 but I'm the convener of the ANU Gender Institute and I'm really delighted to welcome you here to this conversation today and I'll be introducing our guests who you no doubt have read about on the website Flyer but I thought it would be nice given the Gender Institute is a cross campus institute to just let Jenny and Joan know in the room the breadth of your interests today and also to help me in our in the questioning framework so could we just go around and introduce ourselves to everybody and okay may I see if you can say Hi my name is O.K. Wayne I'm from the Aggression Off Worker I'm Janet Hadley-Williams and I'm from English College of Arts and Social Sciences I'm Alison Bella from University of Canberra Joan Betros from the School of History I'm Lasse Mullen, PhD student at politics I'm Desmond and I'm based here but also appointed in the Humanities and Social Sciences I'm Margie Roe from the ANU College of Law I'm Dorota, do you want to introduce yourself? I'm Stora Roe from the ANU College of Law I'm Heidi-Ann Holmes and also from the College of Law I'm Mary Ackins, I'm also from the Department of Law I'm Natalie Dawson I'm Rachel Bell, I'm from the National Association of Education We'll go to the back first Thank you Peter, please end I'm Edward and I'm from the College of Law and Edward and Edward is from the College of Law I'm Dylan, I'm from the College of Law and I'm Peter Bell from UNSW in Canberra And Ron Lee, just walks in Alright, so I'm sure there'll be others who trickle in but we won't do a don't end their average and get them to introduce themselves at a later arrival but I'm really delighted to be welcoming Professor Jenny Nadelewski and Professor George Carrance here today I want to first acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which we're meeting and pay our respects to Elders past and present I'd also like to thank the Australian Catholic University for essentially enabling us to bring Jo and Jenny across because at this stage we wouldn't have been able to fund you all the way from Toronto but thankfully they are having a stint at ACU this year and it's not the first visit they are now professorial fellows in the Institute for Social Justice at ACU and that means that they're in Australia for a period of time which enabled us to cover their costs to come and spend some time here in Canberra and I hope that this will be the first of an ongoing relationship in the sustaining of this particular framework and we decided to do this in the context of the ANU Gender Institute both because of Jenny's work which will be concentrating on but also both because the fact that Jo and Jenny are married and have navigated some of the issues that are relevant to Jenny's work and relevant to all of us as human beings in terms of the work of life balance that I thought that we could have as an insight and I think that Jo's research work in terms of social justice has overlay of course in terms of I think normative issues so I want to also say that Edward's noises are not going to be too distracting so don't worry too much in incorporating these principles it's part of actually accepting that this is also a norm of our life that we want to embrace so speaking about norms I thought I would begin the conversation the way I'm thinking of structuring it it's really starting to speak with Jenny first in relation to her work and the projects then moving to Jo I feel a bit like Michael Parkinson for those of you who didn't watch some of his interviews and then to come back to both of them in the third part of the conversation about that latter aspect and then give time to questions as well because there are a lot of people who through work life balance are not able to be here at this moment and hopefully they will enjoy this as a recording afterwards and be able to contact you independently by virtue of the wonderful internet system to be able to continue a conversation but Jenny talking about norms is really essential to your project so I wonder if you could tell us how that is relevant to what you're working on okay so my project is driven now by a sense that our current norms about work and care are tremendously destructive they create problems of what passes for the language of work family balance, failed balance they also generate consistent and persistent inequality for everyone who does care women are most obvious but they're not the only categories of people who are disadvantaged our whole structure of care is organized around hierarchies of disadvantage and last our norms of work and care mean that our policy makers generally high level policy makers generally have no first hand a very little first hand experience of care and I want to say that that makes them ignorant of a core dimension of human life and therefore unfit for their jobs so I have a solution to this problem which is not in the first instance a legal solution but a change of norms and so the expectation would be that as some of you heard me say before nobody does paid work more than 30 hours a week everybody does some paid work minimum of 12 and everybody no exceptions does unpaid care work also between 12 and 30 hours a week so that's the basic frame the resonating of the lack of knowledge by virtue of not having done care work actually resonates with a discussion that I just heard on the radio the other day in terms of the changes in board memberships there's a lot of attention in the public sphere about the gender balance on boards and there was a discussion that Woolworth which is a large supermarket chain it's the same in Canada but a retail food produce is the first board to have more women than men on the board and the recognition that earlier boards of Woolworth had men who had never gone into a supermarket and had never had to push the trolley around Zoota and it resonates I guess with the notion of life experience being so fundamental to the ways in which we see power being played out in society and I think it's I have kind of two claims that are part of this the first is I think with well your point it's both of them one is that there are many many policy areas where one needs to have some sense of the centrality of care work to come with Robin so that's the first part but the second part is that the only way to get the kind of knowledge you need is through experience it's not going to be enough to get somebody a policy memo or talk to your mother or talk to your sister you actually have to do it so it's a combination of a claim about experiential knowledge which at least in North America is a big buzzword for professional education, legal education but not necessarily with full depth than I have in mind so it's both you need to know about care you need to know what matters not just why it's economically important so feminist economists have done a tremendous job showing us that we couldn't survive, we couldn't function as a society without the unpaid care labor but the problem with that side of it is that it casts care as a burden mostly and I want to insist of course it is a burden under our current arrangements but it's also a tremendous benefit and so part of what I'm trying to do is to bring both of those things into focus I've got the benefit of some of the drafts of this work and early on you say that the project is building on the work of Nancy Frazer I'm wondering if you could share with people how that is okay so some of you will know Nancy Frazer's wonderful piece after the family wage where she lays out kind of different models she thinks of the North American model as basically the universal breadwinner winner so women should become like men basically and in some ways I was inspired to really go forward in this project when I was at a panel at the American political science meetings on care in Asia and Latin America and I was really shocked to find out how much this model that the path to gender equality is full time employment for women is spreading across the world and how is that going to work it's by hiring poorer women from somewhere else to come in and do the care work and this you know the expansion of what seems to mean such a dramatically failed model I found really disturbing and I thought it was very important to offer an alternative but so that's the universal breadwinner model and she posits an alternative which is you try to make sure that those who do the care work are not disadvantaged so you have a division still offered a gender division but you try to respond to the disadvantages so that you protect the caregivers and she has criteria of equality basically equality in democracy and she says neither model can meet them and we need instead a universal caregiver everybody becomes a caregiver so that was a kind of early intellectual inspiration but I think in some ways the more powerful inspiration was thinking from the time I first had my own kids about how unsustainable the current arrangements are and you know my kids are now 26 and 29 and I look at my young colleagues, my young women colleagues at my faculty of law and I don't think life is any better for them 30 years later and that's an incredibly depressing state of affairs how does it make him and I haven't asked you this in advance with Anne Marie Slaughter's interventions so I think so I have a positive and a negative thing to say on the one hand I think they're very important because they bring a lot of attention and also they lean in that's a big, I don't know so that's a big thing here too so we should probably say Anne Marie Slaughter was working in the White House she worked for Secretary Clinton when she was Secretary of State and she had children of her own who were living in Princeton, New Jersey and she was commuting to Washington to do this and so the positive side is you know the title sort of positive side, the title of the big article in the Atlantic was women's delicate have it all but it's a mistake to think that even with a sympathetic employer as she depicts Secretary Clinton it's really not possible to function at that very high level and sustain family if there are high demands in the family and so I think she is recommending that we transform work to be more flexible around the demands of family but I think it doesn't go far enough it's more about how to recognize different life stages and life cycle I think my project calls for a much more fundamental transformation and I think part of the problem you can't say that the reason we need my project is because nobody recognizes there's work family balance problem everybody recognizes this there's a whole management literature on this which is sort of how to make your employees less miserable without really changing anything and you know at least in the U.S. the New York Times has something kind friends and acquaintances family members send me things from the New York Times and you can get two or three a week that are on work family balance but it's all in my opinion kind of tinkering at the edges it's not talking about fundamental transformation and so I think even Anne-Marie Slaughter about lean in message aren't they're not getting at the fundamental transformation you need and you write about that fundamental transformation involving fundamental norm change could you talk a little bit more about how this fits with democratic deliberation yes so let me just say one I won't tell the whole story but one phrase about norm change so what I have in mind is that today if an adult man is at a cocktail party and he says I'm not interested in that kind of thing that would be embarrassing people would respond with pity or concern or disapproval something so I want that kind of affective normative response to be what happens if that same man says oh I don't do care work you know I'm a really talented highly trained specialized person and I don't waste my time on care and I do work 70 hours a week I really contribute a lot to society that person should be met with oh you know I know a counselor you could see so it could be systematic but it would be a clear sense that this was a transgression this person was not living up to our collective norms of what we expect from responsible competent adults so that's what I mean by norm change I should just say you know in the background on the work side will be a set of legal facilitations that are necessary to protect good part time work to encourage businesses to be creative about generating different kinds of work structures but my primary interest is in these norms I'm so sorry you need a democratic deliberation yes so I think you know there's a huge literature on democratic deliberation but mostly it's aimed at policy that is going to take the form of legislation or administration some kind of legal structure so except for the IR people who do some work on you know international norm transfer which is often you know how you can get the bad cultures to be like the good cultures but at least it's an inquiry into norm change but the democratic deliberation people don't tend to focus on norms and so what I want to do really the purpose of this short and accessible book is to shift the form of the work family balance conversation onto the more fundamental so that there's democratic deliberation in the sense that there was the rise of the second wave of feminism it's happening everywhere playgrounds, coffee shops, classrooms everybody is talking about how do we really how do we really like to organize our lives of work and care and how might we do this that it becomes you know a kind of incredibly ubiquitous subject of conversation so I might hold that there so that we can move on to my thinking shift but stay consistent in terms of thinking about the way we value human beings in our world into a more state oriented sense so from the sort of domestic maybe private realm although the private is another aspect of a discussion that would flow from this discussion into the foreign policy international approach to the way we treat fellow human beings when they're not our own citizens and when they're seeking to move from one nation state to another so interestingly there's an annual lecture he drew called the Alan Martin Lecture in the History School he was an historian here at ANU and last week's lecture was presented by Joy DeMuzzi who is a historian at a Melbourne North School Melbourne University rather not the North School we talked about the changes in the way the depiction of the child migrant had evolved historically system historical work and what was really striking was the move from sympathy to lack of sympathy both in terms of mainly in a governmental sense part of her research is showing that there's still so much public sympathy and desire but that the formal discourse has changed significantly and I was wondering if you could reflect about that to the extent that you've looked at these things historically and the way your work on the values of the nation state in terms of accepting non-citizens and immigrants plays into that perhaps that's really interesting it's not something I thought so what Kim was referring to is I've written a book recently about the ethics of immigration which is attempting to ask what are the normative issues that emerge with respect to immigration and I try to do this at two levels but not historically so there's an interesting set of questions about how things change over time but mine is more analytic and I'm trying to say in the first instance so I'm trying both to think about what's possible in the here and now and the degree to which the principles that you've got are public policies and also about what's and also to stand back and criticize those norms and principles and to think about what's right and get the ideal and how do you move, how do you sustain both forms of reflection without having one undercut the other so so maybe take us through those principles and we can think maybe in relation to them okay so for me in the book anyway the simple way to do that was to start with questions about access to citizenship because this is something that at least states in Australia North America they do a pretty good job so I have a discussion of birthright citizenship and I say that's the reasonable thing to do and it should extend to the children of immigrants so part of the argument there against certain kind of European patterns is to say if you look at the reasons why we make children citizens at birth children who are the children of citizens why do you make somebody a citizen and if you unpack those reasons you find out the same reasons will apply to the children of immigrants who are settled there and so therefore the idea that children who are born and deciding expect to grow up there should get citizenship at birth applies both to the children of citizens and the children of immigrants and that's not so far from existing policy that's just a way of unpacking what is the underlying rationale for an existing practice that actually makes sense and similarly with what rights should people have who are permanent residents so for the most part with some qualifications states in Europe and North America do a pretty good job of that which is to say they give them all the same rights as citizens except for the rights of participating politics and so that's interesting too because it kind of unsettles a conventional idea citizenship is the right to have rights a lot of you probably heard that phrase but actually citizenship isn't the right to have rights lots of people have rights without being citizens very secure firm rights as secure almost as that so that's another way to kind of disrupt the kind of conventional but to see our practices have a normative logic that makes sense then as you start to move to other areas so then I talk about the rights of temporary workers I'm going to skip that that's more mixed then when you get to people who have arrived without the state's permission so irregular like some call them undocumented those that don't like to call them illegal so people have arrived without the state's permission so I make an argument about why they ought to have certain sets of rights as well so now I'm moving a little further away from practice though a little bit away from what Mike was feasible in some context then I try to switch the frame so that whole first part of the book is about not about who should get in but about people who have gotten in one way or another and how they should be treated and the second half the book is about who should get in and again here I do a kind of layered thing I say well let's assume states get to control still they don't have absolute power so what about what are the constraints and everybody recognizes for example you can't any longer discriminate on the face of race, religion that is the same so that discrimination goes on we know that in very subtle forms but nobody announces it so now you guys have to follow up on these things well nobody thinks but it turns out but almost nobody actually thinks that you can announce we can exclude it that's no longer thought to be acceptable in most Donald Trump Donald Trump exactly he used to be able to say nobody and I have Donald Trump who contradicts everything that you thought you couldn't say so and family reunification is another constraint most states recognize some sort of claim about people to that you don't treat people close family ties in quite the same way so they're having a close family tie to somebody who's already present as a citizen or resident but it's much stronger than the normal most states recognize that some degree so again I try to articulate that then I turn the question of refugees and again there I'm working within the framework so the background framework in this whole discussion is states have the right to decide who gets in and the discussion of refugees I think is usefully taken within that same framework because what I call the conventional view because refugees are seen as an exception to that norm the norm is states get to decide who gets in but refugees are an exception because we recognize that they've got a special kind of claim to entry and that's the Geneva Convention and someone recognizes that even though it's in a background context of states get to control entry but here you agree that if somebody shows up on your door and says that I'm a refugee you have to give them a hearing and if they qualify you can't kick them out of course now we've found all these so what that chapter is about so we have that nice sounding it's got the constraint of course that you have to show up but now we've introduced all these mechanisms to prevent people from showing up which I don't have to say in Australia the whole goal is to prevent them from having we say we're going to give you this entitlement and the whole goal is to prevent you from getting access to that entitlement of arriving on the territory and claiming that and that's a subversion of that and the other thing that I try to show lies behind what's problematic with the existing refugee regime is kind of so on the one hand people recognize refugees have special claims and what are those special things well in the first instance it's a claim to a safe place to live but that's okay for six months or a year but it's not okay in the long run so if people can't go back home they should find a new home well who should provide that well nobody wants to talk about that that's what's so striking in Europe today and so on you know they keep them in Turkey well is Turkey supposed to supply these people with these four million Syrian refugees with a new home and why is that Turkey's responsibility Lebanon a quarter of its population Jordan millions of them so there's no that's just not on the table when they say well with their threats we've got to keep them out there's just too many we can't have this burden it seems implausible to me that Turkey Lebanon can take in a quarter of its population but we can't take in the tenth of one percent you know there just isn't a story that people can tell about why that's okay and so nobody talks about it so I try to bring that into visibility but here one of the difficulties with the refugees we start to move into you can see about what's right and what's wrong with the existing arrangements but politically the chances of doing anything about it are small so before we get into this one here so that's just and that's accepting the background framework that states are entitled to control so the final part of the book is about why actually that framework this assumption that we all have that you're entitled to control who gets in is itself problematic and the short version here is this is kind of like feudalism in the middle ages some people are born into nobility some into the pesky right this is the European states this is like being born into nobility lesser nobility and being born into the vast majority of the world is like being born into the pesky so a few cousins get the nobleness and so on but there's this radical division of life chances based on the circumstances of birth and then controls on mobility which was also true in feudalism prevent you from changing those circumstances so nobody today defends feudalism nobody says oh that was a good decision they all think of that oh that was unjust how could they put up with it so you think about the way we've organized the world the world does not naturally organize this way we've organized it so what justifies it and so I say nothing but we have to change it so that again is a kind of ideal theory and it's not a political program it's not something the minister for immigration or justice is about to adopt I know that but still you have to be able to kind of stand back and recognize the possibility of something radically wrong with the way we organize certain worlds and then to try to think about ways of moving in a different direction so that's good so both of you have very small projects at hand here but I just you know for the context in Australia and your discussion it is really interesting if you reflect back as you know the links between citizenship and migration because of course in Australia we have seen that shift away from those fundamental notions like birth in country leading to citizenship that was changed in the 1980s purely because of the fear that it would give immigration advantage to individuals so that all of the questions about citizenship have been framed through immigration policy perspective rather than from broad and normative notions of membership and connection to territory that individuals might have regardless of the flow on and then the other aspect before we move on to the third part is the links with citizenship and the changes in discourse in terms of the protections that citizenship provide and both in Australia and in Canada we've seen these very in my view aggressive changes to legislation which are native of state to strip dual citizens of their citizenship and I'm wondering if you can say a little bit about that in terms of how your work then plays in to that discussion and policy. So there's a principled question which is whether or not people should have dual citizenship and I've got a little discussion book about why they should that the kind of rationale the short version is like this we don't think it's a problem the dual loyalty is the big challenge how can you be loyal to two countries it's not so hard to be loyal to two parents you often have the mother land the bottle which one do you want your mother or your father you have to choose and we don't think that's necessary and the legal technicalities there is now lots of experience with dual citizenship so the legal problems which are imagined to be so great are not very great in practice so I think at the principled level there aren't many people some people when I insist you can only vote in one country or something like that which is okay you can set those sorts of rules but the kind of legal opposition to dual citizenship has largely dissipated it seems to me among scholars. Politically it's clear this is just a symbolic exercise this isn't going to do any good in terms of say it's all about terrorism and it's not going to actually do anything to reduce terrorism it's just it's part of that symbolic politics of defining of them who is not us that's essentially it seems to me what that's about it's important to challenge it but it's not lots of things that there are some philosophically interesting questions or morally interesting questions this is not a hard one morally it's just a hard one politically okay so there are the sort of political worlds in which each of your projects play out will involve lots of changes and aspects but let's move to the personal worlds in the way that we integrate these sort of aspects into our lives and I thought I'd start with you Jenny in terms of the fact that you are on a number of occasions I guess thought about these issues in relation to your own personal life and you have an article about it so perhaps you could tell everybody a little bit about that article and then you'll merge into your life experiences okay so when my first child was born we had just moved to Canada we didn't have family there we didn't have close friends because we'd only been there for a year and and he almost died at birth and so it was all very challenging and demanding and I didn't have tenure and everybody had said I should finish my book which was required for tenure before the baby was born because otherwise I was doomed but I didn't and for me Michael's arrival made me feel grounded in the world in a way that actually made me able to finally write that book that I've been trying to write for many years and so it had the reverse sort of effect on me and I started making notes about this and then I was asked by Sarah Ruddick some of you may know her as theorist in the US she was putting together a book which ultimately was called Mother Troubles about the tensions for feminists around motherhood and so I got a chance to write up this article about my experience and then and actually that article ended with what I think of now as the first piece of the project I'm now doing a reflection on the lowest status of care in our society that both the care itself and the people who do it are denigrated and this is just a profoundly unhealthy relationship to care so I did actually get to write that article and I think the ideas for what I'm doing now are percolating along all the way So now I haven't canvas with Jo and Jenny for my exact question so if you tell me this is you don't want to discuss it you made that choice to have kids how much did you deliberate between you as to what the consequences would be for you and your relationship well you know what I don't think we did deliberate very much we were both, it was a second marriage for both of us Jo actually had a memorable conversation with Jerry Collins who asked Jo well so what about children and Jo said better thinking about it better think fast because I was 40 and Jenny was 37 so that was true 36 so then I was well because we did think fast and we got going so I had my first child when I was 37 and the second one so not quite 37 and the second one not quite 40 so it was more well we better do this so I'm just going to anticipate kind of the next card and then Jo can there's a lot of depressing literature out there that the as they call them in North America the millennial generation actually these young people think they're going to have egalitarian relationships both the men and the women and they get married without expectation they're actually if you look at the income curves these young men and women are very close and then they have a kid and everything collapses and they fall back into gendered roles that neither of them had ever anticipated but I'll say that for us it was the reverse so we had beloved Michael who did survive this traumatic birth but I had to write my book for my job and at that time Jo had just actually gotten a job we found out that he had a job maybe two months before Michael was born so it was all a little fraught so this we didn't wait for the right secure financial arrangements to have a kid because it was too late to do that but so I had to finish my book and I had this new baby and about three, four months old I really started back to work to write the book which I now actually felt unable to write and I had been avoiding it and struggling with it for years but this required that Jo take over a huge amount of childcare I was nursing so I did continue to nurse all the way through I was nursing all the way through almost when the book was finished and that meant that he did a lot of all the all the housework putting Michael to bed at night just a tremendous amount of work so that for us the arrival of a baby actually disrupted the traditional gender norms and Jo when that happened are you able to sort of articulate what the consequence was like what was your response to doing that how that well one thing I should say which is in, Jenny started to share but it's worth emphasizing is that the subtitle of our article is called Delim is a Passionate Privilege and one of the privileges that we had which so many of you requested that we had help so that was a nice story but I didn't actually do all the work we had somebody who was doing a lot well I went back to writing summer and it was another six weeks I think before we actually got ourselves together to get a nanny so I and I should just say that we had organized I kind of shared childcare arrangement with somebody else but then when Michael almost died I thought this baby's not leaving my sight and take care for me this was not an option this baby was going to be home as much as possible I'm violated the deep norms of my law school by moving home and doing all my work at home except showing up to teach and make the students so that I was physically around Michael most of the day anyway sorry and Joe for you how did that work so I I do remember the decision to have kids when Jenny was on tenured and it was not at all clear so she would lose her job she wouldn't finish her book and I didn't have a job I had quit my job so I could be in Toronto but this just seemed like a life affirming act I have to say having kids I just thought something will work out and that's always felt right of course it did work out a little bit but and so then I got tenured a year after I got the job and so so for me this seemed actually I really liked spending time with Michael when he was a baby I don't really like taking care of him and I wasn't all that concerned about I had to do more I don't know I never you know some of it is personal circumstances and so on I was not obsessed with things I wanted to do and I will say over the course of several years so this persisted so by the end of that period of three or four years just first the book got accepted and then I had to be revised and there was some some things there was actually a sort of quid pro quo part so I talk in my project about this working care that we have to allow for small periods of intensity and ebbs and flows so when I finally actually I did get tenured contract but then there were a vision so I actually finally submitted the manuscript handed it out to the publisher on Daniels the second child's due date fortunately he was ten days late so we could all cover up a little bit but Joe said to me okay now when Daniel comes I'm gonna take some time to get back to my own research so you should make a commitment not to try to do any research so he was born in April between April and September I was a little resistant to this and he said this is your obligation as a model to your students and younger colleagues not to try to be superwoman you show that you are not going to try to do it all you're going to take this time to be with your baby and I did and he did spend quite a bit more time catching up and what about in your so in terms of your move to get job and the working environment in you being I guess you're both academics so that places it but in terms of your colleagues and your presentation of that commitment to the balance in your life have you been quite open about with your colleagues or has it been something that has had any sort of backlash or other no it's so I'm also somebody who works at home but I've been I'm connected with my department and happy with my colleagues I've never felt the slightest pressure around this that I can think of or resentment or that you work at home as opposed no so the norms are different in the department our department the law school had historically a kind of community orientation and everyone was supposed to be the political science could do whatever you want other people working at home so there wasn't a background set of norms but I never felt pressured around the norms so I spent a lot of time with the kids taking care of the kids and with household responsibilities I never cut any negative feedback I'd say the other decision that we made which was so they were four and seven and I was desperate to have Toronto as a great city but I wanted to be out of the city and in natural beauty and so I really wanted to have a cottage and we managed to get a cottage and by my taking job at teaching at the University of Chicago Law School but this meant we were away all summer and without Chuck and actually until quite a bit later without any kind of positive help and so that was it was a decision basically to work part-time for the summer which many people will know is that that's peak academic time that's when you catch up on all your publication stuff you're not teaching you have this chunk of time and we made a decision to basically do that half-time and share the load of it yeah so I kind of had the morning sort of although they were small children and John had the night time where the children were asleep but I did ponder that from time but it did work out very well we think of this as having kind of cemented our kind of deep family norm of family time together of having made that commitment that our summers were family time I could keep going but I think I should share because we've got 15 minutes still ahead of us and I'm sure there are lots of ideas bubbling or experiences that people want to share that are there a firm so is there anyone who would like to start off? this is sort of a question more it seems to me that the internet has made this much more complicated and probably worse for well in some ways it makes it much easier to work at home because it doesn't matter when you're in your office or at home but in other ways the sort of the expectation of instant responses to things and constant connection I think makes it even harder to pull back from the working space I think what you're saying is fantastic and my mother would be standing up and clapping because she's been telling me this for a while especially about decisions of stage made by people who don't know what the worth of life is but I just wonder if you could reflect on how much more complicated life is now in those ways that somehow makes it easier but in some ways makes it harder to do what you're saying so I will say that I do think it was a cost so in the this article that I wrote talks about dilemmas of passion and privilege but also isolation that that is really and I think to this day that has been the price I paid I don't have much haven't had much time for my colleagues, for my friends between teaching, research and family that pretty well eats it up and now I'm actually thinking about trying to shift that and being around more physically present where I'm teaching because the thing I feel worse about is not being as available to my young women colleagues as I could have been so the isolation isn't trivial and I don't think that email contact is the same because I think you know that the informal chance to meet with my younger colleagues and talk by not being physically there the internet doesn't help that I would get emails from young colleagues because it was a crisis they did know they could contact me if they needed to but what you want to do is hear about it before it's a crisis by informal talk and I should say that also I think one of the forms of sustaining this isolation is that I really limit my internet availability so I'm not the greatest even on keeping up with email and I don't do Facebook I just don't do social media I can't figure out how to absorb that extra set of demands on me and I'd rather use my time such as it is to be more present physically there is a little bit of tension there I guess you're at a stage in your life where you can be but in making those statements about the value of those things you have to be careful not to then impose that on those younger women who need to do what you did earlier and not be there but still maintain that connection I do see also that over the years so when I first got to my law school when I first started teaching at Princeton there was only one other woman in the department and then when I came to the law school there were only three other women and now we're sort of 33% which is somehow seems to be the max that at least the elite law schools in Canada can envision but I think there's something about the recognition that at different points in our lives we have different balances and different people choose things that's part of what I now that there are all these women there I see there are people who choose to be in their office 9 to 5 they're women with young children who that's how they do it they're at the far end of the other and I see there are just huge individual differences there's not kind of a model of how it backperfits and then I guess in line with your earlier discussion about changing norms I would say perhaps part of the norm is to recognize that difference is not necessarily a disadvantage so that within speaking to a dean for instance and looking at the way there's a notion that everyone should be treated equally but what is equal is the substantive formal notion is very clear that if you required everyone to be in their office because that would be fair that everybody denies then that is going to have an unequal consequence and so if that sort of notion that we need to in our workplaces recognize that just because people are being treated differently doesn't mean that it's unfair because it's taking into account the different needs of different people at different stages of their lives any other questions other questions yeah I have a question to Joe about immigration sure well you're both free to answer but so it appears to me that in the immigration debate there are well in the reasonable debate there is a on the one hand you have the liberal view that borders arbitrary people should come and go as they wish to on the other hand you have a communitarian view of civic values and we need to restrict our intake because we want to preserve our civic values so I guess my question is how do you view those two views and how do you balance them so I'm actually people tend to think of me as on the liberal side because I'm from open borders but I'm actually quite sympathetic to the communitarian side and I've written a different book called Culture, Citizenship, and Community which is about the values of the community and part of what I try to do is to say well look the civic values is fine when it's not a defensive privilege and that's part of the challenge is to see the ways in which often I don't know what that means so if you can imagine a world in which so I take the example of the EU we just had a conversation about the EU so there's free movement within the EU of the kind of free movement that I think the world ought to provide generally and that historically has not been a big problem but because the economic gaps among EU countries are not that great and people are just not going to move from one country to another where they don't know the language they don't have any friends, they don't have any connections in large numbers so what drives the movement is the economic inequality that I think is unjust and so what is presented as an attempt to preserve a certain kind of community a certain history, tradition culture, way of life is always implicitly a protection of economic privilege and once that is eliminated the problem basically goes away and then I think it's good to have a time I care about my family more than I care about other kids but I want a world in which that I would rather have a world in which everybody, you know so okay our privilege has to go it has to come down and everyone has the same circumstances it's not that I'm going to care about everybody else as much as I care about my kids you can have these personal attachments and you know I pay attention to my students not to everybody's students you have connections and so on and that's okay as long as the background arrangements are treating everybody fairly I don't, I think the tension depends upon the existing injustices I have a question for Jenny at the project that you're working on now I was just wondering how you dealt with I presumed it would have come to you before with potential exceptions to your 12 to 30 year old people whose job in some way might essentially require normally I would say more work time perhaps examples like political leaders and perhaps even artists of particular kinds or sports people in particular lines isn't that top of excellence wouldn't be possible without I mean is the answer there like the quid pro quo over a longer term well there are two answers so first I'm glad you asked that because one of the things that I think my picture challenges is our current understanding of excellence so excellence tends to mean single minded focus on one thing and you say sports and I really like that example because every time the Olympics come by we hear these stories and we're supposed to admire the young people who do nothing but skate or run for 12 hours a day and their parents let this happen to them so but we're all supposed to be admiring because they managed to shave off the one tenth of one second which allowed them to win and I'm not going to say they could have won that without doing this I just don't think the one tenth of one second is worth organizing your life this way a little trickier is the musicians right so they do this too so the first thing but then I'll let you come back is that I think it does and it should challenge models of excellence as a single minded devotion to one thing most of us maybe there are a few geniuses in the world who really should be doing that but actually even the violinist can't practice 12 hours a day so that's one kind of answer but the other is more generally there are some jobs that will take periods of intensity that I alluded to so you're managing a giant litigation project or a huge merger of firms and for it might even be six months or eight months you just have to single modally do this then you stop and you take eight months off and you catch up on the care taking obligations that you have missed out on so the intensity of our caring will not simply follow the art of an individual life anymore because where it's intense when your kids are young or when your parents are sick when those demands are removed you transfer your care obligations to care communities that you shape so the caring obligations are relatively even and what we need for almost I think really all jobs is some kind of job sharing model so that and of course there are costs there are transaction costs to job sharing but we recognize periods of intensity which are made up by periods of non paid work but what we don't do is say because you are specially talented and doing something really important you shouldn't be bothered doing care work I was just thinking as you were saying that when politicians retire and they say I'm doing this to spend more time with their family perhaps with your boys they should meet it's supposed to be very convenient I have a question just following on from your idea of how this is going to work I was wondering if you've connected it in your project I thought about connecting it to theories of statehood and theories of the relationship between state and citizen because it seems like what you're proposing is going well beyond a welfare state model and the only sort of theory that I can think of that has some parallels is Martha Feynman's idea of you know the inevitability of dependency so I was just wondering if your project speaks to that at all yes so so you know we're coming from a similar point of view in that human beings are fundamentally dependent and interdependent and my earlier work on thinking about autonomy what autonomy cannot mean is independence autonomy is set of capacities made possible by constructive relationship so that's the background but in terms of the state side of this so one thing I do always want to say is that I don't picture what I'm doing as a privatization of care even though it does remove care my picture is this unpaid care work extends beyond family so it disrupts the family care nexus in certain ways it's not paid for by the state it's not wages for housework or better pensions for homemakers or it's not any of that and it's not marketized right this is unpaid there would be still some paid care options but it's removing care from its traditional relation to state family and market and I think of as I said before the state needs to facilitate this in a whole variety of ways but the main impetus is beyond the state it does interfere like you were mentioning earlier it shifts around our public-private boundaries because this means that kind of who does the dishes in your house is a matter of collective concern these norms need to be socially shared and enforced and so this norm of the private realm of the home but as feminists we know the dangers that that's brought around domestic violence and so on so we have to tolerate embrace actually a certain disruption of the public and private so these are public collective shared norms which will be collectively deliberated about in our care communities so it's care is very much a public project but it's not a state project and it's one of the things that I think is important about this argument that both feminists and many people on the left make this mistake that once they recognize something as a collective responsibility like care they move without further argument to say well that means the state should do it but there's some pieces of it that the state are good for and other than the state isn't the best place for and we are in a crisis of care which is only going to get worse as types like us get older and there are no adequate provisions really for the aging and I don't just see this as a capitulation to neoliberalism but I do not see the state stepping in adequately to in fact provide the support that caregivers need and that people who need care need this one is our last question so I'm just going to have a brief comment here Joe so I really like the idea about the movies but I just wanted to what extent is your view of this kind of predicated on the world in which the division between the first world and the third world was rigid as we're now moving into sort of a globalized world where the boundaries between the first and the third world are actually quite permeable if you look at the long term of say a country like Australia we can't guarantee jobs in a first world lifestyle to large parts of our waking class and our low low mid class because those the jobs and settlements the jobs are going elsewhere so the boundaries they're not rigid anymore well so you know one, there are different ways of analyzing the dynamics of capitalism and one of the Marxist class you know, classic views is going to penetrate globally and so everybody in the working class will be reduced to the same circumstances we're a long way from that but it does seem to me that in a just world but on that capitalist model and the capitalist class so in a just world the inequalities within states and between states will be greatly reduced now how you get there from here is a complicated question I don't claim to have a simple answer to that but what I want to challenge is the idea that there's something okay about these inequalities whether they are within the state or between the states and I want to resist the tendency where it's the kind of the citizens versus the others whether they're migrants or whether they're and make that the focus in which they're kind of disadvantaged and both groups are pitted against each other and to think about how you transform it into something more egalitarian so it's sort of a so I can make one last comment it's sort of reading in the world because it's not justifiable to have these impoverished people overseas whilst we end up backwards I mean that's clearly part of what has sustained this is kind of probably true Well people are departing because we have reached the two o'clock time but I wanted to conclude I'm not sure if Nina and Edward are still in the background but I, yes I just wanted to say I really think that as feminist all men and women in any public environment should be really transparent and affirming of the ways in which we have these multiple responsibilities and to bring in more to our working life Can I just tell one story so my I actually have a co-author on this project who's a real activist and he tells this story about going to a meeting for financial aid for graduate students and there's a woman there with a young baby who's crying and she picks up the baby and she walks with the baby and she leaves and she misses this whole important presentation and he said that had this been a meeting of the activists who he hangs out with people there would have immediately known we need to share this responsibility somebody would step in and I'll take your baby up and down the hall and try for a little while and then somebody else would have taken but in this graduate student world there were no such norms and he didn't know this particular woman and he couldn't walk up to her and said I'll take your baby we don't have those norms and it's not rocket science to figure out how to do sharing but one world he lived in had those norms deeply built in and another world they didn't exist at all so we look forward to seeing all your kids at the next building they're not at school of course and on that note on behalf of the Jennings thank you both to Jennings and Joe great discussion