The other day I got involved in a tangent.
The discussion orbited around the dispersion of women in the workforce. The discussion went the normal direction that these kinds of discussions go. Why isn't the workforce a statistical representation of the population?
The natural flow of the conversation does not account for enough factors. It relies on idealism and statistics. It may sound that I am anti diversity, but far from it. The truth is that it will take time for that kind of equality to happen. Generations is the likely timeframe we are looking at. Not years. The other thought is that not all jobs appeal to all people across the spectrum. Perhaps there aren't enough aspiring female crab fisherpeople or CEO's or aspiring male administrative assistants.
Well the discussion becomes even more complex when considering ethnic background. Or are people the same across ethnic lines and have the same internal interests and only outwardly different? No I think our background builds our values. Our values determine the kind of work we will do.
I will now refute the claim that "a job is a job." That is simply untrue. It can be true that people do not enjoy the work that they do but they have the option of doing something they enjoy or settling for something they find to be laborious. Do CEO's say "hey it's a job"? No. Everyone always has the option of doing something they would enjoy versus something that may either pay the bills or be convenient. That is up to the individual and how much they have bought into that futile rhetoric.
Lastly, how likely are children to do something the same or similar to their parents? or family? Without the exposure to certain professions a child may never determine to pursue such a career.
No comments:
Post a Comment