Business Dictating when to have a Family

You can tell a lot by an organisation by the perks and incentives it offers its employees. Only a few weeks ago, Virgin announced a very generous perk of unlimited leave*.

I heard today that both Apple and Facebook are adding to the ‘perks’ of working at their companies, the option to freeze women’s eggs.

Of course it is offensive when the choice of a woman (or a man) is taken away or even hinted at.   

However, it’s not the freezing part, that annoys me about this.  It’s the fact that organisations still don’t think about structuring their work in family friendly ways.

Giving women the option (and even hinting) to defer having a family is a band aid solution as opposed to acknowledging the structural issues.  What about the extra assistance parents need in order to work? Where is the childcare close to or at the office? How do you engage parents in business goings-on while on parental leave?

I guess it is cheaper to freeze their eggs than to restructure the business and culture.  

*I am sure there are T’s & C’s attached to this, however, I don’t know too much detail.

Source:

http://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2014/oct/14/apple-facebook-pay-women-employees-freeze-eggs

Art Naming

I’ve often wondered while strolling through an art gallery, how some of the art pieces get their name.

Do the artists name it? Is it something that needs to be easily translatable?

Sure, there are some more interesting names for some art works but most of the time, I find their names very literal and straight to the point.

Haystacks - Claude Monet

Woman in front of Van Gough's Sunflowers - Isaac Israels

The Thinker - Auguste Rodin

Is there a naming convention they must adhere to?

The word ‘art’ and pieces of art already brings up so many adjective to our minds, so maybe art naming is about the noun?

I know if I was an artist and I painted something, I wouldn’t want it to be so …. literal, and all in English!

This got me thinking, what if we applied this type of 'art naming' to our lives? To our social media posts? The food we eat? It would greatly simplify the complexity in our lives.

Images from Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

Government Hypocrites

Fred Hollows once said "Every eye is an eye".  It's the same for life. Every life is a life.

It's why I find the Australian government very hypocritical at the moment. 

Respect where respect is due, I give kudos to the way that Prime Minister Abbott and Foreign Minister Julie Bishop are stepping up and handling the Malaysian Airlines 17 and Russian Rebels issue. They called on the Rebels to release the bodies back "Operation Bring them Home".  After 4 days, the Rebels are handing them over to where the plane originated in The Netherlands.

However, it is absolutely hypocritical when the government of Australia under "Operation Sovereign Borders", are essentially holding 157 refugees hostage and imprisoned on a shonky boat out at sea.  They've been there 3 weeks.

Awkward & Cliche Travelling

As a traveller, not only do I like to see the off-the-beaten-track stuff, but I also go to see the cliche post card places.  Eiffel Tower, Charles Bridge, London Eye, Sydney Opera House, Times Square.  Can you really say you have been to Paris if you haven't seen the Eiffel Tower?

Visiting the cliche places make me pinch myself.  I get a feeling of disbelief.  Am I actually there?

London - The Shard, The Eye and a Cab

The first 1 or 2 seconds of seeing the site is the OMG moment. Awe-struck, mouth agape, eyes are wide.  Realisation sets in that I am finally at that place, in that city.

When realisation settles in, I want to "scream and shout and let it all out".  It's like an explosion of happiness!!  I'm just so happy and just so cliche.  Everyone else around me is pretty much experiencing the same or has just finished experiencing the same.  All I can do is stare amongst the masses.  I am insignificant, surrounded by an insignificant crowd, watching and staring at the significant.

I don't know what to say apart from being cliche at the cliche.
"It's so much bigger than I thought"
"It's smaller than I thought"
"Wow, look how tall it is"
(Awkwardness generally sets in when you realise even your response is cliche staring at the cliche.)

I was on the Metro when I first saw the Eiffel Tower. It was beautiful, set a few kilometres away amongst the grey buildings, green trees. Picture postcard perfect and I feel that it easily could have been a scene from a movie.  Seeing the White House, it was small, much smaller than I thought, but then it was my perspective of seeing it from many metres away. 


Long after I have returned, watching TV or a movie, when I catch a glimpse of an iconic landmark that I have been to, I know that I have been but was it in a dream? I feel that I was transported into a postcard and was walking around it. 

Loch Ness - So beautiful, but my Nessie made it memorable!

The only time when the awkward and cliche doesn't work is when there is an anomaly or extraordinary event.  When the visit you make to that site, doesn't look like you''re walking through a brochure or movie. Either it is raining or something funny/memorable happens, that's when it is so much more real, it wasn't the perfect atmosphere but it was perfect for you at that time.





Photos taken from:
http://ak7.picdn.net/shutterstock/videos/2614409/preview/stock-footage-aerial-view-of-the-city-of-paris-with-the-eiffel-tower-in-the-distance.jpg
The London Shard/Eye photo and Loch Ness photo were taken by myself earlier this year.

Gone Too Far: Red Carpet Camera

I like looking at what the celebrities wear.  Glamorous, sparkly dresses, dresses I would only dream of wearing.  Gucci, Pucci, Dior and more.

All the celebrity reporters do it, however, today the team at E! took it a bit too far at the SAG awards. 30 seconds into the interview, the camera's that pan-down, focus on the dress, cutting out her head.   She then bends down (a-la, my face is up here, not down there) and tells off the camera man that nothing special is down there and if he does that to the men walking down the red carpet.

Who wore it best? Cate with a head? or Cate without her head? 

 

               

Now kudos to E! for publishing the story themselves, however, don't forget, its the person that really "wears" the dress or suite.  It's their smile, confidence and a certain je ne sais quoi.


Story from: 
http://au.eonline.com/news/501154/cate-blanchett-calls-out-e-s-red-carpet-glam-cam-at-2014-sag-awards-what-do-you-think-is-happening-down-there

http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/2014/01/cate-blanchett-wins-the-sag-awards-2014-red-carpet---gif.html

Image from:
http://www.thequeenofstyle.com/quee/2014/01/go-ahead-copy-cate-blanchetts-sag-awards-hairstyle.html

What Jackie Saw

A picture paints a thousand words, in this case, a series of photos.  It's been plastered all over our media this week.  The moments leading up to and immediately after President John F. Kennedy was shot. For many people this moment and this footage will be etched into our memory.
 

However, what sticks with me isn't necessarily picked up by the camera.  It is the sheer terror of what Jackie would have seen and gone through in the immediate seconds after her husband was shot.  You wouldn't  wish that on anyone.  From what we know of the extent of his injuries, there really would be no hope that he would have survived something like that and I guess at that time, so would have she.

One minute he is sitting there waving to passers-by, the next minute, he's keeled over, blood everywhere and a good chunk of his head is gone.  The car is still moving, there is no one immediately there to help. At the same time, it dawns on you that your own survival is at stake, so you try to escape over the back of the car.

The sheer terror of going through something like that.  To see body parts of a loved one that should be well hidden.  The conundrum of fight or flight.  Adrenaline kicking in with shock and wanting to know what has just happened?

It's a lovely day, of course a drive in a convertible is a good idea. You're with your husband, the American people are out to see their President.  Who would have thought what happened, happened.



Picture from: 
http://media.smithsonianmag.com/images/zapruder-jfk-assassination-631.jpg

The Super Paradox

Women, generally speaking, will be out of the workforce for a few years due to caring needs placed upon us from raising children and for looking after frail parents. Superannuation earnings could be short by $232,500 because of time out of the workforce.

Women who are generally the primary carers, are disadvantaged providing a service to society by not earning, let alone not having additional super contributions made^.

Women, on average, have a longer life expectancy than men. Retirement is at 65, however, with a women’s life expectancy at 83, we’re living on average 13 years without income, relying upon superannuation.

Considering, there isn’t enough super accrued for women, there will be a strain put on the demand for the government funded pension.

Demands on the pension also strain our health care system as pensioners cannot afford private health insurance.

Solution, women will have to work well past the retirement age.

However, who will hire an employee over 60 and at their appropriate skill and qualification level?

References:

http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/a-million-in-super-wont-be-enough-20130923-2u978.html

http://www.theage.com.au/money/super-and-funds/women-treated-as-secondclass--citizens-20130702-2p8vw.html

^ - The Labor government under Gillard introduces a ‘Low Income Superannuation Contribution’ for people earning up to $37,000/year.

http://ministers.treasury.gov.au/DisplayDocs.aspx?doc=pressreleases/2013/045.htm&pageID=003&min=brs&Year=&DocType=0