Rachida Dati is an interesting woman: she is the first senior minister of North African origin, she has enjoyed an accelerated and controversial rise to her position as Justice Minister and was the subject of many gossip columns due to her 'mysterious' pregnancy.
What the papers are excited about now is Dati's speedy return to work five days after the birth of her daughter, Zohra.
Whilst some french magazines have applauded her vitality and particularly, how slender she looks, the majority of views expressed are resolutely critical of her "wanting to play superwoman".
As a nation with a cultural emphasis on the family and motherhood, the French press is busy heaping guilt on her decision to abandon her newborn in favour of her ministerial duties, whilst the British press are speculating that fear over losing her job has driven her back to work.
The question is; why is her decision so scandalous?
I don't remember anyone commenting on how soon Gordon Brown was back at work after his baby was born! Society has rigid ideals about what it means to be a good mother and 'woe betide' any public figure if they step outside of this norm. But wouldn't she have been equally criticised for neglecting her role in government during a major judicial reform?
Yes, Rachida Dati is an important role model as a talented, female politician from an unprivileged background but isn't it her business what kind of mother she is?
Companies face similar moral dilemmas with their staff: to what degree should women be implicitly encouraged to come back to work a.s.a.p.? If a business recruits 50% women, what will they do if they all take maternity leave?
These are real questions that won't go away but we can at least remove gender as much as possible from childcare policy and give couples more flexibility about how they care for baby - after all it is a bit unfair that men don't have the same options as women to take time to look after their infants.
As a dynamic, influential politician, I don't think there is anything wrong with Dati's decision to attend a reform meeting soon after giving birth - as with any work-life balance issue, what is important is her right to choose. And as her fellow politician said in her support "you don't have to be menopausal to be a minister".
Here we are in the final run-up to the US election. And what a marathon it's been. We've had the primaries, the conventions, How To Vote guides on YouTube, high profile advertising in racing video games and an infomercial; now it's all down to the voting next week.
Barack Obama's strong lead in the polls over the Republican candidate John McCain continues to grow. This healthy lead remains despite press speculation that American voters will falter at the polling booths and decide that a first black president is just a step too far. The Republican leader John McCain, however, thinks this is unlikely. As he said in a recent Larry King interview, "Look, there is racism in America. We all know that...but I am totally convinced that 99 and forty-four-one-hundredths percent of Americans are going to make the decision based on who is best to lead this country". Let's hope they don't have to do the math on that one....
Regardless of the outcome of next week's election, it's fair to say that in the US, much as in the UK, overt, traditional forms of racism are becoming increasingly taboo, to the point that we are now looking at a popular black Senator. It's taken time though - 1870 saw the first black congressman to be seated in the House of Representatives. Even more surprising, perhaps, is that the UK was more than 20 years behind the US in electing its first ethnic minority MP, Dadabhai Naoroji, in 1892. Even today, with only 15 of our 605 MPs being from a minority background, we still find ourselves playing catch-up. Perhaps some may argue that this is simply due to numbers - the US after all has a higher proportion of people from ethnic minority backgrounds. But given that over here in the UK we still struggle to vote for black dancers in Strictly Come Dancing and black singers in I'd Do Anything, I'm not going to hold my breath. Perhaps the 2008 US elections will be another opportunity for the US to lead the UK in breaking new ground.
"Perhaps in future it would be better if all involved accepted the age old adage that private parties are just that." So wrote Nathaniel Rothschild in his now infamous letter to the Times newspaper about George Osborne, the shadow chancellor. Rothschild's letter was short, sharp, punishment, meted out because Osborne broke one of high society's unwritten rules.
Unwritten rules surround us, some we are aware of and others we are not, because they are unconscious. In both cases there are consequences for breaking these rules. For example, stereotypes are powerful sources of unwritten rules. When you think of a leader what sort of person springs to mind? For most of us the answer will be a man, especially a tall man. Take the workplace. Recent research by the Cranfield School of Management showed that women held just 12 per cent of board seats at FTSE 100 companies. Meanwhile, Psychologists have found that tall men earn more than their shorter counterparts - a man who is 6 feet tall earns, on average, nearly $166,000 more during a 30-year career than a man who is 5 feet 5 inches.
This is because women, and short men, break our unwritten rules. We expect our leaders to show signs of 'strength' such as a large stature and a deep voice. However, these examples show that unwritten rules can be neither fair nor helpful. Importantly, we can also fall foul of our own rules. Take Warren Harding who was president of the United States from 1921-1923. In his book 'Blink', Malcolm Gladwell draws on evidence describing Harding as "Looking like a President"; his biographer wrote that his "lusty black eyebrows contrasted with his steel-grey hair to give the effect of force, his massive shoulders and bronzed complexion gave the effect of health." In essence, this was a man who appealed directly to out unwritten rules about what a leader should look like.Unfortunately for the American electorate, Harding has also been described as "one of the worst presidents in American history". His limited intellect and unclear direction meant that he was, in many respects, an ineffectual leader. The voters' unwritten rules blinded them to the rather disappointing reality.
This poses a real problem for organisations that can't (or won't) challenge and change these types of unwritten rules. The result is talent management, promotions, and hiring processes which play to stereotypes, hunches, and 'intuition', favouring those who meet the rules but not the real needs. The result, like Harding, can be someone who looks like they can do a job which, in reality, is beyond them, whilst those who are capable are either frustrated bystanders or are busy succeeding elsewhere. In the current climate who can afford that?
BBC's new talent show, 'I'd do anything' has attracted criticism for being an extended advertisement for the new production of the musical 'Oliver' but could it also be revealing prejudices in the voting public?
The show has a number of musical actresses who are all competing for the opportunity to be the new Nancy; there are ten actresses in total and each week they perform a song which is firstly critiqued by a panel and then by Lord Andrew Lloyd Webber. The viewing public then vote for the woman they would like to see remain in the show. The bottom two sing once more and Lord Webber decides who will remain.
There were two black performers in the show. In week two both were voted in the bottom two and had to sing off against each other. Lord Webber said that this was not a fair result based on the performances, but one had to go.
Week three saw the remaining black woman Keisha in the bottom two again despite the panel and Lord Webber deeming her to be better than some others. Last week she was in the bottom three.
Does this reveal the racial bias in the viewers? Well on the surface you might argue yes, but it might not be as straightforward as that.
Do we really think of any of the main characters being anything other than white?
The images that come to my mind of Oliver Twist are based on old photographs and classic black and white movies. I didn't associate any of the above with black people. The same will be true of Nancy.
The celebrity panel and Lord Webber very admirably stick to their task of picking out talent. Lord Webber attempted, at the start of week three's programme, to remind viewers to judge the performances in the same vein. He referred to not judging people on whether they are from England, Scotland, Wales or Ireland, but on the way they perform. This instruction, worthy as it was, did not work in week two and hasn't been repeated since
Colour is one of the most identifiable features we have and our brains register someone's ethnicity almost before anything else. The association we make between Nancy and a white woman is so strong that we can't cast it off. The Lord needs to keep reminding us though on what we should be judging the women on but Keisha unfortunately will continue to have a rough ride unless she puts in some truly exceptional performances. This is probably the experience of many ethnic minorities struggling for recognition of their talent in a lot of organisations.
Feed