When it comes to women’s workforce participation there are two core elements that need to be challenged: the first concerns assumptions about women at work. The second concerns assumptions about men outside of work.
It’s on the latter that women can really help give more choice to men regarding their lives outside of work, particularly by challenging social norms that a ‘man’s place’ is not in the playground, or at the school pick-up, or even sitting next to a child he doesn’t know on a plane.
In this week’s SMH Traveller column Tracey Spicer declares she’s in favour of a Qantas policy that gives preference to seating unaccompanied minors next to women rather than men. In the piece, I don’t want my children sitting next to a man, she writes that stranger danger is a real risk for children and that women account for just 8% of perpetrators.
I had no idea such policy even existed. I never thought an airline would give that much consideration to making generalisations and assumptions of its passengers based on gender — or based on anything at all. But clearly they do and seemingly there’s some support for the suggestion that children will have a safer journey if positioned next to a woman.
As Spicer writes: “Sure, not all men are paedophiles but offenders are predominantly male. I figure it’s better to be safe than sorry.”
Much has already been written in response to Spicer and this policy, especially from men who are not particularly pleased at being swept into this 50% of the population putting unaccompanied minors at risk.
In fairness to Spicer, it was an honest piece regarding an honest feeling she has about the proximity of strangers to her children. We can’t help the unease we feel or scenarios we dream up of the dangers facing our children.
But we can consider the source of such fears and weigh up the true extent of what danger really exists, if any at all. We can also challenge such fears and question just how they might perpetuate social norms regarding the scenarios in which women and men can and should participate.
I fear that if we’re concerned about men sitting next to children in the relatively controlled atmosphere of a plane flight, what do we think of men we don’t know at the after school pick-up? Or helping out at the school canteen? How about spotting a man in the local playground — before realising he’s with the two kids running around the play equipment? And what about those men who choose to pursue careers and opportunities in fields still largely dominated by women, such as teaching and childcare?
Such thinking could leave men feeling they’re better off sticking with the bread winning rather than having anything to do with the day to day child rearing. Better to stick with locations and places where they can’t raise suspicions.
Following Spicer’s article this week, I’ve heard two men share stories of the discomfort they’ve felt from time to time watching their kids in playgrounds — unless the kids are in some way attached or communicating with them, they’ve felt they’ve been greeted with suspicion, as if they’re hanging around for no good reason at all. Sensing that you’re some kind of creep for participating in child-related activities is not conducive to encouraging more men to do so.
The sad reality is that the biggest danger to children comes from the men who know them best: fathers, step fathers, uncles, family friends. Statistically, a child is more likely to be harmed or killed by someone they know, not the stranger on a plane or the stranger anywhere.
It was pleasing to see that under Spicer’s article, an SMH poll of more than 10,500 readers finds just 9% agree with airline policies that avoid seating men next to unaccompanied children.
The less assumptions we can make about men and women based on their gender, the more we’ll be able to challenge the existing status quo regarding who owns what responsibilities. That means more choice for all of us.