As a woman, it feels like I always have to explain my worth or why I’m valuable only because of my gender.
There has been a bar and limitation that has been set from generations ago and still perpetuated in today’s society. The problem is, this bar doesn’t exist for our male counterparts.
Yes indeed they are given expectations and requirements, but are often prioritized only on the basis of their gender and not necessarily their work.
This is shown countlessly when women are just as qualified, just as capable but are overlooked while men with the same qualifications, fulfilling same requirements are chosen, just because they are…men.
I KNOOOOW, it sounds silly to even have to make that statement.
Really, in this patriarchal society, what limiting bar has really been set for men? Whether or not you agree, the staining evidence of men being beneficiaries of the patriarchal structure, is irradiating in the workplace, in politics and in daily activities.
It is a truth that cannot be covered with a 1% inclusion that is given as a ‘treat’.
I’m tired of the excuse that point to the bare minimum representation that is thrown at women as a means to silence them.
Society continues to hand women ‘candy’ while men hoard the candy store, then uttering statements such as “But look you are being represented.”
Despite a larger number of women matriculating to higher level education, they are still being underrepresented in politics and underpaid in the workplace.
Why? You know why.
It’s definitely not because of their competence and we’ve seen many great women leaders that have proven that this fallacy created to not include women is indeed FALSE.
During the recent Jamaican leadership debate between Prime Minister Andrew Holness and Opposition leader Peter Phillips, they were posed with the question of whether having a gender quota will help to reduce the under-representation that women are subjected to in parliament.
I support the use of a gender quota. A gender quota shouldn’t be what we have to resort to for adequate representation in the year 2020, but must be looked at as a necessary and viable approach.
I see both sides of the coin.
I see and understand the argument being put forward with non-supporters of a gender quota, however I don’t agree.
In a utopian society, surely a gender quota would not be necessary, but unfortunately here we are in an unbalanced, unfair and imperfect society. Therefore, you know what is used to address the inequalities and imperfections that plague our society? Policies and intervention methods. Hence, a gender quota stands as a mechanism to address the unequal representation of women in politics.
The popular argument presented by those who are not in support of a gender quota, is that the selection process should represent one’s merits and capabilities rather than on the basis of gender.
What this implies is that we lack capable women that are able to participate in politics just as effectively, if not, and as seen in many cases, better than men.
Let me also ask, is the current system selecting the right persons for the job?
If the system has been selecting persons only on the basis of merits, then why do we have so many incompetent representatives in parliament?
What puzzles me is that the suggestion of a gender quota instantaneously makes people suggest that incompetent persons will be selected.
Within the regular selection process, are persons not selected based on certain criteria, qualifications and experience? Why therefore are women being questioned more stringently.
A gender quota does not equal to giving incompetent persons the job.
The instantaneous doubts of women’s capabilities are stemming from the unconscious bias or your own subconscious doubts about women.
Do you have doubts when a man is selected just because he is a man? Or do you have doubts based on his characteristics, qualifications or past record of ineptitude?
Women are basically asked to provide more evidence that they are capable than a man. If a man’s capabilities are not being questioned based on his gender, and if we have seen evidence of great women leaders then yes, that is what is being implied.
We have to create opportunities and a fair avenue of entrance for women, or under-representation will continue to be overlooked and continued to be silenced with crumbs. Leading to a perpetuation of the problem, while simultaneously discouraging women to get involved in politics.
Women are being criticized more based on their gender than the work that they’ve done and are doing.
The argument that women are not lobbying adequately for other women, globally, I would disagree, however within the Jamaican parliament, the advocacy for women certainly needs to be heightened.
This however, cannot be your excuse for why a gender quota will not be beneficial, as this can also imply that men who don’t advocate for women’s rights but are in parliament are not to be held to this same standard. A representative should be able to represent ALL. When this is not met, then the same accountability standard should be placed upon them.
Women play an integral role in representing the rights of other women and when this is not met, simple, hold them accountable, require more, make the necessary changes.
A number of factors limit women’s involvement in politics.
Another common answer given surrounds home responsibilities women have, that may affect their career paths and aspirations. Yes, it would be a blatant lie if I suggested that this does not indeed pose a challenge for many women but there is also another side of the grass that show women who have been able to carry both weights beautifully.
Therefore, I don’t even want to hear this excuse. Instead centre the conversation around what can be done to aid women who face this setback, as a result of these limitations.
But why are the other factors impeding women’s involvement in politics not echoed as loudly as this argument? Such as the patriarchal barriers, the belittling women face solely on the basis of their gender, which discourages their involvement and the fact that they are simply just not being chosen.
Gender quotas are seen as band aid for the problem, only if additional work is not being done to address the problem of under-representation. This work will involve removing patriarchal barriers that limit their ability to participate, getting rid of the stereotype that surrounds women’s capabilities; women being viewed as ‘too emotional’ or ‘not tough enough’ and also providing solutions to the core problems that are hindering women’s involvement.
A gender quota doesn’t have to be permanent either. It can be a method of intervening to overcome the structural problems, with additional work of course.
Before the Rwandan genocide, one in five parliamentarians were women. A new constitution was created that requires 30% of seats going to women. The leadership of Rwanda has been impressive and since this constitutional change, the percentage of women in parliament in Rwanda doubled in 2019. Therefore, this shows how a gender quota can contribute to participation of more women in politics and Rwanda is doing great, right? The involvement of women certainly did not subtract from the development of the country.
Women have proven that they make great leaders, women have proven that they are great contributors.
We have nothing else to prove and should not be forced to prove more because of society’s own unconscious bias and doubts.
Dear women,
Take up space, continue to prove them wrong and continue to illuminate beautifully as you have been doing.
I hope you enjoyed this opinion piece.
Thanks for reading!
コメント