"Women claim Qantas sex bias"

"Qantas has been accused of sex discrimination after sacking 14 female aircraft cleaners and replacing the with male baggage handlers in a restructure that saw no women offered retraining in jobs traditionally done by men." (Sydney Morning Herald in The Weste Australian, Feb 13, 2010).

So it goes on.  Wow, haven't we come a long way in securing equality for women in Australia.  The TWU has loged a complaint with Fair Work Australia on this matter.  This action was made possible by new legislation that has been put in place to support gender equity and address sexual discrimination after an enquiry by a committee invoked by Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard in her role as Workplace Relations Minister.   The status of women in Australia has also been highlighted by  a World Ecomonic Forum report that placed Australia 20th in the world in terms of pay equity (AFR, 10 Nov, 2009).  This same news report stated that there is a gender pay gap of about 17 per cent favouring men for professions at graduate level. An example of the inequity that highlights the gap is in graduate architects.  It was stated that the pay difference in annual salary between men and women at graduate level is $3000. 

The need for such arbitration monitors raises serious issues about the way jobs are linked to tradtional gender roles and the way in which employment for the sexes has been managed.  It has been argued that if a job that is traditionally seen as a woman's domain and men begin to make headway into the profession the status and remuniration of that field will be improved.  However, the reverse occurs when women enter a tradtionally male held field.  In this case salaries and wages are said to decrease along with the status of the profession or job and conditions comensurate with that position (Greer, 1999).

In the case of the Qantas cleaners who lost their jobs, Qantas had reported that the loss of a cleaning contract had required that they let temporary staff go in order to protect the jobs of those permenant employees.  It seems women cop it all over.   Women, more often than men,  occupy more casual, contract and part-time positions. If temporary, contract and casual positions are being axed in favour of permenant employees, it is still a matter of discrimination given that it is more likely for a male to hold a permanent position than a female.  Enforcing and encouraging gender equity would protect the jobs and income of women in similar situations.

Seeking Contributors

I am looking for contributors to this blog.  It is a forum where you can put forward your arguments for gender equality or just comment on a situation you have observed or maybe a book that you have read that has offered an interesting perspective on the gender equality discussion.   The "F" Word is a forum for intelligent, respectful discussion of the issues surrounding gender equality from a non-partisan perspective.  That is, I advocate for the rights of women to particpate fully in society.  I also advocate for the rights of men to fully particpate in society.   I strongly argue that by following traditional gender roles, both men and women are missing out on experiences vital to understanding between the sexes and are denied experiences that can provide a more satisfying and insightful existence.

So, if you would like to contribute contact me at TheFWord@iinet.net.au for conditions of publication on this site. 

I look forward to your contributions.

Just stay in the kitchen, ladies - job aid for women was better in the fifties | Perth Now

Just stay in the kitchen, ladies - job aid for women was better in the fifties Perth Now

A more indepth article in relation to my previous post on women and the workforce

Job-hunting women 'better off 50 years ago'

Job-hunting women 'better off 50 years ago'

There are regular news items being posted regarding the status of women in terms of the barriers to paid employment.

The message that comes from stories like these is that there are actually prohibitive constraints on women participating fully in our society. Anyone who says that we have come a long way in providing conditions for women's full societal participation may be being blind sided. A recent article in the financial review suggests that by not providing conditions inclusive to women's entry into the workforce, corporate Australia is being hampered in receiving the positive benefits of having a workforce with equal gender representation (Australian Financial Review, 19th Jan. 2010) . The interviewee's in this article also suggested that implementing programmes to retain their female employees after absences such as maternity leave, would guard against a knowledge and skill drain which is currently being experienced. Further, one interviewee suggested reintroduction of a quota system may go some way to address the gender imbalance. The reasoning provided was that gender quotas would replace an existing quota system, namely, the boys club. Given these statements, it is in the best interest of corporate Australia to encourage and provide a corporate culture that ensures the inclusion and retention of women in paid employment at high levels. This might be achieved by providing flexible work environments for men and women allowing for sharing of family responsibilities and promoting a culture that supports access to such programmes. Some options that might prove productive are; job-sharing, flexible time tables and work from home options. Addressing the paid employment question needs to be considered in conjunction with the domestic side of things. There is not much point providing conditions for women to participate in paid employment if they are just adding to their burden.

There also needs to be a shift in gender role ideology. To provide full participation in society by men and women the idea of the woman as the home-maker needs to be addressed. Men are just as capable as women in participating equally in domestic affairs. Would you really want to be with a partner who can't take care of themselves. Take for example the ridiculous statements by Mr Tony Abbott earlier this week in his 'housewives do the ironing' statements. Mr Abbot, in a lame attempt to win back some ground after his gaff, suggested that his wife ironed his clothes because, if left to him he would probably not do it. These statements reinforce traditional gender stereotypes that undermine progress in gender equity. He has also insulted men, suggesting that without a domestic supporter (wife) they are incapable of managing themselves. The one thing that has been positive about the remarks Abbott made is that it has created an environment to discuss gender equity attitudes. Do we really consider this man a viable alternative leader of our government?

Gender equity requires disucssion by both men and women in an environment conducive to change. Discussion will help tease out the complexities of issues and provide the ground on which to build positive policies that can benefit both the private and public sphere and both men and woman. The issues surrounding gender equity in our society are complex and require careful consideration and implementation. When a change occurs in one sphere it impacts on another. These considerations need to be taken into account by all parties.

Tony Abbott tells outraged women to cool it on ironing remark | News.com.au

Tony Abbott tells outraged women to cool it on ironing remark News.com.au

For anyone who has not been exposed to the Abbot/Houswives saga, click on the link above.

So I was talking with a man at the pub.......

The man was my partner who sways between pro "gender equity" and anti "feminism". The parentheses around the scare words will become evident as I relay this conversation. I wish that my memory was audio eidetic so i could give you quotes. Suffice it to say my memory is not and so what will follow is a loose portrayal of the conversation I have had with my partner on a number of occasions. The conversation is the one we have most often about feminism and I am pretty sick of it. I will explain why I am sick of it after or through the act of conveying to you the conversation we had. To be fair, I will be asking my partner to have a look over it so I can't be accused of privileging my point of view.



I probably need to lay down some background to this conversation. I am passionate about any type of equality but particularly passionate about gender equality. I often have to define what equality is to people because my idea of it is not shared by many. My feminist views often are received with the same kind of mixed feelings as my ideas about equality. Equality occurs when differences are taken into account in order to provide an even playing field. For example women, being the only sex capable of producing children, need to be provided with certain tools to enable them to participate in society to the same extent as men. That is, women require a different set of conditions to men in order to maintain their political and economic power. Having just read the last few sentences I guess they encapsulate my view of feminism and equality. Equality is the product of social arrangements whereby both sexes are equally represented in conditions that provide their political and economic participation in society. I will elaborate on this argument in later editions of this blog. Given that I have just given a potted definition of equality and feminism I should probably explain the use of "sex" and "gender" in these blogs. Sex is the physiological and biological difference you are born with. Your gender assignment is a social construct that one can either accept or reject. This statement is contentious and probably deserves a complete book devoted to the arguments surrounding it. Again, perhaps a future blog edition will be devoted to it. Back to the conversation I had with my partner.

HE: Look, the problem is that there is so much negative baggage wrapped up in the word feminism. I just think it needs to be changed or nobody is going to listen to you. (This is his main opposition to feminism)

SHE: (I want to say "I see what you're saying" but can't muster it). I have a real problem with what you are saying. Feminism is recognised as a word that encapsulates the view that women and men are treated differently in our society. It brings attention to the plight (hate that word) of women and the issues they face in acquiring economic and political power and equality that is their right.

HE: But what is the point of trying to argue under that banner if the first thing people think of when you say "feminism" is negative?

SHE: If there is that kind of emotion when the "F" word is used there is some kind of recognition that the word means something. Besides, if someone gets their hackles up because the word is used I see it as an opportunity to talk about how I am a feminist and what it means to me. Hopefully this set of circumstances will provide my dialogue partner with some new information and something to think about.

HE: wouldn't it be better to change the name and have a more positive approach.

SHE: I don't think so, the word "feminism" is a way to pay homage to those who came before me to recognise their contribution to the rights I can exercise due to their efforts. I don't see changing the name is a positive move even if another name for what I am arguing for provides a softer more pliable audience. (I want to say "Viva la revolution" but think that might be going a bit far at this point).

The conversation moves around with me saying that I don't think that the banner should be changed and he saying I am fighting a losing battle by using the "F" word as I am alienating my audience before I advance my argument. In that respect, my partner has a valid point. It is difficult to be received neutrally when discussing feminist issues. But I don't think it is because of the banner. I would argue that it is because of the content of the argument. Men I speak to cannot or will not concede that women have drawn the short end of the societal straw simply by virtue of the fact that they are born women. There is no concession for the fact that we have less superannuation, if any, at the end of our working life. Or that the care of children and domestic duties would quite easily be shared under a system where flexible working environments were the norm and provided and expected to be accessed equally by men and women.



The problem with the conversation at the pub is that these kinds of conversations draw you in. As a feminist I want to stand up for feminism. However, I find myself defending it and explaining over and over again that as a political movement, feminism is dynamic. It changes over time. I also have to explain that my agenda is possibly different to the agenda of feminists who have different ideas about what equality is and what their feminism is. This in itself produces strawman arguments that draw one in about feminism being an ununified and therefore unreasonable, emotional and incredible movement (I can see another blog being produced on this subject). Furthermore, I believe fervently that gender equality provides benefits for men. All this explaining is tedious and it detracts from the issues I really want to engage in. Issues like, child care arrangements, education for women, job security, career building, fertility and family planning and a raft of other issues that need to be addressed. So I have made a decision. I will not be drawn into a protracted discussion about the "F" word. I will state my case and endeavour to move the conversation on to more important issues. Perhaps I could direct those who fall into strawman arguments to Dux and Simic (2008) to sort out the detractor arguments from the worthwhile ones. These authors have produced a book that elucidates on other arguments that detract from the real issues. The Great Feminist Denial is a book I recommend to beginner as well as experienced feminists - for a review of this book go to http://www.theage.com.au/news/entertainment/books/book-reviews/the-great-feminist-denial/2008/10/13/1223749917519.html.



More next week or maybe sooner! Become a follower of this blog and share it with you friends.
Thanks for reading.

Mothering is a Feminist Issue

Ok, I can see that this blogging thing is going to start with a possible spurt of enthusiasm. You know how it is, you get a pink and purple spotted car and all of a sudden you see pink and purple spotted cars everywhere you look even though you had never spotted a pink and purple spotted car before you got yours. This is what is happening to me with fem spots!. That is, I see things and think that would go great on my blog. This is just one of them. I hope you enjoy this. I did. Just click on the link below.

Mom 2.0: Defining A Movement

Welcome

The purpose of this blog is to provide commentary on feminist issues in the context of gender equity. That is to say, my feminism is squarely founded on the idea that in a society where gender determines the roles of individuals and groups, people are denied certain privileges and rights. I want to make it clear from the outset that the privilege in society is cast toward men in some cases but also in favour of women in other cases. Through the use of this blog I will endeavour to treat both genders equally. As this is an initial posting I will leave the in depth discussion of gender equity to play out over the time I maintain this blog. My intention will be to post weekly and comment on media reports that highlight gender inequity. However, it is not unreasonable to assume that I will go off on side issues and report or comment on movies, books, music, politics as the mood takes me. However, rest assured, each blog will focus on gender equity.

What expertise do I have in the area of gender equity commentary? Not much. I am a woman which gives me a unique perspective of the issues that have an effect on myself and other women I have contact with. I am a psychology graduate so I have an insight from a social psychological perspective on the effects and affects of stereotyping. My studies also focused on the effect of perception of gender equity and feminist identity within intimate long-term relaitonships. I have also had exposure to "feminist" arguments while engaging in a major in philosophy while undertaking my psychology degree. I am engaged in a long-term intimate relationship and I am a mother. My education has been undertaken recently. This gives me a unique insight into the demands placed on men and women who tackle multiple roles. I am also a student of feminist literature and observer of individuals and of society.

So there it is. I have no formal qualification to comment on these issues but I qualify that statement by stating that these issues impact on me and by extension on my partner and my family. If the issues at hand effect me I guess they effect others. I look forward to my next posting.