Measurements of Gender Equality

February 25, 2016

One of the most common things I hear spoken about when people are on the topic of gender equality is the amount of women in high up jobs. In my opinion, we have it all wrong when we use this as an indicator of whether men and women have reached equality, however, because gender is not the only factor taken into account when selecting someone to do a job. In fact, it's quite the opposite and this is very rarely a factor taken into account at all. Why? Here's my reasoning...

So when people use this as a measurement of gender equality, I struggle to see their logic. It's almost as if they're hoping for more than just equality of the sexes but in fact they are wanting synchronisation of the sexes, which is ridiculous. They're not wanting men and women to be given equal opportunities but rather they're wanting equal amounts of men and women to be interested in and want the same things and this is just absurd! Yes, men and women can be and are interested in the same things but it seems ridiculous to almost be suggesting that they have to. It's almost as if they want to sacrifice freedom in a bid to secure what they believe is gender equality, however is it really 'gender equality'?
If we were to try and get a perfect balance of men and women in every institution then surely we would actually be becoming more sexist for we would be selecting people for jobs based on their gender, simply to balance out the amount of people in said institution belonging to each sex. This isn't gender equality, this is sexism worse than what we currently have in Western society. You have to consider that when a man and a women are both applying for a job, it's not up to their gender to decide who gets the job. It's up to their skills and what they can bring to the table. If the man is better suited to the job, he will get it. If the woman is better suited to the job then she will get it. In most cases their gender won't even be revealed to the person choosing who they want to do the job.
Another factor to consider is the fact that women and men generally aren't interested in the same sorts of job. Yes, that is a very bold statement and it's not true always, but in a lot of cases (going by statistics) it is true. I often see articles about very small percentages of technology companies and engineering companies being made up of female workers, and I've seen a lot of push to get females into these industries over the past few years, but has anyone ever considered that maybe the lower amounts of females in these fields is just down to a lack of interest in said fields by females? Just because only 30% of Google's employees are female, it doesn't make them sexist. It just means that either less women are interested in the jobs they have to offer there or those who do apply for the jobs don't get them for valid reasons, such as their competition being better suited for the job.

So do we still think using statistics for numbers of women in certain jobs is a good scale to measure gender equality? Drop a comment down below with your thoughts on the matter."

You Might Also Like


  1. An interesting take. One suggestion I would give is adding your sources as citations or including them at the bottom of your post. It makes your argument far more credible and makes for betetr discourse for your readers. I would also argue that
    the traditional concepts of gender are more to blame for men/women gravitating towards certain jobs rather than lack of interest in said field. There is no specific skill set a man is more suited for than a woman.