Racial Profiling Essay
This statement is certainly confrontational, is clearly blinkered and appears very Victorian in attitude. It definitely has no place in modern society where social and economic equality for all minorities is considered fundamental. The language used is itself confrontational, the use of necessary outing the author as something close to a chauvinist functionalist. The first half of the statement does not reflect the variety of lifestyles that those in the western world are fortunate enough to be born into. The multitude of life choices available mean that women are no less held back by biological differences than men; there are very few occupations where a male or female could truly be limited to the point where they can no longer fulfil their
…show more content…
role. Despite certain vocations being traditionally viewed as male occupations there are really no logical reasons why a woman would not be able do the jobs that a man can. After all, technology and Health & Safety ruling is such that physical strength is not mandatory for most jobs. For example, a plumber or electrician is a vocation that is typically thought of as male, but there is no reason why a woman should be unable to perform the tasks involved. In fact, general experience of plumbers is that they do very little at all.
There has been a drive in recent years to get more women into these roles, rather than opt for the more traditionally female occupations like teaching and nursing, with limited success.1 The numbers of women in male dominated jobs has risen but is still nowhere near equal. The fact that society considers some jobs traditionally male is something unavoidable, as our society has been male dominated for most of its existence. Although it may not seem like such a key point, this division between vocations into what is masculine and feminine is fundamental when breaking down just why our society has been, and still is so patriarchal. This is not to say that there have been no improvements, but the problem still exists.
The main victories for the womens rights movements are split by a gap of 50 years. The first breakthrough came after the First World War; the suffragettes had been campaigning for the vote before the war and when it broke out in 1914, most people thought that it would be short. It was not until well into 1915 that Britain as a whole realised that the war would not be finished anytime soon. The countrys industry was gradually turned over to war production and before too long, conscription was introduced. This meant that there was an increasing lack of men to do the jobs they would normally do; in the factories, the farms and other key services. To prevent the factories becoming empty and war production grinding to a halt, more and more women were drafted in to replace the dwindling supply of men. Although the suffragette effort was by no means over, Britain was united in the war effort and all those women that were capable stood up and took their place in the workforce.
In 1917, as the war drew to a close, The Representation of the People bill was passed through the House of Commons by a massive majority. It is believed that the success of the suffragette movement before the war, and the vast amount of vital work that women had done for the war effort helped secure the 330 majority in Commons that helped it through Lords in 1918.2 Unfortunately, the law does not speak for everyone and there were undoubtedly those that disagreed vehemently with the new Act. In a society that has been patriarchal since records began, it was no huge feat to prevent any more reforms and there was only ever very slow, half hearted changes. In fact, the womens movement did not reappear properly until well into the 1970s.
Today it might seem that women are equal to men in every aspect of society. 21st Century Britain presents itself as politically correct, whilst underneath the surface there is still segregation between the sexes in many social and economic situations. It is always hard to grasp discrimination, even if it is happening to you. Despite women being quite obviously capable of matching and bettering men in many situations, they are still treated with less respect than men, sometimes consciously, sometimes not.
Once noticed, discrimination appears everywhere.
The professional football industry is a perfect example. It is common knowledge that women cannot play football as well as men, but when looking at the amount of money ploughed into the male dominated Premier League, funding for womens football is spare change in comparison. This can be used as an analogy for the discrimination that women encounter economically. Cases emerge where companies seem to be going to extra lengths to pay women less, the glass ceiling is still rife in the workplace, and of course sexual harassment is all too common. This is all illogical, unreasonable bigotry, but if this is so, why is it still so normal in our culture? What exactly makes it so impossible for women to be considered on the same level as men?This brings up the initial statement. Undoubtedly, we are all separated by our biological differences, but not necessarily just between the sexes. All men are not stronger than all women. Of course, at Olympian level, the differences are clearer. A male sprinter at the peak of his physical ability will still run faster than his female counterpart. However, the difference at this extreme level is still only slight and cannot be helped. Genetically, men have a different role to women, being the hunter and protector, and the woman the mother and gatherer. This however, has no place in modern Britain, and surely the ability to warp these animal characteristics is what separates humans from other …show more content…
animals. Do genetic differences designed for life 50,000 years ago really still matter today?It seems as if they do. There has certainly been much resistance to social equalisation over Britains history. The genetically and biological differences that make each human unique will affect the outcome of any single persons life. The process of growing up is gradual socialisation and almost every experience a child has is steeped in values and lessons and morals. From the moment a child is born, they are inundated with information. A babys brain can absorb masses of information and is constantly analysing and filing information. Parents, friends and family will surround a newborn with images, presents and colours associated with their gender. It doesnt stop there, throughout early childhood a child will be praised for being strong or brave (if male) or pretty and feminine (if female). Even children under the age of 24 months can differentiate between boys and girls and so sexual labelling, the first stage of socialisation is complete; dictated wholly by what their anatomy means to society.3Although children under three years can recognise the differences between males and females, it will be based not on anatomy (genetalia), but rather things like hair length, clothing, voices and general build. To refine that, a childs idea of what a man and a woman are is based almost entirely on biological differences. 4 Of course, the connotations of being that gender are not realised by a young child, only the differences between them physically. At the age of about 10 years, a child is bordering puberty and moves on to the next stage of socialisation, secondary education.
Once puberty is reached, and usually before, a child will have some idea of what the being male or female actually means to society. The playful innocence of young children is lost as each sex become objects of sexual desire for the other. The school system is definitely has a part to play in the second stage of socialisation; gender awareness. This is a culmination of the reinforcement of the original sexual labelling at birth. The child becomes aware of what is expected of them as a member of their gender.5Compared to the Primary system, Secondary schools are separated on many levels. There are many single sex schools and there has been much debate on the advantages of single sex classes. The games played by children are separated for the first time into sports suitable for boys and girls. Even uniforms have a part to play as many all-girl schools have only recently begun to allow trousers as part of their uniform, and many still insist on skirts. Many people insist that separating boys and girls in education has its advantages for both genders. A report was published in 1992 accusing the education system of short-changing girls because the teachers were unintentionally paying more attention to the boys, giving them more help and disciplining them less.6 Of course this cannot be seen as doctrine and there is much argument either way. The separation however, undoubtedly nurtures gender awareness. Any man educated in an all-boys school will tell of the high testosterone level and the laddish culture where women are generally regarded as inferior and sex objects rather than people. The sub-culture that emerges from male only schools is chauvinist in varying degrees and, for want of a better word, sex obsessed.
As a teenager reaches the ages of 16-18, and the real world draws ever closer, the life roles associated with each gender begin to shine through, no longer suggestion. Although schools and teachers undoubtedly make an effort to diversify their students potential vocations, it is often too late. There seems to be less discrimination in white-collar roles, as both men and women consider many administrative and affiliated roles as unisex. This is not even close to the segregation in other professions; in the same way that there are next to no female plumbers in Britain, there are very few male nurses and the old assumptions and prejudice about what is suitable or what women and men are capable of confront those that stray into a role dominated by the opposite sex.
The socialisation process is far too effective as from birth each child is pummelled with values and associations, e.g. fireman, policeman, and the media can be blamed for a great deal of this. The roles of a man and woman are clear in the media, even if part of a comedy sketch about female plumbers or male dancers, they are everywhere.7 By making it amusing it also makes discrimination acceptable. This means that once gender awareness kicks in, a boy saying he wants to be a ballet dancer will be picked on in school, and a girl who wants to be an electrician is laughed at by her peers.
This can only be detrimental to attempts at equalisation, but there does not seem to be any outcry to change these predefined expected roles. A child will say they want to do a certain job and the reaction of their parents will last their entire life. During the onslaught of young adulthood, future jobs are not on the top of the priority list for many teenagers, and so when the time comes, it is without much thought that an occupation is chosen or followed through. Those same generalisations and subconscious inequalities are passed on to the next generation without true consideration to the social divisions that are carried with them.
In conclusion, the author of the original statement was not too far from reality. Men and women are not limited by their biological differences, but the social and economic divisions between men and women are inevitable because of the nature of our society. Many of our cultures traditions are actually the remains of the patriarchal cultures that moulded our own. Those who quote that Rome wasnt built in a day will simply say that change takes time and this is certainly a valid point. However, it is because it takes so much time that society must consciously endeavour to make these changes, they are certainly overdue. Unfortunately, human nature is such that collective remonstration is hard to initiate and it seems as if the inhabitants of 21st century Britain have lost their gumption. Britain is not so much broken as divided on all fronts, segregation increasingly noticeable and many people are adopting the typically American Every man for himself attitude.
The process of socialisation is of course essential in the creation of a successful culture, but the principles of that socialisation must be rooted in the demands of the people. The last two generations have been tainted by political mistakes and the results leave much to be desired. Perhaps the problems of Broken Britain lie in the outdated process of socialisation that is impressed on children. This could quite easily be the cause of unrest in the young proletariat, and the lack of direction for their complaints can also be traced back to the system that entraps them from birth. After all, does it not seem logical that a system fashioned at the beginning of the 20th Century and only reformed slightly (by force) since then is restrictive to a child born at the turn of this century? As with many things in this forlorn island, many parts of the socialisation process are outdated and the remnants will linger until there is another boat rocking like the feminist revolution in the late 1970s. As an advanced society there is always hope, but at the opportunity to finish with a well worn cliché; by now, We should know better.Bibliography1)For information and statistics on male & female employment I mainly used this document; http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/Documents/Gender/Formal%20investigations/Occupational%20segregation/Occupational%20segregation%20Employers%20young%20people%20and%20gender%20segregation.pdf2)Information on female roles during the warhttp://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world_war_one_and_women.htm3)This series was enlightening and covers the development of a child etc.;Dr. Robert Winston, Child of Our Time, 2008, BBC.
4.)This was useful when looking at the development of men & women;Money.
T., Ehrhardt, 1972, Man and Woman, Boy and Girl; The differentiation and dimorphism of gender identity from conception to maturity, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
5)Paper on gender/job roles/http://epubs.surrey.ac.uk/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=psyconferencep pers6) Study looking at the reasons why boys & girls achieve differently;Myra and David Sadker, Failing in Fairness: How America 's Schools Cheat Girls7) Just an example on viewpoints of gender roles from a modern woman.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-510021/Sorry-female-plumber-drove-U-bend--was-woman.html
role. Despite certain vocations being traditionally viewed as male occupations there are really no logical reasons why a woman would not be able do the jobs that a man can. After all, technology and Health & Safety ruling is such that physical strength is not mandatory for most jobs. For example, a plumber or electrician is a vocation that is typically thought of as male, but there is no reason why a woman should be unable to perform the tasks involved. In fact, general experience of plumbers is that they do very little at all.
There has been a drive in recent years to get more women into these roles, rather than opt for the more traditionally female occupations like teaching and nursing, with limited success.1 The numbers of women in male dominated jobs has risen but is still nowhere near equal. The fact that society considers some jobs traditionally male is something unavoidable, as our society has been male dominated for most of its existence. Although it may not seem like such a key point, this division between vocations into what is masculine and feminine is fundamental when breaking down just why our society has been, and still is so patriarchal. This is not to say that there have been no improvements, but the problem still exists.
The main victories for the womens rights movements are split by a gap of 50 years. The first breakthrough came after the First World War; the suffragettes had been campaigning for the vote before the war and when it broke out in 1914, most people thought that it would be short. It was not until well into 1915 that Britain as a whole realised that the war would not be finished anytime soon. The countrys industry was gradually turned over to war production and before too long, conscription was introduced. This meant that there was an increasing lack of men to do the jobs they would normally do; in the factories, the farms and other key services. To prevent the factories becoming empty and war production grinding to a halt, more and more women were drafted in to replace the dwindling supply of men. Although the suffragette effort was by no means over, Britain was united in the war effort and all those women that were capable stood up and took their place in the workforce.
In 1917, as the war drew to a close, The Representation of the People bill was passed through the House of Commons by a massive majority. It is believed that the success of the suffragette movement before the war, and the vast amount of vital work that women had done for the war effort helped secure the 330 majority in Commons that helped it through Lords in 1918.2 Unfortunately, the law does not speak for everyone and there were undoubtedly those that disagreed vehemently with the new Act. In a society that has been patriarchal since records began, it was no huge feat to prevent any more reforms and there was only ever very slow, half hearted changes. In fact, the womens movement did not reappear properly until well into the 1970s.
Today it might seem that women are equal to men in every aspect of society. 21st Century Britain presents itself as politically correct, whilst underneath the surface there is still segregation between the sexes in many social and economic situations. It is always hard to grasp discrimination, even if it is happening to you. Despite women being quite obviously capable of matching and bettering men in many situations, they are still treated with less respect than men, sometimes consciously, sometimes not.
Once noticed, discrimination appears everywhere.
The professional football industry is a perfect example. It is common knowledge that women cannot play football as well as men, but when looking at the amount of money ploughed into the male dominated Premier League, funding for womens football is spare change in comparison. This can be used as an analogy for the discrimination that women encounter economically. Cases emerge where companies seem to be going to extra lengths to pay women less, the glass ceiling is still rife in the workplace, and of course sexual harassment is all too common. This is all illogical, unreasonable bigotry, but if this is so, why is it still so normal in our culture? What exactly makes it so impossible for women to be considered on the same level as men?This brings up the initial statement. Undoubtedly, we are all separated by our biological differences, but not necessarily just between the sexes. All men are not stronger than all women. Of course, at Olympian level, the differences are clearer. A male sprinter at the peak of his physical ability will still run faster than his female counterpart. However, the difference at this extreme level is still only slight and cannot be helped. Genetically, men have a different role to women, being the hunter and protector, and the woman the mother and gatherer. This however, has no place in modern Britain, and surely the ability to warp these animal characteristics is what separates humans from other …show more content…
animals. Do genetic differences designed for life 50,000 years ago really still matter today?It seems as if they do. There has certainly been much resistance to social equalisation over Britains history. The genetically and biological differences that make each human unique will affect the outcome of any single persons life. The process of growing up is gradual socialisation and almost every experience a child has is steeped in values and lessons and morals. From the moment a child is born, they are inundated with information. A babys brain can absorb masses of information and is constantly analysing and filing information. Parents, friends and family will surround a newborn with images, presents and colours associated with their gender. It doesnt stop there, throughout early childhood a child will be praised for being strong or brave (if male) or pretty and feminine (if female). Even children under the age of 24 months can differentiate between boys and girls and so sexual labelling, the first stage of socialisation is complete; dictated wholly by what their anatomy means to society.3Although children under three years can recognise the differences between males and females, it will be based not on anatomy (genetalia), but rather things like hair length, clothing, voices and general build. To refine that, a childs idea of what a man and a woman are is based almost entirely on biological differences. 4 Of course, the connotations of being that gender are not realised by a young child, only the differences between them physically. At the age of about 10 years, a child is bordering puberty and moves on to the next stage of socialisation, secondary education.
Once puberty is reached, and usually before, a child will have some idea of what the being male or female actually means to society. The playful innocence of young children is lost as each sex become objects of sexual desire for the other. The school system is definitely has a part to play in the second stage of socialisation; gender awareness. This is a culmination of the reinforcement of the original sexual labelling at birth. The child becomes aware of what is expected of them as a member of their gender.5Compared to the Primary system, Secondary schools are separated on many levels. There are many single sex schools and there has been much debate on the advantages of single sex classes. The games played by children are separated for the first time into sports suitable for boys and girls. Even uniforms have a part to play as many all-girl schools have only recently begun to allow trousers as part of their uniform, and many still insist on skirts. Many people insist that separating boys and girls in education has its advantages for both genders. A report was published in 1992 accusing the education system of short-changing girls because the teachers were unintentionally paying more attention to the boys, giving them more help and disciplining them less.6 Of course this cannot be seen as doctrine and there is much argument either way. The separation however, undoubtedly nurtures gender awareness. Any man educated in an all-boys school will tell of the high testosterone level and the laddish culture where women are generally regarded as inferior and sex objects rather than people. The sub-culture that emerges from male only schools is chauvinist in varying degrees and, for want of a better word, sex obsessed.
As a teenager reaches the ages of 16-18, and the real world draws ever closer, the life roles associated with each gender begin to shine through, no longer suggestion. Although schools and teachers undoubtedly make an effort to diversify their students potential vocations, it is often too late. There seems to be less discrimination in white-collar roles, as both men and women consider many administrative and affiliated roles as unisex. This is not even close to the segregation in other professions; in the same way that there are next to no female plumbers in Britain, there are very few male nurses and the old assumptions and prejudice about what is suitable or what women and men are capable of confront those that stray into a role dominated by the opposite sex.
The socialisation process is far too effective as from birth each child is pummelled with values and associations, e.g. fireman, policeman, and the media can be blamed for a great deal of this. The roles of a man and woman are clear in the media, even if part of a comedy sketch about female plumbers or male dancers, they are everywhere.7 By making it amusing it also makes discrimination acceptable. This means that once gender awareness kicks in, a boy saying he wants to be a ballet dancer will be picked on in school, and a girl who wants to be an electrician is laughed at by her peers.
This can only be detrimental to attempts at equalisation, but there does not seem to be any outcry to change these predefined expected roles. A child will say they want to do a certain job and the reaction of their parents will last their entire life. During the onslaught of young adulthood, future jobs are not on the top of the priority list for many teenagers, and so when the time comes, it is without much thought that an occupation is chosen or followed through. Those same generalisations and subconscious inequalities are passed on to the next generation without true consideration to the social divisions that are carried with them.
In conclusion, the author of the original statement was not too far from reality. Men and women are not limited by their biological differences, but the social and economic divisions between men and women are inevitable because of the nature of our society. Many of our cultures traditions are actually the remains of the patriarchal cultures that moulded our own. Those who quote that Rome wasnt built in a day will simply say that change takes time and this is certainly a valid point. However, it is because it takes so much time that society must consciously endeavour to make these changes, they are certainly overdue. Unfortunately, human nature is such that collective remonstration is hard to initiate and it seems as if the inhabitants of 21st century Britain have lost their gumption. Britain is not so much broken as divided on all fronts, segregation increasingly noticeable and many people are adopting the typically American Every man for himself attitude.
The process of socialisation is of course essential in the creation of a successful culture, but the principles of that socialisation must be rooted in the demands of the people. The last two generations have been tainted by political mistakes and the results leave much to be desired. Perhaps the problems of Broken Britain lie in the outdated process of socialisation that is impressed on children. This could quite easily be the cause of unrest in the young proletariat, and the lack of direction for their complaints can also be traced back to the system that entraps them from birth. After all, does it not seem logical that a system fashioned at the beginning of the 20th Century and only reformed slightly (by force) since then is restrictive to a child born at the turn of this century? As with many things in this forlorn island, many parts of the socialisation process are outdated and the remnants will linger until there is another boat rocking like the feminist revolution in the late 1970s. As an advanced society there is always hope, but at the opportunity to finish with a well worn cliché; by now, We should know better.Bibliography1)For information and statistics on male & female employment I mainly used this document; http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/Documents/Gender/Formal%20investigations/Occupational%20segregation/Occupational%20segregation%20Employers%20young%20people%20and%20gender%20segregation.pdf2)Information on female roles during the warhttp://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world_war_one_and_women.htm3)This series was enlightening and covers the development of a child etc.;Dr. Robert Winston, Child of Our Time, 2008, BBC.
4.)This was useful when looking at the development of men & women;Money.
T., Ehrhardt, 1972, Man and Woman, Boy and Girl; The differentiation and dimorphism of gender identity from conception to maturity, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
5)Paper on gender/job roles/http://epubs.surrey.ac.uk/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=psyconferencep pers6) Study looking at the reasons why boys & girls achieve differently;Myra and David Sadker, Failing in Fairness: How America 's Schools Cheat Girls7) Just an example on viewpoints of gender roles from a modern woman.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-510021/Sorry-female-plumber-drove-U-bend--was-woman.html