VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN – The Report the Ministry Of Women's Affairs Commissioned

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.

SEXING UP WOMEN EMPLOYEES – IS IT FAIR OR FOUL?

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!!!!!

2008, THE FEMINIST REAWAKING: Hillary Clinton & the 4th Wave!

The success of women in politics, is frequently cited as evidence that feminism has met it goals.  Hardly!  Too often the Exceptional Women – is also, ‘the Exception to the Rule’.  Amanda Fortini writes in the New York (April 21, 2008) – why does our culture take sexism seriously?  Sexism is often so subtle, threatening its insidiour existance…..and anyone who talks about it, risks sounding like an overzealous lunatic at worse – scrutinizing every interaction for gender – specific offenses.

 She goes on to say – ‘it was hardly a revelation to learn that sexism lived in the minds and hearts of right wig crackpots and Internet Nut Jobs,….but, it flourished among members of news media.  The MSNBC portrayed Clinton as the grieving widow of adsurdity, saying of her Presidential Candidacy and Senatorial Seat – that she didn’t win on her own merit.  She won because everybody felt, ‘oh my God…this women stood up under humiliation’.  Please….that displeases me – Political Success to rewards of Public Sympathy?  Okay….people loved Hillary – She kept going, when everyone thought she’d play the role of the ‘victim’ – but anyone who’s read books on ‘The Life of Hillary Clinton’ – know thats simply just not her style.  She played her cards right politically!  Yet, the media went to arms lengths, to show ‘sexism’, as though her intelligence and long record of public service counted for NOTHING!  So, why does our culture not take sexism seriously?, or do we?

IAN WISHART'S NEW BOOK – "Absolute Power"

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!

You're Fired: Norway meets it quota of 40% women on corporate boards

You’re fired!

Imagine you’re one of the 13 men on this all-male board of a large company and are told five of you must go to be replaced by women. Unlikely? Not in Norway, where they’re enforcing a law that 40% of directors must be female. By Yvonne Roberts

Thursday March 6, 2008
The Guardian

The often male world of company directors. Photograph: Alamy

Rolf Dammann, the co-owner of a Norwegian bank, recently had his skiing holiday interrupted by some unwelcome news. The government had published a list of 12 companies accused of breaking the law by failing to appoint women to 40% of their non-executive board directorships. His company, Netfonds Holding ASA, was one of the dirty dozen – attracting international attention.
“I work in a man’s world. I don’t come across many women and that’s the challenge,” Dammann says. “The law says a non-executive director has to be experienced, and experience is difficult to find in women in my sector. People have had to sack board members they’ve worked with and trusted for 20 or 30 years, and replace them with someone unknown. That’s hard.”

This month, Norway set a new global record. It now has, at 40%, the highest proportion of female non-executive directors in the world, an achievement engineered by the introduction of a compulsory quota. Two years ago, after several years of voluntary compliance had failed to lead to a sufficient number of female board members, 463 “ASAs” – publicly listed companies over a certain size – were told to change the composition of their boards or risk dissolution.
“A woman comes in, a man goes out. That’s how the quota works; that’s the law,” says Kjell Erik Øie, deputy minister of children and equality, in the centre-left “Red-Green” coalition government in Oslo. “Very seldom do men let go of power easily. But when you start using the half of the talent you have previously ignored, then everybody gains.”

In 2002, only 7.1% of non-executive directors of ASAs were female. When they introduced the 40% quota, the government had expected a widespread rebellion, but by the final deadline for compliance – February 22 this year – only a handful of companies had failed to meet it. Most ASA boards have acquired between two and four new women in the past several months. It is not exactly an army on the march, but it is a step in the right direction and has allowed Norway to buck an international trend; in Britain, women fill only 14.5% of non-executive board positions and one in four of the FTSE 100 boards still has no women at all. The number of women holding executive directorships in FTSE 100 companies actually fell last year to the lowest level for nine years, according to research by Cranfield business school. And the picture is similar all over Europe. Only 2% of boardroom posts in Italy are held by women, and in Spain the figure is 4%.

According to the Norwegian government, the quota is not simply a strike for equality; it makes sound economic sense, too. Last year, Goldman Sachs, the global investment company, published a paper in which it outlined the economic reasons for reducing gender inequality and using female talent fully. Not only would this increase growth, the paper said, it would “play a key role in addressing the twin problems of population ageing and pension stability”.

So what is stopping companies from appointing women to their boards? Catalyst, an influential New York thinktank, has published a list of the barriers to female advancement to board level. Top of the list is women’s lack of management experience, closely followed by women’s exclusion from informal networks; stereotypes about women’s abilities; a lack of role models; a failure of male leadership; family responsibilities; and naivety when it comes to company politics.

Imagine then, given these hurdles, that at one stroke British CEOs were required by law to sack at least two men, if not more, from their boards and replace them with women whom they presumably believed to be inexperienced, unproven, possibly not fully committed and … well, female? How on earth did the Norwegians manage it?

In Norway, unlike in the UK, the law does allow for such affirmative action. Attitudes are different as a result: it is interesting that when avid Cameron suggested last weekend that he would operate a quota of women cabinet members, the former Conservative minister Ann Widdecombe said she would be “grossly insulted” to be given a frontbench job on those terms.

However, even in Norway the quota went ahead only after years of ferocious debate and some resistance. As one male non-executive director who has survived the recent cull of boards put it, “What I and a lot of people don’t understand is why it is seen as good for business to swap seasoned players for lip gloss?”

But such scepticism was not as widespread as one might expect. Ansgar Gabrielsen, 52, a Conservative trade and industry minister, and former businessman, is the unlikely champion of the quota. In 2002, in the then centre-coalition government, he publicly proposed a 40% quota on publicly listed boards without consulting cabinet colleagues. The law would be enacted in three years, he announced, only if companies failed to comply. The challenge was huge. Out of the 611 affected companies, 470 had not a single female board member.

Gabrielsen’s reasoning at that time set the terms of the debate that followed. The quota was presented less as a gender-equality issue, and more as one driven by economic necessity. He argued that diversity creates wealth. The country could not afford to ignore female talent, he said. Norway has a low unemployment rate (now at 1.5%) and a large number of skilled and professional posts unfilled. “I could not see why, after 30 years of an equal ratio of women and men in universities and having so many women with experience, there were so few of them on boards,” he says.

But if it was Gabrielsen who set the terms of the debate in a way that made it less threatening to men, it was a woman who worked out how to make the quota achievable. In 2003, the NHO, the Norwegian equivalent of the Confederation of British Industry, decided to step up the pace of voluntary change. It headhunted 32-year-old Benja Stig Fagerland and gave her a two-year deadline to achieve a minor miracle.

Fagerland is an economist with two degrees and an MBA. She had no interest in “women’s issues” then, she says, but she had set up a network of 10 girlfriends, called Raw Material, to discuss the pros and cons of the quota. They were all in their late 20s and early 30s, in middle management, and ambitious. Raw Material attracted the attention of the media and NHO.

“We were young and fearless. We thought we could go where we pleased in terms of our careers. I didn’t believe in the quota system,” Fagerland says. “I was competitive. Every job I’d had, I’d been the youngest and the only woman. I thought it was an issue of competence and nothing to do with being female. I set out to discover the arguments for and against. And that’s when I changed my mind.

“As a young person, so many male colleagues had said to me, ‘You cannot be 1.8 metres tall [over six foot], strong and intelligent and a former model. It’s too powerful for men, too scary. Be more of a girl.’

“I told myself, ‘OK, those are the men’s rules, and so for six months I tried. It was the stupidest thing I did. Now, I tell my daughters, be yourself – but sell yourself hard.”

Once appointed by the NHO, she devised and a ran a project which she called (much to her employer’s alarm) Female Future, to mobilise female talent. First Fagerland, now 37, surveyed major CEOs. Eighty-six per cent said they wanted to use more female talent, 64% said they did not know how to find it. Each CEO contracted into the project “pearl dived” to find three rising junior female employees who then received six months intensive training from Fagerland.

Fagerland says, “I’d tell the women, ‘You bump into your CEO at a reception. He says, “Hi, who are you?” You can pick at least 10 different stories but you only have 20 seconds, so it’s very important which story you pick. You have to have ownership of your own story and say “This is me. This who I am.”‘ Power isn’t given, you have to take it. And women aren’t always good at that.”

Fagerland was working in a less hostile environment, perhaps, than she might have found elsewhere in Europe. Not only did she have the government behind her, but the media too: “It was a story that they wanted to write,” she says. “And they haven’t stopped since. They have always been very supportive.”

Female Future has since won a string of international awards. So far, 570 women across the country have gone through the training.

One in four has been offered board positions on large companies; half have board positions on smaller regional companies. A further 250 women will complete the programme at the end of this year.

In spite of the NHO’s efforts, however, by 2006 only one in four publicly listed boards in Norway had met the 40% target for non-executive female directors. It was then that the new centre-left government announced that the quota would become compulsory. The deadline for compliance was reset to December 2007 and later – at the eleventh hour – extended again by a month. The results were not published until the end of February, to give companies still more time to comply.

Business leaders argued that experienced senior women were impossible to find, especially in the oil, technology and gas industries. “I’m a responsible man,” one CEO told me in Oslo last week. “I have a duty to do the best I can for our shareholders. I’ve been forced to appoint two women whom I know are apprentices. Give them 10 years and I’d be happy to have them on the board; not now.”

Marit Hoel is the founder of the Oslo-based Centre for Corporate Diversity, which helps companies to find experienced female non-executive directors. In Norway, as a sociologist in the 1980s, she was the first person to begin counting women – or the lack of them – on boards. In response to the growing criticism that women of ability and experience were in short supply, she called a press conference. She spoke no words. Instead, she showed the photographs of 100 senior women with a brief resume of their cvs. “It was my Beckett moment,” she says. “The pictures said it all. Experienced women are out there in quantity. The problem, as elsewhere, is that they are literally not seen. Men have their own network.”

In Norwegian, the network is called “gutte klubben grei”, the grey men’s club. Ada Kjeseth, 58, from Bergen, knows how it operates. An economist and accountant, she was appointed in 1988 as the first woman to join the non-executive board of Norsk Hydro, now the third largest supplier of aluminium in the world. She is now on eight boards (not all publicly listed), covering interests that include insurance, property and car imports. “Since last year,” she says, smiling. “They keep knocking on my door.”

Referring to the power of the gutte klubben grei, she says, “They meet in places where only men meet. They go hunting and fishing and drinking together. People who know people are appointed. I wish the quota hadn’t been necessary, but I’m a realist. It forces men to look beyond their magic inner circle.”

Every International Women’s Day, Kjeseth adds, a friend holds a dinner for 70 women, all at the top of their respective companies. “Each year, I look around the room and I get goose bumps. Men have networked for years but don’t recognise it as networking. When we do it, they become alarmed. I don’t know why,” she adds mischievously.

Kjeseth, married with two grown-up sons, knows from personal experience about the potential pitfalls in the quota. “I was young and I had two small children when I joined my first board,” she says. “Norsk Hydro had budgets of billions and large, well-run projects. I thought, what can I bring to this? I left after two years because I knew I was inexperienced. Now I know companies and the laws that regulate them inside out. Some women who are appointed may be inexperienced but they will learn fast.”

Almost nobody I spoke to in Oslo was unequivocally in favour of the quota. “I’m very aware that an owner has the right to pick people he likes in his best interest of his board, and the quota violates that principle,” says Hoel. “I would have preferred the quota to be voluntary – but that would have meant waiting another 35 years. I’m also aware that, in companies, what is being counted, gets done.”

In Oslo, on the day of the final February deadline, the dozen ASA companies that have been “named and shamed” as failing to fulfil the quota, rapidly reduced to 10. Dammann and one other CEO explain that they had appointed two female non-execs but the change had fallen foul of red tape. Dammann appointed his two women last June, after what he says was a six-month “time-consuming” search. He is not a convert to the quota, though.

“I think people will still go to those they have trusted for years, whom they have had to remove from the board,” he says. “So there will now be a formal and informal system, and that cannot be good for accountability.”

One woman in her 50s and a veteran of non-executive boards concedes that there will be challenges ahead. “The higher you go, the more competitive the men,” she says. “It becomes harder to read the situation. They have their own code. Also, with only a couple of women on the board, we are still the outsiders. But to me it’s like a beautiful game of chess – you learn with every move.”

Dammann, like many opponents of the quota I met, is now pragmatic. “The law is passed. We are making an investment in diversity that should be good for business. I hope it pays off.”

Under the law, the remaining 10 rebel companies now theoretically face closure. “They will find the women,” Anne Margaret Blaker, political adviser to the minister of trade and industry, says. “You can be sure.”

In the UK, the pace of change continues at tortoise pace. Jacey Graham, co-author of A Woman’s Place is in the Boardroom: the Road Map, which will be published in June, says, “Nobody in the corporate world is in favour of quotas. What big companies are doing is putting targets in place at different levels within the organisation but not at board level.”

In June, the TUC and the CBI are due to publish a joint paper, Talent not Tokenism, arguing in favour of promoting diversity on a voluntary basis. The goal is the same as Norway’s, the road however may take much longer to travel. “It’s a natural instinct to recruit those who are like you,” says Marion Seguret, the CBI’s senior policy advisor. “Men need to be trained to look to the other 50% of the population.”

Back in Oslo, the irrepressible Fagerland says she plays a game with her daughters based on the Swedish fictional character Pippi Longstocking, a girl who believes in herself and is utterly unconventional. “We break all the rules. Everything is turned upside down. We wear pyjamas in the garden and eat sweets before dinner. They love it.

“I want them to constantly question why things should be as they are. In business, you can always find ways of playing the game differently and better. But first, you have to know your own level of competency and your price – and never sell yourself cheap. For your own sake, and for the sake of all those women who come after.”

Community Event This Friday Promoting Awareness of Domestic Violence and its Impacts

poster%20eileen%20rose.pdf
Invitation Friday 7 March 2008

My apologies: I can’t seem to load this invitation. The memorial is this Friday, 7 March, 6.30-8pm at Tahaki Reserve, opposite View Rd, Mt Eden. There will be live music provided by Mahinarangi Tocker and others, and finger food.

The Auckland Coalition for the Safety of Women and Children is a non government coalition established to help improve safety for women and children in Auckland. We are determined to help end domestic violence in our community. One of the ways we want to achieve this is by raising public awareness about domestic violence and its catastrophic impact on women and children. We want to raise awareness through remembrance.

Did you know that in NZ every year on average 14 women and 10 children are killed by a member of their family?

Did you know that in NZ 1 in 3 women report being a victim of physical and or sexual abuse by a current or ex partner throughout their lifetime?

Domestic violence is a crime. Women and children have a right to live free of fear and violence.

Show your support and come along to our community event on 7th March 2008 6.30pm – 8pm at Tahaki Reserve in Mt Eden.

All are welcome.

Please spread the attached invitation as wide as you can. Together we can create change.

PS: Sue Bradford and Christina Pusztay will be on the ‘Good Morning’ programme on TV 1 this Thursday (6th) at 11.48am talking about the Memorial

Part-time position at The Eating Difficulties Education Network (EDEN)

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

SUSAN FALUDI'S NEW BOOK – AMERICA POST 9/11 NEEDS MANLY HEROES

‘9/11 ripped the bandage off US culture’

No sooner had the Twin Towers fallen than the search began for the heroes of 9/11. But only men seemed to be eligible. The women who died were ignored; those who survived were encouraged to get back to baking and child-rearing. So says Susan Faludi in her new book The Terror Dream. Decca Aitkenhead meets her and, overleaf, we print the first of three exclusive extracts
Decca Aitkenhead

Monday February 18 2008
The Guardian

Some months after 9/11, I received a call from a British women’s magazine editor who wanted to commission a feature. “It’s about terror sex,” she said. I didn’t know what she was talking about. “You know, terror sex! Everyone going out and having, like, crazy sex all the time, because they don’t know how long they’ve got before a terrorist attack.” I had never heard of this behaviour before, and nor for that matter since, but when I mention the call to Susan Faludi she nods – “Ah, yes, terror sex” – and laughs. “But at least,” she points out, “terror sex was about fun. It didn’t require going out and buying a rolling pin.”

Faludi received her first call from a journalist writing a “reaction story” to 9/11 on the very day of the attacks. She wondered why anyone would solicit her opinion on international terrorism, but after some vague preambles about “the social fabric”, the reporter’s purpose became clear: “Well,” he said gleefully, “this sure pushes feminism off the map!”

The calls kept coming. “When one journalist rang to ask if I had noticed how women were becoming more feminine, I asked her, ‘What exactly is your evidence?’ She said her girlfriends had started baking cookies.” Within weeks the pattern was growing clear. “It was the idea of the return of the manly man, and of women becoming softer. That had become the trend story.”

At the time, Faludi was working on a biography of an eco activist. “But I suddenly felt, ‘Why am I off in the woods?’ when I felt like I wanted to be writing something closer to what was happening.” She began monitoring the post-9/11 media closely, and found them dominated by enthusiastic reports of a mass retreat by women into feminine domesticity, and a wholesale revival of John Wayne manliness. Concerned that this narrative bore little resemblance to reality, Faludi shelved the eco biography and set about analysing the motives and evidence – or lack of – for this curiously reactionary narrative. The result is her third book, The Terror Dream: What 9/11 Revealed About America.

I had read that the author of two feminist blockbusters, Backlash and Stiffed, was unexpectedly meek in person. But the first impression is still a surprise, for Faludi, 48, is so paper thin and softly spoken as to seem almost like a middle-aged child. We meet in San Francisco, where she lives with her partner, and her manner is calm and kind, but wary. My early questions widen her eyes, not so much like a rabbit in the headlights as a field mouse.

Faludi’s caution may be a legacy from the ferocity of public reaction to her previous work. Ever since the publication of Backlash in 1992, the author and journalist has found herself caught up in America’s culture wars, a combat zone to which her sensibility, though not her intellect, seems ill suited. “Backlash was an advocacy book – or at least it was perceived that way,” she recalls, almost shuddering. By comparison, she says, The Terror Dream “is not such a barn burner, which is fine by me”.

Less a call to arms than a piece of cultural criticism, its thesis is still highly contentious by the standards of mainstream American thinking. When al-Qaida attacked their country, Faludi writes, the humiliating shame felt by American men watching helplessly on TV was experienced, at a subliminal level, sexually. “The post-9/11 commentaries were riddled with apprehensions that America was lacking in masculine fortitude.” A Washington comment article panicked about the “touchy-feely sensitive male” who had been “psychopathologised by howling fems”, and speculated hopefully, “Is the alpha male making a comeback?” Despite the perversity of a nation “attacked precisely because of its imperial pre-eminence” reacting by “fixating on its weakness”, America’s media fell back in love with the manly man – an old-fashioned hero strong enough to defend his nation and rescue his womenfolk.

If he did not exist, he would have to be invented. So firemen had to be superheroes, widows had to be helpless, unmarried women had to be frantic to wed and working mums had to want to stay at home. Crucially, strong men had to protect weak women – a desire vividly dramatised by the Rambo-style rescue in Iraq of Private Jessica Lynch, who found herself reconfigured by the media from professional soldier to helpless damsel.

Faludi traces this “rescue narrative” right back to the original shame of America’s frontiersmen, whose womenfolk were frequently kidnapped by Indians – and, more shaming still, did not always want to be rescued. “The ‘unimaginable’ assault on our home soil was, in fact, anything but unimaginable,” she writes. “The anxieties it awakened reside deep in our cultural memory. And the myth we deployed to keep those anxieties buried is one we’ve been constructing for more than 300 years.”

Somewhat to her surprise, The Terror Dream has received broadly good reviews in the US. But this, Faludi suspects, has a lot to do with the fact that it was not published until last year.

“You know,” she says drily, “you really couldn’t say anything questioning in this country for years, not until hurricane Katrina – 9/11 was still too much of a sacred cow. You certainly couldn’t make a cynical remark. You saw what happened to Katha Pollitt.”

Pollitt was one of a number of women writers, including Susan Sontag, whose tentative dissent from the jingoistic chorus in the months after 9/11 provoked peculiarly spiteful uproar. “Pollitt, honey, it’s time to take your brain to the dry cleaners,” one columnist sneered; “We’re at war, sweetheart,” wrote another. A man called Pollitt’s home number and ordered her to “go back to Afghanistan, you bitch”.

But surely male dissenters could – and in some cases did – incur outrage? “Yes,” Faludi agrees, “but the criticism towards women wasn’t just: that’s an unpatriotic thing to say. It was: that’s an unpatriotic thing to say, and you’re a bad mother, and you’re morally deranged, you’re a ditzy idiot. The language was very much coded in female terms. And it was so way over the top. I mean, some of these women hadn’t said very much of anything.”

Her theory that this signalled the advent of a misogynistic climate has been challenged by some critics, who point out that the period saw the first female evening network-news anchor, Harvard’s first female president and America’s first female secretary of state. “I mean,” objected one, “how can she not mention that Hillary Clinton is the leading Democratic contender for president?”

“I found that really exasperating,” Faludi responds, “because this is not a book about what 9/11 did to women. Or to men, for that matter. It’s a book about how 9/11 ripped the bandage off, so we could see the underlying machinery that makes the culture go. The media and the rest of popular culture weren’t recording people’s reactions to 9/11; they were forcing made-up reactions down people’s throats. So whether Katie Couric’s at the anchor desk on CBS, that doesn’t contradict this.”

Besides, she adds: “For all the talk of Condi Rice being in a high position, the woman who was most celebrated in the White House was Karen Hughes. And for what? For going back to the home.” The presidential adviser stepped down in 2002 to spend more time with her family, a decision deliriously feted as “wise” and “unselfish”, under headlines such as “There’s no one like Mom for the home”. A Wall Street Journal columnist diagnosed “a case of Sept 11”, and speculated dreamily on the bliss of Hughes’s new domestic future. “She can wash her face in Dove foamy cleanser, pat it dry, put on a nice-smelling moisturiser and walk onward into the day. She can shop. Shopping is a wonderful thing.”

More startling even than the retro-sexist nature of the mythmaking exposed in The Terror Dream, though, is the sheer scale of it. Boundaries between fact and fiction appear blurred to the point of non-existence. Time magazine dubbed George Bush “the Lone Ranger”, while one political analyst noted that his “evildoers” rhetoric reminded him of the “Whams”, “Pows” and “Biffs” of Batman, concluding: “This is just the kind of hero America needs right now.” Scaling new heights of self-referential absurdity, the Daily News offered, as evidence for a story about the “opt-out trend”: “Talk of married, professional moms dropping out of the workforce to rear kids is all over magazines, talkshows and bookstore shelves.” Reporting grew so detached from reality that “security mom” was allowed to become a staple of mainstream media and political discourse, even though Time’s lead pollster confessed that, despite searching for this new demographic identity, “We honestly couldn’t find much em
pirical evidence to support it.”

As a work of cultural criticism, The Terror Dream is comprehensively shocking. But didn’t the extreme disconnection between reporting and reality that it exposed present the author with a problem? If the country’s cultural narrative was driven more by fiction than fact, and failed to reflect the truth of post-9/11 America, why base a whole book upon such spurious material?

“Because we live in a culture that’s so . . . you can’t . . .” She casts a hand around the hotel bar helplessly. “I mean, this is sort of miraculous, to be sitting in a room where there’s not some massive flat-screen TV yelling at us. It’s almost a sci-fi feeling, this kind of constant bombardment of programmed thought.” Its effect is not as simple, she stresses, as “monkey see, monkey do”. “But it certainly has a warping effect on how we think about the world, and how we think about ourselves.” Journalism became not descriptive but prescriptive – “and that had an enormous effect on our political life, our policy, our nightmarish policy, our misbegotten military strategy”.

In one respect, she concedes, cultural criticism today is less relevant than it used to be. “The culture used to move relatively slowly, so you could take aim. Now it moves so fast, and is so fluffy and meaningless, you feel like an idiot even complaining about it.” But on the other hand, “I think a reason that a lot of people feel politically paralysed is that it used to be clear how power was organised. But those who have their hands on the levers of popular culture today have great power – and it isn’t even clear who they are.” They may be commercially accountable, in other words, but not democratically.

The real trouble with cultural criticism, of course, is not unlike the weakness of social “trend” stories extrapolated from catwalk fashions. Difficult to quantify or verify, its connections operate outside the calculus of statistical fact. But as an explanation for how 21st-century America found itself comfortable with rendition and waterboarding and torture, the link from a John Wayne fantasy revival to a “Lone Ranger” cowboy president, to the lawlessness of the wild west, is powerfully compelling.

“We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules,” a senior New York Times columnist wrote, as if riding into town. “A gunshot between the eyes,” advocated another in the New York Post. “Blow them to smithereens.”

Does Faludi think, I ask cautiously, that this weakness for muddling up cultural fiction with reality is caused by the sheer volume and sophistication of America’s media? Or does something in the national psyche render Americans uniquely susceptible to the confusion? I’m a bit worried that Faludi may feel the conversation is taking an anti-American turn. But she does not do that classic liberal sidestep of going only so far, before retreating into patriotic disclaimers. Her manner might be diffident, but her answer isn’t.

“I think,” she says bluntly, “it combines with a number of prevailing, longstanding dynamics in the American mindset. You know – the desire to be seen as innocent, that you can just hit the restart button. That tomorrow’s a new day, one person can make a difference – all these apolitical, and even anti-political, or certainly anti-historical ways of looking at the world. That makes us more susceptible to Cinderella stories, and want to believe them. Americans have always wanted to believe in some dreamy notion that has nothing to do with the facts that are right before them. Americans are just so wedded to saying OK, let’s just turn the page and everything’s going to be fine.”

At the risk of sounding like a smiley, solution-orientated American interviewer, I ask if she has any constructive suggestions as to how to address the problem articulated in Terror Dream. “I think the solution is actually to talk more about the problem, before saying let’s move on. There is this five-minute window that happens after a crisis like 9/11, when people are actually grappling with real experience, and with real feelings of vulnerability and weakness and pain and sorrow. And that’s immediately swept aside in favour of this make-believe story line. If we are really to free ourselves from that reflex, we have to understand the reflex – which is going to take more than five minutes. After all, it took us hundreds of years to create it and buy into it.”

It’s so rare to meet an American who seems gloomier than me, I feel slightly embarrassed to mention our excitement across the Atlantic at the prospect of a new president, for fear of sounding naive. Faludi won’t say which way she voted in the Democratic primary – but doesn’t she feel optimistic about the forthcoming election?

“Well, most of my voting life I’ve been painfully disappointed, starting with the first election I was old enough to vote in, which brought in Ronald Reagan. Yes, on the Democratic side we have a woman refusing to be a weak maiden, and we have a male candidate refusing to be the swaggering tough guy. So maybe things have really changed. But on the other hand, this myth never really goes away; it just goes underground, and it’s going to come back with a vengeance in the general election. You can already see it.”

I ask her what she means.

“Well, let’s assume McCain is the Republican candidate. His story is going to be the story of Daniel Boone – the guy who was taken captive by Indians or, in his case, the North Vietnamese, and withstood torture and came back. That’s the drama that’s going to be trotted out. Already they’re talking about ‘McCain the Warrior’. And then on the Democratic side, whoever the candidate is they’ll be attacked because they don’t fit into that rescue formula. Clinton will either be accused of being not manly enough to withstand the terrorist threat, or accused of being too cold and calculating to be a woman. Or both. And Obama will be this scrawny guy who doesn’t seem macho enough to stand up to the enemy.

“I don’t think,” she smiles sadly, “we’ve seen the last of the narrative”

· Susan Faludi’s The Terror Dream: What 9/11 Revealed About America is published by Atlantic Books at £12.99.
Copyright Guardian News and Media Limited

Have your say! Contribute to the Girltalk Generations Egroup!

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?)

A Perspective on Women and Mentoring

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