NY Times: Women Have a Long Way to Go

by Elizabeth on November 1, 2011 · 2 comments

Today in the NY Times is an article in The Female Factor Section about how this year has been pretty great for women, what with women winning the Nobel Peace Prize, making a name for themselves in politics and the end of male succession to the British throne. But with this progress comes a reminder that women are behind men in the areas of economic equality and political power.

According to the World Economic Forum, women hold fewer than 20 percent of all decision-making national positions. They had a conference talking about how governments should implement and enforce laws and policies that promote women’s economic and political roles.

“These reports help us look over time at changes in countries and show us where the gaps are and where to look to improve business practices,” Laura Liswood, secretary general of the Council of Women World Leaders and a senior adviser on diversity at Goldman Sachs, said in an interview. “We are seeing progress in education and health, but we’re not seeing much progress on the economic and political side, which is a big concern.”

The study was trying to figure out if the size of the nations economy was directly related to the progress of women. It is not. The U.S. ranked 17 on the list of 135 nations as having women’s progress.

Catalyst’s studies show that “companies with more women in leadership tend to outperform those with fewer — and not by a little.” Ms. Zahadi remains optimistic. “The next wave of change will come from how to actually close gender gaps. We know how to measure them, we know why it’s important to close them, and there’s some new research on policy and on practices in business. That’s going to be the game changer.”

What do you think? Is progress linked to economic equality? What I want to know is where is the discussion about the equality of opportunity, rather than the equality of outcome? I don’t  want to be discriminated against just because I am a woman, but I shouldn’t make more money just because I am a woman, I should make money based on my experience and what I can bring to the company. We should be evaluated on an equal level without being given a subsidy due to gender. Women have a long way to go if they don’t accept this and start fighting for opportunity instead of outcome.

Previous post:

Next post:

{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }

Ben November 7, 2011 at 6:01 pm

Many times people have a certain goal regardless from what they initially say. One goal that many egalitarians have to make everyone and everything the same.

In a society where differences are viewed as fundamental, they argue on the grounds of individualism which one shouldn’t be discriminated against and that each individual should achieve based upon individual merit and no institution should bar one from the opportunity of preforming–but acknowledges that individual people don’t necessarily represent the entire group. That is to say–let the chips fall where they may–for good or for worse.

But to the egalitarian the ultimate goal is to change the framework of a society and create equal outcomes/results. Differences are really a bane rather then enriching.

The next step is to equate similar capability and that the sole reason for any disparity of outcome comes from only discrimination, because “truly” we are all fundamentally the same. They rule out any innate differences that could be play a role in outcome and ironically limit themselves to only discrimination (which in and of itself refutes any egalitarian worldview) as being the culprit for such disparities. However there is a problem. There is no actual discrimination present as far as institutions go that saying with legal jargon “Women are barred from doing X.” So they argue that unequal starting points is what causes unequal outcomes–and it must be eliminated.

In order to to generate equal results in a truly unequal world, they need to defy equal opportunity. Case in point, in order to increase women in the firefighting brigade, they change the qualifications for women then men. Women need to carry less then their male counterparts for ladder climbs [http://www.laweekly.com/2008-01-24/news/the-gender-boondoggle/4/]. Mainstream media never talks about this and when it is, it is seen as a great step towards “progress.”

This is where society really begins to collapse–through the lowering of standards and manipulating the selection process to promote an egalitarian worldview.

I say “really” because there is even a case for preventing individuals of one gender being in even if she can do the requirements (even if agreeing with group differentials). Some women could compete in male sports. However we segregate based upon gender despite this (NBA vs WNBA). Why? It is because there is still an old fashion belief that fundamental differences are based upon group rather then individual merit. A female basketball player from the WNBA couldn’t go into the NBA, because it isn’t fair nor right. She should be competing with other women. The same can be said about bathrooms. The list goes on.

They also mandate that specific institutions for specific victim groups despite the view treating men and women equally. Why then, for example, are shelter’s specifically for women created. Why not create a shelter for both men and women who where victims can be of any gender? Why create an entire discipline called “Women’s studies” that specifically advocates for a specific gender rather then both? They refute saying that this needed to bring one group up to level with another group. Is it? Or is it about power? Especially monopolizing on the group and speaking as the sole voice of the group?

And besides if Feminist believe that women have been oppressed, doesn’t that not only make a case that men and women are not equal, but men are better? If men and women are equal, why would women allow themselves to be oppressed (especially over thousands of years)? Doesn’t there need to be some sort of advantage for the oppressor to oppress and some disadvantage for the oppressed?

If we are all “equal” how could reality be this? If we are all “equal” wouldn’t Feminism not need to exist in the first place? As people who are “equal,” even intellectually, wouldn’t allow themselves to be manipulated, coerced, and so forth (as Feminism claims that “the media” or “the patriarchy” has done).

They believe that societies are cultures limit individuals (even with equality of results) from achieving what they want. However, I would counter by saying that is the whole point of societies and cultures. It becomes redundant if a society doesn’t reinforce cultural ideas that limit individuals. This helps a population survive and progress as a whole. If there was no rules or mores for genders then society would break down. Public restroom are segregated based upon gender for a reason.

Of course equal opportunity doesn’t equate to equal outcome. But Feminist do believe that men and women are fundamentally the same and only “aesthetic” differences are agreed upon.

The late philosopher Nietzsche says:

“My conception of freedom. – The value of a thing sometimes does not lie in that which one attains by it, but in what one pays for it – what it costs us. I give an example. Liberal institutions cease to be liberal as soon as they are attained: later on, there are no worse and no more thorough injurers of freedom than liberal institutions. One knows, indeed, what their ways bring: they undermine the will to power; they level mountain and valley, and call that morality; they make men small, cowardly, and hedonistic – every time it is the herd animal that triumphs with them. Liberalism: in other words, herd-animalization.”

It is truly sad that women especially indoctrinated in this movement are pitted against men. Where a woman’s worth is good is if she is treated like a man by male standards. Where their is no beauty in what different. Competition and hostility between the sexes drives down procreation levels and destroys communication.

This is got to be the best way to destroy a society.

Reply

Ben November 7, 2011 at 6:19 pm

That was horribly written. Sorry. I wish I could update it but it gets the message across. It is great that you allow different views.

Later.

Reply

Leave a Comment