Not an April Fool - just a fool?

How many brains? Universities minister?

Progress, where is thy backlash leading?

Words (clearly) fail me this morning.

The best article I have read on this is from Laurie Penny in the New Statesman on 7 April.

Social mobility is a scam. It's a scam that is useful to governments implementing austerity programmes: after all, if anyone can make it, anyone who fails to do so must be personally at fault. Social mobility, however, is not an adequate substitute for social justice.

Which brings us neatly back to feminism, and to the uncomfortable admission that David Willetts does, in fact, have a point. Mass female employment has affected social mobility. Feminism is nowhere near as significant a factor in the stagnation of social mobility as the destruction of industry or wage repression. The fact remains, however, that if one accepts an unequal system whereby only a handful of elites make it into well-paying professions, and if one also accepts a feminism which settles for cramming a few extra women into those elite jobs, then some people are going to be nudged off the podium. What we have, to paraphrase Willetts, is neither feminism nor egalitarianism. What we have is a ruddy mess of recrimination and sharpened elbows.

Willetts has a point, and he is using that point to stab innocent bystanders in the back. Along with most of Westminster, Willetts has mistaken bourgeois feminism, which merely boosts the life chances of wealthy women within an unequal system, for feminism proper, which demands redistribution of work, wealth and power in order to deliver equality. Along with most of the country, Willetts has mistaken social mobility, which merely boosts the life chances of a few middle-class aspirants, for social justice.

Paternity Leave?

If you read the article from the Independent linked in the title of this post, you may agree that it looks as though attitudes have shifted little since the 1970s. Of course the inequality of pay between men and women, and the current fear of losing a job must also be factors. I do know many 'hands-on' dads now, as indeed I did way back when.

Women and public sector job cuts

From Left Foot Forward, an article which includes interesting stats about women working in the public services.

I should like to add that women are also disproportionately represented in low-paid jobs, such as cleaning and caring agencies, once public and now private.

NYT blog about women who work harder than men

http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/08/where-women-do-most-of-the-hard-work/


One of many snippets appearing in the press today - It's 100 years since IWD was established, but (I think) next year is the anniversay of the first march. Must check this info!

The same blogger puts forward his three important steps to improve the situation of women in the world:
http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/08/three-proven-steps-to-advance-the-worlds-women-on-international-womens-day/
1. education
2. deworming (!) and micronutrients
3. Support for women's businesses

The Women in Space Program

A few months ago I came across this article (via Wired):

• Kathy L. Ryan et al. (2009), 'A forgotten moment in physiology: the Lovelace Woman in Space Program (1960–1962)', in Advances in Physiology Education 33: 157-164; available: http://advan.physiology.org/cgi/reprint/33/3/157.

I don't know whether the physiology is interesting in the context of that scientific discipline (I certainly don't find it particularly surprising that women were just as qualified as men for even a very physical job), or if this is considered a quirky historical story. Nor is it especially surprising that women were preventing from taking part in this high profile, prestigious and dangerous work at a time when women were unable to take active service in the military in most countries (not that this is something one should necessarily aspire to, but it's one of the most discriminating employers even today).

What I did find interesting (if not unusual) was the way that even when this particular group of women, the Mercury 13, had been allowed to take the tests, and had proved themselves as individuals, and had shown that in many categories (especially tolerance to sensory deprivation and claustrophobia) they were categorically superior to males in the same category, excuses were made to deny them the right to participate in the space program. From the unproven (menstruation will interfere with their ability) to the Catch 22 (only experienced test pilots, a career from which women are already barred, may qualify); men set the goalposts to get the results they wanted in the first place. Plus ça change...

Anyway, if you're a bit of a space geek like I am, this is a cool story.

More headline idiocy

As I understand it the TUC has passed/ is discussing a resolution to stop employers forcing women to wear high heels at work, on health grounds.
They are not forcing women to stop wearing high heels. They are not asking women to stop wearing high heels.
Yet it has been misreported in this way, under the headline:
Daggers drawn over stilettos
A TUC vote to ban high heels in the workplace has won support from doctors – but derision from women.
Where? In the Independent today. And all the usual suspects are up in arms.

Women not at the top in Fashion

Independent article about women's inequalities in industry in general and fashion in particular.

Reasons - inbuilt prejudice, old-fashioned attitudes (lol) and of course that old childcare problem.

Fashion designers and equalities campaigners complain that, while women account for 52 per cent of the workforce in the fashion and textiles sector, they occupy just 37 per cent of the top jobs, and are paid 15 per cent less than their male colleagues.

"Discrimination is everywhere, not just in male-dominated industries," said Katherine Rake, director of the Fawcett Society which campaigns for equality between men and women in the UK in areas such as pay and pensions. "Some employers do it unwittingly, so we are encouraging them to do mandatory pay audits to make sure they are not discriminating."

Although fashion is in the spotlight, some argue that the same obstacles block women's progress in all industries: in particular, that women continue to bear the brunt of childcare. The idea that a high-flying career is incompatible with motherhood is borne out by the statistics, which show that the average hourly wage for female workers prior to having children is 91 per cent of the male average, declining to 67 per cent for working mothers.

British women, on average, are paid 17.1 per cent less than their male colleagues, although this varies significantly from industry to industry. Recent research from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission last month revealed that women working in the financial sector earn, on average, a massive 55 per cent less then their male colleagues.

Many fashion insiders deny there is a problem with inequality; while others reject the idea that women are disadvantaged within their particular company, but confirm that it is a problem within the industry as a whole.

"The fashion industry is one of the largest employers for women, has many strong role models and provides a broad variety of career opportunities," said Caroline Rush, joint chair of the British Fashion Council.

"It is the whole thing of careers and children; they are very hard to juggle," said British designer Katherine Hamnett. "It tends to be gay men who are at the top in design – Yves St Laurent, etc," she added. "That's because they don't usually have any children at all, it is easy for them."

Click on title for full article

Men, women, unemployment and housework

An article in Slate magazine asks if men could be doing more round the home if they are unemployed. Memo to self, read it soon.

Had a quick glance, it seems many men are adapting to this with ease, and doing a bigger chunk at home. A few, as ever, sit on their arses and play computer games..

Interesting article, investigating the intricacies of male/female roles.

Ten liberating washing machines

More discussion about the item that has been most liberating for women, in Times online blog. The usual crass comments, and of course some decent ones as well.

Is it the machine? Is it chemicals and preservatives in food? Could it be a more equal sharing of work inside and outside the home? Legal rights? The vote? Contraception?

Blame the mothers again?

A report, called The Good Childhood Inquiry and commissioned by the Children's Society, is quoted on the BBC website today.

It suggests, among other reasons, that having many more working mothers has contributed to the damage done to children.

"Most women now work and their new economic independence contributes to levels of family break-up which are higher in the UK than in any other Western European country."

At least the Beeb hasn't used this as its headline, unlike AOL news - headline Working women 'damaging children'.

In different circumstances, could this headline be 'Workshy mums damage children ?'

Childcare - not just women's responsibility.

Comment is free on the Observer/Guardian website.

Glass ceiling thickens

Report from Equality and Human Rights Commission. In 12 of the 25 categories of jobs, fewer women are reching the top. In 8 categories there are more. Is this part of the usual phenomenon - in a recession or downturn, women's jobs are seen as less essential? See BBC article today.

Mothers set up businesses

Article on BBC website, looks at women who set up businesses when they have children, as a way of ensuring flexibility, and escaping workaholic culture.