I had such high hopes of the International Women’s Day edition of ABC’s Q&A on Monday. My excitement was such that I chose to fly to Sydney to be part of the audience.
Sadly, I believe Q&A missed a huge opportunity to advance the cause of women in Australia. Before explain why, I want to say that my intention is not to criticize either the ABC or this week’s panellists (with one exception). Q&A was produced impeccably, and I have enormous admiration for this week’s guests and the host Annabel Crabb, who is wholly deserving of the girl-crushes liberally bestowed upon her.
The content covered was relatively standard fodder: male champions of change, young women against feminism, work-life balance and sexual discrimination, with a foray into Julie Bishop’s efforts in Indonesia.
My concern is with the depth, or lack thereof, of the ensuing discussion. At times, the levity was frustrating; at other times, disturbing. I take particular issue with the contribution of Germaine Greer.
Watching from the front row of the Q&A audience, it was difficult to understand Greer’s motives. Some of her answers were bizarrely off-track; others were downright dangerous.
Advising subjects of unwelcome sexual propositions to invite the propositioner home was ridiculous. Asking Julie Bishop if she would bare her nipples to free Australian prisoners on death row was grossly inappropriate.
What I have learned as a strong advocate of feminism is that some feminists prefer conflict to resolution. I believe Greer is an example of this. She deserves huge recognition for her body of work, yet she has become an unpredictable wildcard who can do more harm than good to the feminist movement.
Greer aside, the Q&A episode lacked both conflict and resolution. There was discussion, yes – much of it situated on the surface-level or just below. There was no passionate argument. There were no real solutions – flawed or otherwise.
I understand that gender equity is a complex issue and that there is no silver bullet. But having worked with many Australian organisations to a) increase the number of women applying for promotion, b) build their pipelines of female talent and c) create workplace cultures in which women can thrive, I know that there are solutions available. I know what works. To discuss the problems without covering off potential solutions was irresponsible.
I have coached many CEOs, both male and female. When we discuss gender equity, I hear a similar lament:
I have been attending breakfasts about women and leadership for twenty years now. And nothing has changed. We just keep having the same conversations, over and over again. We seem to be banging our heads against the ultimate brick wall.
I am heartily sick of discussing the problem. It’s time to talk solutions. Here are my alternative answers to some of the questions posed on Monday night:
Q: I am in a loving relationship. As well as looking forward to a career I look forward to being his wife, changing my last name to his and being the mother of his children. I take pride in cleaning our home, making our meals and catering to his needs as well as my own. As important as feminism is globally, has it got to a point where the ideals have begun to make women feel contradictory? If so, how do we reverse this?
A: There is nothing wrong with pleasing your partner unless it comes at the expense of pleasing yourself and having your partner please you. Currently, Australian women do 50% more housework and 50% more childcare than Australian men. If this is all for the sake of self-pleasure, I’ll eat my hat.
As Yassmin Abdel-Magied pointed out, there are cultural and structural inequalities that contribute to the assumption that our role as women is to ‘clean the home, make the meals and cater to his needs’. We need to question our choices to ensure that they are exactly that; internally-made choices, rather than externally-imposed obligations.
Q: How can we change our culture so that women feel entitled to speak and men feel entitled to listen?
A: Despite some panellists claiming that they do not notice interruptions, research shows that women are indeed interrupted three times more than men. To rectify this, interruptions need to be called out – by both men and women. When women get interrupted, my advice is to calmly and non-defensively say: “You interrupted me. I’d like to finish what I was saying”. Men have equal responsibility to a) not interrupt and b) point out the interruptions of other men as soon as they occur.
Q (to Julie Bishop): Do you feel your ability to pursue your career would be compromised if you had the responsibilities of raising a family?
A: With all due respect to the questioner, the fact that this question is even asked shows how far we have to go to reach gender equity in Australia. As soon as this question is asked of childless male politicians, we will know that significant progress has been made.
It’s time to stop discussing gender equity in a circular manner and go straight for pointed solutions to the considerable problems of gender pay inequity, sexual discrimination in the workplace and low representation of women at leadership level. For that, we need action.
There is a quote doing the rounds on social media at present:
On October 24, 1975, the women on Iceland went on strike for equal rights. 90% of women walked off their jobs and out of their homes, shutting down the entire country. The men could barely cope. The next year, Parliament passed a law guaranteeing equal pay. Five years later, Iceland elected the world’s first woman President. Now Iceland has the highest gender equality in the world”.
I am not suggesting Australian women take to the street (although I would march in a heartbeat) but I am suggesting drastic action must be taken. We need quotas, not targets in our organisations. We need remuneration audits. We need strict gender reporting requirements. For this, we need a government that pursues gender equity with pragmatism and clear intent.
And this brings me to my question for Julie Bishop, which I was unable to ask:
“As someone who runs a business focused on reducing the gender gap at executive level, I have seen first-hand how critical male champions of change are within organisations. Our own Prime Minister, and self-appointed Minister for Women, has the ability to be a figurehead for male champions of change. Yet he appoints only two women to his Cabinet, suggests his greatest achievement as Minister for Women is repealing the carbon tax, and seems likely to water down gender reporting requirements just as the national gender pay gap hits a 20-year high. Julie Bishop, what is your defence of Tony Abbott’s achievements, or lack there-of, as our nation’s most prominent male champion of women?”
I am most interested in an answer. And I am most interested in seeing action that addresses gender inequity from this government Tony.
As for Q&A my request is simple: please ensure that the next all-female panel discusses gender equality with a strong focus on solutions, not just discussion.