By LIZ LOPA
There are many things I can’t be. Many things I can’t do. And many things I will never see.
But none of this is because I am a woman.
I will never be a brain surgeon. My brain is not equipped.
I will never climb Mt Everest. My body is not appropriately designed (and my spirit not willing)
And I will never see all the countries of the world. My bank account and time are not on my side.
But none of this is because I am a woman.
You see, all my life I have firmly believed that I can do anything I want to do, be anything I want to be and while a lack of talent or ability might hold me back, I would never be held back because I have a vagina (yep, I used the word).
But this week I am starting to believe that being a woman is a disadvantage.
I have always been scornful of women who behave as if being a woman is a disability to be overcome. Things like affirmative action have never sat comfortably with me as I have always believed that women can succeed on the basis of being smart and capable and getting positions on the basis of being a woman only gives men more opportunity to dismiss you.
I have always viewed being a woman as a strength. I have felt powerful. I mean look at us – we produce the next generation, we play the main role in moulding them (usually), we work, we have the innate ability to form unbelievable friendships and create deep and lasting connections, we are smart, savvy and formidable.
We are women – hear us roar!
Top Comments
Women can also be a great leader in every field; but let us say we must struggle more to view it in a different angle. Men may have more privilege to be in authority and I deeply respect that, and I'm thankful that most men, too do respect and believed that women are not forgotten for the vital contributions they have made impact on every man's job. Like my favorite quote from Max Lucado ~ “A man who wants to lead the orchestra must turn his back on the crowd.”~
"lipsticklearning.com/real-l..."
Affirmative action for women is a misleading objective.
What is informal affirmative action?
Yin has its yang.
It sounds sound, but it makes a mistake that is similar to the moral arguments surrounding welfare dependence.
A recipient of unemployment benefits or single mother benefits is considered to be a recipient of welfare -- a government handout. The recipient of a tax cut or an industry subsidy is NOT deemed to be a welfare recipient. Yet they are very similar. It's the moral discourse that makes a stark distinction between the two.
Affirmative action has a similar moral flaw.
Somebody on welfare is considered dependent on welfare. And to a significant extent that is true. But somebody on a salary is not generally considered dependent on their salary even though they are. Somebody dependent on their investment returns is also not generally considered a dependent -- and on top of that, they are not even working for it.
Affirmative action plays the moral role of welfare. Something imposed on employers, and something that might just lead to inefficient hiring decisions.
But when informal affirmative action is used (prefer the male, prefer the childless male, prefer the white male) it is not generally called affirmative action -- even though it is.
Informal affirmative action -- outed and named for what it is -- needs more focus and attention. That's not to say that positive affirmative action for women is a bad idea. It's just to say that its yin has its yang.