Marriage equality bill straight from the patriarchy

Related image

It’s been a harrowing few weeks for the patriarchy. Having now been exposed, pants down, a number of big names in Hollywood appear to have been cast adrift by new-fangled feminist norms of respect for bodily autonomy, and non-exploitative deployment of personal wealth and power.

It’s so bad, that some ordinary men have taken to their global media platforms to suggest that they will never get sex again, presumably now that they can’t just take what is their right, and wailing that they hope that we women will share the power with the poor old blokes now that we have achieved global domination.

Alas. Were this but true.

The patriarchy in Australia is faring no better. Despite men’s superior earnings, better job prospects, and an implied licence (or so it seems) to sexually harass, there is a rear-guard action to protect the wellspring of patriarchal power – male headship within the traditional nuclear family. Ironically, this is occurring in the context of marriage equality which is after all, nothing more than a quest to entrench the conservative institution of marriage in Australian society.

Continue reading

Sexual harassment still a problem in the legal profession in 2017

Image result for intervene

He sat across my desk, in my office. He looked me in the eye and said,’Did you know that you can tell the colour of a woman’s nipples by the colour of her lips?’

Another used his 120kg of bulk to trap me against a wall at a crowded work function, leering at me.

A co-worker clumsily groped me in a public space at a conference, again and again. I left

A professional colleague handed me a sheaf of his writing, watching me read his poorly written soft porn as we sat in a public cafe.

As I attempted to call our meeting to an end, he stood in my office so as to block my exit from behind my desk. My office door was open at all times.

These are some stories from my working life as a practising lawyer and as a legal academic over 30 years. One of these stories happened this year. I know that other women have it worse.

These experiences came to mind as I read allegations this week, made by three young women lawyers about their experiences working for a senior lawyer. The man allegedly sent the women to fetch his Viagra from the pharmacy, hired based on physical attractiveness, had pornography visible in his office, made sexually explicit comments, and showed a drawing of his penis.

While reading the stories of the three women, I reflected back on my feelings in similar circumstances. At first I thought it was deep shame that I felt – even after all these years. But I suspect that it is in fact fear. I was afraid of the potential of force – of violence – that each of these situations represented. I can only imagine the fear and confusion experienced by the young women who shared their stories.

Remember – this all happened in professional contexts.

I’ve written before about sexism and harassment in the legal profession (and here, and here). The stats aren’t getting better. Those in the legal profession know it is unlawful to sexually harass. Such behaviour breaches discrimination law, and workplace law. For good measure, it also breaches professional ethics. But it continues.

In some quarters, such behaviour is an open secret. This makes us all, the entire profession, complicit. The young women who have made the most recent allegations – and others like them – have thus experienced powerlessness, and maybe those same feelings of fear that I have had, in the face of our complacency.

There are three actions we in the profession must take. Especially senior members of the profession, and especially men.

  • Call out sexual harassment. Expose the open secret by telling the harasser to stop. It’s not banter, it’s not a joke. Tell them straight just to stop. Team up with others and together tell the harasser that it is unacceptable behaviour in your workplace. Use the power of our professional culture for good, and turn things around.
  • Support the person on the receiving end of the harassment. Ensure that they are supported by others. Shut down gossip. And, do not be that gossip. Hard, I know, in a gossipy profession. But gossip adds to the complicity.
  • I think we need to look to the overall culture of the profession, and our tacit acceptance of such behaviour – and to look for action outside discipline as a first call. However, if they don’t stop, report the behaviour to your professional body. And call the professional body to account if it fails to act.

If such actions are reported to you, it’s not enough just to support the complainant. You must deal with the alleged harasser too. In my own case, I have been personally well supported by men – but in some cases the man about whom I have complained has not been censured, and his bad behaviour continues.

It is therefore our responsibility as employers, and as colleagues, to alert the man to his poor behaviour, to let him know that it is unacceptable, and to sanction it. Otherwise, we know that it will continue. And we will see yet another generation of lawyers suffer the same fate.

I can’t believe I’m writing this. In 2017. About lawyers. But here it goes.

Please. Stop sexual harassment. Do not continue to be a bystander.

‘(Part) time for all’: Nedelsky’s radical vision

Screen Shot 2016-04-23 at 11.51.22 amOn Friday I attended a seminar at Melbourne Law School to meet Jennifer Nedelsky and discuss her work on creating new social norms around work and care. Her proposal – in a nutshell – is that all of us in Western societies should work a maximum of 30 hours/week and minimum of 12 in paid employment, and do a minimum of 12, maximum of 30 hours unpaid care work.

The goal of such a radical transformation of our time-poor lives is that currently care relies on and reinforces inequality. According to Nedelsky’s model, if we equalise our responsibility for caring then the hierarchies implicit in our current model of working life will be evened out. Care will become explicitly valued, policy-makers will have experienced caring to understand the issues at stake (and therefore develop better and more responsive policy), and our relationships will be enhanced.

Nedelsky’s utopian model is exactly what we need to shift the debate about work-life balance from hand-wringing to the genuine social reform we need – although there are inevitably some issues to be ironed out. This post distills my understanding of Nedelsky’s proposal, and draws on comments and discussion offered by participants in the Melbourne seminar. Inevitably I have not canvassed the full extent of her model – there is so much to think about.

Continue reading

Time for women lawyers to claim their power

Screen Shot 2016-04-03 at 7.05.25 amI graduated in one of the first cohorts in law at the University of Queensland to comprise 50% women. Despite experiencing overt sexism in some of my job interviews and tacit sexism during my working life, it still did not occur to me for a long time that I would be treated any differently from my male counterparts. I thought sexism to be exceptional. As a young woman, I believed all in the profession would be treated on merit.

The intervening 26 years in the workforce has shown that the idea of merit excludes many people of merit. Hard work and talent are not enough – if it were, the upper ranks of the legal profession in particular, would look a lot more diverse.

We know this – study after study has confirmed it. We even know¬†why there is a lack of diversity – that the culture of the legal profession operates in a deeply exclusionary way. What we don’t seem to know is how to dismantle this culture. This post forms the basis of some ideas I will be sharing at the 2016 conference of the Australian Women Lawyers (‘AWL’). In it, I offer some ideas on cultural change in the legal profession, focusing on changing entrenched gender bias.

Continue reading

Fertility tracking: women’s lib?

Screen Shot 2016-03-25 at 10.34.49 amA recent article in The Guardian profiled the rise of fertility tracking software and devices. It left me uncomfortably attempting to reconcile the obvious benefits with what are likely to be the costs of such technologies.

For some time, apps have been available as a means to record your menstrual cycle. The one I use, Period Tracker, allows you not only to input the date of your period, but to record a variety of symptoms (bloating, headache, night sweats) and moods (‘flirty’, anxious, sad), and even when a woman is sexually active. The app calculates your likely cycle, which for those who menstruate other than on a 28 day cycle, is very handy. The deluxe version, I believe, can be shared with your partner to identify your window of fertility.

Fertility trackers are an updated version of this. Like Fitbit, they can be tuned into your body’s physiology and work with that data to alert you to your fertility. Some suggest that this data might also be able to predict underlying medical conditions. This has implications both personally and population wide – implications that are both potentially liberating and chilling.

Continue reading

Enough pledges. Act!

The Australian reported today that the New South Wales Law Society would urge law firms to sign up to a charter for advancing women in the legal profession, including a pledge to achieve equal pay for male and female graduates, within 12 months.

On the basis that differentiating pay based on gender (or race, or age etc) is unlawful, why is such a pledge needed? Why doesn’t the law society say: if a law firm is not currently paying staff equally for equal work, it will be prosecuted. I guess pledges and charters seem so much less in your face. But that is why I suspect that they will not work.

Continue reading

On witches

Screen Shot 2016-01-04 at 9.18.30 amPeter Dutton, a minister of the Crown, accidentally sent a text message to senior Australian journalist Samantha Maiden. The text message referred to Ms Maiden as a ‘mad fucking witch’ for having written an article critical of the behaviour of former minister Jamie Briggs. Mr Dutton publicly owned up to the text. Ms Maiden, while recognising that some would take offence, has graciously indicated that she herself is not offended by the remark. She has accepted Mr Dutton’s apology.

Screen Shot 2016-01-04 at 9.07.30 am

Others maintain that the slur is deeply sexist. So. Is the comment sexist? Or not? At the risk of fence-sitting, I think it’s both. More importantly however, it reveals the hypermasculine, combative mode of parliamentary conduct that is now well past its use-by date.

Continue reading

Boundaries

On the first business day after Christmas, the Minister for Cities and the Built Environment, Jamie Briggs MP, resigned from his ministry citing a lapse in ministerial standards. It has been reported that while at a function in Hong Kong, Mr Briggs said to a junior public servant that she had ‘piercing eyes’, that he later put his arm around her, and when she left the function he kissed her on the cheek. A cabinet investigation found that the events were a breach of ministerial standards, prompting Mr Briggs’ resignation.

Discussion online (see eg Jennifer Wilson, and Andrew Elder) and in the mainstream media (see eg Daily Mail and The Australian) vacillates between defence of Mr Briggs’ behaviour and dismay that such behaviour might exist still, in 2015.

As there is no suggestion that Mr Briggs was not afforded due process in cabinet’s investigation of the matter, the difference in opinion between those who think that Mr Briggs’ actions are acceptable and those who do not is a question of the boundaries of sexual behaviour. Indeed the boundaries issue might be one of when behaviour is sexual at all.

Continue reading