The Patriarchal Dividend

My first feminist piece of writing! Yay!

Warning: Stats ahoy!

Although Australia was one of the first nations not only to afford women the vote, but also to allow them to stand for public office, contemporary Australian society is still suffering at the hands of the so called “patriarchal dividend”. Leaps and bounds have been made from the days where it was enshrined in law that women were to give up their jobs once married, however for the patriarchal dividend to truly fade into obscurity, institutions such as the state, corporations and the media must instigate decisive change. Participation of women in the workforce has risen significantly since the 1960’s yet a wage gap persists, as does discourse labelling women as primary caregivers to children. Supplementary to this issue is that of childcare and the government’s role in ensuring it is both accessible and affordable. The assurance of this care allows women, whether mothers or not, the opportunity to full participate in public life. In electing a female Prime Minister for the first time, the Australian public has demonstrated their faith in women to perform public duties and no doubt ordinary Australian women take stock in this. This advancement has been supported by women holding many high offices across the country. Despite this surge in powerful women in public roles in Australia, there is much more to be done to combat violence and sexual violence against women in this country.

To properly engage in a nuanced discussion of the “patriarchal dividend” it is necessary to define the term and its current status in Australian society. Raewyn Connel succinctly defines the patriarchal dividend as “the advantage to men as a group from maintaining an unequal gender order”. She supplements this explanation by shedding light on the institutions our society is founded on and how simply, their everyday operations work to defend the patriarchal order. How these institutions and indeed societies across the world came to view maleness and masculinity as the default way of being is beyond the scope of this essay, but what is not, is an examination of institutions and how either their actions or inactions work to demolish the patriarchal dividend.

In a free market capitalist society such as Australia, in a nation that prides itself on phenomena such as the labour movement, the ombudsman and anti-discrimination laws, one would expect that gender or sex distinction would be of little to no consequence to corporations. Yet, the fact remains that Australian women earn 17.5% less than men. It is a startling and damning figure, and what is even more shocking is that since 2004, when we reached a peak low in the wage gap (14.9%), it has risen again. To fully understand the figure, an analysis of the labour market is required.

We need to understand the type of work that women do, and the implications of this work. In the Health Care and Social Assistance sector, 79% of employees are women, or in other words 120,000 out of 150,000 are women. With this figure, we can start to piece together some theories of gender. As Kate Millett suggests, “passivity” and “domestic service” form part of the gendering of women, and that upon acceptance of women into the labour market, they were assigned to roles that support the discourse of “femininity” in society. Men dominate industries such as mining and construction, where traits such as “aggression” and “force” could be seen as valuable. Even the Minister for Workplace Relations in November 2011 acknowledged that “workers in this sector have been underpaid for too long because their work was viewed as women’s work.” This statement is an indictment on the nation of Australia and crystallises the notion that traits associated with women such as empathy and a nurturing and caring demeanour are held in contempt when compared to masculine traits such as competitiveness and assertiveness. We can see through the Minister’s statement that a patriarchal dividend is still very much alive and well, even if some work is being done to close the wage gap.

The health and social assistance sector is one of the lowest paid in Australia, in direct opposition to mining, which actually garners $237.2 billion dollars in revenue to the economy. Fair Work Australia has found that workers in the health and social assistance sector have been undervalued because of gender considerations. The Health Services Union has recently negotiated a 2.5% pay increase for its workers and although it is a positive step, it is merely a drop in the large ocean of inequalities that still exist for women in the workplace.  According to EOWA, up to 48% of cases in which women are being paid less than men are unexplained. One can um and ah over the reasons behind this black hole in the statistics but if one accepts the premise that masculine characteristics are more highly valued than their feminine counterparts, a picture of the patriarchal dividend begins to emerge.

As Anne Summers points out in her book The End of Equality, up to 32% of the 500,000 women who would like to return to work but cannot, label inadequate or unaffordable childcare as a barrier to them returning to employment. This statistic points out that women are still expected to take on primary caregiving roles. It also illuminates the idea that to “combine a satisfying and productive economic life” women are forced to overcome the obstacles of finding care for their children, taking time off work or having to give up employment all together if a suitable compromise cannot be made. Men have no such obstacles. Even though it is illegal in Australia to discriminate on the basis of pregnancy, in 2001 212 women made formal complaints under the Sexual Discrimination Act and a further 500 telephoned the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to check their rights.

The current Gillard Government has moved to allow mothers more mobility in regards to their career. The Childcare Benefit can pay up to $195 a week to parents who work. They are also able to claim a rebate of up to 50% of out of pocket childcare expenses. The government has also introduced the Paid Parental Leave scheme which entitles all primary caregivers, (which, disappointingly on the Human Services websites says “usually the mother”) to 18 weeks paid leave at the national minimum wage. These economic policies are productive steps in recognizing the sacrifice many women have to make and helpful in closing the gap between men and women and their success in the workplace.

Although the legitimacy of her gaining the Prime Ministership continues to be debated, Julia Gillard’s appointment as the first female Prime Minister of the nation in 2010 looked set to steamroll notions about Australian politics. In 2003, only two women formed part of the coalition’s 17 person cabinet. In 2012, that number has increased (if only slightly) to five under Gillard’s government. What is astounding however, is that the three highest offices in the land, those of Head of State, Governor General and Prime Minister are all held by women. Anna Burke has been appointed Speaker of the House of Representatives, another prestigious position. The highest legal office in the land, that of Attorney General has recently been awarded to Nicola Roxon. These appointments would appear to support a deconstruction of the patriarchal dividend in politics and the normalization of women in public office, rather than a token gesture. Upon further examination of the numbers however, only 37 out of the 150 seats in the House of Representatives are held by women – a meagre 25%. The Senate doesn't perform much better with 37% of senators being women. One only needs to hear certain politicians speak of “what the housewives of Australia need to understand as they do the ironing” among other gendered insults to understand that Australian federal politics remains hostile to women.  If there is not equal representation for half the population, and following from that women’s issues are never seen as wholly important as men’s – how can we ever claim the disappearance of the  patriarchal dividend?

One issue that does affect women and is pervasive though society is that of domestic and sexual violence. According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, in 2007, the highest number of sexual assaults was recorded, at 19,781. This equates to almost 60 assaults a day. And these statistics are merely the numbers that are reported. The institute states that gender of the victims cannot be released as the research is “incomplete” however taking statistics from elsewhere shows that six to nine percent of women over 18 are assaulted each year. We can therefore assume that most sexual assault victims are female. Women live under the threat of violence and assault, and this has a devastating effect on their health and well being. VicHealth has estimated that violence is the leading cause of health burden in women. The reality is that women live in a world where violence towards them is acceptable – most violence towards women is perpetrated by either an intimate partner or a male person known to the woman. One-quarter (24% of women) have experienced unwanted sexual touching over their lifetime. There are likely a myriad of reasons as to why women are targeted in this way, however it is beyond the scope of this essay. What is not, are the numbers. They are damning and an indictment on the nation. They show that men use violence as a tool of power over women and that women are not privileged to assume safety, not even in their own homes, where most violent attacks take place. Violence can, and should, be eradicated, and to be plain, as long as women fear men, the patriarchal dividend will be prevalent.

This essay has shown that there are a number of factors that point to the prevalence of the patriarchal dividend in Australian contemporary society. The socialization of boys to become men tells them that aggression and assertiveness is valued and this essay has attempted to draw links between this attitude and men’s success in the workplace. It has also discussed the implications of labelling work sectors as “women’s work” and how that affects the wage gap in Australia. It has also considered the importance of public policy in defending  women’s opportunities in the workplace, whether they choose to become mothers or not. Representation of women in politics was also discussed and conclusions drawn that even though women now hold positions of high power, more must be done to increase representation of women so that women’s issues lose that label and become simply “issues”. Saddening statistics of violence against women also supported the idea that the patriarchal dividend is persisting – emphasizing that women cannot exercise their full citizenship because their personal safety is not guaranteed. Overall, although institutions, especially governments, are aiding the plight of women, in 2012, the patriarchal dividend persists.