The Sun – Get our youth on board

March 16, 2012 in Articles, Spotlight

*Image from ayobonline.org

Posted on 16 March 2012 | By Keith Leong Yu Keen

IT’S almost like a movie plot: a group of bright young underdogs get together to invent against the odds a car that captures the imagination of the nation. Except the story is real, and it happened in Indonesia.

The place is Solo, an iconic city in Central Java with a population of over 520,000, and the car is the “Kiat Esemka”. It was engineered by a group of teenagers studying at the city’s Sekolah Menengah Kejuruans (SMK, a sort of vocational secondary school). Its name, “esemka” is a play on the way Indonesians pronounce “SMK”.

With the help of a local workshop owner – Sukiat (whose garage’s name, “Kiat Motors”, is part of the car’s name) who pitched the idea to local educational authorities – the students managed to design and build their own sports utility vehicle (SUV) based on a modified sedan that resembles a Toyota Land Cruiser.

The ultimate product of all this tinkering was the Esemka Rajawali prototype, a 1.5-litre engine and 105 horsepower SUV, which in turn led to other incarnations such as the Esemka Digdaya, Esemka Bima and Esemka Hatchback.

Even more remarkable is the fact that the cars were assembled largely out of domestically-made components, with only about 20% of the parts being imported. An Esemka Rajawali costs around 300 million rupiah to make, but the price could fall to as little as 95 million rupiah if mass-produced.

The Esemka was soon in the media eye, especially when Solo’s popular mayor Joko Widodo (or “Jokowi”) threw his support in for the Esemka. Jokowi bought one to use as his official vehicle and committed his administration to help mass-produce the cars.

This in turn led to a surge of interest in the Esemka, with Kiat Motors reported receiving 10,000 orders for it in January. Even the Wall Street Journal ran a feature on the car in their Southeast Asia Real Time blog.

Nevertheless, it has not been all smooth-sailing for the Esemka. The makers have been accused of copying the design of the Foday cars from Guangdong, China. Also, as the Wall Street Journalreported, it’s not clear if the makers of the Esemka’s foreign parts will consent to their goods being used for a competing vehicle.

To make matters worse, early this month the Esemka failed an emissions test necessary for it to gain approval for mass production, although both the students and Jokowi have vowed to try again.

Regardless of what happens to the Esemka, it cannot be denied that the whole affair is an inspiring story of innovation and entrepreneurial spirit. The students succeeded in putting together a usable and affordable car, at least before Jokowi came into the picture, without any government support whatsoever.

They deserve the highest praise for showing what young people, working with mentors willing to give their creative forces free rein can accomplish. Their teachers and Sukiat’s Kiat Motors are also a powerful example of how the public and private sector can work together to drive nascent innovation.

That’s more than can be said for many established car makers (insulated as they are by government subsidies and protectionism).

Despite talk on the need for “transformation” towards an “innovation” or “knowledge-based economy”, it’s hard, if not impossible to conceive a similar story as the Esemka saga taking place here in Malaysia. We seem to think that we can foster creativity by throwing money into projects or people and hoping for the best. It doesn’t work that way.

What private company in Malaysia would give our youth the chance that Kiat Motors gave the untested SMK students? Which school or public authority has the foresight and autonomy to facilitate the kind of collaborations with non-state actors that resulted in the Esemka?

Most of all, can we make the mental leap to be willing to concede that people younger, less educated or connected or experienced than the elite norm may actually know or can do better? Could it be that our economy seems to be going around in circles due to our inability to break from our addiction to hierarchy and authority?

We need to realise that innovation is the product of social, cultural and political forces as much as it is of legislation and infrastructure.

Keith Leong Yu Keen is a fellow at Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (IDEAS). Comments: letters@thesundaily.com

News Link

CNN – Why women are world’s best climate change defense

January 9, 2012 in Articles, Media, Spotlight

*Photo from ku.dk

December 12, 2011 | By Mary Robinson , Special to CNN

Editor’s note: Mary Robinson is President of the Mary Robinson Foundation — Climate Justice. She served as President of Ireland from 1990-1997 and U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights from 1997-2002. She is a member of the Elders and the Club of Madrid and serves as Honorary President of Oxfam International.

(CNN) – Women must make their voices heard in climate negotiations. The role of women as agents of change in their homes, places of work and communities is often underplayed. Yet their role is critical: Women understand the inter-generational aspects of climate change and sustainable development. We women think in time horizons that span the lives of our children and grandchildren. We need to use this understanding to influence the political process and to inject a much needed sense of urgency into the climate change negotiations.

Time is not on our side; report after report has shown this. This is not a trade discussion and we cannot wait until the next meeting or the meeting after that to take action. Time is running out for the planet. 2020 is too late to put a legally binding agreement in place. A legal framework with clear and common rules to which all countries are committed is critically important. It is the only assurance we have that action will be taken to protect the most vulnerable. This COP (U.N. Climate Change Conference in Durban) must agree to initiate negotiations towards this end — with a view to concluding a new legal instrument by 2015 at the latest.

Climate change is a matter of justice. The richest countries caused the problem, but it is the world’s poorest who are already suffering from its effects. The international community must commit to righting that wrong.

For me, a high point of the Durban Conference was that it demonstrated once again the value of women’s leadership in global efforts to deal with climate change. The outgoing COP President who did an excellent job in Cancun last year is a woman, Minister Patricia Espinosa. The COP President at Durban is a woman, Minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane from South Africa and the Executive Secretary of the Convention is also a woman, Ms Christiana Figueres. Collectively these and other women leaders are playing a vital role in highlighting the gender dimensions of climate change.

Awareness of the differential impacts of climate change on men and women is increasing. We know that in continents like Africa, where women are responsible for 60-80% of food production, unpredictable growing seasons and increased incidence of droughts and floods place women, their families and their livelihoods at risk. All over the world women are adapting to these changes, showing incredible resilience in the face of crop failures, water shortages and increases in environment-related diseases such as malaria. They are growing different crops, planting trees, harvesting rainwater and growing fodder for livestock to minimize the impacts of climate change. We need to continue to support women to be innovative, creative and resilient in a climate-constrained world as we strive to ensure equitable solutions to the climate problem. Investing in climate smart agriculture and capacity building for vulnerable rural communities will not be sustainable without the inclusion of women in the decision-making process.

But we also need to see the value of women as drivers of economic growth — as educators, carers, farmers, entrepreneurs and above all, as leaders. A recent World Bank report found that “women now represent 40% of the global labor force, 43% of the world’s agricultural labor force, and more than half the world’s university students. Productivity will be raised if their skills and talents are used more fully.” The report also found that eliminating the barriers that discriminate against women could increase labor productivity by as much as 25% in some countries.

Clearly we need to harness the contribution of women if we want to find our way out of the current economic recession and if we want to embrace inclusive, sustainable green growth. Last month, in remarks made at the International Forum on Women and Sustainable Development in Beijing, Sha Zuhang, Secretary General of the 2012 U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development, said “in many countries women are the champions of the green economy, practicing sustainable agriculture, nurturing our natural resources, and promoting renewable energy.”

Around the world women are showing leadership and championing change, often due to more progressive policies and a greater social inclusion. Their voice and leadership on climate change can result in a low-carbon revolution for the 21st century that is sustainable and equitable.

We can have a future where economic growth is not proportional to greenhouse gas emissions and where, for example, off-grid energy solutions could enable the 1.3 billion people without access to electricity to reach their full potential by providing access to affordable and sustainable energy technologies. At present burning kerosene for light and cooking over open fires damages women’s health and limits their ability to engage in other work or education because they spend hours collecting wood.

It also costs them a lot of money — up to 20% of their weekly expenditure. Solar panels, improved cooking stoves and LED lights can transform lives, create jobs and contribute to our collective low-carbon future and are clear examples how intelligent climate change policies do not lead to a gray and dull existence but the opposite: They lead to a brighter future.

I encourage all leaders to highlight the importance of gender throughout COP17 and at Rio+20 next year. We need to secure stronger references to the gender dimensions of climate change in the texts, institutions and mechanisms agreed by Parties to the Convention. Leaders informed by the experiences of grassroots women from around the world can and must make a difference.

I call on women to speak out and lead the way. We cannot wait, we have to act. Our children’s and grandchildren’s future is at stake.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Mary Robinson.

News link

NST – Ennahda’s Islamism has strong roots

November 14, 2011 in Articles, Spotlight

November 14, 2011 | By Tom Heneghan

VISIONARY Tunisian Islamists promote pragmatic policies including personal freedoms and women’s rights, writes Tom Heneghan

The Islamist party Ennahda has sounded so moderate since winning Tunisia’s first free election last month that it can be hard to see what role religion plays in its political thinking.

Faced with fears they might foist strict Islamic syariah rules on this reform-minded Muslim country, Ennahda leaders insist the beer, bikinis and foreign banks the old secularist rulers allowed will still be welcome under an Islamist-led government.

The party, which won 41.7 per cent of the vote for an assembly due to draw up a new constitution, says it will not write religion into the country’s laws and will focus instead on jobs for the unemployed and justice for all.

Ennahda founder and leader Rachid Ghannouchi says joining Islam and democracy is central to his political vision and can point to writings going back over three decades to prove it.

“There is some confusion in the West about Islamism,” he said.

“Some confuse it with fundamentalism and link it to violence, extremism and takfir” — the radical Islamist practice of declaring other Muslims infidels worthy of death.

Ghannouchi, who at 70 looks back on a life of activism and prison in Tunisia and 22 years of exile in Britain, said he saw himself as a Muslim advocating “an applied version of Islam”.

Despite Ennahda’s strong support, there are many Tunisians — especially secularist women — who are not convinced.

“They say they want to be like Turkey, but it could turn out like Iran,” said Rym, a 25-year-old medical intern in the upscale neighbourhood of Ennasr.

“Don’t forget, that was a very open society, too.”

Ghannouchi says Ennahda will guarantee individual freedoms, including women’s rights. He compared its approach to that of the Christian Democrats in Europe or United States politicians who invoke God and Christian values while working in a secular democracy.

“We are against the state trying to impose any particular way of life,” he said to highlight his difference with strict Islamists.

“There shouldn’t be any law to try to make people more religious. We believe in freedom of religion, including the freedom to change religion.”

Ghannouchi’s pragmatic policies are often described as being inspired by the moderate Islamists in Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), but they seem to have been just as influenced by him.

A rare theoretician among Islamist politicians, the Tunisian’s reformist writings were translated from Arabic into Turkish and read there as early as the 1980s.

His 1993 book Public Liberties in the Islamic State is “better known in Turkey than Tunisia,” he said. It was banned until autocratic President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali was ousted by Tunisia’s Arab Spring protests in January.

“Tunis has been a centre of reformist Islamic thought since the 19th century,” said Mustafa Akyol, Turkish author of the recent book Islam Without Extremes: A Muslim Case for Liberty”.

“The AKP doesn’t have a Ghannouchi,” he said. “Neither (Prime Minister Tayyep) Erdogan nor (President Abdullah) Gul has written books about reform theology.”

While AKP leaders don’t spell out the theology behind their brand of democratic Islam, Ghannouchi has developed a Muslim argument for freedom that reaches back to a legal scholar active in 14th century Andalusia in then-Muslim Spain.

The key is the interpretation of the moral and legal norms of syariah. Whereas the puritanical Islam of Saudi Arabia or Iran stresses strict enforcement of a legal code, reformist Islam asks what the moral purpose of these guidelines is.

According to the Andalusian scholar Abu Ishaq al-Shatibi, all Islamic law aims to preserve the universal values of life, religion, property, reason and family. Laws that foster these goals comply with syariah even if not written as religious laws.

“When we establish democracy, we see that it achieves many of these aims,” Ghannouchi said.

“Anything that promotes these aims is Islamic, even if it is not called Islamic.

“That’s why we say that Islam and democracy are compatible.”

Al-Shatibi’s theory, which allows for a more flexible interpretation of syariah than more conservative Muslims accept, was revived in the 1950s by Tahar Ben Achour, rector of the centuries-old Zitouna mosque and university in Tunis.

Ghannouchi’s defence of this reform view of syariah has had unexpected consequences. Saudi Arabia, home of the  Wahhabi Islam that punishes sinners strictly, refused him entry when he wanted to go there on the haj pilgrimage two years ago.

Radwan Masmoudi, Tunisian-born director of the Centre for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID) in Washington, said democracy was the most suitable political system for putting Ghannouchi’s interpretation of Islam into practice.

“There are Islamic values that are universal and the state should uphold, such as justice, freedom and equality,” he said.

“For that you need a separation of powers and an independent judiciary. Those are secular values.”

Another pillar of Ghannouchi’s thinking — ijtihad or reasoned interpretation of Islamic texts — needs freedom to operate effectively, Masmoudi said.

“You can’t practice ijtihad in a dictatorship,” he said.

“People used to think we needed to reform Islam to have a democracy. I think we need democracy first, then we can reconcile Islam with modernity.”
News Link

The Guardian – Is Iceland the best country for women?

October 27, 2011 in Articles

Johanna Sigurdardottir, Icelandic Prime Minister since February 2009. She is the first openly gay prime minister. *Image from http://english.aljazeera.net

October 3, 2011 | Kira Cochrane

An openly lesbian PM, affordable childcare and a formidable women’s movement – Iceland may just be a feminist paradise

On a wet day in Reykjavik, the rain battering the fishing boats, the tourist shops and the young male artists with their improbable moustaches,Iceland‘s minister of industry, energy and tourism is explaining to me that the country needs to be “more badass” about the gender pay gap. The minister is Katrin Juliusdottir, a warm, attractive woman in her mid-30s, pregnant with twins. As she speaks, a hint of frustration enters her voice. Icelandic legislation supposedly guarantees equal pay for equal work, as in the UK, “so why don’t we have more penalties?” she says. “Maybe we need to be even more badass when it comes to people breaking the rules.”

We are sitting in Katrin’s office (all Icelanders go by their first names), in an anonymous building a few hundred yards from Reykjavik harbour, and she is talking about women’s rights with no-nonsense passion. Yes, of course she is a feminist; no, she wasn’t in the country for the last major women’s march, otherwise she would certainly have attended; yes, it’s good that the current Icelandic cabinet has four women and six men, but it’s not enough. She would like to see it reach the perfect 50/50. (The current UK cabinet is 86% male.) Following the disastrous collapse of the Icelandic banks in 2008, she says, the country “wants balance in our lives, and a big part of that is the balance between men and women.”

Some would say this balance already exists in Iceland – that the country is, in fact, the closest the world has to a feminist paradise. For the last two years it has topped the World Economic Forum’s report on equality between the sexes, and last month Newsweek named it the best place in the world for women. The Newsweek survey looked at health, education, economics, politics and justice, and found that in all areas, and the last one in particular, Iceland is about as good as it gets. The prime minister,Jóhanna Sigurdardóttir, tells me via email that she’s proud of the survey’s outcome, “and not only for women, [but because] we know that gender equality is one of the best indicators for the overall quality of societies.”

Through the cold mist on Laugavegur, Reykjavik’s main drag, I ask Icelandic women what they think. Gudrun, 72, peers shyly from her voluminous hood and says while she loves Iceland – its cleanliness, beauty, the proximity of hot springs, volcanoes, glaciers – it can’t possibly be the best place in the world for women “because we don’t get the same salary as men”.

Awareness of this issue is running high because of a campaign by thecommercial and office workers’ trade union, VR. To emphasise and redress the fact that Icelandic women are paid, on average, 10% less than their male colleagues, it last month set up a temporary discount of exactly that amount for all female customers at a range of major shops. Berglind, a young shop worker with a metal bar through her septum, tells me she’d like to see classes for teenage girls on how to negotiate hard with bosses.

Erla, 37, a lawyer, swaddled in a thick, red mac, says that as an Icelandic woman you can always count on the support of your sisters, and it was in this spirit she attended the Women Strike Back march last year, a protest against the pay gap and sexual violence. “I don’t think I suffer from unfair pay now,” she says, “but I have done, and I felt I needed to support women, because we didn’t come this far as a society by accident. It was because people went out and worked for women’s rights.”

To an outsider’s eye, the power of Iceland’s feminist movement is astonishing. The country was the poorest in Europe before the second world war, but saw a boom afterwards, and by the late 1960s a whole generation of educated women was coming of age and feeling angry about wage inequality. Those who remained in the home felt similarly undervalued. In 1975, a one-day women’s strike was proposed by radical feminist group the Red Stockings. The concept was then softened to a “day off”, and on 24 October of that year an estimated 90% of the country’s women downed tools, in both the workplace and the home. In Reykjavik, 25,000 women gathered for speeches, talks and singing – at a time when the entire Icelandic population numbered less than 220,000.

Thorunn Sveinbjarnardóttir, 45, was the country’s minister for the environment between 2007 and 2009, and is now studying for a master’s degree. She was 10 at the time of the original Women’s Day Off, and went with her mother. “I just remember the feeling of being among this mass of women, who were all so happy,” she says, as we sit in a cafe on Laugavegur. “That was a lesson for my generation, and I think the secret ingredient was that we managed to get women from all corners of society – from both the left and right, politically, and from all social classes. That was very important. It was a euphoric day.”

The ability to mobilise women of all stripes – a really unusual feat – is still much in evidence. Last year Women Strike Back revived the spirit of the Women’s Day Off, and despite storm warnings, 50,000 women flooded the Reykjavik streets, a third of the country’s female population. (In the UK, it is considered a strong, successful feminist protest when 2,000 of the country’s 30 million women come out.) Video of the event shows women in padded jackets, pink catsuits or Lopapeysa (traditional Icelandic jumpers), their hair, scarves and capes being whipped by the wind. One woman is dressed as a Viking. Some are laughing, many brandish signs, all look determined.

Out in the Reykjavik suburbs, I spend an afternoon with Sigrídur Magnúsdóttir, Andrea Halldorsdottir and Eva Gunnbjornsdottir. When I ask which women’s issues upset them most Eva, 31, a postgraduate student, plumps for the pay gap, while Sigrídur and Andrea talk passionately about the problem of sexual violence. “If I could change one thing,” says Sigrídur, 35, an office cleaner, “it would be the sexual crimes against children and women. Men will have to fight for themselves.” Andrea, 27, a music teacher, says even in cases where someone is raped and almost left for dead, the reported punishment seems shockingly low.

I talk to Gudrun Jónsdóttir, a veteran feminist campaigner in Iceland, who works for Stígamót, a counselling organisation for victims of sexual violence. She says the country is certainly “a paradise of gender equality on paper”, but that the reality doesn’t quite match. Each year, Stígamót and the rape crisis unit at Reykjavik hospital work with around 250 women “but we can count the annual rape sentences on one woman’s fingers”.

She says there is still a huge problem with people’s attitudes, “within the justice system, among the public, and with the women who come to our place, who are filled with shame and guilt”. Last year the head of the city’s sex crime division, Björgvin Björgvinsson, resigned from that position after a newspaper interview in which he said many rape victims had been drinking or taking drugs, and therefore bore some responsibility for being assaulted. In November 2010, he was reinstated.

So Iceland isn’t perfect, but there seems to be the public pressure and political will to tackle its problems. The prime minister tells me the country has “a very strong and vocal women’s movement, which keeps gender equality at the forefront of the debate. The movement has held the political system accountable to a degree where we can say that no politician who wants to be taken seriously can ignore the issue.”

In its two and a half years in power, the government – a coalition of social democrats and left-greens – has been impressively active. It has criminalised the purchase of sex, introduced an action plan on the trafficking of women, and banned all strip clubs. When it comes to domestic violence, Katrin tells me, they have moved towards “the Austrian way”, in which whoever committed the violence has to leave the home, rather than the victim going to a refuge. They have also introduced a law to take force in 2013, obliging corporations to have at least 40% of each gender on their boards.

Iceland has a history of progressive female politicians. Vigdís Finnbogadóttir, the country’s president from 1980 to 1996, was the world’s first democratically elected female head of state. At the time of her initial victory, the number of female politicians in the country was very low – just 5% of MPs – and so in 1983 the Women’s Alliance was formed, an explicitly feminist party, which at its highest point, in 1987, held six seats, out of a total of 63. They fought for better wages for women, and, says Thorunn, who was a member, “spent the 1980s talking about all the taboos – rape, incest, domestic violence, putting in place legislation to protect women and children. All those issues are mainstream now, but it took a lot of courage.”

In 1994, Ingibjörg Sólrún Gísladóttir, who had been a politician with the Women’s Alliance for more than a decade, became mayor of Reykjavik, a position she held until 2003. And in 2009, after the financial crisis, and at a time when the country was questioning the values that had led them there – risk-taking and bravado, for example, which many defined as specifically masculine – there was much talk of women cleaning up the mess. Women were appointed to lead two of the disgraced banks, New Landsbanki and New Glitnir, and Jóhanna Sigurdardóttir became Iceland’s first female prime minister. I ask Gudrun Jónsdóttir whether she thinks Jóhanna is a feminist, and she says: “Perhaps not primarily – she comes from the labour movement, she was a flight stewardess – but she’s been around in politics for decades and has a great personal respect for the movement. Through the years she has supported our work as well as she can, and we really feel she is in our corner.”

This support for feminism is not exclusive to the country’s female politicians. This fortnight’s copy of the Reykjavik Grapevine, an English-language paper, features an interview with the city’s current mayor, Jón Gnarr. He and his party of artists and comedians – pithily called the Best party – describe themselves as “anarcho-surrealists” and were voted in last year, apparently on a tide of public animosity towards the country’s establishment. But when he talks about women, as he does at length, he sounds serious. “I believe a healthy society must build equally on the forces of men and women,” he says in the interview. “Our culture is  just insanely male dominated, and we as a party wish to confront and change that.”

Jóhanna is the world’s first openly gay prime minister, while Vigdís, who seems universally beloved, was famously a single mother. Single motherhood isn’t unusual in politics here; Katrin had her first child at 23, and raised him alone for 11 years, while building an impressive career. Parents here talk strongly of community support, of collective care for children, and there is no sense that motherhood precludes work or study, which effectively changes the whole structure of women’s lives. “You are not forced to organise your life in the ‘college-work-maybe children later’ way,” says Thorunn, who is a single mother to a young daughter. Andrea says when she had her first child, on her own, at 19, she took him with her to school, “and the teacher would hold him while I was studying”.

Joanna Dominiczak, a teacher and chair of the Women of Multicultural Ethnicity Network, says that “having a child here is seen as a gift. You don’t have to think, Oh my God, am I going to be able to afford one, two, or three?” The country has progressive rights regarding parental leaveafter a child is born, with “the mother having three months, which is untransferable,” says Joanna, “the father having the same, and then the parents having three months they can share.” This sets up the importance of both parents from the start, and skewers the discrimination endemic in many societies, including the UK, where women of child-bearing age are less likely to get jobs for fear they might at some point need maternity leave. (If companies chose to discriminate against both men and women of child-bearing age it would rule out most of the workforce.)

Sigrídur, Eva and Andrea are all single mothers, and while they have some grumbles, all are positive about the nurseries and schools their children attend. Annadís Rudolfsdóttir, studies director of the gender equality studies and training programme hosted by the University of Iceland, lived in the UK until recently, and says it’s much easier to be a mother in Iceland. “It costs a fortune to put your children in a nursery in the UK,” she says, “but here, as a single mother in Reykjavik, with your child in a nursery eight hours a day, you pay about £70 a month … If you’re part of a couple, married or co-habiting, it’s about £118 a month. You can imagine how much easier it is when you’ve got those facilities behind you.” That includes breakfast and lunch. (It was recently reported that 32,000 women left their jobs in the UK last year, in large part due tothe rising cost of childcare.)

There is a distinctive confidence to Icelandic women; it’s been suggested their independence was forged through centuries of watching their male partners head off to sea, while they dealt with everything on land. Whether there’s any truth in this, they certainly seem to have an innate toughness. When I ask a young woman in a sandwich shop if she believes Iceland is a feminist country, she says her colleagues have been discussing this, and their conclusion is: “You don’t fuck with Icelandic women.” She narrows her eyes behind her pink vintage glasses.

When I ask about the best aspect of being a woman here, the word that keeps arising is freedom. “You can do whatever you want,” says Andrea, “you can educate yourself to be a pilot, a cop, anything you like.” (In a cosmetics shop, I bump into the country’s first female coastguard.) “We have a prime minister who is a woman, and our president used to be a woman, so we’ve grown up feeling anything is possible.”

Katrin echoes this. “I’ve always had this freedom, as a woman in Iceland, making choices for me and my family, on my own terms. You’re supported if you want more education, if you want to work. You could say we are quite a liberal nation.” She looks out of the window, where the rain is still battering the building. “I love this weather,” she sighs happily.

News Link

International Herald Tribune – Motherhood as a Retreat From Equality

August 25, 2011 in Articles

* Photo from http://www.babycaredaily.com

August 23, 2011 | By Katrin Bennhold

OSNABRÜCK, GERMANY — Playgrounds can tell you a lot about a society.

I used to cycle to work through the Square des Batignolles, our local park in western Paris, and was always struck by the almost uniform ethnic segregation: mostly white toddlers chasing each other and their caregivers, brightly clad West African women chatting away on the benches rimming the sandpit. On those same benches on Sunday afternoons, I would socialize with other young, professional French mothers.

Here in Germany, the only adults populating playgrounds on any day of the week appeared to be mothers — often mothers with a university education who not long ago earned a respectable income.

Of the several social insights to be gleaned from this comparison, one is surely this: French mothers work, and many of them full-time.

The nanny culture seen in Paris is by no means unique. Indeed, in places like New York City and London, where the system of state child care is generally less developed than in France, nannies are also a common sight.

What is striking is that in Germany, Europe’s biggest economy, that nanny culture barely exists. Only 14 percent of women return to full-time work after having one child, and only 6 percent after Baby No. 2.

In France, where about 60 percent of mothers with young children work, two-thirds of two-income families employ a nanny, according to the national statistics office, Insee.

“I could not leave my children with a stranger at this age,” Jutta Funke said as we watched our 2-year-olds get covered in mud on a playground in this northwestern town where I grew up.

When she heard that I planned to resume full-time work within six months of having my second child, handing the care of two daughters to a nanny in London for 50 hours a week, she was polite but clearly disapproved.

Jutta is 34. She has a business degree and worked for an advertising agency in Hamburg for seven years, steadily climbing the ranks before meeting her husband, Horst.

When Horst, a doctor, was offered a job near Osnabrück, Jutta followed him. And when she didn’t immediately find work, she decided to have a baby. Next year, perhaps, she will look for a part-time job.

Does she mind being financially dependent on her husband? Putting her professional life second to his? “I don’t think about it that way,” she said. “I put my child first.”

I met several German mothers like Jutta on the playground and was torn between sympathy and impatience.

Most of them grew up with education and ambitions similar to mine: combining children with career and sharing family responsibilities with the partner. They all think of themselves as equals to their husbands. In practice, the roles they have assumed still bear a striking resemblance to those of their mothers, who had a much narrower set of opportunities and rights at their disposal.

Working mothers still face more stigma in Germany than in many other Western countries. A Teutonic mother cult infamously celebrated by the Nazis was institutionalized by successive postwar governments in West Germany. Even now, half-day schools are the norm, and the tax system rewards unequal earnings between spouses.

Things have begun to change: A fifth of German schools now offer full-day programs, and more are signing up. Mothers can share 14 months of paid parental leave with fathers.

Yet the shockingly low number of day care places in Western Germany is increasing only at snail’s pace, despite a 2013 deadline to give all year-old toddlers the legal right to a nursery place.

Why have politicians felt free to drag their feet on improving child care infrastructure? Why does the average Western German mother work only 25 hours a week 10 years after the birth of her last child? Why do only 19 percent of German couples with children both work full-time, compared with 42 percent in France?

Bascha Mika, author of a controversial best-selling book, “The Cowardice of Women,” published in Germany this year, thinks women have largely themselves to blame. According to her, they aren’t putting enough pressure on politicians, are failing to negotiate equal terms in relationships and often voluntarily retreat into a traditional mother role that spares them other hard questions about identity and purpose in life.

It’s a risky strategy at a time when the economic crisis is putting male jobs and incomes at risk, when increasing longevity means bringing up children is only a passing phase in a woman’s life and when divorce rates are high. Even if childcare eats up all of the female income, there is a long-term pay-off to staying in the labor market.

“What’s the matter with us?” Ms. Mika asks German women. “Don’t we want to be free and equal?”

“We are collaborating with a system that reduces us to motherhood,” she writes. “We voluntarily choose to be powerless and adjust to self-inflicted victimhood. That’s cowardice.”

Whether the term “cowardice” helps anyone more than Bertelsmann, Ms. Mika’s publisher, is questionable. The power of tradition and lack of comprehensive state child care are strong barriers to effective gender equality.

But Ms. Mika, herself Polish-born and childless, has made a useful contribution to the protracted debate about women’s advancement in Germany by posing some uncomfortable questions about the implications of being emancipated in the 21st century.

Why do we insist on spending ridiculous amounts of money on our looks, all the way up to elective plastic surgery? Why do we still draw so much of our self-confidence from having a husband and a baby? Indeed, why do young professionals often obsess about being that elusive “perfect” mother?

Yes, women are fundamentally different from men: they give birth. So one answer is that they have different priorities and are making choices that make them happy. Another is that their freedom to choose remains somewhat illusory.

Opening up that freedom of choice may hinge less on bringing a nanny culture to places like Germany and more a social contract involving parents, business and government in altering the work-life balance.

One country where you wouldn’t find nannies on playgrounds is Sweden. But that’s not because parents worry about leaving offspring with “strangers”; most Swedish toddlers are in subsidized preschools, and most parents finish their jobs in time to pick them up.

With 21st-century reach-everyone-anytime technology, might we not rethink child-unfriendly work hours? In the process, more of Ms. Mika’s “cowardly” mothers might hang on to their careers.

News Link