Dear Reader,

As we continue to observe Canada's Women's History Month, did you know that Person's Day occurred this week, marking the anniversary of women being included in the legal definition of “persons”? Prior to October 18, 1929, the British North America Act "used the word 'persons' when referring to more than one person and 'he' when referring to one person. Many argued the Act implicitly stated that only a man could be a person, which prevented women from participating fully in politics or affairs of state."

It was not until 1929 that the highest court of Canada decided, "The exclusion of women from all public offices is a relic of days more barbarous than ours. And to those who would ask why the word ‘person’ should include females, the obvious answer is, why should it not?"

Of course, the white male judges did not allow all women to be "persons". Barbarous thinking was apparently appropriate when it came to Indigenous women, Asian women, and others.

For white women, it was a victory that supposedly made them equal to men under the law.

Flash forward to 2022 when even Indigenous and non-white women are legally equal to men, we see that equality is an excuse for inequity when it comes to how women and men are treated in the workplace. The very differences that make women women are ignored, almost as if saying to women, "You wanted equality? Then act like men."

A few examples for you:

• Forcing birth mothers to accept temporary unpaid unemployment during their recovery/nursing/infant care
• Discrediting reproductive diseases and health issues (period pain, menopause, etc.) as valid needs for paid sick time, insurance coverage, etc.
• Dismissing the benefits of non-medical treatments in preventative health care, such as yoga, mindfulness, massage, and diet, traditionally considered recreational or women's indulgences, leaving women to bear the high financial costs individually
• Discounting the value and experience of caregiving in the workplace
• Expecting women to speak, act, and dress like men to be credible, professional and managerial
• Simultaneously expecting women to be feminine, attractive, gentler (less aggressive) than men

This is why I continue to say equity and inclusion lead to diversity as an outcome. Diversity alone could mean a 50/50 workplace of women and men. But without equity and inclusion, in our present environment, women will only be accepted if they conform to standards and practices that were set by men for men. The goal is equal status which differs from equal treatment.

And yes, I know all this comes at a cost to the employer. Believe me I know, as a former VP Finance and HR Director who was constantly told "but we don't have the budget for that". But if companies genuinely want to elevate women to have equal status, equal pay, and equal opportunities as men, they will have to invest significantly more in women employees - i.e. treat them unequally.

Currently, women are either 1) not equal to men, and/or 2) bearing the cost of equality themselves (both financial and non-financial, e.g. loss of self-identity, family relationships, etc.)

So for companies to put their money, time, and energy where their mouths are, they will have to act sacrificially in order to achieve equality.

My latest article, The Social Balance Sheet, explores the capitalist and discriminatory reasons behind corporate resistance to this call, as well as some ideas for women-centered employer investment.

(By the way, I recognize this newsletter only covers two gender identities, and I speak to this in the article.)

Whatever gender identity you hold, I'm curious what your reaction is to this newsletter and the article. How close do you think corporations are to gender equality in 2022? What would you like to see change? I'd love to hear your thoughts by responding to this email, or commenting/DM'ing on LinkedIn or Instagram (links below).

​

Reader, thanks for being part of the Changing Lenses community!
​

Warmly,

Rosie

​

Follow me on:

​

FEATURED ARTICLE

​The Social Balance Sheet:​

​Are Your Employees Assets or Expenses?​

Capitalism: when we treat property better than we treat people.

There was a time when businesses wanted women to have babies. They recognized that when women staff become mothers, it’s good for the economy because every newborn adds to the workforce of the future. In fact, women were encouraged to get pregnant and have as many babies as possible. When was this liberal, open-minded time in our history? The U.S. Antebellum Period, noted for the thriving wealth of the U.S. South - and SLAVERY.

​

COACHING FOR RACIALIZED WOMEN

LIMITED SPOTS REMAINING!

If you haven't already enrolled, there are only a few spots remaining in the Free Your Mind group coaching program for racialized women and the Free to Be Mastermind for Asian women. Last day to enroll is next Thursday, October 27, so don't wait to grab your seat!

Details and enrollment through the links below.

​

THE OVEREMPLOYMENT CONTROVERSY: A LINKEDIN LIVE CONVERSATION

​

So…have you heard of this?

Overemployment is kinda the new Quiet Quitting.

​Companies are firing a ton of people who they’re saying acted “unethically” and “against company policies” by holding two jobs simultaneously. Hence, “overemployed”.

​One CEO even proudly posted on LinkedIn how his “great managers…sniffed them out very quickly”, and labelled the terminated employees “thieves” and “bad actors”.

The CEO paints a one-sided picture of lazy, irresponsible employees who “stole” from the company, the shareholders, and colleagues because “they were looking for just an extra stream of income without really doing much work.”

In no way do I condone lying to employers or reneging on the employee’s responsibility to meet commitments and complete work deliverables.

Neither do I believe the situation is nearly as straightforward these companies are claiming.

There’s a LOT to unpack here, so Tracy Borreson and I are hosting “The Overemployment Controversy Conversation” this Friday Oct 21 at 2:00 pm EDT on LinkedIn.

Please join us for what should be a very spirited and interesting discussion (I can already feel myself getting triggered 😂).

​

SUPPORT CHANGING LENSES

And you can grow our JEDI community by sharing this newsletter

Have feedback or questions? Want to connect? Me too! You can reach me via: