Gender Equality

Hello again!

I'm terribly sorry for the topic of this post (no really, I am) because it's so bloody overdone. I've never seen a personal blog without some reference to it somewhere and generally they're all saying variations of the same thing. I try not to write about things when I feel I can't contribute to the debate because.. well, what's the point in reading the same opinion (no matter how relevant) regurgitated for the umpteenth time unless it actually gives another perspective? If I want to show my support for something I share it on my Facebook page, there's really no need for a blog about it. Now for the sake of clarity I've phrased this in question form, I apologise if this comes across as patronising.

Why are you doing this to us then Siobhán? WHY?!

Well recently someone showed me an article in the Guardian on the subject of feminism and gender equality. While it went into the complications of gender equality vs feminism vs everything else, it made me realise that I've never actually seen an article or post of any kind that puts forth my feelings on the matter. This article got some of it, but there are still bits that I disagree with in there and that always seems to be the case. Also my feelings on the matter are quite difficult to express so I usually end up conceding the argument quite quickly for lack of energy.

Ok, to start with: what is feminism?

You're probably reading this thinking "Jesus Christ, how flipping condescending is this person? Any reasonable person knows what feminism is!". Unfortunately this just isn't true. I've witnessed many different attitudes and definitions, and I'm not even an activist. Depending on who you ask, feminism can be defined as the promotion of women's rights, the promotion of equal rights and/or the demotion of men's rights. This isn't even including those who think one gender is inherently better than another and still call themselves feminists¹. As the original article stated, it's not as simple as

The definition of feminism that I think is most reasonable and sums up my feelings on it best is this:

Feminism is the promotion of women's rights, with the aim of creating a society where women and men exist as equals.

So you're a feminist then, by that definition?

No, not really. By the above definition it's a movement that I definitely support, but I wouldn't call myself a feminist. My only real issue with feminism is that it focusses primarily on one gender - even in its name. This means that people look around and see women in power and think "Great! We can be done with this whole feminism malarkey now!" or see a man passed over for promotion in the name of feminism and think "Feminism is putting men at a disadvantage, they've gotten what they want and now they're just being spiteful!". In my experience, using 'gender equality' instead of 'feminism' cuts out this problem quite well.

If 'feminism' and 'gender equality' are both working towards the same goal then what's the difference?

To me the difference is sustainability. I have no idea what the future will hold for gender roles and gender equality. In my grandmother's time she legally had to give up her job when she got married, my mother on the other hand kept her maiden name and has had a thriving career, only marrying our father when my sister and I were 9 and 6 respectively. A large reason for my parents getting married when they did was the fact that Irish law recognised the rights of a married mother over those of an unmarried mother living with the father of her children, yet in 2012 we passed a referendum that went a long way to remedy this.

With the development of our society so uncertain, I feel it's important that we allow for equality in every long-term decision we make. Here's a somewhat controversial example of what I mean:
There's a business (roughly 25 years old, not family owned). The CEO is male, as are 19 of the 20 board members. Over the years there have been many qualified women who have applied for positions in the company but somehow almost all of the female employees are working at very low level stations and usually as secretaries or assistants. There's an atmosphere of acceptance when it comes to sexual harassment and aside from a yearly 2-hour talk there is nothing done about any complaints.
All in all, a misogynist and oppressive atmosphere has built up over the years and it'd suck to be a woman working there. It's the next bit where the opinions start to differ.
Feminism: Firstly, affirmative action. We implement a system whereby there have to be at least 7 female board members at any given time, as well as similar requirements at various levels of the organisation. Secondly we increase the number of sexual harassment seminars, make them compulsory and make sure that the protocols for reporting such behaviour are easily followed and the punishments enforced. We then need to have a good long talk with this CEO fellow and make sure he understands that he will be monitored and there will be consequences if this continues.
Gender Equality: Firstly, affirmative action. We implement a system whereby there have to be at least 7 female and 7 male board members at any given time, as well as similar requirements at various levels of the organisation. Secondly we increase the number of sexual harassment seminars, make them compulsory and make sure that the protocols for reporting such behaviour are easily followed and the punishments enforced. We then need to have a good long talk with this CEO fellow and make sure he understands that he will be monitored and there will be consequences if this continues.
There was one difference there. Just one. The thing is though is that, for me, that one difference turns 'positive discrimination' into 'equal opportunities hiring'. It allows for nobody to feel like they were discriminated against for their gender, and if the situation were ever reversed it allows for the same problems not to arise again.

But women are disadvantaged already! That's like splitting €100 equally between someone with nothing and someone with €50; the person with nothing needs to be given more to make it equal.

Yes, as it stands women are significantly disadvantaged. But is it not equally wrong to give one person the full €100 and leave the other with just €50²? The gender equality plan is giving women more than it's giving men. In the original structure women were guaranteed nothing and anything more than that was an anomaly. Men, on the other hand, were given more than their fair share of opportunity, given that 50% of the competition was automatically dismissed. The women here have received much more from the scheme, as they should have. It just allows for men and women now to be at the same starting point. We've given €75 to the women, €25 to the men and hopefully set the stage for an environment where the two genders are equal and the majority gender depends only on who deserves to work there.

See how happy we would be if we all weighed the same?

To sum up..

I think in an ideal world men and women would be treated equally, but currently this isn't the case. I believe that promoting women's rights in the form of mutual rights will be more efficient in getting to this ideal world. I also think that history shows we can evolve quickly as a society and mutual rights guarantees that misogyny and other forms of inequality don't raise their ugly heads again as they are so keen to do. I think that the term 'gender equality' has a more clear definition than 'feminism' and that is why I prefer using it. There are a bunch of other terms floating around the place but these I find are the simplest and most well-known.

Thank you for your time, I sincerely hope I didn't bore you to death. Oh and no applause necessary lads, I've got it covered..

¹ Not just putting women above men, but I have also seen people who see it as akin to animal rights - you should treat your dog well, but you wouldn't let it vote.

² The reason I use these numbers is because I want to emphasise that I do believe, no matter how much we give women, that men will never be as disadvantaged as women once were. They will always have their €50. I do still think it's better though for everyone to have €75.

Invasion of the People Snatchers

Can people change?

It's one of those questions that inevitably pops up every once in a while, each time triggering a different answer that I'm oh so sure I believe.. until the next time, of course. Every time a new situation arises I find my conclusion is rarely based on my last conclusion, or even the facts involved. It usually comes down to a gut feeling.

I think though I've come up with an answer that I can apply to any situation and possibly make a more fair judgement. This answer is 'ish'. Yes, I do think people can change.. ish. Ok, I know how that reads, but give me a chance to explain;

With the exception of a mightily convenient dose of amnesia or extreme hypnotherapy, nothing can undo your experiences. We are all doomed to remember most of our highs and lows throughout our lives. These memories (even the ones that lurk in the murky depths of the mind) play a large part in dictating how we handle situations. If you have a bad experience at a club the first time you go chances are you'll avoid going again for a while. Even if you acknowledge that though and try not to let it affect you, you may end up disregarding things that would otherwise bother you because you put the discomfort down to that first experience. Now this part would suggest that a person can't change - not really at least, right? Right.

On the other hand though, I am not the same person I was when I was 15. Sure, I have a lot in common with her; we have the same name, same family, a few of the same ambitions, a fair number of the same memories and even a couple of the same friends.. but we're not interchangeable. Of course we're not, nobody at age 21 could possibly be interchangeable with their 15-year-old self. I'm not talking here about 'deep personal experiences' or 'profound epitomes'. I'm simply referring to my general attitudes and reactions. Everything I experienced before the age of 15 is still there, but there's so much of it that I see in a different light now. I don't know what changed it (I assume the general passing of time and the whole growing up thing had something to do with it) but I do know that when I'm confronted with the same everyday problems they affect me differently. For example when I was 15 if a stranger glared at me I felt like "Why the fuck are they glaring at me? Who the fuck do they think they are? What the fuck is so wrong with me that they think they have the right to judge me without knowing me? Fucking bastard."¹ whereas now my reaction is more along the lines of "Hey now that's not nice. They're probably having a bad day though.. I'll check a mirror to reassure myself and then move on with my day". I genuinely don't feel under attack - the weird thing being that I don't remember ever making a concious decision to be less defensive or anything, it just sort of.. happened. There are many little things like that which pretty much all amount to this:
At age 15 I was trying so hard to be the smartest, most talented, most pretty-but-deep-and-damaged person in any room that I ended up coming off as just obnoxious and stupid. It vaguely irritates me, but what's bothers me more is that even when I tried to put others first my thoughts still went through the filter of "How do my actions look?" so my first thought was always myself. I wish I had made the effort to change this behaviour because maybe then I'd have been rid of it sooner. It seemed to sort itself out eventually anyways, because now I don't have to try to be kind or considerate. Even the childhood I remember as a 21 year old is very different from the one I remembered as a 15 year old, yes the same things happened but just.. differently. To clarify, I wasn't the devil at age 15 and I'm not an angel at age 21, I just see things more normally now.²
Now this was all a little too introspective for my taste, so I figured I would see how it holds up in comparison to my friends. No offence guys, but if my friends from when I was 15 still existed in their 15-year-old forms I would not be friends with them. I'd like to stress here that they've all evolved considerably - at least the ones I still know have. How is it that I had a lot in common with them then, have a lot in common with them now, but seem to have none of those same things in common with my old self?

So I've come to this reasoning:
If a person thinks they've changed they can force reactions and make it seem as though they see things differently. I think the test of it though is how they see the past. I mean wayy in the past, like before whatever drama they're supposed to have changed from.
Because I think that's the only real change you can make in your life. If you think you've changed your entire self I think you're wrong. There's only so much your attitudes can influence. Also just because you've changed doesn't mean you've changed for the better. I think it's worth not writing anyone off immediately though, there's a lot to be said for hearing people out.

That's pretty much it. Could have been shorter but given that the title of the blog is "Snoozy Snippets" I think being exhausted is a fair excuse for lack of editing. Also did you guys know that the HTML tag for superscript is "sup"? I find that ridiculously funny. Bye for now x

¹ Yes, the word 'fuck' came up much more in my 15-year-old vocabulary too, though I think that has more to do with my "I may be 5"6 and blond but I'm very scary and angry I promise" phase.

² Then again, writing a personal blog from the first person perspective may not be the most un-self-centred thing in the universe. Whatever, you get the general gist.