Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
GENDER EQUALITY HAS still not been achieved in Ireland – and it’s not just up to women to make the improvements. The onus too is on men to do something about it.
Ireland currently ranks 79th in the global table of female representation in parliament. Of Ireland’s elected deputies, only 14.5 per cent are women. To offer a comparison, Rwanda’s parliament is 53 per cent female.
We, as a country, have a huge way to go. And I’m saying this after a new report has just revealed some shocking statistics in so-called developing countries.
Only 7 per cent of board members in Irish companies are female. We are poor performers on a lot of these barometers.
That is why we are calling on men to do something. Most parliamentarians are men, most CEOs are men so it incumbent on them to help sort out this issue.
In business, some men still believe that a woman “goes to have babies” and disrupts the business model. These beliefs make life very difficult for women.
But in helping get rid of such gender stereotypes, men will also be helping themselves.
Debunking myths can lead to healthier men and better fathers
Males under the age of 24 generally try to live up to the stereotype of “being a man”. They live harder, becoming more susceptible to alcohol abuse, substance abuse and road traffic accidents.
On the domestic front, fathers could stand back a little bit and see what they can do to break down such gender stereotypes. Could they help more with household chores or caring for the younger children? By doing so, these small changes can give an example to their sons and lead to a new breed of male.
If men are willing to share the power burden, it will be good for them too. There is a feeling among men that they need to be the main bread-winner. There is a sense of failure if they not providing everything for their family.
If there is less of a gender stereotype displayed to boys and if they buy into gender equality and a new image of the male, they are under less pressure to conform. They will live longer, become better fathers and more-rounded adults.
However, if these things are not experienced at home, it is important that the issues are addressed in school.
We have already started to debunk the myths. For example, school books are more representative and include all sorts of ethnic groups and different family dynamics. We are starting a pre-school level to get rid of gender stereotypes.
Boys and girls should care about gender equality
No matter where in the world you are, gender equality is good for boys, as well as girls.
Girls’ and women’s rights are human rights. It can often be helpful for men to look at it more parochially – imagine how they want their own mothers, sisters, girlfriends or wives to be treated in the greater world. If men and boys believe in justice and fairness, they will be able to see that not all women enjoy the same level of respect in the community.
Plan International works in 50 developing countries with a vision of a world in which all children realise their full potential in societies that respect people’s rights and dignity.
In our latest report, Because I am a Girl: The State of the World’s Girls, we found that greater gender equality will help boys to succeed in school, to be comfortable with their own identity, to be confident in expressing emotions and be equipped with the skills to build positive relationships of mutual trust and respect.
A new perspective on gender is about a more productive way of viewing power relationships to benefit both sexes.
In developing countries, a lot of inequality and violence is generational and our work is about breaking cycles.
Education needs to start at a young age and it is vital that families become aware that educating girls is just as worthy an investment as educating boys.
In some countries – for example India and China – even young children believe that if resources are scare then it is better to educate the boy, rather than the girl.
In a perverse way, this belief is perpetuated by the parents. In some cases, the female child is even less nourished than the male. Families often see their sons as a better “investment” than their daughters.
However, we have found that if a girl spends just one more year in school, then she will ean about 20 per cent more annually throughout her lifetime. And about 90 per cent of that income goes directly to the household. We therefore encourage girls across the world, particularly in developing countries, to stay in school longer, look for a job, get married later in life and have fewer but healthier children.
As told to Sinéad O’Carroll following the launch of the 2011 Because I am a Girl: The State of the World’s Girls report. David Dalton is CEO of Plan Ireland, which runs the Because I am a Girl campaign, tackling issues of gender inequality. For further information, please visit www.plan.ie.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
There would be more women in Dáil if there were any women good enough to get in there. You can’t just have a bunch of females there to make of numbers. There is something called “being qualified”.
I wouldn’t touch public office with a barge pole. It is an appaulling job in my eyes. Zero job security, taking abuse from the public constantly. Maybe other women have the same impression?
That could be it Jane, but I’m sure many “men” have the same opinion. I just find it ridiculous that people would consider putting in a particular gender to make the system “more” equal. Just complete nonsense. How about the transgender people? Maybe it should be split between men, women and transsexual’s.
Maybe that’s why our government is so F**cked up. Too many greedy men.
And women wouldn’t b greedy too given the opportunity, Debbie ? That’s a very sexist remark to make & if a bloke made a similar remark substituting “greedy men” with “greedy women”, we’d never hear the end of it from the Mna na hEireann brigade ? It’s all about ability & not gender.
This argument is tired and tiresome. It was hubris, vanity and complete indifference to the real responsibilities of government that did it, not their gender. To impute these traits in “men” (quite apart from the fact that their economic model was at times “Thatcherite”, and the fact that it was Mary Harney who horsetraded herself and FF into office) is trite and unhelpful.
The last election saw a record number of female candidates elected to to the Dail in the history of the state. If a candidate is not elected it’s because they either don’t have the ability politically or strategically. Reasoning that a candidate wasn’t successful because of their sex is ridiculous not to mention downright insulting to the electorate. People who have talent and ability succeed regardless of their gender and playing the gender card to cover up inadequacy might have worked years ago but nowadays is plain and simple BS. Move on.
I was thinking of chopping it off , buying a good wig, shaving the ol pins, changing the name to Mary McAlooney and putting myself up for President.
Only if u wear Tweed eau de loo !!! I’m sick of this “not enough women in politics” nonsense.
What about the millions of girl babies that are killed through infanticide and abortion…just for being girls?
Sometimes gender equality can be incredibly patronising towards women. What of the women who make a choice to stop going for promotion and instead decide that they are sufficiently satisfied in their careers and that they don’t want the additional responsibilities a promotion or even a boardroom position would bring? Are these women “bad feminists”?
Gender equality has failed to recognise that men tend to be more ambitious than women and less easily satisfied in their jobs. Equality should not try to make different people the same, instead it should recognise these differences.
In general I find this article very patronising. Boys must learn how the “new male” behaves, because the old one clearly wasn’t good enough for the PC mob. Equally text books have been changed to educate them the correct way. So much for liberalism where people have choices in how to live their lives.
It’s true… The PC, postmodern version of equality flattens out the depth, nuance and complexity of the world, and its’ sensitivity has a subtle fascism in it in giving us new tight-fitting roles to replace the old ones.
Which is to say, that it is a step in the right direction, but not enough of one. It doesn’t do what it says on the tin so to speak.
Brilliantly put, Ryan Allen. Boys will b boys. Girls will b girls. Let each find out the wonders of the other & get on with it. U are very much right when u say ” equality should not try to make different ppl the same, instead it should recognise these differences”.
Surely we’d all agree that true gender equality is inclusive to all; be they ‘new males or females’ or ‘old males or females’ or ‘good’ or ‘bad’ feminists. The point of the article is that gender stereotypes put people under pressure to conform and this is not a good thing.
Yes, true inclusivity has a place for those ‘old males’ too – it’s just that the research has shown that “Males under the age of 24 generally try to live up to the stereotype of “being a man”. They live harder, becoming more susceptible to alcohol abuse, substance abuse and road traffic accidents.” Also; “There is a feeling among men that they need to be the main bread-winner. There is a sense of failure if they not providing everything for their family.” And finally; “If there is less of a gender stereotype displayed to boys…They will live longer, become better fathers and more-rounded adults.”
These are just quotes from the article (backed by scientific research), and if they’re not enough of a reason to call into question the gender stereotype of the ‘old male’ (irrespective of how we might perceive them to be under attack from the ‘PC mob’) then we’re simply not recognising that gender stereotypes often engender (pardon the pun) inequalities.
Of course there are differences between the sexes, however “greater gender equality will help boys to succeed in school, to be comfortable with their own identity, to be confident in expressing emotions and be equipped with the skills to build positive relationships of mutual trust and respect.” It seems obvious to me; greater gender equality is something we should work towards. (while of course not excluding those who wish to remain ‘old males’ and whatever that entails)
You’re absolutely right Ryan – ‘equality should not try to make different people the same, instead it should recognise these differences’. However, I think you’ll find that gender stereotypes celebrate and emphasize the differences between the sexes instead of their similarities which has led to the surely unnaceptable inequalities the article refers to.
Women are not less ambitious then men. They want to use their brains and talents and do the interesting work too. However if to abide by this “gender role” thing we come across un interested and less ambitious after a while. The real interesting work areas are male dominated for reasons which is why there are research studies and stats and questions and discussions like ” is it gender roles?” or “are the lads being fair to women in jobs and politics?”, it is not about women not being interested or ambitious… we just have to get along rather then flog a dead horse sometimes and take what we can get which is more template gender role type lower opportunities. The white alpla male is at the top predominantly and also there is alot women can learn from men as men also consult women they rrespect aswell. If there are stats proving a poor show of women in interesting high profile positions be it politics, corporate or whateveer,.. there are questions worth looking at I think. I think the article is fair enough. OK the males are upset that it looks like they are beingg villified and tthey feel insulted and saying sure women arent interested or bothered anyway. and women are agreeing….. But maybe if both women and men could notice more from here on the dynamics between genders in their firms, or in ssocial circles. I frequently see women looking up to males that have no more clue about anything then the knowledge, expertise aand experience she has in her small toe. Thats a negative effect of gender role conditioning.
I see guys ggetting very upset if aa woman corrects him on a fact. BUt if He corrects her on a fact, she might be more inclined to be impressed. If she continues then and argues happily her point of view he may not be interested to talk anymore, or, he may be able to engage in an equal exchange in dialogue. You see confident intellegent women checking for their partners response before finishing her opinion.. she can be looking for the green or the red light. In the career compeitive field Men get more upset if not enraged by a women successor then a fellow male.. it can get very messy if the sexes are opposite in the competition game. I dont think bad mindedness is intended.. but there is a course of consistant events going on… and to be honest.. as a result, a female at the top of her game on an international level in her field is more likely to end up pushing paper or looking after a department of clerks in a male dominated managed firm then her male equivalent will. Most PA’s are female and the lads are executives… the PA may be more capable of that executive position and if not even more educated and copped on but her chances of tthat are way less… she has to pay the mortgage too. This is not across the board I know of course,..and yes women thrive brilliantly also as leaders or innovators…. but if research studies show up certain facts…why not have a think about your female pals and compare their status to their male peers….does it balance or not? if its off balance is it because the girls were not interested or is it that they are not as clever or savvy as the boys are…. I dont know.. Maybe gender research studies are lies.
I don’t believe in equality for all…I believe in equal opportunity for all.
I’d prefer to see a meritocratic society than one that embraces numerical equality.
its a democracy, they werent voted in
Correct & get over it.
I could do with a bit of gender equality in the family law courts, the prisons, criminal sentencing policy, treatment by male gardai. Anywhere, in fact, where pompous authoritarian males like to ‘do a bit’ for the ‘little woman’.
Never mind the fact that the HSE, the education sector and the civil service generally is dominated by women.
In stark contrast to this article http://menssupportgroupsofireland.com/societal-bias-fathers-alienated-from-their-children-suicide/ on societal bias, it’s hard to believe just how out of touch the CEO of Plan Ireland really is. Yes he calls for Gender Equality, a laudable cause but its only for women and girls, far more sinister is his exclusion of young males as in the following quote “Girls’ and women’s rights are human rights” where are the young boys? This is seriously uninformed and dangerous commentary and needs to be challenged. Shame on you and your patronising attitude.
I totally agree with Ryan’s comment. The article is too dogmatic and dictatorial, quoting statistics about numerical under-representation of women in business and politics. The message is that it exists, that it is an “issue” that must automatically be a Bad Thing and the fault of men everywhere. Anyone with a brain knows that women are under-represented in these areas, but throwing numbers around is disingenuous as it makes no attempt WHATSOEVER to examine why that under-representation exists and ask the hard questions. Are women being discriminated against within political and business spheres? Do they (very legitimately) not see politics as an attractive career path? Do the electorate discriminate against female candidates? How do we fix it? Do we tokenise women by introducing quotas and possibly exclude perfectly capable male candidates on the basis that they have a different set of bits to women? Why don’t we opt for a meritocracy instead where the best person for the job gets it? The article doesn’t attempt to offer any kind of analysis.
The thing that really bugs me about articles like this on “Equality” in Ireland as outlined by the bastions of political correctness, is that it seems to mean the marginalisation and/or complete exclusion of the male voice in any kind of debate, instead dictating to them how they should behave according to arbitrarily defined criteria. Not the mention how this article in one swoop simultaneously laments the under-representation of women, and then in the last paragraph totally patronises them by saying “We therefore encourage girls across the world, particularly in developing countries, to stay in school longer, look for a job, get married later in life and have fewer but healthier children.” Get married later in life? How about butt out and let them decide for themselves! It’s just more meddlesome liberalism.
At the end of the day, men and women are different. “Equality” is a social experiment with an ideology and dogma all of it’s own which tries to paper over and ignore these differences instead of celebrating them as we should.
Nice
I thought equality was a goal not a social experiment. I also thought that similarities, not differences, should be celebrated. I must be a meddlesome liberalist.
Ah well, it’s off to Scandinavia with me, to live with the rest of those kooky liberals. (i wish)
Oh dear, Ireland is not ready for discussions, understandings or awareness of the effects of gender roles to womens livelihoods, wellbeing and positioning. Even women are chauvenistic.
I agree, but gender roles is a sword that cuts both ways. The ‘freedom’ to go out and be the breadwinner for a family is not what it’s cracked up to be. It’s a position of duty and responsibility more than some kind of luxurious power. Talking about women as the perpetual victims does not really cut it any more for me unless it goes both ways.
not that even women are chauvinistic I think women are more chauvinistic.
This is especially in a social role where they consider female weighted politeness a good thing (chivalry). In everything sex and relationship wise women must become equal burden sharers and not passive automons who just say yes or no to a series of requests and poof you’re married.
This stuff is for women to take as men would die alone if they waited for women to make a move.
Why do men or women get heated up and aggressive when discussing openly the subject of gender roles. It just a discussion.However denigrating the subject alone along with denigrating either sex is not much progressive. Men want to intergect a sweeping angry comment and then theres women that want to be in with the lads. Gender roles effect both sexes negatively and sometimes positively. But however there are some critical effects worth noticing if we are observant or interested in being considerate of our fellow people. However to get into details about such makes people very angry. This itself proves how deeply rooted stereotypical gender roles are. I find dismissing any issue that is a subject that asks questions, or is exploring issues of suspected inequalty, segration etc is very non progressive. I hate to tell you but the reality is that being a woman you dont get the same deal as your male equivalents… however nobody is going to write it in capital letters in a big wall for you. ANd this is thanks to your sisters and brothers rowing the gender role boat.
It’s good to see this being discussed in the mainstream rather than on the fringes… What seems more revealing to me than the low % of female representation, is that the women that ARE in gov’t are usually in a kind of masculine that is not native to them. We don’t have much of a feminine in gov’t yet, anywhere in the world. Men go out an bash things around, build them, control them, change things, take strong action. Women have a more subtle, nuanced understanding and caring orientation to things – closer to feeling than thinking, planning, and acting, and closer to embodiment than abstraction. It’s not surprising that they wouldn’t be in gov’t as a result, because where is the desire for power in that more passive, receptive, embracing mode of being?
Also, it’s sad that the postmodern attempt at equality collapses and conflates equal fair treatment with sameness… Men and women have such radically different wiring (for the most part – there are obviously loads of exceptions, and in-betweens). And it’s not cool to say it because ‘that’s insensitive’. Actually that denies the complimentary, opposite strengths men and women have. And that’s one reason that the more dominant female voices on the political scene are more tough than most men – they have to play the game even harder, in a foreign ‘mode’ (take women like Thatcher and Condoleeza Rice as examples). The masculine isn’t the thing ruining the world so much as the hypermasculine – the out-of-control, exaggerated version of it. The type of mind that makes body a sin rather than seeing that body is as much Spirit as anything ‘up there’ or ‘beyond’. This is the mode that I see behind everything from things like The Vatican and Taliban, to the stupider elements of American Republicanism – where greed and a merciless, compassionless attitude towards the poor is called ‘conservatism’, when it’s just badly concealed fascism, to the blind pillaging of the environment with no regard for what the consequences are.
Whether masculine or feminine, it’s clear this world needs more action from the heart. Things have never been so urgent on the planet in so many ways. And voices COMPLETELY lacking in integrity are STILL running the show for the most part from what I can see. I would definitely like to see more women in politics. And the soft, understanding, EVOLVED kind for once rather than the ballbusters. That would be a new thing from what I can see. It’s not that men are ‘bad’ – that’d be ridiculous – most men I know are very kind people. It’s just that there has been nothing to curb the out of control, destructive and controlling action of men, which is a good thing taken too far, and which has been spiralling out of control for centuries. The good thing about the urgency on the planet right now is, despite the grave dangers, it’s becoming so much clearer that we need change. It’s in our faces in a way it has never been before.
Well said Gearoid. I wish to god there were more women in government. We have to treat Ireland as one big family. No mother would sell the family silver while other members of the family could contribute more. She’d tell them they had to cough up. Nor would she stop looking after her elderly grandparents nor her children with special needs. if one or two of her older children were experiencing financial hardship paying their mortgage she’d find a couple of bob extra for them too and their siblings not that hard up wouldn’t be jealous – wishing it was them for god’s sake! We are the Irish branch of the human family and we’ve got to cop on or we’re gonta sink.
fair dues ta ya gearoid. lots of sense in there.
Sorry Reada? Does the name Harney mean nothing to you? Thatcher, maybe, from the last “downturn”? This “Universal Mother” nonsense about what a mother would do is unfounded sexist sniping, and nothing more.
Lack of evidence defers to intuitive metaphors of dubious quality and resonant with existing prejudices, insensitivity is not the apt objection
women may be different to men in passive and non passive, hunter and gatherer etc but women do think differently too and can bring a slant that may not be considered by men. governments are not about ‘bashing and trashing’ about in a manly way, finance for instance can also be seen from the social AND the economic view point as can health and environment.
nonsense to think that women have not a place in government due to their lack of bashability!
by the way, i wouldn’t consider Irish politicians that qualified, so reasoning why they are not in government cos they are not qualified, both misses the point and is irrelevant.
Agreed
the article in question suggests men should involve themselves more in gender equality with the implication that this would help the male situation also. how does the ratio of female voters relate to the ratio of elected female td’s? perhaps a lot of women vote for men when they should lead by example and themselves vote more women to power. this article is, to be gender specific, balls!
Ann I think we are mostly in agreement… By ‘bashing around’, maybe I meant ‘shaping the world’… (at least in it’s more healthy, constructive form). And what I was putting across as that active (male)/passive(female) dichotomy – they are complimentary opposites. They are both strengths – even though ‘passive’ has an unfortunate association of weakness attached to it, it really isn’t a weakness – it’s understanding and vulnerability. That would be the ‘different slant’ you talk about in my understanding. Like I said in my own comment, I know it is more complex in reality than those two absolutes, but I do think it’s a useful way to think about it. Maybe it’s all shite, but it’s the way I’ve come to think about these issues over the past few years, because it appeals to me.
I couldn’t agree more that there should be more women in gov’t, and what you say about them having a different slant on things is kinda what I was getting at. And yeah, I agree that ‘qualification’ is a crazy way to look at it – a bit of a red herring. Most politicians are just experts in saying nothing at lenth, and pushing the agenda of whoever is paying them… ‘Qualification’ in that sense is a lack of integrity. There are a lot of good eggs too, but I tune out when I hear most politicians talking, as it’s like listening to a parrot.
Sorry, I stopped reading at Rwanda. Do we want to be more like Rwanda?
Arbitrarily introducing quotas in politics is:
A) Completely undemocratic.
B) Insulting to women.
C) Fails to address the real problem: ATTITUDES.
As was said above, more women than ever before ran in the last election, yet very few were elected. Why was this? The electorate rejected most of them.
Women do indeed find it hard to get involved in politics, but what I find frustrating is how Fine Gael/Lab are just trying to introduce quotas as a means to fix this. It will fix nothing! There are a number of key reasons why politics is not a career of choice for many women:
Women are naturally better child carers. This is a talent evolution equipped them with, and if you disagree with me, do check a few of the many articles and books written about this. It’s natural that female spouses end up losing a few years, otherwise spent advancing themselves, looking after their children until they start school. This means that when they begin to look for political office, they are older.
There is a certain stigma against older women, for largely historical reasons. Old men were considered “wise men” historically, while women were considered “hags”. Although much of that has disappeared today, society does view older men in a more positive light than older women. Women in the 50 plus age category simply do not seem to look good on election posters. Why this is, I don’t know, but it seems to have a strong historical basis.
Thankfully, there are practical ways to fix this:
1) A state childcare system, extended to infants. If children over three months, for example, were eligible for a special state childcare system, then women could get back to work sooner.
2) Paternity leave – like the above, it would mean women getting back to work sooner. Additionally, it would mean that women would not “lose” more time than men.
3) Putting an end to single-gender schools. Seriously, this system lives and breaths sexism, and it would combat the main problem at hand: attitudes.
I agree with most of your post Fiachra but women are not “naturally” better child carers, even though they win hands down on the whole womb thing. The thing about evolution is that it didn’t stop, so there are women who have no interest or aptitude in parenting, and men who embrace it.
Maybe they should go to Rwanda !
Jobs for the boys.
It’s quite literal. We can’t have them wimmen telling everyone about our trips to the Phoenix park and such.
Instead, let’s keep pushing men who agree with our stance.
Harney being the exception. She doesn’t have a heart. She’ll get one soon though. I heard that a 17 year old girl in the Andes is about to croak. The government jet is on stand-by.
Gender Quotas = female privilege, thats hardly equality is it. The best way to deal with PC is to argue as much as you can with the demented kittens they usually resort to name calling and sulk off. Men stand up for your rights the feminazis and manginas have been chipping away at masculinity for decades stick out that hairy chest and be proud to be masculine , men and women are equal just different don’t let the PC cretins tell you otherwise.
You Tube Bernard Chapin he might enlighten you.
Who paid for the report on which this opinion piece is based? I would have thought Plan had other work other than raking over such a discussion.
The “new breed of male” thing is just downright dumb and insulting (we’re obviously all defective in the author’s eyes), as are the patronising instructions for women on how to live their lives. That’s the thing that really concerns me about the PC creeps – they make up their own mind on how society should work based upon their own biases and ideologies, without giving any voice or taking input to that society, and dictate to people how they should live their lives.
“new breed of male” Do you have to make it sound so Nazi-esque? Are you going to sterilize our thoughts?
It’s a democracy obviously. You can’t blame men for the disastrous economy. I can easily turn around and say “Rwanda has a majority of women in parliament – look how shite that country is doing, must be women’s fault”. Can I also argue that children, disabled people, and foreigners are under-represented in parliament? And should be given seats?
And for the women that “act like men” in politics – that is completely untrue. Men AND women act like politicians in politics. Thatcher didn’t behave like a man, she behaved like a prime-minister.
i agree with a lot being said here.
the fact though when you get down to the heart of it, is stigma of women in Irish Society. someone asked about ‘young men’ well, i am unsure in what context this is asked.
yes, equality etc for young men but in this debate its about the role of women in irish society.
they receive less pay then men for starters, and that is a FACT.
in deed they receive less than most other ‘modern’ countries. This wording of Ireland being a ‘modern society’ was stated in the Dail over the Vatican hiding priests here, but are we that modern?
i doubt it.
Women want to participate. I feel that there is something more in this than being pregnant and not coming onto the scene until children are a bit older.
its about accommodation of women in all spheres of life, which will allow equality.
that has to come first.
Men’s expectations of women in Ireland are far too high, that is expectation that they should be at home with the babbies.
also women are NOT ‘vulnerable’ the only area they are is physically, but i doubt any want to throw a fist to a man in Dail Eireann.
Sorry David conroy. But does the name hitler, bush, saddam, cromwell, idi Amin, gaddafi mean anything to you??? Gimme a break! I’m not sexist. Just think there should be more balance.
None of those despots did it just because they were men rather than mothers, Reada, they did what they did because they were bad people. There is no knowing what their female equivalents, maternally-motivated or not, would have done, without resorting to fanciful and silly conjecture.
Those you mention were in a position to do what they did because they were in power, and men traditionally get into powerful positions. They were exceptional, thankfully, to the countless world leaders who do dutiful and beneficial service to their countries and to the rights of their citizens.
I have not suggested, for example, that Gandhi was better for being a man, or Desmond Tutu, or Nelson Mandela, or Michael Gorbachev, or Martin Luther King. They did what they did because they were good people. And I reiterate that the unfounded suggestion that being a mother would preclude wrongdoing is sexist sniping.
I would vote for the “best man for the job”, man or woman, completely without reference to their gender, because that’s how equality is supposed to be, and if that means 100% women in the Dail, that’s fine, why shouldn’t it be.
I cannot, however, countenance the presumption that any woman would act better just by being a woman.
Apologies for delay in replying, I nearly didn’t find your post down here.
Probably never gonna see a piece like this that doesn’t also invoke the stereotypes it purports to debunk, these articles always foreground lack of equality amongst CEO’s, in corporations for god’s sake, the moderm engine of tyranny and a dictatorial organisation, good lord.
have your say