A coat and handbag

Until one has comfortably accepted one's place in age moyen there is a tendency in our youth obsessed culture to dress young. Here in the great white north that generally entails some sort of jacket and for women a shoulder bag, knapsack or some other flung-over-the-shoulder stuff holder. That works for a long time and is extremely functional when you're herding around small children. But when that phase ends it is time to dress in l'age. While it is important to dress for your 'age' it is critical not to look like you just came out of Talbots. Talbots is fine for the aging boomers but not for the middle-aged Joneses. (More on that demographic in a separate post.)

For me dressing in l'age began with a handbag. I dropped the shoulder bag in favour of a well-constructed, somewhat boxy, beige leather Tod's bag which I scored at Value Village for $6.99. It is a beautifully made bag with the right length of handle that prevents it from swinging around when I walk, it hangs neatly in the crook of my arm and, in a pinch, can slip over my shoulder when only two hands will do. It has the right number of pockets for small items and the main pouch is big enough for wallet, reading glasses, sun glasses and a paperback or collapsible umbrella. The sides are somewhat rigid so it never collapses when placed resolutely on a store counter or restaurant table. In short, it holds its own.

In addition to switching to the handbag I nixed the jacket for a coat. A jacket says I'm on the run, a coat says I'm making careful decisions and won't be rushed.

And that's it. You can make other changes but it's not necessary (although good shoes or boots help the cause). The coat and handbag represent experience, practicality plus style and, as my dear friend at Mid-Read observed, you are welcomed into most environments with a degree of gravitas, warmth and respect.

We often forget how those in l'age jeune are frequently treated with disrespect and poor service. Recently on a lunch hour excursion to the AGO my dear friend Mid-Read witnessed the less than hospitable treatment on the part of the security/front door staff towards some college students who found themselves in the door on a school trip stood up by their teacher who held the admission tickets. The students did not receive the same greeting as did those in other age brackets. In fact, the differences were notable and so insulting that my dear friend gallantly stepped in a bold effort to sweep them in under her membership umbrella. Even with our combined memberships we couldn't get them in (and such a missed opportunity for the AGO who would not budge to let these students and potential life-long members in for free) and they made do with strolling through the public spaces and being ignored.

Would the coat/handbag strategy have worked for these 19 year olds. I think not. They are the symbols of l'age and require years of effort to be able to brandish about. It is important to note that there are advantages to l'age and it is equally important to enjoy them responsibly.

There's something about a recession

Recessions are great excuses for bad behaviour. As I've already admitted, this is my fourth recession god help me, and it's always fascinating to watch asthe bull's underbelly is revealed. A couple of things that strike me: It's a great time to discard staff who are controversial, challenging or act as the scapegoat for management failures. Of course this doesn't apply to the folks in the manufacturing or construction sectors who are naturally hit by retractions in spending, this is more to do with organizations who use the recession as an opportunity to rid themselves of great chunks of staff under the guise of cutbacks.

The other thing a recession reveals is the status quo. In this recession it's the 'shocking' study reported today in The Guardian (guardian.co.uk) that shows women in the U.K.'s financial sector make on average 55% less then their male counterparts. Yes, 55%! Can you believe it? Isn't the 'acceptable' standard 79%? And this in one of the wealthiest sectors. It is outrageous that pay discrimination continues in any form (it's also outrageous that these folks make so much money with so little oversight but that's another post) but this stat is worthy of Gloria Steinhem, whom most of us in l'age moyen might remember. (Still love the pantsuits and square glasses, but that's another post.)

And then the same study by The U.K.'s Equality and Human Rights Commission reveals that women hold only 11% of senior management positions, a fraction of the already paltry 29% held be women across all sectors. (Note to Gloria, put the marriage on hold and get back to work honey).

All that grim news said, women are faring this recession far better than men. With manufacturing and construction jobs eroding the loss of these well-paying, blue collar jobs are disproportionately affecting men. Women on the other hand are heavily weighted in health and education and those sectors remain stable even in a recession. However, given that women continue to be paid less than men and are also more likely to hold pink collar (sounds as repressive as it is) service sector jobs (which pay less than construction or manufacturing, have lousy benefits etc.) is it that we're just cheaper? At last, a force that actually reverses gender discrimination - cheapness.

How will this wrong ever be made right? How many women do you know have quit their corporate jobs to work as consultants,start a small business, or move to the public sector because they can no longer jump through the hoops? What about those women in the U.K. who chose not to blow the whistle during the good times - still afraid they could lose the gains they've gotten even if still a fraction of what the men earn? Still so little to go around that the ones who land the brass ring are loathe to share?

I hate to be bleak in bleak times but it is hard to see how this is going to change this time around.