Upstreaming

On average, the number of women pursuing PhD's at any given university in the western world outstrips the number of men pursuing PhD's. This is on average, so some fields are more male dominated, some are more female dominated. It's interesting that in law, a traditionally conservative field which in the higher professional echelons is most definitely dominated by men of upper class backgrounds, the number of young women trying their academic mettle is dramatically higher than the number of young men.

But as we look up the ranks - junior lecturers, senior lecturers, assistant professors and professors - the number of women dwindles rapidly. In the Netherlands the national average of female professors is only 8%. In the UK it's around 18%, in Australia it's around 17%, in the US it's around 22%. The European average is 15%. And the European goal for 2010 (yes, ladies and gentlemen, that's THIS YEAR!) is 25%. Clearly we are lagging far behind this goal.

So what's to be done? There is always a debate around quotas: some women feel they don't want to be selected for a position just because they are a woman and a quotum needs to be filled, as that undermines their credentials for the position. Some women feel that if there are no quota, they stand a lesser chance of being considered for the position and it doesn't matter what their credentials are.

In a recent presentation at the university I work at it we were shown statistics that among the PhD researchers, women drop out at a much higher rate than their male counterparts (left before completing their PhD) and on average take longer to complete their thesis. It was pointed out that this could be a reason fewer women stream up to the higher ranks, but I am left wondering if this isn't a chicken and egg dilemma. If women know there are more difficulties for them to reach the higher positions, they are more likely to be demotivated and leave before they are done. If women have children, of course it takes them longer to complete their research, as the time taken out for maternity leave affects the duration of their research. And if this, or the fact they published fewer articles during the time they were caring for young babies or children, affects their "track record", then they are disadvantaged when it comes to being considered for senior academic positions.

One woman, Marieke van de Brink, recently wrote her thesis on this very topic, focusing on the process by which women are (or are not!) nominated for professorships. Some of her observations were that the committees who decide on these functions are overwhelmingly populated by men. Because we tend to look for familiar characteristics when we are interviewing people, it has been shown that men prefer to nominate men. The under-representation of women on these committees means that women remain underrepresented in the positions they are applying for. But it also appears that both women and men are harder on female candidates for a position than on male candidates. We test out other women and judge them harsher, expect more of them than their male counterparts.

The measures by which candidates are tested should also be questioned. If a publication requirement is purely quantitative, and a woman has chosen to have children and therefore sacrifice some of her publishing time, she is penalised. It should therefore be a qualitative test as well - in what kind of journals and books has this academic candidate published, have others cited their work, have they contributed to the academic debate or to scientific knowledge in a significant way?

And there are cultural expectations to contend with. In the Netherlands there is a very dominant view that women should carry the lions share of the work when it comes to child rearing, and that they really should give up work or go part time. I have often heard the comment that it's better that this society values the upbringing of children over career aspirations, and that a mother should be with her children rather than outsourcing to strangers, and that children who go to creche full time are neglected. I don't know about other ex-pats, but this sounds like a 1950's nuclear family values argument - I was brought up by my full-time working mother. My parents split up when I was six. I don't feel neglected or scarred or underdeveloped. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I would have been a genius or a more fulfilled indivudal if my mother had been at home with me for years. But whole societies seem to have done just fine with working mothers - in fact cultures which have encouraged women to partake in the workforce in post World War II years have higher measures of equality across the board (Sweden, Finland, Spain, yes even Ukraine!)

So we need to consider how to support those who want to swim further upstream, and look to solutions which go beyond "write more, and finish your PhD on time!" Perhaps there are some structures that can be put in place to support women to do just this, but perhaps some of the measures should be reconsidered because of their silent gender bias.

The dating game

My sister goddess in training, who is American, is familiar with the "dating game". I am convinced it's a cultural thing. I'm Australian and we don't really date. We meet up for drinks or go out to dinner, but we're pretty quick to decide if it's going somewhere or not, or if we just want a casual fling. There's not a lot of the giggly "what's it mean and should I call him or should I wait for him to text me and how flirtatious should I be???" I mean, we did some of that as teenagers, discovering what the game was about, but there doesn't seem to be the same extended etiquette and rules of the game as there seem to be among my American friends.

And the Dutch certianly don't date! They spend time together in groups and if you like someone enough you basically end up kissing and/or going to bed with them. And if a relationship develops it's usually with the proviso that they're just seeing each other, but even after half a year there's no way they would refer to each other as girlfriend, boyfriend, partner, whatever. It's just someone they're seeing. And who makes them giddy with happiness. But nothing serious.

And then if they move in together they will inevitably both keep their own apartments as a safety net, a back door option should things get too serious or not serious enough. It will be years before they give up their ticket to singledom.

And so when I was asked out for drinks by an American the other day I was flattered, and ensured he had my number, and hoped he would contact me, but when he did I found myself entering a new world. The dating game! I had to ask my American goddess in training how to go about this - we have only had sms contact and I have been cautious about sending texts which are too flirtatious. But I find myself wanting to send funny responses to his playful remarks. And should I rspond straight away or leave it a few hours or a day? And is he doing the same thing - deliberately waiting a day to respond? Or is he just busy at work?

And why am I even asking these questions? It seems so adolescent to me. I am entering a phase of life that is all about delving in to the shadow, discovering what lies beneath, waking the goddess who sleeps within, going to places which are emotionally and spiritually unfamilair territory in order to grow and fulfil who I am. It is a delicate and profound journey. Is this a time in which to play the dating game? Is it not a time to be focused on the inner woman and just reject sexual attention all together?

My sister goddess in training suggested this is another opportunity to give up knowing and get out of my head. I don't have to know that this person is NOT the one I will have something meaningful and special with. I don't have to know this is not the time. I don't have to know what it is to be in the presence of others who are attractive and attracted to me. I can explore, be vulnerable, discover some new territory. And maybe even just have some fun.

It feels so strange. I thought my journey of being vulnerable was only to be in sacred areas of my life. Going out for drinks and laughing and flirting and maybe even "making out", as she suggested, feels like it's superficial and not sacred and not a place to be vulnerable. But she also suggested it's like a playing field. What is it to be vulnerable in different contexts?

And then another thing comes up - what about mixing my professional world with my personal? Having had the revelation that I can be an Amazon warrior in the world of my career and the world of international law, and then take off my armour and lay down my sword as I enter my home space when I can be the nurturing, gentle women within, and be vulnerable and alllow myself to be taken care of, it seems dangerous to mix the two. This "date" (if that's what it is!!) is with a man I met through a professional contact, and is working on a project I would love to be involved in professionally. It's an important new networking arena and a potential to move my expertise into the practitioners world. Should I expose my personal self and my vulnerable self to a person who works in the world I want to be a warrior in?

I think my sister goddess in training is right. If nothing else this is a time to get out of my head, let go of analysing, let go of needing to know, come back to my intution and even there, let go of looking for answers. That's what being vulnerable is about too...being vulnerable towards myself and just embarking on the journey.

So should I text him or not...? ;-)

Sex and the City - One of the guys???

For those of us who are fans of Sex and the City, we are willing to admit it has an overtone of consumerism, a focus on fashion labels, a presentation that some feminist commentators will criticise as being misrepresentative of the notion of choice (how free are we really if we are still spending energy primarily on choosing which shoes go with which outfit) and reinforces stereotypes of body image and values which we should question.

But we fans will also tell you SATC is a commentary on so many issues which women in the 21st century face. We strive to have fulfilling careers, find meaning outside our fashion, find support in our circle of female friends and sisters, try to combine children and mothering instincts with our need for independence, and the juggling act of all of this with finding a partner who will support us in our career and still fulfil us as women. And it is a commentary on the kind of men we are looking for (for those of us who are het. There is an interesting heterosexism which is never addressed in this show, especially given the fact there are various gay male characters in SATC, fun-loving companions who share the women's view on the world, inclduing love and fashion, but no mention is made of the fact that actress Cynthia Nixon, who plays working mother Miranda, happens to be a lesbian).

There are so many issues dealt with in a way so many of us can relate to - single motherhood, unfulfilled wish for children and fertility issues, breast cancer, sexual identity, career choices, balancing between career and love, where we seek our sense of fulfilment and sense of self, what is success, what is age, what is beauty. And the formula of Carrie Bradshaw's question-asking columns works every time to get us nodding or looking in the mirror and wondering.

It's just a pity, then, that when I read a short interview with Sarah Jessica parker about the first SATC film (which even to die-hard fans was a "light" and therefore highly unsatisfying version of the real thing) she twisted this identification women have with the characters into a gender conversation that totally misses the point. She rightly commented that the fact that the characters talk so openly about work and sex and what they do and don't like or want is a move forward for female characters in popular media. She unfortunately said this meant we are finally "one of the guys".

Why can't this be about what we are all looking for? What it is to be a woman in the 21st century. Why does this have to be about being in a man's world, and qualifying sexual and career emancipation and the open discourse as "being one of the guys"? Sorry, Sarah Jessica, you lost me on that one.

Spring Equinox - Night of the Goddesses

On the last night of winter they gathered and sat around a table laden with food, candles, incense and love, and they drank Spring Nectar and drew and painted and talked.

And not jsut about anything. For they didn't know each other well before this evening. So they took turns to share where they had come from and where they were going. What they want from this next year of life, and what they want to give and to learn. It was clear that they all needed to connect more often with other women, to learn from each other, to nurture each other, to laugh together, to discover together.

They each wrote down what they were letting go of as another season, another phase of life was passing. And they stood outside in a circle and lit their words and watched the fire engulf and destroy those words. And they farewelled so many ungodly ways and felt the cool, fresh air as the ashes died out. It was time to create anew.

And the next morning, the first day of Spring, the sun shone as it had not dared to do for months. And with the Durga energy they cleaned the House of Goddesses and sat in the warm sunlight in the garden and breathed in the new season.

The new creation had begun.

Alice in Wonderland

I watched Tim Burton's 3D film tonight with three wonderful ladies and we all enjoyed the fantasy of it and the 3D effects.

The thing I found most exciting, though, was the girl discovering herself as a warroir woman in the central character. The Mad Hatter said in disappointment that she used to be much more...much. She had lost her muchness. Alice was afraid to be The Alice and kept denying she was the one. Eventually after encouragement and appeal, she took on the challenge of recovering her muchness, making her own path, and slaying the Jabberwocky, knowing when she stood there with sword in hand, she would be standing alone.

She was afraid to claim herself, to grow up, to face her inner demon. But once she realised all she had to do was remember her future, and declare who she is, it appeared inevitable. And she just had to believe the impossible was possible - simple, really, considering the other impossible things around her.

I loved that in the final climactic scenes she was dressed in armour, a tribute to Joan of Arc and other women warrirors who have gone before her. She didn't have to be another big-busted, hyper-sexualised cartoon-like heroine. She was a woman in armour facing her demon, and though she was scared and though it hurt, she fought to the death. And then returned to peace.

Thank you Tim Burton for providing us with a narrative that returns to the magic and inspiration of Lewis Carrol - to believe the impossible, to go with the madness and magic of life - and at the same time for providing us with an Alice who is a true heroine, turning within to find the answers when she is looking for who she is, reminding us to follow the path by carving out our own and following the road less travelled. And doing so as an independent yet vulnerable young woman, feminine and strong all at once.

Masculine and feminine energy

A friend of mine has a body of work called the Balance of Power, and some of what he talks about is the natural feminine energy and the natural masculine energy. Something in me resists this dichotomy, as it sounds essentialist and teeters on gender stereotyping. But something profound occured to me as I pondered an image he had described to me - a revelation about balancing my own energies.

The image was of a warrior man, "standing at the gate" of the village to protect it from whatever or whomever wants to come in. A battler, a fighter, a man holding his sword and shield. And it is for this warrior to learn to "return to the village hut", to put down the sword and shield and come into the hut to scoop up his child and caress his wife gently. To bring the warrior energy into the home is to bring a potential of imbalance, and to threaten the expression of natural energies.

I cannot stand the thought of "natural feminine energy" being reduced to the homemaker, and the "natural masculine energy" being simplified as the warrior without there being the lover as well. But it occurred to me this is a resistance I have because I have often struggled with what it is to be feminine while still being strong/independent/career-oriented. Does being the one have to mean sacrificing the other? Does being feminine mean being less powerful in the work place, and does being a powerful woman mean being overbearing in the area of love?

I am not by nature a woman who is satisfied being the home-maker unless I can also express the fight that is in me and bring that energy to what I am committed to in international law. But it was always a bit of a struggle with my previous partner over what role we each played at home. He wanted to be the provider and I wanted him to be, but I didn't want to be dependent, nor to give up my ambitions in law. When we spoke about having children we had such different visions, and he felt I wanted him to be a house-husband and I felt he wanted me to be a house-wife and neither of us wanted that.

As I have embraced discovering my feminine side and exploring that with other women in many ways, I have enjoyed going in to the softer energy, but I find it confusing what to do with my more boisterous, aggressive energy. I don't want to supress that which is also a part of me just because it is deemed to be "un-feminine".

Then it dawned on me - the lesson the warrior has to learn in coming home is a lesson I could learn as well. I'm not standing at the gate as the masculine warrior, but I am out on the periphery, taking on some battles as an amazon warrior, the Wonder Woman, the Niké, the Kali, the Athena, the Bellona! A woman is warrior in a different way from a man, but a she-wolf has that energy in her too.

The lesson to learn is about bringing a different energy into the home at the end of the day. The warrior goddess, or the she-wolf, has her role to play out there in the world, and she has something else to tap into in the home. That is where the nurturing energy can come in, without it having to mean becoming a house-wife. It's about bringing balance again, and I actually find it inspiring to think I can really go into that energy in my home, knowing that whatever other energy I have, has it's place in the world as well. Nothing has to be supressed or compensated. In fact my gentler feminine energies have a place to flourish. And it takes practice to learn to put down the weapons and take off the armour at the door and bring the mother energy at a different level into the home.

And I guess if I can do that and thereby bring balance, then there is space for the man I share my life with to be in his masculine energy in the home, and be in balance as well. And this doesn't have to take anything away from my power or freedom to express different aspects of myself out in the world. In fact it means I can invite a man into my life with whom I can be vulnerable and whose masculine energy I can nurture. Revelation!!!

How does a lobster grow?

An email I received from a friend after sharing with him how it occurs to me to be vulnerable...

How does a Lobster Grow?

When it is time for a lobster to grow, the lobster comes out of its hiding place and sits on the ocean floor.

There it slowly sheds its current shell; marine biologists agree that they think this is an uncomfortable process for the lobster.

Then without it’s shell it sits there, exposed and vulnerable, and then drinks lots of water and the water literally expands the lobster and it grows right there and then.

Over the course of a few minutes, the salt water hardens the mucus membrane and a new shell is formed.

The lobster is bigger and stronger and ready for the next phase of its life.

When it is time to grow you have to shed your defenses, be vulnerable and take on board love and contribution – this is how lobsters grow and how humans grow too.