The Workplace
So let’s start with something that I think we can all agree on, should a man and woman, both doing the exact same job to the exact same standard be paid the same salary. Hands up if you said no? Thought not. OK then, what if a man and a woman are doing the same job but are doing the job to a different standard? A few hands would go up now to indicate there should be a disparity in pay. What I haven’t stated though is who is doing the job to a lesser degree, the man or the woman.
Recently Serena Williams and Novak Djokovic won the Wimbledon tennis championship, the most prestigious in the world. Both walked away with just under two million pounds in prize money, yet they had not performed to the same standard, or had they? Both were champions of their respective tournaments for their respective gender, but the effort required for Djokovic to win was a third higher than that of Williams. 24 sets played as opposed to 16. In actual game time he spent ten hours more in winning his title. Now some would say that this is still not a correct means to base anything on, and that yes, the prize money should indeed be equal. I can see the logic in this, to a point, as both are the champions and do not decide on the rules.
So as is my usual way, let’s throw an analogy out there. You have two employees, both female. One is required to work a third as hard as her colleague to achieve the same result. Do you reward her for the extra effort she has made, which is undeniable, or seek to punish her for perhaps lacking the efficiency of her colleague? At what point is there a real justification in the harder working colleague saying, enough is enough? The simple truth here is that there is no clear, definitive argument that can be presented either way. The only thing that is undeniable is that there clearly is not a correlation between the effort and the reward.
If you then change one of the personnel in this analogy to male, you are suddenly looking at a different scenario. Feminist issues come to the fore, but the reality is that there was an issue in the first place, irrespective of gender so to wave a flag on the basis of gender discrimination alone is both disingenuous and falsifying the logic of the whole issue. If the equality is a genuine issue it is one that must be addressed universally as opposed to shoehorned into an agenda to fit an argument, be that gender or race, or any other group that feel unequal.
The Wimbledon conundrum throws open a very real issue that cannot be simply dressed up or overlooked. Whether there is a moral requirement for genders to be equal, in terms of physiological design men and women are hugely different. So whilst equality is a utopian solution it cannot be waved as a flag of reason or truth in all instances because the inherent genetic differences are prone to see men and women behave in different manners to different stimuli. Men and women are not equal, they never can be.
One obvious area where this difference is unavoidable is the fact that women become pregnant. WAIT!! I am not criticising this or holding it up as a negative in any way, shape or form, far from it. I am being realistic though. If you are a small business where turnover is tight and your profit margins crucial to the mortgage payments you need to make then face yourself with this question. Would you employ a woman who is in her twenties who could potentially leave your employment after nine months for up to a year, whilst still having to contribute to her maternity pay, and assume the prospect of paying for a replacement? When you throw into the equation the fact that you then have to take a hit in both efficiency and productivity as a new employee is trained, knowing they are filling only a temporary role? Be brutally honest here, who would you employ, a woman or a man? I know who I would employ under these circumstances. I am not asking for you to be holier than though and preach from an ivory tower. I know full well that both are equally entitled to the role, but again I ask, who would you employ? If you remove every other factor from the decision making process and apply simple logic alone, the answer is clear. If there is inequality, and I have proved there still is, then the root causes must be identified for real progress to be made. Governmental schemes to ensure that pregnancy is not a deciding factor in whether someone is termed employable or not is of paramount importance.
It isn’t right, it isn’t morally correct. It sits as uncomfortably with me as it does you but remember this is a world where money rules and dictates policy, not feelings or emotions. A female employee ‘can’ cost a company more even if on paper the actual salary is the same. Harsh, unfair, a huge level of inequality, but a simple fact unfortunately.
I do not believe that there are gender specific roles within the workplace, other than where there are absolutely clear issues that would prevent a role being carried out by both sexes to equal effect. In this instance, gender discrimination is entirely a moot point. Historically there is a view that certain roles are best suited to each gender but that is ridiculous. There is nothing to prevent a woman being a car mechanic. There is an argument that this should never be the case but again, this is a fool’s viewpoint, seeking to cause an issue where there isn’t one. If a female would rather be strip-searched by a male customs officer, then that is her choice, but for the sake of equality for equality’s sake, there are times common sense simply must prevail.
Societal standing and perceptions
Where the real crux of this issue lays though, is not that we are different, as we clearly are, but how we view our roles in society, how we would like to see our roles in society and how we set about achieving those goals.
From an early age there are roles that are defined as gender specific or at least, gender preferable. Boys are expected to be rough and tumble, displaying boisterousness and an affinity for getting into scrapes and girls the opposite, displaying a softer, more caring and detached view of life. Toys are designed very much targeting one side of the market or the other. If you see a boy playing with a toy kitchen or holding a doll, there are eyebrows raised and the same holds true if you see a girl playing with a toy gun or a football. Why should it matter? Does it matter at all in fact?
Is this lack of emotional intelligence actually based on a historical stereotype of what is needed through the formative years, in an attempt to ensure that a child becomes an adult that fits a certain societal view of them? A manly man who will take the bins out, repair the broken lawnmower whilst refusing to enter the kitchen as he is unable to operate the washing machine or cooker. In the same manner the young girl who played only with dolls and plastic kitchen utensils has been perfectly prepared for motherhood and culinary prowess? Of course the reality is shaped by a whole host of factors that are equally as, if not more important as to what childhood toys fill your toybox.
The problem here is the historical portrayal in society of gender classification and the insistence of some to continue this outdated view. It is enlightening to see that women are now far more heavily involved in these roles that were once seen as almost entirely male orientated. Women are piloting aircraft, driving trains and getting greasy under the bonnets of articulated lorries. This should have been the case long before it became commonly acceptable but there are still generational blind spots, with comments often being made should a woman be seen entering an aircraft with stripes on her shoulder as opposed to peanuts in a bag. As the years roll by this view will become extinct and rightly so, for we will become accepting of something as normal as we become more exposed to it.
If a child was born in 1939, by the time they were six their norm, their view on what constituted average, would be wholly removed from a child born in 1933, who did not have to endure air raid sirens and Pathe newsreels chronicling a war raging the world over. We are a reactive species rather than proactive in so many areas but more so emotionally. We like the security of pre formulated, easy to follow moral codes, and tenets of behaviour, so that less thought and genuine emotional awareness is required. Proof of this can be seen in another example, when the gender role is replaced by religion. How many children who have catholic parents become followers of Shinto? How many children born into Islam, through free choice become regulars at the local synagogue? You see, whatever our claims that we have free will and exercise this freedom, the reality is that our conditioning to follow a set doctrine, whether ethical, theological or even sexual is prevalent from the moment we are conceived.
Before we even enter the world and draw breath, decisions are made for us based on what gender we are. Pink clothes and pretty bonnets bought for young girls whilst blue is the staple for boys bumper sets and bibs. Does this matter, when a child cannot tell the difference? Not for the child, so logic dictates that we as parents are therefore satisfying our own inane sense of what is expected, and what is perceived as correct in whatever society we belong to. That is why for there to be a schism in the status quo, there must be people of our own generation who are prepared to act upon their convictions and seek to change the way we think, the way we have ultimately been conditioned to think. Of course these people exist but they are often their own worst enemy, as I shall touch on later.
Sexuality
Sexuality and gender are clearly different things. The roles we are expected to fulfil sexually throughout our life however are very ambiguous and are hugely influenced by culture and upbringing. Before this is seen as an attack on an individual’s sexual leanings, it isn’t. I do not fall into the school of thought that we can be turned one way or the other, and my views are very liberal. Whatever your chosen gender to have sexual activity with that is your choice, not mine. I know I had no choice in the matter, I simply am attracted to women, should it have been otherwise then I would feel no shame in that, but it simply wasn’t.
Where we are different, and what often confuses the issue is our arrogance as a species that we are above all others and therefore have a deeper understanding of desire. Sex is instinctive. It is something that is necessary at a biological level for the continuation of a species, whether that species is human, reptilian or insect. If a generation reneged from sex, there would be no future generation. So why is there such a taboo, such a deep fear of talking openly about a subject that is not only pleasurable but also absolutely necessary? It is hard to say and both sides of the gender divide can cite differences in viewpoints and what is deemed acceptable or not.
A woman has the right to decide who she has sex with, when she has sex with them and what form of sex to have with them. Should a man decide this is wrong he walks away from the situation and should he continue to perform an unsolicited, unwanted sexual act he is a rapist. That is a legally and morally correct stance. There are no grey areas, or shades thereof, no means no. A rapist is a sexual offender and deserve to be locked up for a long, long time.
However, that is a simple truth. An honest truth stripped of the complexities involved and the huge taboo that sees so many cases of rape go unreported. There is a predisposition in society to suggest that any victim, of any crime, but even more so in rape, should be held partly responsible. To an extent I can see the logic, even if I do not agree with it. There is a duty of any human, regardless of gender to behave in a manner appropriate and in keeping with their own personal safety in any environment. CALM DOWN. I am not, I repeat not, in any way suggesting that the way a woman dresses is an excuse for rape, which is preposterous and absurd to use as a counter argument in any rape case. There is NEVER an excuse for rape.
The role of women in the sex trade is one that is often highlighted but very rarely examined in any great depth because it makes for very uncomfortable reading on both sides. I can only reiterate here that this is my personal opinion. I cannot draw on any personal experience as I have neither been the recipient or the giver of cash for any sexual encounter. Prostitution is just one branch of the sex industry but one that is clouded with a veil of secrecy and perhaps this is the largest problem with it. In cities such as Amsterdam, sex tourism, for want of a better phrase and the liberal attitude to the softer drugs available sees a city that is famous for its red light district and pornographic shows. Brothels are commonplace throughout the world and if a woman chooses to make her living from fulfilling the sexual desires of a man then that is her choice. It is not a lifestyle I would ever choose to be a part of or wish as a career choice for anyone close to me, but to deny it is a reality for some is both churlish and prudish. It is often labelled the ‘oldest profession’ in the world and it certainly stretches back as far as humans have had the ability to write. Where the ‘industry’ is regulated then the stigma attached to it lessens. The atypical view of a prostitute is based in our own culture. Where it has been driven underground it is viewed as sordid and debauched. Ultimately a woman has that choice, her sexual activity is entirely her own business, it is her body and her life. If she can make peace with herself then very little else can be said on the subject for to say it is wrong, that it is abhorrent, leads to the very thing equality is seeking to establish, a playing field that allows an individual to make their own choices.
Choice is something though, that for many in the industry, was something that passed them by. Sex sells and wherever there is money to be made there will be unscrupulous individuals, both male and female, who will look to coerce through violence, drug addiction and kidnapping young girls, often underage, into a lifetime they should never endure. There is a whole world of difference between an educated woman who chooses to lead this life and one who is seen as no better than a slave, touted for sex to the highest bidder.
Pornography is no different. Long before Linda oiled the back of her throat and Debbie took a tour around Dallas, there has been a massive industry for those who choose to work within it. I view it in the same manner as I do prostitution whereby if an individual, either male or female, opts to make their fortune in this way, good luck to them. It is only when the unwritten laws and the lack of regulation as a result of an inability to govern the industry, you see the very worst.
I’m not an apologist, but I am a realist. With the advent of the internet every sexual depravation and kink can be catered for. Should there be a concerted effort to at least control the industry then there would be less headline grabbing and more acceptance of a natural desire. A woman’s sexuality is a huge, fundamental part of who she is, and if she can make peace with her decision to sell something that I personally couldn’t, I am not the one to act as judge and jury.
For me, and I may be in the minority, but sex is a baseless currency without passion, control and above all else affection and love. If anyone can put their lust above their morals, then that is a decision for them to make, not me.
Physicality
Men and women are not equal physically. Men are stronger than women, women are weaker than men. Men are faster than women, women are slower than men. You can argue this until the cows come home but it is an undeniable truth. There are many women who are indeed stronger than many men, but the average man is stronger than the average woman. Who cares? As a man, and a strong one at that, I don’t care at all. I do not look to measure my worth in terms of lifting stones or running in a straight line over a set distance and I don’t measure a woman’s worth by these ridiculous means either. Men and women are physically different in numerous ways and therein lays not a problem or inequality, only for those who are foolish enough to think it matters who can achieve most because of their body. Equality is about the right to be judged as a person for who you are, not what you look like. However, perhaps from a male perspective here is the biggest argument we have with feminism.
You see, for years we have stood in the dock accused of wanting women to look a certain way, act a certain way, wear certain clothes and dance to our tune when it comes to your physical appearance. Nothing, absolutely nothing, could be further from the truth. The number of men in a hundred who aspire to date or marry a size six waif can be counted on the hands of a hermit crab. This is a propagandist myth that the media revel in. A man does not want to hold a bag of bones. If there is a clamour to attain this ideal body it is one that is driven from within, from the fashion houses and the tabloid tat. What you will see if you look, even in eras of time as small as decades, is a definite trend whereby young women will look to emulate what they see on the front of whichever magazine is en vogue for the time. When the Twiggy look hit the 60’s that was what girls wanted to look like. We as men had no say in this, nor should we, your bodies your choice, but to hold us accountable for this is emotional dishonesty. When the 80’s rolled around a few extra pounds were seen as the ‘look’. When J-Lo hit the scene you were just more specific about where you wanted those pounds to be located.
The same with the silicon craze. We are men, the silicon that drives us wild is found in the little chips that power our playstations, not the ones that came in leaking packets that you had sewn inside your bodies. Breast enhancements are the same as penile implants. You do this because it makes you feel more womanly, not because we ask you too. Men will look to add an inch or two because it masks their own inadequacy as a man, not because they need to. We are as we are, and we should rejoice in that, not look to enhance the superficial and the way we look, for perhaps there is no bigger crime than to allow our value to be measured by the number of heads we turn with outward beauty, rather we should place value in the number of mouths we can bring a smile to. I speak candidly when I say that for me there is far more beauty in a stretchmark than a shadowed eye, more reality in a scar than an eyelash thick with mascara and the best foundation of all is one forged at the anvil of honesty, not the ones sold at Debenhams shop counter.
For millennia this has indeed been a male orientated world, and that is an argument I cannot win, but I will not bow down on this point. Should you choose inject your body with poison to flatten a wrinkle, to stick plastic to your fingertips or put a dead persons hair at the end of your own, then do so safe in the knowledge this really is equality, it is your choice. To blame men is misleading and falsifying the truth for something other than what it actually is, vanity.
Suffrage and suffragettes.
If there is a pivotal moment in feminist ideology, then this must be a contender for that honour. The whole idea of suffrage has become folklore now. So often has the story been retold of what the fight was for and how the fight was won that the events have taken on legendary status, misconstrued and misrepresented. Suffrage had a single purpose, one that was achieved, and has since become a bandwagon to be rolled out whenever the word equality is bandied about.
Let us be very clear about what suffrage is. It is not the right for women to work at the same hourly rate as a man. It is not the right for a woman to have an abortion, serve as a standing member of government or to pilot the latest Airbus. It is a very simple term that means one thing and one thing only, the right to publicly vote. The suffragettes were not seeking to break a male monopoly on voting, for even amongst the male population there were many who were ineligible to vote even at the turn of the 20th century. They were simply looking for the right to public voting to be allowed for all people who fell under the rule of a government that was not elected by the population, rather an electorate that was decided on ancient laws and social standing. The myth that these were common folk should be dispelled at once. The suffragettes were not from working stock, they were middle and upper class landowners, property owners who felt their own social standing and wealth, which was taxed, was something (rightly) that should allow them a vote. At the time of their formation less than 40 per cent of men were eligible to vote as they did not meet the qualifying criteria.
So enter stage right, Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst. By 1912 they had whipped up support to the extent that militant action was now the order of the day, so much so that prison sentences were handed out for crimes committed under their banner. Once in prison it was common for the women to go on hunger strike. Fed up of the negative publicity force feeding these women caused, and in true political fashion, Asquith and his cronies introduced the ‘Cat and Mouse’ law. Essentially this meant that no attempts were made to force feed a woman. She became ill and was then released from prison, amid much fanfare. There is a point this highlighted however, which exemplifies exactly why these women should be revered by feminists, that there were many at the time that thought their actions were damaging to the introduction of suffrage. Their reasoning showing the contempt with which most women were certainly held at the time, was that this showed that they were too emotional to be involved in decision making! Backwards thinking of this sort is embarrassing in hindsight but at the time was par for the male course.
So this all changed when that woman threw herself under that horse right? Wrong. Now who was that woman? Emmeline Pankhurst is the answer isn’t it? Again, wrong, it was Emily Davison and she did not commit suicide, rather involuntary euthanasia through miscalculation. This is not a nasty barb to throw at a woman who certainly did bring about changes, or at least set the ball rolling. It is just a simple fact. Her intention that day was to place a suffragette movement banner on the king’s horse. Newsreel footage confirms this, and the return train ticket to her home in north England and ticket to a party that very evening further proof that death was not her goal. She simply underestimated both the pace and the strength of the horses involved. It got the vote though didn’t it? Again, no.
The war certainly delayed things for in 1918 at the end of hostilities between the Kaiser and ourselves, a woman was allowed to vote. Providing of course she owned property or land. 60 per cent of women still could not vote. Only in 1928 was suffrage given to all in the UK, with the introduction of the ‘Representation of the People Act 1928’. This was fifteen years after the death of Miss Davison.
Suffrage was a global cause and the fact that Uruguay, Mongolia, St Lucia, Iceland, Denmark, Germany and numerous other countries introduced full voting rights to women years before the UK is indicative of two things. Firstly, our male chauvinist doctrine dramatically underplayed the value of women in society and certainly did not treat them as equals. Secondly, the suffragette movement only gained ground after the war when militant tactics were stopped and debate entered into. In light of the majority of Europe already allowing a woman the right to vote, it could be argued that there was a case suffrage would have been introduced regardless of the Pankhursts or the Davison incident.
What I don’t mean to do is belittle in any way what these women stood for and I neither condone nor condemn their actions at the height of their militancy (which in real terms today would have resulted in the handing out of ASBO’s, not jail terms). I am just representing the facts as opposed to the dramatization of what actually happened. What they fought for and, whether accidentally or not died for, is something that should never have needed to happen and the fact these women took action is something I respect and admire greatly.
The future of equality
Equality is just, it is a right of any human to be judged for who they are, to stand amongst their peers on an equal footing. What is not right, what is not just, is for this movement to denigrate our individuality and ability to be unique. There is a genuine call amongst men today for us to be perceived on that equal footing, that injustice is now served to us, whether that be in custody cases where 99 per cent of results favour a mother, or in the positive discrimination that serves as commonplace when applying for jobs in today’s market.
Radical feminism is in danger of eating its own tail. There seems to be a hatred amongst the most radical that is aimed towards men. Can I say this? Of course. I see it every day. I see anti men comments on social media aimed towards men that should the sentiment be reversed would result in legal action. I am not in my own in thinking this either. Prominent feminist writers can see the dangers too, and that it will damage, not bolster an argument for genuine equality.
Some writers argue, correctly, that radical feminism is promoting misandry. I agree. There seems a desire not for equality, but for superiority, where the rights of a woman matter more than those of a man. If you dare criticise feminism you are touted as a dinosaur, an ‘anti feminist’ who desires only the subjugation of the female. Utter codswallop.
How many times in the office I work have I heard a comment from women that if uttered by men would see them with a union representative by their side when fighting a sexual harassment case. I am not exaggerating this point to back up my argument, it is all too real. You see, at some point feminism was usurped by the desire for revenge it seems. The very idea that a woman would actually want to become a man I find disheartening but this gender morph is becoming all too common. Lewd comments, over the top binge drinking and drug abuse was once the reserve of the uneducated male, it is now becoming the accepted normality. Take a walk through town and see for yourself what the nightclub scene has degenerated into. A nightlife that once saw men beat each other senseless over women, is now in full reversal. Fights are as common amongst teenage girls as they are amongst boys. Is this equality? Is this what women fought so hard for? Of course not, but it is a by-product nonetheless. It is time to refocus what it is that is truly desired, a raising of standards to aspire to for all, or the adoption of the very worst traits of man.
I know that some will be upset with this, and think I am trying to derail the feminist ideal. I am really not. I hold that ideal as close to my heart as I do that of other calls for equality. I hope the day arrives where my grandchildren are treated as equal regardless of gender, creed, sexuality or religion. I have to caveat that though, I only want them to have what they earn, what they are capable of achieving through the right to have an equal opportunity. If they receive a hand up or preferential treatment because they tick a box that helps balance a government quota of gay workers, Jewish workers, blind workers or such then the equality dream will have died.
Equality is so hard to visualise at times because it only the opportunities that should be equal, not the individuals themselves. Our ability to think makes us unique. We are all different and this is something that we should celebrate, not shy away from. I want a woman to be a woman. I want her not too harden her interior and become a man. I want her to express her love, I want her to feel the joy of motherhood, and at times I may even want to buy her flowers. I want to do this without the risk of having them bought for me, to equal the score. I want to fight for a woman with no need for her to ever raise her hands to defend herself for that is a role I want to fulfil. It doesn’t detract from a woman’s worth to be a woman, or her ability to do that for herself, but sometimes, just sometimes there is a reason why we are so different. It is only our rights that should be the same.”
Leave a Reply