One of the obsessions of the politically correct establishment is to ensure that women represent at least 50% of the desirable positions. Thus we hear constant talk of quotas and the presumed wage gap and an under-representation of women in the sciences. Hypocritically the concern is only when females are considered to be doing worse than males. No one is worried about the fact that girl do better than boys in school, that there are more female than male university students,that males are more likely to kill themselves, that most well paid positions in government and the health care industry are heavily female dominated, that there are women only colleges (supported by taxpayer dollars) and innumerable female only organizations, that there are many government programs that only help women (WIC), and the list goes on and on. We hear nothing about how males are getting the short end of the stick. We only hear about how downtrodden females presumably are.
I like the quote below from the Economist comments section, because it highlights the obvious that men and women are different and even have different goals in life. The feminists seem to believe that women will all be happier and more fulfilled if they take on power careers and become work-a-holics, when many would prefer to enjoy life or have a career. I also want to point out that a large part of the pay gap is due to men taking more dangerous and physically harder jobs, which incidentally generally pay more.
What I annoys me about this kind of discussion is the tacit assumption that gender relations improve when women show themselves to be equal to tasks that men customarily excel at. The message it sends is that in have a job of value you must become a corporate executive.
What this ignores is that the vast majority of women (in Australia) are employed in either education, healthcare, or retail. I would argue therefore that true equality for women will never come through valorising (masculine) corporate culture, as though it is the epitome of social value. Rather it can only come through improving the conditions and status of the industries (and the jobs within those industries i.e. frontline interaction) that the majority of women already work in.
Continuing to valorise corporate culture is a cheap and completely ineffective agenda. Not only does it serve a minority of women, it also serves a minority social interest. Improving the conditions of healthcare, education, and frontline retail services would not only contribute to a broader social good, it would be indicative of a cultural displacement of value in the interests of women (who not only work in these areas, but are also often the ones that take up the informal labour of attending to their family’s education, health, and doing the shopping).
True change will only come through materially acknowledging the value of what women do (I don’t mean that women only do these things, or that they are ‘biologically’ predisposed to do them, just that the current sociological fact is that they do do these things). This must come at the expense of masculine power, and the power of masculine industries. This is not only good for women, it is good for everyone.”