I Attended An International Women's Day Breakfast: Here's What I Think of It

Ok, this is where the real fun begins.

Irony

As a captain of my school, we all got invited to attend a breakfast at a venue celebrating International Women's Day.

Usually only the female captains went, but the males came as well.

After being invited, people thought it was ironic they invited someone infamous for being viewed as a misogynist.

(That's me! Going a step backwards, it's more ironic that they same person is the representative of the Creative Arts, mostly comprised of females.)

The other captains joked to 'keep myself on a leash' and 'don't say anything'.

Anyways, I looked forward to the breakfast.

Even though I had to wake up at 4.30 am, I enjoy wearing the suit and representing the school.

Even though I have my views, it wasn't my role to share them at the event.

In fact, I played my role perfectly.

To break it down in the simplest of terms: I had to show up, eat, listen, and leave.

The M.C. of the breakfast acknowledged the contrast of men being at women's breakfast.

"In order to achieve equality, we must work together with each other."

This 'Inequality' is Voluntary

You're not here for what I did at a breakfast, you're here for what I have to say for some of the things said.

What they talk of is equity, not equality.

Equality is of equal opportunity, not equal outcome. I want to make that extremely clear.

There are red flags and alarms that pop off when hearing the word equity.

It is something that will never be achieved.

The M.C. also said the U.N. estimated it would take around 256 years before equality of the sexes can be achieved.

In my humble opinion, it's going to take more than forever.

And there are no outside forces that is creating the 'divide'.

In fact, it's wrong to think it is 'dividing' us or 'making us unequal' at all as its individual choice that is creating this perceived 'gap'.

Think of it more as differences, and differences don't have to be a bad thing.

"More girls Should Be In STEM"

This wasn't said verbatim at the event, but it's along the same lines.

What is the problem with fields having majority of men working in them?

Is there some kind of force that is stopping women from working in them?

Then why don't we extend this equality to fields with majority of women working in them?

That wasn't mentioned at the breakfast at all.

I haven't found a good reason why we need equal number of men and women in a field.

Most professions taken are an individual choice.

What does that say about an absence of women in STEM?

Is it voluntary or involuntary?

I have always had the stance where if they want to work in that field they can do it if they are able.

The opportunity to do so is always there ready to be taken.

Then they spin the narrative by saying there's a connotation that 'women shouldn't be in STEM'.

Yeah, maybe decades before.

Now, no one really cares at all what you choose.

Seriously, no one is physically stopping you from pursuing a career in STEM.

The only person that can do that is you.

But don't feel obligated to pursue a career you don't enjoy just because other women said you should.

My overall response to the statement,

"Don't force them to do STEM if they don't want to."

"More Woman Should Be in Politics."

Should doesn't mean they have to.

Again, the same like the first point.

An interesting point to bring up, one of the speakers spoke about biases existing with men against women in parliament.

It's fair to say any bias will exist.

Then why would such a bias exist within government?

Leadership seems more of a role taken up by men.

As to why, it's usually due to temperament and being dominant, characteristics associated with the male gender.

And if you're in an environment, like parliament, where you're surrounded by dominating men, you're probably going to have a rough time if it is not in your nature to meet the same level of dominance.

Is this an excuse to be an asshole within politics?

No.

But there are character traits well suited for the role than others.

It seems fair to say the vast majority men have been biologically developed to behave with a dominating role, while women have a supporting and nurturing role.

In saying that, female leaders tend to have a different style of leadership than men. I cannot exactly articulate it, but there is a place for it.

(I can only say the leadership style is in the resemblance of a mother/wife taking charge of the household.)

Whether women can be in the same dominating environment, it's a choice for them to be willing exist in that.

And whether men are better in leadership positions than women, I don't know.

I do not have enough evidence to form an opinion and I haven't personally been in politics either.

(Not yet at least.)

Everyone will have their biases. I think it's instinctual for humans to develop them.

Whether it was for our biological survival as prehistoric humans, I don't know.

I could only assume so.

So the existence of a bias against women in politics could exist.

But all we can aim for is that they are given the same opportunity as any other person to pursue a role as a politician representing their community.

Wage Gap

Don't get me started.

It's a myth.

I was gobsmacked they even brought this up at the breakfast.

The reason why we have a gap between wages is not because of gender.

It is because of how valuable a job is to the market.

Why an engineer is paid more than a child-care worker is because the work the engineer does is more valuable to the market than that of the work of a child-care.

It's apparent that the jobs that are more valuable are taken by men.

A child-care worker should not be paid the same as an engineer. That would be insulting to the engineer.

And what makes low paying jobs deserve the same pay as high income jobs?

Unless you've done university study, have more experience or more skills is only when you get paid higher.

It is illegal to pay a woman less than a man.

It has been like that for decades.

And if it was the case, businesses would be saving money if they only hired women!

I would if it saved me paying more!

Motherhood also exists.

The investment needed to put into a high-performing job, where you're climbing up the career ladder, the ability to have children might have to be sacrificed in order to achieve that.

Women also take maternity leave to raise their child as well.

It's just a shame the 'wage gap' is still thrown about even though it has been debunked so many times.

"Women contribute less to the economy."

This had me frazzled as well.

I heard that women were major consumers of products compared to men.

It doesn't make sense if the major consumer, or a major player in the market, is not contributing the most to the economy.

I didn't ask about it, but it could be talking about contributing to the economy as earning an income.

Still, it doesn't make sense with that definition as contributing to the economy also involves spending not just earning.

I could probably talk more on this point, but I don't have the time to research more into this.

Making A Tangible Difference

There was a Q&A at the end of the breakfast.

One of the speakers was a former minister in government and worked as an economist.

The question she was given was along the lines of, "How can I make a difference?"

Her response was going into politics and you're never too young to get involved.

To some extent, I disagree.

My dad talks about this me, I'll probably make more of a difference if I am making millions of dollars rather than being a politician.

With that money, there comes influence.

I would have more influence over consumers than if I had with policy making.

Sure, if I had the top job as Prime Minister, I could then really make a difference.

But I always tend to believe the most significant change could be from the Individual.

What I forgot to mention that there were speakers from a charity organisation that helps provide breakfast food for kids who can't afford it. They also provide school gear: backpacks, pencil cases, stationary etc.

Why I have mentioned this is it falls under 'making a tangible difference'.

What the charity is noble.

There are kids out there who are disadvantaged by there environment and can't afford to eat breakfast or gear for school.

It was bloody horrifying to hear that some kids bring a plastic bag as their backpack.

I'm going to be a bit critical hear, but stay with me.

If you're not in a position to have kids, why have them then?

If you are not financially ready for the investment that is having kids, why should you?

It's selfish to do bring a life unto this world only for it to be thrown in the dirt by circumstances it could control.

Every child deserves a home, but not every home deserves a child.

The cynical side of me says making a large difference is giving contraceptives to the people who don't deserve to be parents so their kids are not born into a home that is abusive, broken or poor.

Still, it reminds me of the famous philanthropist Andrew Carnegie that said, along the lines,

"The best thing for a child is to be born into poverty."

Why would he advocate for such a thing?

So the child knows what it feels like to be poor, and pursues to never be poor again.

Perhaps it is a necessary for some kids to grow up in poverty to experience what it feels like and appreciate for what they will achieve.

I'd like to think the best thing for the kids are to be given the free handouts; that will work in the short term.

The long lasting impact is they learn how to become wealthy so they can get themselves out of poverty.

They should not learn to be dependent on an outside force for what they eat for breakfast or how they attain their school gear.

Dependence creates laziness and no sense of urgency to get out of poverty.

Helping people is the whole point of charity.

But it should only help for the short term.

The long lasting difference is teaching others how to be independent.

Most of the significant contributions happen from an individual level; independence is a necessary to achieve it.

My Message To Women

Although I am a man, I do have a message.

It's discouraging to continually hear the narrative that you are disadvantaged simply by the sex you were born into.

It's also manipulative to be fed lies that continuates a cycle of resentment and self-victimisation.

We live in a time where your identity does not stop from achieving success.

There is nothing stopping you from pursuing a career.

And you should not feel obligated to do so either.

Motherhood should be as celebrated as the pursument of a career.

The decision of your path in life is for you, not the agenda of achieving 'equality'.

You should not feel guilty for not choosing a STEM field or attempting to challenge a career dominated by men.

These are factors that should not be considered when choosing the path.

In the simplest terms, choose what you enjoy and are willing to work at.

There is nothing stopping you from what you want to achieve.