“As I’ve just told @alicetiara, the comments on any article about feminism justify feminism. That is Lewis’s Law.”

A recent article entitled, “Donglegate: Why the Tech Community Hates Feminism” referenced Lewis’ Law, which is explained above.  What do people think?

Also, I really hope the article linked above is mistaken about the increased popularity of MRAs.

Also also, Lewis’ Law, if sound, definitely applies to the article linked above.

A girl stands next to a herd of cattle, often given as dowry for child marriage, in Bor, the capital of Jonglei in South Sudan. By Getty Images for HRW.

While this may sound unnecessarily provocative, there aren’t many things left in the world that are clearly wrong – or at least, clearly wrong to everyone.

Take, for example, the Supreme Court’s current deliberation over possibly (hopefully) mandating national marriage equality. The majority of the U.S. population is in favor of it, but there are certainly many who, for religious reasons or otherwise, don’t see the current inequality as unethical. Likewise, in the world of finance, Jamie Dimon and JPMorgan Chase are under fire for corruption and lying to federal investigators about their knowledge of Bernie Madoff’s crimes. Again, it seems clearly immoral, but a hardline capitalist purist may tell you that corruption is a part of the system and, while unjust, is inevitable.

From equal marital rights to financial regulation, even to wars with a clear aggressor or social policies that appear outdated and harmful, there is an “other side,” even if from your perspective that side seems blatantly wrong.

That’s why it’s jarring when the rare instance arises where both sides see an issue as clearly unethical and wrong but nothing is done.

“You will marry this old man whether you like it or not because he has given us something to eat,” Aguet’s uncle told her according to a recent report by Human Rights Watch.

When 15-year-old Aguet from South Sudan was forced into a marriage with a 75-year-old man it was in exchange for 80 cows. In a country where average annual income hovers around $1000 USD, according to World Bank, and a single cow can be worth between $50 and $500 USD, there’s enormous incentive to sell your daughter.

Forced child marriages are still the way out of abject poverty for struggling families in South Sudan because of the perverse dowry system. 48% of girls between 15-19 in South Sudan are married and some are married off at as young as 12.

When the livestock offers come in, the girls are sold.

Historically, in most countries, the bride’s family has provided dowries. Even in the United States, not long ago, it was typical for the bride’s family to pay for the entire wedding. Yet the system in South Sudan, which has older men essentially buying off young girls, takes away their ability to get an education, contributes to domestic violence, marital rape, and a general lack of say in their life whatsoever.

There’s no specific reason for the reversal of roles in who gives the dowry, but it’s mainly a function of rural setting. Outside of Juba, the capital, women are unable to find jobs, as the only ones available are in agriculture, and thus their contribution to their family comes once they’re exchanged for a dowry.

I would posit that in South Sudan, dowries are the single most important, changeable factor in destroying gender equality and women’s lives.

Neither party really benefits from the system. Women lose say in their lives often before they’re adults, and it forces many men to go into debt or steal cattle to get married.

The South Sudanese government should create initiatives in communities to facilitate either the doing away with dowries entirely or the need for more thorough consultation between marrying parties. Speaking about marriage outside the terms of dowry would give women a say in their future whilst allowing poorer men to get married without needing to steal or go into debt.

It’s not a simple solution. There would have to be a large amount of funding for these initiatives and some convincing would have to be done. But it is changeable. And everyone can agree it’s wrong.

A version of this opinion article first appeared in Washington Square News, in print and online at nyunews.com

Female. Genital. Mutilation.

a.k.a. female circumcision. I won’t bother with a full description of what it entails, as most of that information (and to be fair the views on this post) will be readily available on wiki. After reading a description, i’m sure all the women reading this will be crossing their legs and thanking their respective Higher Powers for being born in a modern or forward-looking culture.

You may start to question the very concept of cultural practices when you realise such a ritual exists. It is widely known and accepted, albeit very unfortunate, that girls in developing countries are married young, poorly educated and forced into early motherhood. However, I believe that FGM is the worst part of this social convention. It subjects girls to the most terrible forms of gender inequality through an act that does ALL harm and NO good. What does the ritual symbolise?

• It symbolises the inferiority of Women and their duty to conform to their patriarch’s ideologies in all circumstances.
• It represents a hypocrisy regarding sexual behaviour, whereby women should fear intimacy. It is seen as a prevention of premarital sex in communities where rape and abuse is all but uncommon.
• It suggests it is acceptable for women’s health and lives to be compromised at the expense of cultural ideals.

At 8 years old, I was playing with my Barbie doll. At 10, I was studying to get into Grammar School. At 12, I met some of my best friends. At the same time, another 8 year old was having her clitoris publicly slit. At 10, she was married. At 12, she more than likely died in childbirth.

The purpose of this post was for awareness. Please take the time to read http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/ for a better explanation of what FGM entails and represents.
Over and out.

Peter Sagan, the Slovakian Road Race Champion who rides for Cannondale, already has a long list of achievements at the age of just twenty-three. After a lot of expectation leading into the Spring Classics campaign, he has already delivered a win at Gent-Wevelgem, a stage win at the Three Days of De Panne and come runner-up in Milan-Sanremo, E3 Harelbeke and now at the Tour of Flanders. Since Sunday, however, the press has been talking about him for all the wrong reasons.

I’m talking about this:

Peter Sagan’s severe error of judgement.

I saw this image  shortly after the race on Twitter, posted by @TourDeJose, showing Peter Sagan pinching the bum of model Maja Leye, as she followed what I find to be an increasingly awkward tradition of professional cycling, by awarding the winner with a kiss on the cheek. More on that in a moment.

I’m putting my hands up, and am ashamed to say that my initial reaction was laughter at the sheer audacity of it.

On reflection it became clear that my reaction, like Sagan’s decision making, hadn’t been thought through. Perhaps both of us were still caught up in the excitement of the race, but in retrospect no excuses can be offered, only apologies. Quickly, there was widespread uproar on Twitter in particular and Sagan later issued an apology in a video posted on Facebook.

His behaviour was clearly unacceptable for a number of reasons that don’t need much elaboration, including the disrespect shown for women as well as the fact that he is a role model and a representative of his team’s sponsors.

Bum-pinch-gate is symptomatic of a problem endemic to cycling and sport in general – gender inequality. In typical fashion, so much coverage was given to the men’s race and yet you could easily be forgiven for having missed Mariane Vos, arguably the best cyclist male or female to have lived, storming to victory in the Women’s race, held earlier on the same day.

The image got me thinking. Sagan’s pinch was wholly inappropriate. But really I feel that the presence of the podium girls on stage is too. That tradition has long been part and parcel of bike racing, a kiss on the cheek being reward after hours of hardship on the road. But like a lot of other traditions in cycling, just because it’s tradition, it doesn’t mean that it’s a good thing. Yes. Doping. Exactly. The latter is something I confidently tell people that cycling is finally, and more certainly than before, moving on from. But the notion of podium girls, as with cycling’s apparent view of women in general, is just so outdated and yet still here. Cycling would be better off without it.

Jacques Anquetil surrounded by admirers.

It gets more inappropriate and awkward with each passing year as two attractive and often fairly scantily-clad women pose for photographs, kissing the winner on the cheeks with fans and, more cringingly, family and partners look on. The relationship between male and female on the podium is reminiscent of what we would hope is a bygone era – think of how women were depicted in the ’60s and ’70s, a time when things like this were popularized. If the sport still views and displays women as eye-candy and a trophy, then it’s no wonder the inequalities talked about by Lizzie Armitstead and Nicole Cooke are still so prevalent.

There are a myriad of complaints to be made: they wear too little clothing (although this can vary from race to race, country to country); why is the kiss necessary?; why don’t the women get a kiss on the cheeks from two men?

Clothing is an issue, but as we saw at London 2012, where women taking part in the medal ceremonies were smartly and respectably dressed, the clothes that are worn don’t solve the problem if the role and raison d’être remain unequal. Some people call for consistency and suggest that the women professionals should earn a kiss on the cheeks from two men. But why would it be more fair to simply reverse the roles and objectify the men? Sometimes, though not always, there are still podium girls on the podiums at women’s races to hand out trophies (as seen below), but nobody expects them to kiss the victor, so why is it necessary at all?

Mariane Vos (right of centre) wins the Internationale Centrumcross van Surhuisterveen.

The kiss on the cheeks – not the European one-two used as a greeting, but rather the cyclist-facing-forward-for-the-cameras-with-two-podium-girls-either-side kiss – grates with me. It seems the most unnecessary aspect. Clearly some riders like Peter Sagan enjoy being on the receiving end, but it must make some riders with partners a tad uncomfortable – I find it a bit weird to think of Mark Cavendish getting two pairs of lips planted on his cheeks so often when I know his fiancée and daughter (once she’s old enough) will most likely be looking on. What’s more, with its sole function being a photo opportunity, it means those are the images that will then be published worldwide. Surely it’s time to just get rid of it, and the notion of podium girls in general.

“But what’s wrong with them just handing out the trophies then?” The issue here is the understanding of ‘podium girl’ and the implications therein. Perhaps a change of terminology might help, à la London 2012. But really, if the function is presenting a prize to the best rider of the day, then why not just leave it to the local dignitaries (compare the implied status in that terminology with ‘podium girls’) who often line either side of the stage? Photos of riders holding their prizes without podium girls either side take nothing away from the most important aspect of the day – the achievement.

Mark Cavendish celebrates a stage win at the 2013 Three Days of De Panne – the lack of podium girls doesn’t detract from the image.

For me, it all belittles both the status of women and the achievement of the athlete. Just as with Peter Sagan’s bum-pinch, our attention has been diverted away from what is really important – Cancellara’s incredible performance. Cycling is an amazing sport because of the sacrifices and elite performances that the athletes have to give in order to be invited onto that stage after the race. It’s a sport that you really have to love in order to reach the highest levels; no one could manage it if their only motivation was prize money, which is partly why so much sentimentality and romanticism surrounds it. Let’s not be deluded any longer. They aren’t doing all of that to get a kiss on the cheek – they want to win and to prove what they can achieve, they are after the trophy and they want to get their names in the history books.

There is no excuse for the notion of the podium girl as part of cycling any longer. It’s unnecessary. It is part of  the inequality ingrained in the sport and it is just one of the things that should be rectified if the sport is going to progress as we should hope it will.

I was honestly planning to write about the inadequacy both of boardroom and of Marxist/ socialist feminism today anyway.  Before I even knew the Guardian, the Independent and the IPPR – those bastions of working class inclusion – would be telling everyone how you can only do class or gender struggle.  And you should probably do class.  Class struggle matters in and of itself, you see.  Gender struggle only matters in so far as it is useful to class struggle.  But it’s ok, class struggle is what will make gender liberation truly possible.  Once we get to the socialist utopia.

Sorry comrade, not good enough.  My feminism won’t wait for your socialism.

This is the condensed version of a debate I had with a professional Trotskyist on Saturday night.  I’m really glad I have the opportunity to present my thoughts on said debate as relevant beyond the niche demographic who were witness to it at the time.

In fairness to the Trot in question, he is probably not the enemy (I do consider myself, by and large, a socialist).  But I think he is a well meaning part of the problem.  The problem being, in this instance, patriarchy (or male privilege, male dominance, women’s oppression, systemic misogyny, institutionalised sexism – take your pick).  I know he is part of the patriarchal problem because at one point he made me a helpful list of the most meaningful ways in which I am oppressed by gender.  Mansplaining is a classic symptom.

Our conversation was a frustrating one because I had spent most of that day and the day before rejuvenating my class consciousness by hanging out with people far richer than me and psyching myself up for returning to work and agitating the shit of my office, which is currently being ‘restructured’.  Suddenly I felt like I had to choose between my class and my gender.  And you know what, if the person making me feel like I have to do that is a working class man, I’m definitely choosing my gender.

Except, of course, I can’t.  I am always going to be working class, almost as certainly as I am always going to be a woman.  The system that creates and maintains class, the system that obliges me to sell my labour (which is also my time, my life) in order to be able to afford to live, is wrong and oppressive and needs to be changed.  Or, I should say, overthrown.  But equally, the fact that being a woman makes me a second class citizen within my class is wrong and oppressive and needs to be changed.  It would also be wrong and oppressive if I was treated as a second class citizen within any other class, or within a supposedly classless society.  And guess what?  I would be treated like a second class citizen within any other class that exists in our current society, including those classes which are actively oppressive of others.  Something tells me that I would also be treated like a second class citizen within the supposedly classless society towards which my Trotskyist friend  is working, if he doesn’t think that treating women that way is wrong in and of itself and therefore in all its manifestations.  Which he doesn’t.  Women get paid less in the boardroom?  Doesn’t matter, there shouldn’t be boardrooms.  Women are second choice compared to men as heirs to the throne?  Doesn’t matter, there shouldn’t be thrones.

I too would prefer a world in which there were no thrones or boardrooms (well, as in, where those things didn’t carry the social significations that they do now.  I have nothing against fancy chairs or rooms with boards in).  However, we’re not going to get to a post throne and boardroom world by wishful thinking.  For now, we have to accept that thrones and boardrooms exist and work with that.  Both in terms of class and gender struggle.

Besides, it really isn’t good enough to say that the problem of gender inequality in the boardroom/ line of succession would be dealt with by getting rid of boardrooms and lines of succession.  That would deal with some problems, but not with gender inequality.

Which is not to say that I’m likely to be joining any rallies for the specific rights of women-who-are-upper-class-or-royal any time soon.  I don’t think there should be rights which are specifically upper-class or royal.  Or indeed that that there should be royalty and upper classes.  But as long as there are upper classes and royalty, I don’t think that the men of those classes should be treated (even?) better than the women.  Those men are probably also treated better than any genderqueer or non-binary people in those classes, who, along with the women, then form a kind of second class within the class.  Just like in the rest of society.  And, just like in the rest of society, I think it’s right that there should be a fightback against that.  I’m not going to join it coz I’m too busy fighting the gender battles within my own class (and the class battle against the whole class system, and the queer battle against the institution of heteronormativity, and the many battles that come up at the intersections between those fronts.  And trying to be an ally to my friends on the race front).

But even though I’m not going to join the upper class women’s fightback (is there a royal women’s fightback?), I’m not going to oppose it, except for where it comes into active conflict with my, often gendered, class interests.  So I would fight for a nanny’s right to a pay rise over an upper-class woman’s right to pay her nanny less (and thereby spend more hours networking and get a bonus closer to that of her male counterparts).  But I’d also ask: why is childcare in both classes something women have to worry about?  Why isn’t there a more equitable distribution of childcare between parents, why aren’t there more men in the childcare sector, why are all the sectors that are ‘woman dominated’ vulnerable to underpay?  Class would not be the only thing I was thinking about.

Also, class wouldn’t always trump gender for me.  For example, I don’t think that men who consider themselves particularly important to class struggle should get to just rape women and then have their friends acquit them of it.  Or that a guy who had done some serious damage to the world’s ruling elites should be above the law if he shoved his penis into a sleeping woman – you know, if he raped her.

It doesn’t have to be that extreme either.  There are countless ways men can abuse the privileges of their gender across class boundaries – (male) builders harassing women on their way to the office is the clichéd example.

So, next time I’m with my Trotskyist or otherwise revolutionary socialist friends (there will almost certainly be several of those times), I will challenge them again when they do things like heckle the boss’ oppressed wife in Made in Dagenham for reaching out to a woman protesting for equal pay.  I will not cheer when someone stands up in a feminist meeting and says ‘I don’t care about the gender pay gap in the boardroom, just get rid of the boardroom’.

Gender inequality in any manifestation is a slap in the face to me because it tells me I’m worth less than a man, I’m second class.  And sure, there are other, harder slaps than hearing that all women are second class (which my friend the professional Trot helpfully listed for me, not that I’m owed any slaps in the face for being a woman).  Lots of these harder slaps have to do with how gender inequality plays out through class, but not all of them do so saying that those are the only ones that matter is playing playing Class v. Gender and you know what?  We don’t play that shit.  Or at least, I don’t want to.

I was extremely offended that yet another marketing campaign focused so heavily on the female body instead of the product. And yet again, the media theatrically showcased the female body for the consumption of a male audience.

The sad reality is that we live in a society where mass culture views women as sex objects and sex sells. This concept isn’t surprising–images of scantily-clad women fill visual media. If you pick up a magazine (even one geared towards females) the advertisements feature women wearing skimpy clothes and making suggestive poses. More often than not, the model and product share zero connections; the woman should seem irrelevant in this context. Yet, the media continues to pepper the world around us with images of women as sexual objects, rather than human beings.

My favorite example is a past BMW ad that clearly sells one thing (and it’s not a car).

Frankly, this image repulses me. Although it may have been intended to be humorous, the joke falls flat. The woman loses her humanity as the picture of the BMW obscures her face and strips away her identity. She becomes a literal “object” of desire through the black lingerie and sexual pose on the bed. Her position under the male also suggests subordination that’s far from complimentary.

Unfortunately, much of consumer culture caters to the male gaze and emphasize a woman’s body part that holds no relevance to the brand or product. The same principle proves true in the images from the Pucker Vodka commercial.

In this commercial, the lips supplant the breasts or butt, holding equal (if not more) provocative significance. While the lips hold longstanding association with sex appeal, this ad places this organ out of context by a) positing lips in relation to selling vodka and b) only showing the lips, and not the entire face, of the woman. By hiding the remainder of the face, the woman no longer possesses an identity as an individual, only as an object—lips.

As a female in society, I’m sick and tired of being valued based on our physical appearance, namely our sexual attributes including my lips, butt, or breasts. I’m also fed up with the media focusing solely on these features and in turn, objectifying our body.

We live in a visually dominant world where the media holds enormous influence. Abundant advertisements that project women in an inferior light are destructive to society. Rather than promoting gender equality, these images promote gender discrimination. We need to re-evaluate our representations of women. Whether we like it or not, these images shape our expectations and behavior.

P.S. If you’re as disillusioned with this societal reality as me, you definitely should check out the documentary America the Beautiful. It’s on Netflix.

Salome, she of the dance of the seven veils who was rewarded with the head of John the Baptist on a platter, might have been just 10 or 11 (!!) and easily manipulated by the adults around her. Bloody Mary was a highly educated, sought-after Princess who was declared suddenly illegitimate, then banished at the whim of her own philandering father King Henry VIII. The slave Tituba, who only did her young charges’ bidding, could only escape hanging if she confessed to being a witch. Madame Alexe Popova helped desperate wives off their cruel husbands – over 300 of those bad boys. Typhoid Mary was never ill herself, but she was a typhoid carrier who wouldn’t let the doctors fix her infection-ridden gallbladder, even for free … if you were healthy, would you submit to the knife?

Decades, centuries, millenia later, how might these women be judged now? “As our world changes, so does our definition of bad,” Yolen and Stemple remind us. “[Y]ou will have to decide for yourself if they were really bad, not so bad, or somewhere in the middle. And perhaps you will see that even the baddest of bad girls may have had a good reason for what she did.”

Admittedly a page-turner – like a mangled train wreck, you can’t look away, except to flip the page – Bad Girls is a unique hybrid of short biographies with a graphic twist: each chapter ends with a graphic novel/manga-style conversation (hurray for Rebecca Guay‘s multi-varied ease in changing styles) between mother and daughter, debating the good, bad, and the often ugly circumstances. Their exchanges are cutesy, off-the-cuff, albeit with a few too many predictable quips – “The Tudors were a nasty bunch. Always sneaking and scheming” gets the expected reply, “Rather like modern politicians.” Yolen seems to be the older, wiser voice while Stemple is quick with her 21st-century judgments of “icky” and apparently more concerned about her wardrobe (her shoe-obsession – misplaced attempt at humor? – seems totally out-of-place). That said, let the bad girls speak for themselves. Read at your own risk … then be sure to decide for yourself.

Tidbit: Younger readers might better enjoy The Thinking Girl’s Treasury of Dastardly Dames, a thus-far seven-title collection featuring women who lived by their own rules (the series and Bad Girls have Cleopatra and (Bloody) Mary Tudor in common). Older readers should definitely check out this TEDxVancouver talk, “The Sociology of Gossip,” about what gossip – especially about supposedly badly-behaved women – says about our so-called modern society. It’s an eye-, ear-, and brain-opener!

Readers: Middle Grade, Young Adult

Published: 2013

By: Martin Sigalow

The World Economic Forum’s annual review of gender equality downgraded Japan in its 2012 report to 101^st in the world in terms of gender equality. [1] This ordinal ranking, which places Japan right below Malaysia, is shocking to the degree that it is since most residents of the developed world tend to assume that those countries with great economic might and geopolitical power are also those countries with excellent human rights records. There are many factors that contribute to and explain this gap that are as surprising as they are disturbing. I will here catalogue of few of these.

Gender inequality persists in Japan due to mostly economic factors. Data from the World Bank indicates that the average woman in Japan makes about half of what a man makes.[2] Working mothers specifically are at 61% disparity when compared to their male counterparts.[3] This is in part due to child rearing practices in Japan. Companies in Japan have a huge preference against hiring women who leave the workforce for extended periods of time, causing many mothers to never again become employed. Since mothers are a huge percentage of the Japanese workforce, this ends up disenfranchising huge numbers of women compared to their male counterparts. [4]

Childcare arrangements serve as a major factor in preventing women from re-joining the work force. In most cases in the US, working mothers pursuing a career in something like business could simply hire some form of childcare service to take care of a child for work hours. However, this is less of an option for Japanese women. Women with alternate arrangements for child care are looked down upon, making it difficult to care for a child without leaving the workforce.[5]

Even the women that do make up the workforce do not tend to occupy the highest positions in business, politics, and society. [6] Only 11 of Japan’s 100 parliamentarians are women, an abysmal percentage for a developed country (this factor was explicitly cited as a factor in Japan’s downgrade to position 101 over the last year). [7] Women looking for a career in business fare even worse; women comprise a miniscule 2% of Japanese business directors.[8] Many of the women who do work in Japan do so only temporarily; Japanese women are more likely to be employed on a temporary, part time, or contractual basis. [9]

There are very few laws in Japan that prevent subtle gender discrimination. [10] What laws currently exist to prohibit gender discrimination are empirically difficult to enforce. [11] Even if these laws were enforced to their fullest extent, they still contain many unacceptable gaps, such as for domestic servants, who are systematically denied legal recourse and representation. [12] Although Japan has gender discrimination prevention provisions in the workplace, this does nothing to affect Japan’s social service organization, which, through social security, pensions programs, and tax codes, systematically discriminates against women by privileging the model of a stay at home mother and working father. [13] Indeed, the Japanese tax code encourages inequality by providing tax incentives for dependent spouses to remain at home despite possible earning potential. [14] Often, it is not worth it in the short term for women to enter the workforce again after a gap multiple years long, especially given the already considerable barriers to entry in the workforce noted above.

A telling example of a non-economic form of social discrimination that plays out is disaster relief. Only about 20% of Japanese disaster relief “take gender into account,” according to a midterm review by the Hyogo Framework for Action, a UN plan designed to mitigate disaster relief.[15] When Japanese society was in the process of taking gender “into account,” it seems that it was capable of doing so mostly in counterproductive ways. While there were efforts to protect violence against women in post-disaster periods, the type of work assigned to citizens in helping society to recover was sexist. In the majority of cases, men were instructed mostly to clear rubble while women were told to cook and serve food, a traditional division of labor that reinforces traditional gender roles.[16]  Additionally, men usually received monetary compensation of some kind for their work clearing rubble, whereas women usually did not.[17]

National and international communities have the duty to attempt to promote the enforced rights of women at every turn. Insofar as a society commits itself to protecting the rights of its citizens, which is something any government must do to maintain a shred of legitimacy in itself and to others, then that society is also committing itself to ensuring the enforcement of already existing rights. In this way, Japan has the duty to ensure the existence of more meaningful women’s rights within its borders. A nation can hardly claim to assure rights meaningfully among its citizens if it creates a significant divide between roughly half of its population. In addition, some business strategists have suggested that mechanisms for the effectively implementation of gender equality in Japan could create upwards of eight million jobs.[18] Thus, continued gender inequality is not something Japan can afford, even if it is something Japan is capable of stomaching.

That Japan is a nation consistently lauded by the international community should not serve to immunize Japan of responsibility. Rather, it serves as an indication that harsh inequality can persist notwithstanding an otherwise stellar international reputation. Japan should serve as a reminder to the international community that unacceptable tinges of darkness may be found even in the brightest places.

This all began with a gun control panel my friend wanted to attend. I cautioned her away from it since she was in a bad spot and thought going would allow her to release some of her pent up emotions about this hot-button topic. I tried to steer her away from it, afraid her voice wouldn’t be heard to the effect she might anticipate.

Surprisingly, questions were allowed to be asked by the audience about one hour in. Equal gender distribution was in attendance and when fielding questions, 2 of the 10 questions “chosen” by the men panelists (female didn’t even speak) to be answered were male. Disgusted and ashamed that gender discrepancies continue to exist in a “liberal” nation. Males simply have two “near” circles below the navel, and females, above. If only it were that simple.

I walked out and left after cussing under my breath at their being no point in attending if not everyone can voice their opinion. My question would have been fielded to both parties, and addressed the individual panelist, not a political affiliation. The question would have been, “Have any of you ever seen a fellow human being who has sustained a gun shot wound?”

I firmly believe people’s opinions would change if they knew of a close range injury/emotional repercussion from force or threat with a firearm. I’ve had the “pleasure” of treating a patient with a gun shot wound to the head. I’ve also had a few guns pointed at me while holding a four month old baby by those meant to protect and serve.

To the student who got fired up and said “the reason for gun control is so the crazies don’t go and shoot their kids”and continued on huffing complete with a horrific, accusatory look on her face at my friend… you have NO IDEA who the crazies are… I think you’re one of them.

So yeah, you wanna speak your mind? Go the fuck ahead AFTER being exposed to a firearm outside of a controlled environment, outside of your protective bubble, away from a shooting range or hunting season (though I realize accidents/injuries occur there as well).

But anyway, I was so heated that I texted K, particularly because administration of the school was in attendance unbeknownst to me and I flat up left and am unsure if they heard what I said and will use that against me, some way somehow.

We had recently texted an hour prior to that for scheduling this week’s appointment. No response yet… one full hour later. And, according to B, she and K have spoken. So, who’s deceiving me? K, B, both?

If it’s B and she’s lying then how sick and how convoluted of a friendship do she and I have? Do we even have one? I think not. The moment I began to talk with her about something that was triggering, she made it known (and rightfully so if I believed she actually wanted to heal at this moment). I don’t feel let down, at least with her, just more of an inconvenience.

If K’s lying then it’s all about the money. It makes sense that she would text me when it’s financially-related… what about my fricking mental health though? Where’s my fucking support?

I hate that I’m going through this again. I feel trapped in an uncomfortable carousel, going round and round, without stopping. The images keep moving, life continues, and somehow I’m trapped and lost in translation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/gallery/2013/mar/13/nepalese-women-literacy-in-pictures

This is tied to the movie we recently saw about rape in the military. This article along with the movie shows how rape within the military for both men and women (mostly women however) is a large problem. Victims are being mistreated and misrepresented. Some of these cases for example the victims are told that they have personality disorders, or thought of as exaggerating, or lying, in order to inflect damage upon a man’s reputation. However the culture of rape within the military needs to be taken as serious as “friendly fire” as stated in the article for there to be a change.

In this article it talks about how girls are being outnumbered by boys in New York city Specialized High Schools. Boys make up about 60% of the population in these schools. This article claims that the girls perform just as well as boys in subjects such as math and science in high school but gradually they themselves drift away from these fields in college and career life. It is not that they are not smart enough to get into these schools it’s because they are influenced by society’s belief that math and science are subjects only boys are good at. It is because of these gender stereotypes that more boys are attending these schools. This relates to our class in that it talks about how females in society are bound by gender stereotypes. They are being restricted by these invisible rules that they have to follow for the rest of their life.

My read of the primary focus of the book is an exhortation for professional women to look in the mirror with a new eye and seek leadership opportunities and not convince themselves (or allow others to do so) that they can’t or shouldn’t. There is an occasional recognition that there are many other women throughout the workforce who don’t get a fair shake. It is also an honest personal appraisal of Sandberg’s career to date, the mistakes she has made and the lessons she has learned. It is a management primer for women–and men–that specifically deals with the prejudices we all bring to our interactions with the other sex (notice I didn’t say “opposite”). It has application to interactions with anyone, since we are all different products of nature and nurture. The facts and data–read the appendix!–that document reasons for the gender gap, as well as the anecdotes throughout the book provide support for Sandberg’s conclusion that things won’t really have changed “until half our institutions are run by women and half our homes are run by men.” They certainly won’t change for the women further down the pyramid until that happens. She often says that men have to do their part to produce this change but she really puts the onus on the women. It is an important message.

In my mind, though, there is a bigger message in the book and an unstated opportunity for companies who get it now–and some have–to set themselves up to take advantage of “gender arbitrage.” This is not the classic definition of gender arbitrage, which is hiring smart women for less, but the “gender arbitrage” that was defined back in the late ’80’s when we took the Lehman Research effort from 15th to 1st in the rankings in three years. Boris Groysberg and Ashish Nanda, who did much of the work creating a series of Harvard Business School cases about what happened there, pointed out that we had more women and more successful women in the department–statistically off the charts–than any other firm in the business. Somehow, we created an environment where the best women on Wall Street were attracted to the firm and thrived and new female  analysts became successful quickly. It got defined as gender arbitrage after the cases were written. We also had many very successful men. It was a hard-working but supportive place to work. It was really IQ/Acumen/Attitude arbitrage. The women were not paid less than the men and in many cases made more, tied to their success as analysts and, ultimately, managers. There were many little and some big things we did that helped produce the success. I would suggest that you go to the HBS Publications website and spring for a copy of the Jack Rivkin Lehman A case if you really want to get into the nuances. Boris is now teaching a course at HBS, “How Star Women Succeed,” and the case is a part of it.  Why the environment initially existed is hard to explain. It started with just wanting to create something special that had nothing to do with gender–just capabilities and a big “no-jerk” policy.  There was one thing, though, that made a difference. From the very beginning there were many people involved in the interviewing processes, but our lead interviewers were two of our first outside hires–two very capable women. An interesting thing happened as a result. Here were two people who were clearly part of the decision-making process and were serious about talent and attitude. Other women they interviewed were attracted by their attitudes, their openness, their empathy and the clear understanding that they were decision-makers. Interestingly, the men they interviewed knew that they were a big part of deciding whether the men would be hired and that they (the men) might end up working for them (the women). Some men just opted out because of that, which was fine with us. The ones who didn’t, understood how the organization was going to work, recognized the talent and the opportunity and clearly didn’t have a problem with the working relationships. In fact they saw the working relationships as a big plus. It all fed on itself and created a supportive environment where the gender balance really worked for us. We didn’t just have a good gender balance. We got the absolute best where there were no impediments and much support in the work place and in their lives in general–for both the women and the men of like minds.

I don’t think organizational success has to wait until talented women lean in and work their way up the jungle gym to the top. If the organization truly creates the environment that doesn’t tolerate the jerks and provides continual support for both the women and men making decisions about their lives, they will end up with teams that really work. And the best managerial talent, which should be equally balanced among the sexes, will rise through the ranks. Who knows if the real organizational structure, if this truly happens, will have “ranks” as opposed to something more like the jungle gyms Sandberg refers to. Sandberg points out that “Research already suggests that companies with more women in leadership roles have better work life policies, smaller gender gaps in executive compensation, and more women in mid-level management.” I would submit that there are companies with all or some of the above because they started down this path many years ago. We need many more. What a waste of having impediments that prevent the best to rise. It is important to read Sandberg’s book, though. If male and female employees  and executives cannot empathize and learn from her story, the gender arbitrage, as I define it, won’t happen. There is more to say on this subject, but everyone please read the book, and then we’ll talk.

When Fil arrived in KSA he wasn’t given any form of cultural training and had to learn the hard way. Luckily he met many people willing to help such as his colleagues and a few of his students. There are many forbidden subjects in KSA such as asking men about their female relatives; to ask for a student’s mother’s name is almost as bad as telling him you want to sleep with her. Generally Fil’s students would tell him what was acceptable to ask and what was not. They understood he was from a different culture and were sympathetic.

Fil tried to explain that it’s not logic that rules in KSA but influence; generally logic is out of the window. You have to exercise your influence and control over a situation to get things done. A favor system exists, somewhat like a bartering system; you must conform to the system to get anything done.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy and has Sharia Law; derived from the teachings of the Qu’ran and the Prophet Sunnah. Sharia Law isn’t so strictly followed in other Middle Eastern countries as it is in KSA and the reason is historical. Countries such as Bahrain, Oman, Qatar and UAE are former British colonies so Sharia Law never really took hold in those countries like it did in KSA; they practice a more liberal form of Islam. Fil gives the example of Oman and that at least there you can go to a bar, drink a beer and talk to local people. Oman is still conservative from a Western perspective but liberal compared to KSA.

There are rules and, as Fil puts it “you don’t f*** around”, it’s one of those countries.

Public flogging in Pakistan, also practiced in KSA

To illustrate here are a few points when considering Saudi law and human rights in Saudi Arabia. Many people think that if you steal in KSA the punishment is the amputation of your right hand but this opinion is a little outdated; there’s only been one instance of judicial amputation since 2006. Gay rights are not recognized in KSA and homosexual acts are punishable by flogging or death. Lashings are a favorite form of punishment and are imposed for offenses against religion and public morality such as drinking alcohol or the neglect of prayer. The death penalty can be imposed for a wide range of offenses including rape, armed robbery, repeated drug use, witchcraft and adultery. The death penalty is carried out by beheading by sword, stoning or firing squad, followed by crucifixion. 345 cases of public beheading were carried out between 2007 and 2010; that was at least one every five days.

Very common punishment: Beheading by sword

Unsurprisingly, Fil never sees any trouble in Jubail. He generally only ever sees migrant workers from Third World countries; around 65% of the city’s residents come from countries such as Bangladesh, The Philippines and Pakistan. He rarely sees any police. Fil explains that no one dares break any laws and the Third World migrant workers are extremely law-abiding. The reason is simple; if they were incarcerated for some reason no one would ever come to help them, unlike a US or European citizen who would likely make world news.

Fil feels much safer in Jubail than his hometown of Huston, Texas although there is an air of slight animosity at times. The local Saudis are either friendly or simply ignore you but sometimes the Third World migrant workers give the Western teachers the ‘evil eye’. Teachers are paid much more; migrant workers make no more than $200(US) a month, so it is natural animosity exists. Although Fil feels safe he doesn’t really enjoy going out in the city.

Saudi women live very different lives to women in the West. Fil very rarely sees women in Jubail and when he does they’re usually in the shopping mall, possibly due to the industrial nature of the city. Most are Filipino nurses. All women, regardless of nationality, follow a strict dress code; generally wearing an abaya (a loose-fitting, full length black cloak), a hijab (a head covering to conceal their hair) and a niqab (a face veil). You only see their eyes. The strictness varies by region, for example in Jeddah many women don’t wear a niqab whereas in Riyadh the dress code is more conservative. However things are changing and there now exists designer abayas coming in colors other than black and decorated with patterns and glitter; to reflect a woman’s taste and personality.

Every adult woman has to have a guardian, be it their husband or a close male relative. Women require their guardian’s permission to leave their homes. Women are therefore generally always indoors. Many Human Rights organizations describe the position of Saudi women as like that of a minor; with little authority over their own lives.

Surprisingly, it is illegal to talk to women in public, apart from immediate family members. This, like the dress code, applies to all women of all nationalities. It highlights the sex segregation in KSA. According to the law, there should be physically and visually separate sections for the sexes at all meetings, including special occasions such as at weddings. Most homes, offices, banks and universities have separate entrances for men and women.

Change is slowly taking place in Saudi Arabia. The royal family, headed by King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud since 2005, understands that change is necessary but not too quickly as to cause civil unrest. Women are gaining more rights, women cannot vote today but King Abdullah has declared that women will be able to in 2015 local elections, and laws are becoming less rigid. There exists a strong feeling of sentimentality and many people fear that if change takes place too quickly they will lose their traditions and way of life. Even many advocates of reform reject foreign critics for failing to understand the uniqueness of Saudi society.

Good Friends: President Obama with King Abdullah

People have strict codes but are not personally strict. Fil’s students crack jokes all the time and have a healthy sense of humor; far more relaxed than his previous students in Taiwan. None of them are married; first they must pass the program, find employment, get some money and then pay the bride’s family a dowry. Some do have secret girlfriends but it is illegal. Many of his students go to Bahrain on the weekends to drink alcohol and meet women. Some even get married in Bahrain to sleep with women and then divorce all in the same weekend; no sin, no guilt. For others who visit Bahrain there are many prostitutes. Many Saudis also smoke hashish, a cannabis product, although the law considers it as illegal as alcohol.

Where there is poverty and a lack of freedom, there is instability and Bahrain is such a place Fil has visited many times. Big things are happening in Bahrain but it is not covered by the world press because of US support for the government. KSA also is a strong supporter of the Bahrain government.

I wanted to ask Fil about the little things that Saudis do that might surprise. Fil mentioned two; firstly that Saudis have no concept of trash cans. They throw everything on the ground, whilst walking in the streets and even inside the classroom. You see piles of trash everywhere, something Fil finds disgusting. There’s no government cleaning system or any form of public campaigning about the issue. Secondly, Saudis love the rain. People will have picnics in the rain; it’s a special occasion. When you don’t have something you appreciate it; they take advantage of the change in weather.

Saudis also love WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment) and action movies. There is a little censorship but not exactly the type you’d expect. All movies are shown, even movies which may be seen as critical of religion or promoting Western ideology. What is censored is anything beyond on-screen kissing and any verbal reference to pork, the consumption of pork is strictly forbidden in Islam; they bleep out the word pork or bacon from all movies.

I hope you have learnt a little about a not so discussed country whilst reading this and the two previous posts. I am eternally grateful to Wikipedia for providing most of the background data mentioned in this post.

Two high-powered, high-tech executives have reignited glass ceiling debates recently, with workplace flexibility emerging as a central issue in the conversation. Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer’s edict that the company’s “work from home” program end sparked considerable outrage nationwide, as did Facebook executive Sheryl Sandberg’s exhortation that women must “lean in” to fight workplace barriers preventing gender parity.

Is flexibility the solution or the problem? In the Yahoo scenario, Mayer’s critics charged that her decision would unduly hurt women, because flexible work appears to be the only way women can manage both work and family. In the Facebook scenario, flexibility is a kind of “mommy track” that actually hurts women.

The truth is, we really don’t know which is correct.

As a worker with flexibility, I’m grateful that I don’t have to punch a time clock or ask permission to go to a doctor’s appointment. Then again, I and most professors I know put in more than 40 hours a week, as do many workers in other “high commitment” professions – lawyers, doctors, business owners, journalists, consultants. People in these occupations buy their flexibility through overwork.

The notion of flexibility as a byproduct of overwork differs dramatically, however, from earlier ideas of worker flexibility that initially showed up in the “work/life” arena decades ago, where the point was to recognize that workers (mostly women) could have outside interests and responsibilities and still be good workers. Flexibility in many organizations such as high-tech firms like Yahoo and Facebook amounts to letting workers decide which 10-14 hours a day they will work. Companies encourage this brand of flexibility not because they are committed to gender equity or to employee self-actualization, but because they benefit from it. Imagine you are a manager in an organization where your workers are so skilled, committed, educated (or, some might say, brainwashed) that they will actually voluntarily stay up until 3 a.m. writing code or performing other activities, are you going to demand they be in the office for an 8 a.m. meeting? If they put in 65-70 hours and then want to see their child in a school play, you will probably pat them on the back and tell them to go right ahead. Allowing a worker to “put family first” for 2 of 65 hours is hardly a problem for employers whose workers habitually hyper-achieve.

My own research following the spread of these practices amongst firms shows numerous complexities and problems with how we talk about, measure and evaluate flexibility. For example, in a survey conducted by Cornell University’s Couples and Careers Institute, where I was a pre-doctoral fellow, one company indicated it offered flextime, but follow-up interviews revealed the company had no such formal policy — it simply had allowed one or two workers permission to work 8:45 to 5:45 rather than 8:30 to 5:30. Other companies in the sample showed a huge disparity between what management said they did in terms of flexibility and what their workers said the companies allowed. One company in the sample was a perennial “best places for working mothers” winner, but its employees were clueless about what they actually had access to. Much of what happens in organizations is informally negotiated, and is not distributed equitably or on an objective basis (Still & Strang, 2003).

Work/life programs, which grew out of the movement to increase women’s labor force participation, often unwittingly further marginalize workers and label them uncommitted if they use them (Glass, 2004; Williams & Cuddy, 2012). A stream of persuasive work in social psychology shows that implicit cognitive biases are triggered by women’s “essential” childbearing roles; working flexibly reinforces or exaggerates those biases. As McCloskey and Igbaria (2004) have shown, when a man is out of the office, he is assumed to be “rainmaking” – a busy, important executive out meeting clients; when a woman is, she is assumed to be at home with a sick child. These underlying mechanisms produce a highly gendered workplace, in which gender differences are only sharpened by the usage of practices designed to ameliorate them.

A further weakness in the public debate over flexibility is its avoidance of occupational class divisions in the workplace. Do hotel clerks, baristas, orderlies, janitors, police officers, maids and other such workers have access to flexible hours or places of work? (Sometimes their ‘flexible hours’ are code for part-time work). Some don’t even have paid sick or vacation leave, so the prospect of gaining autonomy over how work is done seems quite dim. Just as flexibility usage sharpens distinctions around gender, so it exaggerates the gulf between occupational haves and have-nots. Many professional, exempt employees have the freedom to engage in any number of personal activities during the traditional workday that hourly/non-exempts can only dream of. One merely has to glance down the hallways at 4 p.m. on a snowy winter day to observe the obvious manifestation of our occupational class ranking system. Who is still there? Certain employees can use flexibility to leave before the weather turns dangerous; others cannot, and must take their risks on the road. Surely this message is not lost on either class.

The following are some critical short-term steps toward which policy makers, organizations, researchers, politicians and activists should work:

1. Reframe the issue. For too long, flexibility has been a “woman’s” problem, or even worse, a “privileged white woman’s” problem. We should view the issue more holistically as being about all individuals having the right to care for loved ones, be they children, spouses, domestic partners, elderly parents or whomever, and to expect employers to allow them, within reason, to fulfill this basic human right. Current conversations around civil society, sustainability or even corporate social responsibility inherently embrace such a broader frame.

2. Reverse the “rights/privileges” logic. In my interviews with managers, they often expressed fear that formalizing flexible practice in written policies would lead to employee entitlement. Evidence suggests, however, that managers may be worrying prematurely. In the U.K., a 2003 law giving workers the right to ask for flexibility assumes employers will grant the request unless they can prove it is not feasible to do so (and that burden of proof is not easily met). Notably, the flexibility “floodgates” companies feared would open as a result of the law have not materialized (Hegewisch & Gornick, 2008).

3. Measure and study more precisely what companies mean by flexibility and what is actually done. Require companies track the usage of flexible programs by gender, race, ethnicity and social/occupational class.

4. Study the causal mechanisms by which flexibility either fails or succeeds. Does it reduce face-time, which is essential to innovation? Or conversely, does it lead to 24/7 access to the employee (a trade-off for control over schedule/place), which increases productivity?

5. Require that employers analyze job descriptions and specify their suitability for flexible time and place, as well as specify what percentage of the job can be done so. Disclose these analyses to applicants.

Employers will resist some of these proposals. But research suggests that allowing them to adopt practices voluntarily results in uneven and underwhelming uptake. American firms have had 30 years to demonstrate their creative interpretation and enactment of flexibility; to date, they have failed to do much at all.

References

Glass, J. (2004). Blessing or curse? Work-family policies and mother’s wage growth over time. Work and Occupations, 31(3), 367-394.
Hegewisch, A., & Gornick, J.C. (2008). Statutory routes to workplace flexibility in cross-national perspective. Retrieved from http://www.iwpr.org/pdf/B258workplaceflex.pdf
McCloskey, D. W., & Igbaria, M. 2003. “Does ‘out of sight’ mean ‘out of mind’? An empirical investigation of the career advancement prospects of telecommuters. Information Resources Management Journal,16(2): 19–34.
Still, M.C. and Strang, D. 2003. “Institutionalizing family-friendly policies.” In It’s About Time, edited by Phyllis Moen. Cornell University Press.
Williams, J.C. and Cuddy, A.J.C. 2012. “Will working mothers take your company to court?” Harvard Business Review: 94.

Additional information:

Families and Work Institute: http://www.familiesandwork.org/
WorkLife Law: http://worklifelaw.org/work-life-issues/workplace-flexibility/
Work/life research bank: http://www.bc.edu/centers/cwf/research/sloan.html
Work/family equity global index: http://www.nationalpartnership.org/site/DocServer/McGill_Study_2007.pdf?docID=1581
National Partnership for Women and Family: http://www.nationalpartnership.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues_work_Library_workflex

These cases are separate but similar–not to be confused with the concept of separate but equal—and each will impact how this country moves forward towards equality for all.

Eleven countries currently allow marriage between two people without any officers of the state ever playing a game of genitalia peek-a-boo to see what gender the couples are bringing to the marital bed before approving their union. Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden allow same-sex couples to marry nationwide. (Yes, I used Wiki for this one)

You’d think we could do the same around here. Surely America can get in on this equality trend. If there is anything Americans love it’s a trend.

Sadly, while I love the idea of the Supreme Court standing up for genuine equality–they’ve done it before after all—I’ll be surprised if they don’t kick this can of equality down the road and back to the states with some bull about state’s rights and a lame line like “this is a decision for the people.”

I’m all for letting the people make decisions for themselves, but the role of government is to protect the people from the tyranny of the majority and to provide the people with equal  rights and responsibilities regardless of skin color, faith, gender, height, weight, number of toes, how many times they’ve seen Star Wars, what they think about high heel shoes, and who they choose to love. Period. End of story.

Anything less than full equality is unacceptable and arrogant and pushing the decision to yet another venue and vote is cowardly.

To the Supreme Court Justices, to the White House, to Congress: stop pretending marriage equality is a debatable issue. Whatever your personal feelings are about love, sex, and relationships, you don’t get to decide that one citizen is more equal than another. But if you feel you do, you better argue your point well because the world is watching.

~~~

I don’t want to unduly pick on Sam Mendes, but when he spoke about his inspirations earlier this evening, I’m afraid not a single one of the people he mentioned was a woman. Hopefully in five or 10 years, when Sam’s successor is collecting their Inspiration award, the list will be slightly more balanced in terms of its sexual make-up. In the meantime, this one is for the girls.

In addition to being intrinsically awesome, I take it that this is proof that Helen Mirren tacitly endorses our Gendered Conference Campaign, right? RIGHT???

As a woman myself, issues of gender inequality easily get under my skin. Time and time again we are reminded that gender biases are wrong, and that women are just as capable as men. Yet our societies do not reflect these values. I know many guys who are conscious and respectful of women (for the most part) yet do not hesitate to laugh at or crack a joke about a girl in a demeaning manner. It’s no surprise that I’ve been at the butt of a joke like this before, and maybe it wasn’t ill intentioned, but that does not change the fact that it is harassment. And I wonder just how much harm does it do?

Recently, I came upon an article that stated that sexist humor could lead to toleration of hostile feelings and discrimination against women.  It changes the perception of men as it enables them to be comfortable with this type of behaviour without the fear of disapproval from their friends, and therefore is socially acceptable. This makes me think of a statement made by activist and editor Julian Assange:

“Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence and thereby eventually lose all ability to defend ourselves and those we love”

In my own experience, I would even state that the behavior is not only apprehended by their friends but also rewarded. This concerns me because I’ve witnessed plenty of girls who have adopted this notion where they believe that expressing such humor makes them funnier.  Men are not the only culprits.  I know girls who are guilty of saying things like “you throw like a girl” or making other stereotypical remarks that degrade women. This, I think is when we should be asking the question are we really setting a good example for others? Girls refer to each other in negative ways all the time. I don’t know how many times I’ve heard a girl call another girl the b word, even in a friendly tone. If this is how we treat ourselves, then how do we expect guys to draw the line of what is appropriate? Ladies, and men, what are your thoughts on this?

Maybe it was just her being a good mom, wanting the best for me; wanting me to be successful, and able to take care of myself, and achieve whatever goals or life dreams I set down when I got out of college. Who knows, maybe there’s some unfulfilled career dream that she had, that I never knew about. Whatever the case, I said ok, and found a segment that had aired on NPR and pushed play. Immediately, I was aligned with Sandberg, and in days that followed, in reading reviews both for and against her advice and her mission, even having not yet read the book, I agreed with her. Regardless of what kind of work I do now or ever will do, I feel very strongly that these hurdles we women face are ours to confront head on if we want to see change.

Growing up in a house full of girls with a father who didn’t want to raise little prisses, it was hard not to end up a feminist. So, like my sisters, I have feminist blood coursing through my veins, empowering me with the die-hard belief that I can do anything the boys can do. Ok, obviously not anything, but you get my point. I can do anything boys can do—and some things I can even do better.

What’s sort of backwards in all of this, for me personally, is that as much as I believe in leaning in, fighting the fight, at the same time, I think I might very easily be able to throw my hands up and say “Forget it.” The cover story in this week’s New York magazine is entitled, ‘The Feminist Housewife’. I read the article yesterday over lunch. It talks about the growing trend of stay-at-home mommyhood and how many young (and some not so young) women in today’s society actually don’t want to lean in to their careers—not because they’re wimping out, but because they want to be mothers, want to give their blood, sweat and tears to the job of taking care of their families. I have forever imagined having a family; but I’ve also always imagined working. I enjoy being part of the team setting, the regular interaction with intelligent, articulate, witty adult peers, the chit-chats and inside jokes and collaborating on projects and going for post workday beers. I have to say however, the article did make the housewife-mommy lifestyle sound very appealing, and by the end of it, I was kind of wanting it for myself.

But, let’s get back to reality. I’m a single, 36-year-old woman in New York City with not even a prospect for a husband on the horizon. So, as I wait for the housewife-mommy lifestyle to meet up with me some day (hopefully), I have to work.

This brings me back to a conversation I had over dinner last weekend with my cousin’s seven-year-old son Jack. He asked me at one point, “Andrea, what’s your career?” There is nothing quite like being put on the spot by a seven-year-old, let me tell you. I took a swig of wine, cleared my throat and replied frankly (because I was really answering the whole table of people staring at me and not just him). “I don’t really have a career,” I said. “It’s more of a…job.” Of course I wondered: at seven, do you even know the difference? “Well then what’s your job?” he asked back immediately. I stared into his brown marble eyes wishing the telephone would ring or that someone would swallow something down a wrong pipe and fall into a fit of coughing, but alas, no luck. So I started on about how I manage an office, and am the assistant to the boss, and that I take care of him to make sure his day runs smoothly. Of course I wasn’t feeling so proud but, whatever, it’s a job and I do it well. And Jack replies (and here I almost choked): “So you basically make sure his desk is clean?”

Well thanks to my mother, who was in town visiting and sitting next to me, the conversation was smoothed out and in the end, I was still breathing and Jack was at least somewhat satisfied with the work I do, however different or less it is than what he expected. Thinking back on the whole exchange, that initial question of why my mother felt so strongly about me needing to hear Sheryl Sandberg’s interview comes to mind—the question of how leaning in applies to me. I actually can quite easily see the answer. I think the basic principles Ms. Sandberg discusses can be applied to any of us in any environment if what we want is to be recognized for the work we do, and rewarded or compensated as we see fit.

So my job is not work that I am wholeheartedly fulfilled by, but this is by choice. I made the decision to veer away from what I thought years ago would be my career, because I fell out of love with it and found it eating up my life. A job, on the other hand, allows me to pursue the longtime love I never before focused on, which is writing. Granted, it means writing in my spare time, but I’ll take what I can get. Earlier this month, the website VIDA (Women in Literary Arts) published their ‘2012 Count’ which takes a look at the numbers of women versus men in various segments of the literary world. Without having to study their charts with much scrutiny, it’s quite clear, the dismal disparity that exists and subsequently, the message that success in the literary world is no easier to achieve than success in the corporate world…if you’re a woman. My dream may not be to have the corner office, or be the highest paid executive, but yeah, I’d love to be a successful and respected writer one day. So is the idea of leaning in, for me, really backwards at all? I think not.

The bottom line is that we all deserve to have what we want in life. I don’t think anyone is saying success in the corporate world is any greater than a happy, healthy, well-cared-for home, or that it makes you any better a woman. And I don’t think, despite what a lot of the critics have said, that Sheryl Sandberg’s advice can’t apply to all of us. She’s coming to us with first hand experience. She knows the challenges that come with being a woman. She’s definitely on our side in this. I remember being a little girl, afraid to put my hand up in a classroom full of boys but being free and speaking up at Brownies. Sadly, I know that that insecurity, despite believing I can do anything boys can do, has stayed with me to some extent. I hope one day we see change. And in the meantime, to Sheryl Sandberg (and to my mother)—thanks for the push… to lean in.

Such inequalities are compounding because gender equality is considered beneficial to many areas of economic development. Increasing female employment in general increases the size of the labour force and thus GDP. In addition gender inequality may lead to labour market distortions whereby men are employed in positions where women could be more productive. Recent estimates by Kathy Matsui of Goldman Sachs, finds that closing the gender employment gap could expand the Japanese workforce by 8.2 million. This she asserts could lead to a increase in Japan’s GDP of around 15%. Coupled with this some studies have found that in general women tend to save more than men. For instance Sequino and Sagrario Floro (2003) find that a one percentage point increase women’s share of the total wage bill tends to increase aggregate savings by approximately one quarter of a percentage point. This means for countries such as Japan that increased female labour force participation could lead to higher rates of saving and hence increased investment.

So what are the problems Japan faces? One of the most potent statistics is that 70% of women in Japan leave the workforce as soon as they have their first child. The ratio of Japanese mothers with children under six who work (34%) remains extremely low compared to 76% in Sweden, 61% in the US, 55% in the UK, and 53% in Germany. Matsui’s report suggests that once Japanese women leave the workforce they generally find themselves returning to limited part time employment due to increased responsibilities  She explains the “typical” lifestyle for a Japanese women is as follows;

1.  Graduate from high school or university and find a job (average age: 18-22 years)
2.  Get married (age: 25-29 years)
3.  Become pregnant, then drop out of workforce in order to raise the child(ren) (age: 30-39 years) 
4. Once the child(ren) become(s) independent, resume work (approximate age: 45+ years) 
5. Even if work is resumed after age 45, it is typically limited to part-time employment, since by this stage either her husband’s or her own parents often begin requiring convalescent support.

A particular issue is that of lack of available and affordable daycare. For instance Tokyo government statistics show that there are more than 20,000 children waiting for daycare places in the city. In addition to this the work culture in Japan means that men tend to devote less time aiding in childcare. The graph below from Matsui’s report shows the average number of hours spend by men on household activities and childcare.

The graph shows that on average Japanese men spend less than an hour on these combined activities. To further compound this problem only 2.63% of men take paternity leave due to the fear of losing their jobs. Such statistics show the increased pressures placed upon Japanese mothers to leave the labour market.

In addition, these issues have led to two principle problems, firstly women who are having children are not working. Secondly those that are working are  not having children. Consequently Japan now has one of the lowest birth rates in the world with 1.3 births per women and now faces the prospect of seeing its population decline by a third over the next century if trends continue.

The irony of such problems is that Japan’s famed work culture and ethic which once drove the country’s rapid development  is now partly responsible. The pressures of long hours and vigorous commitment mean that the country is now facing a demographic time bomb whilst many of its potential female workers remain under utilized. However government policy to provide more daycare centres and child bearing incentives is only one half of the solution. As a recent survey by the The Yomiuri Shimbun shows the share of Japanese who thought wives should stay at home jumped 10.3 percentage points to 51.6 percent between 2009 and 2012. The dilemma therefore is therefore not only policy problem but also a cultural issue as well.

Typewriter by ToastyTreat on Flickr

This is the first play I wrote this semester for my Acting 3 class. It was the first one performed that day and we were going to discuss the theme of each piece. My theme according to my classmates? “Man-hatin’!” While totally not what I intended, I think that’s way more entertaining than “inequality in the workforce”. Enjoy.

Two-Minute Play 1:

A day in the life of Cindy Cunningham

Where: An office

Cindy: (sits at desk, miming typing on a typewriter)

            tukka-tukka tukka-tukka tukka-tukka

            whirrrrrr

            tukka-tuk tukka-tuk tukka-tuk-tuk-tuk

(actor makes the sounds of the typewriter as she works)

CEO: (enters, holding a cup of coffee, Cindy continues to work and make the typing sounds beneath the CEO’s dialogue)

            Heeeeeey, Cindyyyyy? Just wanted to say you have been doing a BANG UP job.

            Really, exquisite work.

            I was just wondering if you could handle the whole “I-didn’t-mean-to-grab-Sandra’s-ass,-my-hand-slipped Scandal” write up for HR to send to corporate? That would be so cool of you.

            Lookin’ gooooooooood, baaaaaabe.

Cindy: (takes a breath and begins typing again, a little louder)

            tukka-tukka tukka-tukka tukka-tukka

            whirrrrrr

            tukka-tuk tukka-tuk tukka-tuk-tuk-tuk

CEO: (enters again)

            Ciiiiindyyyyyy, you know what I forgot?

            I totally forgot to give you this week’s copy of Cosmo that was included in your bonus. There are some really great sex tips in here.

            (puts down a copy of Cosmo on top of Cindy’s papers)

            Ohhhhh, do you think you could help me out a little?

            I just need someone to write up these statistics on why our ad campaign isn’t appealing to women ages 15 to 18, 19 to 25, 26 to 30, 31 to 38, and 39 and above.

            Could you compile this in a report for me?

            Awesoooooome. You rock, baaaaaabe!

Cindy: (takes a breath and begins taking out her aggression on the typewriter)

            tukka-tukka tukka-tukka tukka-tukka

            whirrrrrr

            tukka-tuk tukka-tuk tukka-tuk-tuk-tuk

            tukka-tukka tukka-tukka tukka-tukka

            whirrrrrr

            tukka-tuk tukka-tuk tukka-tuk-tuk-tuk

CEO: (enters one last time, with two other laughing co-workers)

            Ohhhhhh, heeeeeeey Cindy?

            So I know it’s your birthday,

            and the cake that we bought for you is almost gone, but I’d really like for you to just put your special Cindy touch on these reports on “caring in the communal workplace” documents for HR. Sound good?

            I thought so, too!

             Thaaaaaanks, baaaaabe! 

Cindy: (is slamming her hands on the typewriter and yelling

             TUKKA-TUKKA TUKKA-TUKKA TUKKA-TUKKA

            WHIRRRRRRR.

            TUKKA-TUK TUKKA-TUK TUKKA-TU-

            (pause)

            TUKKA TU-

            (pause)

            (Cindy tries one more time, but the key is stuck)

            TUKKA-TU-

            (pause)

            Motherfucker.

            (Cindy overturns the desk, grabs her purse, fixes her clothes, and storms out)

Showing honor to the Village Chief: A humble and wise man who is passionate about seeing his community become self-sustainable.

Three decades prior, the elders of the community migrated from the “hilly district” due to caste oppression and slavery. Although they now live as free men and woman, these villagers are still amongst the poorest of the poor in the world. Due to few income generating opportunities in the area, most of the men in the village migrate to India for work while the women stay back and care for their families and the community as a whole. Many of the men return home riddled with STDs, which they then pass along to their wives.

Gender inequality is alive and well in this village. Although the women are the ones who built the only road in town and they were the main source of labor when digging the one and only village well, they are still seen as second-class citizens.

Teaching about human trafficking and gender inequality .

Because the well-water is contaminated and often dries up, the women and girls are required to fetch water every morning, which takes an average of 4 hours due to the long distance from the village to the river. This hinders the girls from getting an education and the women from obtaining any training that would allow them a more independent and secure lifestyle. Additionally, the long walks through the forest put these females in grave danger as they are often taken advantage of by men along the way.

The young vulnerable village girls.

I spoke with many of the women in the village and they shared with me their earnest desire for more opportunity and respect. The men who were present in the village at the time of our meeting, including the chief and elders, acknowledged the need for gender equality and proclaimed an interest in helping transform their society both socially and physically. At that we proclaimed our interest in helping them.

The villagers look well-dressed but in reality they own only 2-3 outfits and bathe only 1-2 times per week.

The villagers have already proven themselves to be hard-working and motivated citizens displayed most recently in their fight for electricity. Being predominantly Dalit (the lowest level in the caste system, otherwise known as “The Untouchables”), it is extraordinary that the villagers were able to convince the government to wire electricity to their remote community. There is no doubt that with a little help this community can be completely transformed.

I will be going back

to Southwest Nepal in the fall

and would be overjoyed if you could join me!

I estimate the trip would be about 10 days long and cost approximately $1000 in-country (this includes a $400 in-country flight but does not include your flight from where-ever you live to Kathmandu). Of course I would be more than happy to train you in fundraising should you want to go that route.

We would spend some time in a remote village, a clinic/orphanage, and a private school that provides education to impoverished children (photos below). We’d get our hands dirty with work and our hearts overflowing with love. And of course we’d do a little tourism. Perhaps beautiful Pokara where adventure and beauty will collaborate to give you memories that won’t soon be forgotten.

We are most in need of trip participants who have a heart for potential long-term support for these victims of dire poverty (which makes them vulnerable to human trafficking). Medical professionals and educators looking for STINT opportunities, this is a vision trip you do not want to miss! And to all my fellow bleeding heart adventure junkies, there’s always room for you!

If you’re interested just say the word and I’ll provide more details. For now, here’s a little inspiration…

They call Nepal “The Switzerland Of The East.” I can see why. It’s even more gorgeous in person *cough cough.*

How can you not fall madly in love with this adorable little face?!

A huge hole in the girl’s room latrine at the local primary school. This school provides low-to-no tuition for underprivileged children from six neighboring villages. If we can help increase the standard of living for the community families will be able to afford a decent tuition for their child’s education, which means the conditions of the school can be improved.

The toilet that the children must use while at school (A step up for some, including the village that we will be starting to work in, which does not have even 1 latrine in the entire village).

So adorable! Especially the little one throwing up an “I love you” sign.

The life of a village mom.

Working just as hard as a man. Getting paid 1/3rd the wage.

While my coworker and I were in southwest Nepal we also conducted a 3-day Transformational Community Development training for 30 leaders and activists. These are a few of the amazing women who attended and will be working hard to bring TCD to their villages.

We provide interactive training that even the illiterate can partake in and replicate in their community.

A life so simple yet so hard.

And so we strive to leave this generation with greater opportunities than the last.
“If I have seen further than other men, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants” – Isaac Newton