Posts Tagged ‘feminism’

h1

women and the recession

May 13, 2009

last week I went to a really great debate hosted by Compass and Fawcett on women and the recession. Harriet Harman may not have won many votes in her response to the expenses fiasco, but she packed a real punch at this event: funny, passionate, willing to stick her neck out and say what she believed in. After attending far too many events recently where ministers sound more like droning wonks, this was a welcome relief.

There has been quite a lot of debate about whether women are more affected by men than the recession. I don’t know how productive these debates are, but what’s clear is that we need to delve behind the stats to understand what’s really going on. Take for example the claimant count (ie the number of people registering for Jobseekers’ Allowance): on this basis, it looks like men are hit harder by what’s happening. However, if you look at levels of economic participation you get a very different story: in some parts of the country, women’s employment levels are falling two, even three, times faster than men’s. So women are losing their jobs at worrying rates (hardly surprising given they work in sectors that are far more vulnerable to the recession and in firms that are less unionised), but not then registering as unemployed.

Recent research by Mori (you can download here) shows that beyond job losses, women are shouldering a disproportionate burden in terms of stress and anxiety, too. Not only are they worrying about their own jobs, but also their partners’ jobs, their children’s future, their parents care needs, and the pressures on household budgets as the cost of fuel and food rises. What I find fascinating is that a few years ago, when asked what they were most concerned about, men would say ‘the economy’ and women would say ‘education’ or ‘health’. There’s no difference now: everyone ranks the economy first. But women worry about it in terms of family life as well as in terms of employment and money per se. As we found in doing the work for The Other Glass Ceiling, women continue to act as the family managers (even if couples say that they share roles more equally now) and so it falls to them to adapt and cope in the light of a loss or drop in wages. Managing poverty is difficult, time consuming, and often secretive work.

The event was a bit short on solutions to these issues – other than emphasising the importance of targeting information drives at women, and raising benefits – but it was a timely reminder that one of the ways in which the recession is different to previous downturns is that women’s work matters so much more now than it has done in the past. It matters to women themselves; it matters to family budgets; and it matters in every sector of the economy. We have to find ways of valuing it – which is why I applaud Harriet Harman’s success in getting the Equality Bill to where it is now, with its determination to root out pay discrimination and improve women’s representation in all walks of life.

Advertisements
h1

inaugural SING meeting

October 28, 2008

Yesterday marked the inaugural meeting of SING, a women’s network for social innovators. We had a lot of fun. We had a lot of intense conversations. We drank a lot of wine. We probably got a bit shouty at points. It has certainly given me huge food for thought and so I wanted to capture my immediate reactions.

One of the things we kept on coming back to is whether or not we could really justify the exclusively womanly nature of our meeting. I absolutely think we can, for two reasons:

First, the fact is that social innovation, in as much as it is a ‘world’, remains a notably male world, shaped by thinktanks, technology and entrepreneurship. Of course women operate in all these fields, but their presence doesn’t stop such spheres still feeling pretty masculine in their values and their approach. That might not always suit the men operating in these spheres – but it certainly doesn’t work for many women. On that basis alone I think it is entirely reasonable to create a female space in the midst of a male world – not a man-hating one where gender is *always* a problem – but a space which acknowledges that there are still gender dynamics at play, and that yes, such dynamics can be problematic sometimes. As the wine began to flow last night I was struck by how many gender-based tensions women had been internalising in their work contexts. It felt like they were being given air, almost for the first time for some of us.

Second, women probably do have a bigger role as social innovators than we have necessarily recognised so far, because they dominate two key sites of social innovation: the household economy and start ups. On the household stuff, I talked about Robin Murray’s diagram of the economy in a previous post. He values the household economy at three times the size of the state, and half the size again of the market economy. And one thing we know for sure is that households remain firmly female spheres. The barefoot innovators are likely to be women, by this analysis.

If the household economy is one site of social innovation, then social enterprises, networks and movements together represent another site. It is women who are leading the stampede out of large bureaucratic organisations – they are currently starting more new businesses than men, and their start ups are more likely to still be in business five years later than men’s.

For these two reasons alone I think the place of women in social innovation is fascinating and worthy of exploration. We didn’t make too much progress in defining the role of this network last night (we were having too much fun getting to know one another, and besides somewhere along the way the notion of being directional and structured got damned as being terribly masculine) – but for what it’s worth I think there are three aspects to any future network:

One, a support network for venting frustrations, challenging each other in a supportive atmosphere, mentoring across age groups and enjoying each others company. Women like being all of themselves, I think, dropping their ‘professional’ masks and then still working together. Roald Dahl’s depiction of The Witches heaving huge sighs of relief at being able to remove their shoes and wigs may have been unkind, but there’s something in allowing each other to be complete, to bring together personal and professional, that is appealing.

Two, a scouting and storytelling network, for bringing together women who are doing amazing things around the country and indeed the world (we have some stringers in other countries too, and want them to start meeting in a similar way to the session we had last night). I think we so often underestimate the power of the story. We need more examples of women, telling their stories, meeting one another and realising their collective power (more on the Power Audit in another post).

And third, a network that starts to explore a new way of living and working, that is based on ‘feminine’ rather than ‘masculine’ attributes. Over the course of the evening I gathered comments and thoughts that began to give some shape to what this might mean in practice. Things like ‘how women work’, ‘how and what women see’, ‘how women deal with others’, and ‘how women define success’ all came up. Each of these can be further developed – for example, in how women work, issues like being honest about failure, not being the sole owner of an idea, finding new ways of blending home and work rather than choosing between them… If we really wanted to push this on, we might argue that a world based on more feminine qualities would be a more sustainable one, less driven by risk taking and showing off, and more driven by relationships and responsibility. It’s controversial but I for one can’t wait to explore it more.