Gender Discrimination and Human Decadence
By: Stephen K. Ainsah-Mensah

It cannot be doubted that production, in whichever form it is visualized, is at its best when human resources are utilized in the most efficient manner free from indefensible biases. Such biases are common with regard to the genders, namely a man and a woman. Whether the issue is mental production or physical production, the moral and logical justification for harnessing human resources should guide the production process, not passionately driven assertions or prejudicial assertions. Preferences for gender-based human resources at the workplace are silly, and they tend to have an unreflective connection to historically based arguments that are untenable in modern times.

Man, compared to woman, has, for a long time, been regarded as better fit for the workplace. The reasons have usually been illogical, yet upheld to promote development.

A study can show that in those days that battles were common to secure the might and survival of societies, men did most of the fighting, not women. Women were limited to home duties and were, as such, induced to undertake household tasks such as husbanding their partners, grooming them in ways that could calm their emotions and sooth their minds after a long stay at the battlefront. The historical genesis of the division of labour between a man and a woman appears to relate largely to this point. Outside activities were – so it was established - the natural vocation of a man while a woman’s vocation was largely held to be domestic, at home. To sustain this argument for present times invokes the spirit of the warmongering past, a past that was soaked in battles, in fistic activities, in activities that exposed the uncivilized characteristics of humans. It, what is more, presupposes that might or physical strength or brute force is preferable to mental acumen in the field of production, an asset that men, it seems, have more of than women.

Yet modern societies are not of this form any more. Humans have settled down to more peaceful endeavours; they have built stable families and yielded their respective consciences to teamwork and innovative ventures that are often supported by the power of reason at all kinds of workplaces. And nothing could be further from the truth than to say that skilled professions in the areas of teaching, law, medicine, management, social studies, research, the entertainment industry, the arts and the sciences, among others, are fistic in nature. To suppose so echoes the unsound arguments of the unhealthy past.

What differences exist between a man and a woman, one may ask? For this question is at the heart of much of the gender discrimination that are observable at the workplace and other places where tasks have to be fulfilled in the best possible way.

The obvious difference lies in the area of biological composition – or so it seems. A woman is claimed to be less strong – bodily - than a man because it is further claimed that her organic make-up is not sufficiently conditioned to resist some of the external pressures that weigh against the body. Her tender breast (forgive my slippery tongue), her menstrual cycles, the weight of pregnancy and child birth, her tendency to undergo maternal leave (thus, creating a vacuum at the workplace), and so on may be cited. These claims exclude the balancing acts - therefore crucial advantages - that a woman has over a man on the issue of eliciting the finest exercises of the mind to address concerns about the body in order to generate the desired fitness. Naturally, prudence ought to be called into play in addressing such bodily concerns, and this requires an equally discreet organization of thought processes. It follows that a woman generally acts after carefully arranging thought processes and balancing them with foreseeable outcomes that she expects to be sane or purged of needless risks. She listens to her body and fashions thought and actions on the basis of this unceasing engagement.

Apart from these matters, the physical strength of a man does not necessarily imply physical fitness. Strength of the body is an entirely different issue from fitness of the body. The former connotes might; the latter connotes health. With regard to the latter, a woman could be better off than a man or a man could be better off than a woman, whichever way.

I must, at this point, state that the general arguments proffered so far are flawed by other cases of daring women whose fistic competence far outweigh that of men for the reason that their constant battles to strengthen the body gives a corresponding strength to the mind, hence the pace of production. A large class of women may choose to engage in tough workouts or courageous bodily activities aimed at preparing them for gallant duties. It is the obligation of decision makers to fully support such course of action since it further liberates a woman from the intolerant stereotypes of many a man.

It is also to be noted that sloppiness in the face of tremendous courage is not a commendable act. If a male employee exhibits such trait, he has not proved to be any better than a female counterpart who professes far more prudence with moderate or a lesser amount of courage. Whether a man or a woman is better in dealing with workplace issues has to be connected to the question of courage, prudence, mental preparedness, among others. It is from these human qualities that the overall principle of efficiency in production arises. Here, I am referring to quality and quantity of production in relation to cost benefit and the best possible exertion of human effort in accordance with the principle of reasonable recreation. A woman who avoids risk and uncertain consequences in production in favour of predictable outcomes should be commended far more than a risk-taking man whose bold endeavours generate unpredictable outcomes that equate more with gambling. A manageable business forecast based on a modest production plan is better than an out-of-control business forecast based on an ambitious production plan.

Such are the general nature of both a man and a woman; and we need the services of both to help create a healthy production process. It can, therefore, be safely argued that the generally prudential thinking style of a woman, her far more cautious approach in doing things, and the generally daring endeavours of a man are both desired to generate a healthy production plan and capacity. At the level of top management, middle management, low management, or operating employees, the services of both genders are needed if optimum production is to be expected.

I now want to address some very sensitive yet very important contentions that have been central to the hiring practices of employers.

First, it is claimed that a woman is likely to be pregnant, and being pregnant, her reflexes are, thereby, slowed down, which impedes production. At an advanced stage of her pregnancy then the delivery of her baby, she will go on maternity leave and leave a job vacuum that has to be done by asking for the help of a new or an old inexperienced employee. These issues do not afflict a man, so it is claimed; and on the basis of this viewpoint, it is further claimed that a man’s reliability is higher than that of a woman.

Advocates of these contentions are morally reprehensible and socially irresponsible. Besides, they prove to be sexist in their style of reasoning as well as their conduct. A woman who carries a potential or actual baby is not a liability to production. What she has done is to enlarge the future workforce by one person just like any other woman who carries a baby. Suppose women cease to be pregnant and nurture children, then the future of the workforce is bleak. Basic reasoning should inform us that even the issue of a man or a woman becoming a president or holding any commendable post, either in a company or in the government, is a matter of the leader being first born, thanks to a woman who carried him/her in the belly. Thus, a company’s profit intentions should take account of this last point; for the concept of profit is not merely to be understood in terms of money-generating human resources in the short run. Profit ought not to be tied to the structure of micro business. More importantly, profit is a macro phenomenon, and an application of this claim to the moral and egalitarian basis of business and the society at large is crucial. Furthermore, why should a man who caused a woman’s pregnancy escape the bodily pressures of the pregnant woman by enjoying all the privileges and rights at his workplace while the woman is made to “suffer”? Should not the legal instruments of the state instruct an employer to rather provide every possible support for a female worker who happens to be pregnant? There should be no room for gender discrimination at the workplace. Gender discrimination dislocates the moral and emotional fibre of the two opposing sexes as well as their respective natural inclinations towards having a symbiotic relation that is vital for the advancement of civilization.

I finally come to another area of gender discrimination that is even far more entrenched. It is in the area of spousal relationship.

A man marries a woman, and persuades or coerces the woman to stay home and just perform household chores while the man satisfies himself with working to bring in the family income. He thinks this familial arrangement is naturally desirable, and he is prepared to advance arguments to the effect that a woman is destined to be docile, meek, soft-hearted without which she loses such inherent qualities, her woman-ness. But ask the same man why he argues in this way and no sensible explanation will be forthcoming except to be trapped in further arguments that are nothing but a classic example of a vicious circle.

What the man has done is to follow the bogus traditions of the antiquarian past, a past that I have briefly explicated in the third paragraph. Personal development and social advancement are not the preserve of a man; a woman deserves them too. The oppression of a man against a woman, his inequitable relationship with a woman, becomes manifest as soon as a man accepts and prides in the domesticated lifestyle of his spouse. A woman is, thereafter, robbed of her ability to develop a sophisticated mind as well as a more function-able body if she is unable to develop mature social networks and innovative job skills that are typical of the workplace. A “domesticated” woman-spouse feels terribly insecure, and she tends to apply unnecessary docility to win the unfading love of her man. Also, she becomes incredibly curious about the daily whereabouts and doings of her man in order to save her marriage. Her development is stunted, so too her refinement. At some point, the man may be fed up with these intrusions in his life whereupon he may seek a mistress and/or begin a series of domestic violence that taint his marriage.

But a woman who opts to stay home and be merely a homemaker when she has the full choice to explore her talents elsewhere has submitted her fine qualities to a condition of decadence. In cases that a woman and her spouse are both employees of, say, a company, it is decent enough for both of them to share, equitably, household chores. In sticking to this arrangement, the couple would have taken the necessary steps to promote love with the spirit of genuineness.

What may outrage mentally and physically liberated women with regard to the oppressive doings of a man against his spouse, as stated above, is that such a man is likely to boast of the docility, the civility of his spouse. The capacity of the spouse to explore her untapped skills, which could, in any case, enhance the intelligence or skills bank of the family is suppressed precisely because a yesterday’s man is unable to see the role of egalitarianism in fashioning the equal eligibility of a man and a woman for any conceivable enterprise.

Surely, the good sense of a society cannot be achieved unless gender equality is made the cornerstone of development on all possible fronts.