I have two daughters, and since their births I have told them them time and again to look at the country’s political, institutional and business leadership for the proof that “girls really can do anything” in New Zealand. During the last decade, and sometimes for much of the same time, we have had a woman prime minister, a woman leader of the opposition (they even swapped jobs in 1999), a woman governor-general, a woman chief justice, the chief executives of the country’s biggest listed company and one of the biggest banks were women, and latterly so has been the Speaker of Parliament.
It has become entirely unremarkable that women captain Air New Zealand jets; drive trucks, buses and trains; are the majority of graduates from universities including in medicine and law; are senior officers in the navy; are by far the majority of journalists and teachers; in fact, it doesn’t seem to matter what position, job or occupation it is. Women are doing it.
All this has happened in my lifetime. When I went to school, most of the teachers at primary and secondary schools were men; men dominated law, medicine and all the professions and were by far the majority of university graduates; there were few women in Parliament and hardly any got into the cabinet. My mother and almost all her contemporaries worked as nurses, typists, secretaries, shop assistants or, if they were lucky and “glamorous” enough, air hostesses, until soon after they married and became pregnant, and then they ceased paid employment. They were simply not allowed to drive buses or trucks or be firefighters or jockeys or many other things, on no grounds other than that they were women. Until 1972, the law even decreed they would be paid less than a man doing exactly the same job, such as working in a shop. When I was a junior journalist in the 1980s, most of my colleagues were male and all the executives were. In 1984, one editor I worked for refused to let a highly skilled woman court reporter back to work after she had a baby. He told her, in front of the whole office, that her place was at home looking after her husband and baby. That was legal, then.
My message to my daughters has always been “Girls can do anything. Be the pilot, not the air hostess, be the doctor, not the nurse. Look at what women achieve in this country.”
I’m reminded of the dramatic changes since in the workforce and in attitudes towards and expectations of women by the not unexpected announcement by Margaret Wilson, the Speaker of Parliament, that she will not be standing again at the general election later this year. Her decision to retire continues the fading of the very distinctive era of New Zealand having a large number of women in prominent public positions at the same time.
New Zealand was the first country in the world to allow women to vote, in 1893. Women in many other western democracies were still fighting for it in the 1920s. Swiss women did not get the vote in their federal elections until 1971, and in the canton of Appenzell Innerrhoden until their menfolk were overruled by the Swiss Supreme Court in 1990. So we have a lot to be pleased about.
Some academics, and others, rail about the apparent wage gap between women and men. According to Statistics NZ, the median hourly rate for a woman in paid work at June 30 last was $16.78, compared with $19.10 for a man. This appears to show that men are paid about 14 per cent more than women, but it is a fallacious figure. The median wage of women is less than men’s because more women are in part-time work than men and more women than men still work in lower-paid occupations such as shop assistants, cafe staff, childcare workers, cleaning and the like. And in some professions, such as journalism, which have gone from being male to female-dominated in my working lifetime, payscales have fallen in comparison with other jobs like teaching or nursing, which pay more than journalism now. It is not as simple a matter as saying women should be paid more or that it is unfair men on average are better paid. Many women are the main earners in their households now and enjoy fulfilling and responsible careers. This is a huge societal change for the better.
What does concern me is the growing shortage of highly visible top role models for my daughters and other girls and young women. Helen Clark will not be prime minister for much longer – at most till 2011 if she wins the election this year, and only till the coming election if she loses it. Jenny Shipley, whom she replaced as prime minister in 1999, is but an entry in the history books today. Looking at the state of our political parties, there is little prospect of us having another woman prime minister for quite some years. Dame Sian Elias will be chief justice for a good decade yet but there are few other women in such visible public positions. Well, Kerry Prendergast is the mayor in Wellington and Jenny Brash in Porirua, but not many schoolgirls aspire to be mayors, except perhaps a Hayley Wain.
Yes, women will still fly jets, drive buses, sail in frigates, be doctors, judges, teachers, television presenters, jockeys and journalists, but somehow it will not be the same as during this golden decade of female leadership that New Zealand has enjoyed, revelled in, prospered during, but which is now slowly, but surely, and, sadly, coming to an end.
20 Comments
February 25, 2008 at 9:31 am
Balance, please… most of the government appointments are political patronage by appointment, not by election. School teaching is dominated by women to an excessive degree.
It’s more accurate to state we haven’t reached the ideal balance, that feminism has pushed too far in some areas.
February 25, 2008 at 12:50 pm
So are you arguing for appointments and pay rates based on something other than merit? Should New Zealand follow the lead of The Greens and have male and female Co-Prime Ministers? Ditto, presumably, for appointments further down the chain.
I doubt we’ll see another woman leading the National Party for a long time, but then we’re not really seeing a man lead it right now either.
As far as wages go, I’m inclined to the free market view – we should respond to staff shortages in the short term with pay rises and in the long term with more training and so on. It’s what businesses mostly have to do, and the Navy is currently struggling to avoid doing (if we have to have a navy, FFS let’s have a properly equipped and staffed one, this bizzo of having frigates but not staff for them is just silly).
Of course, paying nurses and teachers more frightens some people, but such is life.
One thing about charities providing services – they’re cheaper because of their reliance on voluntary labour. I’d rather see compulsory service than higher taxes for some of their work, but that would probably lead to electoral revolt (middle class people forced to work with the homeless probably would not suit either group).
February 25, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Why do your daughters’ role models have to be women?
February 25, 2008 at 5:56 pm
The irony is that as a full-time mum at home with four sons, I know a number of women in their thirties who’d love to stop professional work for a time and have babies, but can’t because mortgages need two full-time incomes to pay for them.
It’s all very well lauding professional women as role models but let’s not forget the humble parent (man or woman) who chooses to toil away at home with a family, unpaid and publicly unrecognised.
Women (and men) at home can be excellent role models too.
February 25, 2008 at 8:36 pm
My two young daughters came from a primary school in Westport one day crying, because they couldn’t understand why the prime minister had described West Coasters as “feral”, “inbred” and likened them to a Alabama – like lynch mob?
That was the day I got political !
February 26, 2008 at 10:55 am
I married a Coaster and he’s certainly related to half the town
Every time I hear “feral/inbred” I joke that my husband only married me for some fresh blood.
My sons certainly act pretty feral sometimes. Poor Helen Clark, you couldn’t find better people than Coasters. I know Greymouth is an awesome town, but it’s the fantastic people that really make it shine.
February 26, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Just found your blog for the first time and think it is great. Particularly loved this post on NZ women role models for girls. Something I have thought about a lot.
PS. Just started my first ever blog today, eek! It’s pretty light on substance compared to yours. I need to build my confidence up first, lol.
Cheers
February 26, 2008 at 9:39 pm
There are some who would suggest Helen Clark, Theresa Gattung and Margaret Wilson are hardly good role models if you are looking for people of sound character and/or stellar performance. (I don’t suggest Ms Gattung is of unsound character.)
Jenny Shipley, on the other hand, still maintains a high profile business career and would fit the bill admirably.
February 27, 2008 at 9:35 am
You can safely say that HC is not the kind of role model I’ll be pointing women towards in my lifetime. Her dishonesty in her personal and professional life is nothing short of disgraceful.
Why should females have only female role models? A role model can be anybody who has achieved something worthwhile and can motivate others to greatness. Sadly the real female heroes in NZ are not recognised as much as the ones we have ruining/running the country.
February 27, 2008 at 9:43 am
Given your recent infamy, Clint, I doubt many women will be seeking your opinion on anything.
March 3, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Why do you see this as a golden age?
The country has gone backwards, not forwards in many respects especially economically.
I can agree with the exemplars chosen in the context that women can do anything they set their minds to, but not in the sense of these are the beliefs you should have and the approaches you should embody.
March 3, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Why do you see this as a golden age?
It has been a decade in which women have been in leadership roles in New Zealand more so than in any comparable country. At the same time this country has prospered, with unemployment falling to the lowest in the OECD over the decade, employment rising to its highest ever, low inflation, repaid public debt, all those kind of things. It has been a decade marked not just by female leadership but by economic and political stability of a kind we have not enjoyed since the post-war golden years ended in November 1973.
The country has gone backwards, not forwards in many respects especially economically.
You are simply wrong. New Zealand has prospered this past decade and enjoyed the longest period of continued economic growth in decades. One could argue we could have done better, but we have without doubt done much better than in any of the preceeding three 10-year periods.
March 3, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Poneke,
I am curious as to why you decided that November 1973 was the end of the last golden era.
March 3, 2008 at 2:12 pm
November 1973 was when Britain joined the EEC, for which we were badly prepared despite ample notice (we lost much of our access to what had been our single biggest market), and it was when Israel’s Arab neighbours attacked Israel at Yom Kippur with OPEC tripling oil prices, which sparked years of stagflation in the West, and to which NZ responded with the “borrow and hope” policies first of the Kirk-Rowling government, and then Muldoon’s economically ruinous rule.
November 1973 was the start of 20 years of rising unemployment (it was zero in November 1973 and rose steadily to its peak of 11.1pc in September 1991), double-digit inflation, massively rising public debt (there was little net debt in November 1973) and a tumbling dollar (it was worth $US 1.48 in November 1973).
March 3, 2008 at 2:29 pm
I do not think it is correct to say that the leadership of the last decade has been responsible for the state of the economy. The leadership if such it was, was to not materially adjust prior policy settings.
This government has failed in its declared objective of returning NZ to the upper half of the OECD rankings.
Our wages are low, substantially due in part to poor productivity and an over reliance on commodities and a work force that based on the Prime Minister’s own words is in large part substantively illiterate. Nothing in the last decade has improved this.
Large numbers of the educated and/or skilled are leaving the country. Leading to an indicator that people do not see a bright or prosperous future.
We have bloated bureaucracy, high taxes and far too many people on benefits.
I agree that the decade shows growth better than the previous 3 decades, but we came off an exceedingly low base and in order to achieve growth had to go through the 1984 to 1992 period of adjustment.
Our failure to tackle endemic issues in recent times, means that we are now entering a period of stagnation and the election this year means that both parties will make promises to distribute largesse at probably what is precisely the wrong point in the economic cycle. This will be coupled with the probability that whichever of the 2 main parties occupies the Treasury Benches after the election will be severely hobbled in their policy options to deal with any crisis by the significant compromises they will have made to obtain/retain power due to MMP>
March 3, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Hmm interesting,
I always thought for New Zealand it was 1966, the year that wool prices dropped. But I can understand your reasoning.
March 3, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Wasn’t the wool price drop 1968? You may be right. But after the wool crisis, the economy picked up steam again and was barrelling along so well by 1973 that the dollar was revalued to reduce demand for our exports! And then it all went to custard, and didn’t start recovering until after the awful 1991 recession. The big recovery has been the last decade, post the “Asian crisis.” We have had a solid decade of growth now, the longest period in my lifetime. My children have really known nothing else but these past 10 good years, whereas most of my life has been as a witness to one crisis after another!
March 9, 2008 at 10:49 am
Personally I find being told again and again “girls can do anything” to be demeaning, as is having every woman who has reached success of some degree or another shoved in my face as a role model. I’m not so stupid I can’t work out for myself my own abilities and potential.
It seems sexist to me that we have to gasp in delight and point out every successful woman, as if they have beaten insurmountable odds to get where they are. Now no societal barrier stops woman doing what they want, and we know that women can do every bit as well as men. Do we really need to point it out every time a woman gets into power?
We all reach our positions in life by our personal skills and attributes. The best woman or man will always win. If it’s a woman, that’s great, but if the best happens to be a man, there’s no need to be mournful- they’re still the best, and that’s all that should matter.
— Signed, your daughter
September 14, 2008 at 8:55 pm
In my opinion your decade of gold has also been a decade of silly laws from a nanny state led by Helen.
It will take another decade to correct it.
August 12, 2009 at 7:56 am
I am writing a paper about what influenced my identity as a learner. As a teenager in the 80’s, I vividly remember the campaign for ‘Girls can do anything’. Could you point me in the right direction to find some info about the background of this campaign. I suspect it influenced quite a few of my peers. Thanks so much