Sex And The City

[liadnan]

"Feminism for Bright Young Things" (Sunday Times, possibly not a permanent link). Mainly for my own future reference. To wonder: which is the more significant factor on her aspirations and potential future, not to mention her ability to express herself: the fact the author is a woman or the fact she is currently headgirl at SPGS?

Comments

[katstevens.livejournal.com]

The Having Children Thing is always going to be the sticky area with sex discrimination. If you had equally qualified bloke and girl job candidates and you knew the girl would want children and need an X-month break to do this, who you would hire to do a better job? And is this discriminating against women who definitely DON'T want children but it is assumed by the boss that they do? Is it selfish to want kids AND a career?

Please bear in mind I am not that well-informed in this area and my entire knowledge of the subject comes from an episode of Ally McBeal.

[liadnan]

Hah. This is precisely the argument that frequently rages on the lawyer's discussion board which gave me the link to this.

Actually that episode of Ally McBeal, which I remember well, raised a genuinely difficult issue rather well: the point about the position of women who don't want children. AMcB did, perhaps surprisingly, have points to raise worth thinking about.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_hypatia_/]

There is an implicit assumption usually that women who have children will give up work or take protracted time off both of which are a corporate cost. The offsets - greater staff retention over the long term in areas which are hard to recruit, reduced training costs, better stability and client relationships over time etc tend to be ignored. There is a similar assumption that when man has children it has no impact on his life at all.

Looking back over the years I can think of many occasions where I was asked about my family plans (always indirectly of course because its not permitted to ask it outright). I don't know if any of my male colleagues were asked at interview if they were heavy drinkers, played rugby, smoked etc all of which are commoner causes of lengthy and/or frequent absence by injury or illness in my industry. There is also an assumption of a male and unchanging culture with fixed patterns of working and little thought given to the business benefits of changing the approach for both men and women. Flexible patterns don't only work for women, they can also work for men and most particularly for businesses.

We recruit from ivy league, if 50% are still there three years down the line I'd be surprised. Turnover amongst expensively trained male staff is higher than amongst their female contemporaries.

In the banking sector 'paying off' is the norm for pregnant women, and was certainly still active just four years ago. No fuss is made - its simply made very clear that you will be given a big wodge of money to bugger off, or your life will be made extremely difficult, both cases leaving you jobless with no realistic scope for getting back on that ladder. A few fight it out by accepting insane terms and zero family life, most don't.

[tybalt-quin.livejournal.com]

A friend of mine was asked in an interview from a graduate trainee position with an investment bank, how she planned to handle her biological clock (on the basis that she was in her 30s and had just got engaged). She replied that she would probably handle it in the same way as the male interviewer would deal with his mid-life crisis - with way too much sex.

[knell.livejournal.com]

She reads like someone who's already had a pretty privileged and isolated upbringing, and so is unlikely to encounter too many of the seamier forms of discrimination that are out there. When the reference point is highly wealthy investment bankers, who are in a position to push when these things happen... uh, I dunno. I just found it depressing.

(Of course, it's also much easier to get your thoughts published in the media if you're well-connected and know the right people, as this piece demonstrates..)

[rparvaaz.livejournal.com]

In my opinion, based on my experiences, the latter. If you have had a good education, and come from a reasonably well connected family, you escape the worst forms of discrimination. And if you have had a sheltered upbringing, and have been the headgirl at a good all girls' school, then you never do really experience that kind of a discrimination. Basically because by the time you end up facing it, you are well equipped to fight against it, and you never end up internalising it. Which is about as good as it gets really - everyone, at some point in their lives, faces some kind of discrimination or the other.

This article did remind me of something though - this touchy issue of feminism and wanting to stay home after having kids. The author here skirts by the issue but I have often come across people who take it as an affront if you choose to be a stay-at-home mom. Apparently, all women owe it to the past feminists to never make that choice. And that to me has always sounded like replacing the tyranny of men's opinions/expectations for the tyranny of women's expectations.

[liadnan]

Hmm. But your experience is, I venture to suggest, somewhat special. Plus India is in a completely different world when it comes to women's rights across the board, no?

[rparvaaz.livejournal.com]

But your experience is, I venture to suggest, somewhat special.

Indeed, and especially until the end of my schooling. But I opted for the Sekrit identity during college and later, and as long as you are a good enough student, you do tend to be somewhat sheltered. At least that is how it worked for me.

Plus India is in a completely different world when it comes to women's rights across the board, no?

Oh yes, you can safely say that, and about many things other than women's rights. :)

[liadnan]

The latter point you make is also running hotly on the thread I'm following elsewhere about this.

[rparvaaz.livejournal.com]

I can well believe that. :)

Lemme know if they ever reach a consensus...

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

I think this also ignores the boost elite women get from positive discrimination that doesn't apply to their less fortunate sisters. I spent quite a few years involved in recruiting for a large American consulting firm and I (and my colleagues) were under great pressure to recruit women and the "approved" ethnic minorities (ie black and hispanic - nobady cared how mant Chinese or Japanese we hired). Given the small number of women in the target pool (graduates of top business schools) the standards were inevitably shaded for women, thus giving the already privileged preferential access to very well paying jobs indeed.

[etherealfionna.livejournal.com]

Well put. I often wonder about the ethics of positive discrimination towards women, since my career was hugely boosted when I got a job I was marginally qualified to do on the basis of being female - should I feel guilty? If I *shouldn't* feel guilty, do I have any right to expect the benefactors of any other kind of discrimination to feel guilty?

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't feel guilty about it. It's a rat race and one needs all the luck one can get. Some day you'll lose out to a less qualified candidate because they are family, sleeping with the boss or the designated minority du jour.

[liadnan]

Maybe there's an argument that those who have the breaks -genetic, upbringing, education, money, luck- have a duty to take what they can for the long-term good of women?

(I don't particularly hold that view, and see Ritu's point in the second paragraph of her first comment above. I have been known to argue that anyone who has breaks like that should seek to apply their fortune to the general good of humanity. But mainly I'm just stirring up trouble.)

[tybalt-quin.livejournal.com]

Actually, the comments made in a review on the latest Candace Bushell "novel" in the Culture section of the ST had more interesting points to make about feminism (IMHO) than this rather naive offering.

The thing is, she doesn't understand what feminism is. She equates it purely with equal opportunities when in fact it also goes to considering how women view themselves and how that is shaped by societal expectations. The fact that the writer takes it for granted that it's okay for girls to be trying to look pretty (which as a generalisation, means looking good for the opposite sex), is exactly one of those aims that feminism aimed to tackle and the fact that a lads mag portrayal of women is increasingly becoming internalised amongst young women as an ideal norm, is something that should concern all of us but yet is something that she is oblivious to.[/rant]

[fairymelusine.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's my take on this as well. This is sort of a charming little look at a young woman retreading very well travelled ground for the first time, ignoring many of the more complicated issues involved. Yes, gender discrimination exists, probably as much now as it ever has. But there's a lot more going on here than the author lets on, as many people here have said: about how much a woman's own desires (to have children, for example, or to 'look pretty') continue to perhaps keep the issue alive. I think this most recent wave of feminism, over the past 20 or so years, has shown us that there is more at issue than simply presenting women with opportunities - that there are more complicated ramifications to the male/female dynamic than bra burning. There are social and biological difference to men and women that cannot be easily boiled down to 'equality' - at least not within a generation, and the majority of women's own abiguity of whether or not they want to 'be feminist' reflects this.

[tybalt-quin.livejournal.com]

:nods:

I think it's interesting that with many women under the age of 25, "feminism" is almost a dirty word because of its connotations with prudery and looking for oppression in everything (although don't get me wrong - there are quite a few self-proclaimed feminists who do that).

I always took the Rebecca Weisz approach - "I have no idea what feminism is, I only know that I am labelled a feminist when I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat".

[rparvaaz.livejournal.com]

I'd like to read that review of Bushnell's novel, if you have the link?

[badgerolove.livejournal.com]

God, things don't change do they? I was at St. Paul's, for my sins. That reads like every single editorial of the school newspaper when I was there. Everyone is very concerned that they should be able to buy their own Marc Jacobs skirts. I also love the way she seems to regard getting into Oxford as a triumph of feminism.

[liadnan]

I was wondering whether you'd show up, as the one who actually knows about life at SPGS as well as Ox.

My understanding is that the well-known London girls schools -SPGS, City, Westminster etc are far more driven about all this than the boarding schools. But I could well be talking out of my arse.

I also confess to ignorance about Marc Jacobs in any event...

[lizw.livejournal.com]

I was struck by her implicit assumption that if anything stopped her classmates having a free choice whether to work or stay home with your kids after marriage, it would be sex discrimination. What about finances? You've got to be earning considerably above the national average or else willing to be considerably more frugal than most before a one-income, multi-adult household with kids becomes an attractive option. We couldn't have done it if my parents had not been willing to rescue us from time to time until my seniority (and salary) improved.

This bit amused me:-

Recently a banker came to give us some career advice. He meant well but it was so sexist. He said City jobs were fine for women, but warned us off the trading floor. It was “too macho and far too aggressive” for the likes of us. Similarly, he added, stay away from corporate finance because of the long hours. Can you imagine him saying that to sixth-form boys? And when is anyone ever going to say to a young man: “This is a good career because you can go part-time after you have children?”

I said almost exactly these things to an aspiring male lawyer on Friday, although I hope I was less patronising than the banker appears to haver been. I wish more people would say things like this to young men - I think the way forward for feminism now is to be more assertive about the fact that current corporate expectations are unhealthy and unreasonable for the majority of men as well as the majority of women.

[liadnan]

Mentioning no names but how do you think, broadly speaking, the MC and similar firms are doing on the various issues -happily taking on women, and supporting childcare etc, the kind of stuff raised in the thread katstevens and hypatia were commenting on above?

A different view

[rhythmaning.livejournal.com]

Reading this post reminded me of something I saw on BBC.co.uk last week - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4648282.stm - that states that the proportion of national wealth owned by women is forecast to shift from the current 48% (slightly higher than I would expect) to 60% by 2025.

It doesn't actually explain why this shift may come about but - as a man - ut certainly made me think!

Re: A different view

[nineveh-uk.livejournal.com]

I strongly suspect that it is simply down to an aging population, and the fact that women will form a large part of that. Even though a substantial proportion of female pensioners live in poverty, there will still be a lot more home-owning 85 year old widows than widowers.

[beingfrank.livejournal.com]

It was very similar at my school, which was sad as most people were kidding themselves. Also, only certain sorts of success were acceptable. One had to get to the top of the right profession in the right way or it just didn't count.