•
Yarin Kimor
Speaker & presenter on Systematic Creative Thinking
I once lectured to 100 women whose role was to advise on the status of women in local authorities. The topic was uprooting fixedness through systematic creative thinking. I began with the following sentence: ‘Oliver is the son of Doctor Jackson, but Doctor Jackson is not his father. How’s that?’ The answers I received varied, ranging from in vitro fertilization to adoption.
In the face of the answers that continued to pile up, I finally said, ‘Doctor Jackson is his mother.’ Then I added: ‘At the same time as the holy work that you are leading in uprooting the mindsets in the local authorities, intending to prevent the exclusion of women and achieve full equality, I recommend that you uproot the mindsets that remain within society after thousands of years of oppression and discrimination. How did it not occur to you that “the doctor” could be a woman?’
The biases are evident: the term ‘Doctor’ is often associated with masculinity, as is the name ‘Jackson’ for some reason. ’Oliver’ and ‘his father’ also carry masculine connotations.
However, it’s essential to recognize that these associations do not justify gender bias in our thinking. Historical quotes, such as Shakespeare’s ‘Frailty, thy name is a woman,’ and Alexandre Dumas’ comment, ‘The last thing God created was a woman. He must have been tired already…’ only perpetuates harmful stereotypes. We must be cautious about accepting such statements as they contribute to inequality and misconceptions. Instead, let’s strive to promote equal opportunities and challenge these unfounded beliefs.”
The bottom line is if a woman is a professor of nuclear physics, a cheerleader for a football team and is married to a player from the team, she will always be considered a “former cheerleader married to a football star.”
As with racism against minorities, those of a different color, or based on gender, the real concern is not the prejudices of the low-brow. It is to be hoped that this is a minority wading through the shallow waters of his ignorance and misery. I am more concerned about the discrimination and unconscious racism of the liberals and the enlightened. For example, when I visited the Grand Canyon in the USA, I saw a sign on which seemingly innocent information was written – “The Grand Canyon was discovered by Harry Morgan in 1540“. There is no problem with such a tourist sentence, which intends to add historical information to those who visit.
Still, there is a “minor” problem – the Indians who lived there for thousands of years were not counted until the white man discovered them. They were not red-skinned or just ordinary people. They were transparent, invisible – even to the eyes of a liberal and enlightened tourist who did not notice the racist fallacy.
This is similar to the “discovery of America,” whose inhabitants before the arrival of Columbus were considered “air” in the best case or “an animal” in the other. After thousands of years of oppression and discrimination against women in Europe, women received the right to vote (as if someone had to “give” them). However, it took years before enlightened Europe recognized the need to build separate public toilets for women on the street. Voting rights for women preceded the right to urinate.
This is also the case with the enlightened and open-minded man who believes in equality and says: “I am very much in favor of equality, that’s why I help my wife in the kitchen.” The more meticulous will add: “I even take out the trash and wash the dishes, not to mention that I also do groceries.” Thus, In good faith and unwittingly, his goodwill inadvertently exposes the lingering gap in his mind, distinguishing the captain of the housework, his partner, from himself – the sailor who enlisted in the campaign.
“The Mizrahi respect of David Levy”.
I met hundreds of parliament members and ministers during my many years of journalistic work. I noticed that most of them, both Ashkenazi and Sephardi, displayed exaggerated self-respect. Interestingly, only David Levy, a Mizrahi Israeli politician who served in the Knesset, was afforded this level of “respect,” while his Ashkenazi political friends seemed exempt from such scrutiny.
This pattern is also evident in work matters. A masculine management style is often associated with traits like “authority,” “leadership,” and “practicality.” However, when a woman manager exhibits a similar assertive approach, she is sometimes labeled as “not understanding human relations,” “too harsh,” “cold,” “detached,” and even “arrogant.”
Secretly, they say, without anyone hearing: “Too bad for her children…”. Some of the supposedly liberal, open-minded, and egalitarian men also desire a female boss who possesses the abilities to “communicate,” “brighten up,” and be “considerate” and, above all else, “inclusive.” In other words, they are looking for a mother, preferably with the boundless heart of a grandmother and the legs of Marilyn Monroe.
The portrayal of female managers in the labor market presents a significant problem. When a woman is strong and tough, she is labeled a “virago.” Margaret Thatcher was referred to as the “Iron Lady.” It is crucial to remain vigilant in examining unconscious verbal expressions, which may appear to address the issue but can unintentionally perpetuate it. For instance, “career women” suggests an inherent problem, as there is no equivalent term like “career men.”
It’s quite clear that Churchill did not receive such a nickname. On the other hand, Golda Meir and Chancellor Kohl were seen as strong and decisive, often described as masculine grandmothers and tough commissars in Russia and China.
On the other hand, the prime minister of Finland, a young woman who enjoys dancing at parties, faces harsh and unfair criticism, even leading to demands for her to undergo a drug test. Unsurprisingly, these deeply ingrained images, present throughout history in every culture worldwide, continue to influence the undercurrents of social consciousness, even in the era of “Me Too.”
A good example of double standards is in workplaces, such as the dress code for senior female managers versus male CEOs of groundbreaking high-tech companies or famous male billionaires. The female manager is expected to arrive dressed “solid and elegant,” “organized,” “meticulous,” and essentially conservative.
On the other hand, male CEOs or billionaires can appear in casual attire like t-shirts, three-quarter pants, and flip-flops and be perceived as “down to earth,” as their simplicity is not seen as contradictory to their intellectual brilliance and leadership vision.
Due to the physiological difference, a man should not be expected to give birth, and a woman to lift weights at a level that a man can. Therefore, the separation between women’s and men’s sports can be considered reasonable and, in some cases, even fair. However, when Judit Polgár, a Jewish chess player from Hungary, refused to compete in women’s chess, as is customary, she was allowed, only after a struggle, to compete in men’s championships. She was indeed considered among the “best players in the world,” not only among the “best female players in the world.”
Institutions for “Women’s equality” remain crucial until true equality is fully achieved and the term “Women’s equality” becomes obsolete. While in some cases, there might be places with quotas for women, such as in the Supreme Court, it is evident that achievements based on skills serve as genuine evidence of equality, surpassing the significance of any quota.
Helen Keller and Marie Curie demonstrated that they didn’t require special treatment to lead the world forward with their remarkable achievements. To attain true equality and reduce the need for ongoing discussions about the “need for equality,” it is crucial to address the education system fundamentally, starting from a young age. Despite the growing awareness that rightfully challenges the traditional image in kindergarten, ⏤ where boys are associated with blue color and playing with cars, and girls are associated with pink color and dolls, ⏤ there is still work to be done to create a more inclusive and equal environment.
It is essential not only to address the problem but also to emphasize its non-existence at the source. When no problem is perceived, there is no need for a solution. By not making an issue of a blind child in kindergarten, the other children see the child as a regular member without special sympathy or consideration. Similarly, with individuals of another race, color, religion, or gender, once we stop defining them as “other” or “different,” they cease to be perceived as such. Emphasizing the non-existence of the problem at its root is essential for fostering a more inclusive and equal society.
In our drawings, we continue to depict a house with a triangular roof, two side windows, and a central opening. On the left side of the page, we draw the sun with three rays, surrounded by clouds and sheep, and place a flower below. Why? Because this is what we were taught in kindergarten, and successive generations of male and female educators pass on this tradition to future generations.
However, despite the enlightenment and progress of society, there are still existing inequalities and challenges, particularly regarding the ‘status of women.’ Initiating efforts to address this matter from its fundamental roots, starting in kindergarten, is crucial and essential for equality.
