Counterpunch: Body image problems are far from fantasy

Jonathan says:

07:15am | 14/10/09

Personally, I find these skinny models, with bones sticking out everywhere, as unattractive as obese people.
Some people are naturally scrawny and others are naturally heavier.  What is unhealthy is all these different body types trying to turn themselves into the ‘perfect’ shape - whatever that is!
As long as people are fit and healthy and have a reasonable diet, it shouldn’t matter what their ‘shape’ is.
If fashion designers aren’t talented enough to make garments that look good on a ‘normal’ person, then they are the ones with the problem.

JB says:

08:07am | 14/10/09

Why would anyone take Karl Lagerfield seriously anyway? Take a close look at him, he looks like something dug up from a grave or an zombie from Michael Jackson’s Thriller video. Skin pulled taught from too much plastic surgery to hide the wrinkles, overdone spray tan & those whiter than white dentures, scary! Looks like the silly old man has his own body issues to me.

David says:

08:46am | 14/10/09

Who cares anyway ? It’s all to do with marketing and making obscene amounts of money for a glitzy few . The ‘’ cheese ‘’ cake is not worth the candle !

Bron says:

08:48am | 14/10/09

Karl Lagerfield sells frocks, hence he markets those frocks to look their best to sell more of them. If that means hanging his frocks off ambulatory coathangers, then that is his marketing decision. Our decison as consumers is whether or not we buy into his marketing. I would suggest by the amount of “women’s” magazines sold & the popularity of shows like “Next Top Model”, that a fair chunk of the population either actually agree with Karl Lagerfield or are indifferent. The simplest way to solve how physicality is portrayed in the media is to ignore the marketing-don’t buy the magazines, don’t watch fashion TV, don’t buy the clothes. If the profit margin is affected, business will change its marketing. As consumers, we actually have the power to control this issue by voting with our dollars.

amused says:

08:57am | 14/10/09

Your comment: Who cares what a Geriatric Cyborg thinks about the way women look. He will be dead in a few years and all these skinny idiots will be out on their backsides. If anyone believes what this idiot says then it just shows you how stupid people can be. They can’t think for themselves. Go away Karl.

DG says:

09:04am | 14/10/09

On reading the post something popped into my head that I hadn’t really considered before and that is the correlation between increasing “obesity epidemic” and the increase in eating disorders and the likes.

I wonder if were is a degree of causation (rather than simply correlation) - as young people are told to watch what they eat (as part of the obesity epidemic) some of those that are in the healthy range will heed the message and focus on that also, hence healthy kids start counting calories. The other part is that children with a tending towards eating disorders (i.e those that have minor self image issues) hear constantly that “People are getting fatter” and take it to heart - pushing them from a minor to more serious issues.

I disagree with the notion that it is about happiness - we certainly don’t allow people who are over weight to be happy with their size (There was a time when I was only 20kgs over weight and completely happy with my size, I was athletic and healthy - just fat). Since then, due to a string of injuries and my own laziness, I’ve managed to add to my weight but that’s not my point.

While I was happy with my 20kgs over weight I was constantly told that “I couldn’t possibly be happy” and that “I was lying to myself, if I thought I was happy”. Meanwhile, a team mate was close to 20kgs underweight and no one was riding him to bulk up a bit (admittedly he ate more than any one else on the team, he was just a light weight).

Having said all of that, parents need to take some responsibility. If you don’t want your kids subjected to that material, don’t buy the magazines or watch the TV shows. Exercise your free will and avoid those products - but the reality is that women want that stuff (hence there is a market). If women want to buy it, go for it - but don’t prevent others from having what they want just because you don’t like it.

Yes, Children need to be protected - that’s what parents are for. Let’s stop demanding that parenting be legislated and, instead, put some responsibility on the parents.

Owen says:

09:12am | 14/10/09

The most attractive people are healthy people, who eat well, exercise and have a balanced lifestyle. These are the kind of people who should be used as models.

james says:

09:14am | 14/10/09

models make us think we are fat?.... WE ARE FAT!

snezana says:

09:37am | 14/10/09

This is plain stupid. If designers wants to sell their garments they should be able to design for all shape and sizes….Karl Lagerfeld might live in a fantasy land but once he steps of the cat-walk it is a very very different story..

Marianne says:

09:49am | 14/10/09

Escapism is mental diversion by means of entertainment or recreation, as an “escape” from the perceived unpleasant or banal aspects of daily life.

This argument is honestly stupifying. I’m with Karl all the way.

Kate – apparently some schools are taking the BMI of 5 & 6 year olds – maybe you should take a look into that.

Jim says:

09:52am | 14/10/09

Do you think this is not a problem of models being thin but our societal pressures?
Barbie was hardly the right dimensions and most of the ‘mummies’ around now would have played with barbie as a kid (pretending to do things with Ken etc). So why now is there a problem with what kids are exposed too?

I think parents (there is more pressure in today’s always online society and digital mastery I admit) are failing to instill the correct values in kids. I agree with DG’s statements too as the everyone is fat may be a negative thing if you are not. Perhaps this is also to do with less stay at home parents, more babysitting and more hectic lifestyles. I don’t think models are the problem, we have many positive role models in the movies who are healthy and athletic rather than being stick thin…

tiffany says:

09:55am | 14/10/09

I can see that going from skinny model to a fatter model is a big step. Maybe in time we can have some more variety in body shapes. But for now, what’s wrong with displaying healthy people?

Nora Charles says:

09:58am | 14/10/09

Of course this is the same Lagerfeld who made himself lose 40kg over 13 months in order to fit into clothes from a fashion designer for young boys.

While it is a valid point that Western women are less fit and more fat than three to four generations earlier, it should also be pointed out that many male haute couture designers are homosexual men whose familiarity with the female form is fleeting at best.

I would suggest that their predelicition for using extraordinarily thin girls as models comes from a desire for adrogyny - they feel more comfortable around girls who look more like boys.

Bea Riel says:

10:03am | 14/10/09

Exactly, everyone has their opinion and no one is right on this issue - we are all just different.  Personally I don’t like seeing fatty models on the catwalk but I also don’t like Brussells Sprouts or football but there are lots of people who do.

Liz says:

10:06am | 14/10/09

Karl does not live in the real world and why are we allowing ourselves to be dictated to be someone with over-bleached hair,oversprayed face, covered in bling and dead animals? He’s an authority? get real.

J says:

10:07am | 14/10/09

I hate the idea that your weight is fine as long as you are happy with it. Your weight is fine if you are in the healthy weight range (using the BMI scale). The plus size model that was pictured in media over the last few weeks WAS in the healthy weight range.

Watching morning tea at my company is like watching a cow being lowered by a crane into the Velociraptor pit. This country is on the fast food highway to obesity, high on an orgasmic bliss of deep fried sh*t.

Biff says:

10:13am | 14/10/09

People like Karl rely on the fact that women like to be told what they will be wearing this summer. Lots of sheer material and soft pastels etc. The women are actually being told what they will wear as opposed to wearing what they want to. In a way fashion and wine have a lot in common; there’s a lot of bull manure associated with both of them.

Ner says:

10:20am | 14/10/09

I completely agree with Mr Lagerfeld. Models are models because they are stick thin. Larger women Do not belong on the catwalk. This “who should be a model, fatties of stickies?” debate needs to stop! get over it! The stickies have been models for aslong as modelling, and there is a reason for it. haha

BUT most importantly WHY are we even stressing! Its all about the clothes not the walking manequinns that wear them. Who give a stuff about models? lets remeber the real reason for the catwalk! Thats whay so many models are not very pretty, look like stick thin trannies of have alien features! You Are SUPPOSED to look at the CLOTHES!!!!

If a larger chic walks the runway with Karl’s New designs no body will buy the clothes, They’ll just be thinking DAMN thats a big a…....

Zeta says:

10:26am | 14/10/09

These articles both assume the fashion industry cares what we think.

Dispel any notion that they might think the way normal people do, and are even slightly grazed by the tut-tuting of even an attractive politician like Kate Ellis, (it’s wise the punch chose Minister Ellis and Tors for this task, because unless you’re pretty, the fashionable can’t actually see you, let alone be bothered to read your blog.)

Futurist William Gibson once said ‘the mega-rich, at some point, cease to be even vaguely recognisable as human’; this is compounded for the mega-fashionable. They operate on an entirely alien wavelength, where metrics like ‘glamour’ are used.

People make certain assumptions about the fashion industry that are just plain wrong. For starters, Karl Lagerfield doesn’t actually sell anything at all. Neither does Heidi Slimane. Nor Christian Dior. Nor do any of the grand couturiers. They design things. The point at the market which the ‘chip eating mums’ can purchase anything that might even have those designers names on it are so separate from those designers themselves as to be irrelevant. The actual process of making money out of fashion is again, separate from the consumer. Mass market theory calls it a tricle down effect, but really, it’s more like a waterfall that eventually runs to a lonely creek after many months of travel.

Fashion designers influence fashion, brands adopts fashions and popularise them, then a long way down the chain, local stores produce cheap knock offs and actually sell them. This gulf between the point of sale and fashion identities creates the cognitive dissonance you see in people like Lagerfield. Who, in their right mind, involved in the sale of a product, would rubbish the people who buy that same product? Only the fashion industry, because that you can even buy their products is a myth.

But this distance from the consumer does something else. Not only are the grand couturiers separate from their consumers, but so too are the consumers separate from them. Lagerfield assumes, wrongly, that those chubby people in front of their televisions even know who he is. They might recognise him, vaguely, as the characture played by Will Ferrell in Zoolander, but he’s no celebrity unto himself. This diminishes his influence, which, when analysed, relates only to how big our shoulder pads will be this year.

So what then is causing young women to worry more and more about their body image if not the distant fashion czars?

Fashion magazines might be a part of it, but not in recent years. Magazine editors are intimiately close with their readerships, and don’t want to alienate them in an already narrow market. The same can be said for the entertainment industry as a whole, which continues to tighten, and cannot risk people walking away from it (slowly, in the case of fat people).

That leaves…. politicians. Who continue to bang the fitness drum, and stroke our bulbous bellies and tell us that it’s okay to be fat, but it’s not okay to be unfit. That’s the real negative reinforcement. Karl Lagerfield is just a loon with a Blackberry from which to tweet whatever pops into his vacuous head. It’s the Kate Ellis’ of the world, who are truly dangerous.

Sally says:

10:29am | 14/10/09

Thanks for the article Kate!

john says:

10:32am | 14/10/09

Skinny models or near skinny models are the way to go, think about it. They look better, They eat less which is better for the environment, They are generally healthier which is better for the health system. Think about it, if every woman had the body of heidi klum or Lisa curry it would save the tax payer billions of dollars. It costs alot of money to treat diabetes and cardiovascular disease. I’m sick of people saying that you can be fat and be fit and healthy - just justifying being overweight. Get out there and work off that flab, same goes for the guys.

Jade says:

10:33am | 14/10/09

Hahaha J thats funny….. a cow being lowered into a velociraptor pit! that is what my workplace is like as well when it is cake time for bdays or the friday pizza or burgers and chips they all eat (meanwhile i much on my rabbit food).

Personally looking at skinny models doesnt worry me, I am a size 10 and have body issues, I have been on shake diets, detoxes and today am off to buy appetite suppresant pills to help me get to the size that i see as perfect in my eyes.  My friends have told me I am already skinny enough, but all i see is fat fat fat.  I don’t think having fat models will change the way i perceve myself or will it change the way all my friends look at them selves either.  I agree that it would only be that fat mums that stay at home that complain about the skinny models.

patricia says:

10:40am | 14/10/09

Although I do not agree with undersized models personally i think size o is for babies not adults. I dont think that in this day where there is a huge obesity problem looming in Australia we should be advocating plus size models as the normal woman. I dont believe that 10, 12.14 is plus size if you are the right height for it. but then again as a woman in my 40s i dont believe we should see teens modeling women’s clothes- that is not realistic. As far as Karl is concerned his point is that the fashion show is just that a show its not the real world.  Perhaps women should stop blaming others for their body image. having said that perhaps models should start to take responsibility when magazines photoshop them to the point of not looking real.

Ben says:

11:00am | 14/10/09

The history of humanity is replete with examples of societies idealising unrealistic and unachievable body images.
While I think its bizarre that a bunch of camp old blokes are telling women what their body image should be, it also seems to be a question of why an historically consistent human trait should be so exacerbated in our era.
Maybe part of the explanation is the worship of choice - people actually being bought up on the expectation that they can change their bodies to suit temporary superfical dictates of fashion.
The recent media coverage of the tragic Miss Plastic, a competition for women who have plastic surgery illustrates this point. Is it any wonder that people’s self esteem is suffering when the strong message in the media is that who you are as a person means less and less?

Holly says:

11:01am | 14/10/09

The broader issue that is being ignored here is the constant obsession with controlling women in general. The debate over what they look like, what they wear, their body size, a constant obsession that has nothing to do with caring for women but everything to do with controlling them to the point of insanity and allowing their disadvantage in society to continue. While we sit and debate this issue, we are avoiding the fact that women are underpaid, under valued, over worked and constantly discriminated against and are victims of violence. We are given the responsibility of caring for children and elderly parents whilst men advance their careers and earn superannuation that is not provided to those with carers responsibilities. Make no mistake, fashion is about HATING women, not making them beautiful.

Nora Charles says:

11:18am | 14/10/09

Holly, it sounds like you don’t give women enough credit and frankly your comment is insulting to all women.

Women make the choice whether they follow fashion or not. Women decide their own career choices. Hell, women have had the vote for more than 100 years.

I’m far from being oppressed and manipulated and I take responsibility for my own decisions. Do you, or do you just blame the patriarchy? Join the 21st century will you princess.

bob says:

11:26am | 14/10/09

some girls are affected by body image issues and their health suffers accordingly, yes, always has happened always will. however most girls live a healthy and active life, always have always will. why this tedious obsession these days to try and address every single issue that affects a tiny minority to such over the top extremes is beyond me.

the sad thing is now that a lot of the women i know almost find it taboo for anyone to know or to admit they’re on a diet or watching their weight, lest everyone rolls their eyes back in their head and thinks ‘eating disorder’. this is to the point that they over indulge to prove some kind of independent feminist point.

we are heading to the point where no one is left to take responsibility for their actions for anything, and to be honest society is becoming an over regulated, overly cautious over-opinionated bore. no doubt femo’s in denial will say the same about this post, which will only serve to prove my point further.

Scott says:

11:28am | 14/10/09

A caothager could do the same job as models with some wheels on it, they also ahve more personality Karl says fashion is about illusion and fantasy it’s not my fantasy to have ugly skinny women making clothing look like shite with faces like horses, I think he meant fashion is folly and dillusion, The overweight thing is a money pushing exercise i’m not saying being grossly overweight is good but a lillte overweight is no harm, but my freinds in the emergency wards are being overun with eating disorders and I have a freind whose child at 4 will not eat anything naturally cooked as she cannot see what is in it, this is extremely unhealthy as she only gets processed food now, but hey only losing weight really makes money so thats what the focus will be on, with fitness trainers paying $10000 dollars to do a ten week course and being acredited to train people the amount of injury and overtraining that is occuring is massive, I see the worse techniques being taught and people being put in danger everyday at the gym, and I have been doing sports and training for 28 years, you have underweight people doing nothing but cardio and eating no carbs wondering why they have irregular periods, irritability and low energy, claims being made about things without proper time to see if the tests show any other side effects but this is how you make money make people scared and they will pay.

Holly says:

11:30am | 14/10/09

Nora, educate yourself please. Women still earn on average 60% less than men and have to work approx 7 years longer to match their income. They also make up approximately 1% of all company board members. How is that having a choice? I’m not insulting women, I believe women can do anything a man can do, it’s just that the structure of society is so skewed towards benefitting the “breadwinner” that women aren’t able to achieve their potential.

Holly says:

11:38am | 14/10/09

Sorry, meant to say 60% of the average male wage.

Poseidon Burke says:

11:43am | 14/10/09

Its an interesting new field for the Government - helping people to feel better about their body image. This is now a crisis that must be managed by the government - its reached “epidemic levels”. We had Grocery Watch now its Body Image Watch. I would have thought the government has enough on its hands fixing the health system (as was promised), ending the blame game etc. without taking on the supposed body image epidemic. Here is a thought. You are responsible for what you eat and how you exercise not the Government, not fashion designers not skinny models, not the art department of women’s fashion magazines.

Nora Charles says:

11:53am | 14/10/09

Certainly Holly:

Women still earn on average 60% less than men and have to work approx 7 years longer to match their income.

Women have had equal pay for equal work since the 1970s. When women actively work in high income earning but dangerous professions such as mining in the same numbers as their male counterparts, then they have something to complain about. Women also earn less then men when they voluntarily leave the workforce to have children or voluntarily spend longer in education (i.e. not earning an income). So your statistics are dodgy.

They also make up approximately 1% of all company board members.

Then women ought to be more assertive and put themselves forward for board positions. I’m on two company boards at the age of 40. It’s no big deal, anyone with intelligence, drive and an interest can do it.

How is that having a choice?

By doing something about it and not complaining.

I’m not insulting women
Yes you are, you think women should have everything handed to them on a platter and if they don’t achieve, it’s because they’re victims.

it’s just that the structure of society is so skewed towards benefitting the “breadwinner” that women aren’t able to achieve their potential.

Unmitigated rubbish. The only thing standing in a woman’s way of achieving her potential is attitude, aptitude and drive.

Jonathon says:

12:23pm | 14/10/09

Oh Nora, for there to be more of you in this world… Holly, it would be foolish in the extreme to post again. You have been comprehensively bested.

shabangabang says:

12:33pm | 14/10/09

It might just be me but I would like to see Nora and Holly jelly wrestle, provided of course they are skinny not fat. Don’t want fat people doing activities reserved for the fit.

Tim says:

12:47pm | 14/10/09

Watch out Nora,
Holly will be back soon claiming that you gave her an eating disorder by pointing out those facts.

Doris says:

01:09pm | 14/10/09

If you need to see a perfectably acceptable example of body image, just look in the mirror of your choice, with or without specs; I’m looking now…ha ha ha ha ha, oh God!

Elle says:

01:13pm | 14/10/09

I’m teaching my under 10 daughter to reach her potential. Here are the lessons for her:
All advertising is false. Can be entertaining, but it’s purpose is to manipulate you.
Body size should be directly related to health, well-being, fitness and resilience.
Food is fabulous and fun - and balance is important.
She can be and do whatever she wants to (Mum is a professional, board member, entrepreneur, foster mum, and has changed working conditions from senior executive to contractor to small business owner to consultant to suit her lifestyle requirements at any point in time).
The point that always seems to be missing from these body image debates is how we educate our children. For heaven’s sake, if these images play a large part in your lives then your message (and example) as a parent needs to match them, in strength, passion and sense.

Sloth says:

01:22pm | 14/10/09

@Nora - Radical Feminists argue that society is fundamentally structured such that if a woman wants to suceed - in business, politics, what have you - she must play by the rules set down by men. I suspect that many radical feminist would point to your post as perfect example of that principle in action.

I work in law, where more women have been graduating than men since the about 1991 (http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=144795&sectioncode=26). That is, for close to 20 years our law schools have sending out more women than men. Now, it takes less than 20 years to make partner (though, for some it certainly feels a lot longer…). So one would expect that rates of male and female partners would be roughly equal; same number of qualified and talented candidates going in should mean that the same number reach the top of the profession since society is an equal-opportunity meritocracy, after all…

It may come as a surprise, then to hear that women make up less than 16% of partners at law firms in Australia (http://au.legalbusinessonline.com/law-firms/is-there-a-glass-ceiling-for-female-lawyers-in-australia/967/31979). Well, you might say, that’s obviously because they’re all leaving to have children! Putting aside the fact that men who have children make partner all the time (they’re not burdened with the expectation that they will be primary care givers, you see), even that explaination falls flat. 26% of the general female population of childbearing age don’t have children, and that number gets higher in the professions. So, by virtue of simple math, even if we exclude women with children (remembering, that if I was undertaking this analysis and suggested that we exclude men with children from potential partnership, it would be utterly absurd…) we’re still talking about a vast underrepresentation of women in top level of the legal profession. The bald reality is that women are discriminated against in the workforce by reason of their gender. Even if we put aside disparity based on assumptions about the care of children (and frankly, I think it’s dishonest to do so) the numbers are as clear as day. The discrimination is real.

No-one is asking for women to be handed anything on a silver platter. But everyone - regardless of gender, race, sexuality, religion, whatever - is right to demand that inequality be recognised and addressed. To pretend that the playing field is level when it is not is wrong. To pretend that the only reason that women do not acheive sucess is a lack of “attitude, aptitute and drive” is unsustainable, and absurd in the extreme.

Nora Charles says:

01:24pm | 14/10/09

Three cheers for Elle (@:01:13pm | 14/10/09)!!

Nora Charles says:

01:41pm | 14/10/09

@Sloth

Rubbish - again perpetuating the women as victim movement.

Why don’t these ‘disenfranchised’ women start their own law firms?

Nothing is stopping these ‘poor, hard done by’ women from starting their own businesses. After all, some poor bloke had to set out on his own to start the company in the first place.

It’s nothing new, women have been starting their own businesses since day dot.

The dirty little secret of women who complain about the glass ceiling is that they want the rewards without the risk that comes from being entrepreneurial.

Meanwhile the real women are out there doing the work.

TTFN - off to a board meeting.

Tim says:

01:46pm | 14/10/09

Sloth,
that is the worst attempt at statistics i’ve seen in a long time.
There are many other possible reasons why women may not make partner at a law firm.
Here’s two just to get you started:
1.Maybe they don’t aspire to become partner.
2.It may take longer to become partner than you’ve allowed for.
2.Maybe they just aren’t good enough.

Your attempt at trying to prove discrimination with those “statistics” and no proper research is poor at best.

DG says:

02:19pm | 14/10/09

Sloth:

Your theory would hold water if you retired after 20 years. If instead you worked for 40 years (for example): 20 years after 1991 (i.e 2011) you would have something along the lines of 19 years of a male dominated work force with 1 year worth of graduates from 1991.

so if we assume a 20 - 80 split (female/male, and completely made up) for those 19 years and a 60-40 for that last year, we would still be in the vicinity of 22% female. That doesn’t allow for people that take time off to have a family (of either gender, but stastically more likely to be the female*). This also assumes that the same amount of male and female employees push for partnership - various studies have suggested that women are less willing to push for such things.

I wonder how the stats look if you ONLY consider people that make partner in 2011 and disregard those that have worked for more than 20 years. Then you would be comparing apples with apples. But I imagine that it’s already closer to 40% of those NEW partners are female. A far more reasonable number and reflective of changes 20 years ago - and it’s not yet 2011. But it will still take another 20 years or more before the whole partnership reflects that change (again assuming a career of 40 years).

* Keep in mind that it is decided between the couple who will take time off work to look after kids (unless they intend to outsource their parental responsibility). It is not the responsibility of the employer to decide who looks after the kids. If you don’t have that choice (ie your partner isn’t willing to sacrifice their career) accept that it’s your partner forcing you to give up your career not some mythical “male dominated world” or, there is an alternative, don’t have kids.

Sally says:

02:32pm | 14/10/09

I tend to agree with aspects of both Holly and Nora’s argument. Studying a post-graduate degree, I have had no trouble at all succeeding in the academic world - this comes down to intelligence and motivation (genetics basically). But on the other hand, I do believe there is something inherently oppressive about the fashion industry and the influence it has on us extends far beyond the catwalk and the newsagency.

As a society we do have to question the values and ideals that this industry promotes and we do have to look at how our children are affected. This is our responsibility.

Sloth says:

02:35pm | 14/10/09

It doesn’t take 20 years to make partner at a law firm. Or rather, if you’ve been a lawyer at a firm for 20 years and you’ve not made partner yet, you never will. Depending on your firm, your milage will vary, of course, but the track to partnership is roughly 10 year to make junior partner, another 4-odd to full partnership. Ask around, if you like; I’ll wait.

Anyhow; the responses so far to the suggestion that the employment playing field isn’t level, using law as a case study:

1) Women who think that there is a glass ceiling are a) complaining and b) demanding reward without accepting risk.

2) Women don’t want to be partners at law firms

3) Women just aren’t good enough to be partners at law firms.

Collating these results, we can see that the alternative to the theory that discrimination is real is that women are either carpers, unwilling or incompetent.

I’d like other readers to ask themselves which is more likely; that women as a gender are predisposed to being complaining, unmotivated idiots, or that society still doesn’t treat men and women equally? (I’ll not mention the fact that the existence of people who seriously advocate for option one, seems to necessarily imply the truth of option two…)

Sloth says:

02:51pm | 14/10/09

@DG: A good point, and definately something that I’d love to be able to factor into the analysis. Tragically, recent appointment statistics are much more difficult to obtain and collate, but I’ll have a look and see what I can dig up. The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,,25689862-17044,00.html) reports that in their latest survey of 32 firms making their ‘09 partnership appointments, 50% reported that they were not appointing any women partners. So, unless the other firms were appointing only women, it seems highly unlikely that ‘09 appointments were gender balanced. Again, though, I’d love to seem some more transparent statsistics on point; let me know if you dig anything up.

Tim says:

02:59pm | 14/10/09

Sloth,
i said there were many more reasons than the three i mentioned. Here are some more:
1. Women work less hours
2. Women are less likely to negotiate their pay or ask for a pay increase.
3. Women are less likely to talk themselves up, if they are in line for promotion.
Now i ask you, which is more likely:
A combination of all other possible reasons OR
a male conspiracy to keep women down?

The gender pay gap is a myth.

Maq says:

03:15pm | 14/10/09

@Sloth - I’d like to see where your argument goes if there are further objections presented (with some alternative views from Nora, perhaps). Though I hope the analysis you’ve so far presented is false, it does raise some tough questions. There are, however, two important points that haven’t been addressed:

1.  Why do people choose to practice law? Is it the attraction of power? Or wealth? Or for some kind of social status? Do these reasons appeal more to men then women in any meaningful (or statistically significant) way? I think if you uncover some difference in why men and women choose law as a field of employ, you might find the motivation to become a partner is also different. To me, the assumption that everyone who works in law has the aim of becoming partner seems incorrect, and to presume that men and women would equally desire to become partner also seems incorrect*.

2. Your initial argument rested on the difference between the proportion of graduates vs the proportion of partners. What proportion of law graduates do not choose to practice law? Is this proportion higher for women? If so, why? Similarly, are women more or less likely to move on from law once working at a firm for a few years?

There’s much that statistics can illuminate for this kind of debate, but ultimately they’re rather flat when you try to link them to why people are motivated to do certain things, and not others. In this case, I’m not sure that statistics comparing graduates and partners are sufficient to make the claim that women are disadvantaged in any meaningful way - there’s a (possibly false) assumption that partnership is an inevitability for someone qualified/motivated/competent.

*While you restated this point as ‘unwilling,’ I think there’s a difference between ‘unwilling to be a partner’ and ‘choosing not to work 70h weeks under intense pressure’

Sloth says:

03:42pm | 14/10/09

Maq: interesting points, again. I agree, statistical analysis is limited in these sorts of circumstances, but it’s all we’ve got to work on if we want to avoid conjecture and assumptions. That being said, the underlying basis of your questions seems to be that there might be other reasons which lead women to not want to persue, say partnership at a law firm.

We can pick up one of your points (the problem being the number of women who go into practice out of law school), at least. It’s well accepted that at least for the past few years equal numbers of men and women are accepted at firms at a graduate level. The disparity comes in at the level of retention rates after qualifying as a ‘lawyer’ proper (that is, after your Articles and Restricted Practitioner years, think of it as like a residency in medicine, only shorter, but with more billable hours and (slightly) less blood.)

The next question, I suppose, is whether there’s something innate about women (as opposed to something that women are taught by our culture) that means that they’re less likely to want to take up jobs like partnership at law firms. That gets us well outside the area that I’m at all qualified to talk about (to the extent that a raving internet feminist could reasonably be described as ‘qualified’ to talk about anything…) Suffice to say that it seems very unlikely that there’s some deep-seated genetic cause (which only manifests on the Y chromosome) for desire to be a law firm partner. Or put another way, so as to avoid the ire of evolutionary psychologists (an odd bunch, to be sure) I suspect that an application of ockham’s razor (the prinicple that a simpler explanation is inherently more likely than a convoluted one) will show that given society was unabashedly and unashamedly patriachal in relation to women in the profession until, at best 30-odd years ago, it’s more probable that gender imbalance in the workforce is attributable to cultural relics left over from literally thousands of years of male-dominated workplace environments, rather than some obscure ‘innate’ biological difference between men and women.

Of course, if strong evidence was discovered for a innate difference between men and women so strong that it overrode cultural influences and steered women away form professions like law, then obviously we’d have to take that into account. But again, is this more likely than the alternative explanation; that our (historically very recent) push for equal rights for women in the workforce still has some hurdles to clear?

Julia says:

04:15pm | 14/10/09

I agree with Kate Ellis. I think hell may have frozen over.

DG says:

04:34pm | 14/10/09

Sloth:

Each firm was granting less than 4 partnerships (about 3.6 each). We have no stats indicating if that 50% were taking any new partners, or if they were taking more or less than the average. For example if there were no new partners (or there was only one or two), the statistics would show a huge discrepancy without any indication of actual circumstances in each case.

Not only that, if we consider that almost half of the firms surveyed were decreasing the size of their legal staff, it is likely that they were making less partners (hence below the average). It is possible (though unlikely) that there were actually more females made partner in that time than males (if all of the 50% that did make women partners, made only women partners - meaning that more than 50% of the total intake would be female).

While the Statistic is interesting it does little to reflect the actual number of females made partner in that 6 month period, and with such a small sample rate (i.e 3.6 persons per firm), any variation from the norm would cause substantial variation. A Firm that employs 2 male and one female has a “distressing” 66% male bias (or to sound even more troublesome “made two male partners for every female”) - while it would be completely understandable if range if we accept that (as it is less than 20 years after 1991) more than half of the legal practitioners are male (as per my previous points).

For illustration, if you have 32 bags of 50 marbles, 45% red 55% blue in each, and pick three at random from each bag, you are more likely to get two blue and one red than 2 red and one blue. The result is that it is well within all probability that 2/3 of the marbles taken will blue and this would hold true for all of the 32 bags (as each is independent)*.

This means that, statistically, even if the total staff at each firm shows a slight weighting in favour of males - the resulting partnerships will be (statistically), disproportionately male.

Further, we have no statistics on the gender of the 77 new graduates that entered the workforce in that 6 month period. This raises the question of why there is a mention of the 50% without looking at the same issue in other areas of the survey. Perhaps there was some other agenda in that line? It certainly didn’t look at the number of firms that were actually making new partners in that period, or what percentage of the new partners were female. It would be misleading to suggest that the 50% statistic proves discrimination (I do understand that you didn’t make that assessment, but I thought to make it clear).

* it is worth noting that if we were to take 4 marbles from each bag there is a greater chance of getting 3-1 than getting 2-2. i.e with 23 red and 27 blue [rounding in favour of red] we have to take out 4 blue before the chance of taking a red is equal to the chance of taking a blue. Meaning that, on taking 4 marbles there is a better chance of ending up with 3 blue and 1 red than getting two of each (in fact there is a better chance of getting all blue than getting any red at all).

Bitten says:

05:18pm | 14/10/09

Nora, you (together with my mother) are my idol. I am a 26 year old female and am coming slowly to the realisation that men’s complaints about women in the workplace are by and large absolutely true. They don’t want to work hard. They want to fluff about. They will sign a contract to work full time. Then a couple of weeks later, ask for a reduction in hours. Girls - your inconsistency, laziness and lack of professionalism are the reasons the world doesn’t take you seriously in the workplace. Start acting like grown ups at work, do your job (yeah, all of it, all of the time) do it for the hours you agreed you would (not some days, and then other days say it’s too stressful) and then maybe you can stand up with the men (all of whom do this stuff at work every day, like it’s normal, not like it’s cause for a parade) and hold your hand out for the rewards.

Kelly says:

05:37pm | 14/10/09

look at the picture. Somebody please get those women some sandwiches.

Julie Coker-Godson says:

05:46pm | 14/10/09

@Bitten:  Wow!  I’m glad I’m not the one who wrote that!  (Not that I would because I was lucky not to have problems with men in the workplace in administration or legal).And BTW the discussion has digressed too far.  Relevance?

Erica says:

06:10pm | 14/10/09

I actually agree that women are underpaid in comparison to men.
In 2007-08, the average weekly earnings of women were only two-thirds of those of males ($1071 per week for men versus $702 for women, ABS)Likewise, there has been little change in wage relativities in recent decades ago - in 1990-91 the wage relativity was almost the same.
Even after taking into accunt differences in jobs and working hours, the average weekly earnings of women are still lower than those of men, suggesting that there is discrimination in the labour market.
In fact, the gap in earnings between males and females in younger “Gen Y” workers has increased in recent years, according to a 2008 report by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling.

@ Bitten - Your comments suggest to me that you are a hardworking, career-focused woman. Am I right? If so, would you be happy to accept a salary lower than that of a male colleague who has the same job as you, same experience, qualifications etc just because your a woman and therefore only “want to fluff about”? Do you think it would be fair or right for your employers to make that judgment of you (as a woman who obviously doesn’t “want to work hard”) and thereby pay you accordingly to that, even if their judgment is wrong?

Tim says:01:46pm | 14/10/09

Sloth,
that is the worst attempt at statistics i’ve seen in a long time.
There are many other possible reasons why women may not make partner at a law firm.
Here’s two just to get you started:
1.Maybe they don’t aspire to become partner.
2.It may take longer to become partner than you’ve allowed for.
2.Maybe they just aren’t good enough.

Your attempt at trying to prove discrimination with those “statistics” and no proper research is poor at best.

Erica says:

07:24pm | 14/10/09

Sorry, I forgot to add.
@ Tim - Why would women be any less likely to aspire to become partners than men? And secondly, why would women be any less “good enough” than their male counterparts?

Davo from St Kilda says:

08:56pm | 14/10/09

@ Erica - if the average woman is paid 2/3 the wage that similarly qualified and experienced men are, then I assume you will have no trouble giving just three examples of women who are being paid less. Go ahead. Be specific. Show the hourly/weekly amount that these women are paid compared to the guys she works alongside. I bet you can’t give even one example. Are YOU paid 2/3 the wage of the blokes you work with? I seriously doubt it. How about you tell us your annual salary, and also let us know the salaries of the men who do the same job you do? This ‘2/3 pay’ is such a fallacy. If an employer had to pay a man $30 an hour but only had to pay a woman $20 an hour to do the exact same job, then the workforce would be completely full of women and every man would be unemployed. But this isn’t the case, is it? Have a guess why, Erica…..

Holly says:

10:04pm | 14/10/09

@Nora
If you wish to check my statistics please go to the ABS website and you will see you are incorrect. Also, how do you explain the introduction of Anti-Discrimination legislation that says you cannot discriminate against anyone on the basis of gender, race, sexuality, disability, carers responsibilities etc? It is because there is so much discrimination in the workplace that laws had to be put in place to combat it - therefore your suggestion that those who don’t achieve in the workplace aren’t working hard enough is ridiculous. There is a social hierarchy that you may choose not to recognise but it does exist. Do you see any Indigenous people on boards, or do you think they are just all too lazy? Things may have worked out for you, who I would guess is white, middle class, got put through uni by your parents, the government skewed taxes so that your upper middle class family didn’t have to pay as much tax as those in the lower brackets and never had any disadvantage but for others life is not so easy. Your arrogant, judgemental attitude is so self centred.

Tim says:

11:00pm | 14/10/09

Erica,
I was just giving a few possible reasons why there may be less female law partners than male.
It would be equally possible that males do not aspire to become partners or that the current males in the profession are not good enough to make partner.
What i was trying to say is that a statistical difference in the number of male to female partners does not by itself mean females are being discriminated against. There are hundreds of other reasons why more women may not have been made partner which have nothing to do with discrimination.

Tim says:

09:00am | 15/10/09

Holly,
you statistics don’t prove discrimination, they just show a statistical difference between males and females.
Here’s another statistic:
93% of the prison population is male.
Does this mean that males are unfairly discriminated against during sentencing?
No, it simply means they commit more crimes.

Julie says:

09:26am | 15/10/09

Thankyou so much Kate Ellis for this piece.  I saw the article yesterday and was apalled at the lack of understanding it showed for these issues.  Well done on coming back and making it very clear this is a societal, health and welfare problem that is serious and needs ongoing adressment at the highest level

Nora Charles says:

09:32am | 15/10/09

@Holly.

Ah, assumptions… but only you have been made an ass of.

I know of several indigenous and islander people who serve on boards - in this case all non-profit entities - and they are brilliant to work with.

I come from a lower middle-class background, raised by a single mother and I put myself through university.

I run a small company and my take home pay is smaller than if I was working for an employer, but that’s okay, it’s lifestyle choice I made myself. I am also on the board of a non-profit company. I am also a part of collaborative mentoring team involving six other companies (some run by men, others run by women).

The purpose of this post was to look at the issue of one-size fits all body shape. I would argue that Kate Ellis’ observations also hold women’s role in society.

Holly makes outlandish assumptions based on her cultural biases and makes several assertions about me which are 90% erroneous (okay, I am white).

Can it not be argued, within the cavaet of general good health, that there is room for women with curves on the cat walk as well as those who are more ‘straight up and down’?

Equally, can it not be argued that there is room for women in society to break the feminist stereotypes of perpetual victimhood and just get on creating their own way in life without looking for validation by the sisterhood?

Erica says:

12:45pm | 15/10/09

@ Davo - What do organisations like the ABS have to gain for publishing statistics that show a difference in the wage levels of men and women? Why would they make it up?

I see your point re why would employers pay more for men if they could pay less for women. I don’t think every job, profession, employer etc is going to pay men more than women. I know my employer doesn’t. But there are still some women out there who are definately getting paid less than their male counterparts. Just because there is anti-dicrimination legislation, equal pay for equal work etc doesn’t mean that every firm is going to run by those laws even though they’re supposed to. It’s just like with young people who get paid under the minimum wage level for their age group - many employers will take advantage of a person’s lack of knowledge of awards, employer relations legislations etc.

Holly says:

03:05pm | 15/10/09

@ Nora,
Seriously, if you think that sitting on the boards of not for profit groups is the same as the commercial workplace which is what I was referring to then you are definately out of touch with what is going on in the broader business sector. Secondly, my assumptions about you were about 90% correct, the only difference being that, as you said you were in your 40’s, the university education you would have recieved would have been paid for you by the taxpayer and not your parent. 
You obviously do not have any understanding of the concept of discrimination within the structure of a capitalist society, strange seeing that you are claiming you have a university degree and sit on boards - was it a degree in art history or something equally irrelevant to your profession or did you just skip that part in class?
And yes, there is room for women to break through victimisation, it’s called Anti-Discrimination legislation. What is wrong with looking to the sisterhood for validation - should we not support each other in trying to achieve equality?
@ Tim, no one set of statistics does not prove anything, however would you expect me to write a thesis with full referencing for you? There is limited posting space here, I could cite a litany of reference articles, books, stats for future reference.

Nora Charles says:

03:39pm | 15/10/09

@Holly,

::Sigh:: Reading is not a strong suit with you is it?

Let me make it clear. In short sentences for you to understand.

I run a for-proft business. I am a managing director of this company. 

I am also on the board of another company which is a not for profit. I am also involved in other community organisations one of which concerns Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander issues.

I, not the taxpayer, paid for my university tuition. I came from a poor family I worked straight out of high school and I studied in my own time while working full time as a full fee paying adult student. I am 40 and yes HECS did exist back in the late 1980s.

If you must know I studied business and marketing and my business is financially successful and award-winning.

I say this not to boast of anything I’ve done. There are amazing women with an even greater disadvantaged background than me who have achieved so much more, yet they have done this on their own merits, engaging positively with both men and women to get the job done.

Long story short Holly, stop your whinging and actually do something with your life. Claiming your lack of achievement is because some bloke ‘won’t let you’ is the worst kind of cop out.

Ashley says:

05:46pm | 15/10/09

Holly does have a point even if she is arguing from the logical extreme. Aren’t you lucky Nora. You’re invincible. Shame you have such a narrow mind. Perhaps if you find yourself in a position of vulnerability you might develop a broader perspective.

Holly says:

05:54pm | 15/10/09

@ Nora,
I’ve actually achieved a lot with my life so far. I have overcome emotional and physical abuse, homelessness, mental illness to name a few disadvantages, and have gained a diploma of business and am about to complete my degree in sociology. I have achieved this as a mature aged student whilst working also. I have also run a successful business and served in the armed forces to name two of my previous jobs. I am a decade younger than you and have achieved that much so far. I am not saying women cannot and have not achieved however there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that women are still far and away less likely to rise to the top of the corporate ladder for reasons other than what you seem to believe is their laziness and bad attitude. This is documented in a variety of research, government inquiries and subsequent legislation, various journals and other publications which are easily accessible online.
Here ends my contribution to these postings.

Davo from St Kilda says:

02:09am | 16/10/09

@ Erica - I’m still waiting for you to give three examples of women who are paid 2/3 the wage that equally qualified and experienced men are. I asked you if you were paid 2/3 the amount that males in your workplace are and you replied “I know my employer doesn’t”. So where’s the proof? Can you give just ONE example of a woman who is paid 1/3 less than a male colleague?

Look, as for the ABS stats, I don’t think you understand the figures. Just saying that men, on average, earn more than women doesn’t mean that EVERY man earns more than the women he works alongside. The figures reflect the entire adult population, where men dominate the higher paying jobs and women are more likely to work part time or not at all (paid work, that is). Do you understand that men work constantly, almost always full time, for their entire adult lives, while women start and stop their career, usually due to family commitments? This is why men earn ‘on average’ more than women. It’s not discrimination. It’s all about time spent in paid employment.

R says:

05:34pm | 19/10/09

The issue I have is most of these catwalk and high end fashion (magazine) models are between the ages of 13-17.  Some of them haven’t even finished going through puberty - and thirty something women sit there and wonder why they can’t look like that.  As soon as they start to grow anything resembling hips or breasts larger than an A cup they are not longer hirable.  Standard sample sizes are a 6-8, and they must fit the clothes otherwise, no sale.  Only a very rare few get to continue on in their 20s (think Kerr, etc) because it is highly unlikely you can continue to be that size and shape.

How do I know this?  My sister is one of those models.  I feel lucky now that my eyes have been opened up to the fake world of fashion.  I see the photoshopped pics, impossible lighting and 4 hours worth of hair and make up and think - gee its nice to know that its all pretend.

tetalina says:

08:45pm | 19/10/09

So I’ve worked out from these comments that in no way are women given any sort of raw deal in our society, and if they are it’s the fault of their own victim mentality. Oh, and the pay gap is a myth. At last, equality! Don’t suggest anything else, it’s insulting!

(I always find it amusing to hear from the ‘I pulled myself up by the bootstraps while walking 10km to school through the snow dragging my dead horse and 15 brothers and sisters behind me, so if you haven’t succeeded like me you are LAZY and/or STUPID. And you almost certainly vote Labor.’ brigade.

WTF?

Julio says:

04:06am | 20/10/09

Nora Charles is so incredibly obnoxious it’s hard to take anything she says seriously.

Bojangles says:

04:22am | 20/10/09

Hey, who’s managing Nora’s company while she’s bunging on about pointless crap? Having a long lunch are we Nora?  Well I’d better be going I have a company to run…into the ground.  Probably because I only hire people with the biggest hard luck stories.