Gender equality for schoolboys

I woke up this morning to my husband asking me what the Women’s Equality Party intended on doing about the gender gap in higher education (that he’d just heard about on the radio).

His sudden interest in Women’s Equality Party policy is due to said gender gap being in favour of girls, and widening. More girls are going into higher education (they’re now over 30 percent more likely to enter HE), and it would seem the boys are getting left behind as early on as at primary level. Does the party give a crap about that inequality? He wants to know. Well, I’m hardly its official spokesperson, but as a paid up member, I thought I ought to familiarise myself with the policy.

First, lets look at the problem. The feminisation of education in the UK made a few headlines back in 2006, with calls for a system that encompasses more adventure (a male thing), and less sitting still and being conscientious (a female thing).

While I’d prefer us to get past the gendered behaviour expectations, (liberating girls to be adventurous and restless, and boys to be quiet and conscientious), I could absolutely get on board with the concept of an education system that better embraces both. Regardless of gender, a system that only caters for and rewards a very narrow view of success must be letting down a lot bright kids (currently mainly boys) who don’t conform.

Perhaps addressing the shortage of male teachers (especially at Primary level) would be a step in the right direction. Role models can make a big impact. If they can see it, they can be it. If they can’t, well… there was a period of time in Britain when little boys would ask their parents if a man could ever be Prime Minister. It’s that powerful, having somebody of your own gender to blaze a trail for you.  As it happens, this does tie in with a WEP policy, to increase the number of men teaching in primary schools.

Also, let’s not forget that a university education is not the be all and end all of career paths. Somehow, apprenticeships, once highly regarded and the only way to learn a trade, have ended up often presented as a second best option, for those who weren’t very good at school (mostly boys). Meanwhile, kids who fit into the academic pigeon hole of ‘bright’ (mostly girls) are often discouraged from taking them up. Unsurprising then, that they flood the universities. When they do take up apprenticeships, girls do so overwhelmingly in the lower paid sectors (contributing to that gender pay gap). That caring is less valued and worse paid than construction is a discussion in its own right, but girls aren’t being encouraged into those higher paid apprenticeships, in typically male fields. This complicated picture of which gender is losing out where, and how, is somewhat migraine inducing and I personally could now do with a lie down. It’s a bit wonky all round, but I’m fairly confident that gender roles play a key role or two.

So, yes, let’s try and create an education system that includes those who don’t flourish on being quiet and still. Lets get more role models for our boys throughout their education. Perhaps lets widen our view of career success, to see non academic paths as equally valuable.  Most importantly, though, lets drop those gender roles and just create great opportunities for all children, be them quiet, cerebral, practical, restless…

In answer to my husbands question, WEP is barely off the starting blocks as a party, but it does plan to address the lack of male teachers. There’s currently no policy directly addressing the focus on being still and quiet (perhaps in second policy document?) but there’s plenty to make that less of a male problem, by producing children that fit less neatly with those gendered behaviours, and that is a pretty damn vital piece of the puzzle.

Feminazis: they’re not a thing

My husband, always the mischievous antagonist, decided to chuck the ‘feminazi’ grenade into one of our debates the other day. He pretty much got the reaction he wanted. I lost my debating cool and gave him the upper hand. I never regained that lost ground. I couldn’t quite articulate everything that makes me inwardly (and a bit outwardly) shudder about that word. So I’m going to try and articulate it now.

I asked my cheeky husband (after the debate dust had settled) what he considers a feminazi to be. He gave it some thought and offered two answers.

The first; it’s just a funny word you can use to irritate feminists (wife included), when they’re getting all up in your grill. Like ‘Bridezilla’, I guess. It’s a clever compound. It’s got a good ring to it. He appreciates that.

The thing with funny insults is, they’re usually only funny to those not on the other end of them. Their aim is to undermine with humour. If you don’t like being undermined, well, then you lack humour. It’s that tried and tested playground bully tactic; ‘what, can’t you take a joke?’

This becomes even more irksome when the word gets chucked about very casually. ‘Feminazi’ implies somebody getting reeeeally militant about their feminism, right? Using it when anybody dares to flag an inequality, reduces them to an overreacting shouty Hitler type, and undermines their objections, however valid they may be. Much the same as I’m sure many a fiancee has been unfairly labelled ‘bridezilla’ to undermine entirely reasonable requests. In fact, I got branded a bridezilla by a colleague, for the fairly standard practice of keeping a wedding spreadsheet to track costs, which completely baffled me.

Hubby’s second response was that if he was to imagine a valid use of the word feminazi, it would be somebody taking feminism too far. Now, taking equality too far seems logistically impossible, so after some further enquiry, we worked out that he was referring to misandry, posing as feminism.

Now, I can absolutely see why he might have a problem with misandry, and why wouldn’t he want an amusing insult to chuck at it? And, although somewhat disproportionate (therein lies the humour), the Nazi element of the word is much better aligned with some sort of hate or discrimination than it is with a desire for equality.

It’s just a shame that it had to get attached to feminism, implying that misandry is a shade of feminism, when it’s in fact an opposing idea. Aligning feminism (a campaign for gender equality, benefitting everybody) with a hate or discrimination of half the population does it such a massive disservice. Feminism is as much to do with misandry as it is to do with misogyny, and not many feminists get accused of that.

To recap. Feminists (yes, even the militant ones) flagging up inequality aren’t Nazi’s (they’re the opposite end of the political spectrum). Misandrists aren’t Nazi’s either, but they’re a little closer. Misandrists aren’t feminists. Feminists aren’t misandrists (or misogynists). So, Feminazi’s are not a thing. 

WE Launch : Exciting times

At the beginning of this year, I didn’t really think much about politics. At best, I had a basic grasp of the situation – who was leading which party… Vaguely what they stood for… Beyond that, it wasn’t something that concerned me.

And yet, yesterday, I woke up still excited about the Women’s Equality Party policies that I saw launched yesterday. I’m currently a paid up member of two political parties, have contributed to policy forming for one and, with my vote, to a fairly large swing to the left in the other. What happened??

First, the election happened. There was something different about the election this year. Something felt important. It felt like possibilities had been opened up. It was no longer a two horse race. I felt compelled to make a fully informed choice, rather than one based on second hand ideas, gleaned from other peoples conversations. I read all the manifestos, watched all the debates, was glued to the news coverage, until I proudly marked a cross in the Labour box on polling day. I remember the unsettling feeling of mild dread, when I woke the next morning to an outright Conservative victory and five years of austerity looming ahead, with no Lib Dems to counteract it.

In the following month or so, two things happened that called me to action. First, Jeremy Corbyn joined the Labour leadership race and I finally saw somebody I could get really excited about voting for. I joined Labour to vote for him and give myself that option at the next election. You’d have to be living in a small white room underground to not have seen the dramatic effect his win has had on the political landscape since then.

Meanwhile, my mum had told me about the Women’s Equality Party, which had just been announced. After a bit of bellyaching about the gender exclusive name (I still have my reservations, but have made peace with it, as the general concept is awesome), I joined. Actually, I didn’t just join, I got involved. I turned up to all the working party meetings, put myself forward for the comms team, took on bits of work, helped to form policy, met some awesome people and became more and more excited about what this party could achieve.

It was that excitement that woke me up yesterday morning, still buzzing from the launch, the brilliant speeches given by Sophie Walker and some very impressive teenagers (Honor Barber! Wow! Future PM?), the fantastically practical yet revolutionary policies that had me beaming the whole way through…

Most of all though, the feeling that this may really change something. That WE can actually do this: create a society that values men and women equally, sees women taking an equal role in running the country, values fathers as equal parents to mothers, sees men and women represented fairly and diversely in the media, boys and girls doing what they enjoy and excel in, regardless of gender…

It’s still very early days, but this feels SIGNIFICANT. For the first time in my life I’m really bloody excited about politics.  If you want to get excited with me, here’s the policy launch. It’s about an hour, so grab yourself a drink and settle in. It’s a great watch.

 

Suffragette. How far have we come since then?

Last night I was lucky enough to get to a special screening of Suffragette (Women’s Equality Party working group perk!). I LOVED it. Beautifully shot, beautifully acted, fascinating, empowering, toe-curling and tear-inducing all at once, with a few giggles thrown in. I’m utterly in awe of what those women did. There’s no way I could have endured the hunger-striking and force feeding. I suspect I’d have bottled it the minute I stood a chance of being arrested. Thank goodness we’re using political parties these days to effect change, as opposed to civil disobedience.

We have come a long way since then. I think it’s safe to say that it’s now generally accepted that women have the mental and emotional balance to handle such tasks as voting. Hearing those arguments against granting women the vote really brought home how far we’ve come.  We’ve (in law at least) secured equal pay. The first majority female shadow cabinet is currently flanking Jeremy Corbyn in the House of Commons. In terms of legal rights we’re pretty much square (on paper if not always in practice). Women have fought long and hard to get us here, we haven’t quite achieved gender equality yet, and the next part of the battle is possibly even harder.

Changing laws seems comparatively simple when faced with changing the attitudes of an entire society. The disparaging sneers those suffragettes were faced with felt a little too familiar. It’s not always as overt these days, but it’s still there. You still hear men being told to keep their wives in line, for example. Yes, It’s less accepted and far less prevalent, but it still kind of floors me that it’s taken nearly a hundred years to get even that far.

Is it really going to take another hundred years for us to stop hearing things like ‘man up’ and ‘you throw like a girl’? Another hundred years until women can walk down the street without having our bodies publicly and verbally appraised? Another hundred years until little boys can play with dollies without fear of ridicule?

I think we owe it to Pankhurst(s) and co. to try harder than that. To create an education system that fosters gender equality, right from the early years. To tackle the dated representation of gender roles in the media. To create a better gender balance in parenting and caring through flexible working and parenting leave. Perhaps a big push on these areas could create a more rapid change in attitudes, that the suffragettes would be proud of. Perhaps The Women’s Equality Party, with it’s same purple and green livery, can use politics to echo the strides forward those Suffragettes made a century ago.

The joy of choice

Is it just me that’s quite amazed at how different today’s political offering looks, to the one we were faced with just six months ago at the election?

Somehow, from the ashes of Labour’s sweeping defeat (indeed almost everybody’s sweeping defeat) has risen a more exciting Labour Party than we’ve seen in a long time.

Tens of thousands of new Labour supporters have signed up for Jeremy Corbyn’s new, honest politics.  And meanwhile, The Women’s Equality Party has emerged as the fastest growing political party in history. To me this feels like a far more enticing spread.

For a start, it feels like I have a genuine choice. Back in May, it felt a bit like choosing between centre-right Tories, centre-right Lib Dems and centre-right Labour (much as I love the Greens, they are a little further left than I stand). There were differences, but they were hardly ground-breaking. It felt very much like the status quo was set in concrete. Now we have a centre-left Labour Party and a brand new party, dedicated to achieving gender equality. Who’d have thought it?

Whatever you might think of Jeremy Corbyn and/or the Women’s Equality Party, the increased choice of political leanings alone has to be worth celebrating as a win for democracy.

To quota, or not to quota?

I’ve always been anti-quota. The barriers to diversity in any sector or on any company board always seem to me, too complex to be addressed by recruiting based on certain demographics.

The reason there aren’t enough women on boards isn’t due to anything as simple as the (typically) white male management not wanting to hire them. The talent pool they’re hiring from is often fairly white and male to start with, making recruiting a woman or indeed anyone from a minority group less likely. That doesn’t mean we just shrug and accept that these underrepresented sections of society aren’t interested in, or good at these jobs. Instead, we analyse why the talent pool is so homogenous. At what stage are these missing demographics discounting themselves from this job, or sector? Is there a point at which the opportunity is not equal?

Well yes, the easy answer to that is there are countless points at which the opportunity is not equal. This problem starts much earlier than in boardroom selection procedures. It starts in infancy, when boys are complimented on being big and strong, encouraged to run faster, cry less when they fall, play with toys based on building and driving and fighting. And when girls are complimented on their pretty hair, encouraged to be sweet and kind, play with toys based on babies, keeping house, and making themselves pretty.

It continues through education, where girls not doing well in STEM subjects (after having played with dollies instead of building stuff) is accepted as a natural phenomenon, and the sports you play depends on your gender. It’s then reinforced by the media; Page 3, a dearth of reporting on women in sport, family matters being reported as ‘women’s issues’…

All these insidious messages shaping what we think we are capable of, considerably thins the crop of potential female directors, or engineers, and male carers or primary school teachers. And with such multitudinous messages telling us we can’t do this and that because we’re a girl, or because we’re a boy, a quota system feels a little like putting a sticking plaster over a deep wound. It doesn’t even begin to address the root cause.

This week though, I was sent an email that tripped me up a little in my anti-quota stride. Our HR department sent out a link to some unconscious bias training. I knew about unconscious bias, but I don’t think I’d previously appreciated just how pervasive it can be. Even the most exemplary  HR practices struggle to address the fact that we’re so geared to like and trust people who look like us. This affects which interviewee we choose in very subtle but influential ways.  It affects how we respond to each interviewee, how encouraging we are if they’re nervous, how we perceive their strengths and weaknesses. It colours how we read CV’s, too. A CV carrying a name like ours (Anglo-Saxon, for example) is read more positively than one with a foreign or different sounding name. It affects which colleagues we socialise with and often therefore consider more favourably for promotion. Even those of us who pride ourselves on our equal treatment of all, are victims of this shortcut our brains are wired to create.

The upshot being, sectors dominated by white men are instinctively inclined to hire more white men. And sectors dominated by white women are instinctively… well you get the idea. The same would apply of course, were there a sector dominated by black LGBTQ women. I don’t know of such a sector, though. That’s the thing. So many sectors are still dominated by white men, or in some cases white women. Diversifying amid this insidious influence of unconscious bias is a bit of an uphill struggle. Do we need quotas, or at least targets, to swing the bias back to neutral? Role models play a large part in what young people think are possible careers for them, so perhaps that sticking plaster would do more to address the deeper problem after all. I think more awareness of the power of unconscious bias would be a really good start. The training I just did should be the norm, not a novelty.

I always worried that those hired to a quota would be forever in doubt that they truly earned the position on merit. Now I think about it, perhaps the next time I get hired by an interview panel that looks just like me (white British female), I should be asking myself the same question.

 

Sex in Class: Why we need Goedele Liekens in our lives

I knew I was going to enjoy Channel 4’s Sex in Class programme as soon as I saw the trailers. I was not wrong. That programme had me facepalming with despair at the start and clapping with glee by the end.

Us Brits are doing a pretty shoddy job at stopping our teens getting pregnant and giving each other all manner of STIs, aren’t we? Evidently, we need a new approach, because getting terribly embarrassed and sticking our heads in the sand doesn’t really seem to be making the problem go away.

Enter Goedele Liekens, a Belgian Sexologist and UN goodwill ambassador for sexual health. She’s come to show us how to do sex education properly, and the woman is just brilliant.

Starting in Ackrington, in a school brave enough to try something different (albeit in a slightly worried and befuddled manner), Goedele started the first of her four classes as frankly as she intended to continue. She waltzed in with an array of fanny photos, mounted on display boards and asked the boys to pick their faves. It was at this point that it hit me. The extent to which pornography is informing the sexual attitudes of today’s teenagers. I mean, I knew this was a thing. If questioned as to how pressing an issue this was, I’d previously have said ‘very’. Nothing quite hits you though, like hearing a teenage boy presented with an image of a neat and tidy, but present (i.e. not shaven off) bush and responding ‘I’d dump her’.

It didn’t get any better in the few minutes after that. It became apparent that the same lad expected to be able to cum in any girl’s face without prior consent (or even warning). It’s apparently his god given right. I don’t know if he’s been watching The Inbetweeners, and modelled himself on Jay, but he’d got it down to a tee. Never been near a girl and recycling the porn scenarios he’s seen as first hand accounts. He was showing off, of course. Would he actually behave like that if a real life girl showed any interest in sleeping with him? I doubt it. That wouldn’t have been much comfort though, to the quietly horrified girls in his class, who appeared to acquiesce to this point of view as the current consensus, and that they risked all manner of ridicule and rejection should they object.

That was the horrifying truth of it all. That both genders were taking what they saw in porn as an education in sexual relationships. Consent and respect are not an integral part of that syllabus.

It was the difference in their attitudes by the time Goedele had finished with them, that had me clapping with glee. The boys were more respectful. The girls were empowered. It was a wonder to behold.

Goedele has submitted a GCSE in sex education to an exam board for consideration.  After seeing the effects of those four classes (and the state of play before them), I can’t help thinking it would be a catastrophe for our young people (that’s our future adults, there) and gender equality if it wasn’t at least introduced as a compulsory element to personal and social education syllabuses.

Fatherhood is a feminist issue

Or gender equalist, if you prefer 🙂. I’ve been wanting to write this post for a while, but the complexity of it keeps stalling me. Statistics are relatively scarce and online articles often heavily biased one way or the other.

One thing is certain. Being a dad is changing. For the better. Paternal leave is on the increase, shared parenting is now the starting point for child arrangements when households split, and an increasing number of dads are given full residency. The automatic assumption that mum is the better parent is being challenged, and dads’ vital role is increasingly appreciated.

We’re not quite playing on a level field yet, mind…

A recent study suggesting there is no gender bias in the family courts, highlighted that few separated dads are actually applying to the courts for time with their children . The intimation being, dads are less interested. I don’t buy that. Are we satisfied that fewer women sit on company boards than men, just because it’s pointed out that fewer women apply? No. We look further down the chain to see what’s stopping them applying. This is about equal opportunity.

There’s a distinct lack of data for what’s going on further down this particular chain, but a friend’s experience flagged up a couple of possible barriers.  He was dissuaded by his solicitor (and mediator), from pushing for the minimum 50/50 split he’d originally wanted, and given the impression that he was unlikely to get anywhere. Is a gender bias or outdated information at this level stopping dads ever getting as the courts?  And then there’s the cost. Each letter, each phone call, each short meeting with a solicitor eats into the shared pot that mum and dad need to split. If dad is given the impression the court won’t help him, the decision to plough the family’s cash into such attempts becomes a very difficult one.

And then there’s the old gender roles chestnut. Mums are still more likely to stay at home or work part time, while dads carry on working full time. It’s hard to demonstrate that you can provide an equally good (or better) home for your children, if you’re at said home significantly less. My friend was told his wife could stop him using a childminder to cover the 2-3 of hours a day that would enable him to work a 50/50 parenting split around his job. Whether this is true or not, I have no idea. The information his solicitor gave him seemed to vary wildly through the process. As a result though, he didn’t push for it, and lost way more than those couple of hours  a day in contact time.

Evolving parental leave opportunities could help here. If the men would just take them. So far, figures show, they’ve proven generally reluctant. Again, we can’t just assume they’re disinterested dads. We need to know why. I’d bet on family finances and career pressures having a lot to do with it. Women have been dealing with the parental career gap for decades. We can absolutely appreciate why men (and indeed their employers) may be somewhat reticent in risking career progression for parenting. It sucks. But it’s vital that they do.

When men start to take equal amounts of parental leave to women, employers cease to discriminate between the two based on family planning and the playing field levels at work.

Men meanwhile, gain time with their kids in the early years and are better placed to gain at least 50/50 parenting should the household split, so the playing field levels at home.

This is a win win, no? I think shared parental leave has some way to go before it truly liberates men for parenting (though lets not ignore the progress we’ve already made towards this. We’re certainly on the right track). Looking at some of the draft Women’s Equality Party policies I’ve been sent to feedback on, I’m hopeful we can do much better. Fatherhood is absolutely a feminist issue.

 

 

Diversity bingo, anyone?

Things are starting to move in the Women’s Equality Party. At the Working Group meeting this week, we were issued with a set of draught policies to comment on and feed back to HQ. I curled up with them that night and had a lovely time scribbling my comments all over. It’s exciting to think I’m playing a part in honing the party’s policies and by extension, even its future manifesto.

While contemplating how the media might be pressured to cover more news and stories focussed on groups other than white males, I amused myself with the concept of diversity bingo. Then I thought that perhaps I should actually pilot the concept? The idea being that you watch a programme with your diversity bingo card, marking it whenever you spot diversity (a wheelchair user in a key soap opera role or coverage of women’s sport, just for example…) and then share the results on social media. I need to have a careful think about what goes on the cards, to make it fair and effective. Suggestions would be exceedingly welcome.

 

 

 

Feminism & Domesticity: getting it right

I don’t have the figures so I’m generalising here. Women are still doing more  housework than men.

There have been a couple of studies done recently confirming this. One by BBC Women’s Hour, one by Mumsnet. I know my husband will trip over himself to question their data collection methods and point out that you can make studies show pretty much anything you want them to. He’s one of those frustratingly slippery arguers that makes sweeping statements of his own, swearing blind that he knows this for a fact, but interrogates each whisper of a generalisation I dare to drop into a debate. He’s exactly like his father. I should have seen this coming. Sigh.

I digress. If indeed these (admittedly, potentially quite biased) studies are indeed correct then we have a problem. These women doing more housework aren’t necessarily doing so because they stay at home taking the primary parent role, or that they’re working less hours. Sometimes that’s the case, yes. Sometimes though, the studies show that women who are the primary earner in their household are still coming home and doing the majority of the housework. They’re doing a double shift.

So, as a feminist… sorry, gender equalist, am I practising what I preach at home by making sure I don’t do any more than my fair share of housework? Well, not really, no.

I’m pretty much a disgusting slob at home. As is my husband. We are both diabolically lazy and messy and it’s lucky we don’t want kids as I suspect they’d be taken off us if anybody saw the lack of cleanliness in which we usually reside. So generally, we’re equally lazy, which is ok. He cooks (which I don’t enjoy and am crap at), I sporadically tidy up after his kitchen explosions (he’s a creative cook so makes the maximum mess possible for each meal).

Alas, this level of fecklessness can only be sustained for a limited period of time before somebody needs to do something about it, lest we drown in our own filth. That somebody is invariably me. I’m the one who gets sick of it first.

Obviously, I’ve tried requesting his assistance but my success rates are shit to middling. My inconsistent approach to domesticity works against me. I’m met with (arguably fair) accusations along the lines of ‘you do nothing for days and then suddenly I’ve got to leap up and clean because you’ve gone all OCD‘.

I do have the odd crack at keeping on top of things, and quickly remember why I don’t. If I request assistance, he agrees, but  ‘later‘. If it still hasn’t happened later and I ask again, I’m branded a nag.  Must be karma for my being such a slovenly teenager.

So, it’s about time I sorted this shit out. I’m getting involved with the Women’s Equality Party for Christ’s sake. This week I had an epiphany, resulting in our most positive conversation about housework, ever. It required me doing something very counter-intuitive. I started the conversation by admitting I should be doing more of the housework than him. He liked that. Amazing, how much more receptive he was to the idea of dividing the housework up, once I’d acknowledged that his career requires much longer hours and that I should take up the slack when he’s working long hours.

If it sounds like devious spin to get my way, it wasn’t. I had genuinely realised that our equality pivot point wasn’t quite where I thought it was. He works incredibly hard in a proper ‘career’ job as an Engineer for a busy consultancy,  I have chosen to stay in a nice, easy job that pays just enough, no progression or pay rise on the horizon, but fantastic work-life balance credentials. I’ve done this for purely selfish reasons (loving the lack of stress and the ability to switch off as soon as I skip out of the door at the end of the day). So, in teamwork terms, if he’s busting a gut to bring in more money, while I’m chilling out on an ok wage,  I should use my extra time to do a bit more at home. It was a bit of an epiphany. It probably sounds obvious, reading it. What stopped me seeing it earlier? Pride, I suspect.

I guess I didn’t like that I’ve ended up being the stereotype secondary earner who has to do more of the housework. I suppose I wanted to be more progressive than that. That, I now see, would require me ditching my lovely, easy little job for something that challenges me and demands the same commitment as his does. Maybe one day I’ll find something I love enough (and excel in enough) to put that sort of energy into.

In the meantime I have a much more willing husband now I’ve given him the credit he deserves for bringing in the bulk of our household income.  I’m going to focus my pride on us being a cohesive team that support each other, because that is gender equality, even if it doesn’t feel all that groundbreaking.

So, having rambled on about my own domesticity (or lack thereof), I think my point is that perhaps we need to be interrogating what we’re doing towards gender equality at home. How equal is your domestic arrangement? All those women who are primary earners in their household are living emblems of how far women have progressed in the quest for equality. Not so much though, if they then come home and do the bulk of the housework. An equal domestic set-up doesn’t necessarily have to look progressive (I’ve discovered), but it does have to be fair, supportive and based on teamwork.