New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern discovered she was pregnant only six days away from being announced as Prime Minister on 19 October 2017.
At first she and partner Clarke Gayford chose to keep it quiet but since announcing her pregnancy the 37 year old has received a mixed response with some feeling 'betrayed' by the announcement, accusing her of being 'selfish' for putting her needs before her country and that she chose to have her baby at the wrong time and should have 'waited' until she wasn't prime minister.
Others have suggested that due to the pregnancy she will not be 'fit for purpose' and cannot possibly handle being prime minister as well as being pregnant. Mainly because you know....'baby brain?'
There has also been concern around the amount of time she will take for maternity leave. Ardern has stated that she is going to take six weeks off and that her partner Gayford will look after the baby.
At first she and partner Clarke Gayford chose to keep it quiet but since announcing her pregnancy the 37 year old has received a mixed response with some feeling 'betrayed' by the announcement, accusing her of being 'selfish' for putting her needs before her country and that she chose to have her baby at the wrong time and should have 'waited' until she wasn't prime minister.
Others have suggested that due to the pregnancy she will not be 'fit for purpose' and cannot possibly handle being prime minister as well as being pregnant. Mainly because you know....'baby brain?'
There has also been concern around the amount of time she will take for maternity leave. Ardern has stated that she is going to take six weeks off and that her partner Gayford will look after the baby.
Ardern's situation shows the impossible expectations that are placed on women in public life. On the one hand you are vilified if you 'selfishly' choose to have children and are vilified for 'selfishly' choosing not to have them.
Julia Gillard was mercilessly criticised by her decision to remain childless by Tony Abbott, Mark Latham and George Brandis. All of them arguing that she could not possibly understand the average Australian woman by her decision to remain childless. Theresa May has also been questioned on her childless status several times.
The only female politician who seems to have some immunity to the childless criticism is Julie Bishop but even she has not escaped the childless question commonly reserved exclusively for women in public life.
Women are severely misrepresented in positions of power. This is not anything new. Not just in politics but also in private corporations. A study in 2016 by The Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA) across 4 million employees found that women only represented 17.3% of chief executive positions and that trickled all the way down to even the first layer of management with women only representing 39.8%.
The number one reason why women do not rise to the top positions is by gender bias according to Helen Conway (Director WGEA). Especially when women return from work, they are often given less 'career advancing' work such as part time roles with menial tasks.
Corporations often preach about trying to obtain gender equality in management positions but few have asked the question 'what do women want?'
A common approach is to plonk women in management roles to fill quotas, this approach was used by the Labor party to increase female leadership, but are quotas the best way to obtain equality? They certainly are a start but just like not all men are good managers, not all women are either. Being an effective manager or leader requires people skills, being able to manage a team, giving constructive feedback. No one said it was easy.
A more effective approach may be to recognise the leadership talents of women in a more organic environment and nourish that talent to ensure that woman gets the opportunity to shine. I.e if a woman is showing leadership qualities in an impromptu situation that talent should be mentored and nourished to reach her full potential. If a woman doesn't show leadership qualities or management skills she shouldn't be plonked into management roles just to fill a quota.
Just like managers who get plonked into their roles by virtue of 'being there the longest'. Leadership qualities make good managers. Not gender, not race or the amount of time someone has been with a company. We do need to overcome the natural bias towards white middle aged men being managers, but not via quotas.
The other obstacle for women is that as the roles get more advanced, it often comes with a lack of flexibility. There is also the assumption that certain roles cannot possibly be part time or work from home. Mainly because it hasn't been done before. Our pre conceived ideas of advanced roles don't allow us to see flexibility in them (even if it's possible). Flexibility was the number one thing that women wanted in the workplace, including work from home options. If management roles had some flexibility (even if it was via job share) it not only opens up an opportunity for others but assists women to advance their careers in a more meaningful way.
Another obstacle women face is the guilt for having to leave work early due to family commitments. Workplaces are obsessed with this pre conceived, inaccurate idea that longer hours = more work. Also, the notion that if you aren't physically at work, that you cannot be possibly working.
Workplaces were designed for men, they had a social element to them without the need to rush back home (as wifey was looking after the home duties).
Women who advance themselves in careers are expected to behave like men who don't have family responsibilities, yet are vilified for behaving like men (by not having children). The entire workplace structure was designed for men who were never riddled with home responsibilities. They were left to do their job and their wife took care of the home duties. The child status of a man is never questioned and they are applauded for choosing to have a family. Even when their wife does the bulk of the load at home which allows them to advance their career.
There is also this assumption that it's women who choose to 'selfishly' have a family, even when it's usually a 'family decision' and not one reserved solely for the woman to make. The fork in the road that a lot of women experience is around their 30s where their career is advancing and they need to make the call with their partner to start a family. The criticisms that Ardern 'should have waited' don't stack up. It's common knowledge that women's fertility takes a nose dive after the age of 35. It would have been foolish for her to wait.
For women to advance in their careers, they need flexibility and support both at home and at work. We need to get rid of the old working life stereotypes and start campaigning for a more forward thinking workplace.
The real reason people find Ardern's situation hard to digest is that it's never really been done before. It's not the norm for a woman to be prime minister and even more unusual to be pregnant. Until we start accepting Ardern's situation as the norm, gender equality won't ever be achieved.
The number one reason why women do not rise to the top positions is by gender bias according to Helen Conway (Director WGEA). Especially when women return from work, they are often given less 'career advancing' work such as part time roles with menial tasks.
Corporations often preach about trying to obtain gender equality in management positions but few have asked the question 'what do women want?'
A common approach is to plonk women in management roles to fill quotas, this approach was used by the Labor party to increase female leadership, but are quotas the best way to obtain equality? They certainly are a start but just like not all men are good managers, not all women are either. Being an effective manager or leader requires people skills, being able to manage a team, giving constructive feedback. No one said it was easy.
A more effective approach may be to recognise the leadership talents of women in a more organic environment and nourish that talent to ensure that woman gets the opportunity to shine. I.e if a woman is showing leadership qualities in an impromptu situation that talent should be mentored and nourished to reach her full potential. If a woman doesn't show leadership qualities or management skills she shouldn't be plonked into management roles just to fill a quota.
Just like managers who get plonked into their roles by virtue of 'being there the longest'. Leadership qualities make good managers. Not gender, not race or the amount of time someone has been with a company. We do need to overcome the natural bias towards white middle aged men being managers, but not via quotas.
The other obstacle for women is that as the roles get more advanced, it often comes with a lack of flexibility. There is also the assumption that certain roles cannot possibly be part time or work from home. Mainly because it hasn't been done before. Our pre conceived ideas of advanced roles don't allow us to see flexibility in them (even if it's possible). Flexibility was the number one thing that women wanted in the workplace, including work from home options. If management roles had some flexibility (even if it was via job share) it not only opens up an opportunity for others but assists women to advance their careers in a more meaningful way.
Another obstacle women face is the guilt for having to leave work early due to family commitments. Workplaces are obsessed with this pre conceived, inaccurate idea that longer hours = more work. Also, the notion that if you aren't physically at work, that you cannot be possibly working.
Workplaces were designed for men, they had a social element to them without the need to rush back home (as wifey was looking after the home duties).
Women who advance themselves in careers are expected to behave like men who don't have family responsibilities, yet are vilified for behaving like men (by not having children). The entire workplace structure was designed for men who were never riddled with home responsibilities. They were left to do their job and their wife took care of the home duties. The child status of a man is never questioned and they are applauded for choosing to have a family. Even when their wife does the bulk of the load at home which allows them to advance their career.
There is also this assumption that it's women who choose to 'selfishly' have a family, even when it's usually a 'family decision' and not one reserved solely for the woman to make. The fork in the road that a lot of women experience is around their 30s where their career is advancing and they need to make the call with their partner to start a family. The criticisms that Ardern 'should have waited' don't stack up. It's common knowledge that women's fertility takes a nose dive after the age of 35. It would have been foolish for her to wait.
For women to advance in their careers, they need flexibility and support both at home and at work. We need to get rid of the old working life stereotypes and start campaigning for a more forward thinking workplace.
The real reason people find Ardern's situation hard to digest is that it's never really been done before. It's not the norm for a woman to be prime minister and even more unusual to be pregnant. Until we start accepting Ardern's situation as the norm, gender equality won't ever be achieved.
Gender? WTF Is that? You mean *sex equality, the equality between the sexes, which means between men and women. That aside....
ReplyDeleteAs for women being mothers allow women to be mothers again, celebrate it and support it, don't shame stay at home moms. After all, they have the most important job there is, that of raising their offspring.
Gender equality and sex equality mean the same thing.
DeleteThis article doesn’t shame stay at home mums it’s simply pointing out that workplaces need to adapt to women who have children if they want women to move up into higher positions.