.png)
I am not going to help you just because you are a woman just like I wouldn't help someone just because he is a man. I found the 'women in the workplace' narratives extremely insulting.
This week we saw a new decision mandating public joint stock companies to have at least one woman board member. For what? What is that one poor woman put there by force going to do?
The biggest problem with these performative/afformative DEI actions is the negative impact on the individuals whilst companies look great from the outside. Why? Because this is how others look at DEI hires:
- What makes you qualified to be here?
- She is here because of the legislation just ignore her.
Even when the person is qualified and competent the DEI hire label will always be attached to her. How can one do a great job when everyone thinks she is there not for competence but for any other reason? As a result, the person must work 10 times harder than the rest. How is that fair????????
I will never support anyone just for being a woman and I would feel highly insulted if I was supported at work because I am a woman. I support competence when it comes to the workplace. I also find it ridiculous when women go around taking other women's money in the name of teaching them how to be empowered. The suffragettes are turning in their graves! If you want to help women do it for free!
But the most ridiculous is when women talk about female empowerment and abuse and their maids at home are being paid AED 1500 per month.
If you cannot see that these actions and this narrative are bleeding from a thousand wounds, you don't care about women or any other demographic of your DEI agendas. You are doing it for some other reason. To look good, to integrate women into the workforce so you can leverage their economic power, or to make money out of them. Below in the comment you find an article in which I elaborate on this topic. I hope you will see how women have been played into this mess.
I would support women in the workplace very differently by acknowledging their biological role in society and the extra burden it comes with i.e mothers' (or primary caretaker of the child) full-time hours:
- Child's age 0 - 1: the mother is on full-time pay at home (government pays)
- Child's age 1 - 14: the mother's full-time working hours: 5
- Child's age 15-18: the mother's full-time working hours 7
Provide this if you are so concerned about women, wellbeing, and the next generations.
Shoving women into the workforce completely ignoring their biological responsibilities is literally forcing them to have a second full-time job! And you all are presenting it as empowerment & diversity? Please!
Comments