0 NANCY & DENNIS: GIVING PREFERENCES TO WOMEN--ABOUT TIME

Nancy writes: There was a comment awhile back that giving preferences to women was sexist.  Moving to bring women into the mainstream isn't sexist at all. Unless we move assertively, the male "system" and good-old-boy network will continue to deny women and to direct them into traditionally female roles, roles that keep women at an economic disadvantage and, thus, subservient to men. Education and creative legislation are needed to help women move up to real equality

Men dominate government and industry, and even in situations where women present solid qualifications, they haven't been successful in taking the positions they deserve. That's sexist!  Further, women earn three-fourths of what men earn. That's sexist! There is tremendous pressure placed on women to put aside careers to support those of their husbands. That's sexist! Men are looked upon as somehow being less of a man when they support their wife's career by taking up homemaking. That's sexist! Historically, jobs that have been largely staffed by women pay way less than jobs that have been traditionally male-staffed. That again is sexist!

We advocate giving preference to the woman candidate when all things are equal. In most cases credentials are not equal; increasingly women present better qualifications than their male counterparts. Women are bringing skills and education needed in a high-tech, information economy, but more importantly they bring an inclusive management style. They are able to manage a creative workforce and to collaborate with highly skilled people on complex projects.  So:

  

• Are we being sexist when we advocate women stepping up and taking control at home and in the workplace? No!

• Are we being sexist when we advocate closing the pay gap and empowering women economically? No!
• Are we being sexist when we embrace women's leadership? No!
• Are we being sexist when we advocate basing societal norms on women's approaches and dismissing the confrontational ways of patriarchy? No!
• Are we being sexist when we advocate setting aside contracts and jobs as a way of having women break into the economic mainstream? No!
• Are we being sexist when we feel women should have proportional participation in areas such as high technology and government? No!
• Are we being sexist when we dream of Matriarchy where women's values, approaches, and leadership are the norm? No!
• Are we being sexist when we feel women should work against the engrained patterns of patriarchy by taking control of their households and demanding more from their husbands? No, we are not!

 Think of it differently, think of it as providing men with the opportunity to have the same personal and professional experiences that women have traditionally had:

• The opportunity to become homemakers and care-givers
• The opportunity to work in traditionally female careers such as care-giving, clerical, secretarial, and administrative without social stigmas being attached to their choices
• The opportunity of having HER assume the role of head of household
• The opportunity to share in his wife's successes by supporting HER career
• The opportunity to experience female leadership in the workplace

And all or this should be looked at as totally acceptable from a social and personal perspective. That's equality!

I'll get off my soapbox now.

--N