When society resents and rejects meritocracy
Image from YouGov
Feminism as it is defined is not what women like Ann Widdecombe or Candace Owens would consider to be true feminism, at least not one they are a part of. As I do my research and gather my thoughts as regards the subject matter, I find myself to be utterly in opposition to it. Today’s feminist movement has categorically denied the values most women hold dear: from family to career paths that allow them to be mothers. The word “suffrage” has Latin origins, suffragium, which means “a vote.” it was later reinforced by the French word suffrage, meaning the “right to vote.” Emmeline Pankhurst is a name that stands out and one that represents everything the movement entailed, not only for being jailed 11 times but for being the founder of the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU). Their aim was clear: the right to vote. Women were officially given the right to cast their vote in political elections in 1918 after decades of campaigning. They reached their goal, although some might argue (both men and women) that the means were sometimes “militant,” but what they did, how history was drastically changed, is proof that some things are worth fighting for. Little can be said of the rationality behind what is fought for today. The modern and somewhat pop feminism embodies all that nature frowns upon, it tramples upon common sense and has radicalized the structure of the nuclear family—it is on the verge of redefining family. It isn’t just about empowering women anymore; it’s about demonizing men, especially those who, according to most feminists, are “too masculine.” Men and women are similar in many aspects, but they differ physically and biologically, a difference that affects their occupational choices in life, a complementary difference—a factor that can’t and shouldn’t be bypassed. From a physiological standpoint, man is built in a way that favors him to thrive in physical strength – science shows these traits. Men tend to be more competitive, independent, tougher, stubborn, and critically minded; some of these traits are most evident in their propensity to be more violent or most likely to go to jail, as well as most likely to choose riskier and more time demanding career paths. The idea that his strength is always toxic and that men need to be more feminine is insane and will be detrimental in the long run. The danger, I believe, is projecting this idea that masculinity is bad for society. Women, on the other hand, are more self-conscious, they experience emotional pain differently.
One of the biggest fights of today’s feminist movement is equality of opportunity and outcome, the latter being rather unattainable by any margin of common sense and data analysis. Anyone could thrive in a society that enables him or her to put into action his or her capabilities and talents; this is equality of opportunity. However, the conditional “could” isn’t the same as “would.” If I had the same opportunity as my male counterpart, I would flourish, it isn’t a factual nor reasonable statement to make nor to advocate for, supposed to say that if I had the same opportunity as my male counterpart, I could flourish. Equality of opportunity doesn’t translate to equality of outcome. We have failed to see that equity is very different from equality. (Photo credit: Viarami/pixabay) We now reject chivalry and coined it “a means to an obvious end” on the men’s part. There are roles in every society, and these roles have certain requirements, some of which men aren’t physically or biologically built to carry out, such as getting pregnant. These differences between men and women, biological or physical as the case may be, express themselves in the occupational choices made by individuals in general. On equality of outcome, it is rather unfortunate that we tend to turn the truth on its head just to fit a narrative. The facts are not benign; they are quite substantial. It is quite impossible to come to the logical conclusion that equality of opportunity means equality of outcome. No two people given the same opportunity will obtain the same result; one will have a bigger drive, skill, or a more ambitious approach or, better still, more commitment to the task at hand. There are numerous reasons why some people fail to meet given standards. Trying to push equality of outcome as proof of growth and progress is dangerous. Not only will people lack personal responsibility and accountability, they will gradually become more entitled.
The kind of equality being pursued by intellectuals (and feminists) is often the kind of equality that can be imposed unilaterally from the top down, an equality of outcomes—essentially an equality of effects without equality of causes or on the sheer presumption of equality of causes, in defiance of both history and logic (Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Race, p. 138 2013)
A classroom of 15 students is taught by the most renowned professor in the entire university. At the end of the school year, 12 out of the 15 students passed; some better than others. On what basis should such an outcome be pre-determined? As a student and an individual, I understand that I am in control of the time, effort, and hard work I put into preparing and studying for an exam – irrespective of my background, skin color, or culture – however, I’m also aware that such effort doesn’t necessarily equal the outcome as there might be someone who dedicates double the time I have or I’m willing to put in. Larry Elder, an attorney and radio personality, has shared in many events and talk shows his meeting with his father and what his father told him: “You cannot control the outcome, but you are 100% in control of the effort”. This statement, in my opinion, dismantles the equality of outcome argument. Choice is a word that some might argue is used loosely in these present times. The gender pay gap is another very poignant topic in the feminist’s fight for equality. One that they have defined as sexist and discriminatory towards women. The argument and every headline are, at least according to an article I read on the Economic Policy Institute website: women make 79 cents for every dollar a man makes. The stance emphasized that discrimination and societal norms are the reasons behind the disproportional pay gap between the opposite sexes. The article also points to gender bias as being a predominate reason for occupational differences between men and women, such as choosing to have children, expectations from family and society, hiring practices of firms, and, of course, co-workers—in other words, even though women disproportionately enter lower-paid, female-dominated occupations, this decision is shaped by discrimination, societal norms, and other forces beyond women’s control. Studies show that Job choice is one of the main reasons a man’s salary is higher than his counterpart. As can be observed, men tend to gravitate towards more time-consuming and high-risk jobs; these career choices mean higher pay. More than this, age, interests, personality, and time all contribute to one’s paycheque. Claiming as a fact that the pay gap between men and women is solely and exclusively a result of sex is utterly wrong. No doubt there is prejudice towards women in the workplace, but this factor is a lesser contributor to the wage gap, statistically. The question isn’t whether or not there is a pay gap between men and women, the question is, what factors contribute to that? It doesn’t suffice to say it's discriminatory to pay women less because they are women; it is an overly simplistic conclusion and can’t be taken as a fact. A reasonable argument on any subject matter of importance should entail the question: what are the factors contributing to this difference? The correct and only view of equality is that both men and women are allowed to compete on the same terms, that is, they are given equal opportunity to thrive. It’s inconceivable that we don’t recognize the differences of the sexes, differences which ought to be celebrated. Only and only when these two (men and women) come together will they complement each other. This, however, isn’t the same as equality of outcome because the very idea of choice eliminates that possibility, and rightly so. People will choose their career paths, which wouldn’t necessarily fetch them more money, but that is based on their conscious choice. When men and women make their choices in terms of career paths, we don’t get equality of outcome, and the study on this is clear. The division is found when we categorize every position (especially those of power) as a matter of sex instead of one’s competence or ability. It’s rather convenient that we don’t see feminists fighting for women to have positions in areas of construction, plumbing, truck driving, etc. The idea that equalizing society will bridge that gap is a myth. As culture becomes more and more gender neutral, that is, more egalitarian, the differences (biological and otherwise) broaden, as can be seen from the new study carried out in the journal.ie:
Countries with greater gender equality see a smaller proportion of women taking degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), a new study has found. Dubbed the “gender equality paradox,” the research found that countries such as Albania and Algeria have a greater percentage of women amongst their STEM graduates than countries lauded for their high levels of gender equality, such as Finland, Norway, and Sweden. The researchers from Leeds Beckett University and the University of Missouri believe this might be because countries with less gender equality often have little welfare support, making the choice of a relatively high-paid STEM career more attractive.
The researchers used data on 475,000 teenagers across 67 countries or regions for the study. They found that while boys’ and girls’ achievements in STEM subjects were broadly similar, science was more likely to be boys’ best subject. Girls, even with their ability in science equaled or excelled that of boys, were often likely to be better overall in reading comprehension, which relates to higher ability in non-STEM subjects. Girls also tended to register a lower interest in science subjects. These differences were near-universal across all the countries and regions studied. Professor of Psychology Gijsbert Stoet said this could explain some of the gender disparity in STEM participation. “The further you get in secondary and then higher education, the more subjects you need to drop until you end with just one. We are inclined to choose what we are best at and also enjoy. This makes sense and matches common school advice.
It has been established that women tend to work shorter hours (mostly part-time), choose low-risk jobs, and are more likely to choose to have a family – factors all of which are noble but come at a price. Therefore, the purpose of feminists is to create tools for women to flourish in society, which would be different. There is empirical evidence that shows some of the traits that predict success, such as intelligence and high consciousness. One’s ability to succeed in a workplace has to do with one’s personality and willingness to commit. Performance knows no skin color or gender. Women are as strong and much a part of society as men. Our fight as individuals should be to point out where the problem is and find solutions. We should also be able to collect facts and analyze them without being biased. We do a disservice to our country and ourselves when we only focus on lies and instigate war between the sexes. There were times when women had little or no place in society, and today certainly isn’t one of them. As the feminist movement started in England, other countries followed where and when necessary. We have gotten to a point where we lie just to prove a forged narrative. The argument then shifts to whether or not society is to blame for these choices made by men and women, that it has, in some way, programmed children to ultimately make those choices when they grow older; the answer is a resounding no. An article by Emily Willingham on scientificamerican.com examines the study carried out by Armin Falk and Johannes Hermle, which shows that growing national wealth and gender equality accentuates differences in the types of choices men and women make:
In their study involving 76 countries and 80,000 people, they found greater national wealth and gender equality are tied to bigger differences in preferences between men and women rather than to stronger similarities.
Society wouldn’t be what we know it to be without the strength of mothers who nurse their children on their breasts and discipline them in love. We all have a role to play, and complicating that role is a toll we choose to take on ourselves. It doesn’t serve a nation to allow its youth to wallow in self-pity and think he/she is entitled because to whom much is given, much is required.
Comments