...because they don't need to be.
The biggest question concerning equal representation and achieving gender equality is- "what do women need to do to be able to compete with men?" To answer this, lets firstly look at what women are currently expected to achieve.
Working women are often considered "ideal" when they achieve something big, such as being the "CEO" of a company, idolised for efficiently managing and balancing workplace and family. To hire women, employers look for special characteristics that can set them apart from men, some thing that women can do and men cannot.
"Maybe they have some genes that makes them think smarter? Oh, maybe they are naturally better at organising tasks? Perhaps they are more caring and would invite a wholesome environment and suit HR positions?"
Literally, none of that and that is exactly what employers need to stop trying to find.
Representation is about acknowledging the work that a community does and granting them equal status as opposed to proving they are above another. The ability of a woman to manage, critically think, work in a team has never been any less than that of a man, and that alone should suffice the criteria for hiring them.
It is although important to note that, there are in status quo, more men that have required qualifications to be able to apply for jobs which brings us to how there are just lesser women to even hire.
On the one hand, we analyse social structures and barriers to gaining economic and political capital for women wherein, we understand how it's significantly harder for them to receive formal education up till a tertiary level, be allowed to work instead of getting married for them to even be on the same pedestal as their male counterparts. On the other, we see how being on the same level still isn't enough.
The same is the case with any minority representation- the barrier of entry not just being the struggle to be at an equal but being equal is simply not enough. The society puts far too much a burden on women when they ask for equal representation, "what makes women so special to be 'better' than men?". Which is awful considering gender equality and equal representation have never been about Women>Men, for women to have to prove themselves to be better than men but rather the ability of a woman to do work is the same as that of a man.
There is some benefit for the men in the society when it holds on to patriarchy whilst it attempts to promote women to work, the benefit in being the oppressor. If gender roles were to shift and if we were to truly treat men and women equally, then the male privilege would diminish. It's only fair to assume how it's natural to not want to let go of that privilege or not being able to step out of it.
We then require a great change in narrative beyond "women should be able to go to work" and on to "they need just the same qualifications as their male counterparts to obtain the same position" to be able to answer the first question, "what do women need to do to be able to compete with men?". To be seen and treated as equals.
The time off due to the maternal leave presents as a big shackle to workplace equality for women. From the view point of an employer, the assumption that a female employee would work less efficiently due to household chores, family responsibilities and therefore the need of one that can do it all. This makes the division of housework and childcare between the parents significantly necessary. If maternal and paternal leaves are both normalised, the efficiency bar would be balanced, and in turn the expectations of work could be the same.
It's helpful to acknowledge that women are now seen more than just child bearers, nurturers and home makers but it'd be far too detrimental to be satisfied with this achievement, it's really the bare minimum.
We are still steps away from being able to guarantee women workplace equality but the first step is to expect equal level of work.
Comments