Just Be Blog

By Juliet Potter: www.autochic.com.au

Whilst recently logging on to the Sydney Morning Herald website and heading for the Business pages,
I was intrigued to see a sub category within entitled ‘Executive Style’. Clicking through, I found myself
in metro-sexual heaven in a section very much geared towards the CEO of today who apparently now
cares as much about his appearance as he does the bottom line.

With titles such as ’style and grooming’, ‘culture’, ‘travel’ and ‘gadgets’, and including such articles as
how to properly wear a scarf this winter (without looking like a complete tosser), what your shoes say
about you, how to make chicken soup, and meeting the new Mrs Packer (aka E-Pak), I had to double-take
my browser to ensure that yes, I was still in fact in the business section of the Sydney Morning Herald
and not at www.queereyeforthestraighttie.com

Now don’t get me wrong, I am not against men getting in touch with their inner Clooney through the business pages of the SMH. I mean, let’s face it, with the promotion of such Beckham-esq behaviour the world can only be a better place as far as I’m concerned. I applaud and encourage a man who can happily highlight his hair, dress well, smell nice and can make a darn good chicken soup. In fact, if you know of any, forward me his number.

However, what got under my white collar is the ignorant supposition made by the Herald that, to be an Executive, you are a metro sexual, or in other words – a man.

Now surely if anyone knows the statistics of women in executive positions in Australia today (or lack thereof) it’s the Sydney Morning Herald. According to a recent report by the Office For Women NSW Premier Department, only 12 per cent of women hold executive positions in the top 200 companies listed on the stock exchange; 39.5 per cent of ASX200 companies have no females in executive management positions at all; and a mere six women hold the positions of CEO within the top 200 ASX200 listed companies. This means that at a CEO level, there are 33 male CEOs for every female CEO. Now although this may sound like an appealing scenario to some of my single girlfriends who are more concerned about the man drought than the water shortage, this is a very serious matter.

According to The International Labour Organisation report, Australia was ranked against all other industrialised countries as not-so-lucky last in terms of the number of women in executive positions. The UN organisation also reported that Australian women in management are still being paid significantly less than their male counterparts.

So, having said all this, shouldn’t the SMH be encouraging women to break the glass ceiling and climb the corporate ladder on their website instead of reinforcing the metro-male CEO stereotype? Did I mention the inclusion of the article on Erica Baxter within this section – not because she is a CEO but because she married one? It’s all enough to make you start a music career, take you clothes off and launch a range of lingerie. And hello, shouldn’t we all be more than a little concerned when Pink of all people is wondering where the smart girls have gone? With examples like this, it’s easy to see why this male-dominated mentality in business (and the automotive industry) remains intact and why women feel as alienated and misunderstood in the corporate world as Paris Hilton in the county lockup.

So as I sign off to go burn my LoveKylie bra, I can only be left wondering what the bloody hell they were thinking, and if Kevin Rudd is moonlighting on staff at the Herald. In an executive position. Of course.

How times are slowly changing…. in 2002 women were paid an average of 19% less
then men. What the?

In MX today it reported that in France they are making it illegal to pay women less
than men for the same work.

Isn’t it amazing that it needs to be made illegal before companies accept equality.

I remember I contacted Maxine McKew a few months back for a radio interview. Her spokesperson was apologetic, saying she would normally love to do it, but was too busy focusing on campaigning in her electorate at the time. ‘When she wins, I’m sure she will be more than happy to do interviews,’ she said confidently. When she wins. I thought this was a big call to make. Now it looks as though I will have to get in touch with her again. She owes me an interview.

More articles:
‘A greater voice for women this time’ in TODAYonline.
‘‘Go girl’ Gillard emerges ready to inspire’ in The Australian.
‘Gillard reveals: it was the go-girl factor’ in Sydney Morning Herald.

I came across this article today on New Matilda. Jane Caro thinks you can tell a lot about the prospective PM’s by their wives.
What do you think?

It is a truth, universally acknowledged that a woman in possession of good ovaries, must be in want of a child.

So firmly ingrained in some people’s minds is the importance of woman’s nurturing role, that some view any woman who doesn’t go all mushy at the sight of a baby as being somehow defective.

Take, for example, a recent segment on the so-called ‘Rise of Fembots’, featured on the Today Show.

According to the segment, a “fembot” is career driven, emotionally unavailable and (strangely) doesn’t care too much for cupcakes on her birthday. They call it a ‘social revolution’. To me, it sounds more like hype. Watch it here.

I’m no robot, but on occasion, when someone brings their little bundle of joy to the office, I honestly can’t be bothered. I know better than to show it, and ‘ooh’ and ‘ah’ and ‘what a beautiful baby’ along with the rest of them until the fuss dies down.

Don’t get me wrong. I like babies. I think they’re very nice. Do I want one of my own? No - not yet

I’m open to the possibility that when I am older, and financially and emotionally secure, I may choose to have children. But I would like to think it would be a free choice, and not something I do because I feel obliged to. As one person posted in an opinion forum:

“I am a 34 year old woman and have a very enjoyable job. There is massive potential for me to grow in it as well - I love going to work, get heaps of great support and feedback and can see myself in a very senior position in years to come. [However] I am going to reluctantly put it on hold for a while next year because I think I should have kids… I’m not clucky at all right now and hope to God when I have them, some loving feelings well up from somewhere.”

And despite the fact it obviously takes ‘two to tango’, men generally face far less scrutiny over their choices and feelings about children. Would a man who reacts with apparent indifference to all things cute and cuddly, be labelled a ‘manbot’?

The idea that women are ‘hardwired’ to nurture, is probably based more on social conventions than science. And according to Lisa Pryor in this article for the SMH, it could even be dangerous.

She argues that in some circumstance, women’s ‘urge’ to mother, may be detrimental to the safety of the child.

It is obviously an emotive issue, and it’s easy to become judgmental about other people’s choices. However, I would have to agree with another forum commenter on this point.

“Nobody should have a baby for the country, for Peter Costello, for $5000, for Kevin Rudd, for your mother-in-law or for anybody or anything else. You should have a baby because you really want to have that relationship and share your life with your child.”