Sporting rules

This morning the Sydney Morning Herald reports that the All England Tennis Club has made its decisions on the Centre Court schedule at Wimbledon, influenced by the looks of the female players.

According to the SMH:

A spokesman from the All England Club, Johnny Perkins, was quoted in the Daily Mail newspaper in London: “Good looks are a factor. ‘It’s not a coincidence that those [on Centre Court] are attractive.”

Female competitors who are better known for their strength and ability than their feminine wiles – Serena Williams for example – have been relegated to lesser courts while pretty unseeded players get to play early matches on the world famous Centre Court which can hold greater crowds, all of whom pay more for a centre court ticket.

Former Wimbledon competitor and oft-TV commentator Australian Pat Cash has joined the discussion in typically chauvenistic style saying that sexiness is basically all the women’s game has going for it.  Nice.

This latest demonstration of sexism from the All England Tennis Club doesn’t actually surprise me in the slightest. It wasn’t until 2007 that female players competed for the same prize money as their male counterparts.  In 2006 men played for £30,000 more than the women, in 2004 it was $42,000 more.

In 1973, Billie Jean King founded the Women’s Tennis Association aiming for equality for women on the professional tennis circuit.  It seems that that very same year the US Open offered equal prize money to both male and female winners.

In 1984, the Australian Open began offering equal prize money – although for some reason this equality was paused between 1996 and 2000.

Roland Garros and Wimbledon both waited until 2007 to equally reward women. 34 years after the US event organisers.

Women who think that the Battle of Feminism was fought and won by our mothers in the 60s when the contraceptive pill became widely available (in a couple of countries) miss the point entirely. If a woman goes through her life without encountering discrimination on the basis of her sex she is the exception, and more than likely she just isn’t noticing it.

I would be interested to know your thoughts on which are the main battles left to fight for women’s equality in sport.  Are there other tournaments where men are rewarded more than women?  Does anyone know the average value of sportsmen’s sponsorship deals compared to sportswomen’s?  And can anyone shed any light on why – at least in the UK and Australia – male sports are considered more mainstream for spectators?  While women’s netball is at least televised in Australia, and I believe soccer is seen as a worthwhile women’s sport in the US, do any countries regularly screen women’s rugby, hockey or anything else on mainstream channels?

Equalising language

Hat tip to Katy in Dubai for this one.

Gender inequality inherent in language was addressed with great success in a recent female empowerment campaign run in Lebanon, and Leo Burnett Bahrain, the agency behind the campaign, was recognised at last week’s Cannes Lions International Advertising Festival.

In Arabic the placement of accent punctuation above or below the word indicates whether it addresses a male or female audience. Increasingly no accent at all is used, which means the word becomes directed by default to a male audience. This means that official communications, marketing messages and public information all become addressed just to a male audience.

In the Khede Kasra campaign, the Women Empowerment organisation used a wide variety of marketing and communications tools to highlight the issue and encourage the use of the appropriate accent to include women into the audience. The campaign seems to have been highly successful and it’s really pleasing to see in the Khede Kasra campaign video on YouTube (embedded below) that it appealed to men and women alike. The scale of mainstream interest it gathered must surely have helped make progress in female empowerment within the region.

The name game

Hat tip to Felicity for sending this one through for my attention.

Seems Michele Hanson at The Guardian in the UK has got a bee in her bonnet about someone else’s life.  OK, ok, so that’s what journalists do, but this one doesn’t sit easy with me.

Under the auspices of standing up for feminist values, Hanson has called out the Sun’s editor (and soon to be chief exec of News International, apparently) Rebekah Wade on her decision to take her second husband’s name after her recent marriage.  Wade (sorry, Brooks now) is, in Hanson’s view, disrespecting the achievements of feminist and suffrogettes.

“she’ll be letting down all those thousands of women, from 1850s Massachusetts suffragette Lucy Stone onwards, who have fought for women to retain their own names and independence. But there’s clearly no arguing with her. She will be Mrs Brooks.”

I would like to say; indeed she shall, Ms Hanson.  Because that is her choice.

It intrigues me that while critisicing Brooks for being, essentially, anti-feminist, Hanson also levels abuse at her for her lifestyle which is nothing if not an extreme demonstration of a woman succeeding and seemingly having an absolute ball in a man’s world.

“one has to contemplate her lifestyle, because it is relevant. It’s so full of grandeur: flying backwards and forwards across Europe for lunch, chumming up with prime ministers, trying to have news of her promotion delayed until after the general election because it’s so momentous (the promotion, not the general election). She’s the last sort of woman you’d expect to opt to take the back seat, yet here she is, giving up her own name like an ordinary little wife.”

I reckon you don’t have to like all women and their choices to be a feminist.  But I do believe you have to fight for their rights to make those choices.  And please ladies – stop putting each other down!

If keeping your name matters to you then keep it.  If you want to change it, change it. In this modern era of pre-nups, law changes to give married women status and the like, changing your name no longer signifies handing over your independence in the way it once did.

There are many reasons a woman may want to take her husband’s name (and indeed vice versa – I read this article on the BBC a couple of years ago which shows it does sometimes work the other way too!)  I love my surname and, like Hanson, am the last one of my line – what with both my sisters being married off, having changed their name, then produced more girls anyway!  But I want my children to have the same name as both their parents and double barrelling isn’t really an option with my name.

The issue is not whether a woman takes her husband’s name, but whether she has the choice not to.  Brooks had that choice (and indeed exercised it in her first marriage to Ross Kemp when she resolutely stayed Wade for seven years).  Please can we let her have that choice again, and not insist that her life is decided for her by a public jury of feminists?

Banning the burqa

I came across this blog post on the ongoing discussions in France about whether to ban the veil and burqa among muslim women.

As the author states, French President Nicolas Sarkozy would like to ban the burqa, stating that it’s “a problem of liberty and women’s dignity.” He also called the burqa “a sign of subservience and debasement.”

The blogger gives a short history of French/Arab relations (focused on the French colonisation of Algeria and subsequent violence in Algeria’s quest for independence), and in concluding states:

“For those who choose to be covered, he [Sarkozy] is continuing France’s history of colonialism and persecution under the guise of feminism.”

An interesting perspective and worth a read.

Woman’s Hour

A lighter post today – a podcast recommendation for you.

The podcast in question is the BBC Radio 4 Woman’s Hour.

Now I know from past experience that not all of you are going to like it.  Some of you will find the concept, presentation and themes outdated.  Some will be unfortunate enough to pick an episode that is too British-centric.  Indeed one of my friends would rather gouge her eyes out with an egg slicer than listen to the show each day (and she is a Radio 4 addict!), but others I have introduced to it are addicted, so give it a go.

For me it is an indulgence as for a whole hour this mainstream radio station talks about history, news, politics… all sorts… with a female perspective.  The opinions and the topics vary wildly (as I have said before, 50% of the world’s population is not all going to care about the same thing), and the guests on the show (male and female) often disagree on things (actually, more often than not – that’s why they are chosen).

Some of the topics discussed recently have been:

- the legal rights and processes of surrogacy

- an interview with one of the contendors for the Wimbledon females title

- an overview of Judy Moran, “the woman at the heart of the Melbourne mafia”

- an insight into male friendships

- a muslim woman’s campaign against so-called ‘honour killings’

- the euphemisms we use to avoid naming a girl’s genitals, what are the options when talking to young daughters?

There is lots more besides, and many topics that don’t have a gender focus at all (just how stressful is moving house or – and I missed this one – the joy of olives.  Riiiiight.)  Give it a listen.

Does romance kill feminism?

On my way to the station this morning, encumbered by my gym kit and sizeable handbag, I walked behind a man and a woman. Both in their mid to late twenties they were obviously in love. Not in an icky ‘eww get a room’ kind of way, just touching finger tips, walking closer than necessary… you know what I mean. I had followed them for about 5 minutes before I spotted that the man was carrying the woman’s handbag.

My first instinctive thought? How sweet – a gentleman.

My second consciously formed thought? Hmmm… is that anti-feminist? Can she not carry it herself? It’s half the size of mine, is she letting the side down?

It’s a question I am still toying with, and have been all morning. I am in a new relationship myself and pretty loved up. He calls me his Feminist Girlfriend, but insists on paying for everything. I fight the good fight enough to make my point without seeming rude and reckon that when it all boils down we probably end up paying for half of everything each. But he still believes he should be buying my lunch each time, not the other way around. He also carried my gym bag to the station last week (in my defence I had two bags, and he had none….)

So should women let themselves be treated like this? Is it acceptable to demand equality on one count and enjoy being spoilt in our own time? Can feminists expect or accept gentlemanly gestures without in some way undermining the larger quest for equality?

I would be very interested to hear your thoughts – both from men and women – so please add them in the comments section.

The working mum

I mentioned last week that I had attended a networking event recently at which a female MP had presented.  Her talk was all about her; her background, her life choices and why she does the things she does.

The woman in question was the Hon. Melinda Pavey, member of the NSW legislative council and Shadow Minister for Emergency Services.  Pavey is definitely a good role model for girls looking for equal opportunities in their lives and has achieved some great things in her career so far.  She was the minister I mentioned, when I questioned how vehemently I held my own feminist beliefs in admitting I would have thought twice about electing her when she was heavily pregnant.

I wanted to share with you something else she said in her talk, to illustrate some of the ways that we women seem to be our own prison guards while we try to make the break for equality.

I don’t remember Pavey mentioning what her husband does for a living, yet when discussing how she manages her public responsibilities with those of her family, she admitted that to be at the event that evening she was missing her son’s cross country race.  She quickly explained that if he makes it through to the state championship then she will definitely be there to see him… but it all got me wondering.

How many men would:

a)      feel the need to explain how they juggle their family and career

b)      apologise in a public forum for missing their son’s cross country

c)       actually be judged negatively for it

And I also wondered why parents beat themselves up over things like this.  Sure, the child may have stuck out his bottom lip and stropped, but think back to your own childhood.  Can you remember whether your parents were at your school sports day (I can’t… but suspect with full time jobs they probably were not)?  Can you remember how many nights a week your dad was home before you ate your dinner?  Again, not too sure, but I do remember him bringing home crunchie bars for my sisters and I on Fridays.  He must have done it no more than 3 times but in my mind it has become a tradition.

When I was growing up my dad worked in the public sector and my mum was a teacher.  Both worked long enough hours that I had to go to a childminder before and after my school day.  Once I was 10 I managed to convince my parents to let me be a ‘latch-key kid’, carrying my front door key on a rainbow coloured bootlace around my neck (and under my jumper for safety’s sake).  I never felt neglected as a latch-key kid… I felt empowered.  Seriously.  I loved it.  And I may have given my mum a hard time occasionally about the horrid lady who child minded me (my sisters and I still tease her about deserting us), but it hasn’t made me love or respect my mum any less.

Somehow, however, the experience engendered a subconscious thinking that the child is firstly the woman’s responsibility.  Subconscious thoughts I have to remind myself to question and disregard time and again.  I don’t know whether it is because my mum always picked us up from the childminder’s (Pam)… that she paid for the service from her cheque book… that my mum was responsible for organising days and times… or  because while we regularly whined about Pam to both mum and dad, it was mum who looked painfully guilty each time.

If the next generation is to grow up and consider men and women equal, we need to demonstrate that equality for them from the start.  And the demonstration cannot stop at actions alone.  If a little boy or girl sees mummy working long days just like daddy… but apologising for them and giving extra big hugs out of guilt each night, what does that say to them?

We need to give ourselves a bit of a break and stop bowing to society’s expectations that women can do everything.  A couple *can* get outside help to raise the children without the woman being a bad mum.  And children enjoy freedoms and learn from the experiences of mixing in playgroups and crèches and with family and friends so mum can continue to have a personality and a life.

Next time I am back in the UK though I have decided it’s my dad’s turn to take the flack for sending me to Pam (said very primly and remarkably fast…. PAM) the probably-perfectly-lovely (even if she did make us wash our chalk drawings off the pavement when we had finished) childminder.  I have only just realised it was him, and not just my mum, that couldn’t meet us at the school gates at home time.

The child-free choice

I am going to enjoy keeping this blog.  Since its launch at the start of the week, I have lost count of the number of conversations I have had – both offline and on – about feminism.  I have to confess that I was (and remain) worried about the reactions this blog may bring and its repercussions on my own brand, as the F word is so frowned upon by many.  How would it look to a prospective employer?  Would it mark me as the modern day equivalent of the all threatening union member?  Does feminism make me a trouble maker?

But now that I have so publically put my head above the parapet and shouted “I am a feminist without the answers”, it seems that many others are sitting comfortably in the closet just like I have been.

I want to share with you one conversation that I had this week, as it demonstrated perfectly for me just how diverse feminism can be.

The conversation was with a professional woman who is, by choice, childless.  As a professional woman whose own choice will be to (hopefully) eventually have children, I was very interested to hear of her experiences.  The below is entirely paraphrased and I am in no doubt that in writing this I will unintentionally overlay it with my own interpretations.  For that I apologise… I am just not in the business of taking a dictaphone to the pub

• Women who are childless, by choice or circumstance, are often seen by other women as selfish, and that they just haven’t yet realised their maternal desires
• These women can fear being unfairly tarnished with the “ripe for childbearing”  brush by potential employers to the point that the woman I spoke to proactively volunteers her child-free choice in interviews
• Child-free women can be marginalised by politics where “female” action initiatives are often “family” initiatives in disguise (see today’s announcement by the Liberals about its Engaging Women forums, which was launched with the comment “In an increasingly busy world where women and families are having to juggle even more things…”)
• As they grow older, and their friends have children, Child-free women/couples find their social circles changing, with expectations from friends for them to change too.

Can you think of any other collective group that expects 50% of the world’s population to conform to a uniform philosophy?  Sometimes women, even those declaring feminist motivations, can be our own worst enemies at creating and proliferating stereotypes.

If you think about it, pretty much every woman alive has been born to, and/or raised by, a woman who eschewed the child-free choice.  But we would do well to remember that that doesn’t make it the only choice for women.  While there seems to be growing understanding that not all liberated women want a board position in a FTSE 100 company, and stay-at-home mums are becoming an acceptable concept, there is probably more work to be done in reminding ourselves (and others) that the desire for children is not an inherent part of every woman’s life.  Women’s issues and children’s  issues often overlap, but they shouldn’t be confused with one another.

Feminist literature

Today I met the lovely man in my life for lunch in a little cafe bookshop he has found around the corner from his office.  After we had finished eating, he spotted a book “The Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism and Capitalism“.  We picked it up and had a good flick through.

Printed in 1929 it was incredibly forward sighted – not at all what we had expected from the title.  OK, so it was a leeetle bit ‘helping the little lady understand what all this faff is about’, but the content discussed things like the inequality of women drawing a single wage while men earn a family wage.   Then we spotted it was by George Bernard Shaw. The advanced (for its time) thinking made sense.

At $30 that one had to be returned to its shelf, but looking around we discovered that we were sitting in the feminist literature corner.  Awesome; thought I.  Urgh; I suspect was the thought of my beau.  Coz then I was hooked.

I have never had any formal tutelage on the subject of feminism, and have not read any of the official ‘course literature’ for the subject.  I am glad of that, because it means that to this point my opinions have been shaped largely by my life experiences.  However today that will change.  Because $19 later I had left the cafe with a copy of Germaine Greer’s The Female Eunuch and a 1996 book; DIY Feminism by Kathy Bail.

Germaine Greer has come to represent all that is bad in feminism for many.  She seems to be held single-handedly responsible for the point at which feminism became man-hating (not my branch of the philosophy at all).  I am very interested to see what she has to say for herself and honestly expect to pick up some very interesting thoughts… even if I won’t necessarily agree with it all.

I shall let you know how I get on!

Measuring the success of feminism

Thanks Kristin for pointing me to this article about the falling participation rates of women in senior levels of business in Australia, over at The Punch.  It’s a great piece and well worth a read for its careful and balanced approach to the debate.

The crux of the discussion is whether we (feminists/women/the business world/society at large) should be appauled by the declining numbers of women in the upper echelons of business.   Once a leading light in the advancement of women in senior enterprise, Australia now lags behind the US, UK, South Africa and New Zealand.

My own brand of loosely defined feminism expects all opportunities to be made available to women, but fundamentally hands the choice to the woman herself.  I blogged a while ago on my self discovery around this issue – my highly qualified sister chose to become a stay at home mum around the same time that I found myself on a conference call at work tutting about companies that don’t have enough female representation on the board.

The Punch article puts my thoughts much more suscinctly:

…before we cry “gender foul” and raise the spectre of discrimination … we must also allow for the possibility that a growing proportion of women – including university educated professional women – have made a choice not to pursue their careers to the highest levels.  That they’ve worked out where their priorities (and the joys in life) actually lie.

We must allow for the fact – not often debated and discussed in polite circles -  that many women, while immensely enjoying their careers, view parenting as their most satisfying and important role in life.

There’s a chance that Australian women have actually figured this out and are making choices based on what’s right for both them and their family unit.  Women are smart like that.

All this makes it very hard for us to measure the success of attempts to ensure gender equality within society.  If in two years time I too decide to halt my fast-tracked career to focus on a marriage and children, has society failed me?  Has something been inherently wrong in my education or upbringing to produce a university graduate and comfortably salaried executive that would rather spend time with dribbling kids and toddler groups – the very situation generations of women before seemingly fought to avoid?  Or am I, in some ways, perhaps luckier than my hubby-to-be because it is still more acceptable for me to have a 10 year career break on my CV than for him?

In spreading of the message of gender equality over the last 100 years have we confused what women have been fighting for?  Mis-associating feminism with an attempt to replicate a male stereotypical lifestyle, rather than opening the options and choices available to women?

And perhaps the simplest question of all; How can we measure the sucess of feminism when the goal is to provide for choice, rather than a prescribed path of the perceived perfect female lifestyle?  Without statistics showing that 50% of all FTSE 100 company board members are female, how will we know when we have reached our goal?