Labor and the Status of Women
One of the things I was specifically watching for in this Ministry Shuffle was the Ministry for the Status of Women. Where would Rudd put this? How would it relate to other portfolios?
Status of Women has been marginalised and diminished throughout the Howard decade-or-so. Whereas during the Hawke-Keating era, Status of Women was a very important base for the women’s lobby (the “femocrats”)and had an important cross-portfolio coordinating role, Howard lost little time in closing off its avenues of influence, merging the important policy units and piddling away decades of expertise, removing its hardcore focus on economic as well as social issues, and appointing the monstrously inept Pru Goward to a variety of influential feministo positions. Somewhere along the line the portfolio lost its “status” and gained some “issues” (perhaps mirroring life or whatever, insert joke here).
Predictably and welcomely, Tanya Plibersek has landed the portfolio after serving it strongly in her Shadow capacity. Her “primary” responsibility is Housing, and one assumes that she will be working closely on that portfolio with Jenny Macklin, who is taking up the cabinet position of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. This places Status of Women strongly within social and community services portfolio, as opposed to being within a more economically oriented portfolio.
It is a bad omen that this position, which should have a considerable presence across portfolios, statistical analysis and ensuring policy impact statements and moving key initiatives, is allocated outside of the central team. Importantly, Plibersek is not a Cabinet minister. Women is not a Cabinet position. Labor’s women’s budget statement indicated that Status of Women would be a central role in the new Government, so I’m wondering how this will be achieved outside of cabinet.
And how, ghettoised in social services and outside of cabinet, is the Status of Women portfolio going to have alot of input into, say, industrial relations? After all, with high casualisation in low-paid feminised industries, an increasing gap between mens’ and womens’ full-time take home pay, and issues like childcare and maternity pay at the forefront of national debate, IR is a women’s issue and and economic issue.
Anyone who thinks this isn’t a significant portfolio has been fooled by a lack of statistical and policy analysis into thinking Status of Women is not an issue anymore.
liam wrote:
Except for the Franken-adverb “welcomely”, well-said. If there can’t be a Cabinet spot for the job, let’s at least hope the new Minister gets to put her fingers into lots of other Ministers’ pies.
Ministries for IR and for Women at the State level, for instance.
Tom N. (not verified) wrote:
The happiness literature indicates the women on average are happier than men (or, at least, were prior to the increasing efectiveness of feminism in countering traditional expectations about gender roles). If women were happier than men, then all the perceived discrimination they faced really meant nothing, or meant something but was more than compensated for by “discrimination” going the other way. Warren Farrell, in The Myth Of Male Power, provides one possible explanation for this. Whatever the explanation, though, the upshot is that if women are better off than men, the whole feminist agenda is thrown into question - at least for people who are interested in outcomes rather than ideology - and the need for government action or bureacratic structures to lift the status of women is also highly questionable.
Tom
PS: My childfree female friends tell me that maternity leave is a parental issue; not a wimmin’s issue.
Mark wrote:
Noxious stuff. Could you actually point to some academic research (which the book you cite assuredly is not) supporting your incredible claims?
Firstly, you can’t get reliable data about happiness. It can’t be measured. You can only measure whether people report being happy. So even if men report being less happy than women, this could just be because men moan about things while women make do. This is perfectly consonant with the observable facts of male domination. On any objective measure – money, influence – men are vastly ahead of women.
Secondly, even if men are less happy than women, this doesn’t throw feminism into doubt because, like any credible political philosophy, feminism is not eudaimonistic. Men might be unhappy because of a loss of a tiny amount of their power to women, who are happy as a result of these very small gains. So suddenly men are the victims because, despite being dominant, they are unhappy? Boo fucking hoo. If some rich crook gets his ill-gotten gains seized, he’d surely be unhappy, but that doesn’t make the seizure any less just.
Imagine if these comments were made about race rather than sex: “The Myth of White Power”, backed up by “some of my best friends are black”.
Tom N. (not verified) wrote:
“Noxious stuff” eh Mark? I take it that what you mean is that I’ve upset your policitically correct apple cart … so shame on me, apparently.
The happiness literature is far more sophisticated than you appear to you realise. For example, the results of self-supported happiness surveys have been buttressed by the work of neuroscienctists and have been found to correlate well with life-changing events. (See, for example, R. Layard, Happiness: Lessons From A New Science, 2005).
Moreover, as I pointed out in my original post, women’s reported happiness was higher than men’s prior to the intrusion of feminism. In recent times the gap has closed. So contrary to your argument, my argument was not dependent on the notion that men might feel victimised at losing power (as you perceive it); it was about the distribution of happiness, from whatever its source.
You also say that “even if men are less happy than women, this doesn’t throw feminism into doubt because, like any credible political philosophy, feminism is not eudaimonistic.” No doubt the last point in that statement is true, but that arguably reflects a flaw in feminism; not a flaw in my argument. What you are really saying is “stuff who is happier; we’re just going to redistribute power anyway - even if it leads to greater inequality in happiness terms”. Noxious stuff indeed.
liam wrote:
Well, yes. You rank a subjective happiness over objective inequality of power and status? That is pretty shameful.
arleeshar wrote:
I agree that happiness is a very important part of life, although I don’t agree that when it comes at the expense of other people or of one’s own personal autonomy that it is healthy or useful in support of a flourishing community. I also do not agree that “reported happiness” is an objective measure of happiness, especially in this case since the methodology for assessing responses has altered dramatically since the 1960s etc. I prefer to think about the distribution of hope, following Ghassan Hage, rather than the distribution of happiness - much more useful analytical tool.
Oh, and maternity leave is certainly a women’s issue. Men don’t need several weeks off work to physically recover from having a child. Women do. Of course, parental leave, which is about caregiving to the child, is certainly a family/parental issue.
lisadp (not verified) wrote:
Tom N, interesting point, (and I actually read that book by Farrell - even more loopy and contrived use of statistics than Germaine Greer). Even if the measuring of happiness you point out is scientific and verifiable, I don’t see how it’s possible to extrapolate that and say that we don’t need equal opportunity (which is what the status of Women ministry is meant to be about).
It’s notoriously difficult to measure something like personal happiness. Even if you could, equal opportunity is about equal opportunity to be unhappy as well as happy. If some woman wants a powerful position or career at the expense of personal happiness the shouldn’t the system allow her it.
Post new comment