I found International Women's Day yesterday really offensive.
Now before you accuse me of being a men's rights activist, I will have to point out that I am totally not. Men have all the rights. About the only circumstance where I can think of where there is a disparity is in the issue of child custody following family law proceedings but there is and should be a presumption that the woman in the relationship will be a better primary care provider because in at least 99:1 cases, she is. Family Law disputes almost always invariably also contain a mismatch of physical power and in that respect, that physical power mismatch is also likely to result in physical harm also overwhelmingly in one direction.
No, the reason why I find International Women's Day offensive, is the amount of pretty pink ribbon tying and pinkwashing of the day that has happened. Granted that there does need to be a great deal of celebration but the media and especially advertising tends to act as though all of the problems in the world have been solved; when in actual fact most of the central issues are very far from being solved.
1. Women make up 51% of the population but 71% of the people who live in relative poverty.
2. Women still only collect on average about 84% of the wage packet of men. There are a bunch of reasons for this, including the self-selection of work by women but mostly it has to do with the relative bargaining power of women. Mostly their bosses and people in management are men.
3. Lower wages also translates into entrenched rates of lower savings at law through the mechanism of superannuation. This also partly helps to explain Statement 1.
4. Women are 97% of all people who have their careers interrupted by having children. This also contributes to Statement 2 as that has net flow on effects relating to recent experience in the workforce, it further compounds Statement 3. This also partly helps to explain Statement 1.
5. Even if you allow for the effects of family law proceedings, women make up 83% of single parents. That also partly helps to explain Statement 1, as that also comes with an economic cost that men aren't paying.
6. Women own less than 12% of all of the land in the world. Since so much of the reward of rent goes to landholders, then this also runs alongside Statement 2 and further helps to explain Statement 1.
7. Women own less than 19% of all of the capital in the world. Since so much of the reward of capital goes to shareholders and management, then this also runs alongside Statement 2 and further helps to explain Statement 1.
What I find really offensive about International Women's Day is the fact that it has been pinkwashed of a lot of its meaning. It is really easy for a company like Shell or Apple to do precisely nothing and ask the marketing department to make a one day token effort, than actually investigate their internal company structure.
It is really easy for successful women to get a voice and talk about the work that they did; without acknowledging the fact that no story exists in a vacuum and that in general, successful women had considerable advantages that other women might not have had (and I say this completely hypocritically as a white male).
Even more offensive is that International Women's Day used to be International Working Women's Day and was very much tied with the march for suffrage, and issues like representation in parliaments, equal pay, equal economic opportunity, equal legal rights, reproductive rights, subsidized child care, and the prevention of violence against women. Most of these battles haven't yet been won by a long shot.
I suspect that the reason why the original notions of International Working Women's Day have been gradually shut down or forgotten, is because the hard questions remain unanswered and because notions of equal pay and equal economic opportunity sound oh so socialist. It is far easier for people to play fluffy identity politics, both on the authoritarian right and the libertarian right, than to actually installing policies which might cost businesses money.
I guess what I really found offensive about International Women's Day is the way that this year, the discussions on radio never really talked about out the world of business is unjust, nor about any real response about how we care for people. I found especially offensive that Social Services Minister Anne Ruston marked International Women's Day by announcing that the Federal Government would earmark $20 million into a no-interest loan scheme to help women experiencing domestic violence to buy basic goods. Quite frankly the last thing that someone in already precarious circumstances needs is the government pretending to care but saddling them with debt. $20 million is a pathetic amount to throw towards this. If the Government was serious about doing something about domestic violence then it could implement coercive control laws, or any other range of actions recommended by many agencies for years. But no.
8. Although the experience of psychological aggression is about 1:1 for both men and women, about 90% of all physical injuries because of domestic violence are suffered by women. Although homicide rates are about the same, the likelihood of someone going on to live in relative poverty, is also overwhelmingly suffered by women. Women are 86% of all people who have their careers interrupted by domestic violence. This also partly helps to explain Statement 1.
Nobody wanted to talk about that in the media yesterday.
No comments:
Post a Comment