Sorry, but this week’s post is about those “Martians” (as in Men Are From Mars; Women Are From Venus) and whether they get things done or not. In a way it relates to a previous post called “Women Do”. The difference being that women do get things done quickly and – not all but a lot of – men do not get things done at all, let alone quickly.
For example, there was a Human Resource issue, regarding training advice in hygiene protection a few years ago and some men were asked to deal with it. There were meetings; there were talks; there was a dismissal and a review of training processes. Then all was quiet and it seemed the issue had been resolved.
However, as this issue involved vulnerable people, a woman kept watch to see if the issue would rear its head [phallic pun intended] again. It has.
(A sombre piece of information is that the issue seems to precipitate from a woman, the trainer, who seems to hold an unshakeable belief that certain people who are vulnerable are also ‘dirty’ and cannot be touched – except with gloved, latex-clad hands.)
So we return to the same training room two and a half years later.
The ‘woman who watches’ now gives all who visit that training room a “pop quiz” after the event to see if latex has been mentioned. After a training session this week, the same thing happened. People were advised not to touch the intact, non-infectious skin of healthy people, who are vulnerable, unless they are wearing gloves.
The ‘woman who watches’ rang the men and one said, “oh god, wasn’t that fixed last time?” The other said, “We’ll have to check that out and get back to you”.
This is but a sample of wide spread male malaise. “No child will live in poverty…” springs to mind. How many wars and conflicts have been the last – with a promise of world peace reigning supreme?
Now that I live with a man I am well aware of how often they do not get things done or have to be reminded. I ask myself “if women are a species of doers and reminders, what might happen if we ruled the world? …but we’d still have to pay the telephone bill :-)
References
Mars and Venus website http://www.marsvenus.com/ Accessed: 5 February 2007
Monday, 5 February 2007
Monday, 29 January 2007
I'll be your Prostitute whenever you want me
This week’s blog post is a very sad tale of social naivety and Government sedition.
There once was a single, independent woman who had a job, lived alone in an apartment and had lovers over for her pleasure. Sometimes they were the same lovers; sometimes different. The one constant was that they arrived; pleasured her and left. She was satisfied, they were satisfied; and the Government imposed no financial penalty.
However, the independent woman met “hot minute man” (Remember him from an earlier post? And he’s not “hot minute man” because it’s all over in a “hot” minute it’s because he’s impetuous and makes life-changing decisions without thought to the cost. More on that in previous posts or later……..) and decided to take him in to share her space.
All was fine. They kept all monies separate: paid half the rent each; half the bills each; shared food bills and eating out. Ever so often they even leapt into each others beds and let their libidos run wild across fields of tinglingly erotic flesh.
They were CAREFUL. They knew the RISKS and the RULES.
The woman was always one to accept a dare. So when “hot minute man” said, “I know you’ve got ‘issues’ but when you’ve dealt with them we can get married”. Well, that was a dare. What were her ‘issues’? Could she name them? Were they important?
Marriage had never entered her schema. She had always kept that part of life’s progression out of her life plan because the thought of marriage and disability were things she couldn’t bring together. Getting an education, becoming independent, working, having lovers, they fitted with disability but she had never brought marriage to the front of her thoughts because it required ‘another’s’ acceptance of her as she was, who she was. She had not considered it.
The surprise of the offer was a shock [see “Objection”] and she could not gather her ‘issues’. She said “yes” and the die was cast. The decision was made on a hot and heady January night in the tropics where the perfumed gardens and intoxicatingly fresh smell of soft summer rain and the topical environment did not foreshadow prostituting herself to him when the Australian Government deemed that he took possession of her by marrying her.
………..skip wedding plans, preparations and the fateful day…………
Freshly back from a frightening honeymoon where the true realisation of what they had done began to sink in.
When they went to tell Centrelink – it hit them like a shotgun blast and the pellets of their foolish ignorance of Government rules and societal expectations tore their tender flesh and caused their hearts to bleed.
He had a part-time job so she kept some entitlements to independent income. But his job changed; his income increased; until Centrelink passed all responsibility for her over to him. She became (in the fiscally, patriarchally cold and calculating eyes of the Government) his possession, to keep and provide for.
She could not be a waitress, cleaner or do menial jobs – which she would have – as the disability prevented her from taking up these occupations. In her head, the words of the Clout song “Substitute” rang out loud and long, but now days she substitutes the word ‘prostitute’:
I’ll be your prostitute whenever you want me
I’ll be your prostitute whenever you need me
Because the Australian Government has made her so. The Australian Government has declared that if someone with a disability dared to live with someone – and have sex and sleep with them – then the able-bodied wage-earner becomes financially responsible for the person with a disability. The Australian Government does a very good job as a “pimp” and makes a tidy saving. It the case of these two people, taking into account the earnings from the job she got, the Australian Government saves $10000 per year.
She tried to put it behind her. He tried to put it behind him. They moved on.
She got a job which she really likes and intends on keeping.
However, had they not got married; were he employed to care for her and take her on outings, she would be entitled to over $10000 more per year from the Government.
As with all good gothic tales of dark and gloomy outcomes, there’s an ironic twist here. As well as losing $10000 per year by being married, or “living in a marriage-like relationship” she also loses access to her Pensioner Concession Card. This means she cannot purchase medication (and she needs a lot, with degenerative hips and INTENSE pain) at a reduced rate, but losing the Pensioner Concession Card also mean that she loses eligibility to the $12000 to $15000 wheelchair that she uses to independently mobilise.
Thus because they cannot afford the medication and the power-wheelchair: she becomes the archetypal trapped chattel sitting at home waiting for he whom the Australian deems as her ‘provider’ to come home and “have his way with her”
Is this not the Australian Government stripping all people with disabilities of their rights to ‘freely’ enter into sexual relations?
Oh no, only once a week “we have disabilities and do not want to become dependent”!!!
Is this not the Australian Government stripping this woman of her rights and prostituting her to the man?
She says in her head:
“I’ll be your prostitute whenever you want me
I’ll be your prostitute whenever you need me………..
John Howard says you have to pay for pleasure from me”
There once was a single, independent woman who had a job, lived alone in an apartment and had lovers over for her pleasure. Sometimes they were the same lovers; sometimes different. The one constant was that they arrived; pleasured her and left. She was satisfied, they were satisfied; and the Government imposed no financial penalty.
However, the independent woman met “hot minute man” (Remember him from an earlier post? And he’s not “hot minute man” because it’s all over in a “hot” minute it’s because he’s impetuous and makes life-changing decisions without thought to the cost. More on that in previous posts or later……..) and decided to take him in to share her space.
All was fine. They kept all monies separate: paid half the rent each; half the bills each; shared food bills and eating out. Ever so often they even leapt into each others beds and let their libidos run wild across fields of tinglingly erotic flesh.
They were CAREFUL. They knew the RISKS and the RULES.
The woman was always one to accept a dare. So when “hot minute man” said, “I know you’ve got ‘issues’ but when you’ve dealt with them we can get married”. Well, that was a dare. What were her ‘issues’? Could she name them? Were they important?
Marriage had never entered her schema. She had always kept that part of life’s progression out of her life plan because the thought of marriage and disability were things she couldn’t bring together. Getting an education, becoming independent, working, having lovers, they fitted with disability but she had never brought marriage to the front of her thoughts because it required ‘another’s’ acceptance of her as she was, who she was. She had not considered it.
The surprise of the offer was a shock [see “Objection”] and she could not gather her ‘issues’. She said “yes” and the die was cast. The decision was made on a hot and heady January night in the tropics where the perfumed gardens and intoxicatingly fresh smell of soft summer rain and the topical environment did not foreshadow prostituting herself to him when the Australian Government deemed that he took possession of her by marrying her.
………..skip wedding plans, preparations and the fateful day…………
Freshly back from a frightening honeymoon where the true realisation of what they had done began to sink in.
When they went to tell Centrelink – it hit them like a shotgun blast and the pellets of their foolish ignorance of Government rules and societal expectations tore their tender flesh and caused their hearts to bleed.
He had a part-time job so she kept some entitlements to independent income. But his job changed; his income increased; until Centrelink passed all responsibility for her over to him. She became (in the fiscally, patriarchally cold and calculating eyes of the Government) his possession, to keep and provide for.
She could not be a waitress, cleaner or do menial jobs – which she would have – as the disability prevented her from taking up these occupations. In her head, the words of the Clout song “Substitute” rang out loud and long, but now days she substitutes the word ‘prostitute’:
I’ll be your prostitute whenever you want me
I’ll be your prostitute whenever you need me
Because the Australian Government has made her so. The Australian Government has declared that if someone with a disability dared to live with someone – and have sex and sleep with them – then the able-bodied wage-earner becomes financially responsible for the person with a disability. The Australian Government does a very good job as a “pimp” and makes a tidy saving. It the case of these two people, taking into account the earnings from the job she got, the Australian Government saves $10000 per year.
She tried to put it behind her. He tried to put it behind him. They moved on.
She got a job which she really likes and intends on keeping.
However, had they not got married; were he employed to care for her and take her on outings, she would be entitled to over $10000 more per year from the Government.
As with all good gothic tales of dark and gloomy outcomes, there’s an ironic twist here. As well as losing $10000 per year by being married, or “living in a marriage-like relationship” she also loses access to her Pensioner Concession Card. This means she cannot purchase medication (and she needs a lot, with degenerative hips and INTENSE pain) at a reduced rate, but losing the Pensioner Concession Card also mean that she loses eligibility to the $12000 to $15000 wheelchair that she uses to independently mobilise.
Thus because they cannot afford the medication and the power-wheelchair: she becomes the archetypal trapped chattel sitting at home waiting for he whom the Australian deems as her ‘provider’ to come home and “have his way with her”
Is this not the Australian Government stripping all people with disabilities of their rights to ‘freely’ enter into sexual relations?
Oh no, only once a week “we have disabilities and do not want to become dependent”!!!
Is this not the Australian Government stripping this woman of her rights and prostituting her to the man?
She says in her head:
“I’ll be your prostitute whenever you want me
I’ll be your prostitute whenever you need me………..
John Howard says you have to pay for pleasure from me”
Sunday, 21 January 2007
Women thinking about money…$$$$
A long time ago when flowers grew in the bottom of every garden – alongside the tomato and bean bushes, lettuce plants and cabbage, beside the dunny but in front of the clothes line, to try and mask the dunny smell – women might not have had to think of money. Most women had “men”/”husbands” and, if they didn’t they were spinsters who lived with their parents (fathers - men) or their married sister/s who had “men”/”husbands”.
It was these “men”/”husbands” who thought about money. They earned the money; dictated how it was spent; organised housing or shelter (which the women duly decorated and made liveable on the money they were given for the purpose). Men bought and sold cars, houses, investments.
Women kept their heads nicely in the sand and remained ignorant of money. Mostly they were lucky and were not left in debt by deserving men.
But…… there came a time when women wanted more than household slavery and child-bearing. The feminist revolution (remember that…………aahhh – a wistful sigh) woke them up and women realised the connections between money and power.
Present
That was the past and this is now.
Women do think about money. Or, if they don’t, they should, because as the “Women’s Institute for Finance Education” www.wife.org so aptly state it on one of their bumper stickers: “A man is not a financial plan”.
Women need to start thinking about money in High School. Will they be able to afford to go to university? What kind of job do they want? Where do they want to live and with whom? Do they want a car? Life now demands that you plan your finances very carefully.
And yet, women are still losing out and ending up with sexually transmitted debt http://www.wire.org.au/womensinfo/women_and_debt.php when relationships break up. Women are also not always taking full control of their own or shared finances.
There are, however, some women who are sharing the financial decision-making, making their own financial decisions, or taking the leading role in making decisions for the partnership/relationship in which they share financial interests.
This, after all, would seem quite logical [Yet is still “radical” and unthinkable for some men.] as women now earn money, pay bills, organise childcare, or health insurance, or other related expenditure. Women have their names on mortgages and loan documents and need to be keeping an eye of their future. Women are also more likely to exercise discipline and scrutinise financial transactions then men.
So let’s continue thinking about money and have more financial successes, similar to those of the Grameen Bank, founded by Muhammad Yunus, who received The Nobel Peace Prize 2006 http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2006/yunus-lecture-en.html . This bank lends to women in poor countries to enable them to establish business and become financially independent. Demonstrating the financial responsibility of women is the fact that very few ever default on their loan.
This is proof that when women think about money, or have the opportunity to exercise financial responsibility, they take the matters seriously and can succeed.
References:
The Women’s Institute for Financial Education http://www.wife.org/ accessed 21/1/07
Women and Debt http://www.wire.org.au/womensinfo/women_and_debt.php accessed 21/1/07
Mohammed Yunus – Nobel Lecture http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2006/yunus-lecture-en.html accessed 21/7/06
It was these “men”/”husbands” who thought about money. They earned the money; dictated how it was spent; organised housing or shelter (which the women duly decorated and made liveable on the money they were given for the purpose). Men bought and sold cars, houses, investments.
Women kept their heads nicely in the sand and remained ignorant of money. Mostly they were lucky and were not left in debt by deserving men.
But…… there came a time when women wanted more than household slavery and child-bearing. The feminist revolution (remember that…………aahhh – a wistful sigh) woke them up and women realised the connections between money and power.
Present
That was the past and this is now.
Women do think about money. Or, if they don’t, they should, because as the “Women’s Institute for Finance Education” www.wife.org so aptly state it on one of their bumper stickers: “A man is not a financial plan”.
Women need to start thinking about money in High School. Will they be able to afford to go to university? What kind of job do they want? Where do they want to live and with whom? Do they want a car? Life now demands that you plan your finances very carefully.
And yet, women are still losing out and ending up with sexually transmitted debt http://www.wire.org.au/womensinfo/women_and_debt.php when relationships break up. Women are also not always taking full control of their own or shared finances.
There are, however, some women who are sharing the financial decision-making, making their own financial decisions, or taking the leading role in making decisions for the partnership/relationship in which they share financial interests.
This, after all, would seem quite logical [Yet is still “radical” and unthinkable for some men.] as women now earn money, pay bills, organise childcare, or health insurance, or other related expenditure. Women have their names on mortgages and loan documents and need to be keeping an eye of their future. Women are also more likely to exercise discipline and scrutinise financial transactions then men.
So let’s continue thinking about money and have more financial successes, similar to those of the Grameen Bank, founded by Muhammad Yunus, who received The Nobel Peace Prize 2006 http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2006/yunus-lecture-en.html . This bank lends to women in poor countries to enable them to establish business and become financially independent. Demonstrating the financial responsibility of women is the fact that very few ever default on their loan.
This is proof that when women think about money, or have the opportunity to exercise financial responsibility, they take the matters seriously and can succeed.
References:
The Women’s Institute for Financial Education http://www.wife.org/ accessed 21/1/07
Women and Debt http://www.wire.org.au/womensinfo/women_and_debt.php accessed 21/1/07
Mohammed Yunus – Nobel Lecture http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2006/yunus-lecture-en.html accessed 21/7/06
Monday, 15 January 2007
A Twist on Nature/Nurture 1
This post is numbered because it’s a topic on which more than one post might be written.
Over the recent Christmas/New Year/Summer Holidays – there are so many names for these particular holidays, it’s difficult to choose one, so I’ll include several – I returned to my family’s home in a rural setting. Like every rural place in that part of the country it was dry and the clouds would come tantalisingly close – make thunder even – but no worthwhile rain has yet quenched the earth.
On this property there were lots of jobs to do. You have to feed the animals dry food brought from town in the four-wheel-drive, start engines to supply them with water, check troughs, check fences, generally keep an eye on everything. All of these jobs were done with precision, routine and responsibility.
Other things were done too. The house cleaned, washing and ironing done, everyone who came to the boundary gate/door was asked in for refreshments, food or bedding for the night. Whatever their need, it was met. The same as whatever were the animals’ needs, machinery needs, and fence maintenance needs… these were met.
Nothing strange about this, it would seem, and to me there isn’t – but there’s something that has not yet been stated. The majority of this work was done by women. My sisters, on vacation from other jobs, were the ones doing the work and filling in whilst our mother, who usually does these jobs, was recovering from surgery.
There was one man permanently present – my partner – but he was a bit occupied with being my personal carer (Remember: I say I have a disability in the “about me” section.) and doing the ironing: oh the ironing!
To better understand the work and other activities, I used the often-used term “double-duty” and inquired of him as to how it was going? He asked me to teach him the “lie of the land” and we later did fencing, where I proved that one does not have to be able to do, or ever have done, to be able to instruct. I sat in the four-wheel-drive and instructed him on fixing and straining a fence.
Fixing and straining a fence is a skill that my sisters and I learned from our father and mother. In this way, we were raised or ‘nurtured’ in the skills of the land. However, if there were other men present, they might insist that ‘nature’ prevail and women sit back and let the stronger of the species, men, do the fencing (and not lift a finger to clear the table or wash-up). This is good when a post needs to be put into the ground or for heavy lifting.
But what stuck me, and what I finally understand, is that I come from a family where gender divides and work roles are all mixed up. They always have been in my family. When there was one man, one adult woman, who were a couple and young women and girl children – their 5 daughters – this is what was always going to happen. After all, the man can’t do all the outdoor tasks; and the women and girls would go through an obscene amount of wool and cotton if they sat around knitting and crocheting.
(Did I mention I hate craft?)
Although beneficial in instilling an “I/women can do anything attitude”, this lack of gender conditioning has meant that discrimination and the marginalisation mentioned in last week’s post cut the psyche deeply and are particularly obnoxious.
By exploring this microcosm of ‘nature’ and ‘nurture’, it can be argued that all women should be given opportunities to be nurtured by nature: to use their bodies to experience the satisfaction of doing physical labour for themselves and not be excluded.
Most importantly, when women are instructed in the ways of being in both masculine and feminine worlds, they become strong, smart women who can change their own car tyres and check the oil and water.
Over the recent Christmas/New Year/Summer Holidays – there are so many names for these particular holidays, it’s difficult to choose one, so I’ll include several – I returned to my family’s home in a rural setting. Like every rural place in that part of the country it was dry and the clouds would come tantalisingly close – make thunder even – but no worthwhile rain has yet quenched the earth.
On this property there were lots of jobs to do. You have to feed the animals dry food brought from town in the four-wheel-drive, start engines to supply them with water, check troughs, check fences, generally keep an eye on everything. All of these jobs were done with precision, routine and responsibility.
Other things were done too. The house cleaned, washing and ironing done, everyone who came to the boundary gate/door was asked in for refreshments, food or bedding for the night. Whatever their need, it was met. The same as whatever were the animals’ needs, machinery needs, and fence maintenance needs… these were met.
Nothing strange about this, it would seem, and to me there isn’t – but there’s something that has not yet been stated. The majority of this work was done by women. My sisters, on vacation from other jobs, were the ones doing the work and filling in whilst our mother, who usually does these jobs, was recovering from surgery.
There was one man permanently present – my partner – but he was a bit occupied with being my personal carer (Remember: I say I have a disability in the “about me” section.) and doing the ironing: oh the ironing!
To better understand the work and other activities, I used the often-used term “double-duty” and inquired of him as to how it was going? He asked me to teach him the “lie of the land” and we later did fencing, where I proved that one does not have to be able to do, or ever have done, to be able to instruct. I sat in the four-wheel-drive and instructed him on fixing and straining a fence.
Fixing and straining a fence is a skill that my sisters and I learned from our father and mother. In this way, we were raised or ‘nurtured’ in the skills of the land. However, if there were other men present, they might insist that ‘nature’ prevail and women sit back and let the stronger of the species, men, do the fencing (and not lift a finger to clear the table or wash-up). This is good when a post needs to be put into the ground or for heavy lifting.
But what stuck me, and what I finally understand, is that I come from a family where gender divides and work roles are all mixed up. They always have been in my family. When there was one man, one adult woman, who were a couple and young women and girl children – their 5 daughters – this is what was always going to happen. After all, the man can’t do all the outdoor tasks; and the women and girls would go through an obscene amount of wool and cotton if they sat around knitting and crocheting.
(Did I mention I hate craft?)
Although beneficial in instilling an “I/women can do anything attitude”, this lack of gender conditioning has meant that discrimination and the marginalisation mentioned in last week’s post cut the psyche deeply and are particularly obnoxious.
By exploring this microcosm of ‘nature’ and ‘nurture’, it can be argued that all women should be given opportunities to be nurtured by nature: to use their bodies to experience the satisfaction of doing physical labour for themselves and not be excluded.
Most importantly, when women are instructed in the ways of being in both masculine and feminine worlds, they become strong, smart women who can change their own car tyres and check the oil and water.
Monday, 8 January 2007
Limiting Choices …leading to marginalisation
2007 breaks upon Australia and the world with various political, social and economic pressures vying for the lime-light. There’s the fact that the opinions of Americans are against further involvement in Iraq – and the Australian Government is still supporting “The War on[/of] Terror”. The Queensland Government have changed disability funding and people with disabilities no longer have access to Adult Lifestyles Support Package funding, which assessed and funded people to live independently in the community. Instead, the Beattie Government has moved towards “capacity funding” and is building 20 “bed” institutions. If everything else is cyclical it seems that institutionalisation is too. First there was “De-institutionalisation”; now we witness a Labor Government annihilate individual choice/autonomy and trap people with disabilities in archaic models of support – such as group homes and institutions.
I tread the spun-silk line between myself and other, and choose to write about:
- an over-heard conversation,
- working women and
- the voice of dissent from a former Australian Government Minister
as they come together in a neat parcel and are still related to women, thought and how limiting or limited choices leads to marginalisation and - if you’re in a particularly dark and gothic mood – annihilation.
As annihilation is best to be avoided, this post will try to navigate a path that does not intersect with such ‘absolute’ finalities.
1) On New Year’s Day, I was sitting with my partner, overlooking the ocean in a Queensland coastal city, and over-heard two women with young babies discussing childcare options. It was quite clear that these women were part the growing number of couples who can only afford for one partner to be off-work for more than 6 weeks or a couple of months at the longest, as they have mortgages and loans to pay.
One woman was very organised and had booked in to childcare when she was only 4 months pregnant. I had this mental image of a foetus, in utero, lining up for mass produced bottle feeds. (I support childcare and women’s rights to work.) The other startling fact that this organised woman revealed was that she had been offered a full-time childcare place over others who were on the waiting list for part-time childcare. She observed that if you only wanted part-time childcare you probably just got pushed down the list in favour of those seeking full-time childcare and, therefore, being more lucrative option for providers.
The fear in the other, slightly less organised woman – who probably took a more organic approach to life, in that it was ok to actually be holding and bonding with the baby before seeking childcare – was tangible as she almost panicked about having an unsettled baby and a longer-than-expected wait for childcare.
1) Here we have the contradiction in the socio-political and economic ethos under which we live. Women have a right to work; to earn money; advance their careers and; attain professional, personal and financial goals. There was a brief time in the 1980s and 1990s when working women could ‘attain’ the “great Australian dream” of owning their own home.
This is rarely, if ever, the case now as it takes two salaries to sustain a mortgage and reasonable lifestyle. In this case, it can be argued that women are being socially and economically coerced into couple-dom to secure their financial future.
Yet, if women happen to have a disability, and be entitled to social security payments, they will be stripped of these entitlements upon becoming part of a couple. The point here is to highlight the connection between people with disabilities being forced back into institutions – out of sight, out of mind – and the disparity that fails to acknowledge people with disabilities as workers, part of communities, families and couples.
The muse is difficult to control today and keeps rambling off on tangents. Perhaps this is because there are so many interlinked topics vying to appear. And – I even tried using numbers.
Women who are in couples need to work to help sustain the economic progression of the couple. Yet, they are also expected, by the Prime Minister, John Howard, to be mothers of children and the netting that binds the family unit.
No wonder the talk of “double-duty” is growing louder. (One can hope…..)
3) And we finally move to the voice of dissent from a former Australian Government Minister. Bronwyn Bishop is quoted in The Sunday Mail as saying that the Prime Minister “is treating women like fools” in not implementing changes to childcare funding and places. Ms Bishop says “I was absolutely concerned with making sure women who are struggling for money were not worse off”.
As has been illustrated above, it’s a very steep and slippery slope that forms the continuum of worse off, maintaining equilibrium and advancing in a social, economic and political sense.
The questions that remain might be:
- Can women find time in their busy lives to work towards change?
- Can people see beyond the individualism being forced upon them to work towards collective change?
- And, will we ever see the cycle change/return to times when marginalisation and social justice issues are back on the political, and therefore, social agenda?
Or perhaps that should be, can we, the public, push them back onto the social and political agenda?
I’m not holding my breath!
References:
Weaver, Clair. 2007 “PM treating women like fools: Bishop”, The Sunday Mail, January 7, 2007: page 2.
Monday, 1 January 2007
The Start of 2007 - holidays
The woman who writes 'Women and Thought' is taking a break from thought and indulging in other pursuits. These pursuits may be hedonistic and/or relaxation focussed, however there are still 'thoughts' involved...
Sunday, 24 December 2006
Empowerment
When women have a sense of empowerment they are strong individuals who function well in their chosen position in society. It does not matter if they are in relationships or not, single or partnered, employed or not working. Empowered women have a strong sense of self-esteem and the ability to determine the direction of their lives.
Of course, this is not saying that women with a strong sense of empowerment are indestructible super women, merely that they are more resilient to the “slings and arrows” (Shakespeare, Hamlet) that must be lived through as part of life.
To look more closely at empowered women, we need to look at the word empowerment and, then, to think about whether empowerment is learned from living by example, as in through nurturing from empowering parents and or family. Can empowerment be learned through experience? Is it constant or can it be worn down by a society that, sometimes, seeks to strip women of power and leave them in disempowered positions in relation the men with whom they have relationships; the jobs they do not have; the education they have not had the opportunity to access; the lower paying jobs they struggle to keep; the long hours spent climbing the professional ladder and maintaining their positions or advancing..
The word “empower” means
1. to give power or authority to; authorise, esp. by legal or official means:
2. to enable or permit:
Dictionary.com
So ‘empowerment’ means having authority over your life, legal and financial and being ‘empowered’ to function as an ‘enabled’ member of the community.
Yet, for many women empowerment is distant from their everyday mode of living and, for some, it comes as second nature to recognise their position and seek to maintain or improve it. The questions that need to be asked are how can we bring children, young girls, teenagers, young women and ALL women to see that they can be empowered.
It is easier for some, example, those raised in situations where gender roles are shared. In these situations, young women see that they have the ability to function across gender roles, changing tyres and checking the oil in their cars. Such young women also grow up with knowledge of the language of business and powers to negotiate where the “starting price” is just that – where negotiations start.
It is these knowledges, and the application of them, that empower women. To empower all women, the sharing of gender roles and a valuing of personal independence needs to be augmented. This can be done through networking and through adopting educational and social models that put women in positions where they can exercise and experience their empowerment….and so it becomes a form of ‘power’ used for positive action rather than destruction.
Wishing you an empowered festive season and a new year of peace and progress.
References:
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/empowerment (accessed: December 23, 2006).
Of course, this is not saying that women with a strong sense of empowerment are indestructible super women, merely that they are more resilient to the “slings and arrows” (Shakespeare, Hamlet) that must be lived through as part of life.
To look more closely at empowered women, we need to look at the word empowerment and, then, to think about whether empowerment is learned from living by example, as in through nurturing from empowering parents and or family. Can empowerment be learned through experience? Is it constant or can it be worn down by a society that, sometimes, seeks to strip women of power and leave them in disempowered positions in relation the men with whom they have relationships; the jobs they do not have; the education they have not had the opportunity to access; the lower paying jobs they struggle to keep; the long hours spent climbing the professional ladder and maintaining their positions or advancing..
The word “empower” means
1. to give power or authority to; authorise, esp. by legal or official means:
2. to enable or permit:
Dictionary.com
So ‘empowerment’ means having authority over your life, legal and financial and being ‘empowered’ to function as an ‘enabled’ member of the community.
Yet, for many women empowerment is distant from their everyday mode of living and, for some, it comes as second nature to recognise their position and seek to maintain or improve it. The questions that need to be asked are how can we bring children, young girls, teenagers, young women and ALL women to see that they can be empowered.
It is easier for some, example, those raised in situations where gender roles are shared. In these situations, young women see that they have the ability to function across gender roles, changing tyres and checking the oil in their cars. Such young women also grow up with knowledge of the language of business and powers to negotiate where the “starting price” is just that – where negotiations start.
It is these knowledges, and the application of them, that empower women. To empower all women, the sharing of gender roles and a valuing of personal independence needs to be augmented. This can be done through networking and through adopting educational and social models that put women in positions where they can exercise and experience their empowerment….and so it becomes a form of ‘power’ used for positive action rather than destruction.
Wishing you an empowered festive season and a new year of peace and progress.
References:
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/empowerment (accessed: December 23, 2006).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)