Well, the only way to answer this question is to ask: Is the Pope Catholic?
Of course society favours men. Men have always been in charge and in command of their world. They built it, they dictate behaviour in it and they control it. The biggest and most noticeable area is in jobs and careers. Only today I was reading the latest fascinating surveys on the best and highest paid jobs for women, and even in careers where women are represented at least 75% (like nursing, paralegal, human resources etc), somehow that 25% of men manage to earn at least $5000 annually MORE than the women! How does that happen? How can the majority earn less than the minority in those fields? And that trend is repeated across society. Worse still, even in fields like IT where men dominate, they still earn far more. So, right across the board, society favours men much more than women, which is why they earn an average of 20% more in pay than their female colleagues. But we have to look at the root of the favouritism to appreciate how it is maintained.
Women, of course, began with a disadvantage. Up to a few years ago, society was run by men, for men and to reflect men and their values and ideals. Women were invisible, as their 'natural' place was regarded as being in the home. A lot has happened in the past 50 years to change those perceptions, and we do have some women forging ahead in isolated instances. Many young women are also achieving much more academically to give them that brighter start in life, and a few are reaching the boardrooms. But they still represent only about 2% of what is possible. Men still have a strong grip on the economic, political, educational, media and technology structures of our society, the important bases of power, continuously recruiting and nurturing in their own image and likeness, especially where men are regarded as 'natural' authority figures. In this way they maintain their iron hold on opportunities and access for all.
Some might argue that women are getting more access to male domains and so society is beginning to favour them above men. But access is not influence or power, which men have retained in abundance. Access gets you on the ladder, to survey enviously those already in place. Without the men in power opening that door wider to let women through, women will always have that glass ceiling obstructing their progress to greater heights. It means that the good intentions might be there to improve the balance of opportunities and contributions between men and women, but vested male interest and a firm hold on power ensures the actual action remains tiny and the status quo continues to favour men for a long time to come.
Showing posts with label women. Show all posts
Showing posts with label women. Show all posts
Tuesday, 19 August 2008
Saturday, 24 February 2007
The Key Reason Why Soldiers Commit Atrocities
An American army sergeant, Sgt. Paul E. Cortez, 24, has been sentenced to 100 years for raping a young girl and murdering her family in Iraq. It is put down to stress by his defence and he is very remorseful, wondering how he could have behaved so much 'out of character'. He told the judge he didn't 'have an answer' and wished he hadn't done it. He wanted to apologise to the family for all of the 'pain and suffering' he caused.
Five soldiers who served with Cortez in Iraq confirmed that his actions were 'out of character' and described the war's hardships. Even a psychologist testified that Cortez and the other soldiers had probably suffered stress brought on by fatigue and trauma, which was 'not unique', with wars being so bloody.
But I believe that stress is only partially responsible for such despicable behaviour. If stress were really a major factor, many more soldiers would have succumbed to vile deeds by now. It would have been very difficult to contain them because war is a very stressful business. Imagine living every day wondering if you are going to be killed that day or not, whether you'll be ambushed or kidnapped, whether someone from your team or unit will go down, or what awful tragedy you'll be witnessing that day. It is no fun and games out there and it does take its toll on our soldiers.
Absolute Power
However, the mere fact that many soldiers do not use their stress to commit evil deeds shows that something else is also in operation; something much more stark. And it is naked, absolute POWER. The power to have the life of someone in your hands and be judge, jury and executioner at that precise time; the power to enjoy the authority invested through your uniform and your rank; the power to do virtually anything you like at that given moment so long as your discretion warrants it. After all, your life is worth more at such times and you have to defend yourself. In that moment of madness, power is an overpowering kind of aphrodisiac. It makes one dizzy with the thought of having it and being able to use it. Add some vulnerable, defenceless humans to the tinderbox, like 14 year olds and women, and the realisation of such power and the use of it becomes dangerous and hypnotic.
So why isn't everyone affected by such use of power?
Simply because the greater its use, the lower in esteem the users are. People relying upon their power to maim and hurt are unhappy beings, very low in self-esteem and self-love; who need someone to BLAME. Those soldiers most likely saw the helpless Iraqis in front of them as responsible for them being far away from home, from their families, from the things or people they cherish; responsible for the crap way they felt. And someone, those victims, had to pay. I doubt if they were killed out of sheer malice. They were killed because someone had to pay for their captors' loneliness and stress and the victims were vulnerable enough to be sitting ducks. Yet, the real tragedy is that they were supposed to be protecting that family. And if your protectors turn on you, what hope or life have you got?
Those innocent Iraqis were killed because their captors had the power and the authority to do their worst and snuff out their lives, especially when people in groups tend to behave much worse than on their own. But, far more disturbing, those soldiers killed that family at that moment quite simply because they could.
Five soldiers who served with Cortez in Iraq confirmed that his actions were 'out of character' and described the war's hardships. Even a psychologist testified that Cortez and the other soldiers had probably suffered stress brought on by fatigue and trauma, which was 'not unique', with wars being so bloody.
But I believe that stress is only partially responsible for such despicable behaviour. If stress were really a major factor, many more soldiers would have succumbed to vile deeds by now. It would have been very difficult to contain them because war is a very stressful business. Imagine living every day wondering if you are going to be killed that day or not, whether you'll be ambushed or kidnapped, whether someone from your team or unit will go down, or what awful tragedy you'll be witnessing that day. It is no fun and games out there and it does take its toll on our soldiers.
Absolute Power
However, the mere fact that many soldiers do not use their stress to commit evil deeds shows that something else is also in operation; something much more stark. And it is naked, absolute POWER. The power to have the life of someone in your hands and be judge, jury and executioner at that precise time; the power to enjoy the authority invested through your uniform and your rank; the power to do virtually anything you like at that given moment so long as your discretion warrants it. After all, your life is worth more at such times and you have to defend yourself. In that moment of madness, power is an overpowering kind of aphrodisiac. It makes one dizzy with the thought of having it and being able to use it. Add some vulnerable, defenceless humans to the tinderbox, like 14 year olds and women, and the realisation of such power and the use of it becomes dangerous and hypnotic.
So why isn't everyone affected by such use of power?
Simply because the greater its use, the lower in esteem the users are. People relying upon their power to maim and hurt are unhappy beings, very low in self-esteem and self-love; who need someone to BLAME. Those soldiers most likely saw the helpless Iraqis in front of them as responsible for them being far away from home, from their families, from the things or people they cherish; responsible for the crap way they felt. And someone, those victims, had to pay. I doubt if they were killed out of sheer malice. They were killed because someone had to pay for their captors' loneliness and stress and the victims were vulnerable enough to be sitting ducks. Yet, the real tragedy is that they were supposed to be protecting that family. And if your protectors turn on you, what hope or life have you got?
Those innocent Iraqis were killed because their captors had the power and the authority to do their worst and snuff out their lives, especially when people in groups tend to behave much worse than on their own. But, far more disturbing, those soldiers killed that family at that moment quite simply because they could.
Wednesday, 24 January 2007
Moving the Goalposts of Multiculturalism!
In the UK, a Muslim woman in a WH Smith shop that serves the public refuses to serve a customer because she shouldn't be serving tobacco. Without a sign saying that, the customer was supposed to know that fact when he decided to make use of the service the shop offered. On parade in the Met Police a new trainee refuses to shake the hand of the head of the service. He had no idea he couldn't shake her hand and, goodness knows, he probably thought the picture of them would do much to boost further recruitment from Muslim women to the service. Apparently, both refusals are regarded as part of asserting one's cultural and religious right in multicultural Britain.
As a diversity adviser, I beg to differ. This is merely moving the goalpost to suit individual whims. It has very little to do with genuine respect across communities and will merely antagonise others and damage relations further. This kind of behaviour purporting to be part of multiculturalism is questionable, and more likely to fuel misunderstanding and discrimination. Multiculturalism and diversity are supposed to enhance relationships, to lead to greater understanding between communities and, above all, to greater sensitivity and compromise. If a Muslim woman is not allowed to sell tobacco, when the shop offers a service in selling tobacco, then she should not be working there. She is showing no sensitivity to her customers' needs while insisting on sensitivity to her needs as a Muslim.
The essence of multiculturalism and diversity is also mutual respect. We cannot have a diverse society where one minority group sets the rules which everyone else has to follow, especially where they meet in the middle. The shop sells tobacco. That's a known fact. Anyone working in that shop should be prepared to handle tobacco. One cannot choose what to sell. What is that person doing there if this is not part of their remit? And what kind of service is it to the customer to be told that the shop assistant won't serve the very customers whose money keeps her job intact?
Again, when we join a public service, we have to be prepared to deal with the public, both men and women. We cannot expect preferential treatment unless we CHOOSE to join an all male or all female occupation. It follows that in a mixed group of people we are going to be dealing with members of the opposite sex in one form or another. The whole service cannot change just for one person's benefit. These two women, and more like them, are now rapidly moving the goalpost of tolerance to suit themselves and their desire to impose their own inflexible beliefs on others for simple personal power. That is not good.
Mutual Respect and Sensitivity
Respect is not just from White to Black. It has to be mutual to be effective. However, respect has seven dimensions beginning with curiosity and ending with healing, with sensitivity at the heart of it. If we are not sensitive to the needs of others in a spirit of compromise, we cannot expect sensitivity for what we believe either. Practising respect and sensitivity means we cannot CHOOSE to live in another country and then do exactly what we like publicly, regardless of how much it flies in the face of common sense or members the host country. If we intend to continue living exactly as we were, why move to anywhere different? At least by staying where we are, we ensure our cultures and traditions remain intact much longer.
Individuals really cannot have it both ways, wanting to be part of a diverse Britain but seeking individual public privilege which others are denied in a similar situation. Justice and fairness are then eroded. In the privacy of our homes, we are masters and mistresses. In the public domain, we have to work together for the benefit of all. If people are deliberately opting out of that process by virtue of religion and culture, how can they be benefiting their employer and, most important, the clients they serve?
In all these incidents of Muslim women choosing to do what they wish in a public place, one key thing is being forgotten. The effect on their peers and colleagues and the message that is being sent out to them of a privileged few who can ignore the rules to suit themselves, simply because of their religion. That can only lead to resentment and division, further fuelling the perception that the rights of the majority are increasingly being eroded.
It is time the Government and employers exercise firm leadership on what forms of behaviour are acceptable in a public place, where interaction between gender and different communities are inevitable. We cannot have individuals deciding what should be accepted practice according to their whims because that's a disastrous road to resentment and disharmony. It will leave most people confused, fearful resentful and prejudicial and a country divided against itself cannot thrive. Sensitivity has to be a mutual reaction...unless, of course, it is about imposing one's wishes upon others.
As a diversity adviser, I beg to differ. This is merely moving the goalpost to suit individual whims. It has very little to do with genuine respect across communities and will merely antagonise others and damage relations further. This kind of behaviour purporting to be part of multiculturalism is questionable, and more likely to fuel misunderstanding and discrimination. Multiculturalism and diversity are supposed to enhance relationships, to lead to greater understanding between communities and, above all, to greater sensitivity and compromise. If a Muslim woman is not allowed to sell tobacco, when the shop offers a service in selling tobacco, then she should not be working there. She is showing no sensitivity to her customers' needs while insisting on sensitivity to her needs as a Muslim.
The essence of multiculturalism and diversity is also mutual respect. We cannot have a diverse society where one minority group sets the rules which everyone else has to follow, especially where they meet in the middle. The shop sells tobacco. That's a known fact. Anyone working in that shop should be prepared to handle tobacco. One cannot choose what to sell. What is that person doing there if this is not part of their remit? And what kind of service is it to the customer to be told that the shop assistant won't serve the very customers whose money keeps her job intact?
Again, when we join a public service, we have to be prepared to deal with the public, both men and women. We cannot expect preferential treatment unless we CHOOSE to join an all male or all female occupation. It follows that in a mixed group of people we are going to be dealing with members of the opposite sex in one form or another. The whole service cannot change just for one person's benefit. These two women, and more like them, are now rapidly moving the goalpost of tolerance to suit themselves and their desire to impose their own inflexible beliefs on others for simple personal power. That is not good.
Mutual Respect and Sensitivity
Respect is not just from White to Black. It has to be mutual to be effective. However, respect has seven dimensions beginning with curiosity and ending with healing, with sensitivity at the heart of it. If we are not sensitive to the needs of others in a spirit of compromise, we cannot expect sensitivity for what we believe either. Practising respect and sensitivity means we cannot CHOOSE to live in another country and then do exactly what we like publicly, regardless of how much it flies in the face of common sense or members the host country. If we intend to continue living exactly as we were, why move to anywhere different? At least by staying where we are, we ensure our cultures and traditions remain intact much longer.
Individuals really cannot have it both ways, wanting to be part of a diverse Britain but seeking individual public privilege which others are denied in a similar situation. Justice and fairness are then eroded. In the privacy of our homes, we are masters and mistresses. In the public domain, we have to work together for the benefit of all. If people are deliberately opting out of that process by virtue of religion and culture, how can they be benefiting their employer and, most important, the clients they serve?
In all these incidents of Muslim women choosing to do what they wish in a public place, one key thing is being forgotten. The effect on their peers and colleagues and the message that is being sent out to them of a privileged few who can ignore the rules to suit themselves, simply because of their religion. That can only lead to resentment and division, further fuelling the perception that the rights of the majority are increasingly being eroded.
It is time the Government and employers exercise firm leadership on what forms of behaviour are acceptable in a public place, where interaction between gender and different communities are inevitable. We cannot have individuals deciding what should be accepted practice according to their whims because that's a disastrous road to resentment and disharmony. It will leave most people confused, fearful resentful and prejudicial and a country divided against itself cannot thrive. Sensitivity has to be a mutual reaction...unless, of course, it is about imposing one's wishes upon others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
