Roughly
half the human population is female, yet in almost every country on the planet,
no matter how rich or poor, citizens with the XX chromosome configuration lead
harder lives than the XY crowd. The rising tide of civilization has lifted a
lot of boats, that’s true, but those craft carrying women and girls do not seem
to be as seaworthy as the ones full of men and boys.
The
three major religions originating in the Middle East fill their highest
leadership roles with men. Not surprisingly, then, there is considerable
toleration (and, in many cases, encouragement) for the notion that the solution
to the problem of men not being able to control their reproductive urges is to
confine women literally and figuratively—keep them out of sight in buildings or
tent-like clothing, behind second-class schooling and third-class access to
healthcare. This is, in every case, justified as being a directive from God.
Other
societies and religions (both sacred and secular) practice similar policies. The
two largest nations, India and China, have actually tipped the male-female
ratio to 112 men per 100 women through gender-selective abortions and
infanticide. Those girls who do survive receive less support in everything from
food to education, even though studies indicate that countries with gender
equality in primary and secondary education improve their overall economic
status considerably.
In
India, they can look forward to arranged marriages and the charming
post-nuptial custom of bride-burning. In China, there’s such
a surplus of males that they’re already worrying about the
potential for violent crimes expected to result from the prolonged frustration
of adult men deprived of, um, wives.
Like
no one could have predicted that when they started aborting female fetuses.
But
we in the western world should not be brushing up our tut-tutting skills. Not
with our dismal statistics on domestic violence, our patriarchal policies on
reproductive rights (Viagra sí;
contraceptives no) and our pay gap
(after 40-odd years of record-keeping, women have moved up from 59% to 79% of
men’s wages for similar work; yippee).
Wealth
and intelligence do not mitigate this mindset. By way of example, I give you
the Valley They Call Silicon, the self-proclaimed meritocratic vortex of
Advanced Thinking and The Next Big Thing. Seldom have I worked in a more
testosterone-driven arena, and this includes association with three branches of
the military and a couple of police forces. No matter what your race or ethnic
background, if you’re male you are de
facto a higher-value asset than a female, in every organization from
three-guys-and-a-dog startups to behemoths. Don’t believe me? Take a look at
the statistics
reported under duress (after a lot of pressure from organizations
like the Anita Borg Institute) for male/female employees.
Those
numbers are even worse if you restrict your view to the higher-status/pay
engineering and other tech job categories, filtering out things like admin and
food service.
Sexism—the
denigration of contributions from females—would have to peer very intently into
its rearview mirror to see the rampant stage way back in the distance. Its brochacho,
sexual harassment, is not far behind, either. Some of that is conscious and
malicious, some not. When software development teams hold their monthly
off-sites at Hooters, there could be passive-aggressive motives, or simply
obtuseness, but the atmosphere is toxic regardless.
Could
that super power of silence account for the fact that we’re still making only
79 cents on the dollar, from baristas to CEOs, that our male colleagues are
earning? Hmm?
Beyond
the Valley, though, take a look at the world of scientific research, where a
Nobel laureate (Tim Hunt, Physiology/Medicine, 2001) proclaimed
publicly last year, “Let me tell you about my trouble with
girls [sic]… Three things happen when they are in the lab: You fall in love
with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticize them they cry.”
Therefore, research labs should be sex-segregated. Like madrassas, monasteries
and other places where men can’t concentrate on things through no fault of
their own.
When
I say “publicly”, I mean he made the declaration to a large audience at the
World Conference of Science Journalists—a ballroom full of writers with mobile
devices and connectivity. He didn’t think there was anything at all wrong with
what he considered to be a statement of fact.
That
a lot of male scientific researchers share Hunt’s low-distraction-level
syndrome is evident from reports of decades of sexual harassment by senior (and
mid-level) practitioners of more junior-level female colleagues, like this
one out of UC Berkeley. Institutions almost never reprimand
these men, much less fire their asses, so women are told (sometimes in quite
venerable publications) that it’s just one of the costs of being in science, so
suck it up, babycakes.
And
this is before we get to Congressmorons with freaking medical practices
assuring us that in the case of “genuine” rapes, women’s reproductive systems
have natural ways of shutting down pregnancy.
Well,
you get my point.
It’s
International Women’s Day 2016 and we have so far to go, my brothers and
sisters. We can do better. We have to.
