I have been wondering a lot lately, on the issue, of why critical issues affecting women and children, are not (in my opinion) being addressed.  May 7 2008, the www.feminstpeacenetwork.com reported that the medias use of passive voice on decribing gender-motivated violence is evident and the only way to end gendered violence, is to report the facts.  I think too often, we don’t report the facts clearly.  When I worked in Journalism, because I like to be analytical – my Manager told me that I needed to change my writing style more, to suit the ‘fluffy’ journalism…they wanted, that made people laugh.   I, have since left the organisation…but, I enjoy keeping up-to-date with current world issues. 

The United Nations in their focus on addressing violence against women, are currently calling for applications for the 13th grant cycle (2008) from Government Authorities, and Women’s and Community based organisations.  The www.sayNotoviolence.org is a global internet-based advocacy initiative by UNIFEM, (the United Nations Development Fund for Women), and it will run until 25 November 2008.  We have in NZ, ‘no to violence campaigns’  But, are real issues being addressed?  I don’t think they are!  This same point was raised, in an article I read recently, ‘Get Rid Of the Ministry Of Women’s Affairs’ NZ (April 13, 2008), www.uthink.co.nz/politics, and I’d have to agree with the opinion of the feminist writer.  She raises the questions, what is the point of the Ministry for Women’s Affairs?  Do they actually do anything at all?  She believes that fundamentally, there should be women in Government dedicated to continuing the legacy of Women’s Liberation.  I would have to agree with her, as I know (from speaking to someone involved in Government Public Policy) that Public Policy changes for Civil Unions – to become Marriage, are furtively on the agenda currently.  If you place Political Leaders in Government with a passion for legislative changes (in certain areas), then they will push it through (like ‘Road Runner’), full-steam ahead!!!  Sometimes without an ‘insiders’ guide/look, in a Direct Democracy – its a matter of waiting untill it happens. 

 The author also states that we needed a Women’s Ministry when Women were struggling, and there’s still a FIGHT today…..that the WMA is not even involved in.  I wonder, WHY????  Such as, where do they stand on funding for Women’s Refuges?  Or our appalling record of domestic violence against women?  I thinks its surprising that the WMA are ‘invisible’ on some issues…..why did we not hear from them during the Police Rape Case?  You’d think that, this would be of interest to them. 

Last year, I read a Law Report – into VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN, commissed by the WMA.  This Report outlined current inadequacies in the treatment of battered women by the Courts, and Government Agencies and coupled with amendments to the laws designed to protect women and children.  Which research has shown….has not effectively done so…..CHANGE IS NEEDED!  The Report stated serious inadequacies in how the Domestic Violence Act is implemented by the Judiciary and listed 47 recommendations for improvement.  Once again, I’m astonished, that in reviewing these recommendations (out of interest), alarmingly they have NOT been implemented.  No wonder why the statistics of violence against women has NOT perceptibly declined.  So, why Is the Ministry of Women’s Affairs remaining silent, on the Report they Commissioned?  I never read anything in the News, from a  MWA Spokesperson – commenting on the long-awaited Report.  Why?  Why do they not push through change?  If we can amend many Acts, to accommodate Civil Unions….then why – can we not amend the Domestic Violence Act and Care of Children Act, which is critical? 

Sometimes public policy changes seem protracted in nature, in the ‘real’ concerns that face the future of our Country.  The Ministry Statements and Speeches (March 2008) – NZ Foreign Affairs, was interesting reading.  On a different Report concerning violence against women, its causes and consequences.  The Ministry confirms that violence against women, is the most serious, wide-spread violations of human rights around the world and it breeds a culture of silence….it is the duty (they state), of the council to break that silence.  Which again, I contemplate, why?…..’okay, you say you focus on international effort to promote and eradicate violence against women and that NZ welcomes International Reports which indicate how the state can respond to eliminating this violence.  But when your own Women’s Ministry, Commissions a Report, you state nothing on their findings.  You also state that this is urgent, and that we can build effective policies and practices to prevent and eliminate violence.  But, then why are the 47 recommendations, not implemented?  It feels to me….that change is not really on the agenda.  Is marriage for gays/lesbians, more important than protection for women and children?, if I dare ask.

For political correctness (I believe), we acknowledge international UN focus on women’s rights….but we remain passive….when it really counts.  When, the facts are clear before us….like the News Media – we have a passive voice and remain silent.  Maybe if we had an insiders view to the horrific crimes affecting women….we’d be more passionate about pushing for change.  Its interesting how sometimes….its only in our real ‘visual’ knowledge of an issue, that we are sparked to see change, that moves beyond the sake, of it being – FOR POLITICAL CORRECTNESS.

In the past decade, feminist activism has majorly impacted on many areas of law – including rape, self-defence, and sexual harrassment.  Just recently (April 6, 2008), three women won $42 million legal settlements that will compensate thousands of underpaid females and marks another step in the fight against sexism and unequal pay.  In this case, women working at New York branch of business alleged a macho culture ruled over by a bullying boss cultivated a fraternity house environment and subject females to lewd pranks……THE WOMEN FOUGHT & WON!!!!

 I believe this macho culture of sexism and discrimination doesn’t merely creep into workplaces, but its merged even into workplace policies.  Sometimes though we seek comfort in the fact that the law shall protect against discrimination, sometimes the law itself shows no partiality.  Rather, the law affirms that we ‘sex-up’ and ‘dumb-down’ women, in the workforce.  Therefore, what we need – ‘is more action and less talk’, from Government Speeches.

 The Ministry Statements and Speeches (March 13, 2008) stated that New Zealand would pay special priority to working with international community to uphold women’s rights and gender equality.  They strongly support a dedicated debate on the rights of women at the Council’s next session and hope that such debate can become a regular feature of the Council’s programme of work.  I would love to be sitting in the middle of their debating team.  I’m wondering what topics of debate they will present?  I wonder if they will action any recommendations for improvement, based on the common knowledge placed before them?  Properly not!

I read the (March 2008) release of ‘FEMALE LABOUR MARKET OUTCOMES’, which was published and can be downloaded from www.dol.govt.nz/publications.  Their findings found that females are somewhat more likely than males to be employed in high skilled occupations – but less likely in skilled.  A large proportion of females work in semi or lower skilled jobs, leading to a lower skill level occupational profile for females overall.  In addition, 41% of new employment for females over the last five years has been in semi or low skilled jobs, while only 19% of new employment for males has been in semi or lower skilled jobs.  I don’t know about anyone else…but those figures alarm me and I think that we need to do more about changing this…..than debating – THE FACTS ARE CLEAR!  I wait with antisipation that the Council’s next meeting may converse on the issues & the Government may set new quota’s like in corporate management, law, and other more ‘male’ dominant professions.

 Its known fact, that in some careers – being a women and climbing high in the corporate business world, or law – is a difficult climb to the top.  Talk about climbing Mount Everest, without any aid.  Skip the job training and mentoring – dig in your high heels & climb!!!!  Not all professions, will render a gold plater in front of us – sometimes though you wear the hallmark of ‘gold’ – although your achievement & accomplishments can be like endless ‘stepping’ stones, that should ‘readily’ be smooth climbing to the top.  Sometimes its a challenge…..sexism has never made it easy.  As I read Law Journals for my two years law – I decided for this reason – to switch to politics….I realised a lot, and please let me sign up to feminism any day.

You know, I read recently (April 2008) in Bell Gully Law Firm Publications, that if you want to see a really good example of sexual stereotyping in New Zealand Workplaces (for women), then have a look at the Movie ‘Miss Congeniality’.  I’ve never seen this movie, but apparently the essence of the story was about a successful policewomen, who was required to undercover and participate in a beauty pageant.  The purpose of the movie was to show sterotypes that we apportion to two different female roles.  How could we expect a police women to be delicate or femine?  In the same manner, how can a beauty contestant have the guile and skill to be a police women?  Mmm, well….I use to be an aerobics instructor last year (while studying law)….I had no difficulty being able to fit into different career roles – from instructing 6am cycling classes, running 5pm boot camps (in the rain & mud), working in Community Law Centre and then throwing on a suit, to go to my office job.  I don’t believe you can differentuate!!!!!

However, the relevance of this movie was played out in a United States Court, in the Case of Jespersen V Harrah’s Operating Company, Inc. (2006 decision of US Court of Appeals).  In the case before the US Court, Harrah’s which operates a chain of casino’s – on the basis of recommendations of an image consultant adopted standards for employees that included ‘gender specific’ requirements for hairstyling, make-up use and nail grooming.  A few months later, standards were raised even higher.  Females had to all wear face powder, blush, mascara and lipstick.  A long standing employee brought a law suit against Harrah’s on the basis that they had discriminated against her, based on ‘gender’.  The Court Of Appeal affirmed previous rationale that the grooming policy, was different – but equal to either ‘man’ or ‘women’ so therefore, different treatment could not be substantiated on the basis of gender.  Mmm, I wonder……So, did the Judges in the Court of Appeal really think that any ‘male’ that worked in a ‘casino’ would therefore have to be ‘transgender’, and if not – then wouldn’t that be suitable ground for damages in Contract/tort for loss and humiliation – that a fine/outstanding heterosexual ‘male’/employee was made to endure workplace bullying, for adherance to workplace policies, that are ‘unreasonable’ by standards of ‘common practice’, in the hospitality industy.  I find that rather obtuse.

The Court further stated that the appellant would have to prove that intentional sex sterotyping would have occured.  Which, is clearly difficult to prove.  It seems obsebed to me – how could a policy outside of Employment Relations Act (not directly a requirement of ‘job description’), be a measure of a women’s competence?  Not to mention, Top Law Firms accept and identify this, as being grounds for unfair treatment, under ER Act.  Emposing unrealistic expectations – are what Legal Critics point out happen in NZ in a number of workplaces.  This Case (above), is not rare!  Expect we don’t call it ‘GENDER INEQUALITY’, dare not say that name – instead lets call it for what it is…..’SEXING UP AND DUMBING DOWN OF WOMEN’S WORK!’

Dianne Avery from the University of San Francisco states that any dress code which mandates that a female employee wear SEXY revealing tops/short skirts and/or high heels could make for ‘EASY’ case of discrimination.  Which makes me wonder…..’Okay then, so if the law protects against discrimination & its easy to prove the opinion that women in the workplace are ‘sexed up & their work dumbdowned’, then whats the statistics of Case Law 2007, of these types of cases before the NZ Courts?  Well….if you did a search like I did on NZ Case Law…..you’ll find it a difficult task.  My question remains unanswered.

Dianne Avery also states that this type of ‘SEXUALISATION’ is not unknown in New Zealand and although difficult to establish, workplace policy which deliberately requires females to exploit their sexuality could be hold in breach of the human rights legislation.  Which highlighted the concern for me, – as should you be a women faced with this problem and decide to make a complaint through the Human Rights Commission, instead of through the Employment Court (as you can’t do both), then its a long process.  I undertook such a process (last year) and ended up realising my fight for ‘justice’ (so to speak) was not worth the time and expenses involved. 

 Although the LAW must be the basis of protection against discrimination…..we cannot always expect that the law will treat women equally in term of ‘gender’ equality.  This fact, was made aware to me last year during my law studies, before changing to politics.  I lived with two, first class honors Law students (males).  Who said to me, a number of times – ‘Cherie, you want to be a Lawyer….if you want to be successful & advance in a male dominated field….then how are you going to do so?  You must be aware that its a male dominated profession – all the Big Law Firms in Auckland prefer males…we know’.  I use to laugh of their remarks….but, it made me consider the fact.  Sometimes ‘inbred’ social beliefs will formulate as opposition to ‘equality’.  Sometimes the culture of a place, or people’s belief systems….you can not simply change.  We find comfort that the law will protect against discrimination, that Government will implement Employment Legislation Changes and workplaces will ensure compliance.  However, its not always the LAW-POLITICS & COMPLIANCE RATIO, that we must trust in.  Social reform and womens equality has come out of hard work & Labour.  Progressive feminism has brought about INCREDIBLE change – that has been the result of persistence.  As we persist more in seeing the rights of women in the workplace equal to men, then no doubt change will occur – with, PERSISTANCE-HARD WORK & PATIENCE.  Although I’d have to strongly disagree with my former flatmates views, on women in legal positions.  I’m grateful that my experiences inbred in me a passion to see women’s equality in all career professions.  I’d sign up for feminism anyday….sometimes its in the fight for equality that we find….WE ALWAYS COME OUT WINNERS IN THE END!!!!!

Journalist and writer, Ian Wishard’s new book, ‘Absolute Power’ – advances his 2005 writing that began on the eve of a Major Feminist Conference.  At the heart of ever increasing social reforms, Wishard’s 15th chapter (focus on feminism) raises reservations, as to his conservative political views.  Chapters 12-16 cover interesting discussion on gender and sexuality, while the remainder of his writing focuses on Clark’s administration and how they have conducted businesss.  I wonder, why focus so much on feminism?  As you read his earlier book ‘Eve’s Bite’, it becomes obvious why.  I compared his writing.  As a Christian, Wishart believes that the feminist wing of the labour party, if it nurtured any notion of the ‘religious’ belief, would be closely allied to New Ageism and witchcraft.  He also states, in (Eve’s Bite), that he has shown that Labours core network of feminists and gay leaders have infiltrated the upper echolons of public service and Clark’s core networks dominate canadate selection and policy development.  He likens their actions, to SOCIAL ENGINEERING – that we are (in some ways) part of a conspiracy – that Government Social Service Divisions will end up owning our children….’the devils own’?  These are distorted and strong views.  However, he uncovers what most journalists would not have the courage to publically publish, and I think he’s a talented writer.  The question again for me, is why blame feminism for social reform?  Are we really that backward?  And yes….of course we need political transparency and freedom of speech.  We must call into accountability those in leadership.  But, where a direct democracy does not exist and Government is Supreme, in a representative democracy….how much political debate should be accept, in matters of personal privacy?  And really…is the real issue not so much the personal integrity of the Prime Minister, but sexism?….as everyone knows that politics can be ‘dirty’.  In some ways – its far more acceptable to be ‘male’ and be a ‘dominator’ in the political field.  But, when a ‘women’ takes a position of Government Leadership – we go digging a bit deeper to find ‘dirt’.  I find that rather erroneous!  Or, we state that her ‘assertive manner’ makes her ‘cold’ and calculated, not to mention if she chooses not to marry and have children, she must of course be a lesbian.  Clark’s faced disparagement, on a number of ‘sexist’ points of view.  With my experience in journalism, I’d love to write a book ‘Absolute Power: A Feminist View’, that interviews main women in politics and systematically reports on positive changes, and their achievements since 1999.  Without feminist input, we would not have today, the Public Policy Development, which has reformed our Country.  Does that mean – as many conservatives believe, that we are becoming a One World Government?, or social engineering ‘robots’ (in figurative terms). No.  I think that good journalism should report the facts, but not add speculation.    What remains out-standing, is that Helen Clark has proven in her 4th term to be a colossus, to the insults of many.  Some remarks from Mr Wishard’s book are:

“For all Clark’s readings on ‘sexual’ politics….Clark showed no sign of financial independence”.

“In Peter Davis, Clark struck the ideal man: one who would say ‘yes’.

 “Clark’s opinion of men are seen in 1984 disclosure – ‘there are collegues to whom I really speak….Rogers very intense and sexist…part of me being overlooked for office was beause I am a women”.

In the 1999 Women’s Conference, midst 2,000 women – the vision of Clark, Margaret Wilson and Marilyn Waring (attendee’s) was to change the face of NZ society.  Is it as Mr Wishart believes – social engineering of feminists likened to New Ageism? No!  And, if so – then wouldn’t the Christain Organisations Mr Wishart is affiliated to (in the same token) be likened to (how should I term it?) ‘A New Dictativeship’?  His writing mentions that four women use to only be in politics (mid-1970’s) and the Women’s Movement complained that existance of males and Old Boys Networks did not choose BEST person for job, only best man for job.  He believes that MEN are now making similar complaints in reverse.  I wonder if Mr Wishart has read the whole 2008 Report on ‘NZ Census of Women’s Participation’ by Human Rights Commission, as I think that would present us with a factual basis.  The only area where NZ outperformed other Countries was in POLITICS (with twice as many females Parliamentarians)…now that – I find exciting.  Which makes me wonder, could the negative view on feminism, be more insecurity of the ‘playing field’ in more ‘male dominant’ positions – that men may fear that equal pay and opportunities, may render some out of work?

Mr Wishart also states: –

“Historically the Patrichal Family…women were not equal to men economically…there was no complusion to remain with one sexual partner…the PM’s hostility towards modern nucluer family is seen in the way she regards Mothers….the radical feminist agenda was to take Marxism further than even Marx envisioned – to re-educate women and through them, change the world: an iron fist inside a velvet glove revolution.  A very female coup”.

 I find those statements rather extreme.  I wonder if Mr Wishard has considered the 2007 ‘Resolution on the Status of Women, Equality and Work’, in formulating his views.  As the UN Principles of Good Governance highlights that Government must develop strategies to increase participation of women in leadership and decision making in all sectors of society.  That’s not feminism ‘harsh domination’, thats ‘strategic leadership’….we don’t need re-education, we just require an equal ‘playing field’ were gender, does not result in ‘sexism’.

 The lastest publication of the Investigate Magazine May 2008 (I read), had an article by Melody Towns ‘The Father Crisis’, which raised the question of what role does a Father play in a child’s life and the life of a functioning society?  Research found in this article, stated that only 80% of men stated that the have involvement in their children’s lives…their too busy with work.  82% of respondents said their paid work negatively affected amount of time that could be spent with children.  52% said it affected their quality of time.  So when Clark is critized for her stance on believing marriage is not necessary and not wanting children, to advance her political career.  I think, if that was a male, saying – ‘I don’t have time to spend with my children’, – as they do strongly – thats highly acceptable.  Although research has stated – WE HAVE A FATHER CRISIS!!!  So, its okay to be the bread winner and leave the kids at home with Mum, if your ‘male’.  But be a women and its viewed that a successful political career and family life is not possible.  IT IS!  Why not have it all….lets break the sterotypical views and push forward for gender equality….we’ve come so far!

The Eating Difficulties Education Network is looking to appoint a part
time Youth Worker. We seek an enthusiastic, self motivated and committed
person to join our team based in Westmere, Auckland.

EDEN is a community agency working with eating and body image issues and
disordered eating. EDEN holds a strong health promotion and education
focus including a significant youth outreach component and school
programme. EDEN also provides support, counselling and information
services to individuals seeking help. Please see www.eden.org.nz.

We are looking to appoint a Youth Worker for 18 – 22 hours per week
(negotiable). This role primarily involves delivering and developing
EDEN’s school-based health promotion programme in Auckland schools and
training educators, teachers and health professionals using the BodyReal
resource. The role requires frequent visits to EDEN-contracted schools and
close liaison with a key staff member in each school.

The ideal applicant will have youth-work related experience, sound
communication and presentation skills, an understanding of eating issues
(and feminist/sociocultural approaches to these), and a commitment to
social change and health promotion.
Preference will be given to those applicants with experience working in
the not for profit sector.

For a job description and application information please contact Louise at
the Eating Difficulties Education Network.
Applications close on 10th March 2008. If possible, there would be an
immediate start.
Phone: 3789039
Email: info@eden.org.nz

The National Council of Women of New Zealand (NCWNZ) operates an e-group – Girltalk Generations – which polls women on broad issues to measure their support or opposition and to collect their comments on why they feel the way they do.

Every month the National Council emails questions on a topical issue to those listed in the group. The responses are collated according to the generation the respondents belong to and the results of the poll are published in the Council’s newsletter, The Circular, along with selected comments made by the e-group members. As well, the results are published on the Council’s website: www.ncwnz.org.nz.

Everyday Feminism will begin posting the monthly questions for Generation Y (and other generations if there is an interest) for our blog contributors to respond to and discuss with each other in their posts. Generation Y is described here by NCWNZ:

Girltalk – Gen Y
Those born between 1979 and 1999 can be classified as Generation Y, or the Millenials. They are stereotypically tolerant of multiculturalism and internationalism. This generation readily has opinions on gay rights and gender roles, with an increased tolerance of alternative lifestyles. They are the generation influenced by the “Net”, and by commercial brands. This generation has had more access to pharmaceuticals than previous generations and has been termed the “sad generation” by some. Like Generation X, Generation Y has adopted fast foods readily, with resultant obesity being a commonplace problem.

THE ISSUES FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY ARE CRIME, JUSTICE AND EDUCATION:

This week saw both John Key and Helen Clark give their state of the nation addresses. Both speeches highlighted areas of concerning youth. The areas focused on were crime, justice and education.

The links to the speeches are:

www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?ArticleID=11772

www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id164&objectid=10489530

1. What do you think of the two major political parties’ stance on youth?

Polling Questions: (indicate Yes/No)

2. Would you support modern youth boots camps as a scheme to modify anti-social behaviour? (Please give comments /reasons)

3. Do you think that the policies released on youth (modern boot camps and education/training) will prevent youth crime in anyway? (Please give comments/reasons)

4. Do you think targeting 16-18 year olds is the best use of educational resources? (What alternatives, if any, can you suggest?)

By Galia BarHava-Monteith Director, www.professionelle.co.nz an online community and resource for professional working women. 

There is no question that women are under-represented in senior positions in New Zealand.

In recent analysis we conducted at www.professionelle.co.nz, we were able to demonstrate that the pay gap and the rate of women’s participation in senior positions in the private sector have both worsened in the new millennium. But why?

Many perspectives have been put forward as to why women, three decades on from the feminist revolution, are still not making it to the top in greater numbers. International research and our recent online survey into “what’s stopping women rising to the top?” demonstrate that one of the consistent explanations put forward is the lack of mentoring of women in organisations.

 Why mentoring is a powerful tool

Mentoring is an incredibly powerful tool. A good mentor can act as a guide, a sounding board, a powerful advocate and a thought partner. A good mentor should challenge your thinking and stretch your expectations of yourself and what you think you can possibly achieve. A great mentor will grow with you and will stay with you throughout your career, introducing you to her/his network and will take a keen ongoing interest in your development.

Whose responsibility is it to ensure that talented and promising women and men have access to good mentors? I believe organisations definitely have a role to play in encouraging the development of successful mentoring relationships.

For example, organisations that are serious about developing their talented men and women can formally facilitate mentoring relationships. They can engineer cross-functional interactions and put in place incentives for senior managers/professionals to become mentors.

The importance of mentoring is widely acknowledged in the US. Most Fortune 500 companies see mentoring as an important employee development tool, with 71% of them having mentoring programs (according to T. A. Scandura, a management professor and dean of the graduate school at the University of Miami).

Various academic studies since the 1980s have demonstrated the many benefits of mentoring. According to Scandura, employees who have mentors earn more money, are better socialized into the organization and are more productive. Research also demonstrates that mentees experience less stress and get promoted more rapidly.

 Mentoring for Women

Organisations that believe they need to specially target their talented women, whether it’s because they are leaving, or that there aren’t many of them at the top or simply because it’s the ‘right’ thing to do, can shoulder tap rising female stars and ensure they have great mentors in place. Of all the strategies put forward to help combat the ongoing state of affairs where women don’t make it to the top, mentoring is probably the lowest hanging fruit.

In fact, a recent article from Wharton University’s online knowledge system points to research that shows how much easier it is for young men to get mentored by senior men than it is for young women to do the same. Since men continue to hold most of the senior positions in organisations, the implications for women are obvious.

The role of the mentee in the mentoring process

But here’s the thing, the research and literature indicate that mentoring cannot be overly prescriptive as this will detract from the trust and the ‘flow’ of the relationship, thus making it less effective.

Indeed, according to Wharton management professor Katherine Klein, Informal mentoring relationships are often more typical and more beneficial to both mentor and mentees. According to Klein, it is particularly important for mentees to be proactive in trying to establish a relationship with a senior person and to be energetic in keeping the relationship going. She uses the phrase “irresistible protégé” to describe these employees.

“Research shows that protégés influence the amount of mentoring they receive,” according to Klein. “You’re more likely to get mentored if you’re talented, have an outgoing personality and are career- and goal-oriented. Once a mentor sees that you’re eager, the more likely it is the mentor will want to spend the time and social capital on you, introduce you to the right people, and so on.”

It has certainly been my observation over many years that a good mentoring relationship is a two way process. Mentees who put themselves out there as they seek good mentors tend to find them. Mentees who take an active role in engaging and maintaining the ongoing relationship with their mentors throughout their careers are more likely to be introduced to their mentors’ extensive networks and gain access to more opportunities. Mentors benefit not only from watching their protégés’ growth but also from access to their mentees’ growing networks and influence.

Perhaps one of the reasons both international research and women themselves cite lack of mentoring as one of the key barriers to ‘getting to the top’ is because women are reluctant to take such an active role in the mentoring relationship. Members of our online community tell us that they can feel excluded from the informal networks where the ‘organic’ mentoring relationships have historically developed. Women may also find it too ‘in your face’ or ‘self promoting’ to be so openly proactive. They may, in addition, shy away from taking other people’s time and feel that they are imposing. And perhaps, with a lack of role models who’ve had great mentors to learn from, they may simply not see it as a viable or valuable approach.

 Two Way Street

Mentoring is a two-way relationship; as in any relationship, both partners need to take an active approach. Women and men who wish to have a great mentor should seek that person out, initiate the relationship and continually work to maintain it. Organisations can help by removing obstacles, enabling cross-functional interactions and actively promoting the concept in their organisations.

Ultimately, however, it is up to us.

If you’re interested in finding a mentor or mentoring other professional women, please join our online community @ www.professionelle.co.nz we are about to launch a new service to our members on our message board, helping connect professional women mentors and mentees across New Zealand.

© Professionelle.co.nz

By Galia Barhava-Monteith Director Professionelle, an online community dedicated to Professional working women in New Zealand

Philippa Reed, the CEO of the Equal Employment Opportunities Trust (EEO), kindly invited my Business partner Sarah Wilshaw Sparkes and me to attend their inaugural Diversity Day at the end of August. And what a day that was. Wonderful, thought-provoking speakers challenged us to really think through the importance of accepting and celebrating diversity in modern workplaces. Even the hard nosed, non-pc participants couldn’t argue with the business case of taking diversity seriously by the end of the day – but more on that later.

As I was sitting there, listening to these amazing speakers and enjoying the opportunity to take part in this event, I was also thinking our members @ Professionelle and how I could share my experiences of the day with them. And then the right angle struck me! It was: networking as a vehicle to bring greater diversity into our individual lives.

On networking

My close colleagues and friends are probably bored to tears by my going on (and on and on) about the importance of networking. I am new to networking, you see. In my first few roles I was never encouraged to take part in networking events; in fact I think it was almost frowned upon. When I had my big corporate role, I was also a mum and then it was a matter of not wanting to take time away from my family to take part in these events.

I have given some thought to why professionals like lawyers, consultants and accountants are somewhat reluctant to network. I believe it is to do with the charging-by-the-hour model we are socialised into. Basically, it ain’t work unless it’s chargeable!

Now, that Sarah and I are building a new business, which is all about networking (albeit online), we have been doing a considerable amount of it. And, it works, it really does. The more we put ourselves out there, the more we build relationships and new and exciting opportunities turn up. What we’re also seeing is that those people who take the time to network, are the ones who find out or are approached about opportunities, simply because they become a known quantity and build their personal brand in the process.

On Diversity

I have to admit I hadn’t given diversity as such a great deal of thought before this EEO Trust event. But as I listened to the speakers the business case for diversity became abundantly clear to me. What really struck me was how bringing diversity into our own individual lives is extremely relevant and can increase our resilience and our prospects as individuals.

Diversity and Innovation

The first speaker of the day was Frans Johansson, the author of the Medici Effect. In a nutshell, Frans’s book and his speaking illustrate powerfully how diversity breeds innovation. His messages were clear and engagingly simple:
1. All new ideas are really combinations of existing ones – but to become a new idea the combination has to be unique.
2. The single strongest correlation to innovation success is the number of new ideas generated and pursued.
3. Cultural diversity is the lowest hanging fruit when it comes to driving innovation.

Frans’s examples illustrated his case beautifully. The one that stuck with me is that of L’Oreal’s acquisition of SoftSheen, a small haircare manufacturer in the US which focused on the African American market. L’Oreal is a French company that according to Johansson makes a point of employing a wide range of ethnicities and is deliberate about encouraging cultural diversity. As a case in point, at the time of the Softsheen acquisition, L’Oreal was run by a British man!!

Armed with a new research lab to investigate the properties of African-American hair and the insight that a billion people outside the US had this hairtype, L’Oreal quickly became the leader in this ethnic haircare category.

Collaborative workplaces

To get ideas flowing people actually need to talk to each other. According to Alan Bertenshaw from Matisse, the futuristic workplace environment is all about encouraging people to talk to each other and collaborate as part of their working lives. Gone will be the days you’ll have to book a meeting room three days in advance so that you can have a conversation with your boss.

His thesis was that the modern workplace is designed to “encourage accidental bumping and fortuitus encounters.” It is these encounters that will increase productivity, cross functional communication and yes you guessed it, diversity of thoughts ideas and experiences.

By this stage, I was convinced, and I realised that for me as an individual, it was through networking that I have brought diversity into my life. In less than a year I have quadrupled my personal network. I did this through being open to people’s ideas and suggestions, seeking new people out and welcoming new approaches. In the process, I have discovered how energising and supportive some people are which has made me re-evaluate who I spend my time with and why.

Yes, there are times when I feel I should be doing chargeable work rather than meeting people or corresponding via e-mail. But when I look back, it is through that persistence on valuing networking that we’ve had the biggest and most personally gratifying breaks.

Finally, the case for networking as a vehicle for bringing diversify to our personal life was sealed for me during the presentation on resilience given by Dr Sven Hansen from PricewaterhouseCoopers

Diversity and Resilience

I am not going to attempt to re-cap Sven’s presentation on engaging resilience to build vitality. But what really stuck with me was that resilience is 100% learnt. Resilient people bounce back from set-backs; have a bias for action and wide and diverse networks. His acid test was how many people are there on our cell phones who we could call tonight if we needed support. What he also emphasised, was to be honest about how many of them are not our immediate colleagues.

There was, of course, much more to the day. But as I listened to it all, I became more and more excited about the concept that we as individuals don’t need to wait for our workplace to do encourage diversity for us. We can do it ourselves in a very deliberate way.

Now, I don’t think that all networking opportunities are created equal. However, as Sarah has been heard to comment, you can’t predict which approach will lead to the big payoff – but they all have the potential to bring something, sometime. We’d add here that we see giving as an important part of networking; we always try to look for what we can bring to the other person. What goes around will eventually come around.

What we can and should always do, is be open to the prospect of meeting and engaging with new people who we might not normally seek out. In the end, it is through these encounters that we might come up with the next big idea/career move, find ways to implement it and meet our new best friend in the process!

© Professionelle.co.nz

Sex tourism is sometimes viewed as a straightforward economic transaction that benefits both parties: the sex tourist and the prostitute. In fact, many people argue that those men who engage the services of a prostitute in places like Thailand and Cambodia are positively enhancing these women’s lives which are otherwise marked by poverty and lack of opportunity. Perhaps this is why the majority of visitors to Bangkok include Pat Pong (the red light district) on their must-see list of tourist attractions. What do you think?

Tania