This panel discussion hosted by the Nehru Centre in Mayfair, was meant to shed light on the evolution of male-female relationships in the workplace and beyond, especially on the backdrop of Indian culture.

Chairing the talk was Geetha Chari-Kaza, retired senior executive of State Bank of India. The other guest speakers – Farhad Zama, banker and award winning writer, Dr Francesca Orsini, leading academic, Murtyunjay Mahapatra, head of State Bank of India in the UK and Nunna Kameswari, researcher at Imperial College London – all took turns behind the lectern to voice their thoughts on female-male dynamics. Although the programme focused mainly on professional environments, broader issues have also been touched upon.

It kicked off with an orison of ‘peace, peace, peace’, then after a brief reference to the book Women are from Venus, men are from Mars, Mr Mahapatra took the limelight with women bosses at the centre of his speech. As an experienced boardroom member, he was familiar with difficulties faced by women in their careers, such as damaging generalisations, the proverbial glass ceiling or altered perceptions of merit. The women bosses he encountered were indeed working by slightly different methods, but delivered often times better results despite some of them “tending to take longer with tasks.” He found that female superiors also pay more attention to details and display a more considerate judgement process. The banking executive remarked that one cliche, however, holds true – ‘hell hath no fury as a woman scorn’ – leading the audience to believe he has at some point been there and survived.

Dr Francesca Ossini an Italian academic with obviously extensive life experience of India and its culture followed. Through anecdotes taken from a Hindi novel – hindi lit being her specialty – she exposed the underflowing power ratios in daughter-father relationships, at the same time observing the same ratios in mistress-lover and wife-husband connections through the eyes of an introverted but precociously attentive and intelligent daughter. Women’s struggle in the context of a sexist and prejudiced society bears no comparison to the classic rags-to-riches patriarchal story. Instead, many women regardless of social background must deal with notions of dignity and self-esteem when their relationships with men are cast with exploitation by oppression. The main characters from the novel she talked about are young advertising workers – a field Francesca wittingly defines as “the creation of dreams that lead to consumption”. The young girl’s predicament in the novel weighs in on the complexities of modern India – the practise of advertising there representing the omen of a new social model in which old ways still linger. The protagonist eventually proves that she learnt the importance of “being assertive without being particularly vocal,” and Francesca passed the word to the next guest – Miss Nuuna Kameswari.

Who was anything but “not particularly vocal”. Contrarily, the young ICL statistician was outspoken in her views against age-old stereotypes. “In statistics, it doesn’t make sense to draw conclusions based on gender criteria because of the huge variations we see in the two groups.” Moving on from the stereotypical to the outright dense dogma of  ‘yes means no’, she underscored how this stupid preconception often leads to situations like extreme as sexual assault. Urging listeners to get over the false knowledge passed on from generation to generation, Nuuna reminded us that feminism is no longer a fringe movement but an effective way of thinking.

Next came Farhad Zama, briefly introduced by Mrs Geetha who warned him that he’s been invited in his quality of writer, not banker. The point taken, he pulled out a book – presumably his own – and started reading paragraphs out of it. Love, happiness and marriage featured as themes of the dialogue between a woman who lost a husband and is now conflicted about remarrying. Some men advise her to remarry for money and status, others for idealistic romance – pointing out (maybe involuntarily) the ways many men approach their relationships with women.

After this it was time for a Q&A session and a brief reception. A member of the audience asked about motherhood. It’s a major factor affecting women’s careers, and many professional females regard it as a deterrent from pursuing a profession. “So how can motherhood advantage women in the workplace?” came the question. The answer was that it can give women a constructive distance from the job – useful for detached thinking, but it only works if full support and understanding is shown from colleagues.

The wisdom? For one thing, the UKTA Women’s Day Panel Discussion teaches us how people are infinitely more relaxed and honest when there’s no money at stake. Apart from that, if not eye-opening, it certainly was a welcome look at how women and men interact at the high levels of organisations, making very good points on ways to open boardrooms to more women executives.

Here&Now365 was delighted to attend yet another educative and at the same time entertaining event at the Nehru Centre. We’re looking forward to the next one.

image from http://feministsforchoice.com/

It’s about freedom. Basically that’s what it’s all about. The right to your own life. The right to dream your own dreams. The right to decide over your own actions. The right to decide over your own body and what happens to it. That’s what we mean when we talk about human rights. And how ever we twist and turn this issue there’s no getting away from the fact that if you want to have the full right to decide over your own life you should avoid being born a woman. Regardless of where you look on this planet men have greater freedom that women. Of course there are lot of other things you should avoid if you want freedom; for instance being non-white, non-heterosexual, disabled or poor. But above all you should avoid being a woman. Of all the poor people in this world 70% are women. 99% of the worlds assets are owned by men. Women do 60% of the labour in this world but earn 10% of the money. There’s just no way to shrug those statistics off.

We can talk about injustice, unfair distribution, power abuse, corruption, we can all agree that our world isn’t fair. It’s true. And we do talk about it, but in those conversations we very rarely state that it’s actually also a gender issue. The world isn’t fair, but it’s even less fair if you’re a woman. No matter how bad the situation is in a country, be it war, famine or poverty,  there’s one thing you can be sure of, and that’s that the situation for women and girls will be worse. Regardless of where we are in the world it’s always worse to be a woman. Why is that?

The oppression of women is never the highest item on the political agenda, it’s always one of the “minor issues”, one of those issues that aren’t as important. In all the debates on global poverty the blatant connection to gender is never mentioned, it becomes a sub-issue. Women are made into a “special interest” group whose interests can be pretty much be disregarded. Oppression of women becomes an issue that’s not really important. It’s not one of the big issues on the global political agenda. But 51% of the world’s population are women. How can something that concerns more than half of the world’s population be considered a “special interest”? And when looking at aid initiatives targeting poverty the results are unanimous: if you give the aid directly to women it will reach more people, children, old people, even men, the distribution will be wider and the success sustainable. It actually works. It’s been proven time and time again that if you really want increased living quality, disease and hunger reduction, financial stability and sustainable change for everyone, women should be the target for aid. And yet, this is not the rule, it’s the exception. Even though the evidence couldn’t be clearer, from an economic standpoint, anything else is even irrational, but it’s still not the rule. Why is that?

When we say “human”, what do we actually mean? What’s the norm for a human? What archetype are we referring to? Is it a woman in Rwanda? A girl in Bangladesh? Or even a lady in Brighton? No, when we speak of a human we are referring to a man. A white, heterosexual middle-class man in the western world. That’s a human. Strange isn’t it? How did we end up having a an absolute minority be the norm? And even if we extend it to include non-white people it still doesn’t include women. Women are an exception. We speak of freedom of speech, democracy and human rights. We criticize governments who hold political prisoners, we condemn acts of terrorism. It’s all on the public agenda. And at times, as a parenthesis, we can even go as far as to state that it’s important that women’s rights are taken into consideration. That they get access to education, that they have the right to vote. But in the subtext one burning fact stands out: Human rights and women’s rights are not synonymous. Human rights equal men’s rights. The UN even saw it necessary to formulate separate documents about women’s rights:

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women

Human rights weren’t enough, a special document explaining that these actually applied to women too, was needed. That women have rights too. That women are also humans. Can a country really claim to be democratic without full gender equality? Of course not. Not if we by democracy mean the right and representation of all citizens. Less than 20% of the members of the worlds parliaments are women, but 51% of the worlds people are women. Is that democracy?

We are waging war against terror but not against sexism, even though sexism causes more death, harm, financial loss and suffering in society than terrorism will ever do, regardless of nation or part of the world. We spend billions on the prevention of acts of terrorism, but how much do we spend on preventing violence against women? In the western world men’s violence is one of the absolute biggest health threats to women of fertile age. In England more women in this age group die from violence perpetrated by a man close to them than from traffic accidents and cancer combined. In England. Not Rwanda or Afghanistan. England. And the women are not being murdered by strangers, but by men who are close to them, the men they live with. In Sweden, a country known for it’s work on gender equality work, a woman is beaten by a man she has a close relationship with every 20 minutes. And those are just the reported cases. The cases where a report is filed with the police. How often does it actually happen? No one knows. All we know is that the closer the victim and the perpetrator are, the less likely it is that a police report will ever be filed. So how many women are being beaten right now? How many are being raped? No one knows. But we do know that the most dangerous place a woman can be, statistically, is in her own home with her own husband. And we do know that the injuries, the sick leave, the emotional stress and the legal actions, costs millions. Form a pure financial perspective it would make more sense to invest in the battle against men’s violence against women than to build safer roads or prevent acts of terrorism. It would probably save more lives and financial resources than both combined. So why aren’t we doing anything?

We like to claim that we here in the west have come further, that it’s not as bad here as it is in Pakistan or Sudan. And it’s true. But it’s also true that even here in the western world a woman is more likely to get the blame for her rape on her self than to have it cast on the perpetrator. And if she was drunk when it happened the likelihood of being seen as what she is, the victim of a horrendous crime, is pretty much non existing. Even if the rapists are her friends. She should have known better. Should have behaved like a good girl. In the majority of rapes the victim and the perpetrator know each other. It may be dangerous to walk home alone at night, but for a woman it’s statistically a lot more dangerous to hang out with her male friends. Or her boyfriend. Or her husband. But strangely enough this is very rarely mentioned. As women we are warned about smoking, taught about healthy eating and the importance of exercise, but we are never warned about the danger of men. “Don’t walk home alone in the dark.” But that’s not where the greatest danger lurks. It’s actually at home. That’s where a woman will be beaten, raped and murdered. By someone she knows and trusts. Sure, it’s dangerous for women to smoke, but statistically, hanging out with men poses a much greater threat. Why aren’t we warned about that?

War, conflicts and terror are visible forms of violence. Violence that happens in public, out on the streets. But violence against women is not public. We are not shown scenes of men beating and raping their women on the TV-news. And yet we know there’s a connection. We know that away from the eye of the TV-cameras there are numerous of atrocities that are never seen and never reported. In war-zones the violence against women always increases. Always. The frequency may vary, but the connection is always there. Remember the war on the Balkans? The reports of systematical mass rape? There was nothing unique about that, no isolated anomaly. Soldiers die in public, become heroes and martyrs, but women’s suffering is never even mentioned. It’s invisible. And a woman is usually given the blame for her own suffering. It doesn’t matter that it was a rape, she’s still dirty and used. Her life has been stolen. But we don’t talk about it. It’s not on the political agenda. It doesn’t even constitute a ground for asylum.

If you are invisible, if your problems and suffering are not seen, do you exist? Does the reality you live in exist? How are you ever going to be able to take your experiences seriously if you are constantly told they don’t count? The oppression of women is turned into a private and personal matter. Something that doesn’t belong in the “real” discourse, on the public agenda. Is that reasonable? When we know that poverty and illiteracy have a gender? When we know that women only earn 50% of what men early globally? All we have to do to realize that this is not a private or personal matter but a political one, is to look at the numbers. It’s a structure, a system. A global structure. One of the clearest and most general we have. A structure that runs through all of society and penetrates deep into the private sphere of every culture on this planet. A structure that cuts into our consciousness, our very souls. It’s like racism, only much worse. Sexism is just as blatant, but goes even deeper, and it’s just as tangible in the public sphere as in the private. There’s no escaping. And that’s why we don’t talk about it. Because if we start talking about it we are forced to look at ourselves, at our own lives. To question ourselves, to question our lives, our values. And maybe we are afraid of the answers, of what we would see.

It’s all about structures and degrees. When does a friendly pat on the back turn into sexual harassment? At what point? And who decides? The right to your own body and the right to decided who gets access, we can all agree on that. But what happens when the guy who gropes you is your boss? If you risk losing your job if you speak up? And what happens when you get told that it’s just “appreciation”? That you should be thankful? And how many times does it have to happen before you stop even reacting to it? Before it just becomes reality, normality. Before you get used to it and just endure. How much does it take to distort your own inner boundaries? How many times do you have to be told that what you’re feeling is wrong before you adjust, succumb, give up? It’s a blurred line, a sliding scale, impossible to get a grip on, just like all oppression. A scale. The lynchings of black people in America, the holocaust, it’s just the most extreme examples, the most visible ones. And that’s usually when we spot it, when it reaches an extreme. There’s a difference between a push and a slap, but both are a manifestation of violence. There are no fixed boundaries. And if you turn equal pay, sexual harassment and violence into private issues it becomes even more difficult. It’s like a throwing a pebble in a pond; you see the impact when the object hits the surface, you hear the sound, but the collision is just part of the turn of events. Women earn less than men, hence they will have smaller pensions. Poverty becomes a continuum, reproduced throughout life. And a woman who’s forced to put up with sexual harassment in order to not be seen as impossible or to keep her job will not file a report. What happens to a girl when she gets told it’s her own fault her friends raped her? That she was too drunk or too provocative to be a credible victim? Where does that lead? On a personal level. On a societal level. What’s the full impact of that?

We have to stop thinking that sexism and oppression of women is a private issue. It’s a political and global issue. Systematized oppression and violence can never be a private issue. Its structures constantly being reproduced on all levels. These are not isolated or individual events. It’s no coincidence that men own 99% of the assets in the world. It’s no coincidence that 70% of the world’s poor are women. And it’s no coincidence that less 20% of the world’s parliament members are women. It’s no coincidence and there are no valid excuses.

Initially I said that it’s all about freedom, and I know that being a woman in western Europe means I have more freedom than a woman in Pakistan, but do I have the same freedom as a man in western Europe? Does a woman in Pakistan have the same freedom as a man in Pakistan? That’s how the comparison has to be made, otherwise we’re talking apples and pears. It’s about structures and that’s why we have to look at the whole picture. We know that the world isn’t just, that the distribution of resources and finances is unfair, but the difference is that gender inequality cuts right through all the layers, through all groups, with no exception. It’s omnipresent in all areas of our lives and everywhere on the planet. And that’s why it’s an issue about basic human rights. So are women human?

The International Women’s day is more than a hundred years old and a lot has happened in those hundred years, but I’m still not sure we can answer the question with a “yes”. We still live in a world where women are oppressed for no other reason than their gender, where women aren’t considered to actually be humans. And the only way to change this is to open our eyes and see. Really see what’s going on. We’re obliged to see. And once we do there’s no going back. You see even more. And when you do, how can you refrain from screaming? From despairing. From exploding with pure rage.

I want to live in a world where my chances for freedom aren’t dependent on having a penis. It’s not fair and it’s not reasonable. Why shouldn’t I be allowed to live the life I want, to make my own choices, just because I happen to be born a woman? Do we really want a world like that? A world were women aren’t humans. And if we don’t, we have to dare to see. We have to admit that this is a structural problem and we have to act. It’s our duty. Women are humans and we have to protest when we are not treated as such. Every time. Only if we do this can we ever change the world. Only if we all start seeing and protesting can we create a world where gender isn’t part of the definition of a human. A world were women are humans too.

Today is International Women’s Day.

And while this day has been celebrated for over one hundred years…

honoring the economic, political and social achievements of women

women’s rights, particularly in healthcare, continue to be threatened.

I can think of no finer tribute
on this day in celebrating women
than by honoring one
who captured their magnificence
in photography -

Ruth Bernhard 1905 – 2006.

“If I have chosen
the female form
in particular,
it is because beauty
has been debased
and exploited in our
sensual 20th century.”

“Woman has been
the subject of much
that is sordid and cheap,
especially in photography.”

“To raise,
to elevate,
to endorse
with timeless reverence
the image of woman
has been my
mission.”

“Each time
I make a photograph
I celebrate the life
I love
and the beauty
I know
and the happiness
I have experienced.“

The UN theme for 2012 is “Empower Women – End Hunger and Poverty” –  a theme that is shared by many organizations aiming at reducing gender inequality in developing countries. At the same time in developed countries, several organizations call for more political action to reduce the enduring gender gaps in political and economic participation. Even though women’s labor market participation has been increasing constantly over the past decades in developed countries, all OECD countries are still marked by important gender wage gaps and an underrepresentation of women in decision-making bodies in politics and business.

               Image Source: Spiegel Online International

The average gender wage gap in the EU (27) adds up to 17,5% – a level that has practically stayed unchanged over the last years.  In 2012, women still make up only 11.7% of boards at the top 3001 European companies. Women’s share in national parliaments is somewhat higher in most European countries, but no country reaches the 50% threshold (for example: France 19%, UK 22%, Germany 33%).

The persisting barriers for women to climb the career ladder in business and politics are mainly explained by pointing to difficulties for women to combine work with child rearing. However, many countries have been increasing their efforts to improve the work/life balance of parents over the recent years, for example by investing more and more in public child care services. In Europe, these investments have been particularly encouraged by the European Commission (“Barcelona objectives”). These efforts have certainly increased women’s supplied working hours, but no or very little change can be observed for the gender gap in occupations by sector and by status.  However, differences in occupations are the major cause for the persisting gender wage gap.  Some ask for patience now by claiming that a reduction of occupational and wage differences between men and women simply will set in with some time delay. Others are less optimistic and blame continuous gender discrimination for the persisting underrepresentation of women in parliaments, managerial positions, advisory boards etc.

In any case, it is time to give women’s decision making power a shot in the arm. How? The most efficient way is to introduce gender quotas in decision making bodies.  The International Women’s Day 2012 is widely used to promote the idea of introducing gender quotas in politics and the economic sphere and more and more doubters are ready to overcome their reservations.

Germany, for example, is in the midst of a debate over gender quotas at newspapers. Female journalists in Germany sent an open letter to 250 editors and publishers demanding a quota that would ensure that at least 30 percent of all executive positions in media enterprises are filled by women. The letter states that now only two percent of those positions are held by women.

This year’s World Economic Forum also made a commitment to increase the visibility of women by instituting a gender quota. The forum has requested from their strategic partners that for every five executives that are attending the meeting, one of the executives must be a woman.

The European Commission currently consults on mandatory quotas for women on company boards of large European companies to tackle the persistent lack of gender diversity. The majority of commissioners state that self-regulation of companies so far has not brought satisfactory results. The lack of women in top jobs in the business world is considered as seriously harming Europe’s competitiveness and hampering economic growth.

Several EU member states including Belgium, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain have already introduced rules on gender quotas for company boards. Unfortunately, introducing gender quotas for regional and national parliaments is rarely on the political agenda in Europe. It is high time that Europe breaks the glass ceiling that continues to bar female talent from getting to the top, not only in Europe’s listed companies but also in politics.

Source: Angela Luci’s own contribution

Related articles on this blog:

Economists for gender quotas in parliaments

Reducing the gender wage gap – how to tackle the task?

Lessons from Davos: Gender quota urgendly needed!

Women hold up half the sky is a phrase which I first came across in 2000, when Tearfund, a UK-based NGO, ran a campaign with this as the title. The campaign focused on, that at that time, women made up just over half of the world’s population yet only earned ten per cent of the world’s income. More recently I’ve come across this phrase again from the book Half the Sky This is an eye-opening book which focuses on the three major abuses of women 1) Sex trafficking and forced prostitution 2) Gender based violence 3) Maternal mortality. Women hold up half the sky is actually part of a Chinese proverb. In its entirety it reads “Women hold up half the sky, but it’s the heavier half” Isn’t that true?

What is the best way to empower women around the world, especially in developing countries? Education.

Education is one of the best investments which developing countries can make, particularly in women. If a woman receives an education then she has the potential to transform her community. Knowledge gives women authority. Research has shown that educating women and girls results in a reduction in infant and maternal mortality, family health and nutrition improves, there is a reduction in the number of cases of HIV and AIDS and women get better jobs, which means an increased salary thus helping to improve the economy.

Sadly, there are still too many girls in the world who do not receive an education. Some of this is because poorer families need girls at home helping with the younger siblings, so that their mother can work, or indeed they have to work themselves. In other situations girls live in societies in the world where women are oppressed and refused the right of an education, or it is considered more important to educate sons in a family and not daughters.

International Women’s Day 2011 theme is “Equal access to education, training and science and technology: Pathway to decent work for women” So, how do we see that even more women and girls in the years to come receive an equal education to their male counterparts? Many international organizations are working to make a difference so that women and girls are no longer discriminated against in their societies. They do this by providing aid, vocational training and education programs. Some international governments are including policy on girls education in their overseas aid programs. Organizations such as Compassion and World Vision have child sponsorship programs. These programs not only see that a child gets an education, investments are also made in the community that the child lives in.

How else can educating women and girls in the world be improved? What support is lacking?

“Educate a boy and you educate one person. Educate a girl and you educate a nation.”
A. Ibn Badis, Algerian Muslim Reformist.(1889-1940)