{mally powell}

Woman and work

Some friends and I were discussing the phenomena in which, apparently, when looking at a job description many women will be reluctant to apply unless they can confidently satisfy 80-100% of the requirements, while many men will cheerfully throw their hat in the ring if they can scrape 20% (broad generalisations, clearly, but you get the idea).

One friend asked why this would be, which got me thinking...

Most of the pieces I’ve read on this (and I haven’t done a review of evidence so this is strictly anecdotal) seem to suggest that the difference is societal: women (again talking in general terms, #NotAllWomen etc) are raised in an environment that does less to bolster their self esteem and sense of professional worth than men. This seems to happen in spite of enlightened parents, supportive teachers and friends – though clearly all these things help. The fact is, society consistently – relentlessly – does all it can to put them (us), or keep them, ‘in their (our) place'.

It would be interesting to see research into how this 80/20 split varies across cultures and across race lines within cultures: are men of colour as entitled as their white brothers (#NotAllMen. Obviously.)? How do class and regional accents factor in? I suspect that the there is a scale, and that the higher up the White, Male, socioeconomic ladder you go the more likely you are to believe – and, crucially, be believed – that you can do what ever you turn your hand to.

Meanwhile women (and, perhaps, men who aren't white or have the 'wrong' accent…) have to prove their worth constantly, which makes them constantly question it.

I would also be interested to see research into the underlying feedback loop: do women feel that we need to have such a high proportion of the requirements for a given role demonstrably covered not simply because of a girlish lack of confidence or some innate inferiority complex, but because that is what our lived experience has taught us is necessary?
Is it in fact the case that men set themselves a lower bar at least partly because less is demanded of them?

(Don’t even get me started on why the pay gap is apparently all our own fault, a grumblerant for another day…)

NHS

I was talking with a friend who works at the local hospital the other day. It was an eye opening chat.

Nurses, even those on critical care wards, are expected to work 13 hour shifts with a 30 minute break. Insane, right?

Hahaha – just joking. In order to get that 30 minute break it is up to them to make sure they ‘manage their time’ (presumably by persuading the patients not to go into heart failure at an inconvenient moment?). ‘Acceptable’ levels of staffing are now down to a bare minimum, meaning that even minor glitches leave the team short staffed. Again, it is apparently down to the nursing team to ‘manage’ this by filling in a form confirming that they have requested additional support from other wards (pretty much all of which are also working on a skeleton staff so good luck with that) and then running ragged for the duration of their shift trying to keep everyone alive and – ideally - comfortable. It is not unusual for a nurse to come off a 13 hour shift having barely managed to find time for a cup of tea or a wee, let alone a proper break.

Would you want someone working in those conditions looking after you, or someone you love, when critically ill? Me neither.

This is the direct result of deliberate policy decisions made by this government, enforcing health trusts to ‘Do more with less’ - only not in an episode of (the ever perspicacious) W1A, but when actual lives are at stake.

The government recently ‘backed down’ in the face of overwhelming public opinion and agreed a wage increase for nurses but - of course there’s a but - it is contingent on ‘productivity improvements’.

Someone is going to need to define for me what ‘productivity’ means in a healthcare context. Is it preventing people from getting sick (despite savage cuts to community care, social care and health education budgets)? Miraculously healing one and all? Nursing staff growing extra pairs of hands (ideally at the end of Mr Tickle arms, the better to reach between beds) while medics manufacture additional hours in the day for consultations, and technicians adapt their systems and equipment so they can effectively scan/x-ray/probe multiple patients simultaneously for the same cost (patient care clearly a frippery)?

The productivity caveat, then, is presumably a lazy ruse to placate the tabloids (‘Yeay Tories!’) while shifting the blame for declining standards onto the very staff that are screaming from the rooftops that the ‘squeeze’ has long passed constrictor levels.

It seems to me that this can only be part of a deliberate policy to undermine the NHS in order to justify privatization, moving towards the sort of ludicrous US system that sees people having to set up fundraising pages to minimise the extent of their medical bankruptsy on top of dealing with ill health or an accident, or decide whether their child with a chronic condition receives essential care while the family loses everything. We all rely on the NHS – good luck getting your company health insurance to cover you when the serious shit hits! It is arguably our greatest national treasure.

The last Labour government was far from perfect, but waiting lists and systemic issues have multiplied terrifyingly since the Tories took over.
That really isn’t because the staff can’t be arsed all of a sudden.

BearFaced cheek - a grumble

There is currently a meme on my Facebook stream in which women friends nominate each other to post a self portrait without makeup in the interests of raising awareness of breast cancer. Setting aside the questionable usefulness of the exercise without any attendant links or relevant information*, it raised my hackles in the same way as another well-intentioned initiative - the BBC Children In Need BearFaced campaign did last year.

The idea of the BearFaced campaign is that women are sponsored to go without make up for a day. It is supported by beautiful portraits shot by Rankin of 'bare faced' celebrities (many of whom seem to be to be wearing plenty of 'natural' make up, and all shown bare fleshed as well as faced).

These are both noble causes and raising awareness and cash is great BUT (here comes the grumble...) when did the idea of a woman leaving the house or showing a picture of herself without make up become so shocking that it merits an 'aren't you brave - Go girl!' pat on the back? Let alone actual sponsorship! Is it really equivalent to running a marathon, or even sitting in a bath of baked beans? Given that most sponsored endeavours demand a feat of endurance or public ridicule, which camp does this fall into?

Imagine a similar campaign targetted at men... I can't. It would be a nonsense because men haven't been told that they need cosmetic assistance to make their appearance socially acceptable.

Several of my friends posted that they wouldn't be taking part in the Facebook meme, mainly because of the spurious value of the exercise but also because 'it would put you off your breakfast'. A joke, I know, but I can't help thinking it's based in very real insecurites. I have known people with facial scarring who wouldn't answer the door without their make up on, which I can understand. These friends, however, are beautiful, interesting, accomplished women but seem to feel the same pressure to put on a mask to face the world.

In a society where there is an ongoing debate about the social and feminist implications of the veil, it seems that this approach to cosmetics - apparently accepted as the norm - touches on similar issues about the role of women and the acceptability of their bodies.

I'm not anti make up - like most women I have bought and used it since I hit my teens (though I don't wear it every day - not when applying it is going to eat into my sleeping time!) - but the implications of these campaigns bothers me.

* it has evolved and most friends are now including information on how to make a £3 donation to Cancer Research UK by texting BEAT to 70099. The charity did not initiate the meme but have apparently enjoyed something of a windfall as a result.