International Women's Day. Coming soon, to a state near you. Not to Western Australia though -- it's not sponsored by Channel Seven so it barely rates a mention in the Seven-linked (ie owned) daily newspaper.
But that's another rant. Today, it's hobbyhorse.
You know, as in, I want to talk about the particular hobbyhorse that I'm riding. As in, I'll see the world in light of my favourite hobbyhorse. As in, why should I look for reasons beyond my particular hobbyhorse.
Specifically, Gemma Tognini's opinion piece Women's Day no sacred cow (The West, 1 March 2016).
Referencing the COAG Reform Council's educational report, "Tracking Equity, comparing outcomes for women and girls in Australia", Tognini writes, "[In Alice Springs] Just 17 per cent of Aboriginal girls have finished Year 12, compared with 61 per cent of other females in the town." She then writes that this is about "disenfranchised girls and young women" and lack of "gender equity".
Whoooaaa !
What are the equivalent figures for Aboriginal boys ?!
If Aboriginal boys are finishing school at the same rate as other boys then yes, this is gender inequity. If Aboriginal boys finish school at a lower rate than other boys then this is... some other problem. Yes, a problem. But a problem which will not be solved if it is not correctly identified.
We need to compare like with like. And identify the actual inequities... Or, at least, look for the causes of the differences.
And now, I'll get up on my own hobbyhorse...
First, not everyone needs higher education. They need the opportunity for higher education. That's equity. The ability to read and write and understand, is probably good for the individual. It is definitely good for the society in which they live. But higher education is not an absolute, universal requirement.
Second, a report with "comparing outcomes for women and girls" in its title will be looking at outcomes for women and girls. It will not (necessarily) relate those outcomes to those for men and boys. The report will be looking at social equity not gender equity.
Third, what we really have -- in my opinion -- is a lack of socio-economic equity.
If your parents are doctors you will grow up with doctoring. You are not likely to become a boilermaker. If your parents are boilermakers, the parental influences are less likely to lead you into studying medicine. You absorb and tend to follow the interests and activities of the subset of society in which you grow up.
If your parents are successful self-made millionaires, you will grow up with some understanding of what it takes to make money. You are also more likely to be educated at expensive schools, to play expensive sports, to join expensive clubs... and to gather a circle of acquaintances who will be good connections as you start work. If your parents are base level wage slaves -- you may never learn how to get out of the low wage rut.
Your possibilities are driven -- though not controlled -- by the socio and economic aspects of your upbringing.
To provide equal opportunity to all people from all socio-economic backgrounds -- that is a real challenge. It requires positive attitude from people requiring the opportunities. It requires positive acceptance from those who control the opportunities.
Get off your very small hobbyhorse. Recognise that inequity is universal, that equity is -- or should be -- for everyone. That equity requires opportunity and acceptance...
Acceptance of the need to strive for what we want, opportunity to attempt that which supports our striving.
Acceptance of the need to look beyond our own socio-economic peers, to accept that anyone could have the skills, ability and desire to benefit from the opportunities which we control.
Acceptance of the need for equity of equal reward for equal outcomes. Regardless of the [insert name of hobbyhorse here] of the person with who we are dealing.
