job was probably the aspiration of many, with benefits such as the freedom to wear more fashionable clothes, and participate in highly skewed and biased research based on self-selection methodologies. They could probably afford better quality cardigans therefore requiring less layers. Privileged workers often face a warmer working environment.

Even so, the results feel counterintuitive for any cardigan-wearing woman (re: all of them) who has drowned herself in layers to fight off the cold she can’t get rid of because she can’t afford a visit to her GP. Or struggled to pay attention to another dissatisfied customer barking orders whilst drunk. Or snuck out for a fag.

Having cardigans that don’t close do take a toll on work. The paper found that there is a 0.5 to 0.75 per cent drop in productivity among women with non-closing cardigans. For those with warmer, button-up cardigans, there will be a 1.0 per cent drop in productivity after the first three hours of a work shift, having a second cardigan reduces that to .05 per cent and a third cardigan will restore productivity to full capacity.

A less productive woman in the labour force

In other words, not wearing three cardigans will result in a negligible loss in productivity on average, the equivalent of one less customer service call taken in any single shift.

But as any shift worker knows, the days are long and the alphabet has 26 letters. You may have read about it elsewhere. Cardigan-wearing women tend to go to work just like non-cardigan wearing women. When that work is smoothed out over the course of a career, they are likely to be as diverse a group as any other with corresponding levels of productivity. The report neglected to find this other statement of the bloody obvious.

But does this really matter? The takeaway here is that a sensationalist headline can be generated from an impressively sounding piece of research buoyed up by self-selection and a host of other biases. And the purported winners can wear it with pride.

Ova simplifying things

Posted on by
7

Twenty years ago as my twenties shifted into second gear, I gradually found myself the receptacle for sharp intakes of breath at the state of my finances. My eyebrows. My employment prospects. My singlehood. My doublehood. My hair. My ovaries. My leek and pasta bake.

“Make the Credit Union your friend”.

“Have you thought about waxing?”

“Don’t knock the Public Service”

“Have a bit of fun, you’re too young to think about settling down”

“You’re not serious about him, are ya?”

“What did you ask the hairdresser for? A Herman Monster cut?”

“Don’t leave it too late”

“You’ve loads of time”

“That is delicious”

I had only asked these people whether they wanted a cuppa tea. But life is never that straight forward.

Reading some of the commentary in the aftermath of the US corporate offer to keep female employee eggs on ice, one would be tempted to conclude otherwise.

Mechanisms for media commentary are generally set up in favour of polemics, so there was the predictable rush to panels with contributors enthusiastically for, or adamantly against, the proposal. Nothing wrong with this; every “much needed debate” needs a starting point. When I first heard the announcement, my first thought was “wankers” as I worked up an appetite for the ensuing discussion.

The problem with a much needed debate is that everyone tends to have their own terms of reference for what that should be. Inevitably, the dominant strains of consensus wrestled one another to present the “greatest disservice to women”. Given their vantage point, the loudest voices tended to come from those already with children.

There was much level-headed concern regarding the messages the ‘perk’ was sending out on the status of women in the workplace; the inadvertent pressure; the need for employer measures to combat inequality through more equitable parental leave, and corresponding work/life balance supports. Cogent arguments in favour of assisted conception were forwarded by women who “for various reasons” are not in a position to start a family. Insurance measures, however unreliable, are nothing to be sniffed at, or a rule of compliance.

Between the jigs and the reeling, the “various reasons” were neatly stacked up in the shape of a greasy pole for which women are deferring family life in order to have a crack at climbing. From what I could gather, the biggest disservice to women is the attempt to prop up the myth that their fertility is safe under the sphere of human intervention. Oh and women are not sufficiently supported to have children in their prime.

I don’t doubt these career-climbing compromisers exist. I rarely meet them, if ever. But then I don’t tend to move in corporate circles. Even so, most of my band of contemporaries would likely be considered relatively successful, somewhat driven, with a college education and some semblance of a career behind them. Or at least a failed one, or the slowly dying embers of a fantasy of one. Most of them broke, many bitter. All overworked regardless of ambition.

Women are wise to implore their peers to become attuned to their bodies and the sobering realities of decline in fertility, but is this really instructive? Do women not draw their own conclusions? And for how many are the warnings relevant? Far from exploring the “various reasons” women “delay” having a family, we’re given the “career” as a shorthand answer, with the idea of “delay” freighted with the assumption of choice.

Having starred down the barrel of childlessness in my late 30s along with many of my peers, I can’t help but feel the biggest disservice to women is buoying up the myth of the go-getting woman forever hedging her fertility bets, therefore masking the topsy-turvy complexities of her life in the prime of child-bearing years as it is actually lived. Formulae rarely apply.

Kate Spicer attempted to shine a light on this during the debate with Sarah Carey and Kathryn Thomas on Friday night’s Late Late Show. The main weaponry she had in her artillery was a quiet philosophical sense of regret, a succinct reference to the instability of modern relationships, and a pair of shrugged shoulders. These don’t make for raging debate, but they do define the silenced reality for many women who find themselves the receptacles for a great deal of warnings of which they are acutely aware.

Mainstream media is flooded with profiles of challenges to fertility and the personal journeys of couples on the turbulent road to IVF, adoption and so on. Rightly so; they’re important, they’re common. But there’s a distinct stench of silence around the legacy of childlessness pervading the lives of many women in their 40s who desired another outcome but didn’t get there for failure of a relationship. Or having their confidence or financial security pulled out from under them, and umpteen other unanticipated collisions along the firmament. The complexity of women’s lives doesn’t square with the narrow commentary of the go-getting careerist. It’s a pity so much of their experience is silent but where would the women start to articulate their loss, to whom, and how? Theirs is the quietest voice in the room. Add to this the number of women who sought abortions in their earlier years and a further dimension may potentially have relevance. Or not. We don’t know.

In an era when the realities of mental health awareness are no longer fresh, in a world where we’re heading towards one in four women being childless, with many more confronting that prospect, it’s not possible to reconcile women’s fertility with the threat of decline. Or the pros and cons of engineered conception. Or the introduction of more family friendly incentives. It demands another reality check and support of a different character. It’s a much needed debate.