Like every March 8, this week we marked International Women’s Rights Day. We have mentioned the progress made in recent decades, but we have mainly insisted on the future by repeating what is now the hallmark: “there is still a lot of work to be done”.
Posted at 1:00 p.m.
Our times take for granted that each sphere of society must have equal representation between men and women. It is so obvious that we rarely take the time to explain the reasons justifying such an affirmation.
The implied, but rarely made explicit, justification behind such an assertion is that a strong majority of women or men in a field must be explained by some form of social construction that discriminates against one sex, usually women.
A counter-intuitive paradox
However, this desire for real equality, which is no longer a mere formal equality of rights, is not necessarily self-evident. By taking into account what is commonly called the “paradox of gender equality”, our preconceptions can only be turned upside down.
If, as the prejudices of the time would have it, the differences between the sexes were explained above all by an oppressive patriarchal structure, one would rather expect the neutralization of these differences in egalitarian countries. However, it is very often the opposite that we observe.
The more a society becomes egalitarian, the more men and women tend to differentiate themselves on several levels (traits, interests, jobs, etc.). This rule tolerates many exceptions, but the social sciences and psychology have observed such a trend for decades.
Let’s take a classic example to illustrate the point. In the most egalitarian countries like Norway, there is a clearly gendered division of labour, much more so than elsewhere in the world. Men are overrepresented in certain fields such as engineering, while women are overrepresented in nursing and medicine.
In Quebec, we are also observing the same phenomenon, when women are in the strong majority in medicine and this trend is only accentuated year after year.
However, this paradox is easily resolved. In a society which tends to neutralize discrimination and to attenuate the various social and economic pressures, it is normal that the inclinations which are partly determined by our biology guide the choice of individuals.
To refuse this idea would be to adhere to a form of new kind of creationism where human beings would be the only species not to have roles that are based on sexual differences.
Once this has been established, it is obviously not a question of saying that women or men have any essence and that a “real” woman would be one who works in the field of health, whereas a “real man would work in construction. All are free to choose their profession and we must even encourage them in their choice. While acknowledging this, it seems pretty obvious that there are generally differences between men and women.
Reflection for the next March 8
The paradox of gender equality therefore calls into question the need for parity everywhere all the time, because this is not the result of individual choices, but rather of social engineering imposed by who knows what. architects of consciousness.
The question for March 8 should therefore not concern whether or not parity has been achieved or how to achieve it.
The real questions we need to ask ourselves are more about what we should do with these sexual differences. Should we take them into account? How? ‘Or’ What ? Until what point ? In all walks of life? In all jobs? In private life?
These are complex questions that cannot be resolved with ready-made formulas that are more ready-made than real reflection.