November 24, 2010 by Eleanor Fitzsimons
When the Guardian wanted to feature a feminist reaction to the proposed IMF 5 percentage point tax reduction for women returning to work they turned to the Antiroom – where else? I was thrilled and honoured to write this rather provocative piece broadly in favour of this radical proposal. Please do leave a comment on the Guardian Comment is Free site. You don’t even have to agree with me, just don’t call me “idiotic” please!
Also, the Antiroom gets a mention and a link in my profile.
Anthea McTeirnan
Croí na Duibhlinn
Aoife Barry
Aoife McLysaght
Arlene Hunt
Attracta McCarthy-McKenna
clairehennessy
Ann Cronin
Amanda Brown
Eleanor Fitzsimons
Edel Coffey
Anna Carey
Lauren Murphy
Jennie Ridyard
Jude Leavy
Hazel Katherine Larkin
Léan Ní Chuilleanáin
Leigh
Lisa McInerney
Laura Slattery
Maman Poulet
Megan McGurk
Clare Kleinedler
Molly
Rosita Boland
Catherine Crichton
Sinéad Gleeson
sarahefranklin
siobhandowling
Susan Daly
theantiroom
Nuala Ní Chonchúir
Read your very interesting, thoughtful piece, Eleanor.
Yes, it does seem like reverse-sexism, but I guess affirmative action is often used to address an imbalance. It doesn’t make it right or palatable, but if the idea is to get formerly economically active women who can’t afford to go back to work following childbirth (childcare being prohibitive, salaries being ridiculously low after a work break, technology having moved on, skills being outdated, blah, blah) back into the economy, then it certainly is worth discussion.
However, I’m not sure that right now is the time and place… The cupboard is bare, there are less and less jobs to “return” to, and everyone else is anticipating tax hikes. I think the bile generated by any such measures may be counterproductive, as the many rude, insufferable comments made under your Guardian piece illustrate.
Agreed Jennie,
Ironically I was once opposed to such discrimintory measures as tax breaks and quotas. Now the slow pace of reform in childcare & parental leave has made me crave short sharp shocks that force change.
It is difficult to get broad agreement on a tax cut when people are losing their jobs and accepting wage cuts whatever its merits. One obvious objection is that it is shifting the responsibilty for fair wages from the employer to the taxpayer. The issue of the availabiltiy of cheap nursery care and flexible working is more easily addressed and should be high on any poitician’s hit list. Women could make this issue an election litmus test. Why not in January? Fathers looking after their children – and there are a lot of them – would also benefit. The issue of wage equality is a thorny issue but like most of this kind can be addressed if the will is there. Isn’t this another election issue? I can’t help but feel that these issues are far more likely to strike a cord with electors. In the Uk we have a legal challenge to the legitimacy of Coalition cuts on the ground that they offend the Equality Act because they discriminate against women and children. Is it possible to do something like thiis in Ireland? Why not put all these issues into a feminist agenda and go for it?
Totally agree that childcare reform is best and gives everyone a choice. Sadly we’ll struggle to find candidates that do more than pay lip-service to proper reform in my experience, particularly in the current economic environment. Perhaps one day…
Well done, Eleanor. I’m not entirely sure I agree with you, but the piece was really well written: reasonable and convincing without any resorting to hyperbole. I need to go away and think about it more.
My goodness, some/most of those Guardian comments are very ugly and very depressing.
Thanks Ali, I’m not entirely sure I agree with myself to be honest! As for the comments well they say more about the comentator than they do the piece. I did LOL a couple of times.
My Guardian post has now been moved to Editors Picks! Sooooo exciting! Rattling debate going on in comments too. Balanced remarks on both sides of the argument (if you can get past the rude ones). Feel free to add your own.
Great stuff Eleanor and well done!! I’m crap at all things taxi so can’t comment on the nitty-gritty just delighted to see you on the Guardian site!
Thanks June, I am also delighted! I was wondering what taxies had to do with anything at first but – aha – now I get ya!
Oh crapalata, that was a typo, sorry! I meant to say ‘all things tax’. The fact that I’m a taxi addict got in the way like a Freudian blip.
Eleanor Fitzsimons , shame, shame, shame, divisive, sexist, hateful that your opinions, in a world where people should be treated as equals, your true colors of bigotry and sexism emerge. Your old school, the world doesn’t need little minded people like you anymore, goodbye to your prehistoric thinking.
Yes, David, “people should be treated as equals”.
They’re not though. Particularly, historically women. The law sometimes attempts to redress this…
While I think that incentives to get people back to work are a good thing, this is not the way. If the assumption is that the woman has been out of work due to being a stay at home parent, well this over looks men who become stay at home parents also.
I completely agree. I assume the wording is lazy & if policy was to be implemented it would relate to second income earners re-entering the workforce (generally but by no means always women). In an ideal world childcare & parental leave would be reformed, the workplace would become more flexible & family friendly and career progression would be less strictly linear. One can dream!
I think what the majority of people are missing — particularly those from outside Ireland — is that the Irish tax system penalises second-income earners (usually women because, yes, there are still imba;lances) if the main earner has a comfortable income. That needs to be changed.
As you say, any carer going back to work on a lesser salary, male or female, would be encouraged to do so by this proposal. The majority will obviously be women, however.
I think you would have got a much more positive response on CIF if this had been made clear (yes….I followed the link from your profile).
The reason for most of the angry responses is that you’re presenting yourself as a supporter of objective sexism against men in response to subjective sexism against women. Forcing men to pay more tax because they are male is instinctively unfair, however many readers just don’t recognise the widespread sexism that the Guardian tells us women face on a daily basis.
For my own part I am a male manager of a mixed group of staff working in London. Sexism still exists in the workplace, for example a few weeks after I became a Manager I remember two women who worked for me telling me that although they were clearly hungry they didn’t want to leave the office to pick up lunch because they knew they would be harressed by the traders outside. Similar issues arise from time to time and it is up to all of us (male and female) to challenge and correct them. However for the most part women in the workplace are very well protected by the company and the systems in place. Of course the systems works best when the women are articulate and confident and some do need additional help to insist on their rights.
On the other hand I have noticed that senior management in the companies I work for apply very different policies to male and female staff. I have never had a request for part time working turned down for a female staff member but I have had many turned down for men. The same with time off requests to deal with family issues. I’m aware of a number of female staff members who have avoided redundancy because they were judged more likely to sue than a man.
Performance issues are often dealt with differently as well, with women generally being given more latitude than men. I remember a minor argument between two staff (he behaved like a brat, she slapped him) when I was told to give the man a warning and ignore the behaviour of the woman because she was expected to allege sexism if any critisism was made. I refused and eventually got backing from HR, but it illustrates the general approach I deal with on a daily basis. I have many male and female friends working in the finance industry in different companies and their experiences are similar.
So, while I accept it was a thoughtful attempt to get readers thinking about a real problem I think you would have got more support with less focus on the sexual politics angle. By accepting that it is not just women who have to worry about childcare costs or discrimination in the workplace you might have received fewer unpleasant comments.
Leo, Thanks for your very detailed and considered comment. I have to disagree on a number of issues. Firstly I wasn’t looking for a positive response from CiF – that’s not why I wrote the piece. What might have been perceived as a more balanced piece by some readers would in my opinion have been bland and ineffectual.
That will achieve nothing. Also some commenter’s responded as if this was my suggestion – it was not. It was the suggestion of the IMF.
I was not surprised at the response at all. My deliberately quite provocative piece was intended to hold a mirror up to the sexism that exists and has always existed in order to highlight the fact that the issue still persists. Many people seem to feel that it is a thing of the past. Meek pleadings for fair treatment and tinkering at the edges with legislation do not seem to be achieving the radical change we need quickly enough. It’s too late for me but not for the next generation.
I don’t support sexism at all. However I do support fairness. Where inequality exists it must be addressed. If conventional methods are not working we have to look at more radical solutions. I absolutely want to see equality in the workplace but in order to support and safeguard that desirable state you have to achieve it first. I think it’s time to at least examine quotas & other incentives.
Your stories are interesting but they are also anecdotal. The statistics quite clearly demonstrate that women are not progressing to the top. Just 3% of the CEOs of Fortune 500 companies are women, just 15% of senior managers and just 30% of all managers. How can that be right? Are woman being facilitated in their request for part-time work or time off because they are not valued? Is this also affecting their promotional prospects? Questions worth asking I believe.
My ideal solution is to radically overhaul the workplace and make it more flexible in order to facilitate everyone. There is a theory (& I subscribe to it) that in today’s workplace not only are men more likely to progress but it is the wrong men who progress as the value systems used to judge good performance are deeply flawed. Just look at the mess that our (male dominated) governments and banks have got us into. I don’t believe that this is just because there are men at the top but because the wrong men are at the top.
I still hope that one day we will live the kind of perfect meritocracy such as perhaps exists in our schools and universities for example. Here talent seems to shine without anyone resorting to the preferential treatment of either sex through additional marks, easier papers etc.
“Where inequality exists it must be addressed.”
Out of curiousity, would you support legislation that forbids car insurance companies from charging men higher premiums than women?
Funny you should say that Shane since the elimination of pricing by gender for car insurance is being considered at the moment on these very grounds. This is despite the reality that as a group women account for a significantly less costly claims experience than men and there is therefore some financial justification for this differential pricing. The same can be said of older versus younger drivers. Is this ageist? Perhaps it is despite the fact that one group incurs less cost than the other.
Yeah I think an attempt to eliminate it failed some years ago too.
It is straightforward sexual discrimination. I don’t drink-drive or speed so I’m being punished, not because of my behaviour, but because of my sex. Personally I’m not too bothered by this and I don’t think I’d support state intervention in how private insurance companies do their business. Likewise I’m not too bothered by the apparent discrimination in wages against women either! Anyway, any movement to fight sexual discrimination should fight discrimination against both sexes. This is fair, but also pragmatic since it should attract more general support.
A more disturbing example of anti-male discrimination is in countries like Switzerland with its male-only military conscription. If such countries go to war, the men are forced by the state to kill foreigners, the women are not.
Was the infamous individualisation not intended to be a substantial step in this direction? then succeeded by the hasty sop to stay-at-home parents of the Home Carer’s relief.