on a serious note

and I am trying to get this out of my system, it's just that when I'm sick I have time process more serious thoughts. Today's serious thought comes from an experience that happened to a friend of mine - not a "friend" and actual, real person friend.

My friend works as manager of a business unit that under her management has done extremely well. Her business unit sits directly under her boss and he has much to do with the running of the business unit. There are two other business units.

A contracted manager (different to my friend's role as a salaried manager) on another business unit is a sad individual at the best of times but recently he really showed his true and pathetic colours. Said friend is single, this is a rarity in her masculine industry to the point that she has to really push her point that she is in charge-by-herself (the hyphens are indicate some frustration). Ironically the transport drivers she deals with are totally accepting of her in her role - just to adhere to a sexist assumption about transport drivers. She is extremely competent and loves, nay adores her job. The result of her enjoyment and passion is that she is bludy good at what she does, increases production and makes lots of lovely money. Other manager guy, well his emphasis is on money and as a result treats his staff poorly and his end product suffers as a consequence of his focus. Which ironically makes him less money.

Other manager guy recently offered his workers, there are two, both male, one in his early 20s, the other 45ish with family, offered them $100 if they would take my friend out for lunch or dinner.

Do you feel as outraged as I do?

My friend is like my little sister and I feel very protective of her but that is just outrageous. I just realised that when I put 'but' there I mean regardless of who this 'offer' was made for or about, it's freaken outrageous. If this happened in a corporate environment other manager guy would be out through some sort of serious disciplinary action for a number of reasons - sexual harassment for a start. But this isn't a corporate environment.

The effect on my friend was pretty hard, her confidence was shaken but she tackled it directly and it's seems have been sorted. If it were me I'd be bringing the lawyers and creating some destruction but that's me and I have experience with pushing that kind of water up hill.

So while I was at Borders last week I found a book called "Why women should rule the world" by Dee Dee* Myers. She was a White House Press Secretary under Clinton (not literally as far as I can tell). Apparently this is the pinnacle of being a PR person in the States.

I had expected the book to be a Marxist Feminist perspective and it is. OK to be fair a Socialist Feminist but Marxist Feminist sounds way better cause it is automatically undermined by being named after a male. So if you didn't know feminism, regardless of what I learnt at Uni in Gender Studies, is a diverse and not at all cohesive philosophy.

Here's the deal with women ruling the world.

Firstly, the assumption that there would be less wars. OK two women, or one woman and a group that are held up as an example for feminists are Margaret Thatcher - first female Prime Minister of Britain and the Amazons - ah both were seriously involved with wars. Margaret Thatcher was accused of over compensation when she took Britain to war over the Falklands. This was a small war over the small island near Argentina, kind of like Iraq but effective. And the Amazons, though likely to be a myth, cut their right breast off to get a better reach for their bows. Hmmm woman and their involvment with war, not always avoided or even reduced.

Secondly, the assumption that women are co-operative and naturally seek a consensus. Well let's look at the divorce rates shall we. Enough said.

Thirdly, that women are under paid for the same job. OK a number of things here. First and foremost, what the hell does getting paid have to do with ruling the world??? If you are employed you are hardly ruling the world are you cause if you are employed you'd have a boss! Geez louise.

But on the equal pay issue, the research does indicate that women usually are paid less for the same job as males - yes that is true. But why? In all the research I have read and in my own experience but also having observed others, is that women just don't ask for more money. We accept what we are offered. So who's to blame there? oh yeah the women.

Then there is that when women move into an industry that is largely male the job becomes devalued. This is also true. When secretaries were first separated out as paid role, a really long time ago, they were all men. Secretaries were a highly valued role and skill set. Then when women started working outside of the home, many became secretaries and the job was devalued. It's true, look at nurses - poorly valued in our society, teachers - poorly valued in our society and both predominately female. And watching the law profession closely. But what happens when a woman chooses to follow a career in a male dominated profession? either she takes a organisational or administrative role or she is a ball buster. Well here's the deal, your workmates aren't your friends so who cares if they don't like you. They only have to work with you not live with you. I would just like to note here that my workplace is very friendly and fun. We do have two males employed of nine employees and one is the CEO, hmmmmmm.

So in the other book I bought "Freedomonomics" John R. Lott Jr notes that the increase in social spending on 'services' for the public have increased markedly since women got the vote - for us in 1893 and for the States as John R. Lott is referring to, it was 1919. So with women voting, this is isn't necessarily an increase in female representation in Government, our Government has become increasingly burdened with ideal of doing for the poor and marginalised and increasingly for the middle, educated classes too.

To me what this smacks of is women bitching about the injustices of the world but turning to Big Brother to sort it out for them via affirmative action and legislation to enforce equality.

If women want to be 'equal' to men then they have to be 'equal' by their own volition. Nobody can force another to fully agree to treat another as equal i.e. via legislation. All people, male and female have to earn the privilege of being treated equal - it is not a right.

So women, or womyn as some archaic idealists still hold on to, if you don't like what is happening 'to you' step up or step out. Don't go whining to the Government to fix it. Don't think that some magical feminine quality will make the world a better place, deal with your own backyard first and once that's in order tackle the world. There are injustices all over and unfortunately some of them seldom change.

My sympathy to those who face real discrimination or injustice, but as a friend once told me, repeatedly - if it's going to be, it's up to me. Start by believing and valuing yourself. You'll be surprise how 'fair' the world becomes when believe in your true worth, assuming it is high of course.

My performance review is coming up, there's my chance to increase my wages based on individual merit. If I want it to be, it's up to me.

P.S. for more on individualist feminism, my flavour of feminism, go to here
P.P.S. Have lost my camera cord at the moment so photos of cute calves are stuck on my camera. We will return to regular posts shortly.

*the name Dee Dee is enough of a reason of why this particular woman was not taken seriously.