This week I read an article on LinkedIn
about power sharing and dynamics between the genders – at least, that is the
term I would use: the (male) author
was basically having a whinge about women having more power and being more
violent than men: the claim was that women are ten times more likely than men
to hit first. Based on my life experience, although women DO commit violence,
including sexual violence (e.g., see here),
men have the far greater association with violence – and, in terms of the male
experience of violence, most of it is at the hands of other men.
It was a shame the author had devolved into
that line of argument: his original starting point was good (I would have liked and shared it if the article had stayed along
those lines) – it was how, a couple of decades ago, the emphasis was on
empowering all genders, and that is something I would agree with. As an
example, I was, in the mid-90s, the (female)
workplace representative for Equal Employment Opportunity in the Workplace, and
one of the selling points I was happy to use - and was well received by most men, although not all - was that the changes being
implemented would help men as well as women
(e.g., allow the men to spend more time with their kids).
That does seem to have been lost.
One of the reasons it has been lost, I
suspect, is akin to something that I understand the great Dr
Martin Luther King Jr. alluded to once: if you don’t give a discriminated group
realistic and credible – to them – hope, that group will become
increasingly more extreme.
Dr King was writing in terms of the civil
rights movements of the 60s in the USA, which were largely based on ending
racial discrimination, and he begged US
President Johnson for something to give his people hope, warning that not
doing so would lead to violence, the year before, I think, the Watts
Riots (incidentally, anyone who makes
disparaging comments about people destroying their own homes or neighbourhoods knows
nothing about being on the receiving end of endemic discrimination or how things like houses or neighbourhoods can
become associated with being trapped – which is something I can relate to, as
that is how living in the suburbs etc has left me feeling [I’m more country
girl than city, but even better is being on the water :) ] ).
In terms of gender relations in the here
and now, despite laws banning discrimination since the 1970s (in Australia), there is still a great
disparity in terms of social and economic power between men and women, and
women are being driven to stronger activism and views because of the lack of
credible – to women - progress.
There is a saying to the effect that groups
who are in power feel that they are being discriminated against when a
situation moves towards a more balanced position: that applies, in this
instance, I consider, but also, and perhaps even more
importantly, as the British High Court in India in the 1850s pointed out,
you do not restore equality to a disadvantaged group by providing ongoing equality of opportunity - it is necessary to provide advantageous treatment (at least until balance has been provided).
That means, as far as I am concerned,
quotas.
(Incidentally,
there was an interview with a female activist in the 1960s who related the
story of how they initially campaigned for equal power for women at a
University, and got a reply along the lines of “oh we think around 30% is enough
power for women”; they responded by advocating for “all power to women” and the
response was quickly changed to “oh, 59% is fine”. Amusing perhaps, but it
gives a really clear illustration of the problem. Another illustration of this
problem is those unthinking [i.e., stupid] people who respond to “Black Lives
Matter’ with “All Lives Matter”: yes all lives matter, and it is BECAUSE black lives are being
treated as if they DON’T
matter that it is necessary to remind everyone that they DO matter.)
There have been enough articles on how
things like merit-based job applications do not work, so I’m not going to
bother repeating them (or even trying to
link to them, Dear Reader – links can be found by a suitable Internet
search or three :) ), and so-called “blind applications”, where personal identifying
information is removed are just another attempt at at dithering around the
edges: it is high time for disadvantaged groups to be given their power.
There is another aspect that I want to talk
about here, and that is power in the home and interpersonal relationships. I
consider that housework should be done equally (throughout all levels of society – which puts a constraint on the
expected work commitments at higher workplace strata :) ), but that also
means that decisions about standards of housework also get shared – if one
person likes housework done to a higher standard than the other, they
compromise and meet in the middle: if they can’t do that, they need to consider
either ending their relationship, or living separately. [1]
Being open to such relationship
possibilities as living separately is one of the things I’ve learned from polyamory
- along with things like the difficulties, and the irrelevant
ideologies that can take over groups. I’ve found all communities I have become
a part, from the first one – the sailing community in the little town in
central Queensland that I lived in as a kid (teenager)
are not as good as I first think (e.g.,
see my email at the end
of this post). In the case of the polyamory community here, it at one stage became
overtaken with group that had child-indulging [2]
approaches to parenting, and an expectation that everyone would share their
belief that nothing else in life mattered as much as children, family and house
to live in – which is complete and utter ******** [3] ... and fortunately has been brought under control, as I understand it, in that group. I’ve always been annoyed by (former –
none of them now have this position in my life) friends who view getting
into a relationship as something which justifies subterfuge (such as portraying
an image, rather than being oneself) and a plan to change the entrapped partner
into the person’s life priorities, values and views.
Those friends, incidentally, are male as
well as female, although more female than male.
On that, if I go back to the point I
started this post with, about comparative violence between genders, my personal
experience – which is NOT necessarily reflective of society – is that:
- sexual assaults are more often committed by women (I am quite satisfied that such is NOT the case in broader society);
- violence is roughly equally committed by male and female, but the forms are different: more commonly physical, in the case of men, and more commonly verbal (including misuse / abuse of superior word skills, which counts as an abuse of power as much as running a dictatorship or perpetuating sexist abuse), emotional and financial by women. In no case is the violence acceptable – no matter how well it can be explained by things such as discrimination, but the insights gained by knowledge of such factors helps to give a more nuanced and effective response, which will include remedying such also unacceptable factors as the discrimination.
Here's to change for the better, more nuanced understanding, and an end to compulsory stereotypes :)
Notes
[1] This also applies to earning an income. In my view, that should be split evenly, unless there are valid reasons otherwise – e.g., one partner being differently abled, or having very young children. That latter point does NOT mean “the woman” in a heterosexual relationship should stay home: I knew a young male engineer in the 80s who was the one chosen to stay home – largely because his wife earned a higher income than he did.[2] I have a – current – friend who has occasionally advocated that people who want to have children should first prove that they can raise a dog – properly, in a disciplined way, not by overindulging or indulging in teenage “adoration” rubbish. As I get older, have had more to do with raising partner’s kids and have seen others efforts (successes and failures), I am more and more inclined to agree.[3] Anyone in a developed society who does think that in this day and age is, in my view, (a) so undeveloped as a person (particularly spiritually) that they are in the grip of the self-replicating DNA(including implications such as this), and (b) environmentally irresponsible, because of the environmental problems that go with overpopulation in such societies. (In undeveloped and many developing societies, there are survival issues which are different, and the current environmental impact of those people – because of things like poverty or impoverished lifestyle – is lower.)
I apologise for publishing these posts
twice, but Blogger keeps changing my formatting. I can either publish it and
then correct it, or save and close the post and correct it when I reopen it,
but that leaves an extra copy in my "drafts" folder ...
Love, light, hugs and blessings
I am revamping my former website, and getting at least one other underway (pronounced "new-MYTH-ear"; ... aka Bellatrix
Lux … aka Morinehtar … would-be drýicgan or maga
... )
My "blogiography" (list of all posts and guide as to how to best use this
site) is here, and my glossary/index is here. The reasons for my caution when using Wikipedia are here.
I started this blog to cover karmic regression-rescue
(see here and here), and it grew ... See here for my group mind project, here and here for my "Pagans for Peace" project (and join me
for a few minutes at some time between 8 and 11 PM on Sunday, wherever you are,
to meditate-clear for peace), and here
for my bindrune kit-bag. I also strongly recommend
learning how to flame, ground
and shield, do alternate
nostril breathing, work
with colour, and see also here and be
flexible.
May the best in me, my Higher Self,
and those of the Clear Light who assist me,
help me to keep myself grounded, centred and shielded,
to be Balanced and a Fulcrum of Balance,
a centre of Balanced Positivity and Spiritual Maturity,
with my aura continuously cleansed, cleared and closed,
repelling all negative or unwanted energies,
whilst allowing positive, balancing and healing energies in and through.
The real dividing line is not between
Christianity and Islam, Sunni and Shia, East and West. It is between people who
believe in coexistence, and those who don’t.
- All of the above - and this blog - could be wrong, or subject to context, perspective, or state of spiritual evolution ...
Tags: abuse of power, communication, discrimination, evolution, gender, growth, hope, ideology, inequity, metaphorical blindness, self interest, society, taking advantage of others,
First published: Sunnudagr, 16th October, 2016
Last edited (excluding fixing typo's,
Blogger's change of my formatting and other minor matters): Sunday, 16th October, 2016
